Tulsi Gabbard Finds A Acorn

[pknopp]

Agree. This is why it's scary seeing Republicans and conservatives flocking to her. She SEEMS appealing, but when you dig into her beliefs, she's should get ZERO support from conservatives or libertarians

She was against the lies that were created to make an excuse for our stupidity in invading other countries. Everyone should support her.

 

[Rigby5]

did I say it didnt happen??

I said your reason is wrong,,

What reason?
The point is that if a company makes one mistake, it may be better to bail them out instead of the waste of the whole company going under and disappearing forever.
And there is nothing wrong with government investment or regulation of private enterprise, in order to reduce the instability.

 

[Rigby5]

Agree. This is why it's scary seeing Republicans and conservatives flocking to her. She SEEMS appealing, but when you dig into her beliefs, she's should get ZERO support from conservatives or libertarians

Wrong.
Bernie is winning in one of the single most conservative states in the country.
Conservatives and libertarians are who should be supporting Bernie.
He is about the only politician pushing for balanced budgets and not having needless wars.

 

[progressive hunter]

What reason?
The point is that if a company makes one mistake, it may be better to bail them out instead of the waste of the whole company going under and disappearing forever.
And there is nothing wrong with government investment or regulation of private enterprise, in order to reduce the instability.

its never good for the fed gov to bailout anyone or any company,,

if they were allowed to standard bankrupt process they could reorganize and continue on or go under and someone else would take their place,,

 

[Likkmee]

Horseshit. She's a socialist.

In the military all that time ?
I must agree

 

[BluesLegend]

Hillary’s calling tens of millions of Americans deplorables was divisive & disgusting. But Biden has gone further, calling those who disagree with his actions & policies domestic enemies, traitors, and racists. Biden promised to unite us, but he is doing all he can do divide us.

Blind squirrel and all that.

Like Hillary, Biden is a big fat liar of the first order.

 

[Rigby5]

its never good for the fed gov to bailout anyone or any company,,

if they were allowed to standard bankrupt process they could reorganize and continue on or go under and someone else would take their place,,

Wrong.
The standard bankruptcy process does not allow for reorganizing, but instead just divides assets between creditors.
That is short sighted.
If the company just made a mistake and could still be viable, then it makes more sense to delay the finality, pay off the creditors, and allow the employees to bankroll the recovery.
If someone else tries to "take their place", you have to fire everyone, abandon the tools and building, etc.
Ford can't gain anything from Chrysler or GM going under, except to sell more cars to desperate buyers who would have preferred a Chrysler or GM.
Ford is not going to use the plants, tools, supplies, or workers.
It would be a huge waste.

 

[Rigby5]

so,, whats your point??

business's go under everyday,,

Business going under that are not viable is one thing, but if a business simply made a single mistake, then it is a totally waste of money, materials, and lives, to not bail them out temporarily.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong.
The standard bankruptcy process does not allow for reorganizing, but instead just divides assets between creditors.
That is short sighted.
If the company just made a mistake and could still be viable, then it makes more sense to delay the finality, pay off the creditors, and allow the employees to bankroll the recovery.
If someone else tries to "take their place", you have to fire everyone, abandon the tools and building, etc.
Ford can't gain anything from Chrysler or GM going under, except to sell more cars to desperate buyers who would have preferred a Chrysler or GM.
Ford is not going to use the plants, tools, supplies, or workers.
It would be a huge waste.

you got it wrong again,,

many companies file I think its chapter 11

case filed under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is frequently referred to as a "reorganization" bankruptcy. Usually, the debtor remains “in possession,” has the powers and duties of a trustee, may continue to operate its business, and may, with court approval, borrow new money. A plan of reorganization is proposed, creditors whose rights are affected may vote on the plan, and the plan may be confirmed by the court if it gets the required votes and satisfies certain legal requirements.

Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics

Background A case filed under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is frequently referred to as a "reorganization" bankruptcy. Usually, the debtor remains “in possession,” has the powers and duties of a trustee, may continue to operate its business, and may, with court approval...

www.uscourts.gov

 

[Rigby5]

you got it wrong again,,

many companies file I think its chapter 11

case filed under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is frequently referred to as a "reorganization" bankruptcy. Usually, the debtor remains “in possession,” has the powers and duties of a trustee, may continue to operate its business, and may, with court approval, borrow new money. A plan of reorganization is proposed, creditors whose rights are affected may vote on the plan, and the plan may be confirmed by the court if it gets the required votes and satisfies certain legal requirements.

Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy Basics

Background A case filed under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code is frequently referred to as a "reorganization" bankruptcy. Usually, the debtor remains “in possession,” has the powers and duties of a trustee, may continue to operate its business, and may, with court approval...

www.uscourts.gov

No, it is YOU who once again got it wrong.
Chapter 11 and chapter 13 are socialist bankruptcy avoidance options.
There is no liquidation.
Their whole point is to give the creditor more time, in order to prevent bankruptcy.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it is YOU who once again got it wrong.
Chapter 11 and chapter 13 are socialist bankruptcy avoidance options.
There is no liquidation.
Their whole point is to give the creditor more time, in order to prevent bankruptcy.

you mean time to reorganize and possibly save the company???
that what I said and you said didnt exist,,

how is it socialist when the government doesnt take control of the company??

what is socialist is the government bailing them out and taking control of what they can do like with GM

 

[Rigby5]

you mean time to reorganize and possibly save the company???
that what I said and you said didn't exist,,

how is it socialist when the government doesnt take control of the company??

what is socialist is the government bailing them out and taking control of what they can do like with GM

Chapter 11 and chapter 13 are socialist and not at all capitalist, with the creditors being restricted from taking actions that would totally destroy the company.
It is socialism because socialism NEVER involves taking control of a private company.
That has absolutely no similarity to socialism at all, and only happens when a colony nationalizes the colonial holdings of an imperialist company.
It was socialism when the government bailed out GM and forced them to improve their methodology, but that was totally temporary.
And the feds sold the last of the GM stock in 2013, so no longer ownes any of it.

