Socialism in the United States Must End NOW, start with not buying anything GM

I have been doing this for years and trying to convince people that as long as this socialism goes on by the government we will be moving more and more into a corporate socialist state. I have stopped buying American made cars for quite a while not and will not be buying any again.

We will never be paid back the so called loans from GM or Chrysler and GM is already talking about bankruptcy after pulling their snow job on Obama.

Actually, Jack, Chrysler has been good at paying back it's loans in the past. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Not paying off debts is no way to stay in business and I believe these companies want to do that.

Keith, this situation is a house of cards and their downfall affects many other businesses and communities around the country. It ripples down to people like waitresses and restaurant owners, barbers, department stores, and almost every other kind of business. You make it sound so simple and black and white. Nothing ever is. I'm not saying that we should continue to throw money at them--but remember, these are loans and not just bailouts.

Hoo boy, I think the conventional definition of "nationalization" is a bit different from what's happened so far.

I think the conventional definition involves the government taking both ownership and control of a business.

True Carla,Senator Stabenow said that 1 in 10 jobs in this country is tied to the auto industry.

Nippy, I'm not coming back to this post but are you trying to be funny?

Hoo boy, I think the conventional definition of "nationalization" is a bit different from what's happened so far.

I think the conventional definition involves the government taking both ownership and control of a business.

So, why wait lol?
hmm

Nippy says:
"I think the conventional definition involves the government taking both ownership and control of a business. "
Let's see the government now owns half of GM and gave the other half to the UAW, plus the government placed GM's CEO in his job.
Where are they not owning and controlling, two things the government has no Constitutional right to do.
By the way, when was the last time the US Postal Service made a profit?
Instead of going postal are we going to hear about going all Pontiac on some one?
Black and white? That's the problem no one has the balls top be black and white. GM, Chrylser and the banks should have been allowed to collapse and been bought up by opportunistic capitalists that would have resurrected them into something profitable and sustainable. They failed for a reason and printing money to keep failing policies and altering our nation in the process is no way to go.
Why is it liberals have no problem with our president "firing" CEO's and taking over corporations as long as that president is of the proper political party?
As an American I don't care which party the President belongs to , these actions are un-Constitutional and endangers our freedom.

Just some miscellaneous responses...

"I will never, as long as the United States government and the UAW own any piece of General Motors, buy another General Motors product."

The governments that are affiliated with Toyota and Honda send you their love.


"When are we ordinary citizens going to rise up and take back our government from these power crazed megalomaniacs?"

Ordinary citizens just did that in November of 2008; and today, the current administration holds a 68% approval rating among the public.


"..when was the last time the US Postal Service made a profit?"

LOL - The U.S. Postal service isn't supposed to make a profit. USPS is a not-for-profit government service. The for-profit delivery systems in our country charge something like $10 to send a letter across the country; whereas the USPS does it for less than fifty cents.


"Instead of going postal are we going to hear about going all Pontiac on some one?"

"Going Postal" was a term coined because postal workers went violently crazy from being overworked and over-stressed. Given the current situation, "Going Pontiac" could only mean workers went violently crazy for losing their jobs.


"GM, Chrylser and the banks should have been allowed to collapse and been bought up by opportunistic capitalists that would have resurrected them into something profitable and sustainable."

The opportunistic capitalists of America have not traditionally resurrected failed businesses in this country. Our opportunistic capitalists usually confine themselves to making millions by dividing up and selling off the assets of companies that go bankrupt; then they move on to the next bankrupt company.

"Dedicated capitalists" are the Americans that fund, or start, new businesses and who engage in the revamping of failed companies whose products are still in demand.


"..these actions are un-Constitutional and endangers our freedom."

I have yet to see anyone point to any actual Constitutional item that says this government behavior is wrong, or how it endangers the freedom of the general citizenry; and I heartily welcome you to do so.

I read that Obama is now working on changing the preferred stock they got of the banks to common stock...so they can vote. There go the banks for sure.

I also think these businesses and banks should have been allowed to fail. It might have hurt the economy for a short time, but nothing like the permanent damage Obama and his crew are doing.

No matter what anyone says irt having to do that bailout... those bailouts ... I agree with you, Marilyn; pull the bandaid off quick and get the pain over with.

