#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Where was President Obama's constitutional authority to fire the CEO of GM?
Add New Argument |
1
point
Well, there is no constitutional authority. It is the executive branch exerting too much power as a consequence of bailing out GM. "No pretense of an agonized decision, no pretending that the board asked him to go, simply that the White House asked him to go and he left. It’s hard to feel sorry for Mr. Wagoner. Not only did he lead GM into economic ruin, but he led the charge to Washington, D.C. for handouts, costing taxpayers billions, and – perhaps worse – inviting political control over the former industrial giant." 2
points
1
point
2
points
MeggaDittos, please leave this site. And my right to say that is constitutionally protected. The spin here is that as it turns out this "government takeover" which GM actually asked for worked wonderfully and they are making a profit for the first time in about a decade. Because this piece of liberal legislation has turned out so well, the right is forced to make up bullshit once again and portray this success as some kind of communist plot. Which of course all but the most lost, mislead, and frankly stupid understand to be complete propaganda. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Where explicitly does it give Obama in the constitution the authority to even ask Wagner to leave? Any precedent? Wait, there is none, never happened until Obama did it. If Bush would have done this, you would have been all hell breaks lose, but he never did. The spin here is that as it turns out this "government takeover" which GM actually asked for worked wonderfully and they are making a profit for the first time in about a decade No according to this, The insolvency of the global automaker had international repercussions, including layoffs in Canada, the closure of the Opel plant in Belgium and the wiping out of at least 8,300 jobs in Germany, Spain, Britain and other European countries. By 2012, GM’s restructuring plan in the US calls for eliminating 31,000 hourly and salaried employees from its US workforce of 96,000, a measure intended to cut GM’s payroll expenditures by 30 percent. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
Okay, so you argue my point which is basically GM would have ceased to exist and all the workers worldwide would have been out of a job, with "yeah but some people were still laid off" And you really don't see the error in your argument. You're amusing when you talk politics, do you put tinfoil on your window so the black helicopters can't see you? And after the bailout the US, us the people who elect officials, were majority share holders over GM. That means we the people who are represented by those we elect, Obama and congress, have every right to ask and even demand that any crooked CEO such as Wagner who raped his own company for short term profit leave. In fact I would have liked to have seen every CEO of every company we bailed out fired. You consistantly argue two contradicting points simutaneously in every one of these types of debates. 1. We bailed out these companies so the world is coming to an end. 2. Even though we bailed them out we the people shouldn't be allowed to determine their business practice. It makes no sense. If I bought a McDonalds shouldn't I be able to decide who the manager is? Or should the job just be given to some rich guys friend as you seem to be arguing? You have so swallowed the big business kool-aid that lead to this recession it is not even funny. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
YOU still haven't proven where President Obama had the constitutional authority to ask an private establishment's CEO to resign? It is an honest debate. Why because George W. Bush never did that. Why all of sudden does Obama have the authority? Okay, so you argue my point which is basically GM would have ceased to exist and all the workers worldwide would have been out of a job, with "yeah but some people were still laid off" Even with the bailout, GM is going failing as evident in the article. You're amusing when you talk politics, do you put tinfoil on your window so the black helicopters can't see you? When will the insult and name calling end? You are trying to tear me down with your insults. It is not working. It is really annoying. Do you have insult turrets in order to make yourself feel better? We bailed out these companies so the world is coming to an end. False accusation. Private Companies=Private Profit + Non-Social Loss I shouldn't have to pay for GM's mistakes in the long run. Even though we bailed them out we the people shouldn't be allowed to determine their business practice. No, we the people don't have that authority. What don't you understand about an privately owned organization? You have so swallowed the big business kool-aid that lead to this recession it is not even funny. WTF????? I am not for big business. I am for competitive markets. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1. Again, Obama didn't fire him, Obama asked him to leave. You asking the question over and over does not make it any less dishonest a question. Either way though, he should have been fired... as I told you already and as you will likely ignore again, the federal government was majority share holder. Every CEO of every company we had to bail out should have been fired immediately. 