As a result of the bail out, the Treasury Department still holds about 500 Million shares of GM. The Treasury is unwilling to sell the shares because it would result in a $15 Billion dollar loss to the tax payers. The government coerced tax our tax dollars to save a company rather than the consumer deciding whether that company's products were still competitive in the market. When the government restricts, prohibits, or otherwise mitigates the citizen's ability to actively participate in the market place, it is a loss of liberty.
The government gets to decide what it does with tax money, NO LOSS of LIBERTY there. There is absolutely no coercion there, I am guessing you misused the word? The company was managed poorly but still had products that citizen's wanted, so by keeping it alive they kept those choices in place for said people. If the company had gone under those choices would of been gone all together.
The GM bailout did not give the consumer more choice in the marketplace as several brands disappeared as a result of the bail out i.e.; Pontiac, Oldsmobile, Hummer, Saturn. As a result, I believe the argument of the bail out offering more choice to the consumer is completely false as there are four less GM brands available to the consumer.
If GM went belly up or even somehow survived bankruptcy there is no way they would of come out if it with those brands. They over diversified and it bit them in the ass. The bailout saved the other brands and kept those choices in the marketplace. No GM equals less choice and some of GM equals more.
Since there are four less vehicle brands in the market available to the consumer, and the reason those brands are no longer available is because of the bail out, the loss of liberty is the government intervening into businesses ultimately deciding which products the consumer can or can not buy. I really liked Pontiac, owned a few of them over the years. I lost liberty, the ability to choose the products I deemed best suited to my pursuit of happiness, because the bail out effectively removed the Pontiac brand from the market place.
Those vehicles are no longer available because of the bail out?!?!?!?! This is news to me I thought they were no longer available because NO ONE wanted them. Look at the profits of those brands, they were the reason GM was going under, the other brands were not able to cover for them. IMO Pontiac's were complete garbage, your the first person I've ever heard say that they liked them. This is coming from someone who worked at an auto part store for awhile while driving a pontiac lol. All I can say is that discount I got on parts ended up making that job pay a lot better than it should have.
No, you didn't, you responded with
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization...Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88
which has nothing to do with
enforcing immigration law. Without giving a background summary of the Arizona law and the subsequent rulings, the Obama Administration suing Arizona over enforcing State and Federal immigration law is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Chunky, come on man please read my whole post.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congressional power to regulate naturalization, from Article 1, Section 8, INCLUDES THE POWER TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION (see, for example, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, 426 U.S. 88 [1976]). It would not make sense to allow Congress to pass laws to determine how an immigrant becomes a naturalized resident if the Congress cannot determine how, or even if, that immigrant can come into the country in the first place. Just because the Constitution lacks the word immigration does not mean that it lacks the concept of immigration.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram