• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GM, Chrysler Get Ultimatum From Obama on Turnaround

Tucker Case said:
I agree 100% MrVicchio. Just off the top of my head, I can clearly recall you, the Rev, and some others getting mighty riled up over Bush's corporate welfare. I credit you guys with being consistent on that.

What I don't understand is me being called an anti-bushbot by someone about this issue.

In essence, my stance is that I'd rather see the warranties get backed and allow GM to go under. If GM dies, but the warranties are not backed, people who purchased GM a year or two ago will be hit with serious problems because they have no more warranty.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you're misrepresenting the situation.

The Messiah is offering to use my money to guarantee GM's warranties to justify his propping the company up. Outside of the fact that I'm not responsible for the bad choices others make, the Constitution doesn't allow him to do this.

Then there's the fact that I'm not responsible for paying out on GM's warranties. Did you miss that part? If someone bought a GM vehicle, without asking my permission, and GM sinks without a trace, like the Titanic, I don't owe that boy anything. He made the bad choice, it's up to him to suffer the consequences.

That's it. It IS NOT the taxpayers' job to stop every little boy from getting boo-boos when they play on the swings. The government isn't the little boy's mommy, and if the little boy loses some money now and then, too bad. I can't even say I feel sorry for him, cuz I don't. It's bad goverment, not to mention illegal government, to intervene in that matter, and it's immoral as hell, too.

Guess what? There's millions and millions of Americans who voted to deny GM their money. How was that vote made? They didn't buy the over priced crap GM was selling. It's totally wrong to make those people financially responsible for the well being of GM now.

If you say otherwise, you're supporting corporate welfare. That's it. That's all there is to it.

You support it, so don't be shy, you're supporting corporate welfare, be proud and put it on your left bumper.

WI Crippler said:
Sure they shouldn't have bought GM, but some people are patriotic enough that they only buy American because they believe it is better for the country than buying Japanese. Hell, I used to think that way, and still won't buy any car made in another country.
Click to expand...

What? If they're so stupid they think GM is the only American car company, they deserve to lose their warranties, don't they?

Toyota cars are "made in America".

So are some BMW's, aren't they?

And Ford...that's "American", ain't it?

The only real reasons they should use in buying cars is the best value for the price their paying and suitability to the task they're putting the vehicle to.

If they choose some other reason, there's no reason they shouldn't bear the costs of being stupid and therefore carrying their own warranty expenses if GM goes belly up, like it should be allowed to.

WI Crippler said:
I don't want to see American patriots who used their personal finances to help out an American company screwed by that companies incompetence.
Click to expand...

The real patriot doesn't swallow marketing guff about "buying American", not when GM was outsourcing parts to foreign lands just like all the rest of the so-called American manufacturers.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then again...I"m an American. I can say this, you can't, because I voted for neither Bush nor Obama. Only Americans can say that.
Click to expand...


The pinnacle of anti-Americanism is to claim fellow Citizens aren't Americans simply out of disagreement.


I'm one of the opponents of that scam, also.

I don't support much that liberal presidents do.
Click to expand...


Good to see some consistency.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Then again...I"m an American. I can say this, you can't, because I voted for neither Bush nor Obama. Only Americans can say that.
Click to expand...

I didn't know you can only be labeled an American if you DON'T vote for specific candidates. This might have to be my new signature.
 
SkyCore said:
The pinnacle of anti-Americanism is to claim fellow Citizens aren't Americans simply out of disagreement.
Click to expand...

Find that in a book somewhere?

If someone chooses to perform acts not only clearly detrimental to the United States but clearly in violation of the Constitution, that person isn't an American.

Obama voters aren't Americans.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Firstly, you're misrepresenting the situation.

The Messiah is offering to use my money to guarantee GM's warranties to justify his propping the company up. Outside of the fact that I'm not responsible for the bad choices others make, the Constitution doesn't allow him to do this.

Then there's the fact that I'm not responsible for paying out on GM's warranties. Did you miss that part? If someone bought a GM vehicle, without asking my permission, and GM sinks without a trace, like the Titanic, I don't owe that boy anything. He made the bad choice, it's up to him to suffer the consequences.

That's it. It IS NOT the taxpayers' job to stop every little boy from getting boo-boos when they play on the swings. The government isn't the little boy's mommy, and if the little boy loses some money now and then, too bad. I can't even say I feel sorry for him, cuz I don't. It's bad goverment, not to mention illegal government, to intervene in that matter, and it's immoral as hell, too.

Guess what? There's millions and millions of Americans who voted to deny GM their money. How was that vote made? They didn't buy the over priced crap GM was selling. It's totally wrong to make those people financially responsible for the well being of GM now.

If you say otherwise, you're supporting corporate welfare. That's it. That's all there is to it.

You support it, so don't be shy, you're supporting corporate welfare, be proud and put it on your left bumper.
Click to expand...

First: I don't think it will help their sales.

Second, the government backing of the warranties only comes into play if GM or Chrysler are unable to back the warranties themselves, so it is a free option if the companies don't fail, and it does nothing to support the companies if they DO fail.

So HOW exactly am I misrepresenting things?


Speaking of "misrepresenting the situation", YOUR tax-money is worthless with regards to this whole mess.

Even if you are a millionaire, your tax dollars are less than a fart in the wind when taken as a whole.

So stop playing the "My tax money is being abused" line of BS.

If you lost all ability to pay a single dime in taxes, the country wouldn't even notice, nor would they care.

Unless you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet, your individual tax money is effectively worthless in the grand scheme of things. A drop in the ocean. It is the hundreds of millions of drops together that fill that ocean, but a single drop disappearing is of no value and is totally and completely irtrelevant when discussing these things.


What? If they're so stupid they think GM is the only American car company, they deserve to lose their warranties, don't they?

Toyota cars are "made in America".

So are some BMW's, aren't they?

And Ford...that's "American", ain't it?

The only real reasons they should use in buying cars is the best value for the price their paying and suitability to the task they're putting the vehicle to.

If they choose some other reason, there's no reason they shouldn't bear the costs of being stupid and therefore carrying their own warranty expenses if GM goes belly up, like it should be allowed to.

The real patriot doesn't swallow marketing guff about "buying American", not when GM was outsourcing parts to foreign lands just like all the rest of the so-called American manufacturers.
Click to expand...

GM will be covering the warranties if they can. But if the can't, then the Government will step in to protect consumers, past and present.

It's not a corporate bailout, no matter how often you try to pretend it is.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Find that in a book somewhere?

If someone chooses to perform acts not only clearly detrimental to the United States but clearly in violation of the Constitution, that person isn't an American.

Obama voters aren't Americans.
Click to expand...

I can't even think of a single person on the right (even aquapub) who would make a statement as absurd as that.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Find that in a book somewhere?
Click to expand...

Nope, just thought of it when I read your post so I guess I owe a "thank you" for being the inspiration.


If someone chooses to perform acts not only clearly detrimental to the United States but clearly in violation of the Constitution, that person isn't an American.

Obama voters aren't Americans.
Click to expand...


Mussolini said "The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State.". You guys could be philosophical twins.
 
After learning more about the plan, I must retract all of the support I had given it in this thread. It seems that the plan does not cover warranties on previously purchased vehicles, only ones being purchased from this point onward.

My apologies Scarecrow. I was indeed ill-informed on the matter.
 
Tucker Case said:
After learning more about the plan, I must retract all of the support I had given it in this thread. It seems that the plan does not cover warranties on previously purchased vehicles, only ones being purchased from this point onward.

My apologies Scarecrow. I was indeed ill-informed on the matter.
Click to expand...


Why was support contingent on the warranty time frame?
 
SkyCore said:
Why was support contingent on the warranty time frame?
Click to expand...

It was contingent on pre-existing warranties also being honored. I don't agree with it only being applied to purchases form here on out in order to stimulate new sales.

Perhaps someone bought two months ago in order to aid the flagging company, but the system set up says their decision doesn't deserve the same consideration and protection as someone who does the exact same thing tomorrow.
 
Tucker Case said:
It was contingent on pre-existing warranties also being honored. I don't agree with it only being applied to purchases form here on out in order to stimulate new sales.

Perhaps someone bought two months ago in order to aid the flagging company, but the system set up says their decision doesn't deserve the same consideration and protection as someone who does the exact same thing tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Even if retroactive, I don't see how it would generate new sales or offer any form of solid financial aid to a level justifying the abuse of the Executive Branch to arbitrarily decide our collective tax dollars should be funneled into what is basically a reverse protection racket for corporations who have a proven track record of accountability lost. If anything, it would be a motivator for companies to lower standards since at the end of the day they would be riding on our dime.