2. Which article? GM made more money this year than they have made in the last ten years, and they've paid back almost everything the US taxpayer has given them. 3. My point is valid. You consistently espouse a view of the US's immanent fall into socialism and the end of democracy as a right wing psycho talking point, consistently ignoring all proof to the contrary both our slow but steadily improving economy and purely logical arguments. In fact it will not be a day later when you will again be calling Obama a socialist in one manner or another directly after being proven wrong for the hundredth-something time. 4. What don't you understand about owning shares is owning a company. If one owns the most shares, they decide the direction and who the CEO of a company will be. As I've told you. 5.You point by point repeat the big business talking points written directly by big business lobbyists, yet you don't realize how pro-big business anti-democratic the message is. I'm not sure if it points to your lack of knowledge of the subject or if it points to their skill at hiding within populist movements and websites like the whole tea party thing what ultimately would be a caste system of "government" owned and operated for profit to the few at cost to the many with 0 regulation or over site or rules of operation bringing our living standard closer to the socialist countries like China that you so consistently accuse those you argue with of supporting - inaccurately accuse them of supporting. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
0
points
By, asking someone to resign is essentially firing because if you don't resign, you will be fired. Does that make sense? By you saying that he wasn't fired and asked him to leave over and over again doesn't by default make it a dishonest debate. Either way though, he should have been fired... as I told you already and as you will likely ignore again, the federal government was majority share holder. Every CEO of every company we had to bail out should have been fired immediately. Your ignorance must be bliss. Obama "ASKED" Wagoner to resign before the plans were announced. The plans were not even finalized; therefore, the money was not even triage to GM or Chrysler before he was "ASKED TO RESIGN" Resign My point is valid. You consistently espouse a view of the US's immanent fall into socialism and the end of democracy as a right wing psycho talking point, consistently ignoring all proof to the contrary both our slow but steadily improving economy and purely logical arguments. In fact it will not be a day later when you will again be calling Obama a socialist in one manner or another directly after being proven wrong for the hundredth-something time. Obama is not a socialist. In the Politico, ""We are anticipating an announcement soon from the Administration regarding the restructuring of the U.S. auto industry." How is restructuring an entire industry not socialist? For example, letting the free market work the magic, by destroying the weak companies, HINT...GM, and the strong survive, HINT...Ford is what the free market is. On the other hand, restructuring GM and Chrysler to what Obama and his monkeys see fit is socialism because the government owned GM and Chrysler. Do you really believe that GM paid 100% of the loan? Please. It is the government and Gm working together to make it look like the plan worked. The government and companies lie. It is in their interest. 4. What don't you understand about owning shares is owning a company. If one owns the most shares, they decide the direction and who the CEO of a company will be. As I've told you. See above. Or, just in case you forgot, The Tresaury ddin't even have majority of the shareholders in stock before he was asked to leave. There was no money allocated or approved by Congress yet. You point by point repeat the big business talking points written directly by big business lobbyists, yet you don't realize how pro-big business anti-democratic the message is. I'm not sure if it points to your lack of knowledge of the subject or if it points to their skill at hiding within populist movements and websites like the whole tea party thing what ultimately would be a caste system of "government" owned and operated for profit to the few at cost to the many with 0 regulation or over site or rules of operation bringing our living standard closer to the socialist countries like China that you so consistently accuse those you argue with of supporting - inaccurately accuse them of supporting. Time for my name calling insult....Whatever jackass. You accuse of pro big business, which is inaccurate, so I will continue to accuse of pro socialist and communist. I love this game. Which article The two fucking posts ago. Do I need to spell it out for you? Side: Yet another dishonest debate
You are utterly hopeless. We did eventually give them money. We knew we were going to bail them out. They asked to be bailed out. When Obama asked him is irrelevant, and none of it changes that fact that all of them should have been fired. And your continued defense of Obama being a socialist based on failing companies restructuring is mentally retarded. The US government didn't restructure the industries, the industries restructured themselves. As majority share holders, the government told them to, as is the job of the majority share holder. And you are still ignoring the fact that the bill was signed by Bush before he left office. If we are going to give them all this money they damn well better restructure. I'm done talking to you, go listen to Rush or whatever you do in your spare time. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
