Will It Happen? Can It Happen?

[Guest]

Some of the best ideas I've heard yet regarding the auto industry came from Paul Ingrassia, former Washington Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal on Sunday morning's Meet The Press show.

Ingrassia opined that what the auto industry needs is someone who can impose, not negotiate, fundamental changes to the structure of the industry. He used examples of the difficulty the industry has with the UAW contract, the state-by-state contracts with dealers, etc.

Whether he meant the "auto czar" that has been mentiooned before or not, I don't know. It's hard to imagine how such a czar could be given the authority outside of bankruptcy court or the legal system to do things like invalidate contracts and override state laws. But ignoring those types of issues, that's probably exactly what's needed to begin to resolve the problems of the auto companies. If the "czar idea" doesn't gain traction, it would appear that the auto companies are headed for a bankruptcy court-imposed restructuring or even liquidation. I see no way how the parties at interest can ever successfully negotiate the needed changes.

[Guest]

Some of the best ideas I've heard yet regarding the auto industry came from Paul Ingrassia, former Washington Bureau Chief of the Wall Street Journal on Sunday morning's Meet The Press show.

Ingrassia opined that what the auto industry needs is someone who can impose, not negotiate, fundamental changes to the structure of the industry. He used examples of the difficulty the industry has with the UAW contract, the state-by-state contracts with dealers, etc.

Whether he meant the "auto czar" that has been mentioned before or not, I don't know. It's hard to imagine how such a czar could be given the authority outside of bankruptcy court or the legal system to do things like invalidate contracts and override state laws. But ignoring those types of issues, that's probably exactly what's needed to begin to resolve the problems of the auto companies. If the "czar idea" doesn't gain traction, it would appear that the auto companies are headed for a bankruptcy court-imposed restructuring or even liquidation. I see no way how the parties at interest can ever successfully negotiate the needed changes.
Then if they can't negotiate fixes to their problems, let them all die together.

As cruel as that may sound, that's capitalism versus the State nationalizing industries "for their own good." The last time I looked, General Motors consisted of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and partial ownership of several other companies. Not long ago there was Oldsmobile as well, but that died due to evolving markets. There's not many around who still remember when there wasn't a GM, and all of those brand names were separate companies which got acquired and merged as the auto industry evolved.

A GM-Ford merger may be next in the evolution, but that's the industry evolving with the times and the business base.

I can't think of one time when "governmentalizing" has helped an industry. The last time it was done was in the establishment of the Department of Energy to shepherd us out of oil dependency. Boy, has that worked well! We have a "Drug Czar" and yet the problems associated with narcotic addiction, smuggling, violence et al has grown to epic proportions since that "leadership" position and supporting staff came onto the scene.

When will we ever learn that "more government" doesn't make things better and isn't the all-encompassing solution to every hiccup or problem. It just creates more jobs funded via taxation - jobs that just never seem to go away, and for some peculiar reason, the problems continue to mushroom.

[Guest]

Again Steve -- you're right on. It's the difference in thinking the government can solve all the nation's ills and free markets, accountability, etc.

The Constitution was written to protect the US citizen, not control them. The government's role is to keep us safe from foreign and domestic terrorism.

I can see this bailout/czar bill of goods being sold to our younger new voters, but come on -- haven't we lived long enough to see this turkey walking thru the door !!

[Guest]

Then if they can't negotiate fixes to their problems, let them all die together.

As cruel as that may sound, that's capitalism versus the State nationalizing industries "for their own good." The last time I looked, General Motors consisted of Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, Pontiac and partial ownership of several other companies. Not long ago there was Oldsmobile as well, but that died due to evolving markets. There's not many around who still remember when there wasn't a GM, and all of those brand names were separate companies which got acquired and merged as the auto industry evolved.

A GM-Ford merger may be next in the evolution, but that's the industry evolving with the times and the business base.

I can't think of one time when "governmentalizing" has helped an industry. The last time it was done was in the establishment of the Department of Energy to shepherd us out of oil dependency. Boy, has that worked well! We have a "Drug Czar" and yet the problems associated with narcotic addiction, smuggling, violence et al has grown to epic proportions since that "leadership" position and supporting staff came onto the scene.

When will we ever learn that "more government" doesn't make things better and isn't the all-encompassing solution to every hiccup or problem. It just creates more jobs funded via taxation - jobs that just never seem to go away, and for some peculiar reason, the problems continue to mushroom.


Been learning a lot from you folks discussing this issue. I just want to include my voice in supporting capitalism over any kind of nationalistic(socialistic) behaviour. You are spot on !!!!

[Guest]

...those that are proposing some form of government support are far more interested in the serious and long-term damage to our economy that would result from the failure of the auto companies than a desire to nationalize a company or an industry.

Unfortunately, I hold little hope that the parties at interest in the auto situation will ever reach some sort of agreement on a new plan that would justify a government investment. Steve is right that if they don't, they should be permitted to suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.

The problem is that the death of the dinosaurs will cost all of the rest of us a significant amount in both dollars as well as a long-term impact on our individual way of life. An increase in the unemployment rate to close to 10%, a severe deepenoing of the recession, a further collapse of the stock market, maybe even deflation are projected to result from the failure of the auto companies.

Personally, I would choose for that not to happen to me. But if that means that we would be required to simply give money to these companies with no strings, I'm against that. If there is a way to impose permanent and fundamental change to fix the ills of this industry, then I'd be in favor of some sort of bridge loan. But again, I don't think that's going to happen and I believe that the rest of us will suffer serious personal financial damage as the result of the incalcitrance of people like the company managements, the UAW, etc.

[Guest]

No one likes a 10% unemployment rate, but at the same time the paying of 95% wages plus fringes via bailout in lieu of unemployment insurance is a lousy deal for workers not benefited by a UAW contract but stuck with the tab.

The Executive Branch and Congress can impose all the terms and conditions they choose, but have no means to enforce them. Granted, they can sue if the other side breaches the contract, but that's after-the-fact and quite protracted. Only the Judiciary can "manage" the problem, and that's why the court, and not the legislative or the executive branches of government, controls bankruptcy proceedings.

There were concerns at Buick, Chevy etc. when GM acquired them. If someone acquires GM, or it gets into a protective merger - just like many airlines and other manufacturers (remember, Martin-Marietta, Lockheed, and many others) for survivability - what's wrong with that? Oh yeah, some executives and union officials may lose power and personal money.

Again, the aroma around this entire auto industry situation is pretty bad. It still smells like money/votes for more money.

This is a Congress which is concerned with the little guy? Who is kidding whom when they want to take from the little guy (or stick him with the bill) and give to the 7-figure-income guys (including the union officials).

[Guest]

:yuck:Just wondering how many Czars does the White House have? Who are they? What do they oversee? Everytime I hear the word 'Czar' I think of the United States of America turning into the old Russia.

[Guest]

Everytime I hear the word 'Czar' I think of the United States of America turning into the old Russia.

You're not far off. Here's one of them.

https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23995

[Guest]

...You're not far off. Here's one of them...I took a look at the video, but didn't research much farther. I have to admit, I don't have much interest in much of anything either Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has to say, preferring to find a little more balance of views on current events. But if this guy really did pass the vetting process for a Presidential appointment, I'd be disappointed and amazed. To some extent, some of the lower level positions probably don't get as much attention in vetting than the more senior appointments--every new POTUS does have about 4,000 jobs to fill. But for someone that is apparently as conflicted as this guy appears to be, the White House personnel chief ought to get canned.

[Guest]

He's not the only one, there are plenty more where he came from. It's plain as day to see BO is seeding extreme radicles in our government. Just because it's from Glenn or Rush doesn't make it not true. Why is it so had for people to see the truth?

[Guest]

He's not the only one, there are plenty more where he came from. It's plain as day to see BO is seeding...Nothing new here. Just recent memory of the Bush administration shows the placement of some pretty radical neocons in key positions. In the case of the Bush administration many of the more radical types can be traced back to Dick Cheney and the ultra-right Project For A New American Century group, but in the end the POTUS had to give his blessing.

Time will tell how much effect, positive or ill, President Obama's appointees will have on the country. But it seems to me that they'll have to go a long way to beat the damage done to our country by the group of ultra-right neoconservatives that essentially controlled both military and foreign policy during the Bush years. Remember names like Donald Rumsfeld, James Woolsey, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol, James Bolton, Zalmay M. Khalilzad, William Bennett, etc.? These guys not only had their own agenda, but they were enabled by a strong and devious Vice President, a less than attentive POTUS, and a Congress who was more interested in spending money in ways that would assure their re-election than watching what the administration was doing. Have we ever gone to war with less discussion of why, how and when?

We get what we elect, nothing more, nothing less. I suppose we could expect middle-of-the-road appointees if we ever elect a moderate President. But we haven't had one of those in many years. American politics has gravitated to highly polarized ideological warfare. Until that changes, we can expect to get political administrations salted with those who embrace one side or the other--far right or far left.

So what's new?

[Guest]

radical neocons in key positions

Oh please, radicle? The BO crew makes those guys look like Boy Scouts. Let's keep things in perspective here.

So you're comparing Donald Rumsfeld and .... to a guy who's a Communist, Black Panther, radicle community organizer who said if he didn't live in the USA he probably would have joined a gorilla underground?

Hum... I think your rational is a little off kilter.

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist." In 1994, the young activists formed a socialist collective, Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM, which held study groups on the theories of Marx and Lenin and dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia.

These are the folks that BO are choosing to advise him on national policy.

[Guest]

I took a look at the video, but didn't research much farther. I have to admit, I don't have much interest in much of anything either Glen Beck or Rush Limbaugh has to say, preferring to find a little more balance of views on current events. But if this guy really did pass the vetting process for a Presidential appointment, I'd be disappointed and amazed. To some extent, some of the lower level positions probably don't get as much attention in vetting than the more senior appointments--every new POTUS does have about 4,000 jobs to fill. But for someone that is apparently as conflicted as this guy appears to be, the White House personnel chief ought to get canned.


Why do you think this President is using the "czar" route and by passing the regular route of appointing folks that have to pass Senate confirmation process.

As of last I read NOT EVEN ONE HALF of those he should appoint and pass through congress had been appointed after 7 1/2 months !

[Guest]

It's beyond me why these czars don't scare the hell out of most people but yet they still castigate Rush, Glenn or any one in the old administration as if they were the devil personified.

Truth be known there are many in this current administration I consider pure evil and anti-American at the very least. Thank God there are still those who still clearly see the difference between good and evil.

It's one thing to be liberal or conservative and believe in your ideology but it's quite another to look evil in the eye and turn the other way or rationalize it away. I have plenty of liberal friends and they are all quality, hard working, honest, caring folks just like my conservative friends.

That is NOT what we have in our current government.

Take Bill Clinton for instance. Yep he's a lib for sure and pretty much of the standard garden variety just like the conservatives on the other side of the isle.

Now we have a government that's being hijacked by radicle nationalists who are hell bent on turing America inside out and upside down.

It's no longer about liberal or conservative it's about radicle nationalists who conned their way into the highest levels of our government.

People know it now and that's why BO's numbers are dropping faster than a California mud slide after a wild fire.

[Guest]

The definition of "radical" is one who favors drastic political, economic, or social reforms.

Clearly, the group that banded together to form the Project For A New American Century group that were given key positions in the Bush administration were "radicals". In their case, they were on the far right fringe of political and social thought. History has recorded what they accomplished in those eight years, in foreign policy and with the economy. We were all mislead by George Bush in his campaigning that he was a compassionate conservative, that he would dampen the political partisanship that existed when he took office, and that he was a fiscal conservative. Re-read his inaguration speech. He was none of those things. The country was mislead and we're paying the price.

Barack Obama can be similarly criticized. He campaigned as one on the left side of center. But in the first months of his first term, he's governing and permitting the liberal Congress to legislate on the far left fringe of the political spectrum. We may have been fooled again, maybe not quite as badly as with W, but mislead nonetheless. Time will tell whether the damage that the country may suffer will approximate that of the previous administration. I hope not.

But in my mind, both administrations operated near the radical fringe, both right and left. If you disagree and believe that one group were "good guys" and the other "bad guys", so be it. We already know the measurable effects that one group had on our country and in a few years we'll have a better idea on how the other group affected us. Then we can either agree that both groups were a bit radical, or possibly give their governance another name.

[Guest]

Perfect fence walk as usual.

[Guest]

The definition of "radical" is one who favors drastic political, economic, or social reforms.

Clearly, the group that banded together to form the Project For A New American Century group that were given key positions in the Bush administration were "radicals". In their case, they were on the far right fringe of political and social thought. History has recorded what they accomplished in those eight years, in foreign policy and with the economy. We were all mislead by George Bush in his campaigning that he was a compassionate conservative, that he would dampen the political partisanship that existed when he took office, and that he was a fiscal conservative. Re-read his inaguration speech. He was none of those things. The country was mislead and we're paying the price.

Barack Obama can be similarly criticized. He campaigned as one on the left side of center. But in the first months of his first term, he's governing and permitting the liberal Congress to legislate on the far left fringe of the political spectrum. We may have been fooled again, maybe not quite as badly as with W, but mislead nonetheless. Time will tell whether the damage that the country may suffer will approximate that of the previous administration. I hope not.

But in my mind, both administrations operated near the radical fringe, both right and left. If you disagree and believe that one group were "good guys" and the other "bad guys", so be it. We already know the measurable effects that one group had on our country and in a few years we'll have a better idea on how the other group affected us. Then we can either agree that both groups were a bit radical, or possibly give their governance another name.


Oh I could not disagree more...first of all with this statement...

"Barack Obama can be similarly criticized. He campaigned as one on the left side of center. But in the first months of his first term, he's governing and permitting the liberal Congress to legislate on the far left fringe of the political spectrum. We may have been fooled again, maybe not quite as badly as with W, but mislead nonetheless. Time will tell whether the damage that the country may suffer will approximate that of the previous administration. I hope not."

How can you say something like that ? His radical side was continually brought up but we were told that in HIS case it was not important. As said on here before the associations this man had would have eliminated any other candidate for President. His religious ties, etc would have eliminated him.

BUT the media fell in love with him. Of course he tried to temper his remarks as he conned us, but there were those times when he was caught off guard, like in San Francisco but it was all quickly pushed under the rug. There was the Black Panthers, NOT JUST IN PHILLY BY THE WAY...and the list goes on and one so I think the media simply downplayed all his radical thinking which if you read his past it is so evident !

[Guest]

VK---First of all, Bush was not a conservative. How you can compare people like Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett etc. to Van Jones etc. is beyond me. I disagreed with W on many occasions, but never ever did I think he hated America. I wish I could say the same of this new crew, in power. I know that is a harsh statement, but I don't have any other explanation for what is happening to our country. As was mentioned, all the clues were there. People just didn't want to see them.

[Guest]

And they don't want to see them now.

[Guest]

...How can you say something like that ? His radical side was continually brought up but we were told that in HIS case it was not important. As said on here before the associations this man had would have eliminated any other candidate for President. His religious ties, etc would have eliminated him...Bucco, of course those kinds of criticisms were raised during the campaign. They were raised on both sides and in every campaign. Going back, Bush was too dumb; Kerry was a fake hero; McCain was too old and sick; both Palin and Biden were too dumb, and so on.

I'm not referring to the criticisms that were leveled by opponents. I'm talking about the platforms the candidates ran on. Bush was the compassionate conservative, the healer of partisan differences. Obama had a pretty high-minded platform of healthcare reform, improvement in education, even tax reductions. Then after election, both tilted towards the far edge of their respective ideologies. Initially at least, both may have been pushed in those directions by the partisan base of their parties, which controlled Congress. But both seeded their administration with ideologues on the far edge of their political beliefs. Some of the Bush appointees couldn't go along with the unexpected shift in ideology towards neoconservatism and quit. Colin Powell and John Snow were among them. We've yet to see whether there are some centrists in the Obama administration who might think governance is shifting too far to the left.

There's little to be gained by losing political opponents saying, "I told you so." Obama was elected by a majority of Americans, as was George Bush. He's our President for four years at least, as was every President who preceded him. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the bitter partisanship that seems to be preventing our country from coming together for a common good. As Ronald Reagan once told Teddy Kennedy,"If you can get the Democrats to vote for 70-80% of what I want, that's enough. I'll get the rest later." That political philosophy has morphed into a "100% or nothing" ideology. While the term was created somewhat more recently, the Democrats were the party of no when Bush was President; now the GOP has taken their place.

Is all this in the best interests of the country? I think not.

[Guest]

VK---First of all, Bush was not a conservative. How you can compare people like Rumsfeld, Bill Bennett etc. to Van Jones etc. is beyond me. I disagreed with W on many occasions, but never ever did I think he hated America. I wish I could say the same of this new crew, in power. I know that is a harsh statement, but I don't have any other explanation for what is happening to our country. As was mentioned, all the clues were there. People just didn't want to see them.


Good post SallyJo, and I would go one step further and say tnat there were more than JUST CLUES. It was obvious where this man would take us. Problem was in my opinion, since VK brought up Bush, that the hatred conjured up over years about the elections, and beleive me most of it was PERSONAL and not idealogical at all welcomed someone to come in and win based just on that hate !

We have 3 1/2 years to go. VK always says if we dont like it we can vote him out....well, that will be in 3 1/2 years, HOWEVER having said that I join VK in saying the 2010 elections are vital so that at least there is some resistance to what is happening right now in the USA !!1

[Guest]

That political philosophy has morphed into a "100% or nothing" ideology. While the term was created somewhat more recently, the Democrats were the party of no when Bush was President; now the GOP has taken their place.

To say the GOP is the party of no is nothing but a bunch of crap. The GOP has plenty of materiel on the table. Obama steamrolls them every single time and REFUSES to even listen. At the same time he lies through his teeth and says they want to work with the Republicans. They have LOCKED the GOP out and you know it.

On the other hand if what you say is true, I thank God the GOP is the party of no right now. They are the only one's saving us from these wacko's.

[Guest]

Bucco, of course those kinds of criticisms were raised during the campaign. They were raised on both sides and in every campaign. Going back, Bush was too dumb; Kerry was a fake hero; McCain was too old and sick; both Palin and Biden were too dumb, and so on.

I'm not referring to the criticisms that were leveled by opponents. I'm talking about the platforms the candidates ran on. Bush was the compassionate conservative, the healer of partisan differences. Obama had a pretty high-minded platform of healthcare reform, improvement in education, even tax reductions. Then after election, both tilted towards the far edge of their respective ideologies. Initially at least, both may have been pushed in those directions by the partisan base of their parties, which controlled Congress. But both seeded their administration with ideologues on the far edge of their political beliefs. Some of the Bush appointees couldn't go along with the unexpected shift in ideology towards neoconservatism and quit. Colin Powell and John Snow were among them. We've yet to see whether there are some centrists in the Obama administration who might think governance is shifting too far to the left.

There's little to be gained by losing political opponents saying, "I told you so." Obama was elected by a majority of Americans, as was George Bush. He's our President for four years at least, as was every President who preceded him. Frankly, I'm disgusted by the bitter partisanship that seems to be preventing our country from coming together for a common good. As Ronald Reagan once told Teddy Kennedy,"If you can get the Democrats to vote for 70-80% of what I want, that's enough. I'll get the rest later." That political philosophy has morphed into a "100% or nothing" ideology. While the term was created somewhat more recently, the Democrats were the party of no when Bush was President; now the GOP has taken their place.

Is all this in the best interests of the country? I think not.


Of course on this I agree with you....it is not in the best interests of the coutnry, HOWEVER we have a run away train here.

DKLASSEN made this post about clues concerning this president..."And they don't want to see them now."

Listen, we have 3 1/2 years until the next presidential election. We have over a year until congressional elections...thus far we have a "stimulus" bill that was nothing but pork and social programs...we will have cap and trade...we are taking over companies...setting salaries for CEO's.....on the verge of an health bill....unions are gaining power left and right and BEING USED for political purposes, etc. AND ALL OF THIS IN 6 MONTHS !

There are no elections for over a year !!!

Each of those items I mentioned can be debated and each has plus and minus to them but they were all HUGE programs...ramrodded through by a man who promised "change".....we still have over a year and best case scenario, in a year all we can do is SLOW it down. This is a radical Presidency from the get go !

I would also disagree that "those" issues were raised during the campaign. It was not allowed; if you did you yousrself were called a nutcase or a radical, or you were a racist or something of that nature...I experienced that first hand. The media would present it one day and make fun of those who raised the issue and then it would go away !

[Guest]

BO's definition of bi-partisionsip is agree with me 100% or screw you. The GOP have been completely locked out of the process and when they don't vote along with BO's radicle Constitution busting agenda they are called the party of no. There's a real peach for you.

[Guest]

I just keep remembering the statement he made during his campaign and I did hear him say it. I didn't just pick it up from the media. He said, "America is the greatest country in the world. We're going to change it." That's exactly what I see him doing.

[Guest]

"Frankly, I'm disgusted by the bitter partisanship that seems to be preventing our country from coming together for a common good."

The country coming together for the common good, even for politicians, is the name of the game.

I personally believe what we are starting to witness is that the American people are divided into those who want what is good for America and the common good. And there is another group or groups with a completely different agenda.

The adversity, for now, tends to be clumped by the media as well as folks like us as partisan in nature. I say for now because it will become apparent sooner or later that those who want what is good for America is becoming more and more bi-partisan. There are more and more Dems who are speaking up and against the so called "changes". There are many more who fall into that category who will not, ever speak up for fear of retribution.

The most obvious opportunity for all is the voting booth.

I fully agree with the a comment made previously, that 'W' did a lot that a lot of people did not like.....but he never ever hated America and what it stood for.

Just look at the czars Obama has in place and their backgrounds....enough said?

At some point the media has to decide how long they will stay on the Obama jaugernaut.

btk

[Guest]

What scares me is that we have 14 months until the next election and 3 1/2 years until the presidential election. A lot of damage can be done in that amount of time. I'm not sure if Obama cares if he's re-elected. I think he has an agenda and will do whatever it takes to get it implemented.

[Guest]

Perfect fence walk as usual.Yep, I tend to think that the politics that will better favor our country will be closer to the center than to either the left or right. I'll accept your response as the cyncical critcism that I think you intended.

That being said, I ask myself why I even bother to try to attempt a discussion with people who are so wed to an ideology that they refuse to even have a civil discussion? Even those that call themselves "Administrator", whatever the heck that is.

Before I leave, I do have a response to a couple other posts...To say the GOP is the party of no is nothing but a bunch of crap...Now there's a well thought out contribution to the discussion....I guess these days if you embrace freedom, capitalism, right to life and smaller government you are a radicle...No, I'd say that if you embrace freedom and capitalism, you're an American. If you believe in a woman's choice, one not only has the right to that opinion in this country but that belief is actually the law of the land. If one believes in smaller government, the term normally applied is "conservative" or maybe "fiscal conservative". I believe in all those things, and I assure you, Mr. Administrator, that I'm no radical.

I can't say it's always been fun here in the Political Forum, but it's become less fun now that a number of the more thoughtful participants have disappeared somewhere. I often felt challenged to consider different points-of-view, but more recently I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a productive use of time; the positions I was responding to were always the same.

So, I bid you all au revoir, auf Wiedersehen, adiós, and in honor of our growing relationship with China 再見. Don't let any bitter discussions get you too upset.

And remember what can be accomplished as early as November, 2010. I must add the forewarning--little will change if we keep electing the same people who are already there.

'Bye again.

[Guest]

Yep, I tend to think that the politics that will better favor our country will be closer to the center than to either the left or right. I'll accept your response as the cyncical critcism that I think you intended.

That being said, I ask myself why I even bother to try to attempt a discussion with people who are so wed to an ideology that they refuse to even have a civil discussion? Even those that call themselves "Administrator", whatever the heck that is.

Before I leave, I do have a response to a couple other posts...Now there's a well thought out contribution to the discussion.No, I'd say that if you embrace freedom and capitalism, you're an American. If you believe in a woman's choice, one not only has the right to that opinion in this country but that belief is actually the law of the land. If one believes in smaller government, the term normally applied is "conservative" or maybe "fiscal conservative". I believe in all those things, and I assure you, Mr. Administrator, that I'm no radical.

I can't say it's always been fun here in the Political Forum, but it's become less fun now that a number of the more thoughtful participants have disappeared somewhere. I often felt challenged to consider different points-of-view, but more recently I came to the conclusion that it wasn't a productive use of time; the positions I was responding to were always the same.

So, I bid you all au revoir, auf Wiedersehen, adiós, and in honor of our growing relationship with China 再見. Don't let any bitter discussions get you too upset.

And remember what can be accomplished as early as November, 2010. I must add the forewarning--little will change if we keep electing the same people who are already there.

'Bye again.

Frankly VK, I think you are guilty of what you accuse many of us.

There is no doubt that you do in fact tackle each issue and try to come to some sort of reasonable decision often falling a tad left but just a tad.

What you are reading and YOU are interpeting as some great idealogical slant from many posters IS NOT THAT AT ALL....in fact it is simply FEAR of the current administration. I can only speak for me and that is my position.

I am not, in any way enamored with Sen McCain and never was and have said so....I am not a "Bushie" or whatever the term of this week is for those advocates of our last President....I am not a staunch Republican who supports whatever candidate is put forth DESPITE WHAT YOU SAY...those are facts.

I believe the posts you find fault with are simply trying to allow their fear of this administration and what it is doing.

YES...at times that can be frustrating in that you tend to choose specific issues and discuss them and that is great, but so much has already been rammed down our throat in 6 months that it is difficult, for me anyway, to concentrate on one issue with this administration because they can and will do whatever they want...and to me THAT is the issue !

[Guest]

To say the GOP is the party of no is nothing but a bunch of crap...
Now there's a well thought out contribution to the discussion.

It wasn't really meant to be a discussion point. I was just calling it like it is. If you feel that's in error then tell me how the BO administration have included any conservative ideas from the GOP in any of their bills? When have they ever taken the GOP into consideration? They don't and they don't care.

And why should there be bi-partisaship on anything that's bad for America. If it's bad it's bad. Should we take a bad bill, come together and make it a little less bad?

How about just coming up with a good bill?

How about creating a balanced federal budget, a pro-america, pro-business, pro-growth health care bill with a little TORT reform for good measure? I think the conservatives, blue dogs and even those in the middle would welcome it and the economy will love it.

Why don't we? Because BO and the far left now running our country don't want any part of a bill like that.

So where does that leave us? I guess we are the party of no. Sometimes just saying no is a good thing. The American people are saying no.'

I'd say that if you embrace freedom and capitalism, you're an American.

So what does that make Obama? He's certainly not a capitalist nor does he embrace our freedoms given by the Constitution.

[Guest]

:yuck:Just wondering how many Czars does the White House have? Who are they? What do they oversee? Everytime I hear the word 'Czar' I think of the United States of America turning into the old Russia.

I did my own investigation, and came up with this list (it may be off 1 or 2things happen so fast at the WH):
1. **AfPak Czar, Czar for Afghanistan and Pakistan** - Richard Holbrooke
2. AIDS Czar - Jeffrey Crowley
3. **Auto Czar, Car Czar**- Ron Bloom
4. **Auto Recovery Czar & Autoworker Czar** -Ed Montgomery
5. Bank Bailout Czar & TARP Czar -Herb Allison
6. Border Czar - Alan Bersin
7. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
8. **Compensation Czar & Pay Czar**- Kenneth Feinberg
9. **Domestic Violence Czar** - Lynn Rosenthal
10. Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
11. **Economic Czar & Big-picture Ecomic Czar** - Paul Volcker 12. Energy Czar & **Climate Czar & Global Warming Czar** - Carol Browner
13. Faith-Based Czar - Joshua DuBois
14. **Great Lakes Czar ** - Cameron Davis
15. **Guantanamo Base Closure Czar** - Danny Fried
16. Health Care Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
17. **Information & Infotech Czar**- Vivek Kundra 18. Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
19. **Iran Czar**- John Negroponte
20. Manufacturing Czar - Ron Bloom 21. **Mideast Peace Czar**- George Mitchell
22. **Mideast Policy Czar**- Dennis Ross
23. **Performance Czar** - Nancy Killefer
24. Regulatory Czar - Cass Sunstein
25. Science Czar - John Holdren
26. **Sudan Czar**- J. Scott Gration
27. **Stimulus Accountability Czar & Stimulus Oversight Czar** - Earl Devane
28. **Technology Czar,Chief** - Aneesh Chopra
29. Terrorism Czar - John Brennan
30. **Urban Affairs/Housing Czar - Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
31. **Weapons Czar**- Ashton Carter
32. **Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Czar**- Gary Samore/ Nonproliferation Czar
33. **Weatherization Czar** - Gil Sperling

**=new Czar departments since Pres. Obama took over

Number of Appointees (approx. number always changing for Pres. Obama):
appointees:George W. Bush: 46 Pres. Obama 2009: 34
That averages out to (approx. number always changing for Pres. Obama): Bush - 5.75 a year Pres. Obama - 34

Czars: Bush 36 Pres. Obama - 32
That averages out to (approx. number always changing for Pres. Obama): Bush -4.5 a year Pres. Obama - 32
(Remember, these were for 8 years for GW Bush and only this year for Pres. Obama)

Prospective Czars not yet appointed:
1. **Copyright Czar**
2. **Cyber Security Czar / Cyber Czar**
3. **Education Czar**
4. **Green Job Czar** - resigned
5. **Mortgage Czar**
6. **Sudan Czar**