Should CEO's give up corperate jets?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by maxrule, Feb 13, 2009.

  1. The liberals have now went to war with the aviation industry and are attempting to intimidate CEO's in to giving up their corporate jets.

    Limbaugh has done an excellent job illustrating just how many people are employed each time a CEO owns and operates a company airliner. What is your opinion, screw the CEO, the baggage handler and the mechanic or screw the liberal democrats?

  2. as if the baggage handler and mechanic can't work for anyone besides a CEO on a private jet

    screw the ceo, screw the democrats, and screw most of the government
  3. I hear the rail industry has been having problems staying afloat maybe they can make due with that, or take commercial flights.
  4. Not only should they give up their private jets, but all their property. We'll get every last bit of it. We'll find it in the Swiss bank accounts, we'll confiscate their factories, their cars, their private jets, their mansions. We'll make sure they'll never be able to eat again unless they liquidate themselves into the working class.

    Mean while, we'll seize the means of production and put it into the democratic hands of the workers.
  5. They should be shot... is what they should be..... Who gives me a fuckin bail out when im in the red. NOBODY, i get my house taken away. The same courtesy should be extended to them. I think I might climb a clock tower on wall street on of these days.
  6. Maybe we shouldn't bail them out? That would be the only way to get them to cut spending and lower upper-bracket income...
  7. The banks get trillions of dollars by simply asking for it. They walk right into the capital building, and demand money. The government is full of pussies, including Obama. They could never say no to the banks, or any other capitalists for that matter.

    It just underlines the objective implications. The state is inherently an instrument of class dictatorship, and in this case, it's being used to protect the capitalists and their property from the workers at all costs.

    We have to organize and violently overthrow society, and reorganize the social order. From then on, the state will be an instrument of class dictatorship, but of the workers over the bourgeoisie, until they get liquidated into the working class. Once that happens, and the means of production are in the democratic hands of the people, the state would cease to play a historic role, and wither away.
  8. that was the first thing that came to my mind, but I thought it was so obvious why say it right?
  9. You're an idiot for thinking people that get free paper money from government are capitalists.
  10. Capitalists - owners of the means of production

    You're an idiot for not knowing the definition of a capitalist.
  11. I suggest you either re read what he said or get a new brain, because thing train of thought isn't working.
  12. Oh yes, of course...the liberal democrats are again the cause of all ill's in the world. How could I have missed this point? What with every pundit on fox news ramming the point down my throat ad nausea...

    I still find it amazing that a segment of the population thinks that our economy should be based around the wealth of 5%, and that the trickle down effect not only works, but should be how we run things.

    For fucks sake, just because the economy wasn't as bad off with reagan in office doesn't mean everything he did was gold.
  13. I'm sorry, I forgot you get your archaic economic definitions from Karl Marx. By your definition everybody is capitalist, because we are all a means of production ourselves.

    Even so, they are not the owners of such capital, the government by way of the taxpayers are. Isn't this system of central banking the one you favor anyways? Marx certainly did.

    Anyways, I would consider a capitalist as someone who adheres to the principles of capitalism. But again we get lost in semantics, so touche, you silly little communist. :smoke:
  14. The proletariat doesn't own the means of production. That's why they have to sell themselves daily, hourly, getting paid by how long they work, having to work the same amount of time regardless if they meet the production quotas early. Wage laborers own no property, they must sell their labor power just to make an existence.

    The capitalists however own the means of production. They live in wealth and luxury, not by doing work or producing value, but by simply owning private property. They extract the value the workers create, and in return pay their workers the bare minimum they need to survive and keep working.

    It's a capitalist system. A system created by capitalists, for capitalists. The government is designed to protect the capitalist class's interests.

    The government handing trillions of dollars to the banks is protecting the most powerful capitalists' interests.
  15. No, as long as its not tax payer money that pays for them.
  16. But where did they get the money to afford them, and every other piece of luxury they have? On the backs of hundreds of workers, by exploiting them.

    The working class's interests are directly in opposition to the interests of the capitalists. Therefore it's only logical that the working class has a revolution to reorganize society to serve the workers' interests.

  17. Wait a second...just because Karl Marx wasn't a capitalist, doesn't mean all of his theories about capitalism are bunk. That isn't to say all of his theories are correct or the best ones to adhere to, doesn't necessarily negate everything he had to say.

    And just because a capitalist adheres to the principles of capitalism, doesn't mean that capitalism isn't a system based on protecting the elite and trickling down what is decidedly 'fair.'

    But nice ad hominem regardless.
  18. I didn't say all his theories are bunk, but you can see from the course of the American economy that they are. Our economy mirrors that favored by Marx, a centrally planned one.

    I said his definition of capitalism is different from the modern philosophical definition of capitalism, that of free-market principle.

    Capitalism isn't a system based on protecting the elite, it favors those in control of the market, consumers and workers. Capitalism is incapable of 'protecting' anybody, that is socialism which relies on the favors of big government to ensure monopolies.

    Oil, rail, aggro, pharma, housing, finance... all state sanctioned monopolies un-scathed by free-market effects.
  19. Karl Marx's analysis of Capitalism were based on objective facts through observation. He coined the term "capitalism", created the first definition for it, and correctly analyzed and predicted how it would grow, mature, and then die.

    He made it clear that capitalism, while at one time was extremely progressive, is obsolete.

    Marx is a lot more like Charles Darwin. Darwin observed the tendencies within nature. He created theories based on his understanding of those objective tendencies. He theorized how species change over time, by evolution through natural selection.

    Well Marx is very similar. Marx observed the tendencies within capitalism, and formed theories about it. He pointed out that the internal contradictions within capitalism, that still exist 150 years later, will lead to it's eventual downfall and the inevitable victory of the proletariat.

    Marxism is a science, not a philosophy. It's based on an understanding of the natural laws that govern class society. They aren't based on morals, or opinions, but simply fact.

Share This Page