I dunno' Bill, I thought the power given to the Federal Government was defined in the Constitution, and those not defined reserved to the States/People (10th amendment?).
Where are the Feds given such authority for recent actions may be a better question?

1 in 10 jobs are tied to the auto industry.... His comment makes it sound like business intertwined with business is an oddity.

100% of retail is tied to industry.... should we bail out all of the cashiers? Excuse me... I meant LOAN them tens of billions?

Teachers can be directly cited as the foundation for training for ALL of our workers.... Where is there bailout/loan?

We're all intertwined!

Comments like this one from politicians are nothing but scare tactics. The assumption that one in 10 jobs would go away if GM and Chrysler fail is unrealistic. Many of these companies counted in the 1 in 10 actually supply parts to FORD (who hasn't taken any government money of late), BMW, AUDI, HONDA, TOYOTA, etc. Industry will correct itself. It's a natural phenonmena that has been happening for centuries.

We could have saved taxpayers BILLIONS by not bailing out the companies. They would have logically gone into a bankruptcy restructure (not all jobs are lost in a restructure!) and we could have been months into a real economic healing at GM and Chrysler by now. But instead... we are throwing bad money after bad. And since we had to borrow the money from another country to pay for the bailout.... we stuck with an empty purse and MORE debt to pay.

BTW... we have 2 Jeeps, a Chevy minivan and and S-10 in the driveway. Those are our LAST GM/Chrysler vehicles.

Bill’s Spirit, I do not think that Japan owns any portion of Toyota. There are cars other than GM that are built in the United States.

Your liberal union brotha's and sista's will hate you...

John S. (Arizona) -- "I dunno' Bill, I thought the power given to the Federal Government was defined in the Constitution, and those not defined reserved to the States/People (10th amendment?). Where are the Feds given such authority for recent actions may be a better question?"


Indeed, that may be a better question. To answer it, I would say the power to do what they have been doing comes from Article 1: Section 7; in that congress passed legislation that allowed them to do this, and the sitting president signed it into law.

There are no items in the Constitution that prohibit what is taking place; at least as far as I can find.


Christopher B. -- "I do not think that Japan owns any portion of Toyota. There are cars other than GM that are built in the United States."

I did not say that Japan owns any portion of Toyota. I am merely pointing out that any government with an auto company based in their country would appreciate the attitude that Keith presents here. I am assuming that Keith will also boycott Chrysler for it's government bailout and UAW connections; and perhaps Ford too, since they are also UAW affiliated.

"Indeed, that may be a better question. To answer it, I would say the power to do what they have been doing comes from Article 1: Section 7; in that congress passed legislation that allowed them to do this, and the sitting president signed it into law."

So that makes what they did better because they gave themselves an "out" to do it? So if they pass legislation that says you can only buy certain light bulbs that's ok? Oh wait they already did that.

So I guess that it's ok if they pass legislation that says we can only buy the Government Motors Rolls Canardly or the Turd Cupey then it will make it all right because they passed legislation. These idiots aren't passing legislation to protect us as the government is suppose to do they are passing legislation to control us.

i heart obama

I am with you brother. Ford is the only company that hasn't let Obama nationalise them. My next new car will be a ford.

Charles M,
Those 'green' light bulbs ... They were okay for experimental purposes, and to give people a choice if they wanted to use them. Tried a couple myself.

But, I haven't been able to find the old kind of lightbulb recently and since I didn't like having the choice taken away from me, rather than choose the choice someone else chose for me, I chose to not buy them at all. And when I happened to go into a store that had 'real' light bulbs, I stocked up. I'm going back again, too.


10 for you Keith.

I don't understand why we gave them so much in bail out if they knew that it really wouldn't help. Why spend that much money to put us deeper in the hole?

Interesting perspective B.S.( also an appropriate set of initials) you don't see any Constitutional problems because congress voted on it, the President signed it, it is then ok, but yet I'd bet dollars to donuts that you ranted and raved about the Patriot act, this illegal war and so on, but yet those things were voted on and passed by Congress and the President signed them into law.
This socialism of our nation is going to fail. Vindication of my perspective will come in the 2010 elections when this nightmare of a Congress and Senate are wiped out of office.

