[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 03:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

Indeed. While Mother Jones makes me cringe when they have yet another article about that imaginary "rape culture" [1], they have some really great analysis about income inequality. For example, here are some useful charts: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...two-charts

[1] I really wish Liberals would figure out that the way you stop "rape culture" is by having a "marriage culture". Men react to women's sexual preferences, and in a culture without strong marriage, where women have sex with multiple alphas and don't give betas the time of day, men are going to do everything they can to become an alpha.

We need a party that isn't identity politics and cultural marxism but at the same time addresses economic inequality matters. Unfortunately these liberals like to do shit like hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens and promote the lie that women make less than men for the same work.

I can't stand with the right because their economics just fucking suck. They only care about the wealthy and preserving their wealth. They don't give a shit how many people are struggling. If everyone was making $7 an hour at Walmart that is perfectly fine by them.

I wish we had a party that was pro-male, not politically correct and put people above profits.

Liberal economics only make everyone poor.

Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

[iknowexactly]

(09-13-2013 03:32 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

It takes real political courage to stand up to the interests of wealth and power. It happens rarely in history.
In ancient Athens, Solon was able to restructure society in order to provide some relief to debtors, the underclass, and the poor. By so doing, he was able to avert a revolution and perhaps years of civil war. FDR did the same thing in the US during the Depression.
The brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus tried to institute reforms in Rome and had just the opposite result: the powerful resisted reform, and the result was years of chaos and war.

+1 for providing historical background typically reserved for the rich haha.

The most brainwashed people are the most vocal, many know the government is for the rich but they have the least effect. The reactionary noise is like an echo chamber where people hear only the distractor words designed to keep their attention off THE MONEY--"liberal, conservative, feminist, rape-culture, misogyny, racism, class warfare ( although THAT one cuts dangerously close to the real issue) progressive, reactionary, Cathedral, Marxism...)

THEY'RE ALL RED HERRINGS to keep you chattering while you are used all your life, the profit secreted away-- and then you are discarded.

I am very sure it was all the same in Rome.

It's painful to repeat, but maybe "The only thing you can learn form history is that you can't learn anything from history."

[MikeCF]

^liberal Germany is doing OK.

[speakeasy]

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

Indeed. While Mother Jones makes me cringe when they have yet another article about that imaginary "rape culture" [1], they have some really great analysis about income inequality. For example, here are some useful charts: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...two-charts

[1] I really wish Liberals would figure out that the way you stop "rape culture" is by having a "marriage culture". Men react to women's sexual preferences, and in a culture without strong marriage, where women have sex with multiple alphas and don't give betas the time of day, men are going to do everything they can to become an alpha.

We need a party that isn't identity politics and cultural marxism but at the same time addresses economic inequality matters. Unfortunately these liberals like to do shit like hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens and promote the lie that women make less than men for the same work.

I can't stand with the right because their economics just fucking suck. They only care about the wealthy and preserving their wealth. They don't give a shit how many people are struggling. If everyone was making $7 an hour at Walmart that is perfectly fine by them.

I wish we had a party that was pro-male, not politically correct and put people above profits.

Liberal economics only make everyone poor.

Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

It's clear you are doing nothing but reciting right-wing talking points on auto-pilot. Do the social democratic countries of the EU seem poor to you?

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 03:47 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

^liberal Germany is doing OK.

Not really. It is doing better than the rest of Europe, but is on the same path of bankruptcy the USA is on.

Liberal economics simply cannot work. If the govt. wants to tax the rich, the rich will simply move and the govt. will get nothing. If the govt. wants to punish business, they will simply move or shut down.

You can't expect the govt. to make an even playing field. The only even playing field is getting the govt. out of the way so creative people can start their own business and make their own share of the world. Instead we have a govt. that passes more and more regulations and laws that kill off small businesses.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 03:49 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:37 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:23 PM)placer Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:08 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

What's changed is how wealth is being distributed. Look at how CEO pay has increased over time relative to employee wages.

The power elites have duped most of you into thinking that America is on the decline. America is great for the top 1%.

Indeed. While Mother Jones makes me cringe when they have yet another article about that imaginary "rape culture" [1], they have some really great analysis about income inequality. For example, here are some useful charts: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...two-charts

[1] I really wish Liberals would figure out that the way you stop "rape culture" is by having a "marriage culture". Men react to women's sexual preferences, and in a culture without strong marriage, where women have sex with multiple alphas and don't give betas the time of day, men are going to do everything they can to become an alpha.

