Documentary on Detroit Public Schools.. OMG IT IS LITERALLY A NIGHTMARE.

Back Bacon Sandwich wrote:

i want your country back wrote:

DiscoGary,

So why did Ford, GM, and Chrylser open and operate so many factories in Canada during the decline of Detroit?

Canada's taxes are higher, union representation is higher, and would be considered by many to be very liberal.

Could there be other factors involved aside from "liberal = bad" "whatever DiscoGary believe = good?"

Because of the Auto Pact.

And business cycles. Because we have such a thing as 'national policies', different countries will be at different phases of the business cycles at different times with different industries. And corporations will just keep hopping around every few, 10, 15 years or so to the 'next great' business climate. Sort of like the flavor of the month.

Car companies were also mismanaged.

Blame CEOs and boards .... I'd say they have a teeny bit more influence than city counsel members.

I'd also venture to guess those CEO and boards weren't liberals.

Thoughts?

Just wanted to remind everyone that this thread is still here

DiscoGary wrote:

tuffluv wrote:

I'm starting to think you didn't read AS if this is what you think.

Let's see. Socialist policies which sap the wealth of productive businesses and drive out the productive people who built it all, leading to empty factories and abandoned run-down towns where hopeless people live in poverty wondering what happened. As far as I know, no one left behind a magic motor, but everything else is pretty close to what happened in Detroit.

If you think she was trying to say something else, then give your interpretation of Starnesville and 20th Century Motors.

While I no the argument is popular amongst the anti-government crowd, to say (and believe) that the economic woes suffered by the Big 3 are in step with those predicted by Rand's 20th Century Motors company is patently false. Educate yourself on what led to their fallout. Hint: it wasn't unions, and it wasn't high tax rates in Detroit causing the creators and innovators to pack up and leave.

And while 20th Century did fail due to pure socialist policies, that is not what is in place in the US, Detroit, or anywhere involved in the conversation. We are not paying people based on their need. What exists in Detroit is no closer in policy to Starnesville than it is to Galt's Gulch.

*know

The auto companies and their unions are very close to the 20th Century Motors model. The unions drive up wages to the point where it is more profitable to shut down the factory, move to another location, and replace the workers with robots. They hand out unsustainable pensions much like Soc Sec. They pay thousands of people to sit around for extended periods of time doing nothing:

... all because they need the money of course. But don't worry. The money will always be there because management will figure out some way to make it work. Right? According to Socialists, rewarding the needy at the expense of the productive is the highest moral code. The economic engine can pull limitless numbers of freeloaders without slowing down. Right? That was the message in Atlas Shrugged and that's what happened in Detroit. It's still happening today. They are plowing under their neighborhoods and returning to open fields. Their economy is devolving. Liberalism killed their society. Their lights are literally going out, and they still don't get it.

Pwned1 wrote:

Subtly literal wrote:

No offense, but "Google"? Seriously?

Sorry, but there is no universe in which 'literally' can reasonably mean 'not literally'.

Wait, I know - you could care less, right?

Yah what would the top search engine in the world know? It's okay to admit you're wrong. So where were you educated?

Top search engine in the world? OK, now I know you are only trolling.

Late breaking news for you, bud - search engines are pretty good for...wait for it...searching.

Look, I know that you are only a troll but you might as well be a better educated one. So here's a step in the right direction for you:

"Meaning" requires both the object (possibly a word) to which meaning is assigned and the person who is assigning the meaning. So, of course anything can mean whatever someone decides it means. "Grapefruit" can certainly mean "standing on one's head watching Brady Bunch reruns". But it certainly doesn't mean that to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

So sure, "literally" can mean "not literally" to you and perhaps even a few other ignoramuses. But it certainly doesn't mean that to anyone with even a modicum of intelligence.

Anyway, you got a response so I'll have to concede you 1/10. Well done.

When you get laid off from a job due to factors beyond your control do you smile and thank God for capitalism, or if your tongue too busy licking the boots of your bosses?

As I said before your response, you need to do your research as unions are not what cause the failure of the Big 3. Germany has an auto union. Labor costs are a mere fraction, around 1/10th, of what the actual costs are. To say that "the unions drive up wages to the point where it is more profitable to shut down the factory, move to another location, and replace the workers with robots" is simply not true.

The Jobs Bank doesn't exist anymore, and gives MORE support to my argument that the Big 3 failed because it mismanaged it's product line. When fuel prices are rising and you simultaneously are skewing your production towards low efficiency vehicles, there is going to come a time that demand for those products drops out and you have factories with workers that have no more SUVs to make.

Lastly, how many times do people have to point out to you that we aren't a socialist country, that paying people based on their need is not what is happening here, and that we aren't advocating for an ever-expanding base of freeloaders? You do understand that there is a spectrum of government support between "no assistance" and "the state owns everything and ever person is paid the same", right? We would agree that welfare reform is necessary, but your painting the inaccurate picture that liberals just want to hand out goodies to solidify a voting base that keeps voting for more goodies is NOT HELPING SOLVE ANYTHING.

tuffluv wrote:

...