It also seems a bit odd to raise the "Not Fair" red flag simply because the warranties are not retroactive. How is I. (or would have been) fair for us to pay for others' auto repairs? I have a small business...can all businesses get in on this type of deal because I'll tell my guys to bill as high as possible while performing the shoddiest work then I will even take a humble move of flying coach to DC and asking for a Warranty protection for new customers so I know they will be well taken care of while I'm trying to decide how many womyn are going to jump in the hot tub in St. Croix.
 
SkyCore said:
Even if retroactive, I don't see how it would generate new sales or offer any form of solid financial aid to a level justifying the abuse of the Executive Branch to arbitrarily decide our collective tax dollars should be funneled into what is basically a reverse protection racket for corporations who have a proven track record of accountability lost. If anything, it would be a motivator for companies to lower standards since at the end of the day they would be riding on our dime.

It also seems a bit odd to raise the "Not Fair" red flag simply because the warranties are not retroactive. How is I. (or would have been) fair for us to pay for others' auto repairs? I have a small business...can all businesses get in on this type of deal because I'll tell my guys to bill as high as possible while performing the shoddiest work then I will even take a humble move of flying coach to DC and asking for a Warranty protection for new customers so I know they will be well taken care of while I'm trying to decide how many womyn are going to jump in the hot tub in St. Croix.
Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point.

I'm in for the consumer bailout, not the corporate bailout. I don't want GM to be bailed out. If they fail, let them fail. But at the same time, I don't really want to see old consumers get shafted because GM is run by incompetent ****heads.

Since the government doesn't give a **** about the existing consumers if GM collapses, I say **** GM. I don't want to see this implemented to assist them in running their company into the ground. Now that only new purchases of a ****ty product are coming out of tax dollars, old purchases be damned, I honestly WANT to see GM fail.
 
boy, make a mods name Girthier, and look what he turns into :lol:
RightinNYC said:
I'm not really seeing this as a big deal.

1) So they conditioned the provision of further funds on this CEO leaving. Big deal. This happens all the time with all sorts of conditions. Who's running AIG right now? What happened to Greenberg?

2) Nothing about this is even remotely unconstitutional, unless you want to complain about Wickard v. Filburn, in which case take it to one of the 500 threads where we've argued about that.

3) Not sure how it's at all analogous to wiretapping (which I thought was okay too, fwiw).

4) Not sure how this is a handout to the unions, when it's they and their retirees who will be taking the biggest hit (if I'm reading this correctly).

5) I'm glad that we're not needlessly bailing out Chrysler anymore. If Cerberus doesn't think it's worth saving, we shouldn't either.

6) If you can't express your opposition to this proposal without resorting to racism, that sounds like a personal shortcoming.
Click to expand...
 
Tucker Case said:
I think you are missing my point.

I'm in for the consumer bailout, not the corporate bailout. I don't want GM to be bailed out. If they fail, let them fail. But at the same time, I don't really want to see old consumers get shafted because GM is run by incompetent ****heads.

Since the government doesn't give a **** about the existing consumers if GM collapses, I say **** GM. I don't want to see this implemented to assist them in running their company into the ground. Now that only new purchases of a ****ty product are coming out of tax dollars, old purchases be damned, I honestly WANT to see GM fail.
Click to expand...


Don't think I missed the point which is why I said it's a reverse protection racket. The center of the position isn't simply the consumer because if it were the warranty time-frame would be irrelevent. The anger reflected in the revelation of the time frame shows less concern for consumers and more contempt for the companies. I'm not making a moral judgment on that one way or the other but simply trying to reconcile the claim "consumers" are at the heart of the position with a total withdrawal of support that would protect some, if not all, consumers. It just smells like Editor's Choice Socialism lacking consistency.

There are consumer friendly laws currently in play so any form of government backed warranty protection would not only be redundant but also open the door for future corporate and governmental financial incest that bears the children of retarded economies. Think a good example is looking at the relationships between the Fed Reserve and the FDIC. Technically the latter is a "government entity" but that is about as solid as a popsicle up Satan's butt.
 
SkyCore said:
Don't think I missed the point which is why I said it's a reverse protection racket. The center of the position isn't simply the consumer because if it were the warranty time-frame would be irrelevent. The anger reflected in the revelation of the time frame shows less concern for consumers and more contempt for the companies. I'm not making a moral judgment on that one way or the other but simply trying to reconcile the claim "consumers" are at the heart of the position with a total withdrawal of support that would protect some, if not all, consumers. It just smells like Editor's Choice Socialism lacking consistency.

