[kayla.meyer_144]

Dr. J

First off, the air traffic controllers are federal employees, so easier to fire them as the president…completely different than president having the ability to fire someone in private industry. 

OK but they grabbed my rescue rope with me tied to them with a rock that they tied around their own ankles ready to drag us both down with the threat, “save me or I’ll drown you with me.” Under those circumstances I want to kick their a$$ when we get back to dry land not thank them for tying me to a rock. Without the rescue they would have drowned. Republicans are complaining that they were not allowed to drown but when their company is saved & they are kicked out Republicans also complain that government has no right to fire them. This is confusing & sounds like speaking out of both sides.

Second, the past bailouts have been negotiated over buisness plans (like now) with certain assets held by the gov as collateral.  the company were allowed to, as they were able (a judgement made by the company itself, not the gov) to pay back the money owed. Similarly afte the Sand Ls failed, the gov bought some of the bad assets and sold them off as things recovered at a profit.  Again, they did not buy the companies and impose themselves into the industry In the current situation, there were banks THAT DID NOT WANT THE MONEY, where FORCED to take it with all the strings attached..including gov ownership/control, and are NOT being allowed to pay the money back.  To me that is crossing the line as you have government forcing it self on a private company.   

Bush & Paulson pressured the banks to accept and many who said they were healthy had their pens anxiously held out nevertheless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2008/oct/15/banking

I don’t know how “forced” they all were to accept or the reasons to force so-called healthy banks to accept the money. Why did Bush & Paulson force so-called healthy banks to accept funds supposedly not needed?

To be clear, there should be a negotiated purpose for the money (ie, for stabilization of the company/bank, not bonuses etc…btw, Obama’s crew with all their intervention, dropped the ball on that right?), but not a gov take over of the industry (ie out and out socialism).  Really, the pure capitalism would just let all these companies die and that would take care of the

I agree, let them die but not global multiples of Lehman Brothers. For what, a moral hazard lesson? & who pays for this lesson if my economy & children’s prospects are diminished as a result? I posted another time a story I had heard about a tailor who made suits for the Wall Street “suits” in the 1920’s. After the fall he cheered for their downfall saying they deserved it, but he never worked again says the story a bit plausibly. This is too high a price for an impotent cheer just before I become destitute in turn.

In a word, yes…I am worried that the gov will not let them go.  Politicians are as greedy as those in buisness except for they write the rules in addition to having money and power.  It is not just Obama but the current mood in gov in general.  Honestly proposing placing GPS devices on every car to track them (for tax purposes at first but after….), forcing healthcare providers into computer records that will be open sorced to Medicare (ie the gov), controlling many of the largest banks and industries…all make me very very nervous.  Rome cheered when they took an emperor, Hitler was elected to office…it is a slippery slope that we have to be careful of….

“Those who would give up freedom for security deserve and will get neither”-Thomas Jefferson

Not to be picky, but the quote was by Ben Franklin. I am not seeing Obama as the new Emperor or Hitler. If anything Bush’s supporters were saying he was the uni-Executive & not answerable to the Law or Congress or the Court. In fact I think it is Bruce Fein along with other Conservatives who warned about Bush’s practices & wanted him & Cheney impeached & warned what about these powers being used by succeeding Presidents? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Freedom_Agenda

Suddenly now we are in danger of having Emperor Obama but not Emperor Bush, because Obama fired some CEOs?

Seriously, GPS on every car? I don’t think so.

LOL at the last comment.  I went to a religous affiliated (fundimentalist for that matter) private school (very well thought of in the city where I lived) and we had both chapel and religious classes daily. Some of these were overt bible study, some where comparitive religion, and some where ethics/philosophy classes.  Keep in mind that many of the students attended because of the schools reputation and not for the religious element. Creationism was NOT taught in the science classes and evidence for evolution, big bang etc were all presented in pretty much the same manner as when I was in college. What was discussed at the end of that section was the context of the known scientific evidence and its impact on Genesis etc.    For those who where Chirstian, it was very helpful to be exposed to all the scientific facts and theories and be involved in a discussion where it challenged them and allowed them to frame it in the context of their faith.  For those who where not, it exposed them to ideas that they will also come in contact with and at least gave them exposure….actually for a bunch of 15 yr olds (when population biology was taught) it was a pretty engaging series of classes from what I remember. 

Regardless, did not seem to effect my education (have a PhD in neurosceince also).

Comparative religion & ethics/philosophy are not the issues. You were taught that science & religion are not mutually exclusive, but that is not something believed by some Fundamentalists & Creationists. Find for their children but not mine & not with my tax money, I don’t want to pay taxes to teach ignorance.