Lastly, how many times do people have to point out to you that we aren't a socialist country, that paying people based on their need is not what is happening here, and that we aren't advocating for an ever-expanding base of freeloaders? You do understand that there is a spectrum of government support between "no assistance" and "the state owns everything and ever person is paid the same", right? We would agree that welfare reform is necessary, but your painting the inaccurate picture that liberals just want to hand out goodies to solidify a voting base that keeps voting for more goodies is NOT HELPING SOLVE ANYTHING.

We are most definitely a socialist country, and lawless one as well.

Our base of freeloaders is expanding at an alarming rate:

Number of people on food stamps when Obama took office: ~33 million

Number on food stamps now: ~47 million

The labor force participation rate has dropped from 65.7% to 62.6%.

Social Security and Medicare are purely socialist policies, Ponzi schemes actually.

ObamaCare is designed to destroy the private health care industry so that everyone is forced to turn to government run health care.

Under Obama, the Federal government took over the student loan program and now, without any market force to check the growth of College costs, the annual fees have grown to confiscatory levels where few degrees can justify the cost. This is pure socialism, designed precisely to make students dependent on government handouts to get into college, and then to beg for leniency when they can't pay back the loans after graduation.

Crony capitalism is putting the government in charge of picking which companies succeed, and which fail.

Liberals ARE handing out goodies to create a majority of voters who depend on them, and use the power of the government to crush anyone who challenges their monopoly on power... and as they do it, the economy strains under the weight. Growth is very slow. People are giving up, even as the appearance of prosperity continues. Just like in Atlas Shrugged.

The problem is always the same:

The moment you allow government to give away money to buy votes, you're society is doomed to fail.

The solution is always the same:

Limit your government to protecting the individual's rights to

life,

liberty,

and property.

Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Anything more is an abuse of power.

If that sounds radical then take it up with the founding fathers, because that just happens to be the law of the land as codified in the Constitution.

You want a solution?

Make the Federal Government obey it's own damn laws!

No.

Ayn Rand is always right.

You are a liberal so you must be wrong.

Government controls everything that happens.

The people running those companies were as smart as Ayn Rand.

The Constituon is one sentence long do that is why I repeat it.

Don't make fun of me... you only do it cause you are so dumb and can't argue with my superior logic. I am the smartest person here. Also, the black kids got what they deserved.

Dude, you're hilarious! Keep it up!

DiscoGary wrote:

Liberals ARE handing out goodies to create a majority of voters who depend on them, and use the power of the government to crush anyone who challenges their monopoly on power... and as they do it, the economy strains under the weight. Growth is very slow. People are giving up, even as the appearance of prosperity continues. Just like in Atlas Shrugged.

Do you really think "liberals" have a monopoly on power? You can actually look at the makeup of government from the local level right on up to the highest levels of the federal government and say, with a straight face and absolute confidence, that liberals have absolute power that cannot be challenged or limited?

If your answer is yes, then I will stop reading your posts, as you clearly live in a fantasy world divorced from reality.

#blacks

Disco Gayry wrote:

No.

Ayn Rand is always right.

You are a liberal so you must be wrong.

Government controls everything that happens.

The people running those companies were as smart as Ayn Rand.

The Constituon is one sentence long do that is why I repeat it.

Don't make fun of me... you only do it cause you are so dumb and can't argue with my superior logic. I am the smartest person here. Also, the black kids got what they deserved.

No one should scoff at this kind of post or disregard it as a throw-away troll.

This kind of thinking dominates college campuses, our main stream media, and the halls of power. It really goes no deeper than what you see here.

If someone challenges the liberal orthodoxy effectively, then they are demonized, mocked, and destroyed. They keep doing this so that decent people will not get enough political momentum to throw them out of power.

All of this is much simpler than it appears. The problem is simple, the solution is simple, and the tactics used by liberals to keep their power are simple to understand, but hard to overcome.

L ets

R acially

C ollude

Where you racism is welcomed with lit crosses and bleached hoods

DiscoGary wrote:

The solution is always the same:

Limit your government to protecting the individual's rights to

life,

liberty,

and property.

Anything less is a dereliction of duty.

Anything more is an abuse of power.

If that sounds radical then take it up with the founding fathers, because that just happens to be the law of the land as codified in the Constitution.

You want a solution?

Make the Federal Government obey it's own damn laws!

Ah yes, Gary's favorite platitude. I must admit it sounds better than most.

Time and time again, Gary cannot actually apply any of his "ideology" to specific scenarios. I can link these later today if Gary refutes this.

Ultimately, Gary always reverts to his "well the SCOTUS is just a bunch of hacks!" and can't explain how to apply the Constitution beyond repeating the text and leaving it at that. Well, that is if he doesn't disappear completely after saying "well I think we've kicked this horse to death" mid-debate.

He gets so sensitive when people point out that his analyses are almost always superficial. He claims they are destroying the messenger, when in reality they are tired of listening to pompous talking points painting liberals as villains.

At least he is consistent.

Excellent argument!

Add to list of the inexplicable under the Obama reign: BP fouls the Gulf of Mexico and it's an irrecoverable disaster because of Bush but when his EPA fouls the Animas River in CO, it's "nothing to see here folks, move along. It will flush itself out."

DiscoGary wrote:

All of this is much simpler than it appears. The problem is simple, the solution is simple, and the tactics used by liberals to keep their power are simple to understand, but hard to overcome.

Give me a break.

It's clear you've never worked in government or policy.

It is never simple and anybody saying otherwise shouldn't be taken seriously.