Obama, the Failed Communist

Comment

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on November 22, 2010 at 6:35pm

But if you are correct that more than half the people in the country think he is a communist . . . (as you claim they think)
Did you read the link? What the survey asked was if the term "socialist" accurately described Obama. 33% said "very well" and 22% said "well." Obviously "socialist" is not exactly the same thing as "communist", but I'd argue that most people don't make much of a distinction between the two. Coupled with the other evidence of Freedom Pubbers and Tea Partiers accusing Obama of socialist and communist policies, I think it's pretty clear that there is no strawman. It seems that you have to level this charge because you can't refute the main points that I am making.

The idea that the old GM sold it's assets to the "Reborn GM" absent government coersion is absurd.
Well, "coercion" has some negative connotations that I don't think are appropriate, but yes, the government did play a major role in the restructuring agreement. They did so because a completely free and open sale would not have been beneficial in the long run, if it had even been possible. Look at the GM plant in Indianapolis, one that was not sold to the "new" GM. A sale had been arranged to JD Norman, but it fell through because the UAW Local 23 would not agree to the concession that union regional and national leadership had negotiated.

The drama in Indianapolis highlights how UAW pay rules and politics could complicate the efforts of Liquidation Motors Co. -- the "old" GM -- to sell 16 factories and other assets the "new" GM left behind in bankruptcy. "No one wants the Indianapolis situation to set precedent, but it has that potential," said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research, a think tank in Ann Arbor. "For the (UAW leaders), they understand the competitive wage in the industry is in the $14- to $15-an-hour range. Any potential buyer of a plant in bankruptcy knows that."

Now that plant will likely close, a fate not shared by those sold to the "new" GM.

Republicans share the same imbecilic tendencies.
Are you saying that Republicans are socialists too?

They merely make laws which forbid certain activites or products or mandate others.
I really don't want to derail this too much, but this is really a question of degree. Is it fascist to outlaw smoking in elevators? Restaurants? Sidewalks? Maybe yes, to a certain degree. But is that something we as a society want to do? It seems so, at least in a lot of areas. Is it fascist to say that you can't use lead in paint? I guess. But again, we have chosen, through our representatives, that a certain level of regulation is appropriate. Reasonable people can disagree about what level of regulation is too much, but I think, as Phillip rightly pointed out, the use of that term brings a lot of extra baggage, whether intended or not, that weighs down the argument.

The more companies which have any government ownership the more socialist and with each divestiture less so.
Well, then I think we agree. The main point of this blog post was that Obama was not the scary socialist/communist that a lot of people see him as. He is not keeping government ownership of GM. With the sale of stock last Thursday, the government became less socialist. And when it sells the rest, the government will become even less so.

Further I never said there was a cover up conspiracy, you set up another strawman.
That was a rhetorical question. I don't think you believed there was a conspiracy. I was just pointing out that if people don't understand the difference between LMC and GM, that isn't evidence of anything. It just means they don't pay attention. Do you have evidence of the Obama Administration intentionally "tricking" the public?

Time spent trying to convince the unconvincable people is wasted time.
What exactly are you trying to convince me of? That Obama is a socialist?

Why not just admit to everyone on this board that you are a leftist, state your points, skip the endless debates and let it go at that?
I'm not sure what a leftist is. I consider myself socially very liberal and fiscally slightly more liberal than center. I believe in a free market, but one with appropriate regulations to protect the free market from monopolies, monopsonies, and oligarchies, and laws to protect our public goods from abuse.

like us you are allowed to state your points
Except on Alan Caruba's blog. :P

My opinion is that you are here to debate because it amuses you.
I'm here for a couple of reasons. One, there is a lot of misconceptions and errors in a good proportion of the writing here, so I try to point that out where I see it. Two, there is very little to be gained by going to a more liberal blog and engaging with other liberals. I can better refine my ideas about politics and policy by talking to people with different ideas. If I don't expose myself to new and different points of view, I won't know if my own ideas can stand up to serious scrutiny, and I will never have the chance to expand my horizons.

Comment by Grant Davies on November 22, 2010 at 5:32pm

Yes you have made a strawman argument. But if you are correct that more than half the people in the country think he is a communist you lefties are either really lucky that they support him anyway or totally screwed because he will lose in a landslide if the public still thinks he's a commie (as you claim they think) in 2012.
The idea that the old GM sold it's assets to the "Reborn GM" absent government coersion is absurd. One would have to be even more gullible than most lefties to swallow that fairy tale.
As for what I think, I don't care what people call him. I know by his own words (and actions) that he believes in wealth redistribution. You can label that as you wish.
He has directed that the government own certain companies. As I explained before, that is the definition of socialism. He wants single payer government health insurance, that is socialism. He supports government ownership of the biggest retirement fund in history, Social Security. He supports medicare and medicaid which are government totally owned health insurers. Republicans share the same imbecilic tendencies.