No, you are utterly hopeless. We knew we were going to bail them out. They asked to be bailed out. Because they are inept executives. How about GM hire non stupid executives? That is how good operated companies run. The US government didn't restructure the industries, the industries restructured themselves No, the government told them restructure or we will restructure for you and no money. As majority share holders, the government told them to, as is the job of the majority share holder. Oh, now, they all should have been fired even without constitutional authority. Now, I see. How do corporate charters trump the constitution, but you can continue to be mentally retarded yourself since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and powers vested in the government. Pretty sure it is explicit. Are you forgetting that Obama Fired...Opps, asked to resign....? Oh, yeah, you also forgetting that none of the money in the TARP was originally intended for GM, and was allocated under Obama. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
You won't let this go will you? Yes, if we need to bail out a company in order to save our economy, then every CEO should be fired. Yes it is constitutional to fire a CEO if you are a majority share holder of a company. End of story. That's all there is to it. You just want so bad to continue within your delusional state of immanent socialist takeover that you refuse to look at the facts of the case. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Your are delusional to think that President Obama has the authority to fire or "ASK TO RESIGN" the CEO of GM. You simply refuse to look at the facts of the case. Yes it is constitutional to fire a CEO if you are a majority share holder of a company. Where is the case law or precedence since there is no statutory or constitutional law that gives the President the authority? The majority shareholder of a company has every right to fire the CEO because that’s a fairly common demand whenever a funding source enters the picture at dire times. I agree with that. This is obvious. However, President Obama is not the federal government because he is not the lender nor the majority shareholder of the company. Congress holds that distinction since Congress funds, allocates and appropriates all the money of the federal government including his budget. See how the checks and balances works where it disallows one branch of becoming to powerful. THIS IS WHERE CONSTITUTIONAL POWER COMES IN FOR CONGRESS Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States; Basically, Congress has the constitutional right to spend and borrow money on how they see appropriate, not the President. Therefore, President Obama had absolutely zero authority or power to make this decision. This is end of story. President Obama overstepped his authority, and you can't admit it, and Congress are a bunch of cowards to afraid to confront him since it is a Democratic majority House and Senate. Bailouts are ALWAYS bad for the taxpayer, for the economy, and for business. Why? Because rewarding the mismanagement of American corporations with a taxpayer-subsidized lifeline does NOTHING to encourage reform or fix the problems that pushed the companies to the brink of failure. These bailouts do nothing but prolong the inevitable collapse of companies suffering from extreme mismanagement and poor investments. This is especially true in the case of automotive companies. Detroit auto manufacturers have failed to keep up with trends in the automotive industry, locked themselves into destructive union contracts and demonstrated a complete lack of initiative in automotive innovations that make their products enticing to consumers. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
Anyone can ask anyone to do anything they like. More so if your president of the US. All this energy to protect a crooked CEO while in another line of debate you're defending big oil and energy against scientists. You see why I can't take you seriously? Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Anyone can ask anyone to do anything they like. More so if your president of the US. WTF!!!! Not more so if your President of the U.S. That is where your wrong. Power is restricted and that is vested in the US Constitution. GM didn't ask Obama to fire Wagoner nor did the Board. All this energy to protect a crooked CEO while in another line of debate you're defending big oil and energy against scientists. No, I am protecting the legitimacy of the free market and non government interference. The CEO was not crooked, he are inept. The assumption that all CEO's are crooked is highly unfair while believing that Democratic politicians are perfect little angels. Charlie Rangel is quite the angel, free of corruption. Yeah, Ok. Government is more corrupt than CEO or companies. Government has just as a hidden agenda as does Coca Cola or GE. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
Obama represents the US, the US owns the majority share of GM, the US ergo its representative is allowed to ask the douche to leave. No constitutional boundary was over stepped, and if anything it strengthens the "free market" because GM is now doing much better, competition has been reintroduced. And no, corporations are far more crooked than government. Media doesn't dig into corporate past the way they do politicians so you don't hear about it on Faux all day. Politicians are voted in by the people not grandfathered in by friends and relatives. Corporations by their nature are corrupt, they are not concerned about you or me or anyone, only making money. That's how they work, that's why all these miners keep dying, why these oil rigs keep exploding, why they spend billions to influence politicians in order to deregulate even further even after all these people have died just in the last year. They don't care, by their nature. By a politicians nature, they should care because their job is supposed to depend on service to the people. We vote for politicians in other words. Their jobs depend on us. A CEO doesn't have to listen to you, and wont unless it means more money. Corporations need a lot of over site to work for the betterment of society, and a lot more over site than they currently