Case by case.

 

That could be a lot of cases. Who would you have decide each case?

If we are asking people to resign because of failure of their job, the Capitol Building should be emptier tomorrow.

:ylsuper::ylsuper:

I guess half the European countries aren't socialist. Wow. I wonder why they themselves call it European Socialism?

 

Just like there is no "pure" form of capitalism there is no pure form of socialism.

 

Why is it that people who support a socialist agenda, like to pull out a dictionary and say "See, by the exact definition it's not socialism."?

 

Why won't they admit that they want:

More and more government control?

More and more redistribution of wealth?

More and more taken away from the people who produce?

To drag the people at the top down, not raise the people at the bottom up?

 

Universal Health care is Socialized Medcine. Why won't they call it what it is?

 

Mr Marx and socialism are based upon. To each based upon their need, from each based upon their ability. Let's not reward the people who work so hard and sacrifice so much. Let's take away from them so others can be better off and we can drag the producers down.

 

 

How do you feel about Labor Unions? Medicare/Medicaid? Social Security?

How do you feel about Labor Unions? Medicare/Medicaid? Social Security?

Labor Unions - a necessary evil in order to give the working man safe working conditions and a fair wage. They would be much more helpful if they worked with business instead of against it.

 

Medicad - if you're disabled, Medicaid is a must. I'm against it for most others.

 

Medicare/Social Security - When Social Security was established in 1934, it was never intended to be a retirement fund for the masses. In fact, the retirement age of the act was higher than the average mortality age. The act was an attempt to limit what were seen as dangers in the modern American life, including old age, poverty, unemployment, and the burdens of widows and fatherless children.

For those that are bothered by this move do you consider it unprecedented? Is that one of your issues?

 

I don't recall the government ever forcing the resignation of a fortune 500 CEO for anything other than criminal activity. However, the issue isn't if it's been done before. The issue is should the automobile business (or any business for that matter) be run from the Oval Office. My answer is no, not now, not ever.

 

Reasons include:

 

1. Neither the President nor any of his advisors are qualified to run an automobile company.

 

2. Politicians are always looking for sources of funds either for their re-election campaigns or for their own personal enrichment. You can expect that a business the size of GM will provide plenty of opportunity for politicians to do both.

 

3. Politicians will make decisions based on politics and not on business. Since these are Democratic politicians, environment concerns (real or imagined) will dictate the types of cars produced. Sound business principles will be ignored. Politics trumps business.

I don't recall the government ever forcing the resignation of a fortune 500 CEO for anything other than criminal activity. However, the issue isn't if it's been done before. The issue is should the automobile business (or any business for that matter) be run from the Oval Office. My answer is no, not now, not ever.

 

Reasons include:

 

1. Neither the President nor any of his advisors are qualified to run an automobile company.

Considering the state of the industry, do those who have been running it exhibit any qualifications?

2. Politicians are always looking for sources of funds either for their re-election campaigns or for their own personal enrichment. You can expect that a business the size of GM will provide plenty of opportunity for politicians to do both.

I can agree with this.

 

3. Politicians will make decisions based on politics and not on business. Since these are Democratic politicians, environment concerns (real or imagined) will dictate the types of cars produced. Sound business principles will be ignored. Politics trumps business.

 

Environmental principles don't necessarily equate bad business principles. Wouldn't you agree that American auto makers have stalled far too long in bringing more efficient and alternative fuel choices to the American market? Heck, they're the innovaters of the SUV and Hummer! They were all about excess. Oil dependency seems to not be an issue to many these days. We're all innured to the price of gas that so outraged us a mere few years ago. But becoming used to something doesn't make it the right path. There's nothing at all "bad" about applying sound environmental principles in future planning.

I don't recall the government ever forcing the resignation of a fortune 500 CEO for anything other than criminal activity. However, the issue isn't if it's been done before. The issue is should the automobile business (or any business for that matter) be run from the Oval Office. My answer is no, not now, not ever.