Now on to facism. The government does not have to be on any board of directors to have control of private companies. They merely make laws which forbid certain activites or products or mandate others. With each new regulation we become more facist than before and with each repeal of a regulation we become less fascist. (I can't remember the last one to be repealed but I'm sure you can find one in your little bag of tricks to quibble about.) The same is true of socialism. The more companies which have any government ownership the more socialist and with each divestiture less so. Can you understand the different aspects of goverment interferrence and why people label them?
Do you further understand that even loans from the government carry requirements (strings attached) which can exert government control?
Further I never said there was a cover up conspiracy, you set up another strawman. It is fairly close to a lie. I said people have been tricked. Next you might tell me politicains and public officials do not try to purposely trick people. The truth is almost everything they say is an attempt to trick people, it is when they slip up and tell the truth that they get in trouble. Obama sticks his foot in his trap everytime he doesn't have a prepared text and usually even then.
Now I must tell you, you have worn me down. Time spent trying to convince the unconvincable people is wasted time. Why not just admit to everyone on this board that you are a leftist, state your points, skip the endless debates and let it go at that? People will be convinced or not. Agree or disagree with your points. You have an uphill climb on this board in that regard, but like us you are allowed to state your points and let the opinions rest where they fall. My opinion is that you are here to debate because it amuses you. Have a ball.

Carry on, you may have the last post, I have made my points and people can make their own judgements on them.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on November 22, 2010 at 2:28pm

So, if someone wants to correctly characterize Obama, he can call him a Mussolini type fascist. I wouldn't call him that for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the emotions the term; however, the label fits better than communist.
Well, Phillip, I have to commend you for at least seeing part of the light. That you recognize Obama is not a communist indicates progress, and puts you in the more reasonable minority of likely voters.

The debate about fascism is somewhat interesting, but not really relevant to the topic of GM. The government has made strategic directives, such as replacing some of the Board of Directors, but this is par for the course for any large investor in a company. And this level of control is waning. The government is a minority share holder now, and can no longer dictate to the Board what to do. As I said before, I predict the government will fully divest by November, 2012, at which point it will have no control whatsoever, and any argument of fascism will fall apart completely.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on November 22, 2010 at 2:22pm

There is no "rebirth" of GM. The old company went OB and then the government stepped in and created a new company, which you now call GM.
This is really a semantic argument. The majority of the intellectual property and physical assets are owned by the new company. They sold Saab and maybe one or two other brands, but the new company is essentially the same as the old company. If I cut up an apple, and sell one slice to you and all the other slices to "Bob", does Bob now have my apple? Maybe, maybe not. If it makes you feel better, I'll call it "New GM," even though that's not it's name.

The government made sure the old company sold most of it's assets to the new company they created. Pretty damn conveinient I'd say.
Well, that's kind of the point of Chapter 11. Sell the assets so you can pay your creditors.

ALL of them were tricked and thought the old company and the new company were the same one
Are you saying that the Obama Administration intentionally hid facts from the public about the process? You don't think that people have a tendency to gloss over the details of complicated financial transactions? The American public is notoriously bad at understanding the details behind major news events. While some of that blame can probably be laid at the feet of the media, I don't think you can blame GM (new or old) or the government of a cover-up conspiracy in this case. Well, you can blame them, but you'd have a very thin argument.

YOU pretend Obama was widely painted as a commie, then you knock down the strawman.

Several members of the Freedom Pub have routinely labeled Obama and his Administration as communist, socialist and/or Marxist.

At a Tea Party rally attended by Palin, Victoria Jackson of Saturday Night Live fame called Obama "a communist dictator he's taking us to hell."

Google:
Obama communist - 4.3 million hits
Obama Socialist - 4.5 million
tea party obama communist - 1.35 million
tea party obama socialist - 2.34 million
I think it's clear that a significant portion of people think Obama is a socialist or communist. More than half of likely voters, in fact.

Do you still think I made a strawman? Do you think Obama is not a socialist or communist?

Comment by Phillip Jerome Chesser on November 22, 2010 at 2:02pm

Marcotte, who likes to accuse commentors of constructing straw men, builds a good one about Obama being a failed Marxist. What about a "successful fascist"? Communists believe in government control of everything. No private property. Given power they would nationalize everything. Fascists, on the other hand, leave the means of production in private hands but dictate their every move. There is no free market even though industry is in private hands. So, if someone wants to correctly characterize Obama, he can call him a Mussolini type fascist. I wouldn't call him that for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the emotions the term; however, the label fits better than communist.