Add Chrysler to the list of companies to avoid and thus destroy this socialist atrocity invading our nation

Tammy,It isnt just the auto plants but suppliers,plants that make packaging for the parts,truck drivers,vending companies etc.
The president is protecting the pensions and wages of the workers and retirees at Chrysler he stated a few minutes ago.My dislike for him just went down a lot.

Since Obama cannot afford to let the government/union owned companies flounder, do you think you won't be facing some tax penalties or other incentives NOT to buy cars from them?

Proof positive that central economic decisions don't work but it's not like this is news...I guess it'll be Ford for me until they get taken over.

Charles M. -- Please note that I did not say it was "better" I merely pointed out that what they have done was constitutional.


Keith Kalish -- Thanks for the comment about my initials. I take it you are still in junior high school.

Please note that I did not say it was "okay" I only pointed out that what they did was within the bounds of the Constitution.

Also, the 44th administration has NOT taken over GM or Chrysler, they are simply negotiating funding that these automakers have ASKED for.

Is it socialism for a bank to redistribute the money in its vaults through lending programs?

Is it socialism for a bank to require you to improve a property if they give you a loan to buy it or keep it?

Your darn right I complained about the passing of the Patriot Act. Warantless wire tapping, suspending Habeus Corpeus, the government giving themselves the power to arrest, hold and interrogate people based only on suspicion... these things are not "threats" to our individual liberties; they are direct infringements upon the civil rights guaranteed to us in our constitution.

Did you complain about the unconstitutional aspects of the Patriot Act?

with a very few exceptions...this is just another reich wing circle jerk...again!

First of all I need you all to look up socialism and after that Adam Smith and after that the Fed Reserve book on monetary policy...

Sheeple

Hello B.S. its called comedy, try lightening up and having a sense of humor.
If the government hasn't "taken them over" then how is it they fired the CEO?
My point is our government is in our faces in every aspect of our lives, totally forgetting the most important thing in this nation is the rights of the individual, not the collective.
It is the government's fault we are in this bind in the first place, between denying us access to our own resources, hence putting us at the mercy of OPEC's prices, to forcing financial institutions to issue sub prime loans under the threat of criminal prosecution, recall Reno's threats? Where does the government get off doing any of this is what I want to know. Now they think they are going to socialize our health care system? Under what authority, it is not the responsibility of the government to provide health care.
Screw the Republican/Democrat thing I am asking this as an American who would like to think he recalls what this nation's founding principals are.

I love how the left twists thbe Consititution to fit their support of a Marxist President.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

So where does this give the Government the right to spend tax dollars on failing businesses?
The left really needs to learn to understand the "Context" of what they read and hear. Without understanding that, you do make major mistakes like voting in a Marxist Want-a-be Dictator for President. The whole of the Obama group, and his handlers have violated more laws than just about any President. And I am not talking about the ficticious violations you leftests placed on Bush, but real Constitutional Violations that are being made now.

Keith Kailish -- "its called comedy, try lightening up and having a sense of humor."


Right. I'll try to keep that in mind.


"If the government hasn't "taken them over" then how is it they fired the CEO?"

They didn't fire the CEO. The government said if GM wanted more government money then their CEO had to go. GM could have just said no.


"My point is our government is in our faces in every aspect of our lives, totally forgetting the most important thing in this nation is the rights of the individual, not the collective."

But the government's job is to protect and nurture the collective, as well as the individual and their rights; therefore, trade-offs are going to occur.


"It is the government's fault we are in this bind in the first place, between denying us access to our own resources, hence putting us at the mercy of OPEC's prices, to forcing financial institutions to issue sub prime loans under the threat of criminal prosecution, recall Reno's threats?"

It is not the government's withholding of resources that leaves us victims of OPEC. Our American oil companies have held leases on drillable land for decades; but they have NOT followed through with pulling the oil from those grounds. The oil companies would much rather stick with buying cheap oil from other countries, rather than fund and organize the work to pull oil from our own ground. Also, it's reminded that our oil companies recently received permission to drill the Alaskan Wildlife refuge; and yet what they are doing now is to spend money complaining that the government won't let them drill in certain places just off our shores. The oil companies keep clamoring for more places to drill, when they have yet to be pulling oil from even half of the places where they are already allowed to do so.

