Debate policy all you want. Don't fall into the uneducated trap of terms like "socialism" "marxism" or "communism."

 

To your points: Do you believe the administration and the one before it should have let the big banks fail/go under?

 

Taxed like never before: Are you talking about the 90% on the AIG bonuses? Even the President has said that's not good policy.

 

What freedoms are being taken away?

 

Although I believe this to be futile and tiring, I will respond. It’s obvious neither you nor I will change our minds on our new president’s policies.

 

Maybe collectivist is a better word than socialism. Look it up.

 

Yes, I do believe “the administration and the one before it” should have let the big banks and automakers fail. Success and failure is what drives a free capitalist economy. It is my opinion that the Government of the United States of America should not be choosing which private bank/business fails OR succeeds. I think the Constitution will back me up.

 

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous

to our liberties than standing armies. If the American

people ever allow private banks to control the issue of

their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the

banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks

will deprive the people of all property until their children

wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers

conquered." Thomas Jefferson.

 

Yes, I am referring to the 90% tax on AIG bonuses. Those bonuses, whether or not we approve, were in the governments Bill (which they failed to read and understand). The fact they can get together in congress and impose such a tax is an indication that they can do the same to you and me. It kind of worries me. In my opinion they just shouldn’t have that kind of power. There are so many economists that say all the trillions will have to come from somewhere down the road (HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL).

 

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation

of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and

tyrannical.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

I believe the healthcare package that this admin is interested in, if passed, will “eventually” take the freedom of choosing how we care for ourselves. It’s a crack in the door my friend. The bailouts have evidently taken the freedom of some companies to pick their CEO. BHO has been a community organizer and a senator, yet he somehow knows how to run a bank or auto maker? Also knows who to fire? They are also trying their best to get a grip on what kind of gun we own. If I’m a law abiding citizen, it’s none of their business! They have no right in telling or advising me as to what kind of car I drive. I read today that California is considering banning black cars because they leave a bigger carbon print (this idea is heading to Washington soon). The color of our car is another door opening to more control.

 

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can

prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people

under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Thomas Jefferson

 

Amen Mr. Jefferson. Amen.

Although I believe this to be futile and tiring, I will respond. It’s obvious neither you nor I will change our minds on our new president’s policies.

 

Maybe collectivist is a better word than socialism. Look it up.

 

Yes, I do believe “the administration and the one before it” should have let the big banks and automakers fail. Success and failure is what drives a free capitalist economy. It is my opinion that the Government of the United States of America should not be choosing which private bank/business fails OR succeeds. I think the Constitution will back me up.

 

One more question: What assumptions are you making or what impact do you think letting the big banks or GM fail in THIS economy at THIS time would have on the overall economy/jobs/business growth?

 

Yes, I am referring to the 90% tax on AIG bonuses. Those bonuses, whether or not we approve, were in the governments Bill (which they failed to read and understand). The fact they can get together in congress and impose such a tax is an indication that they can do the same to you and me. It kind of worries me. In my opinion they just shouldn’t have that kind of power. There are so many economists that say all the trillions will have to come from somewhere down the road (HIGHER TAXES FOR ALL).

 

 

We are in complete agreement. However, I don't think this is on the President.

 

I believe the healthcare package that this admin is interested in, if passed, will “eventually” take the freedom of choosing how we care for ourselves. It’s a crack in the door my friend. The bailouts have evidently taken the freedom of some companies to pick their CEO. BHO has been a community organizer and a senator, yet he somehow knows how to run a bank or auto maker? Also knows who to fire? They are also trying their best to get a grip on what kind of gun we own. If I’m a law abiding citizen, it’s none of their business! They have no right in telling or advising me as to what kind of car I drive. I read today that California is considering banning black cars because they leave a bigger carbon print (this idea is heading to Washington soon). The color of our car is another door opening to more control.

 

.

 

Your speculation on the future of healthcare, with the possibility that it could eventually be true, is still speculation and nothing more.

 

Surely you are smart enough to realize that one man, Barack Obama, did not choose to have the CEO be removed in exchange for bailout $$ by himself. He may have an ego but you surely realize he's surrounded himself with experts who you might not agree with but have expertise in their field.

 

While the "black car" example seems extreme is it any different than the govt telling us that we can't fill out air conditioners with freon?

One more question: What assumptions are you making or what impact do you think letting the big banks or GM fail in THIS economy at THIS time would have on the overall economy/jobs/business growth?

 

It would obviously be a huge hit. The question is, what would be better for the long term? I personally believe that we should have taken the hit now for a stronger system in the future.

It would obviously be a huge hit. The question is, what would be better for the long term? I personally believe that we should have taken the hit now for a stronger system in the future.

 

Two questions:

 

How many people are you willing to let "take a hit" now?

 

Are we sure that letting them fail will make us stronger?

Two questions:

 

How many people are you willing to let "take a hit" now?

 

Are we sure that letting them fail will make us stronger?

 

Don't know how to answer the first question as I don't know how many would be affected. I would not pick and choose though. Of course it would be painful, but I believe it is the best route to take.

 

Second question, nothing is a sure thing. Are we sure that spending the trillions that we're going to spend will work? Of course not, yet we're doing it. I do believe that in the long term the system would be stronger and we wouldn't be back here down the road looking for more government intervention. I also believe that this intervention will lead to more, which will weaken the system.

One more question: What assumptions are you making or what impact do you think letting the big banks or GM fail in THIS economy at THIS time would have on the overall economy/jobs/business growth?

 

Just because they fail doesn't mean they go out of business completely. Chapter 11 bankruptcy would allow them to stay in business. While they rebuild under bankruptcy they would become stronger in the long run. That's my opinion.

We are in complete agreement. However, I don't think this is on the President.

 

 

At this time The Buck Stops With Him. Referring back to the Bush admin is getting old.

Your speculation on the future of healthcare, with the possibility that it could eventually be true, is still speculation and nothing more.

 

Surely you are smart enough to realize that one man, Barack Obama, did not choose to have the CEO be removed in exchange for bailout $$ by himself. He may have an ego but you surely realize he's surrounded himself with experts who you might not agree with but have expertise in their field.

 

While the "black car" example seems extreme is it any different than the govt telling us that we can't fill out air conditioners with freon?

 

 

BHO and the rest of the democrats are speculating too. Surely I can.

 

I'm not sure how smart I am. Smart enough to know those "experts" are "experts" appointed and guided by him. Again, the buck stops in the Oval Office. I'm also smart enough to know that if BHO had not been elected, there's a very good chance the US Govt wouldn't be firing CEO's and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

At this time The Buck Stops With Him. Referring back to the Bush admin is getting old.

 

For the record, I was referring to Congress.

For the record, I was referring to Congress.

 

I knew the Bush comment didn't fit...Just thought I'd throw that in.

Even the Drudgereport and FoxNews have stories of nationalizing the banks in America. I would call that socialism. Something that many believe Obama is not doing, but quietly moving in that direction.

 

On another note Obama wants to cut $100,000,000 from the budget. Now any cut is good, but if he would forget the unconstitutional programs on nationalizing health care, wasteful stimulus packages and energy programs that should be left to private enterprise, that would save 10's of billions of dollars. Plus the $100,000,000 he would have a real good start on budget cutting.