Rush Asks: 'If Corporations Are Not People, Why Did We Bail Out General Motors And Chrysler?'
zbacku
2012/07/17 03:03:13
|
|
|||||
|
7 votes
|
|
47% | ||
|
1 vote
|
|
7% | ||
|
4 votes
|
|
27% | ||
|
3 votes
|
|
20% | ||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | ||
Helping GM was about people. Corporate spending as A PERSON for political gain is completely different.
Citizens United created a situation where 1 (or very few) people connected with a corporation can make donations with that corporations money to a political campaign.
Helping GM helped the workers and families who work for GM.
If we want to allow all the workers of a corporation to decide where that corporations money is donated, then we are on the same page.
Don't let Rush confuse you so easily.
I guess Rush is having a tough time being relegated to total oblivion. Does he still have any radio stations left that carry him?
Thank you, my friend. I really needed a laugh.
http://www.fair.org/index.php...
Wouldn't you rather think for yourself?
I was a staunch listener/supporter of Rush during my 20's.
I remember repeating his claim that there were more trees in the usa today than when the pilgrams landed.
Then I found out that was untrue. Then I started to investigate things he said.
I don't like being lied to.
I dropped him and see him for what he is now.
And yeah, compared to some of leftist ideologues, he sounds like a frappin' genius.
If corporations WERE people, they would exist in violation of the 14th Amendment. Slavery (ownership of persons) is ILLEGAL.
Great question. In many cases, it would enable the workers to relocate to environments where there is excess work. Southeast USA, for example.
However, in many other cases, it would enable employees to initiate their own businesses. There would be no need for them to adopt the same scope and scale or overhead as the GM plant for the individual employees to succeed. Having the skills (we presume) but lacking the seed capital (we presume) this would have liberated at least some of these employees to create a new form of success and perhaps some alternate manufacturing jobs.
What of the others? I would expect that many could and likely would pool their resources and create a hugely modern facility and joint venture that they controlled. Funneling the money through a broken company was about the least efficient way to push for recovery. About the only thing it provided was a structure to spend the money, but using a model that has been proven to be ... flawed at best.
There's a nice documentary out there about junk pickers in Rio who managed to get some seed money and use that to form the core of a new business structure and way of life. I'll presume US manufacturing employees are *at least* as resourceful as junk pickers from Rio. No?
Then wouldn't it make sense to make owning a business easier instead of shackling them with outrageous government regulations and TAXES???????
Would be a whole lot easier to employ many more people.
You have never proven that there are burdensome regulations or taxes.
You only repeat what you have been told, by business owners, who's job it is is to increase profit.
Why would you listen to them? It is like listening to the fox on how to run a hen house.
When I didn't have the money to move (or enough money to move everything), I sold lots of my stuff and lost the rest. That's life. No, really. That is life and these are just things. At no point did I ever expect that you or other taxpayers would or should be forced to help me move or to create an artificial job for me so that I didn't have to move.
Yes - it would be fabulous if you did that for me, but not reasonable of me to expect it or demand it. And this is why I'm qualified to say it wasn't reasonable for anyone else to expect or demand that it happen for them. But if we're going to do it, it makes a LOT more sense to give the money to the people than to give it to the company. That's my opinion, but again, based on personal experiences.
I'd like to eat better food and I'd like to spend more time with my kids. So you tell me who should be required by law to work longer hours or spend less time with their own kids or maybe move into a smaller house so that my own life will be better. I'd like to know how this is supposed to work.
While you're at it, explain to me what right I have to take money and food away from other people in order to make my life a little more convenient? At what point did they become my servants?
And please, do ignore my bumpkin-like sense of self-reliance. I get that these notions are antiquated and scoffed at by people who "know better". In quotes because I remain unconvinced. Convince me?
IF you're going to prevent all hardship such as this, you will have to provide something to them to prevent it. Agree? That something will consume wealth that must be taken from someone else. Agree? In order for someone else to maintain what they have - THEY will have to work longer hours, etc, etc, etc. Agree?
Cause and effect isn't a lie. It's real. Or will the money fairy float from the heavens and shower new wealth upon us all without devaluing the wealth we already have?