Forcing financial institutions to give out sub-prime loans is NOT how we got into the economic mess we are in. Our current trouble is completely tied to when Wall Street started splitting, bundling and trading home loans into high risk investment commodities that were rated very low risk; which they did thanks to deregulation. As Wall Street clamored for more loans to buy, shady lenders popped up giving loans to anyone with a pulse; and even some that didn't.


"Now they think they are going to socialize our health care system? Under what authority, it is not the responsibility of the government to provide health care."

Nationally funded health care would be a huge boon for America; especially the capitalists. It would increase the health of the populous (aka: every employee) and remove health care costs from the backs of employers.


"Screw the Republican/Democrat thing I am asking this as an American who would like to think he recalls what this nation's founding principals are."

Yes, but the Founder's did not envision, nor set out to create, an Anarchy. Our government's job is to look out for the people and the nation.

We the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of america.

If a person wanted to, they could see socialist thoughts threaded all the way through this preamble. What I think the Founder's principles were, is that the government should be run both by and FOR the people. They did not set it up just to be a military defense organization.

Dan R. -- For the record, I am not a member of the Left. I am a Centrist.


[Article 1: Section 7] "So where does this give the Government the right to spend tax dollars on failing businesses?"

It gives them the right to pass laws; including ones that allow them to spend tax dollars on failing businesses.

I welcome anyone (Right, Left, Center, Conservative, Moderate, Liberal) to point out where the Constitution forbids our government from spending tax dollars on failing businesses.

Ok Bill... If this is a centerest observation, than I must be on Mars.
No Bill this is a Leftest observation in that it means what ever you want it to mean at the time. Yes it goves them the right to pass laws within guidence of the Constitution, but where does that say it can bailout or buy failing businesses. The truth is it does not give them any grounds for that. You like the other left are following the "What I want it to mean" view. That does not give you a sound arguement here.

Dan R. -- Thanks for sharing your interpretation of which way my observations lean. I'm used to being labeled. You Righties label me a Lefty all the time, yet Lefties won't embrace me because I believe in gun ownership, maintaining and deploying a strong military.

The Lefties also reject me because I'd like to see Bin Laden caught, tried and publicly executed because of 9/11/2001, and because I believe if someone breaks into my home I have the right to kill them.

The constitution sets goals for our government that include "insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare." Since bailing-out or buying-up these massive failed businesses has been perceived as critical to preserving and maintaining domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare of the nation, then I support the government passing these laws; although I'd rather government sprinkle a few billion on the struggling citizens, instead of awarding it to company coffers.

Hello Billspirit
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you on socialized health care. In theory it sounds like a nice idea, people able to get health care at will, no worries about catastrophic care and so on. In practice it doesn't work and as the federal government has shown time and time again it abuses its power when given the authority. It extorts states when states resist mandates such as the 55MPH speed limit, when states began seeing it as useless and wanted to change the speed limits in their states they were threatened with loss of funds.
Some states are already imposing their will on their employees who smoke, charging them higher insurance premiums for their health habits.
Open the door to this invasion into your personal life and it will eat your freedom like a cancer

Keith Kalisch -- The problem I have with lack of government involvement is that the private sector is even more abusive and neglectful.

The big fight against the old 55 MPH was waged mostly by for-profit companies that did not want to trade lower fuel consumption for lengthier drive times. People who didn't want to drive 55 across the long, lonely roads of flat rural areas didn't give a hoot about trying to lower national gasoline consumption. On the other side, if the fed is handing out money, they have a right to attach strings.

As for smoking, the states you are referring to are far behind the curve of what private industry has been up to. Insurance companies long ago started charging higher premiums to people that use nicotine; and private employers have begun instating nicotine screening of prospective employees under a clear statement that tobacco users will not be hired.

Our freedoms are already being eaten up by a cancer; the societal cancer that says those with money, power and position can and do have control over our lives.

Under our current private sector health care system, an accountant, manager or CEO, whose goal is to maintain company profits, decides which people get what kind of health care. I'd much rather have my health care decisions made by someone whose primary concern is medical effectiveness; NOT company profit margin.

