BethFromVA

I hope we can get out of this mess, but I guess for me I hope he does not succeed in this fashion. The problem is, once the government has its claws into something, it never lets go. I don't see us ever going back to true capitalism as it should be -- businesses run by people instead of government (greedy sheistering aside).

Actually, as CC pointed out, and I have also mentioned previously, it was government interference which played a huge part in where we are now. Yes, we had greedy CEOs too, but it was exceptionally and adversely affected by government dictating who should be lended to. I blame them at least 70 percent for what happened. And now the answer is MORE government to fix what the government screwed up?? Yeah, I don't think so.

To me that was just icing on the cake. That was not at all what resonated with me. At that point, I really didn't know that much about him other than I would never vote for him because he's a democrat. But good guess. Wrong, but good try.

Wait a minute! WHAT?? So you agree, a bank should be forced to keep money it doesn't want because it chooses to remain free of government ownership?? What if the government decided you needed oversight in your home -- how you raise your kids, how much water you use, how much electricity, what television shows you watch that are unacceptable... I could go on and on. Since when is the government entitled to get its grubby little hands in people's business(es)?? If this isn't the epitome of fascism, I don't know what is. And what's worse is when people believe the government has the RIGHT to do such things!

I agree with you completely -- until the last paragraph. I'm not saying that what these asswipes have done is okay at ALL -- but I never believe that the answer is to have government swoop in, with OUR money, and steal companies away. Especially since they are the LAST to complain about greed and waste, for pete's sake. They virtually invented and perfected the art form. It's like Hitler telling Jeffrey Dahmer he's a bad man.

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it sound as if I thought you were being caustic. I didn't. But it's that mentality that if the government doesn't step in, people will lose jobs. People are losing jobs now. Many are losing them who wouldn't if the government wasn't screaming that the sky is falling. And throwing good money after bad has never done anything but delay the inevitable and cost us tons more in the long run. As for viable candidates, I couldn't agree with you more. As I stated earlier, I joined my local Republican chapter with the intent of watching, listening, and finding out what is really going on in the group. If they continue to try to get us to believe that somebody like McCain was the best we could do, then I am outta there. Finito. I won't hold onto a grasping, heaving beast if that's really what they're all about. I said previously and I'll say it again: I think the reason Palin resonated so much with the Republicans was because, barring where you stand on her intelligence, her conservative values and the fact that she made us feel she is one of the people is what we so desperately want and were attracted to. At least that's how I felt and most everybody I talked to. Unless the Republican party returns to the people, the people WILL leave, like they did in this election.

Absolutely! But another problem has arisen, and it was provided in my link a few posts back: Obama is not allowing one bank in particular to refuse bailout money. The bank chose to return the money but was turned down: Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic. Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics. Think about it: If Rick Wagoner can be fired and compact cars can be mandated, why can't a bank with a vault full of TARP money be told where to lend? And since politics drives this administration, why can't special loans and terms be offered to favored constituents, favored industries, or even favored regions? Our prosperity has never been based on the political allocation of credit -- until now. So then what's that all about (asked rhetorically, of course)?

But see, the first part sounds right and proper -- then the caveat is slapped in there about adding more to the unemployment line. How do we know that many aren't unemployed now because the Henny Penny "the sky is falling" shrieking coming from the government? I know I have read about a LOT of companies who have done just that -- shaved jobs not because they were financially hurting, but because they were afraid they WOULD be due to all the panic in the air. Is it bad? Yeah, it's certainly not good. Is it as bad as they're making it sound like it is? I don't think it is. I think a lot of it is trumped up because, let's be honest -- they can't waste a good crisis now, can they (said by Clinton and another lib)? If the crisis is enhanced, people freak out. If they freak out, the government can now swoop in and take over. I see what's going on here as being more than just CEOs run amok. I see it as the government taking advantage of an already bad situation and making it worse for its own gain.

Yeah, but I'm demented and sick that way. May explain a few things.

No, not at all. Did I miss something I didn't answer? Was out to dinner and a movie with ColoradoChick.

I thought it was pretty darn good... then it got weird. But that was only the last 15 minutes or so. Overall I'd recommend it as a cool thriller.

Whose house? And what time?

See, I knew somebody with much better money smarts would be able to sort out what's what!