have. That's just the fact, and we see it every day. Still you complain too much over site. It's so anti-democratic and self-destructive this attitude of just letting the biggest corporations do whatever they like no matter how many people's lives are ruined because of it. And you do so under a false pretense. Capitalist anarchy does not = democracy no matter how many Ron Paul independents insist upon it. Capitalism is no where in the constitution. You insist a corporation has the same rights as a person. I insist that a corporation has no more constitutional rights than a car, or a toaster - least that is how it should be. As it is because of the right wing, if your last name is LCC you basically have more rights than anyone and are quite above the law. You're not going to convince me that the government of the people whom we voted for should have less power than the likes of BP, Koch, Pepsi, or any other corporation. Individuals should have every guaranteed right, but somewhere you began believing these goliath businesses should be father son and holy spirit. They are not and should not be and this continued corporatization of America is going to eventually leave us the people with the same living standard of those in India and China, where if you are CEO you are ridiculously rich, if you are not, you are ridiculously poor and have no rights. Anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-minimum wage, anti-worker's rights, these are the things that lead to the standard of living you see in the socialist states you keep spewing on about. Regulation, unions, worker's rights, these things empower people. These are what truly ensure individual liberty, which you in spite of lip service, are apparently quite against. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Obama represents the US... Blah, Blah, Blah, keep telling yourself that. The president has two jobs, head of government and head of state. Congress is the government. Have you ever read the Constitution? Notice how Congress was appropriated more power in the first Article. if anything it strengthens the "free market" because GM is now doing much better, competition has been reintroduced. If your definition of three automotive companies strengthening the market, which have monopolized the world market for decades until the 90's when Toyota and Honda invaded, sure that really helps the market. We vote for politicians in other words. Their jobs depend on us. A CEO doesn't have to listen to you, and wont unless it means more money. Politicians listening to the public is news to me. I am written, emailed, and called my representatives numerous times concerning my opinion, they don't give a shit just as much as any CEO. How do I know this? Automated email and letters and never actually talked to my representative. Although CEOs don't listen to me individually, they do listen to me as a consumer whereas all politicians have hidden agendas, and I have no say in their policy decisions. Capitalism is no where in the constitution. Where does it talk about socialism and redistribution of wealth? You're not going to convince me that the government of the people whom we voted for should have less power than the likes of BP, Koch, Pepsi, or any other corporation. That is not what I am arguing. That is something you are arguing with yourself. Individuals should have every guaranteed right, but somewhere you began believing these goliath businesses should be father son and holy spirit. You are really naive or can't read. I am not for big business nor religion. What don't you understand about that concept. Even so, big business creates jobs, why are you against jobs? Companies like Wal Mart help because they create jobs while at the same time help the consumer with low prices. Anti-union, anti-regulation, anti-minimum wage, anti-worker's rights, these are the things that lead to the standard of living you see in the socialist states you keep spewing on about. First, if you are referring to Scandinavian states, you are sadly mistaken. They are capitalist with heavy social programs. Socialism only works until you run out of other people's money, which you insist taking my money so you can give to someone else. These are what truly ensure individual liberty, which you in spite of lip service, are apparently quite against. Apparently you confuse political freedom with economic liberty. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Yes, indeed that is your right and for anyone to say the bailout has turned out wonderfully,then why not do lots more of it?????????? Let's bail out every mom and pop business that is going under,let's bail out every home loan that is under-water. It's very simple, if it has worked so well why not do more of it with no limits??????? We won't because it really hasn't and that proves who is spinning propaganda. The proof is in the action. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