I agree with you Keith... the government messes up everything it has its hands in..

Thanks for making a stand. It is not easy thing to do here on this site.

THanks Vickey,Terry
People either have been indoctrinated into this socialist mind set or just don't understand, We The People and our individual rights are more important than any issue the federal government drums up.
I don't understand when it became the national past time to berate capitalism, to bad mouth the act of doing business and making money and turn that into a crime.
This is a country of equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
The government imposes taxation policies, mandates, makes laws it shouldn't make and then acts surprised as free Americans do what they can to go around these stupid obstacles.

Our economic problems right now are the culmination of stupid laws and policies imposed by self important politicians. To some extent the damage done seems purposeful.
We should be drilling for our own oil an exploiting it.
We should be building nuclear power plants.
we should be mining our coal and burning it .
We should be lowering the corporate taxes to make it worth manufacturing here on our soil.
We should be laughing at this notion of man made global warming and putting it in the context of what it is, a bad joke being used as a basis for further taxation and robbing us of our personal freedoms.
We can exploit our energy resources and do it cleanly, it seems for some the MMGW issue becomes a clean environment issue. I want a clean environment , we can have both without this lie that we can make enough electricity by spinning pinwheels and using solar panels.
LIVE FREE OR DIE, it isn't just a slogan, it's a way of life

Keith; "People either have been indoctrinated into this socialist mind set or just don't understand,"

So very true. It is like how many of the left call themselves Moderates, when in fact they are no where nears a moderate view. There are good uses of Socialized medicine in use today, but I would never want to see it over here because of two reasons.
1) the Democrats and Left would want it to be changed to be more like what Brittan and Canada and many of the others do.
2) Our Constitution is set for a free market, and captialist society, which has benefitted this country for over 200 years.

What has hurt this country economically is the socialized programs we have in place now. People need to take a stand, and look with both eyes wide open, but too many prefer to be lead around by their nose-rings like cattle.

Keith C,; "If you need future warranty work on those New GM or other Detroit made car. Barack has promised that the government will honor those. Have you ever filed a warranty claim with these compainies? Wait to you fill out the paper work for Barack to pay for any warranty work! A 10 4 u. Keith "

Keith, you know you need to fill out the 4-Q-2 form to get that coverage from Obama. LOL

Keith plus if you break one of those bulbs you'll have to pay to have the property certified clean of hazardous materials if you ever decide to sell it. And heaven help you if you don't disclose the spill and it's discovered later.

This comment is to let you know that this content has reached at least ten comments, and as such has been removed from Comment Speedway! Congratulations!

I am always surprised when Americans have so little faith in their government and the enduring power of our freedoms not only because it has been written in the constitution, but because it is written in the hearts and mind of all Americans.

The confusion I see in many post on Gather seem to be a consequence of too little information on what socialism really is for one, second the proper role the government must play in unusual circumstances and why it may be justified.

Where in principle I disagree with bailouts or a government purchasing stock on behalf of the people, I am prone to make exceptions for the sake of saving jobs and an industry who has been at the heart of our nation;s economy.
I would rather see the bank fail then GM.

So Keith your fear is not founded in reality.
If the government become the owner of all means of production we would be communist like China.
You can have some socialistic programs like schools, libraries, medicaid, medicare and so on and our freedom will still be intact.

Maybe you need to define what freedom is and all aspects of it.

Like living on a island with no government, no taxes, no roads, no schools, no nothing.

Oh my "fear is founded in reality. You are the one confusing necessary government services such as roads, schools , taxes. The government has no business creating conditions to cause the collapse of the banking industry only to walk in and take them over. It was not a week that had gone by and we heard Franks and Schumer demand names and threaten we are coming for you. I am sorry not in my country does an elected official have the audacity to threaten American citizens with the "power" of their office.
I fully understand the proper role of government and I also understand that our present government is out of control drunk on its own perceptions of its power and needs to be overturned in the next election, MASSIVELY.
Too many have been in Washington too long and have forgotten that they serve us , not the other way around.
There is no confusion, this administration has its plans to socialize and nationalize anything and everything it think it can get its hands on.
I can only conclude that those who align themselves politically to the left are in agreement with this attack on the US Constitution and the American people.