Obama in the Drivers Seat? Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Transparency Please, a resident of another community, on Mar 30, 2009 at 8:27 pm
In the scope of promised government openness where is Obama’s auto industry task force .gov web site?
Here is part of what Obama said today about GM and Chrysler.....
after careful analysis, we have determined that neither goes far enough to warrant the substantial new investments that these companies are requesting. And so today, I am announcing that my administration will offer GM and Chrysler a limited period of time to work with creditors, unions, and other stakeholders to fundamentally restructure in a way that would justify an investment of additional tax dollars; a period during which they must produce plans that would give the American people confidence in their long-term prospects for success.
1) Some questions in the sprit of openness and transparency where is the analysis?
2) Who is the "we" ? What are the qualifications of the 10 members?
3) Who made what determinations and what analytical tools did they use to come to these conclusions?
4) Since we the American people that must pay the bill and not Obama show us the plan!
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 9:37 am
This latest power grab is truly frightening to those of us who understand the nature of this slippery slope. Sounds so pretty, but in reality is an unconstitutional takeover of a private business like we have never seen in this country, and which was abandoned even by SOCIALISTS in Europe some years ago.
However, may as well accept reality, and from now on, since the President of the USA has "made it as clear as" he possibly can (to us who are so foolish he has to speak simply and clearly so we can absorb his wisdom) by stating that the US Govt is now backing up warranties for our GM autos, here is the phone number to the White House to ask for warranty service. You have to call over and over again, because the lines are quite busy. They don't have call waiting with muzac yet like most service departments. Too new at the job, I guess.
202-456-1414 White House Warranty Service
If we are going to have the President of the USA taking over and running companies, maybe next time we should elect someone who has actually run a company somewhere. Even just running a small business, like a 7-11, would be better than an attorney with no work experience.
Or maybe one of the qualifications, besides being born in the USA ( our current president's birth records are still sealed, interestingly enough), would be that our next President is a CEO of a successful auto company, like Toyota.
Oh, I know, let's choose what industry we want to fix, then elect someone who has fixed it elsewhere to be the USA Pres. Make sure he is as handsome or she is as pretty as can be, and can read teleprompters well, so she or he looks really good on all the TV appearances that have to happen. Ya know, gotta keep the Pres campaigning to convince folks who elected him that he is doing a good job. This Dem party has always thought we were stupid and easily manipulated, and now they are proving it to be true.
Who cares about electing someone to do the USA Pres job ( defending our Constitution, security, ya know, unimportant jobs like that)
The worst part of all of this is that I am seeing my media simply ignore this entire brutalization of the office of Pres and our Constitution, and most people are just yawning, watching their TVs, and wondering what is for dinner.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Mar 31, 2009 at 3:36 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Memory and Wiki fail me, but back during the real war, the president of some company was carried out of his office in his chair for defying a presidential edict. It made the cover of Life. Who was he? - Students?
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 8:09 am
Hmmm...that would be interesting to know.
Defying a law would be one thing, which would presumably be able to go on trial..being fired by the Pres of the USA is another, and simply Communism, not even as "mild" as socialism. Communism is a centrally planned economy, and I don't think you can get too much more central planning than a takeover of an industry and a firing of the CEO by the President of the USA.
Posted by Perspective, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Apr 1, 2009 at 11:46 am
The problem is, AP, that there is no support at all for your assertion. If you believe that Bush eviscerated any constitutional rights of yours "in the name of security", please tell us which ones they were. Find any cases anywhere even brought to court concerning any citizen's constitutional rights "in the name of security" that have been eviscerated by Bush, and show them to me. ( Though I believe it is unConstitutional to allow abortions, since that is human life and our Constitution defends life, but hey, that his another story).
Remember, our Constitution's bill of rights does not confer rights on any non-citizen.
And then please show me where Obama has reversed any of the Bush eviscerations...