1) He hasn't taken over the banks or the auto industry. For one thing, the bailouts were begun BEFORE he became president. For another, the companies and banks can/could refuse the money and fix themselves. (See Ford).

 

I agree that Obama hasn't taken over the entire auto industry; just Chrysler and GM. Since you obviously disagree, who do you think is calling the shots at Chrysler and GM? With all due respect, rockmom, I believe it's foolish to believe that Nardelli at Chrysler is making any noteworthy decisions without first consulting the White House. Also, the last GM guy was "asked" (ordered?) to resign by the White House. Given that Obama sacked the last guy at GM, do you really believe the current head of GM has the freedom to be his own man? I certainly don't.

 

As far as refusing the money, Ford had the option of taking the money. However, many of the banks were coerced into taking the money. The original argument was that some healthy banks needed to take money because if only unhealthy banks took money then everybody would know they were unhealthy and that might cause a run on those banks. So, yes Ford had a choice but many banks did not.

 

 

2) Not sure what you mean about the take over of the health care industry. I've been really busy the last two weeks, but I haven't seen anything about that.

 

Obviously Obama hasn't said he wants to "take over" the health care industry. However, Obama has been talking about a government sponsored health-care plan to "compete" with private industry. IMHO, the government alternative will never be competitive with private industry. I believe Obama knows it would be uncompetitive in the free market but Obama doesn't plan on a free market competition. He knows that a private industry plan has to make money to survive but a government plan does not. The government plan can run huge deficits almost (emphasis on "almost") indefinitely. He simply needs to poor enough money into to government option to make it appear cheaper on the open market. Obviously, it won't really be cheaper since we the tax payers will be subsidizing a significant part of the bill. When the private industry plans have folded leaving only the government plan in place, Obama will have his government run health care.

 

 

3) About the Supreme court appointee...he hasn't said anything of the sort. You are projecting YOUR interpretation of what YOU think Obama wants. He wants an empathetic SCJ. Empathetic does not equate to constitutionally malleable.

 

I disagree. Looking up the meaning of empathetic in the dictionary is not sufficient when talking about phases used by politicians. Politicians use code words. IMHO, "empathetic" does mean constitutionally malleable.

The word is about feelings. Obama wants someone who will not allow 'original intent' or historical interpretations stand in their way of making malleable decisions. FDR eventually loaded the Supreme Court with liberals and we are now facing a government that has been allowed to grow over the past 70 years that has given us our current mess, an oversized government. This may or may not have been their intent 70 years ago, but it is what we have, a bloated uncontrollable overspending government. There is no 1 law that put us in this position, it was an accumalation of growth a government that is inefficient, hurts creativity and wastes money.

 

Before you argue about a need to regulate business, there is a need. Yet everytime something goes bad, you do not need more laws. There were many laws to help avoid the worst of this mess, they just were not enforced or you had a B. Frank messing with business forcing them to make loans that they did not want to make. By the way, many of the banks were forced to take money, as they were in good shape and didn't want the money.

 

What does the rant about FDR's appointments have to do with our current court?

 

FDR appointed 8 justices over 12 years. Eight is a lot but not over 12 years. In contrast, Eisenhower appointed Five in 8 years. BTW, many of those "liberal" judges appointed by FDR gave us Brown vs. Board of Education. So if we bash them for liberal interpretations we might want to thank them for some liberal interpretations as well. :thumb:

What does the rant about FDR's appointments have to do with our current court?

 

FDR appointed 8 justices over 12 years. Eight is a lot but not over 12 years. In contrast, Eisenhower appointed Five in 8 years. BTW, many of those "liberal" judges appointed by FDR gave us Brown vs. Board of Education. So if we bash them for liberal interpretations we might want to thank them for some liberal interpretations as well. :thumb:

 

The Brown Decision was about equality. Many of FDR's appointed court made decisions on broadening the scope of government.

I do not want a Supreme Court that will make more decisions expanding the scope of government.

Edited May 5, 200917 yr by bballfamily
additional comment

^True.

What does the rant about FDR's appointments have to do with our current court?

 

FDR appointed 8 justices over 12 years. Eight is a lot but not over 12 years. In contrast, Eisenhower appointed Five in 8 years. BTW, many of those "liberal" judges appointed by FDR gave us Brown vs. Board of Education. So if we bash them for liberal interpretations we might want to thank them for some liberal interpretations as well. :thumb:

 

Some articles to ponder in re FDR. Hopefully President Obama will not go down this path or anything remotely similar in intent. It will tear this country apart to a degree much greater than Bush did with Iraq.

 

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1958/3/1958_3_24.shtml

 

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/volpe/newdeal/court.html

 

And while you may be correct about the number of appointees ( I think it was actually 9), keep in mind that FDR appointed none during his first term. He appointed the 8/9 during his last two terms. What he was not able to accomplish via his proposed legislation (which failed miserably thank goodness), he was eventually able to do via the appointment route (which was to pack the court with Justices that agreed with his policies of expanded federal govt). I consider FDR, because of his total disregard for the independence of the Supreme Court and his devious attempt to pack it via legislation, to be the worst President ever. He was more sinister than Nixon in my opinion.

Some articles to ponder in re FDR. Hopefully President Obama will not go down this path or anything remotely similar in intent. It will tear this country apart to a degree much greater than Bush did with Iraq.

 

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0799fdrcourt.htm

 

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1958/3/1958_3_24.shtml

 

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~MA02/volpe/newdeal/court.html

 

And while you may be correct about the number of appointees ( I think it was actually 9), keep in mind that FDR appointed none during his first term. He appointed the 8/9 during his last two terms. What he was not able to accomplish via his proposed legislation (which failed miserably thank goodness), he was eventually able to do via the appointment route (which was to pack the court with Justices that agreed with his policies of expanded federal govt). I consider FDR, because of his total disregard for the independence of the Supreme Court and his devious attempt to pack it via legislation, to be the worst President ever. He was more sinister than Nixon in my opinion.

Agreed 100%

 

When he couldn't pass his legislation, he tried to add 2 more Supreme Court Justices. This was met with tremendous opposition even from his own party.

Well who would have thought that!!!???

FYI.

 

The Brown v Board of Education decision was a 9-0 decision. Of the 9 justices, 5 were appointed by FDR, 3 were appointed by Truman, and 1 was appointed by Eisenhower.

Well, that shows how little you read of my posts. I don't owe you any explanations. If you're interested (and you're not), you'll do the research. You've made up your mind based on limited information. It's a wasted effort on my part to convince you otherwise. But, fear not...I'm not upset. There are plenty on here, even many I disagree with, who know I'm not as liberal as you'd like to paint me.

 

Dodge if you must.

Dodge if you must.

 

You just don't know when to stop. Rockmom is not a "liberal" on all issues, instead it just so happens that on this site she is left of our right-leaning majority. Like she said, if you cared for anything beyond name-calling and insults, you'd do some research.

 

Don't get me wrong though, she's still wrong on plenty of issues, though :D

Dodge if you must.

 

 

Here are some hints:

 

Religion in school

Vouchers

Personal responsibility

Welfare reform

Education

 

 

Those are some key words that could get you started on searches.

Dodge if you must.

 

Hey, I'm not left on ANY issue that I can think of, the most I can manage is a moderate position on some things. Yet I know I have agreed with Rockmom on enough things in the past to know that she most certainly does sway right on several issues. She's one of the few moderates on here.

Hey, I'm not left on ANY issue that I can think of, the most I can manage is a moderate position on some things. Yet I know I have agreed with Rockmom on enough things in the past to know that she most certainly does sway right on several issues. She's one of the few moderates on here.

 

He knows this. He just doesn't give a hoot.

You just don't know when to stop. Rockmom is not a "liberal" on all issues, instead it just so happens that on this site she is left of our right-leaning majority. Like she said, if you cared for anything beyond name-calling and insults, you'd do some research.

 

Don't get me wrong though, she's still wrong on plenty of issues, though :D

 

Delete

Here are some hints:

 

Religion in school

Vouchers

Personal responsibility

Welfare reform

Education

 

 

Those are some key words that could get you started on searches.

 

Well, that is a somewhat vague start.