How's your fascism today?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by duovamp

Obama ran on the platform of rebuilding America's government into something more active. His campaign was about the government stepping up to help people. And people wanted this, quite clearly. The only people using the socialist/fascist tag are the same people who called him a socialist during his campaign- uninformed, extremist, fringe idiots.

Wait, so you're saving what he's doing isn't "socialism?" How far off the deep end are you?

[Trotskilicious]

srsly

[Trotskilicious]

by the way goldman sachs, aig and freddy and fannie were all during the bush administration

it's amazing to me how obama gets blamed for stuff that happened at the tail end of bush's administration

[Nimrod's Son]

I'm certainly not claiming the Bush wasn't a big government socialist in a lot of regards

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Wait, so you're saving what he's doing isn't "socialism?" How far off the deep end are you?

Oh here we go. So when the United States first implemented a welfare system, did the US become a socialist nation? Was that socialism? I mean are you going to tell me that any one single socially-motivated legislation means a country is a socialist country or that its leader is a socialist and thus it is socialism? I mean where do you draw the line here in all this? You seem to just desperately want to slap the socialism label on everything you can because you think people care about that kind of nonsense. Is a democratic republic a socialist state? Are you completely mad?

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'm certainly not claiming the Bush wasn't a big government socialist in a lot of regards

Here you are again, you take one single action and slap the socialism label on it. You clearly aren't taking the whole into account in the least. There's a line between something becoming more socialist and actually being socialist. Being center-left instead of center-right isn't socialism. You seem to not be able to understand the difference between welfare capitalism and socialism at all. Would you say the sum of George W. Bush's actions in office is socialism?

[Nimrod's Son]

REPORT: Obama administration slashes Chrysler ad budget by 50%

REPORT: Obama administration slashes Chrysler ad budget by 50%

by Chris Shunk on May 12th 2009 at 10:27AM


Chrysler is nearly two weeks into its bankruptcy, and the Auburn Hills, Michigan-based automaker is already getting an idea of just how engaged the Obama administration plans to be in the process. Chrysler planned to spend $134 million dollars on advertising during its supposed nine weeks of bankruptcy, but the Auto Task Force has reportedly cut the figure in half. Judge Arthur Gonzalez wasn't even sure 50% spending was necessary, saying "idle plants, why market?" But the Task Force apparently says it recognizes that marketing is necessary during the bankruptcy to prevent the further erosion of the already battered Chrysler brand image.

Chrysler Marketing and Sales Vice President Steven Landry defended the decision to spend on advertising during the bankruptcy saying that the move "gives us the opportunity to reinforce that it's business as usual and demonstrate a bright future ahead for Chrysler." One commenter on Advertising Age took "business as usual" as a bad thing, as that mentality lead to "cars no one wanted to buy, zero innovation, outdated labor practices and a lot of taxpayer money thrown in to keep a sinking ship from going under."

Auto research site Edmunds.com told AdAge that the campaign appeared to be working for the first five days, saying interest on its consumer auto search site jumped by 15%. Interest in Chrysler vehicles dropped back to pre-bankruptcy levels after that, though. One dealer told AdAge that the only added interest appears to be from would-be buyers trying to "low ball" to see if dealers will take next to nothing just to liquify assets.

Chrysler's ad campaign during Chapter 11 consists of two corporate branding spots that touts Chrysler's wares and explains the Fiat situation. The other three spots are product ads for the Jeep Grand Cherokee, Dodge Grand Caravan, and Chrysler Town & Country.

[Source: Advertising Age]

[Trotskilicious]

are you really still bumping this totally embarrassing thread

[Nimrod's Son]

embarrassing to you because you want to argue ridiculous semantics of whether it's socialism or fascism (when in fact, it's both) in regards to labeling it and ignore what's actually happening.

yet another example of your attempt to "win"

[Kahlo]

Don't let facts get in the way Nimrod, they mean nothing.

[Nimrod's Son]

Yes, let's all ignore that the government is taking over private businesses and dictating firings and advertising budgets

[ryan patrick]

my fascism got up to like 95 today and the wind was killer when i went biking.

looks like my fascism is going to be 92 again tomorrow.

[Nimrod's Son]

I'm amazed that nobody gives a shit about any of this.

[redbreegull]

I'm just going to go ahead and say that I hope Obama turns the whole fucking government socialist.

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

Yes, let's all ignore that the government is taking over private businesses and dictating firings and advertising budgets

To me this is like... if my neighbor comes to me asking for $2,000 because he's massively in debt, and I give it to him, and the next day he's pulling into his driveway with a new boat hitched to his car, I'm kind of pissed.

I admit I'm only half-paying attention to this whole situation, so, explain to me what I'm getting wrong here. Didn't Chrysler ask for money so they can restructure/revamp/whatever? Is it fascism that when the government gives them the money, they get a say in how it gets spent?

[Trotskilicious]

YES TOPLEYBIRD YES

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I'm amazed that nobody gives a shit about any of this.

we're not knee jerk reactionaries like you are

i just got 70 points. have i won the internets yet?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by topleybird

To me this is like... if my neighbor comes to me asking for $2,000 because he's massively in debt, and I give it to him, and the next day he's pulling into his driveway with a new boat hitched to his car, I'm kind of pissed.

I admit I'm only half-paying attention to this whole situation, so, explain to me what I'm getting wrong here. Didn't Chrysler ask for money so they can restructure/revamp/whatever? Is it fascism that when the government gives them the money, they get a say in how it gets spent?

It's not a good analogy though, because it's not like they're out buying boats... they want to advertise to drives sales. People were pissed about the bonuses that Congress approved they should pay and the companies were contractually obligated to pay.

What does advertising have to do with any of this? This is more like getting a car loan and then the lending company telling you what radio stations you can listen to and whether or not you can buy new rims or which passengers are allowed in. Spending on advertising is an effort to make money, money that can be used to pay back the loans.

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

What does advertising have to do with any of this? This is more like getting a car loan and then the lending company telling you what radio stations you can listen to and whether or not you can buy new rims or which passengers are allowed in. Spending on advertising is an effort to make money, money that can be used to pay back the loans.

Let me re-ask my question: Is it fascism when a company asks for money to rebuild their business, and the government gives it to them with the stipulation that they'll be ensuring the company uses the money well enough to actually rebuild?

You quoted me, so I assume you were trying to address what I said, but I'm not interested in arguing about whether the government is making good business decisions within this arrangement, or whether the specific terms of the agreement are dumb. My question is simply whether the arrangement is fascism.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by topleybird

Let me re-ask my question: Is it fascism when a company asks for money to rebuild their business, and the government gives it to them with the stipulation that they'll be ensuring the company uses the money well enough to actually rebuild?

Is it "fascism" directly, no, but it's certainly becoming national corporatism, which is one of the backbones of fascism.

Originally Posted by topleybird

You quoted me, so I assume you were trying to address what I said, but I'm not interested in arguing about whether the government is making good business decisions within this arrangement, or whether the specific terms of the agreement are dumb. My question is simply whether the arrangement is fascism.

I am not debating whether or not the government is forcing good business decisions either.. my problem is that the government is forcing business decisions on private businesses.

[topleybird]

Okay, it sounds like you just disagree with the bailouts in general, yes? Not necessarily the specific terms of the agreement, but just the idea of the government giving a failed business a huge chunk of money?

I apologize for turning this into the "help topleybird understand what Nimrod is getting at" thread.

Anyway, I think I see what you're saying but it seems like there's a slippery slope element to it. I guess I'll start to share your concerns if the government actively takes over an industry that is not struggling and is not asking for gubmint money. Although I will share a hearty LOL with anyone who, like me, got all excited about electing a guy who ran on themes like hope and change, when it turns out he actually tricked us all into making him emperor. You got us good, Obama, you rascal! Please don't separate my family into different death camps!

[Trotskilicious]

I wonder if topleybird is trying to win at the internets

[topleybird]

Uh, not to blow your mind or anything, but:



What if topleybird already won the internets?

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

I wonder if topleybird is trying to win at the internets

No, he's trying to have a discussion, not just bite at minutia and ignore everything else in order to attack