More From Carol

This is a continuation of an e-mail conversation with [liberal] Carol. My comments are in italics.

Carol says, "Why am I writing to the Internet?"

You have some strong opinions, which are interesting. I thought you would like a wider audience.

Are you not located in Bob's office,
where you saw my email?

No.

Nope! As a presidential advisor, it was very clear I wouldn't keep my
job unless scientific submissions were fully backed by research or other
types of "proof" as to their veracity. The word, advisor, was a misnomer.

What you have submitted to the President was advice. He had control of whether to use your information or not. You did not have that control.

Correction...carefully examine the backgrounds of both radio talk show
hosts. Then get back to me. I don't think you really want to play in
that puddle!

Radio talkshow posts do not hide their backgrounds. I am generally familiar with them and the errors that they have made in the past and which they have mostly admitted. They have ideas which are both progressive and conservative, and which in my estimation are more favorable to the development of our country than are yours.

Please define "bail-out" and the reasons for same.

Wikipedia says, "A bailout is an act of giving capital to a company in danger of failing in an attempt to save it from bankruptcy, insolvency, or total liquidation and ruin; or to allow a failing company to fail gracefully without spreading contagion. A bailout is a matter of circumstance, so the possible motives behind one are unlimited, though typically the bail-er demands some influence over the company he bailed out."

Point taken with GM; however, go back and read the history of how they
got to that point where the company was crashing and check on the
leadership of GM.

GM should have been allowed to go bankrupt. It had proven its inability to perform with its present structure. The bankruptcy would have allowed a complete restructuring without government intervention. Ford was still able to operate, which proved its competitive competency. The GM bailout indirectly penalized for its proficiency.

There were some very solid reasons for the exit strategy.
Instead of trust, I read the document on health care reform. BTW, the
version I read was 1,036 pages long.

I'm not sure what this is about. Wikipedia sheds no light on "BTW". Any healthcare document of 1036 pages is 10 times longer than it has to be, and is likely intended to hide a lot of information.

The proof will be in the pudding, so to speak. Everyone with working
ears listens to the speeches; if the (certainly recorded) proposals
result in increased taxes, the legalization of "aliens" (cool word, bad
application), etc. then the word, leadership, is destroyed. I think
President Obama has more intelligence than to step in that rabbit hole.
Right now he is being accused by the far right of being a "witch
doctor." Very subtle. Extraordinarily believable? Oh, really.

I think you are rambling here. It is difficult to make specific responses.

No, it does not mean that you can't pay your Federal Income Tax; you
must pay the minimum amount due as per your professional accountant.

I had only asked whether I had the option to pay, because you had implied that the government generally gave me these options. You now agree that my requiring to pay federal income tax is a government mandate.

Again, the application of declared Marxism has resulted in
dictatorships, not what Marx intended. You have to read, if you haven't
already, what led up to Karl Marx's writings about worker control in the
historical context he was writing in.

Nice support of Marxism here.

President Obama has shown no
inclination to turn this county into a worker-run society any more than
he has shown evidence of being a dictator. Leadership is for the common
good. A dictator is for the good of the dictator. We had enough of that
in the last administration.

The Automotive Workers Union is on the Board at the new GM. Last month, President Obama issued an executive order that allows government agencies to limit large federal construction projects to unionized contractors. Most will agree that Castro is a dictator. We don't know what his motivations were to become a dictator. It may have been for the "common good", just as yours are.


To win the election, President Obama could
not represent "more of the same."

I agree. Too many voters disagreed with the actions of Pres. Bush. They assume that any change would be for the better, which is why candidate Obama chose the "change" platform. Unfortunately, the voting public did not consider what that "change" might be.

I agree on the reasons for the "crash" but have no information on the
application of stimulus money, percentage wise; nor do I have any
available statistics on the economic recovery that are reliable.

The mere fact that you have no information on the application of stimulus money or statistics on the economic recovery is consistent with an oligarchic government, which decides what information should be released to the public. Wouldn't it be better if our government were open and forthright about what it is doing?

