Here’s how General Motors described its transformation into Government Motors in a press release on Monday:
“As a result of its ownership of GM common stock, the U.S. Treasury will be able to elect all of our directors and to control the vote on substantially all matters brought for a stockholder vote. In addition, through its stockholder voting rights and election of directors, and its role as a significant lender to us, the U.S. Treasury will be able to exercise significant influence and control over our business if it elects to do so.”
Just to make sure everyone’s in agreement on the terminology, here’s how Merriam-Webster.com defines socialism:
“Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”
We can’t help but remember all those commentators who were shocked when Tea Party participants called Obama a socialist.
Source: PlanetGore
This post was last modified on January 26, 2021
View Comments (13)
Hi Dee Mac,
Love reading your responses. They are alway well presented and honest...kudos for you!
Peace,
Continued:
5) Taxpayers are not the equivalent of investors. WE do not expect dividends or profit. A bailout using public funds is just that, the handing over of cash for the purpose of decreasing creditor pressure. It is not the bailout that is not temporary, but the residue of the strings that came attached. GM will never be the same, it is no longer a private company whose responsibility to its shareholders and customers compels them to make a profit and improve their product. The bureaucrats that will run it do not have to answer to the market. Therefore, it does not qualify the source of the bailouts (taxpayers) as shareholders entitled to a voice in the company.
I am curious, Dale, what will your justification be when Obama nationalizes 17% of the economy in the name of providing health care? Will that too be temporary? Will it have been a continuation of a Bush policy? Will it be pure as the wind driven snow, free from corruption or even the accusation of such? How come socialism can't be called socialism, what are you and all the lefties out there afraid of? Obama won.
Dale,
So as not to be accused of being distracted. 1) I know that the dotcom bust was a result of Clinton era politics 2) This is not a temporary measure - I dare you to point to a single government program that has ended - just find me one. This bailout morphing into a take over is the tip of the socialism ice berg. 3) I too would have been in favor of several of the bailout recipients going belly up (Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, ...) had it not be for this - in the case of the car companies, Congress interfered and took away the profit opportunity some time ago. They required the companies to retool at great expense to produce cars the public was not interested in buying. Then when the companies started to sink and asked for loans last year they were refused. Then the bailouts became a mechanism for the administration to wield control and were granted with heavy strings attached. This all adds up. 4) Don't accuse me of not knowing history - You just like to selectively use and interpret history in a way you think gives you an advantage in the argument. Don't make the mistake others have of assuming that those of us on the Right are ignorant and uneducated. We just don't spend all of our time in front of the tube soaking up the lefty line. Some of us read books, history books.
Wes,
I like the way Dale parrots the lib talking points. He accuses me of forgetting the sins of Clinton, which I haven't, I just stopped ruminating on him after he left office. And then calls well run businesses corrupt. With KBR and Halliburton it was not cronyism, but contracts with companies that had the resources to do the job. The only other company that could restore the oil flow in Iraq was a French company that did not want the job and made that clear to the Bush administration - nor should they have gotten the contract since the French opted out of the freeing of the Iraqis.
You made a good point, had there been proof of corruption, there would have been indictments and trials.
just labeling the only company capable of doing the job "corrupt" is a bit of a stretch, don't ya' think? Halliburton is a huge company - oil and industrial services, I believe- no proof of corruption was ever brought forth - none that I remember, except that Dick Cheney worked for them - that's enough right?
Dee Mac, it's always a good idea to maintain a sense of history. If you hadn't forgotten about Bill Clinton so quickly, you might have realized that he was more responsible for the dotcom bust than Bush, even though that happened during Bush's first term.
As for Halliburton and KBR, yeah that's a little weak, but I guess my definition of capitalism doesn't encompass giving no-bid "contracts" to corrupt companies to line the pockets of your close friends.
But really that's just a distraction, which I shouldn't have brought up among those I knew would be so easily diverted from the main point. You know as well as I do that Bush is the one who initiated that whole Bailout Heist thing, and that temporarily nationalizing a little car company pales in comparison to what we have allowed the banksters to do to us.
BTW, Dale, Bush is no longer in office, nor is he seeking office. Can you just let it go? I got over Bubba Jan 20, 2001.
Dale,
KBR, and Halliburton were contracted by the GOVT and other Govts to do work, jobs and such. You know, labor for agreed upon remuneration. They were not taken over after a bailout! There is a BIG difference. Ford has decided to keep on treading, they may end up being the only non-govt owned auto company. Good on them.
Bring better arguments next time, this one was too easy. Are you trying to be the resident troll, because you may need to study the skill a bit.
Haliburton...I haven't heard that name in a while
can't wait to see the Obamamobile.