Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

Trustbusting or Too Big to Fail?

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:02:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have noticed a shift here.

At the beginning of the century progressives were all into "trustbusting" in which they busted up big business that was too big. Standard Oil and the Carnegie Steel empire were torn down because they were too big.

Now Obama and his supporters rabidly defend the auto and bank bailouts by saying those companies were "too big to fail" and that it saved millions of jobs.

Yet the Occupy protesters are protesting against Wallstreet and Obama continuously attacks the rich and demands Wallstreet "pays its fair share" etc.

So which is it? Are you for big business or against it? Are companies too big or too big to fail?

Show a little consistency would you?

I think it has something to do with the fact that the auto industry is run by militant liberal unions... but that's just me.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:04:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here's a debate on the issue:

http://www.debate.org...

I essentially choked on the debate and there's only one round of arguing. Nonetheless, there are some interesting points bluesteel makes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:06:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:04:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Here's a debate on the issue:

http://www.debate.org...

I essentially choked on the debate and there's only one round of arguing. Nonetheless, there are some interesting points bluesteel makes.

Yeah, I've read that debate before actually.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:13:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think you're framing this debate in a very silly way: not every liberal, or Occupy protester, or frankly any Tea Party member, has to be boxed into one opinion, and you can't just address them collectively and demand "consistency," not to mention demanding consistency through the decades.

After all, the original conservatives were anti-free trade, anti-capitalism, anti-corporations in a lot of respects. This was back in the 18th and 19th Centuries of course, but show a little consistency, would you?
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:15:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:02:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I have noticed a shift here.

At the beginning of the century progressives were all into "trustbusting" in which they busted up big business that was too big. Standard Oil and the Carnegie Steel empire were torn down because they were too big.

Now Obama and his supporters rabidly defend the auto and bank bailouts by saying those companies were "too big to fail" and that it saved millions of jobs.

Yet the Occupy protesters are protesting against Wallstreet and Obama continuously attacks the rich and demands Wallstreet "pays its fair share" etc.

So which is it? Are you for big business or against it? Are companies too big or too big to fail?

Show a little consistency would you?

I think it has something to do with the fact that the auto industry is run by militant liberal unions... but that's just me.
1) Yes Obama is such a hypocrite for breaking up standard and oil and then bailing out GM. Oh wait Obama wasn't even alive when Standard and oil was broken up.
2) Standard and oil was broken off into a bunch of smaller companies in order to eliminate a monopoly that only benefited the owners at the expense of the nation as a whole. The bailout of GM was done because it benefited the nation as a whole saving 1.4million job at a very small expense.
3) Liberals and Obama supported TARP because if there was no TARP GDP would be 5% less and 5million jobs would of been lost. They now want to make sure that the rich and the bankers who were bailed pay their fare share, however republicans like yourself are dead set against it. Not only that but republicans refuse to form the tax code in order to make it so millionaires pay the same rates as the middle class.
4) I realize you're ignorant and dont understand economics or history or logic.. but at least try to think
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:17:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:15:48 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:02:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I have noticed a shift here.

At the beginning of the century progressives were all into "trustbusting" in which they busted up big business that was too big. Standard Oil and the Carnegie Steel empire were torn down because they were too big.

Now Obama and his supporters rabidly defend the auto and bank bailouts by saying those companies were "too big to fail" and that it saved millions of jobs.

Yet the Occupy protesters are protesting against Wallstreet and Obama continuously attacks the rich and demands Wallstreet "pays its fair share" etc.

So which is it? Are you for big business or against it? Are companies too big or too big to fail?

Show a little consistency would you?

I think it has something to do with the fact that the auto industry is run by militant liberal unions... but that's just me.
1) Yes Obama is such a hypocrite for breaking up standard and oil and then bailing out GM. Oh wait Obama wasn't even alive when Standard and oil was broken up.
2) Standard and oil was broken off into a bunch of smaller companies in order to eliminate a monopoly that only benefited the owners at the expense of the nation as a whole. The bailout of GM was done because it benefited the nation as a whole saving 1.4million job at a very small expense.
3) Liberals and Obama supported TARP because if there was no TARP GDP would be 5% less and 5million jobs would of been lost. They now want to make sure that the rich and the bankers who were bailed pay their fare share, however republicans like yourself are dead set against it. Not only that but republicans refuse to form the tax code in order to make it so millionaires pay the same rates as the middle class.
4) I realize you're ignorant and dont understand economics or history or logic.. but at least try to think

I find it ironic that Starcraftzzz, who has shown himself to be incredibly ignorant on basic economics over and over again, accuses somebody else of not understanding economics.
President of DDO
Starcraftzzz
Posts: 487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 9:30:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/16/2012 9:17:12 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:15:48 PM, Starcraftzzz wrote:
At 2/16/2012 9:02:43 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I have noticed a shift here.

At the beginning of the century progressives were all into "trustbusting" in which they busted up big business that was too big. Standard Oil and the Carnegie Steel empire were torn down because they were too big.

Now Obama and his supporters rabidly defend the auto and bank bailouts by saying those companies were "too big to fail" and that it saved millions of jobs.

Yet the Occupy protesters are protesting against Wallstreet and Obama continuously attacks the rich and demands Wallstreet "pays its fair share" etc.

So which is it? Are you for big business or against it? Are companies too big or too big to fail?

Show a little consistency would you?

I think it has something to do with the fact that the auto industry is run by militant liberal unions... but that's just me.
1) Yes Obama is such a hypocrite for breaking up standard and oil and then bailing out GM. Oh wait Obama wasn't even alive when Standard and oil was broken up.
2) Standard and oil was broken off into a bunch of smaller companies in order to eliminate a monopoly that only benefited the owners at the expense of the nation as a whole. The bailout of GM was done because it benefited the nation as a whole saving 1.4million job at a very small expense.
3) Liberals and Obama supported TARP because if there was no TARP GDP would be 5% less and 5million jobs would of been lost. They now want to make sure that the rich and the bankers who were bailed pay their fare share, however republicans like yourself are dead set against it. Not only that but republicans refuse to form the tax code in order to make it so millionaires pay the same rates as the middle class.
4) I realize you're ignorant and dont understand economics or history or logic.. but at least try to think

I find it ironic that Starcraftzzz, who has shown himself to be incredibly ignorant on basic economics over and over again, accuses somebody else of not understanding economics.
You're the person who thinks saving 1.4million jobs is a bad thing. You're the person who when confronted with facts response with, "nope realities isn't true".
Notice how every time you make a post its as if nothing intelligent was typed
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2012 10:10:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The bank bailout happened under Bush. It's both sides.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes