The sobering effects of socialism....

[MonsterMark]

These people look for help from the very people that harm them. It's so sad what the media, our education system, and government intrusion has done to America.

Enable a government to make it next to impossible to run a profitable business and compete against worldwide producers and you wind up with people sitting at home with no hope for their future but a pittance of a government handout; a few crumbs from the table.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501870.html

A Hundred Anxious Days
In a South Carolina Town Where the Downturn Has Deepened Since the Inauguration, Two Obama Supporters Have Struggled, Going From 'Fired Up' to Tired Out

 

[MonsterMark]

Stark Difference....

 

[BigBalledOX]

I know your mind's already made up so I shouldn't confuse with facts, but here you go sweetie!

 

[Calabrio]

I know your mind's already made up so I shouldn't confuse with facts, but here you go sweetie!

What was your point?

Findings of this study show that the lowest- and middle-income households overall and those with children had lower total effective Federal tax rates during the Clinton administration than during the Reagan and G.H. Bush administrations. Concomitantly, the top one percent and highest income quintile households overall, those with children, and those headed by an elderly person age 65 or older without children had higher total effective Federal tax rates during the Clinton administration. Nearly every category of household type and income level measured in this study had more after-Federal-tax income during the Clinton administration than either the Reagan or G.H. Bush administrations. The study also found that the shares of after-Federal-tax income were equitable across the three presidential administrations for the lowest-income quintile households with children, while the share of after-Federal-tax income for middle-income quintile households with children actually declined during the Clinton administration. The study concludes by noting that where it counts most for individuals and families, namely in the amount of after-tax money available to households, there were no differences by presidential administration during the post-Reagan era among low-income households and where differences were found for middle-income households, they were opposite what more liberal or less centrist-left Democrats would have hoped for..

You do remember the bubble economy during the 90s, don't you?
And the small recession that started in 2000?

But, I'll ask again, what was the point you were trying to make? Are you defending socialism? Or just attempting to ney-say anything in a blind attempt to defend Obama's name? It's a mystery.

 

[fossten]

I know your mind's already made up so I shouldn't confuse with facts, but here you go sweetie!

Ditto to you, sweetie.

 

[luxuryrules]

The sobering effects of socialism.

Since Obama has taken office, I have:

Fewer taxes.
Increased job security.
Slightly increased cost of fuel (will see how long the depressed prices last).
Witnessed more b**ching and whining from the Right than all the liberal kids on my college campus when Bush got reelected.
Seen an alarming increase in our deficit.
Seen a token measure to get it back under control (probably not going to work).

As you can see, some good, some bad, some irrelevant. What I have NOT seen is any measure of socialism turn up in my life. At all. Even a hint of it. I still work for performance-based pay, the difference is that now I take home more of it. By and large, the picture of desperation that the Right is painting is a product of their collective imaginations and fear run amock.

 

[shagdrum]

What I have NOT seen is any measure of socialism turn up in my life. At all. Even a hint of it. I still work for performance-based pay, the difference is that now I take home more of it. By and large, the picture of desperation that the Right is painting is a product of their collective imaginations and fear run amock.

I doubt you would know what to look for when it comes to socialism. All these policies that increase the deficit and expand government power are based in the ideology of egalitarianism which dominated modern liberalism. Egalitarianism is basically a more updated version of socialism/fascism that is not near as ambitious or as well thought out. Countries that strongly ascribe to Egalitarianism in some form call themselves socialist democracies. That is where the conclusion of these policies being socialistic come from; the ideological basis of those policies. If you are expecting USSR style socialism when you hear claims of socialism then you are looking for the wrong thing. Here are a couple quotes to consider, the first one is in my signature:

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.
-Norman Thomas; six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they wake up one day to find that they have Communism
-Nikita Kruschev​

As for "lower taxes", wait until the inflation hits; that is what is known as a "hidden tax" that especially hits the lower and middle classes and it is going to be massive; on the scale of the 1970's & early 1980's, if not worse. Also, if they get the cap and trade thing passed, that will be another massive tax. Have you not considered how they are going to pay for all this spending? Printing money doesn't pay for it, and neither does borrowing money. One way or another it has to be paid back.