wtf are you talking about? GM came to congress for a bailout. Bush signed a bailout not Obama. So your against bailouts, you obviously disagree with nearly every economic professional. But pretend for a second that the bailouts already happened (because they did) when Obama took office. What's wrong with asking a CEO whose company you just saved from bankrupcy to get the fuck out? Nothing that's what. Had McCain been elected he'd have asked him to leave too, and you be saying right now how awsome that is "McCain is president, we bailed them out that CEO should get fired" blah blah. That is exactly what you'd be saying. But no, because it's Obama you and Prayerfails and Joe and the rest turn it around. That's the only reason Mega. You are extraordinarily biased and all of your insight comes strictly from far right websites, fox, and church. You're practically and invalid and honestly it's a wonder you function in society at all. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Bullshit,what propaganda!!!! Bush signed it eh,well I disagreed with Bush and are you giving him credit,no you are not,you give it to Obama. "you obviously disagree with nearly every economic professional" - PROPAGANDA again Same lame argument of global warming but when the majority is against you (illegal immigration 70%)you don't agree with "nearly every" then,62% don't want the mosque but you disagree with "nearly every", talking points again and again from you while in the minority. " What's wrong with asking a CEO whose company you just saved from bankruptcy to get the fuck out?"- It is not the goverments job to do so,Bush,Obama or McCain "Had McCain been elected he'd have asked him to leave too, and you be saying right now how awsome that is "McCain is president, we bailed them out that CEO should get fired"- wrong again, WE do not want goverment running the private sector, I don't know what else we can say to get it through your thick skull. All my insight comes from the wanting of freedom and liberty.....freedom and liberty even to fail. I do not go to church though this seems to be a common attack from you on this site. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY..... your rights stop when they infringe on mine!!! We do not want to bail out goverment pensions and benefits,we do not want to bail out union pensions and benefits,it does not matter who the president is. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1. No, it's not bullshit. Bush signed the bailouts, look it up on a site that isn't hosted by right wing nuts. During the election when Obama and McCain were running, remember McCain did that whole thing where he had to go back to Washington to vote for the bailouts while on the campaign trail... Yes I give Bush credit because he listened to every economic adviser in the world. I also credit Bush with not putting in place demands from the companies which were to be bailed out. That was scandalous, it was a free check Bush signed, which did help the economy, but with no guarantee that banks and lenders would stop the scandalous practices that began the mess. That is what I blame Bush for. He was in office, he was president. It's history not propaganda. 2. It's not about popularity. Slavery was popular. Nazis were popular in Germany. The idea the world is flat was popular. It's about science and common sense. Science has proven global warming. Common sense and history has proven that the only way to control illegal immigration is by stopping it at the source, which is jobs, which is big business hiring cheap labor, which is why republicans distract the "70%" with bullshit that will never work like fences and unconstitutional laws like what's going on in Arizona. The right wing uses idiots like you to get all excited about non-issues to protect their big business donors. Big business doesn't want to stop illegal immigration, in fact they want more of it. But it's unpopular so Republicans put forth BS laws that they know will never work but that will make the likes of you happy. 3. It is the governments job to kick out a CEO if the government (which is us, the people, this is a democracy) is a majority share holder. Majority share holders get to fire CEO's. It is no different if it is one rich guy or the US. 4. Who's "WE"? Do you have a squirrel in your pocket? And since when has government been running the private sector? They aren't at all, except right after the bailout when the US government was majority share holder of a few companies, in which case they had every right. But they weren't then and are not now "controlling the private sector." That's more of the right wing loony propaganda you've fallen for like a complete sucker. 5. Okay, this is cute, you say All my insight comes from the wanting of freedom and liberty.....freedom and liberty even to fail So you're saying your magical will for freedom and liberty has lead you to believe these completely fabricated right wing lies about the US government, which was by the way elected by you and me the people. So you think that people who disagree with you must hate freedom and liberty? Hm, that sounds nothing at all like Rush or Hannity, you sure showed me your no right wing drone (that was sarcasm) 5. Well, whether you go to church or not, you or someone by your name has before claimed to know more than me because god told you this or that in your ear or whatever the religious types claim. Zeus, Jesus, Superman, Santa, Mohammad, God, and the Unicorns are all irrelevant to politics and should remain separate. 6. FREEDOM AND LIBERTY..... your rights stop when they infringe on mine!!! We do not want to bail out government pensions and benefits,we do not want to bail out union pensions and benefits,it does not matter who the president is. What are you talking about? What's wrong with people who work for the government or are part of a union? Why shouldn't they get their pensions? Unions are good things. Unions are the only reason Capitalism hasn't turned the US into a money-ocracy. You need balance. The US is about checks on powers - you know, three branches of government, oversight, and in business big corporations balanced with workers rights (unions) Now go wipe the foam off the side of your mouth. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
