SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Thank you Governor Perry

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Thank you Governor Perry (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=191672)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tribesman (Post 1825199)

Respenus, you need to simplify it to a level that works.
socialism = government welfare I don't like or don't get.
non-socialism=government welfare I do like or do get.
It works with taxes too.

I chuckled at this as it makes a great point.

Government welfare is not limited to the poor or lazy. But to Farmers (estate corporate co-ops, not Ma and Pa Brown types) To oil companies (hi Exxon, BP, Conoco-Phillips, I'll even throw in Solyndra), bankers *cough* banksters. (Uncle sam bends over and really takes it from them, and moans in pleasure while they do it.)

Hey now they are job creators...

:haha::haha::haha::haha::haha::haha:
:har::har::har::har:

...

:wah::wah::wah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 1825215)

And now GM is back to the top spot in the automotive industry and have paid back almost all of their bailout money. Boy was I critical of that bailout when it happened, calling it government pork, anti-capitalist and predicting the company's failure. Goes to show what the hell I know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1825224)

In true capitalism they would have failed. Same as alot of banks.

Can we call it fascism now? Veiled capitalism is too confusing for the rubes.

I always owned a Ford. Since I was 17. Some meat-head hit my f-150 a few months ago, and I bought a new one. They don't break. They don't even sweat in the snow, and they didn't need a bailout either.:salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1825224)

No Takeda - GM paid back the governmental LOANS- a total of about 6.7 Billion. However, GM recieved a total of $52 Billion in bailout funds. They have NOT paid that amount back - nore are there any plans to do so because the remaining $45.3 Billion were free and clear, a true bailout grant.

In April of 2010 GM announced it had "paid back" the bailout money - research showed that was false. Here is some data.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/04/2...ailout-payback

http://www.forbes.com/2010/04/23/gen...ha-dalmia.html

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com...loans-in-full/

When the real data came out - the CEO of GM had to admit that it would take "years" to pay it all back.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...68F2NB20100916

In the end - the President had to admit that the taxpayers were going to lose about $14 billion even after repayment....

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/21/auto...ains/index.htm

Its a net loss regardless..... investment that could have been used elsewhere to save a company that should have gone under. Bailouts are bad - regardless of whether is auto, or finance. And I work for a bank...

Also - yes - a few Billion is a "drop in the bucket" when our national yearly debt is well over a trillion - but until we stop all the drops in that bucket - it will continue to overflow and spill out our debt in ever increasing amounts.

(edited to provide a more trustworthy link on the 14 billion loss)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1825253)

I guess you're right. I am an idiot. GM is a failure.

Your not an idiot Takeda - just you said something that wasn't factual and I think the record ought to be straight. Facts mean something.

GM currently - is going good. Question is, how long? Will it stay that way, or fold again soon?

The idea of capitalism is that a company lives - and dies - on its own merits and abilities. Ford didn't need a bailout - so it is playing on what is technicaly an unlevel playing field. If someone gave Ford 50 Billion for free, I would bet they would be doing fabulous for a while too.

5 -10 years from now will determine the historical view of GM. Until then, the question remains - did we bail out something only to see it fail again?

Like you were - I am against bailouts - let market capitalism work.

As I said - I work for a bank. We didn't get a bailout. We are growing - majorly - because we offer good products and make good business decisions. Thats how capitalism is supposed to work - reward those who offer what the consumer wants and neds the best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1825224)

Yea but they produced the Chevy Volt LOL. I have a GM currently, am getting a new car in about a month and will NEVER buy a GM product again, it's my second one and have hated it, they don't last.Maybe their trucks do but I don't drive a truck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Respenus (Post 1825183)

While I unfortunately do not have the time to go into a long theoretical discussion, I would only like to point one thing out. Do not mistake attempts by governments for what the idea(ls) calls for.