 

[luxuryrules]

Ah, that's right. I forgot that we are going down the Slippery Slope of Socialism. Run for the hills! Socialism is coming.... eventually.... maybe...

I agree, inflation will hit. I'd just as soon pay my previous level of taxes and have our previous level of deficit spending, but what's happened has happened and neither of us will change that now. The difference between you and me is that I understand that.

 

[shagdrum]

Ah, that's right. I forgot that we are going down the Slippery Slope of Socialism. Run for the hills! Socialism is coming.... eventually.... maybe...

I am not making a slippery slope argument. If you would lose the arrogance and condescension you would see that. But you are more concerned with being derisive. From the link you provided:

The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A lead to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done — an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.​

The argument being made is not that Obama is going to make us a socialist nation, it is that he is enacting socialist policies that move us toward the socialist democracies of Europe. Each program that he has passed or is proposing can (and has been) logically and factually established as being based in egalitarian (modern socialist) philosophy.

 

[luxuryrules]

Huh, so it's acceptable for you to shoot down an argument based on a Wikipedia link to a fallacy, but then you turn around and attempt to discredit it when used against you. I'll bite.

So now you're adding qualifiers to calling Obama a socialist? So I understand you perfectly here, you don't think Obama is socialist, just that some of his policies could move us in that direction, yes? For the purposes of this discussion, I want to make clear that we are on the same page (since I was evidently mistaken in thinking that you accused Obama of being a socialist - of course that never happens here in this forum!).

OK, I'll buy that. Now, since you think each of these contingencies has been factually established exempts the socialism argument from being a slippery slope fallacy, would you be so kind as to spell out exactly what steps to which you are referring? Let's stick with those which have already taken place.

Just a reminder for those concerned about losing our civil liberties. Read about the awesome stuff we can still do.

 

[shagdrum]

Huh, so it's acceptable for you to shoot down an argument based on a Wikipedia link to a fallacy, but then you turn around and attempt to discredit it when used against you.

No, it is acceptable to reject an argument if it is truly fallacious. If you are simply claiming it is fallacious and it doesn't check out as fallacious (which is what you did) that is another matter entirely. I include those links for a reason. Anyone can go read up on the type of fallacy I am claiming their argument is and dispute it. No one has yet to take me up on that.

So now you're adding qualifiers to calling Obama a socialist? So I understand you perfectly here, you don't think Obama is socialist, just that some of his policies could move us in that direction, yes?

Obama is a very extreme ideological egalitarian. Egalitarianism is based on a number of the same precepts as socialism and fascism; basically it is a more modernized, less ambitious and idealistic version of socialism.

All policy stems, ultimately, from ideology. the policies Obama is promoting are based in that egalitarianism/socialism. That alone would qualify them as socialist policies.

That egalitarianism is what dominates Europe and makes them socialist democracies. In the same, modern sense that those countries are socialist, so is Obama.

OK, I'll buy that. Now, since you think each of these contingencies has been factually established exempts the socialism argument from being a slippery slope fallacy, would you be so kind as to spell out exactly what steps to which you are referring? Let's stick with those which have already taken place.

I will spell some of the steps out in a minute, but you are mischaracterizing the argument. It is not that Obama is going to make us a socialist nation, like the USSR, China, etc. He is working to enact policies that are more in line with the more modern "socialist democracies" in Europe. In that view of socialism, he is moving us in that direction.

And you have got to understand that egalitarianism is an ideal (hence ideology). That ideal is what guides their policies and politics. Every policy they propose moves the country further toward that ideal. The problem with ideologies is that they tend to be unrealistic and put their version of ideal (utopian vision) above reality and common sense.

Some of the polices are...

• social security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• food stamps
• SCHIP
• the welfare state
• "progressive" taxation
• policies to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
• Cap and Trade
• Universal Healthcare
• More government control and influence in the finance system and the economy in general through TARP
• "Speech codes" on college campuses
• Appointment of activist judges in the courts to enforce and further egalitarian ideals.

Some policies aimed at acquiring and cement political power to be able to enact and maintain stronger legislation promoting egalitarian ideals...

• Amnesty
• Again, attempts to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
• federal funding of thug groups like ACORN
• most of the "bailout" bill (liberal political payoffs, increasing of funding in liberal pet projects/groups, adding things to the budget that will later need to be picked up by the states and force more expections on the government in general and dependance on the Federal government, etc)

All these policies/actions move us toward the egalitarian ideal and/or help acquire and cement political power and/or social influence to further those ideals. The policies listed may have other stated purposes as well, but they all serve the egalitarian ideal in one way or another. These lists are also by no means exhaustive. I am sure that Calabrio, fossten, MonsterMark and others can add to them.

 

[luxuryrules]

I will spell some of the steps out in a minute, but you are mischaracterizing the argument. It is not that Obama is going to make us a socialist nation, like the USSR, China, etc. He is working to enact policies that are more in line with the more modern "socialist democracies" in Europe. In that view of socialism, he is moving us in that direction.

And you have got to understand that egalitarianism is an ideal (hence ideology). That ideal is what guides their policies and politics. Every policy they propose moves the country further toward that ideal. The problem with ideologies is that they tend to be unrealistic and put their version of ideal (utopian vision) above reality and common sense.

Some of the polices are...

• social security
• Medicare
• Medicaid
• food stamps
• SCHIP
• the welfare state
• "progressive" taxation
• policies to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
• Cap and Trade
• Universal Healthcare
• More government control and influence in the finance system and the economy in general through TARP
• "Speech codes" on college campuses
• Appointment of activist judges in the courts to enforce and further egalitarian ideals.

Some policies aimed at acquiring and cement political power to be able to enact and maintain stronger legislation promoting egalitarian ideals...

• Amnesty
• Again, attempts to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
• federal funding of thug groups like ACORN
• most of the "bailout" bill (liberal political payoffs, increasing of funding in liberal pet projects/groups, adding things to the budget that will later need to be picked up by the states and force more expections on the government in general and dependance on the Federal government, etc)

All these policies/actions move us toward the egalitarian ideal and/or help acquire and cement political power and/or social influence to further those ideals. The policies listed may have other stated purposes as well, but they all serve the egalitarian ideal in one way or another. These lists are also by no means exhaustive. I am sure that Calabrio, fossten, MonsterMark and others can add to them.

In actuality, I'm not mischaractarizing the argument, I'm misunderstanding it. There is a difference, and this isn't the first time you fail to make that distinction. You routinely accuse people of mischaractarizing arguments in an attempt to discredit them or make them come across as malicious.

But see, you explain it and now I understand

Now regarding some of the policies listed, I have:
[*]social security
[*]Medicare
[*]Medicaid
[*]food stamps
[*]SCHIP
[*]the welfare state
These were already in place before Obama came. And yes, I hate them too. All of them.

[*]"progressive" taxation
I fail to see the issue? Taxing the rich at a higher rate? I disagree with the execution, but as a matter of principle I take no issue with this.

[*]policies to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
It was only a matter of time before these policies came about.

[*]Cap and Trade
Ok, won't argue with this one.

[*]Universal Healthcare
Hasn't happened yet. Bet my next paycheck it doesn't. If it does, yes, socialistic, but we'll see if it happens.

[*]More government control and influence in the finance system and the economy in general through TARP
And TARP was initiated by the outgoing Bush administration. Does that make him a Socialist? All we're doing is asking for control over where our money is going. As far as I'm concerned, that is just. Just as I get a vote in the companies of which I am a shareholder, the government should too. Of course, that's not to say I agree with what the Fed is doing...

[*] "Speech codes" on college campuses
This is largely a state & locality matter. Some of the college campuses up my way have had these for a long time. By and large, they are ignored. Just as the new ones will be.

[*]Appointment of activist judges in the courts to enforce and further egalitarian ideals.
Wow, appointing judges who have similar political views as him? What an earth shattering revelation. You expect Obama to appoint conservative judges?

Not that I'm cynical, I just see no reason to be alarmed. Seems that the S word started getting thrown around and everybody freaks that we're going to turn into Europe. Ok, yes, I'm cynical

 

[shagdrum]

In actuality, I'm not mischaractarizing the argument, I'm misunderstanding it. There is a difference, and this isn't the first time you fail to make that distinction. You routinely accuse people of mischaractarizing arguments in an attempt to discredit them or make them come across as malicious.