There must be thousands of articles, by now, on Halliburton. Google Dick
Chaney to start. Secondly, Google, Saudi Arabia.
Billions, not trillions, in grant money. I have searched the grants
continuously and have found nothing in the trillions category. Believe
it or not, try checking the expense of the Iraq war and compare it to
the stimulus package money.

Whether it's billions or trillions, I've said previously that I am opposed to grants using public money. I am not a supporter of the Iraq war nor the stimulus package. An analogy is, wasn't it better that I lost my right arm after I lost my left arm?

There is no public funding for the Public
Option; you are speculating.

You can say I am speculating, but I prefer to say I am anticipating. The Healthcare Public Option would be a good government health insurance company. Like all insurance companies, it would have employees, and reserve assets from which to pay claims. Both of these involve significant money. Where would those funds come from in the Public Option? The obvious answer is from Public Funding.

The difference between the confiscation of money in Egypt and the
confiscation of money in the US, is you control how your money is spent
before you give your tax information to your accountant.

Yes, there is a subtle difference. There is also a difference between being robbed at gunpoint or through legal means. It's still robbery.

Also, alternative energy does benefit you and everyone else, unless you see
the worth of supporting companies like Halliburton. Talk about
disgusting analogies!

I'm not sure what my analogy was, but I don't believe in supporting companies like Halliburton. I believe they should be able to stand on their own feet, without government persecution. Alternative energy does not benefit me nor most people. It is more expensive than using fossil fuels and the increased costs for alternative energy will be paid by the public.

And, no, I don't have particularly "tender"
emotions in the scientific world. However, I do elsewhere.
I am also close to the court system; do you know nothing of the back
room deals among courts, lawyers, and judges? How do you obtain justice
from wards of the court? You are quoting a party line again without
realizing how many people in this country are in jail for petty things.
You realize that the government makes money off prisoners, right? It is
NOT a pretty system, especially if you don't happen to have quite a bit
of money going in. On the other side, some judges and attorneys are fair
and just and so are some decisions. Across the board, it is not the
norm, however. Beginning the end of torture is a start.
Man has evolved somewhat beyond the survival level because we can
verbally teach history to our offspring.

This is emotional rambling and difficult to respond to. I'm sure our court system is not perfect, nor is anything else. There have been and always will be some miscarriages of justice, but we do our best to be fair as jurors. Unfortunately, some members of the court and jurors are so confused in emotional ideology that they find it difficult or impossible to apply the logic of the law. Do not underestimate the value of torture. There are some instances where it should be used for the protection of humanity. Think of it in compassionate terms. It is a necessary evil, which sometimes has its place.

The amount of double taxation applies depending on how you allocate your
money during the year.

We were not talking about the amount of double taxation, we were considering whether double taxation is justified.


Well, if that's true, there is little historic evidence to back up the
largess of insurance companies.

I don't think we were ever talking about the largess (generosity) of insurance companies. Companies are in in business to make a profit, not handout free gifts. The only ostensible difference here is with a Public Option, where the government may be claiming to give a free gift, but in fact is charging customers through a different mechanism.

It goes back to Wall Street, the banking
industry, etc. "policing" themselves. When it doesn't work, regulations
come into play. Are you a student of history? Would we like less
regulation? Of course, but you need to convince the greedier of our
fellow planeteers.

Take it easy on the emotion. We cannot expect any industry to police itself. We have used the fox/chicken coop analogy before. Regulations are necessary but can be overdone. I heard ex-Federal Reserve Chief Greenspan say yesterday that we have developed a superior standard of living and national power in the international arena through a minimum of government regulation. Piles and piles of new regulation will inhibit subsequent development. The alternative of eliminating as much regulation as possible will allow loopholes for abuse, which will be the cost of doing business for the betterment of all. My own opinion is that we should use regulation in each case where we see a potential problem of abuse. At the same time, we should be careful that our new regulations will not do more harm than good.