Asking for your help NS, Help me revise my paper on Obama and his seizure of GM.

TheBeardedOne

TheBeardedOne

Active member
I know this will turn into a flame fest but I posted in NSG so that this might get more views.

Feel free to flame and call me out all you want, but what I am really asking is that you give constructive criticism and advice.

I want to put in more quotes from the Federalist papers or from any founding father or drafter of the Constitution, so if you know any off the top of your head throw them out! It also has to stay under two pages and is almost exactly that length.

If anything, just give it a read for entertainment, whether you agree or not.

The Federalist Papers described a

government that was strong, but only strong enough to perform its duties

efficiently and adequately. Today, the Federal government is pushing the limits

of its conception. As a specific example, President Obama has recently ousted

the CEO of General Motors so that he may then put in place a plan to resurrect

the failing corporation. This is a step too far in a supposed fair trade

economy. The government is supposed to provide for the wellbeing of the people,

and although trying to revive an economic powerhouse, taking charge of a

non-government corporation is a step outside the Federal government’s bounds

according to what this country was founded on.

The United States’ auto industry is a

large part of the nation’s economy, if it fails, restructuring and rebuilding

the economy would be a difficult task. This is why President Obama has taken

action to “save” GM. Though this is supposedly with the best interest of the

people in mind, and with a bill Obama recently pushed and passed it is legal,

it may hurt stockholders and it is almost socialism. The drafters of the

constitution wanted the people to have the power. They envisioned a strong

central government that served the people, not a strong government that the people

serve.

As the Federal Government has seized

GM and laid out a new business plan for them, the Federal Government is

stepping too far into the boxing ring that is big industry. The power in a

company lies with its stockholders/investors, much like a perfect republican

democracy where the power lies with the people/taxpayers. Our people are all

for their government becoming strong and being able to provide for them

anything they might need. However, to quote Gerald Ford would be appropriate; "A

government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big

enough to take from you everything you have.”

The majority of the people might view

what Obama and the Federal Government are doing is patriotic and for the good

of the country, but this is just another example of a step towards socialism

and a step away from democracy. The Founding Fathers and the Drafters of the

Constitution did not envision a central government with this type of power. It

is a threat to the stability and safety of the Peoples’ nation whereas it is another building block for the Federal Government’s nation and their

ever-expanding circles of power.

Thanks for reading if you did, and I'm not trying to start a political bitching war so lets not go there.

Cheers, Alex.
 
Okay I forgot to add that this is for my Political Science class and I have to relate a recent event in politics and government to material covered in class, the text, and the Federalist Papers. In case you're wondering that is...
 
Good paper over all. But I would watch the use of "socialist". Alot of Liberals find it offensive and argue for ever about its definition.
 
fyi, your most socialist politicians in the U.S. are less socialist than our entire system here in Canada (and no, Canadians are not commies)

 
I dont think Obama "seized" GM, he simply put pressure on the CEO to resign after failling his first plan

Also, there is no proof in any claim. Its like reading a junior high paper, put in numbers. Prove all claims and source them in references. Avoid any news coverage, third sources are often opinions of partial information.

So yeah....
 
I understand this, and I revised the two times I mentioned socialism. I fully understand that the US is nowhere near socialism at this point in time. I am only acknowledging the fact that some of the things Obama has been doing have socialist tendencies and may lead the US even further in the wrong direction.
 
okay cool. i just find it kind of funny that some would rather see GM piss the taxpayers money away on vacation houses.
 
I do too, either direction GM goes won't be for the better of the economy or people or even for that matter the country. By what I said in my paper I don't necessarily mean GM should continue fucking up and wasting everyone's money, it's just the concept of government having too much power in the business world and the private affairs of the people. It may not seem that bad but it really does go against what the US was founded on and that is what I am trying to get across.
 
well boo hoo , someone is offended....

'Ill send you a pm. theres a few problems with the essay. you dont take it far enough

if you look into the papers of the agreement with GM, what obama did violates their contract.
 
How am I offended? I am conservative and usually agree with everything you post (you are even on my friends list)

Im saying that liberals get in a hissy fit if they hear someone say that obama is socialist, which leads to a never ending debate.
 
Instead of saying stuff like, "Its almost socialism..." and then ending your sentence, be like it IS socialism, and this is why socialism is bad. Also, I think you should change "fair trade" to "free market" Say stuff like, "the market can't support GM anymore" and there's nothing government can do to fix that. Probably should put in a bit about how the Autoworkers union pays their workers too much, so foreign car companies can come to the US clean house, not to mention they make way better cars. And talk about the drawbacks of government spending in a recession. Like debt, and the defecit, etc. Probably should go into more detail about what an alternative plan to Obama's would look like, considering the liberal capitalist market approach has basically gone to hell and everyone hates it now.
 
Thanks a lot man, I will take this all into consideration, but I can't exceed a two page limit. Any ideas on how to incorporate all that without getting too lengthy?
 
just wondering what level of writing this should be at. you're looking pretty good. I've offered a couple of 'rewordings' if you will. Disclaimer - I do not declare an opinion on the content of this paper in one way or another...just editing. Take it or leave it...I really don't care. I'm just bored at work.
The Federalist Papers described a government that was strong, but only strong enough to perform its duties adequately and efficiently. Today, the Federal government is pushing the limits of its conception. As a specific example, President Obama has recently ousted the CEO of General Motors so that he may then put in place a plan to resurrect the failing corporation. In an economy that is fundamentally based on the ideology of fair trade, this is a step in the wrong direction, . The government is supposed to provide for the wellbeing of the people, and although trying to revive an economic powerhouse, taking charge of a non-governmental corporation is a step outside of the limits set forth for the Federal Government by this country's founding fathers.The United States’ auto industry is a large part of the nation’s economy. If it fails, restructuring and rebuilding the economy would be an extremely difficult task. President Obama has taken drastic action in an attempt to save GM and avoid a massive economic collapse. Though this is supposedly done in the best interests' of the people, it may hurt cause severe harm to stockholders and it is almost tantamount to socialism. The drafters of the constitution wanted the people to have the power. They envisioned a strong central government that served the people, not a strong government that the people serve.As the Federal Government has seized billions into GM and laid out a new business plan for them, the Federal Government is stepping too far into the boxing ring that is big industry. [Personally don't like the term 'seized' and 'they've laid out a new business plan' - makes it sound like communist china. They've invested in GM and set forth financing requirements - but that wording takes away from your argument I'll let you make that call.] The power in a company lies with its stockholders/investors, much like a perfect republican democracy where the power lies with the people/taxpayers. Our people strongly support the growth of our government becoming strong in an effort to be able to provide anything the people might need. However, to quote Gerald Ford, "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”The majority of the people might view what Obama and the Federal Government are doing as patriotic and in the best interests of the country, but this is just another example of a step towards socialism and a step away from democracy. The Founding Fathers and the Drafters of the Constitution did not envision a central government with this type of power. It is a threat to the stability and safety of the Peoples’ nation whereas it is another building block for the Federal Government’s nation and their ever-expanding circles of power.
 
Thanks for that, gave me some good ideas. The non-biased approach helped, although I can tell you might have a different take on this issue. Either way, it helped.
 
id get rid of the socialism too, mostly because its not

also your gonna get into trouble since you point out that "The power in a company lies with its stockholders/investors". The united states now IS an investor, so we have power.
 
we would be the people. since every taxpayer in america can't chime in we has to be the politicians that have been elected to represent us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top