You attitude suggested that either you thought you understood it and didn't were trying to speciously dismiss it through characterizing it, or that you didn't care if you understood it but were looking to dismiss it through characterizing it. Either way, your attitude suggested that you were more interested in dismissing it and/or countering it then in first making sure you understand it.

Now regarding some of the policies listed, I have:
[*]social security
[*]Medicare
[*]Medicaid
[*]food stamps
[*]SCHIP
[*]the welfare state
These were already in place before Obama came. And yes, I hate them too. All of them.

yep, and they all stem from egalitarian ideological views. Obama is representative of the more extreme end of the modern liberal ideology. Those policies stem from it.

[*]"progressive" taxation
I fail to see the issue? Taxing the rich at a higher rate? I disagree with the execution, but as a matter of principle I take no issue with this.

Redistribution of resources in the name of equality is a core egalitarian tenet.

[*]policies to "reduce" anthropogenic global warming
It was only a matter of time before these policies came about.

Doesn't mean that they are not based in egalitarianism. It attempts to more equally distribute things again.

[*]Universal Healthcare
Hasn't happened yet. Bet my next paycheck it doesn't. If it does, yes, socialistic, but we'll see if it happens.

It is more likely then you think...

[*]More government control and influence in the finance system and the economy in general through TARP
And TARP was initiated by the outgoing Bush administration. Does that make him a Socialist? All we're doing is asking for control over where our money is going. As far as I'm concerned, that is just. Just as I get a vote in the companies of which I am a shareholder, the government should too. Of course, that's not to say I agree with what the Fed is doing...

While I think Bush was, frankly, duped, I never said he was not responsible for this one. And there were some very real practical concerns leading into this. But that doesn't mean that the policy doesn't have an ideological basis in egalitarianism. The idea that the government can fix the mess and needs to take over to make things better is reflective of core egalitarian views.

[*] "Speech codes" on college campuses
This is largely a state & locality matter. Some of the college campuses up my way have had these for a long time. By and large, they are ignored. Just as the new ones will be.

Doesn't have to be a federal policy. Those speech codes work to stifle any criticism of the egalitarian orthodoxy that is rampant on campuses today. This leads to indoctrination of students and, in the long term, liberal voters that help cement political power for egalitarian ends.

[*]Appointment of activist judges in the courts to enforce and further egalitarian ideals.
Wow, appointing judges who have similar political views as him? What an earth shattering revelation. You expect Obama to appoint conservative judges?

I would hope that Obama would appoint judges interested in upholding the constitution. Liberals, since at least FDR, have traditionally appointed judges that are more interested in being activists in service of their ideology then in upholding the constitution. FDR was probably the worst abuser of that in regards to the SCOTUS.

I never said that this was confined to Obama, you seem to be making that assumption. The roots of this run much deeper and farther into our history. You could arguably trace it back to President Wilson. Obama is just the latest (and most radical) example.

 

[luxuryrules]

You attitude suggested that either you thought you understood it and didn't were trying to speciously dismiss it through characterizing it, or that you didn't care if you understood it but were looking to dismiss it through characterizing it. Either way, your attitude suggested that you were more interested in dismissing it and/or countering it then in first making sure you understand it.

Say what? Now you're making assumptions based on my attitude. I never said I didn't want to understand it, and you will take note that I specifically asked you above for clarification in the interest of understanding it...

yep, and they all stem from egalitarian ideological views. Obama is representative of the more extreme end of the modern liberal ideology. Those policies stem from it.

Redistribution of resources in the name of equality is a core egalitarian tenet.

Doesn't mean that they are not based in egalitarianism. It attempts to more equally distribute things again.

Green initiatives are an effort to conserve natural resources and keep pollution from destroying the planet. Whether they are effective or not, or even necessary or not, is certainly debatable, but I am interested in knowing how they further the cause of equal distribution?

It is more likely then you think...

While I think Bush was, frankly, duped, I never said he was not responsible for this one. And there were some very real practical concerns leading into this. But that doesn't mean that the policy doesn't have an ideological basis in egalitarianism. The idea that the government can fix the mess and needs to take over to make things better is reflective of core egalitarian views.