@diluvian, your example of a school applying the supposed ideas of socialism in the test exams runs against its very logic. The idea here is to allow everyone to achieve by their own merit the advancement in life, not to blindly redistribute in the name of an equal society. Yes, in order to achieve an even starting field, resources have to be distributed, but not in this sense. Marx's idea was: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Now while this can be interpreted in many different, especially negative ways, let us, for the sake of argument accept this statement as something meant for the common good of ALL human beings, regardless of other factors.

So to recap, there is a difference between implementation, policy preposition by different groups and the ideas behind it all. Oh and welfare policies in a strictly capitalist system are not socialism. Welfare state=/social democracy=/socialism.

The only reason i gave my example is because someone wondered what i thought socialism meant, My example shows mainly the cons, how the individual is not thought of, it is about equality of the collective - The consequences are less incentive to work [which is debated the very reason communism has failed in every country its been adopted in so far], less competition, the quality of life is lowered to a manageable level , bigger government, and more taxes- much like any modern military with recruits, you strengthen the weak, and weaken the strong, put everyone on the same playing field, you unify them, solidarity

It is a general sense of socialism, the example highlights the cons of socialism while pointing out the main goal of socialism, which is social equality - i dont mention the politics of instating socialist programs, or anything of that nature, i leave that to the socialist schools found around the world, those are their semantics that are highly debated, but i'll pass :|\\

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I can somewhat agree with this - As I said i support some of our socialist qualities. [i admit calling them socialist programs is a little strong, as though i was declaring them so, lol, but ours dont follow a completely socialist model- so i'll adopt the word qualities instead]

alot of government programs can be and in some cases do contain characteristics of other forms of economy - socialism and capitalism cannot coexist as they are, sometimes compromises are made from each and thrown together, the result is a mixed economy, some economies are more structured around capitalism, and others socialism - and because of this i made sure to mention we are a mixed economy, as thats the technical name for it, both socialist and social democrats support mixed economies...which speaking of, from a marxist perspective this would be an evolutionary stage between capitalism and socialism, as governments are said to progress through them until communism [but that has failed in every attempt so far] :hmmm: im no marxist, never studied it too in depth, thats just a wild guess

With that said our welfare program is lacking in only one thing to fit the literal modern definition of socialism - it does not completely control our production [our jobs] though it does regulate plenty of sectors, it does not own us -- but in our model of welfare, state government does administrate the production of the collective[in this case our taxes] and handles the distribution of said taxes - but its goal is entirely socialist, being social equality

I certainly wouldn't call our welfare program a capitalist trait, as its more akin to socialism than capitalism - but it cant truly be either one of the two, which ties back to me mentioning mixed economy

As I stated, I agree with the idea of social equality - I'm all for SSI helping the elderly and disabled, prevent them from demographically having large gaps in quality of life compared to other social groups - but alot of the welfare programs here are being overly abused, and at the expense of the individual, which is what my example of tests in school points out

We don't have a big enough 'social safety net' yet to be considered a welfare state, but i've already got my stomach full with what we do have. I'm sure alot of what i had to say is redundant info for you, but im just explaining my thought process - and im done rambling

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1825307)

The idea of capitalism is that a company lives - and dies - on its own merits and abilities. Ford didn't need a bailout - so it is playing on what is technicaly an unlevel playing field. If someone gave Ford 50 Billion for free, I would bet they would be doing fabulous for a while too.

Someone explain this to our last 2 presidents?

Most of OWS would go home if you ended corporate welfare. I mean, they do not even try to disguise it anymore...

It used to be called subsidies, now they got bold and just called it a bailout.

Socialize the loss, privatize the profit. God bless fascist Italy...Ooopsies, I meant America, the beautifu...Corrup.... unscrupulou..., err uhh ...

Hey at least we aren't Africa,:woot:

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 1825343)

I'm sure your Congress is doing their best to correct this. :D

@diluvian & soopaman2 thank you for explaining your views. :salute:

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 1825343)

Amen Soopa...

If we had a chief executive that understood that the role of government was to get out of the way - of society, of capitalism, and of us just living our lives - we would be one step closer to where we need to be.