 

 

It may not be the issue with you but it certainly is with most people including most on here.

 

I'm too lazy to look it up and I'm guessing you know the answer. Didn't the govt force the resignation in Freddie Mac? Was that for something illegal?

 

Secondly, didn't the govt also force out the CEO at AIG?

Considering the state of the industry, do those who have been running it exhibit any qualifications?

I can agree with this.

 

 

 

Environmental principles don't necessarily equate bad business principles. Wouldn't you agree that American auto makers have stalled far too long in bringing more efficient and alternative fuel choices to the American market? Heck, they're the innovaters of the SUV and Hummer! They were all about excess. Oil dependency seems to not be an issue to many these days. We're all innured to the price of gas that so outraged us a mere few years ago. But becoming used to something doesn't make it the right path. There's nothing at all "bad" about applying sound environmental principles in future planning.

 

I sure you will not like the source, Rush said the of the top money makers for GM 11 of the models were SUVs and trucks. This is what the public wants. If the public wants those 'green' cars, why are they piling up like cordwood on the dealers lots?

 

And I know it is getting old for the socialists who will not admit to what they are, but forcing the car makers to make unpopular cars is another form of socialism. It telling both businesses and consumers what they have to do vs the freedom of choice.

 

And I know it is getting old for the socialists who will not admit to what they are, but forcing the car makers to make unpopular cars is another form of socialism. It telling both businesses and consumers what they have to do vs the freedom of choice.

 

You just love that socialist term.

 

To be clear and so that I don't have to suppose tell me what you mean by the govt forcing car makes to make unpopular cars.

You just love that socialist term.

 

To be clear and so that I don't have to suppose tell me what you mean by the govt forcing car makes to make unpopular cars.

 

Forcing the car companies to make cut out the making of the large SUVs and trucks and making them make more of the little cars, hybrids or those electric cars that go about 40 miles and have to be recharged. They will do this by making the mileage standards higher and higher. Cars and trucks today get way better mileage than cars and trucks of just 20 years ago.

 

And please do not give me that phony environment mumbo-jumbo. The air is much cleaner than any time in the last 25 or 30 years. And global warming is about politics, not science.

Forcing the car companies to make cut out the making of the large SUVs and trucks and making them make more of the little cars, hybrids or those electric cars that go about 40 miles and have to be recharged. They will do this by making the mileage standards higher and higher. Cars and trucks today get way better mileage than cars and trucks of just 20 years ago.

 

And please do not give me that phony environment mumbo-jumbo. The air is much cleaner than any time in the last 25 or 30 years. And global warming is about politics, not science.

 

Are you talking about CAFE? Are you blaming the current administration for this?

 

You're not concerned about the US' dependency on foreign oil?

And apparantly neither are the libdemsocs (liberal democrat socialists).

 

Despite overwealming support for it we still aren't harvesting our own oil.

Forcing the car companies to make cut out the making of the large SUVs and trucks and making them make more of the little cars, hybrids or those electric cars that go about 40 miles and have to be recharged. They will do this by making the mileage standards higher and higher. Cars and trucks today get way better mileage than cars and trucks of just 20 years ago.

 

And please do not give me that phony environment mumbo-jumbo. The air is much cleaner than any time in the last 25 or 30 years. And global warming is about politics, not science.

 

The bolded would be true, if left up to business? Or is it because of environmental regulations?

The bolded would be true, if left up to business? Or is it because of environmental regulations?

 

 

And regardless of the reason, do we stop trying to improve air quality because it's cleaner than it was 25 or 30 years ago? NO! There's always room for improvement.

Are you talking about CAFE? Are you blaming the current administration for this?

 

You're not concerned about the US' dependency on foreign oil?

 

No, I am blaming the government and the environmentalists.

 

We have 80 billion + barrels of oil in this country that we can recover without hurting the environment with the new technology we have.