We need a party that isn't identity politics and cultural marxism but at the same time addresses economic inequality matters. Unfortunately these liberals like to do shit like hand out driver's licenses to illegal aliens and promote the lie that women make less than men for the same work.

I can't stand with the right because their economics just fucking suck. They only care about the wealthy and preserving their wealth. They don't give a shit how many people are struggling. If everyone was making $7 an hour at Walmart that is perfectly fine by them.

I wish we had a party that was pro-male, not politically correct and put people above profits.

Liberal economics only make everyone poor.

Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

It's clear you are doing nothing but reciting right-wing talking points on auto-pilot. Do the social democratic countries of the EU seem poor to you?

Yes, they are very poor. And if they don't change their ways they will be 3rd world in a few generations. From the richest region of the world to one of the poorest all thanks to socialism.

It is why the USSR went belly up and why China gave up on it. The men running China are not idiots.

[speakeasy]

I don't have the patience for this shit today.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 03:51 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  



I don't have the patience for this shit today.

If you want women first socialism. A giant govt. that controls businesses and steals from hard working creative people to give to people that do bare minimum and calls this equality...

Then why not move to a country with this system already in place?

[iknowexactly]

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

...
Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

These are totilitarian regimes that are not liberal at all. They use communism as a buzzword distractor like America uses "free market" as a buzzword distractor, although they are demonstrably more brutal.

You need to study the Enlightenment, what the origins of humanism and natural rights and the social contract are.

You're just repeating the ruling class's distortion of what liberalism is.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 03:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

...
Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

These are totilitarian regimes that are not liberal at all. They use communism as a buzzword distractor like America uses "free market" as a buzzword distractor, although they are demonstrably more brutal.

You need to study the Enlightenment, what the origins of humanism and natural rights and the social contract are.

You're just repeating the ruling class's distortion of what liberalism is.

And they had socialist economies.

Or look at Europe. It is collapsing thanks to its liberal economy.

I have nothing against people having freedoms or rights. But asking the govt. to take more and more and then calling that "humanism" is incorrect.

Socialism will NEVER work. It cannot work. People do not create businesses and work 90 hour weeks to get ahead all so it can be stolen and given to people working 30 hours a week.

[Blackhawk]

(09-13-2013 01:38 PM)NYJ Wrote:  

Winning is pretty much saying that none major battles were fought on US soil. While Europe in comparison was ravaged. Much higher percentages of their population were wiped out.

The American Civil War had the highest causalities of all wars in American history and shelled and bombarded cities like Vicksberg for so long (40 days and nights) they're still digging up artillery shells. Sherman marched to the sea ravaging and burning everything in sight. If there ever was a case of the US being ravaged and a large percentage of the (male) US population being eliminated, this was it.

Yet after the Civil War came the Vogel Boom that lasted through the 1870s. Then a depression. Then the Golden Age of the 1890s. Then a depression. Then the roaring economy of the 1920s. Then a depression. Then the booming 1950s. Then the depression of the 1970s. Then the go-go 1990s. Then the depression that started with the housing bust of 2005.

Economic booms and busts are cyclical. And semi-predictable (Most people were expecting the next bust to start in 2012, not 2005). But if you were longer lived than the average human, say 5-10x longer in productive livespan, I'm sure you could get good at recognizing and playing these long-term cycles to your advantage.

[speakeasy]

(09-13-2013 03:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

...
Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

These are totilitarian regimes that are not liberal at all. They use communism as a buzzword distractor like America uses "free market" as a buzzword distractor, although they are demonstrably more brutal.

You need to study the Enlightenment, what the origins of humanism and natural rights and the social contract are.

You're just repeating the ruling class's distortion of what liberalism is.

He's just mindlessly regurgitating right-wing talking points. Don't even bother, you're wasting your time.



ps - I used to be on the economic right-wing myself in the distant past. I was big into talk radio and conservative thought. This guy can't tell me anything I haven't heard already or in my case, argued already. He'll either come to his senses one day or he won't.

[placer]

(09-13-2013 03:51 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  



I don't have the patience for this shit today.