OWS isn't just about corporate welfare though - its a lot of "I want my bailout too!" - which is where I differ with them - more welfare - just on a different level - won't fix the problem. Ending it all (except for the truly poor who need it and can't - not wont - subsist on their own) is what will.

Point is Perry realized he has no chance and pulled out, putting the main objective of defeating Obama more important than his ego.That little turd Santorum for example, has no chance yet refuses to leave, which will cause some problems for Gingrich.

In Rick Perry's mind, nothing is more important than his ego. Never forget that.

I guess it is better for the ego to withdraw before too many primaries tell you that you suck. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 1825498)

In Rick Perry's mind, nothing is more important than his ego. Never forget that.

Were ya'll aware that Rick Perry was also one of the few supporters of the Super highway to have been built from Mexico to Canada.

I'm glad he lost with that kind of smarts :yep:

Quote:

Posted: Nov 05, 2011

http://townhall.com/columnists/rachelalexander/2011/08/12/rick_perrys_nafta_superhighway_problem

Move over Mitt Romney. Rick Perry has a bigger problem to defend from his tenure as governor. Remember the NAFTA Superhighway project? It was to consist of a two-mile wide $184 billion transit system of toll roads, rail lines and utilities from the Texas-Mexico border all the way up to the Minnesota-Canadian border, to make it easier to ship foreign goods from China and other countries into North America. It became so unpopular in Texas that the Texas portion of it, called the Trans-Texas Corridor, was renamed and mostly disbanded a couple of years ago. Perry was the only gubernatorial candidate in 2006 of four major candidates who supported it. Even the Democratic candidate opposed it.
Perry’s campaign website lists the Trans-Texas Corridor as one of his accomplishments, “Rather than taking decades to expand these important corridors a little bit at a time, Governor Perry developed the Trans-Texas Corridor plan.”But is it something Perry really wants broadcast as an achievement? The Texas Republican Party’s 2010 platform includes a plank specifically opposing the Trans-Texas Corridor. Some of the opposition to the NAFTA Superhighway has been dismissed as conspiratorial, but loud objections also came from people concerned with border security and one million rural interests and farmers that stood to lose their land to eminent domain.

Seven years ago

Posted: 5:16 PM Dec 29, 2004

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/1310356.html

It sounds like another tall tale told by a Texan -- the Lone Star State has embarked on a project to build superhighways so big, so complex, they'll make ordinary interstates look like cowpaths.
As envisioned by Governor Rick Perry, the Trans-Texas Corridor project would be a four thousand mile transportation network.
It’s awesome $175 billion cost over fifty years would be financed
mostly -- if not entirely -- by private money. The builders would
then charge motorists tolls.
But these wouldn't be mere highways. Proving anew that everything's big in Texas, they would be megahighways. Corridors up to a quarter-mile wide would accommodate as many as six lanes for cars and four for trucks, plus railroad tracks, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utility lines -- even broadband transmission cables.
Supporters say the corridors are needed to handle the expected
NAFTA-driven boom in the flow of goods to and from Mexico. They
would also allow freight haulers to bypass heavily populated urban
centers on straight-shot highways cutting across the countryside.
But some critics call it a Texas-size boondoggle. Environmentalists worry about its effect on the countryside.
Ranchers and farmers who stand to lose their land through eminent
domain are mobilizing against it. Small towns and big cities alike
fear a loss of business when traffic bypasses them.
Even the governor's own party opposes the plan. The Republican
Party platform drafted at last summer's state convention rejected
it because of its effect on property rights.
But Perry is undeterred. Earlier this month, the Texas Transportation Commission opened negotiations with the Spain-based consortium Cintra to start the first phase of the project. That's a seven-and-a-half billion-dollar, 800 mile corridor from Oklahoma to Mexico.
For the Oklahoma-Mexico corridor, Cintra plans to spend six billion dollars for about 300 miles of four-lane highway from Dallas to San Antonio. It'll also give the state one-point-two billion dollars for improvements along the route. In return, Cintra wants to maintain and operate the toll road for 50 years.