1)and those same actions were continued by the next President signing legislation not including Freddie Mac and Fannie May so you point is both parties do it,agreed let's put some conservative politicians in their that won't do what they did. I disagreed with Bush also and that was my point.Obama said he was going to be different and he has turned out not to be. 2)Global warming is about what's popular and not science......global warming has been slammed down our throats for years under false assumptions,false data,hiding data and bullying those who spoke against by taking away their funding. " the only way to control illegal immigration is by stopping it at the source, which is jobs, which is big business hiring cheap labor" -So you are not OK with police asking if someone is an illegal alien but you are OK with big bad businesses doing it and then flushing them out of America by starving them with no job?OK, let's do it that way,either way illegal immigration is wrong,I just find your way of dealing with it a little more harsh but sign me up.Starve them out of America.Deny them welfare also right so they have to leave? The right wing protects big businesses interests because of one thing ALL politicians talk about JOBS,JOBS,JOBS. Jobs help America. Your statement seems to me to state that Democrats don't protect JOBS which again I agree with you on. J O B S ,it is very simple.By hurting or not protecting big business(your strategy), you take away JOBS. 3)It is not and never was meant to be the goverment's job to do so. 4)Trying to run it more and more which has brought about the situation we are in,Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,health care,GM and Chrysler. "They aren't at all, except right after the bailout " Aren't at all and except right after are contradicting points, which is it? 5)It is the cornerstone of America and whenever it is taken away you end up with one group of American's rights and money being taken away to be distributed to others. The truth doesn't care who states it, it is still the truth. There seems to be a common thread of you bashing the source rather than factually debating the facts which is your right but it diminishes your argument. Also when anyone else attacks YOUR source it is right wing hate speech.Let's just stick to the facts. Your second 5)Again you Attack a source, This time an unknown one because you are so intellectually superior, I needed someone to tell me my views while you come up with yours with your superior knowledge all by your lonesome. Facts please,stop the elitist rhetoric. 6)We should not be forced to bailout goverment pensions. Period Stick to the facts Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1. Republicans had control of both the white house and congress for 6 years of Bush's presidency, and they are the ones who caused this mess to start with. The idea they would not simply do it again is stupid. The Democrats are trying, the Republicans are filibustering every single proposal, including a proposal to take the what is left from the bailouts and increase lending to small business, who the Republicans claim to stand for. If you want jobs and a balanced budget, go back to the economic practices of the 90's. Republicans won't let us though. Your arguement is ill informed. 2. No, it's not about what's popular. You have it backwards. Global warming is science. Giant corporations like Koch industries (who fund the tea party and who's founder created the birch society) put out false information to make suckers like you think it's populism. Scientists have nothing to gain by lying about global warming. Giant corporations like Koch have everything to gain by making the sheep believe it's not true. 3. Again, you misunderstand the Constitution of the United States of America. It is unconstitutional to ask a group of people for a birth certificate every time they are pulled over based on the color or their skin. A driver's license is not proof of citizenship. And they will not be asking white people for birth certificates, only brown people. The right wing is not about what you think it is about. They don't give two shits about jobs, they want to keep the cheep labor coming so they make up these laws that don't work, that they know won't work, but that keep their racist base happy. They want to keep hiring illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are cheaper, they don't have to give them health insurance, they don't have to ensure their safety on the job, etc. Making sure these asshole companies don't hire illegal immigrants won't "starve them" it will deter them from coming here in the first place. Yeah, you bring them back over the border once you know they are illegal. But you don't ask every person with tan skin for their birth certificate for going 5 over the speed limit. Why are simple things so hard for you to understand? 4. You are such a sucker. Freddie Mac and other businesses like them purposefully gave out bad loans. They manipulated the market and were able to do so because of Bush era deregulation. The result of this is a few CEO's got extraordinarily rich, billions and billions rich, while masses and masses of people lost homes and were laid off. Yet you want to protect them. Theses asses should be in jail, and you want to go back to allowing them to continue the unfair practices that lead to massive wealth redistribution toward the rich. The bailouts weren't perfect, but every economist said without them we would be in another great depression right now. But the problem doesn't lie in that we did anything. If there was a problem it is that we have not done enough to restore the regulations in place before that clown Bush went to office, and that these CEO's aren't all in jail. If there is a problem, that is what it is. You and the right wing are about protecting basically stock market criminals. When the left does anything to try to curb what is basically criminal behavior the right fillibusters and cries "government takeover." It's childish, anti-american, and contradicts our own self-interest. 