One of the things I really like about RooshVforum is the fact we have a wide diversity of views and have relative civility despite discussing some pretty explosive topics.

One of the other things I really like is that I can ignore any user by clicking on their username (on the left) and then click on "add to ignore list". Killfiles are sometimes needed. I respect the right of people to say what they want to say, and I really appreciate the level of tolerance Roosh has with all of the political and religious opinions here, but I don't have to read someone's postings if I don't want to.

[Quintus Curtius]

(09-13-2013 03:46 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:32 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

It takes real political courage to stand up to the interests of wealth and power. It happens rarely in history.
In ancient Athens, Solon was able to restructure society in order to provide some relief to debtors, the underclass, and the poor. By so doing, he was able to avert a revolution and perhaps years of civil war. FDR did the same thing in the US during the Depression.
The brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus tried to institute reforms in Rome and had just the opposite result: the powerful resisted reform, and the result was years of chaos and war.

+1 for providing historical background typically reserved for the rich haha.

The most brainwashed people are the most vocal, many know the government is for the rich but they have the least effect. The reactionary noise is like an echo chamber where people hear only the distractor words designed to keep their attention off THE MONEY--"liberal, conservative, feminist, rape-culture, misogyny, racism, class warfare ( although THAT one cuts dangerously close to the real issue) progressive, reactionary, Cathedral, Marxism...)

THEY'RE ALL RED HERRINGS to keep you chattering while you are used all your life, the profit secreted away-- and then you are discarded.

I am very sure it was all the same in Rome.

It's painful to repeat, but maybe "The only thing you can learn form history is that you can't learn anything from history."

__________________

Thanks, man.
It's really depressing to see what's been going on. This country has so much potential, and yet our "leaders" choose to squander the wealth on foreign adventures, waste, abuse, and parties for the super rich.
I have to admit that I have a seething rage towards those people in Washington.
I feel like they've sold us out completely. They care only about lining their own pockets and enriching their families. Washington is full of nepotism and lobbyist corruption...
My job is to help people file for bankruptcy and I'm telling you that people are getting crushed by the system. And nobody cares.
The challenge is to find, like you said, ENLIGHTENED leadership. I believe in strong AND enlightened leaders. By enlightened, I mean a leader who is also a reformer. But is there anything so rare in history?
One of the main reasons Julius Caesar was assassinated was that he was a big, big reformer: he wanted to extend Roman citizenship to the provinces, he wanted to embark on a big public works programs, he wanted to take power away from the senatorial and equestrian classes and give it to the people, etc. Such leaders are dangerous to the rich. And that's why they conspired against him.
I don't know if we'll see enlightened leadership in our lifetime. It often happens by accident or when you least expect it.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 04:02 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:53 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 03:43 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

...
Look at Cuba, Vietnam, the former USSR and their bread lines, China gave up on liberal economics as it didn't work, or get a rat on a stick in North Korea.

Liberal economics simply do not work. It is anti-nature and anti-competition. That can never compete against any country willing to allow competition and new ideas/business.

These are totilitarian regimes that are not liberal at all. They use communism as a buzzword distractor like America uses "free market" as a buzzword distractor, although they are demonstrably more brutal.

You need to study the Enlightenment, what the origins of humanism and natural rights and the social contract are.

You're just repeating the ruling class's distortion of what liberalism is.

He's just mindlessly regurgitating right-wing talking points. Don't even bother, you're wasting your time.



ps - I used to be on the economic right-wing myself in the distant past. I was big into talk radio and conservative thought. This guy can't tell me anything I haven't heard already or in my case, argued already. He'll either come to his senses one day or he won't.

Not at all.

If socialism had worked any where in this world, then I would change my mind.

It has not, and it simply will not.

Why would a business owner work 90 hour weeks to start a business and hire other people if they cannot keep their profits? Why not move some place that will allow them to do so?

[OkStudies]

(09-13-2013 07:24 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Move and start your own company then. Except with the burdensome federal govt. and their regulations it is nearly impossible to do today. Thanks Obamacare.

No it's not impossible to do it. Thousands of companies and small businesses start up every day in the US.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 04:19 PM)OkStudies Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 07:24 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 05:45 AM)placer Wrote:  

Sure, we won World War II. We also had strong unions, a higher top tax rate for the very very rich (over 90%), and strong protections from out-of-control greed (such as the Glass-Steagall act) which are not in place today.

