Socialism Pt 3: Socialism that trump loves

Sailor said:
Any bailout, anything the government does is paid for by capitalism. How dense is anybody claiming otherwise. Nothing socialist about this at all.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. During the Great Recession, when we bailed out GM and Chrysler, in exchange for the cash to keep going, the govt. was given stock. When the companies became flush again, they bought the stock back. So basically it was a break even thing, although for a while we the people owned shares of those companies. Although I'm not aware that we the people, in the form of our elected representatives, did anything to exercise control over the companies.... which would be socialism.

In the current case, we are just GIVING the farm corporations money. So this time it's welfare. And it's welfare we are paying in the $billions, because of extremely poor executive decisions by the Bankrupt-in-Chief.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Not exactly. During the Great Recession, when we bailed out GM and Chrysler, in exchange for the cash to keep going, the govt. was given stock. When the companies became flush again, they bought the stock back. So basically it was a break even thing, although for a while we the people owned shares of those companies. Although I'm not aware that we the people, in the form of our elected representatives, did anything to exercise control over the companies.... which would be socialism.

In the current case, we are just GIVING the farm corporations money. So this time it's welfare. And it's welfare we are paying in the $billions, because of extremely poor executive decisions by the Bankrupt-in-Chief.
Click to expand...

The government was not given stock. The government purchased it. With capitalist tax dollars. And., they lost our (the taxpayers) shirts.
 
Bill said:
:)

IMHO he has the right to be wrong if he wants, & I'm sure he feels the same about us......lol

He isn't as dogmatic or defensive as he appears sometimes & can be flexible in some of his positions like he use to be, even of trump, but it's harder to be when you're on the defensive, ppl criticizing & name calling..
Click to expand...
I only see his crap when someone quotes him. I couldn't take the sadness anymore.
 
Sailor said:
That is correct. Every "social" program in this country is paid for by capitalism. People that wrongly like to throw around the USPS, military, etc. Those are all services paid for by tax dollars provided by capitalism. Free enterprise businesses. The government could not pay for any of that without business and taxpayers. They produce nothing, they sell nothing, they do nothing other than take tax monies and move the money around. If they had to pay for anything themselves, it would not exist.
Click to expand...
Grossly incorrect. Don't feel badly. Many don't know this.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Not exactly. During the Great Recession, when we bailed out GM and Chrysler, in exchange for the cash to keep going, the govt. was given stock. When the companies became flush again, they bought the stock back. So basically it was a break even thing, although for a while we the people owned shares of those companies. Although I'm not aware that we the people, in the form of our elected representatives, did anything to exercise control over the companies.... which would be socialism.

In the current case, we are just GIVING the farm corporations money. So this time it's welfare. And it's welfare we are paying in the $billions, because of extremely poor executive decisions by the Bankrupt-in-Chief.
Click to expand...

I forgot to answer this part. Do you think the bank bailouts were welfare?
 
Sailor said:
I forgot to answer this part. Do you think the bank bailouts were welfare?
Click to expand...

If we the people received nothing in return (i.e. stocks, or money paid back) then yes, they were corporate welfare. That being said, I understand why sometimes it is necessary for a country to bail out an industry or its banking system, for the stability of the economy as a whole. I also understand why we do the same with an individual who has fallen on hard times. The hope is that both will return to a state of prosperity, which benefits us all. Therefore, I will never understand the RW's disdain and abhorrence of welfare extended to individual citizens who are struggling, but the same ppl seemingly have no problems with doing the same -- to the tune of BILLIONS of $$ -- with corporations. And *that* being said, I don't favor welfare for either able-bodied but lazy ppl unwilling to work, or for failing companies who show no signs of ever coming out of the hole they dug for themselves.

What say you?
 
Sailor said:
The government was not given stock. The government purchased it. With capitalist tax dollars. And., they lost our (the taxpayers) shirts.
Click to expand...

We recovered most of it. You are correct that we did not recover it all.

"All told, the Treasury Department reported that the program cost taxpayers $79.7 billion, of which $70.4 billion was recovered. Under that estimate, the program lost about $9.3 billion. In April, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the program would end up costing about $14 billion."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

It is probably impossible to calculate what the cost would have been if we had NOT bailed them out.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If we the people received nothing in return (i.e. stocks, or money paid back) then yes, they were corporate welfare. That being said, I understand why sometimes it is necessary for a country to bail out an industry or its banking system, for the stability of the economy as a whole. I also understand why we do the same with an individual who has fallen on hard times. The hope is that both will return to a state of prosperity, which benefits us all. Therefore, I will never understand the RW's disdain and abhorrence of welfare extended to individual citizens who are struggling, but the same ppl seemingly have no problems with doing the same -- to the tune of BILLIONS of $$ -- with corporations. And *that* being said, I don't favor welfare for either able-bodied but lazy ppl unwilling to work, or for failing companies who show no signs of ever coming out of the hole they dug for themselves.

What say you?
Click to expand...

I say I agree with that completely. Not just the bolded, all of it. No need to faint.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
We recovered most of it. You are correct that we did not recover it all.

"All told, the Treasury Department reported that the program cost taxpayers $79.7 billion, of which $70.4 billion was recovered. Under that estimate, the program lost about $9.3 billion. In April, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the program would end up costing about $14 billion."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...says-automakers-have-paid-back-all-loans-it-/

It is probably impossible to calculate what the cost would have been if we had NOT bailed them out.
Click to expand...

I was (and am) of the mind that GM and Chrysler should have gone out of business. Ford did not take any government monies. That all came down to campaign contributions and unions.
 
Sailor said:
I was (and am) of the mind that GM and Chrysler should have gone out of business. Ford did not take any government monies. That all came down to campaign contributions and unions.
Click to expand...
Many don't realize the ramifications of allowing the auto industry to fail. Car makers don't manufacture:

The seats

The glass

The bearings/etc.

The steel.


It would have catastrophic effects on many industries. I agree about unions, and UAW made major concessions. Obama was a genius. Unions became shareholders, and were effectively now collectively bargaining against themselves in future labor negotiations.

Ford stock tanked to about $2/share. They survived due to prior agreements with the unions, and the strength of their truck division.
 
Sailor said:
I forgot to answer this part. Do you think the bank bailouts were welfare?
Click to expand...
Bank bailouts were loans that the govt. made a profit off of. They did so, because the banks were under strict regulation until they paid their notes. They rushed to pay early.
 
Althea said:
Many don't realize the ramifications of allowing the auto industry to fail. Car makers don't manufacture:

The seats

The glass

The bearings/etc.

The steel.


It would have catastrophic effects on many industries. I agree about unions, and UAW made major concessions. Obama was a genius. Unions became shareholders, and were effectively now collectively bargaining against themselves in future labor negotiations.

Ford stock tanked to about $2/share. They survived due to prior agreements with the unions, and the strength of their truck division.
Click to expand...

It was Bush who started the bailout for GM and Chrysler and Obama finished up on it. Kind of sounds like his whole Presidency.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/an-inconvenient-truth-it-was-george-w-bush-who-bailed-out-the-automakers

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”
 
Sailor said:
Bullshit. It is a government mandated monopoly that is subsidized by the American taxpayer. Without preferential treatment by the U.S. Government their sorry ass would have folded a very long time ago.

https://fortune.com/2015/03/27/us-postal-service/
Click to expand...
Utter hogwash. The USPS receives tax money only for servicing overseas military. They don't receive a dime of taxpayer money otherwise. They lose money on mail delivery because it isn't profitable. No for profit company can service every home/business in the country for the same price.


USPS is funded by postage. Period. The losses cited in the biased Forbes article don't mention Bush's attempt to kill the USPS by forcing them to pre fund retiree health benefits for people who weren't even born yet.

At least you learned something in this thread.
 
Sailor said:
It was Bush who started the bailout for GM and Chrysler and Obama finished up on it. Kind of sounds like his whole Presidency.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/john...s-george-w-bush-who-bailed-out-the-automakers

On December 19, 2008, a week after Republicans in the Senate had killed a bailout bill proposed by Democrats, saying it didn’t impose big enough wage cuts on the U.A.W., Bush unilaterally agreed to lend $17.4 billion of taxpayers’ money to General Motors and Chrysler, of which $13.4 billion was to be extended immediately. He had to twist the law to get the money. Deprived of congressional funding, he diverted cash from the loathed TARP program, which Congress had already passed, but which was supposed to be restricted to rescuing the banks. “I didn’t want there to twenty-one-per-cent unemployment,” he said to a meeting of the National Automobile Dealers Association in Las Vegas last month, explaining why he acted as he did. “I didn’t want history to look back and say, ‘Bush could have done something but chose not to do it.’ ”
Click to expand...
That's no secret
 
Althea said:
Utter hogwash. The USPS receives tax money only for servicing overseas military. They don't receive a dime of taxpayer money otherwise. They lose money on mail delivery because it isn't profitable. No for profit company can service every home/business in the country for the same price.


USPS is funded by postage. Period. The losses cited in the biased Forbes article don't mention Bush's attempt to kill the USPS by forcing them to pre fund retiree health benefits for people who weren't even born yet.

At least you learned something in this thread.
Click to expand...

I notice how you sidestepped all the preferential treatment Congress makes as far as borrowing cheaply, tax breaks, laws prohibiting other businesses from doing what they do, and the multiple other benefits given to the USPS by the U.S., subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer. No private entity gets that preferential treatment from Congress. Basically the U.S. taxpayer keeps them afloat. That is why they continue to operate while never making a fucking dime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top