Comment by Grant Davies on November 22, 2010 at 1:45pm

There is no "rebirth" of GM. The old company went OB and then the government stepped in and created a new company, which you now call GM. Government Motors would have been more descriptive, but we can call it Rebrith Motors if you want. As long as the people on the street who do not follow business dealings much less government dealings aren't tricked into thinking that the government "saved" anything. They did not. The government made sure the old company sold most of it's assets to the new company they created. Pretty damn conveinient I'd say. And as to my point? See above attempted trickery. I have talked to many "people on the street" about their perceptions of what happened and ALL of them were tricked and thought the old company and the new company were the same one and the heros at the federal government "saved" GM. So I do all I can to set them straight about what actually happened.
As to communism, your device is an old one. It's called a straw man argument. YOU pretend Obama was widely painted as a commie, then you knock down the strawman. The truth is much different. Only a few on the outer fringes referred to him that way and of course the loony leftists have been trying to pretend it was widely thought that.
Socialism is a better description. (When government owns the means of production as in the GM scandal.)
The definition I use for the proper role of government in a FREE society is the one that the founders looked to, not the hugely expanded role you adopted. Which of course is the European model most American leftists bow down before.
The actions of the government saved some UNION jobs, which was the whole point since they are, along with the useful idiots, the FOOs I referred to.
As to Bush, he and Obama are frighteningly alike. To the detriment of freedom loving people all over the world.
Good luck in your leftist apologies, you will need it as the world is finally catching on to the charade.

(BTW, if you are smart you might consider shorting GM as an investment, it couldn't be more dangerous than lending the old GM money by buying their bonds.)

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on November 22, 2010 at 1:13pm

BOND HOLDERS.
Well, like with any Chapter 11 proceeding, creditors will get paid back if there is any cash. "Old GM" (now Motors Liquidation Company) sold most of its assets to "New GM" (now GM - one of the assets was the brand), and they are using the cash from that sale to pay off its creditors. With an entity as large as GM, this process is usually complicated and slow, but it has progressed quickly in this case, with $150 billion of out of $275 billion in claims already settled.

The stuff you refer to is the NEW company. The OLD company is basically out of business. Recent share price = 19 cents.
Yes. What is your point? Mine is that the rebirth of GM shows that one, Obama is not Communist bent on the nationalization of the auto industry that he was painted as, and two, the actions of the government in this case saved tens of thousands of jobs at GM, tens or hundreds of thousands more at related suppliers, and prevented a further depressing of the manufacturing economies in Michigan and elsewhere. As the Economist said, it was a success.

Bondholders should have been paid out of whatever was gathered by selling all the assets like plants, equipment and the like.
Perhaps you should research it. The MLC sold it's assets to GM and is paying out what creditors it can.

The proper role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not to own companies and reward bad/incompetant behavior at the expense of the citizens and the competition.
Well, I suppose we have slightly different opinions on the proper role of government, which is fine. In my view, the government should take what steps it can to foster a productive economic environment. The nature of a government make it uniquely suited to this role. Of course, it must be very careful in executing these duties, which is why we have regular elections to keep politicians in check. And I agree that the government should not be in the business of owning companies (with notable exceptions, such as police, fire, military, etc.).

In this case, the failure of GM (and Chrysler) posed a dire threat to the health of the US economy as a whole. Like the banks that Bush bailed out, GM was "too big to fail." If you don't believe me, read the Economist article I linked to in the original post:

The state should step in only when a firm’s collapse poses a systemic risk. Propping up the financial system in 2008 clearly qualified. Saving GM was a harder call, but, with the benefit of hindsight, the right one.

Comment by Grant Davies on November 22, 2010 at 12:20pm

As for the perils of the free market system, anyone who held GM shares should have lost all their money and Bondholders should have been paid out of whatever was gathered by selling all the assets like plants, equipment and the like. Other companies who ran their businesses prudently would have benefitted, just as it should be.
The proper role of government in a free society is to defend rights, not to own companies and reward bad/incompetant behavior at the expense of the citizens and the competition. Same goes for all companies.

Comment by Grant Davies on November 22, 2010 at 12:13pm

A careful rereading of my comment would reveal that I referred to BOND HOLDERS. People who lent money to GM got screwed except for some of the FOOs. "If you lent them money by buying bonds you lost all your money. Unless of course you were a FOO (friend of Obama) like a union, in which case special arrangements were made for you."You can go research the details for yourself.
The stuff you refer to is the NEW company. The OLD company is basically out of business. Recent share price = 19 cents.

Comment by Marcotte Anderson on November 22, 2010 at 12:01pm

If you owned the actual GM stock for decades your shares are now worth about 19 cents. If you lent them money by buying bonds you lost all your money.
Well, those are the perils of capitalism. If you invest in a company that fails, you lose your money.

Unless of course you were a FOO (friend of Obama) like a union, in which case special arrangements were made for you.
Special arrangements? Like what?
The UAW gave up:

• $20 billion in cash owed to health care trust fund, reducing retiree's health coverage.
• Job protections were reduced.
• GM cut labor force by one third (20,000 jobs). This comes after GM cutting 40,000 jobs prior to bankruptcy.

Several local unions ended up taking severe hits.

• Reduced pay.
• Elimination of performance bonuses
• One paid holiday in 2010 and 2011.
• Suspended tuition assistance and dental and prescription drug coverage
• Additionally, wage freezes and $3/hr wage cut.
• This is after GM supplier Delphi (who entered bankruptcy in 2009) cut wages from $28/hr to $16.50/hr

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page