You should know: The bevvy of fabulous benefits currently offered by my Federal/State combo is quite generous. This has to be paid for. I know this is a shock, as you seem to believe benefits cost nothing. Two things have happened... government is borrowing more, and government is taxing more.
You should know: When someone pays taxes, they actually have less money than before the taxes were paid. I have been asked to pay more taxes and so I actually have less money than when I paid less taxes.
You might not have known: While you are correct that nobody "from the government show up and demand that [I] work longer hours"... the result is the same as if they did. Why? Because I have bills to pay. House, car, heating, cooling, food, tax bills too.
You might not have known: So yes, I'm working more and in the process of trying to find yet another job in order to compensate for the income that I've lost in order to pay for rich polictician's generousity on my behalf. How much more? Thousands of dollars each year. That's hundreds o...
You should know: The bevvy of fabulous benefits currently offered by my Federal/State combo is quite generous. This has to be paid for. I know this is a shock, as you seem to believe benefits cost nothing. Two things have happened... government is borrowing more, and government is taxing more.
You should know: When someone pays taxes, they actually have less money than before the taxes were paid. I have been asked to pay more taxes and so I actually have less money than when I paid less taxes.
You might not have known: While you are correct that nobody "from the government show up and demand that [I] work longer hours"... the result is the same as if they did. Why? Because I have bills to pay. House, car, heating, cooling, food, tax bills too.
You might not have known: So yes, I'm working more and in the process of trying to find yet another job in order to compensate for the income that I've lost in order to pay for rich polictician's generousity on my behalf. How much more? Thousands of dollars each year. That's hundreds of hours of work to make up the difference.
Beyond that, I've also lost income through the devaluation caused by borrowing and "monetizing" the debt. I see this in the cost of materials and even grocery items, but hey... I'll be generous and ignore that for this discussion because the point is made without it.
If you have read this far without flapping off or blindly insisting "it's not truuuuue", you will no longer be ignorant. And so now we can see if you're "stupid" or not.
As a result, I need to work more in order to pay the bills. That takes time away from my family. What part aren't you getting? I get that you can't believe it because you and your friends are fine... but what part don't you understand?
You've had a number of interesting posts and I generally like hearing your point of view. But on this one... wow. You seem to have blinders or something. You're not listening and seem to be angry. Your points are mostly unrelated to the things that I've said. What have I done or said to upset you? I'm just telling you how things are for me. That's all.
Let's go back - your original point that started this discussion was that nobody should have to sacrifice family time because government should swoop in with it's protective arms and prevent that from happening. Fantastic theory, except that government cannot give without taking. In order to provide a soft cushion to others, it's forcing me to work longer hours to cover my expenses which have not increased.
...
As a result, I need to work more in order to pay the bills. That takes time away from my family. What part aren't you getting? I get that you can't believe it because you and your friends are fine... but what part don't you understand?
You've had a number of interesting posts and I generally like hearing your point of view. But on this one... wow. You seem to have blinders or something. You're not listening and seem to be angry. Your points are mostly unrelated to the things that I've said. What have I done or said to upset you? I'm just telling you how things are for me. That's all.
Let's go back - your original point that started this discussion was that nobody should have to sacrifice family time because government should swoop in with it's protective arms and prevent that from happening. Fantastic theory, except that government cannot give without taking. In order to provide a soft cushion to others, it's forcing me to work longer hours to cover my expenses which have not increased.
As for an unrelated point - corporate welfare?? HUH? From where did you pull that one? What corporate welfare do you accuse me of? Are you borrowing some sort of leech-speak terminology to refer to my *paycheck*? Yes, I confess! I get paid for doing work. People who work for a living call this a paycheck. Welfare is given to someone who doesn't work, or sometimes it is given to augment people who don't work enough. Just so we're using terms the same way.
Welfare? Good grief! I get NOTHING from government. Zero deductions. Zero loopholes. Zero checks. I'd add that I get Zero services, but that's a different discussion... for this one, let's presume I'm actually getting something fantastic. You know... besides giving the rest of the country free money.
It's interesting that you should use the term "welfare" as an insult, by the way.