BJean, we may not be losing these things YET, but the writing is certainly on the wall. Again, maybe via him, maybe not -- but one can most certainly see the path we are taking. Tell me this: Do we have as many freedoms today as we did 75 or even 50 years ago? I say we do not. Government is more involved in our lives than ever, dictating how much water our toilets hold, working hard at steering what types of vehicles we drive (great thing GM is now owned by Uncle Sam, eh?), and working now to dictate how much power we use in our homes. They tax us coming and going and regulate nearly everything that touches our lives. You don't see the freedoms we don't have because they've been chipping away at them slowly. If even 10 years ago they hit us up all at once with the regulations we have now 10 years later, they'd have a revolution on their hands. I call this the boiling frog theory: It is a fact that if you try to throw a frog into boiling water, he will be able to jump free of it as soon as his feet hit the water. However, if you place a frog in lukewarm water and turn the heat up under him, he will eventually boil to death, unaware of what is happening to him. What Patty says is factually true, and though we are not in that position YET, we are most certainly working our way that direction. Today it's GM and AIG and untold banks. Innumerable other companies have their hands out for money, which then allows the government to have an ownership stake in it if not take it over outright, depending on what type of business it is and whether the government feels they can further their cause by maintaining control. I know you said previously (if I remember correctly) that you have no problem with government ownership or running of companies. However, I am more afraid of them owning people's livelihoods than I ever have been greedy CEOs. Because frankly, the only thing scarier than a greedy CEO is a greedy political representative (an oxymoron, that).

Okay, good points. Let's look at this: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power -- I see Obama, taking over free trade companies, as an example of this... forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism -- as in the Fairness Doctrine, perhaps? Though in fairness, he claims he is not for that, but the left in office are. However, he certainly made it a point during the election to go after those he felt were not portraying him in a good light. Not lying about him, mind you, but not puffing him up, either... regimenting all industry, commerce, etc. -- that's beginning to happen now. These things never happen immediately or overnight. It takes time to get the people used to the squeeze... and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism -- The definition I find for nationalism is thus: 1.national spirit or aspirations. 2.devotion and loyalty to one's own nation; patriotism. 3.excessive patriotism; chauvinism. 4.the desire for national advancement or independence. 5.the policy or doctrine of asserting the interests of one's own nation, viewed as separate from the interests of other nations or the common interests of all nations. 6.an idiom or trait peculiar to a nation. 7.a movement, as in the arts, based upon the folk idioms, history, aspirations, etc., of a nation. What I see doesn't exactly fit in any of those definitions except if you look at it like this: The "good of the nation" over "the good of the person." It's "good for the nation to take from the haves and give to the have-nots," versus "it's selfish to work hard for yourself and your family and not want to give it to others." That is how I view the use of nationalism in this case... and often racism -- Though I can't place the blame solely on him, I can't even tell you how often I heard that if you were against Obama, you were automatically labeled a racist. Some could never imagine that many of us don't like him for reasons that have nothing to do with race at all. So true, it could be that he is skipping the socialist slant for one of fascism.

That is a good question since all we've really heard about is GM, AIG, and a bunch of banks. As far as I know, he's only fired the GM guy. However, we are also talking less than 100 days in office, so I'm sure that will change...

I guess the first thing that jumps out at me is this: Nothing the government takes over is ever temporary. They never ever give up the power they wrest away from the people. Also, they never make anything they take over better. I've asked many times to name one, but I haven't seen anybody mention anything. And not just here -- other boards as well. Can you name one? I am not blind to the fact that things were going badly, but they had just begun. I didn't consider it to a point where it was so dire that the government just HAD to jump in. Bush started this bailout crap, and Obama ran with it. Maybe if left to their own devices, these companies would have realized that they need to restructure or fail. Now, they have OUR money, are not (in many cases) restructruing, and the same people who ran these companies into the ground would not be walking away with million-dollar bonuses for a "job well done." Like Lulu, I see both sides of the coin. I am in no way saying that what these execs were doing was okay. I don't, however, feel what is happening now is the answer. And by the time we realize it's all effed up, it'll be too late -- we'll be untold trillions of dollars in debt, the government will be dictating who works and for how much, and they will fail miserably at running business like they fail at running schools, social security, and the government, to name a few. Many of us already know why the border is not an issue ANY of these guys from both sides want to tackle. It's about the almighty vote, pure and simple. As for the guns issue, I'm still on the fence on that, but I don't trust him, no. Actually, to be fair, I don't trust the LEFT in office on this issue. I plan on stocking up on what I can before I no longer can, because I truly believe that day will come on somebody's watch... maybe his, maybe somebody else's. I went further than I anticipated, but I'm trying to keep it short and readable. I guess my biggest issue I'll address again: What has the government ever run that it did it better, cheaper, and with excellent results?