5. This paragraph is steeped in right wing fodder. None of it has or is happening. Give me an example of someone's, anyone's rights being taken away. The only people who have lost money are the middle class. The rich have become richer during this financial disaster. The middle class are the one's losing their homes and their jobs. Democrats despite all the right wing shennanigans have slowed the bleeding and even increased jobs a couple of the months since Obama took office, but all Republicans want to do is go back to the policies that lead to us losing 750,000 jobs a month at the end of Bush's term. They have not proposed a single thing, nothing except to go back to those policies. I dare you to try to come up with a plan from the right that is not exactly what we did to get into this mess to start with. This is why the right (you) have to demonize with names like "elite" "socialist" etc. The facts aren't on your side. History isn't on your side. There is not instance of anyone's "rights" being taken away. All the right can do is scare people. And apparently you are a coward because you seem to have fallen for every talking point. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
0
points
Republicans CAN'T filibuster a super majority, it was some Democrats that stalled proposals. SUPER MAJORITY in both houses.Republicans tried to change housing regulations and were stopped by the DEMOCRAT controlled house and Senate. 2)"Scientists have nothing to gain by lying about global warming."- Where do scientists get their funding from ?????????? Any guess????? Their JOBS are relying on it being true. 3)It is not based on color of skin. Read the BILL. So take away their jobs and they won't come for free healthcare,free food-stamps,free housing. How stupid are you??????? 4)Watch the video. 5)"go back to the policies that lead to us losing 750,000 jobs a month at the end of Bush's term"- How about the 4% DURING? Who controlled Congress "at the end of Bush's term" Dems wanted Freddy and Fannie
Side: Yet another dishonest debate
><... your utter lack of knowledge is becoming annoying. First I have a couple of links above showing that Republicans have more than doubled the number of filibusters two years in a row. Second, you don't even know what a filibuster is. It only takes 1 person to filibuster. It is a delay tactic. link link Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
How is one stopped???????? How about reading YOUR LINKS. " unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn" Do I really have to explain to you that any one can filibuster but a super majority (which the Dems had) can block it. Really,this is tiring Side: Yet another dishonest debate
2
points
0
points
It seems the UK has got reporters that will report the facts. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
>< wow. And non-profits and government have nothing to gain by lying about this, while gas an oil does. Why is this so hard to understand? It's like if you have two witnesses to a murder, one who was in their apartment and watched from the window, and another with a bloody knife next to the body of their mortal enemy. You believe the guy with the bloody knife next to the body of their mortal enemy. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
0
points
1
point
Read the tenth amendment and it will prove you wrong. The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution of the United States are reserved to the states or the people. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
2
points
1
point
... unless they are majority share holder, which they were. Then they have every right. In fact, every CEO of every company we bailed out should have been fired. They are the ones who fucked up, why should they get to keep their job while they are laying off everyone who had nothing to do with their companies poor performance? You're arguement for the rich against the poor is, frankly, stupid. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
Appointing and firing CEOs is a clear example of the feds overstepping their boundaries. You're argument for the rich against the poor is, frankly, stupid. If you don't like the way the system works, then you are free to move to any socialist country you want. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
What part of the feds being majority share holders do you not understand? So you think because someone is CEO they should keep their job no matter how bad they suck at it? And it is okay to lay off hundreds of thousands of Americans in the meantime if it makes the sucky CEO richer, and that if we the people bail out a sucky CEO's company with our tax dollars, we still should not be allowed to fire the sucky CEO? You're an idiot and you have absolutely no understanding of what is in the best interest of America, or how a democracy or a publically owned company even work. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
1
point
if we the people bail out a sucky CEO's company with our tax dollars, we still should not be allowed to fire the sucky CEO? The people aren't the feds. If we choose to bail out the company, fine. But if the feds do it without the publics approval, then that is overstepping their boundaries. You're an idiot Bite me. you have absolutely no understanding of what is in the best interest of America, or how a democracy or a publicly owned company even works. You are a liberal and are upset because I don't agree with your idea of how this country works. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
0
points
How so? Again, all you can do is label either because you obviously don't understand the issue. There is nothing about this debate or anything I've said that would lead anyone with any knowledge of the subject to think I was in favor of any of those systems. Side: Yet another dishonest debate
|