There are consumer friendly laws currently in play so any form of government backed warranty protection would not only be redundant but also open the door for future corporate and governmental financial incest that bears the children of retarded economies. Think a good example is looking at the relationships between the Fed Reserve and the FDIC. Technically the latter is a "government entity" but that is about as solid as a popsicle up Satan's butt.
Click to expand...

My position has been consistent. I was incorrect on what I thought the warranty protection would do from the start. But if you go back and read all of my posts on the matter, I was supporting it on the basis that it would cover the pre-existing warranties on purchases made before the decision to back warranties.

Once I discovered that I had the facts of the situation wrong, I retracted my support.

Go back, read all of my posts. It's not like I was supporting the future warranties being covered.
 
Tucker Case said:
My position has been consistent. I was incorrect on what I thought the warranty protection would do from the start. But if you go back and read all of my posts on the matter, I was supporting it on the basis that it would cover the pre-existing warranties on purchases made before the decision to back warranties.

Once I discovered that I had the facts of the situation wrong, I retracted my support.

Go back, read all of my posts. It's not like I was supporting the future warranties being covered.
Click to expand...


Here is my understanding:

The main concern was consumer protection, therefore it was supported because it protected consumers even if the company went under. Is that accurate?

If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed? If the plan protects current but not older consumers then support should not have been withdrawn because it moves the goal posts from protecting consumers to being indignant against the companies. Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?
 
SkyCore said:
Here is my understanding:

The main concern was consumer protection, therefore it was supported because it protected consumers even if the company went under. Is that accurate?

If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed? If the plan protects current but not older consumers then support should not have been withdrawn because it moves the goal posts from protecting consumers to being indignant against the companies. Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?
Click to expand...

In answer to your questions:

Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

Not at all. There is a key word missing that I have used at least two dozen times while discussing my support, which is now retracted, for this program.

If so the problem is trying to reconcile why new consumers are dismissed?
Click to expand...

That question doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm sure, though, that the answer lies within my previous posts on this thread. Most specifically, compare arguments I made FOR the decision, with my retraction of support. It should become clear. If it doesn't become clear, I can't help you.

Why are new consumers less important than older consumers?
Click to expand...


It's all there in the previous posts on this thread. I don't know what else to say on it. If you have actually read my previous posts, the differences should be obvious. I won't be able to help you if you still don't get it.

If you haven't read my previous posts, then I guess you should do that to prevent yourself from entering a debate from a position of ignorance.
 
Tucker Case said:
In answer to your questions:



Not at all. There is a key word missing that I have used at least two dozen times while discussing my support, which is now retracted, for this program.



That question doesn't really make any sense to me. I'm sure, though, that the answer lies within my previous posts on this thread. Most specifically, compare arguments I made FOR the decision, with my retraction of support. It should become clear. If it doesn't become clear, I can't help you.




It's all there in the previous posts on this thread. I don't know what else to say on it. If you have actually read my previous posts, the differences should be obvious. I won't be able to help you if you still don't get it.

If you haven't read my previous posts, then I guess you should do that to prevent yourself from entering a debate from a position of ignorance.
Click to expand...

With all the tap-dancing of "read my earlier posts" it seems like it wouldve been easier to simply answer in full. But I understand why it wasn't. Much appreciated.
 
SkyCore said:
With all the tap-dancing of "read my earlier posts" it seems like it wouldve been easier to simply answer in full. But I understand why it wasn't. Much appreciated.
Click to expand...

For you it would have been easier if I just rewrote every word I've already issued, but I don't exist to support your intellectual laziness.
 
I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand, the stepping down of the GM CEO represents an unprecedented expansion of presidential authority - That is, on the surface. But only on the surface. Obama did not fire the GM CEO. He just said that, for GM to receive government money, he had to step down. It's not like he is going to be in the unemployment line either, like the workers are. He is getting a golden parachute worth about 128 million bucks.

But here is the conundrum - Everybody is jumping all over Obama for putting conditions on the money the government is giving out. My answer to that is why not? It's taxpayer money in government hands. Do GM and Chrysler executives somehow feel that they are entitled to that money?

Which brings me to my point - Those who scream "Socialism" the loudest are always the first to get in line ahead of everybody else, with their hands out for those wealth transfers. Who are the ones on their knees for all that Socialism? The corporate executives and the banksters, of course.

Fact is, the GM CEO could have given Obama the middle finger and said no to the money. He didn't. Obama did not put a gun to his head now, did he? But he took the money, and he should not be surprised that there were strings attached. The final decision was his, not Obama's. This was no firing. There is no choice in being fired. You are fired, and that is that. The man had a choice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom