The Communist by Paul Kengor

[gman]

I must be lucky that the President hasn't had a chance to change the way I feel. As for the President hoping jobs dissapear forever, well....that's certainly an idea that never crossed my mind. The POTUS hopes that jobs and the market won't improve?

Now your catching on.
Seriously though, there is a mindset out there that what we enjoyed through the R/B/C years as far as low unemployment, cheap energy, a strong dollar; in general a thriving America, is not fair. It's not fair for America to be so successful. There are those who believe that the President is managing the decline of the U.S., perhaps to a new norm that includes higher unemployment, higher energy prices, and more Gov't dependence. We did lose our AAA credit rating under his watch, and he has been dubbed the food stamp president. He has also stated, in speeches, his desire to transform American healthcare into a Gov't run system.
Personally, I think what he cares about most is redistributing wealth, as he stated to Joe the Plumber. He has stated outright that we would, or should have higher energy prices.
Does he really that jobs and the economy don't improve? I don't know. It doesn't help his reelection, and he's doing his best to mask it. I think though, that he believes that if spreading the wealth around leads to higher unemployment and a weaker economy, so be it. At least, despite the media and campaign spin of the day, he's sticking to his belief that it is the right thing to do regardless of the outcome.

[gman]

To me personally, the difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama wants us where we are, whereas Bush didn't want us to get here, but we got here because he did too many things that he thought were the good, compassionate thing to do, regardless of the economic impact.

[executioner]

I'm eager for the debates start because Obama will not have his buddy the teleprompter with him.

[rexreed]

To me personally, the difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama wants us where we are, whereas Bush didn't want us to get here, but we got here because he did too many things that he thought were the good, compassionate thing to do, regardless of the economic impact.

I'm afraid you can't blame the economic crisis in the world on Bush and/ or Obama. I also don't know why some folks try and compare the performance of either. Bush served his two terms and was never going to run against Obama. The economy was a different beast when Bush took office. He won two close elections. Obama won his first election and it wasn't that close. The economy was tanking fast. I live in an area that is not as affected and things seem to be on the mend. The republicans have a chance to win, we shall see.

[gman]

To me personally, the difference between Obama and Bush is that Obama wants us where we are, whereas Bush didn't want us to get here, but we got here because he did too many things that he thought were the good, compassionate thing to do, regardless of the economic impact.

I'm afraid you can't blame the economic crisis in the world on Bush and/ or Obama. I also don't know why some folks try and compare the performance of either. Bush served his two terms and was never going to run against Obama. The economy was a different beast when Bush took office. He won two close elections. Obama won his first election and it wasn't that close. The economy was tanking fast. I live in an area that is not as affected and things seem to be on the mend. The republicans have a chance to win, we shall see.

The rest of the world has made their own bed. Here in the U.S., Bush did two wars, which might have been ok financially had he not gone for all the other stuff. Such as prescription drugs, no childs behind left alone, Tarp, bailouts, stimulus. Congress was also pushing for Fanny and Freddie and home loans to people who couldn't afford them. I understand Bush tried to fight them on it, but I don't think he made a case to the American people. He expanded the size of Gov't and gov't dependence, and ran up the deficit. If Bush had been conservative instead of progressive lite, the contrast between his administration and the current one would be more stark.

[rexreed]

Too bad the rest of the world has an effect on us just as we do on them. Global economy remember? How did "no child left behind" ruin the job market? Usually education helps the populace, it isn't free but in the end we are supposed to benefit. The two wars cost more than TARP, No child, prescription drugs (who complains about that one?) and the bailouts.

[rexreed]

Norway is doing pretty good these days too- they must be commies too.

[gman]

Last I checked, America has healthcare for all. The real debate should be how to help the small minority who can't afford to pay for whatever care they receive, and how to make sure those with expensive illnesses know about the myriad resources out there to help them out.
Norway appears to have an extensive social safety net provided by the Gov't. If they can afford it, that's their choice. My belief is that America was founded to be different, without a huge gov't, and without a gov't safety net. The ship has already sailed on keeping it that way, but I'm one who doesn't want to see it get bigger. I've said all along, though, that we could have the debate about having Gov't run healthcare, expanding the safety net, and in general the size of Gov't, if we could actually afford it. We are so far in debt, that to me, where we are going is ludicrous. It can't possibly work.
As for tarp and bailouts, I'm not for the Gov't stepping in to take away the pain of failed risks. I'm not for the gov't, as Bush said, "abandoning the free market to save the free market". That seems nonsensical.
As for prescription drugs, and the no child stuff, that was more expansion of Gov't when we didn't have the money to pay for it. On education, I would probably side with those who are in favor of the dept. of education at the federal level going away.

[executioner]

Looking back on the bailouts of GM, Chrysler, banks, & investment firms there was a time when most people said we can't let these companies fail because the jobless rate would skyrocket, and the market will collaspe, but looking at it now I truly believe we should have let all them to fail and go through the normal procedures to right themselves. I'm sorry if a company(especially a public trading one) can't manage their debt & finances correctly than why should I give them anymore of my money. I've made a point to try and not buy products or use products from these companies that already has used my tax dollars.

[rexreed]

The economy tanked and two of te three cdomestic companies were not able to recover. I bet Ford would have been right aroubnd the corner- they refinanced their debt a couple years earlier because they truly were mismanaged. I think we are better off with Chrysler and GM afloat- even Ford agreed to that one. Suplliers, dealers- those would have impacted every state. Bush and Obama both agreed the automakers needed the bailout and so far it has worked out. Sometimes big business is worth bailing out.