Here's a thought: We won the war in Iraq. Where's the prosperity from winning that war?

Here's another thought: France has a lot less income inequality than the US. I don't think that's because of the spoils of all those French military victories I keep hearing about. ;>

I'm probably a 1950s Republican (faith in God, supports strong unions, supports freedom, believes marriage is the core of a strong society, believes that government can make miracles like a man on the moon happen) with some, but not all, of the more modern tolerances (I support gay rights -- actually, I support all consensual sex between adults -- as well as racial equality). I just don't get why a lot of Republicans really think breaking up unions is going to bring us back to the prosperity we had in the 50s and 60s.

Because Unions prevent competition, aka the open market, and end up either running businesses into the ground (so not only are the union employees hurt, but so are the non-union employees) or end up needing govt. money (aka YOUR money, MY money, OUR money) so they can get paid 150% more than they are worth on the open market.

It isn't sustainable in today's global economy. It isn't the 1950's anymore.

No it's not impossible to do it. Thousands of companies and small businesses start up every day in the US.

True, not impossible, just becoming much tougher with more and more regulations. So now the employment activity rate is the lowest it has been since 1979, which is a terrible 63%.

And it is only getting worse, all the while we have the most liberal economic president in the history of the country. I'm certainly not a republican and I am not a conservative, but I do know liberal economics (socialism) can never work in reality. I work between 80 and 90 hours every week, and I do it because for now I am rewarded for it. If that were to disappear, I would jump on a govt. program and ride the backs of those who still have to work to put food on the table. I would be stupid not to do so.

[TheSlayer]

(09-13-2013 04:13 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Not at all.

If socialism had worked any where in this world, then I would change my mind.

It has not, and it simply will not.

Why would a business owner work 90 hour weeks to start a business and hire other people if they cannot keep their profits? Why not move some place that will allow them to do so?

I am not too keen on jumping into thread because threads like these don't end too well. Speakeasy and Mike, and other members are not talking about socialism when they talk about "liberal" economies. Nobody here wants to ask the business owner who works 90 hours to give away his profits.

My problem is with corporatocracy. Whether or not we like it we live in a corporatocracy where the elite 0.1% are controlling more wealth than they ever have in the past. Challenging the economics/policies that got us here doesn't mean we are talking about socialism.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 04:24 PM)TheSlayer Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 04:13 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Not at all.

If socialism had worked any where in this world, then I would change my mind.

It has not, and it simply will not.

Why would a business owner work 90 hour weeks to start a business and hire other people if they cannot keep their profits? Why not move some place that will allow them to do so?

I am not too keen on jumping into thread because threads like these don't end too well. Speakeasy and Mike, and other members are not talking about socialism when they talk about "liberal" economies. Nobody here wants to ask the business owner who works 90 hours to give away his profits.

My problem is with corporatocracy. Whether or not we like it we live in a corporatocracy where the elite 0.1% are controlling more wealth than they ever have in the past. Challenging the economics/policies that got us here doesn't mean we are talking about socialism.

If they are okay with you speaking for them, then that is a good argument.

The problem is, as the govt. grows larger they do more and more to give back to their donors and those who line their pockets. AKA the rich.

Obamacare doesn't hurt the rich. It hurts the middle class and it is destructive to small businesses and medium sized businesses. Over 60% of the country wants it repealed.

And it is still being force on us. Why? It makes the rich donors happy.

And that is just one of many many instances.

[placer]

(09-13-2013 04:09 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

My job is to help people file for bankruptcy and I'm telling you that people are getting crushed by the system. And nobody cares.

[...]

One of the main reasons Julius Caesar was assassinated was that he was a big, big reformer: he wanted to extend Roman citizenship to the provinces, he wanted to embark on a big public works programs, he wanted to take power away from the senatorial and equestrian classes and give it to the people, etc. Such leaders are dangerous to the rich. And that's why they conspired against him.

The thing that is so disappointing reading this thread is the people who buy hook, line, and sinker the right-wing talking points. The very wealthy spend a lot of money funding a vast media machine whose goal it is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's sad to see people so easily fooled.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 04:28 PM)placer Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 04:09 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

My job is to help people file for bankruptcy and I'm telling you that people are getting crushed by the system. And nobody cares.