Doesn't have to be a federal policy. Those speech codes work to stifle any criticism of the egalitarian orthodoxy that is rampant on campuses today. This leads to indoctrination of students and, in the long term, liberal voters that help cement political power for egalitarian ends.

I would hope that Obama would appoint judges interested in upholding the constitution. Liberals, since at least FDR, have traditionally appointed judges that are more interested in being activists in service of their ideology then in upholding the constitution. FDR was probably the worst abuser of that in regards to the SCOTUS.

I never said that this was confined to Obama, you seem to be making that assumption. The roots of this run much deeper and farther into our history. You could arguably trace it back to President Wilson. Obama is just the latest (and most radical) example.

I'm making the assumption that this is confined to Obama because this thread is about Obama's first 100 days in office. When a thread called "the sobering effects of socialism" is pointed to an article about Obama's first 100 days, it would certainly appear to the casual observer that you guys are attempting to link Obama to Socialism. Now I press you for details and you do some backpedaling - it's not entirely Obama, he's not really socialist, just modern egalitarianist, and so forth.

So let's simplify this discussion. Is Obama going to lead us to socialism? What policies has he enacted that are socialistic in nature?

 

[Calabrio]

So let's simplify this discussion. Is Obama going to lead us to socialism? What policies has he enacted that are socialistic in nature?

I'm going to give you the answer in a paragraph. First, I'd ask you to do a little research and understand Obama's influences and associations through his life. Growing up, in college, and afterwards. You can tell a lot about a person by the people they chose to surround themselves with and are influenced by.

Within the past 100 days, the administration has nationalized the banking industry. They have nationalized the auto industry. They are waiting until they have a filibuster proof majority before they nationalize health care. The new tax policy has eliminated many of the deductions associated with charity which will dramatically limit the amount high value donors can or will provide, shifting charity into the realm of government. After auto, finance, and medicine, how many other major industries are there in the country?

Again, it's only been 100 days.

 

[fossten]

Say what? Now you're making assumptions based on my attitude. I never said I didn't want to understand it, and you will take note that I specifically asked you above for clarification in the interest of understanding it...

Green initiatives are an effort to conserve natural resources and keep pollution from destroying the planet. Whether they are effective or not, or even necessary or not, is certainly debatable, but I am interested in knowing how they further the cause of equal distribution?


I'm making the assumption that this is confined to Obama because this thread is about Obama's first 100 days in office. When a thread called "the sobering effects of socialism" is pointed to an article about Obama's first 100 days, it would certainly appear to the casual observer that you guys are attempting to link Obama to Socialism. Now I press you for details and you do some backpedaling - it's not entirely Obama, he's not really socialist, just modern egalitarianist, and so forth.

So let's simplify this discussion. Is Obama going to lead us to socialism? What policies has he enacted that are socialistic in nature?

Yet another person who needs to read Atlas Shrugged.

 

[Mick Jagger]

We're a socialist nation founded on socialist principles. We have a socialist economic system. That's why we're increasing the deficit and expanding government power.

He is enacting socialist policies

Duh!. We're a socialist nation, dude. Socialist nations adopt socialist policies.

PS: We've been adopting socialist polices since the 1870's. Socialist policies are what makes this such a great nation.

There are dim witted people who can see only black and white. They see anything short of unbridled laissez faire capitalism as a step toward communism. They go by the name of right wing nut jobbers.

Nut jobbers are wholly incapable of understanding that while corporations and combinations are indispensable in the business world, and that it would be folly to try to prohibit them, it would also be folly to leave them without thoroughgoing control.

 

[Calabrio]

Which founding father was socialist?
Where was socialism discussed in the federalist or anti-federalist paper?
That was a ridiculous comment.

But thanks for agreeing that Obama is taking us in that kind of big-government direction that most of us oppose.

Now, stop doing your unique mix of spamming and trolling.
If you're going to make this argument, do it and defend it- don't just keep repeating it over and over in threads that have been closed for about five months.
If you're just searching for threads with the word "socialism" in them to repeat your little mantra, I'm just going to start deleting your posts.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Which founding father was socialist?