I honestly see WHY some people may think this is a great idea because I can't deny the greed and mismanagement that has gone on. But I guess I can't see two wrongs making a right. Once the government starts bailing companies out, they then have a "right" to dictate how it's run, who works there, what they make, etc. That is NEVER a good thing. I was alarmed to read the other day how this administration was not allowing a particular bank to deny taking bailout money. The article is here in the Wall Street Journal: Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com That becomes very alarming to me. Again, I don't swear to know the answer to this mess, other than allowing the market to correct itself. Some say we need to do SOMEthing, but I don't think this is the way to do it. Once the government starts owning private entities, it's a very short road to tyranny from there.

I got it from them. I actually had a very lengthy call with his admin person about it, but this was back in October. Maybe he decided to take it within the last four months because I'm sure people were put off by the cost to themselves when they could go down the hall and likely get it from his dad. But yes, if they take any feedback at all, the picture thing pretty much was a turn-off.

I actually went to Eric's seminar. I thought he was good, but... and I preface by saying this is MY experience and others may not see it as an issue like I did. First and foremost, the seminar, while informative, was filled with WAAAY to many kids' pictures -- about 15 minutes' worth. It was very overboard, in my book. We are there, nervous, wanting to find out about the band, and we sit through that, yet when it came time to answer questions at the end, I felt a couple people there were a bit rushed while the staff packed up their stuff while answering one man's questions. It could be that they only have so long for the room, but if so, they should quit with the family album. Okay, that's nothing more than a pet peeve. But what really bothered me is when I went to schedule an appointment to talk to him and get the ball rolling, it was going to cost me about $450 or $475 for them to "process my paperwork." :sad: I was a bit taken aback, but I made an appointment anyway, thinking maybe this was normal. Before I ever made it there, though, I LUCKILY called to see how much I would be out based on what my insurance covered. That was when I fould out they don't accept ANY insurance at all. They don't tell you this in the seminar OR when you are signing up. I also believe the "processing fee" is a way to financially obligate you so that when you find out they don't accept the insurance, you are already into it a big chunk of change. While I was talking to the receptionist about these concerns and said that his father was listed as a provider on my insurance, she tried a song and dance about setting up a payment plan, etc., to make it easier on me. I asked why on earth I would want to set up a payment plan when I could go with a doctor who was a provider? Then she tried to tell me how Eric had whatever certification he has after his name, some decal that says he teaches how to do Lap-Band or has done "x" amount over the years, but I said to her, "Yeah, but he must have learned something from his father, who has been doing it longer." It just started to feel like a shuck and jive to me. However, in his defense, I WILL say that those who have used his office have nothing but nice things to say about him. It's just that for me, I felt like I was talking to a used-car salesman, and I walked away not feeling very comfortable with him.

Just a clarification: It does not cover unlimited fills after the first three months after surgery. I know this because I clarified today due to an insurance change.

Wow. I've just come to the conclusion that people like this just don't think; and if she ends up losing her practice due to this, she will have nobody to blame but herself.

Omg, so many things sound like what was happening at my work. I have tried over and over to get along with the girl who became THE boss, but at the end I just didn't give a sh*t. Dictating everything down to where you go when you step away from your desk is just too much for me. I went from being the only one in the department to expand the team player mantra (asking for work to do, asking to learn new things, etc.) to becoming a "government worker," is how I saw it. "You buckle down on us? Fine. THESE are the confines of my job and this is all you get." It went against my grain because I can't stand to not be busy and always look for the challenge of learning new things, but that is where I had gotten. My leaving was a total set-up; there's no doubt in my mind about that one. It's just as well since I was totally miserable there. She didn't want us to chat? Fine. I chatted with others but not her. However, THAT then became an issue, and I essentially was given the choice to quit or leave because I didn't say good morning to the crybaby! I went up there today to pick up a package and found out they have since taken down all the cubicle walls and replaced them with half-walls now, taking away everybody's privacy. I only wish I could be there to watch it implode. :sad:

ColoradoChick and I have THE best doctor's office... they are absolutely fantastic. Every. Last. One. And here I thought I was safe, getting on insurance right away. Oh, well...

Okay, BJean, I'll ask you a question and try not to make a novel out of it. Exactly why do you think what Obama is doing -- snatching up businesses, firing people, and dictating how they are run -- is a good thing? You accused Bush of being a fascist, but that is what is going on here in spades. I am sure your disagreement with Bush had to do with the Patriot Act, among others, but that does not even come close to the definition of fascism: (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. Now, what makes what Bush did fascism (and I'm not supporting or trashing what he did, I'm just looking for clarification), but what Obama is doing, which IMO is FAR deeper, wider, and scary, is okay or even great? And for what it's worth, the name most affiliated with fascism is Mussolini, and American's thought HE was great in the early stages of what he did, too.