[...]

One of the main reasons Julius Caesar was assassinated was that he was a big, big reformer: he wanted to extend Roman citizenship to the provinces, he wanted to embark on a big public works programs, he wanted to take power away from the senatorial and equestrian classes and give it to the people, etc. Such leaders are dangerous to the rich. And that's why they conspired against him.

The thing that is so sad reading this thread is the people who buy hook, line, and sinker the right-wing talking points. The very wealthy spend a lot of money funding a vast media machine whose goal it is to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's sad to see people so easily fooled.

You honestly think the Democrat party doesn't also try to help their rich friends?

Really? Really?

After the last 4 and 1/2 years of Obama making the rich richer you think it is only the Republicans who do this?

[WestCoast]

Always good to rehash freshman year of college political science class.

Solutions people, until the lower classes wake up and revolt nothing will happen. They didn't do so well with their 99%er march.

Solution? Get as much as you can today, if the brain dead zombies wake up to the inequality quit and join them.

These always end poorly because there are no solutions, get yours if you can. The world is incredibly unjust economically, there are a lot of idiots making a ton of money, you gotta find a way to scale up and be free yourself or pray the masses wake up. My money is that the average dude on here has a better shot investing in himself than awakening the masses.

[It_is_my_time]

(09-13-2013 04:35 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Always good to rehash freshman year of college political science class.

Solutions people, until the lower classes wake up and revolt nothing will happen. They didn't do so well with their 99%er march.

Solution? Get as much as you can today, if the brain dead zombies wake up to the inequality quit and join them.

These always end poorly because there are no solutions, get yours if you can. The world is incredibly unjust economically, there are a lot of idiots making a ton of money, you gotta find a way to scale up and be free yourself or pray the masses wake up. My money is that the average dude on here has a better shot investing in himself than awakening the masses.

As long as there is cheap/free food, cheap alcohol, and cheap cable TV, the masses will remain calm, sadly.

Though the anger shouldn't be at successful people for their success. It should be at them AND the govt. for passing laws/regulations preventing other people from having similar success, or at least making it far too difficult.

[Blackhawk]

The study was done on annual, taxed income, because that's what's easy to gather up statistics on --and what the IRS will release while trying to maintain privacy for individuals.

The study actually points out that income to the top 1% each year --those lucky lottery winners taking companies public or otherwise making a sudden financial change that takes work accumulated over often decades in advance and converts it into a sudden cash event --are lately seeing their percentage decreasing because of the economic depression we're in.

His study leaves out Rockefeller, Carnegie, and other historically figures that at one time really cornered the market on the US economy, because income taxes didn't exist in the US before 1913. So again, he sticks with what he can stick in an excel sheet: 1913-present day.

The problem with reported income tax based studies is there's lots of ways to make wealth that aren't income based, or are taxable. Steve Jobs took a taxable salary of $1 a year at Apple. Does that mean he was in the bottom 1% of all income earners? If you have a shitty professor doing crap math, yes, he is. How can this man get by on $1 a year, he must be very poor. Well yes, his company pays for a private chef for him, and his car, and there's all sorts of liability and lawsuit avoidance reasons to put assets into trusts instead of owning them under your own name ...I remain unconvinced that the studies that only look at income track the truly wealthy very well. Likewise rich retirees, they can be sitting on millions of dollars in property, stock, and assets that aren't recorded as income year after year and are never reported on a 1040 until sold --or better yet, only are shown as losses year after year as property taxes. And since the IRS scrambles the data points for privacy so you don't know who is who each year to prevent snoopers from trying to track individuals by income... sigh, really, there's hard limits to what kind of conclusions you can draw from the data the IRS provides.

[WestCoast]

Ha yeah man that's why I always cringe when I see guys talking about bailouts and finance and1%ers.

The government is such a fucking train wreck. Cunts at GM still have your tax dollars btw! Hope you enjoy driving those shitty American made cars! Don't worry the govt is good at making biz decisions and making laws/regulations "for the people"

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41978.pdf

"To date, the U.S. government has realized an $8.4 billion loss of on its investment in General Motors."

The us government is the worst financial institution on the planet, negative $8.4 billion can't let those American brands die now can we.

GM needs to get to $80 a share for government to break even (stock is @ 36 bones)... LOL