All of them, if you use the word the way the right wing nut jobbers use it.

Where was socialism discussed in the federalist or anti-federalist paper?

Where was laissez faire capitalism ever proposed or advocated.

That was a ridiculous comment.

The founders gave our great socialist government broad power to provide for the welfare of the United States and regulate commerce.

But thanks for agreeing that Obama is taking us in that kind of big-government direction that most of us oppose.

Americans love big government, dude. That's why we have one.

the administration has nationalized the banking industry.

You lie worse than a commie, dude.

They have nationalized the auto industry.

Show us some evidence that Ford is owned by the government.

They are waiting until they have a filibuster proof majority before they nationalize health care.

I thought their goal was to ensure that every American had access to quality affordable health care. However, if the VA Health Center in Dallas is an example of what would happen if we went for socialized medicine, I would be all for it, because I get great health care whenever I go there. Plus, I get to talk to elderly gentlemen who fought WWII.

 

[Calabrio]

All of them, if you use the word the way the right wing nut jobbers use it.

That's a bold, most would say ridiculous, claim.
I'll ask you to support that with some kind of historic example.
Many of those men wrote an awful lot, if you thought they were embraced socialist concepts, please support that claim and I'll respond.

Where was laissez faire capitalism ever proposed or advocated

For starters, have you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers?
The country was founded on principles of INDIVIDUAL freedom and LIMITED government. Centralized federal power was something they rejected.

That's why if you want a one pay health care system, do it in your own state or city- NOT nationally.

The founders gave our great socialist government broad power to provide for the welfare of the United States and regulate commerce.

Actually, the founders gave the federal government very LIMITED powers.

Americans love big government, dude. That's why we have one.

Some have grown accustomed to it and dependent upon it.
Some have made a lot of money off of it.
Some have acquired alot of power through big government.
But most of us haven't.

Will you be presenting an actual argument or supporting your statements any time soon, or just spamming your single unsupported point?

Show us some evidence that Ford is owned by the government

Ford isn't owned by the government.
GM and Chrylser are. Do you dispute that?

I thought their goal was to ensure that every American had access to quality affordable health care. However, if the VA Health Center in Dallas is an example of what would happen if we went for socialized medicine, I would be all for it, because I get great health care whenever I go there. Plus, I get to talk to elderly gentlemen who fought WWII.

And what if it's like the VA hospital in Dallas?

 

[Mick Jagger]

have you read the federalist and anti-federalist papers?

I've memorized them.

The country was founded on principles of INDIVIDUAL freedom and LIMITED government. Centralized federal power was something they rejected.

The Constitution is so ambiguous that it could be, and has been, reasonably interpreted to establish either limited or unlimited government, depending on which faction was in power. You're team prevailed initially. But eventually we kicked your ass, because eventually limited government was no match for big corporations. If you're going to have big corporations, you need a big government to keep them in line. That's a concept you and your kind, for some reason, find impossible to understand.

You and yours are good, valuable and loyal citizens of this great country and you do us a service constantly reminding us that government is like fire, and needs to be used with extreme care. I would urge you however to refrain from impugning the character and motives of those who merely hold views that are as reasonable as yours.

Keep in mind. We're in this boat together, dude. Sooner or later, we're going to need each other.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Actually, the founders gave the federal government very LIMITED powers.

Dude, even the founders themselves disagreed on that issue.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Some have grown accustomed to it and dependent upon it.
Some have made a lot of money off of it.
Some have acquired alot of power through big government.
But most of us haven't.

Will you be presenting an actual argument or supporting your statements any time soon, or just spamming your single unsupported point?

I'll just point to the scoreboard, dude. Americans love big government. That's why we have such a big government.

 

[Mick Jagger]

And what if it's like the VA hospital in Dallas?

The VA Hospital in Dallas is fantastic, dude. I know because lately, I've been getting most of my health care there.

 

[Mick Jagger]

Ford isn't owned by the government.
GM and Chrylser are. Do you dispute that?

Tell you what, sport. You just keep spewing your right wing crap about the government nationalizing the auto industry, and I keep explaining why the bailout was the right thing to do at the time. How does that sound?