{...
U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010.

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout.

That $1.5 billion didn't go directly to GM, but was spent largely on its behalf.
...}

Government sells last of its GM shares

Exits stake in company taken as part of $49.5 billion bailout and bankruptcy restructuring.

www.usatoday.com

 

[progressive hunter]

Chapter 11 and chapter 13 are socialist and not at all capitalist, with the creditors being restricted from taking actions that would totally destroy the company.
It is socialism because socialism NEVER involves taking control of a private company.
That has absolutely no similarity to socialism at all, and only happens when a colony nationalizes the colonial holdings of an imperialist company.
It was socialism when the government bailed out GM and forced them to improve their methodology, but that was totally temporary.
And the feds sold the last of the GM stock in 2013, so no longer ownes any of it.

{...
U.S. taxpayers no longer own any of automaker General Motors. The Treasury sold the last of its remaining 31.1 million GM shares today. It started with 500 million shares in 2010.

The taxpayer loss on the GM bailout is $10.5 billion. The Treasury department said it recovered $39 billion from selling its GM stake, and had put $49.5 billion of taxpayer money directly into the GM bailout.

The total bailout rises to $51 billion, including another $1.5 billion that Treasury put into programs to keep GM suppliers afloat and to make sure owners' warranties were honored, plus some into the old GMAC finance company that's now known as Ally — separate from a much larger Ally bailout.

That $1.5 billion didn't go directly to GM, but was spent largely on its behalf.
...}

Government sells last of its GM shares

Exits stake in company taken as part of $49.5 billion bailout and bankruptcy restructuring.

www.usatoday.com

what you said but the opposite,,

 

[Rigby5]

what you said but the opposite,,

The problem is you have no clue at all what socialism is.
Socialism is where instead of a wealthy person forcing everyone to do what the wealthy person wants, there are regulations to prevent abuse, danger, fraud, corruption, etc.
Capitalism is best characterized by the monarchies and feudalism we had for thousands of years.
Socialism is best characterized by the employee owned companies like the Chicago Northwestern RR.
It is now known as CNW and doing very well.
Socialism is about local democratic representation in the decision making and regulations over work conditions.
Socialism does not mean or even allow for large central governments taking over or starting corporations.
That is anti-socialism, and is actually state capitalism of the wealthy elite who control the federal government.

 

[progressive hunter]

The problem is you have no clue at all what socialism is.
Socialism is where instead of a wealthy person forcing everyone to do what the wealthy person wants, there are regulations to prevent abuse, danger, fraud, corruption, etc.
Capitalism is best characterized by the monarchies and feudalism we had for thousands of years.
Socialism is best characterized by the employee owned companies like the Chicago Northwestern RR.
It is now known as CNW and doing very well.
Socialism is about local democratic representation in the decision making and regulations over work conditions.
Socialism does not mean or even allow for large central governments taking over or starting corporations.
That is anti-socialism, and is actually state capitalism of the wealthy elite who control the federal government.

I cant help but notice you didnt use a dictionary for your definition,,

 

[Rigby5]

I cant help but notice you didnt use a dictionary for your definition,,

Socialism does NOT mean a central dictatorship or government owned means of production at all.
Socialism just means protections of individuals from abuses by those wealthy who control capital.
Socialism requires a democratic republic and regulations to prevent abuses.
You want a dictionary definition, here it is:

{...
socialism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   ...}
   
   

 

[progressive hunter]

Socialism does NOT mean a central dictatorship or government owned means of production at all.
Socialism just means protections of individuals from abuses by those wealthy who control capital.
Socialism requires a democratic republic and regulations to prevent abuses.
You want a dictionary definition, here it is:

{...
socialism
[ˈsōSHəˌlizəm]

NOUN

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
   ...}
   
   

I would think there would be an apology with this beings how this proved your earlier claim false,,

 

[Rigby5]

I would think there would be an apology with this beings how this proved your earlier claim false,,

The meaning of "Regulated by the community as a whole" means laws against monopolies, union busting, child labor, unsafe work conditions, etc.
So nothing I ever said was wrong.
Public means of production are only ONE way to prevent abusive entrepreneurs.
That is all Marx could think of back in the early 1800s, but since then, we discovered all we need is labor laws, unions, and a federal income tax.

 

[progressive hunter]

The meaning of "Regulated by the community as a whole" means laws against monopolies, union busting, child labor, unsafe work conditions, etc.
So nothing I ever said was wrong.
Public means of production are only ONE way to prevent abusive entrepreneurs.
That is all Marx could think of back in the early 1800s, but since then, we discovered all we need is labor laws, unions, and a federal income tax.

none of that has anything to do with what I said,,

 

[Rigby5]

none of that has anything to do with what I said,,

What earlier claims?
I remember saying the post office, public schools, etc. were socialism.
What are you referring to?
At one time you said socialism means the federal government has to own all the means of production, and that is not true.
All you need to do is regulate private ownership of the means of production so that it does not become abusive, and local is more socialist than federal.