[gman]

Is GM really working out? Gov't involvement led to closing many good dealerships with no rhyme or reason. I understand GM was forced to dump the hydrogen vehicles they had invested a lot in and were a viable fuel alternative to gasoline, and instead build the Volt. It stinks on ice compared to what other manufacturers have done in the electric market. There was a report out recently about the Gov't propping up sales, and I recall a report awhile back about GM repaying the gov't with money it got from the gov't. A robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. Companies that suck should fail, and, if there was wrong doing, put people in jail. Let someone else that know's what they're doing fill the void. Leave the Gov't out of it. I'd like to see a president that sees trouble a mile away and says to companies, you better get it fixed because we're not going to be here to bail you out. You made your bed, lie in it.

[brent]

Is GM really working out? Gov't involvement led to closing many good dealerships with no rhyme or reason. I understand GM was forced to dump the hydrogen vehicles they had invested a lot in and were a viable fuel alternative to gasoline, and instead build the Volt. It stinks on ice compared to what other manufacturers have done in the electric market. There was a report out recently about the Gov't propping up sales, and I recall a report awhile back about GM repaying the gov't with money it got from the gov't. A robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. Companies that suck should fail, and, if there was wrong doing, put people in jail. Let someone else that know's what they're doing fill the void. Leave the Gov't out of it. I'd like to see a president that sees trouble a mile away and says to companies, you better get it fixed because we're not going to be here to bail you out. You made your bed, lie in it.

Hydrogen worked. All of those cars were recalled from the beta testers and scrapped. Why? Oil. The government makes too much money on the consumption. The whole system is rigged. There are cars in Europe that get 70MPG. Sure, their gas is higher. But it is a wash in some cases, because of the efficiency. Some of those engines and/or parts originate in the USA. The reason we cannot sell those cars here is because of the emissions testing. The emissions are a tad worse, but when you divide the emissions by the miles per gallon, the cars are cleaner. We would have less money going to the companies and agencies paid to maintain the highways, if we had high efficiency cars. So, the government puts out these standards to appease the environmentalists, and knows there will still be revenue for roads.

[executioner]

GM, investment firms and the banks still owe us tax payers tons of money which we will never see; Chrysler took the money but used it wisely and has since paid back every dime with interest. GM has come out of it and looks decent right now, but they still are building junk. The main issue with these companies are the unions with their retirement and severence packages that they have; if these companies would have been allowed to fail the one good thing about would have been the unions would have no choice but to buckle under the pressure and would have to redo the contracts with these companies. If they chose not to they would have failed also and they would be gone or at the least very weaken without any power. Most of the bailout money went in the unions pockets, and I'm tired of all my money going to crooks and companies that don't know what a budget is, how to manage it, and builds low quality products.

[executioner]

Is GM really working out? Gov't involvement led to closing many good dealerships with no rhyme or reason. I understand GM was forced to dump the hydrogen vehicles they had invested a lot in and were a viable fuel alternative to gasoline, and instead build the Volt. It stinks on ice compared to what other manufacturers have done in the electric market. There was a report out recently about the Gov't propping up sales, and I recall a report awhile back about GM repaying the gov't with money it got from the gov't. A robbing Peter to pay Paul scenario. Companies that suck should fail, and, if there was wrong doing, put people in jail. Let someone else that know's what they're doing fill the void. Leave the Gov't out of it. I'd like to see a president that sees trouble a mile away and says to companies, you better get it fixed because we're not going to be here to bail you out. You made your bed, lie in it.

The Government is literally propping up sales at GM about 40% of all vehicles GM has sold since the takeover have been bought by the government. The AG(Gregg Abbott) for the State of Texas has been complaining because he says Texas is feeling pressure from the feds to bye GM for state run agencies and he says they are not even competitive in pricing with other American made fleets; he saying Texas would pay about 15% more for GM trucks & cars over the Ford & Dodge models.

[brent]

Too bad the rest of the world has an effect on us just as we do on them. Global economy remember? How did "no child left behind" ruin the job market? Usually education helps the populace, it isn't free but in the end we are supposed to benefit. The two wars cost more than TARP, No child, prescription drugs (who complains about that one?) and the bailouts.

No child left behind has ruined school districts and dropped the overall performance of the US education system. It has taken good schools with a higher percentage of top tier graduating students and dumbed them down with kids that do not need or deserve to be there. If you want a classic example, look at the performance and social welfare or Tulsa Public Schools before and after. Before, the schools were healthier. After, they have become a less than desirable district, now having to enforce dress codes to discourage gang colors being worn. There is a laundry list of problems now.

NCLB makes one school's or community's problems everyone's problems. We cannot expect one approach of an educational system to meet the needs of all students in a town/city. All cultures have differing needs. Neighborhoods must be able to have their own culture, their own people from their community, their own parents cooperating, and their own approach to the curriculum, etc.

My wife teaches in a Title I school, which has a very large percentage of poor kids, mostly illegal and legal hispanics, indians, africans and then whites.
There is no way that the same programs and approaches used by her school would be appropriate for a high-end school on the other side of town. All NCHLB has done is caused successful, educated, well performing families to take their money, residence and influence elsewhere. NCLB DOES change the geographic landscape of towns! I see it! That effects the local economy and thus affects the jobs. I can show you a part of the town I live in that is dying right now because of all of this type of stuff.