Letter From CEO of Hobby Lobby inregard to Obamacare

[wanamingo]

But wouldnt the credit line for just about every dealership have been closed if the bailout didnt happen? So many more would have closed?

 

[johnsonma]

The only thing I can find about the dealerships closing that involves the government is the Obama administration telling GM and Chrysler to accelerate their closings. GM and Chrysler was already going to close said dealerships but instead closed them sooner. Oh and by the way a report I read said most dealerships lean republican, that means all those car salesmen are republican, go figure.

 

[riser]

Chrysler announced the planned closing of some dealerships back in February 2008, months before Obama was even nominated, let alone elected. The list of 789 dealerships to be shuttered wasn't announced, however, until more than a year later. Both Chrysler and the Obama administration say that investment banker Steven Rattner, who had been brought in as head of the White House's Auto Task Force to make some tough decisions about the U.S. auto industry at a time when it was running on fumes, did not select which dealerships would live and which would die. The list was a Chrysler product and was based, according to the company, on such factors as sales volume, local market share and location.

I'm sure it was based on all that. Hey, this one is selling too much and hurting the 4 other dealers. Let's close that one. I like the dealership that was just opened by a donor to Obama.. his dealership was failing while the one right down the road, a republican donor, was thriving. Guess which one was closed? If I recall correctly this was in Missouri.

So Steve Rattner, a government employee, made the tough decisions for the private sector auto industry? Who appointed him? Obama. Therefore Obama would be responsible.

GM will likely fall flat again once the government money runs dry. The biggest purchaser of GM products is the government which is why they're rebounding right now. Once that quits, they'll fall back down.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Chrysler has a history here.
It did work, at the time, and only thru retooling and innovation.
Will this be the case here?

I remember someone I talked to at Ford back in the 90s, who lagged behind Chrysler by 2 years in high compression/low friction engines, I asked why wait til now?
He said they simply didnt need to yet.
The government forced Chryslers hand here, which did improve the current scenario regarding power/fuel consumption.

If this does happen, and actually where we should be looking, then, and only then, this sacrifice should be assessed then, and only then.

 

[riser]

Privately owned that I've been too.. problem is if they stopped selling you cars and you were next to a Honda dealership.. Honda isn't going to sell you cars. That's what killed a lot of dealerships.

 

[Reynod]

Im glad you are sticking with this Johnson, good points.

I'm with ya Johnson too.

 

[chunkymonster]

Incentives do not force consumer spending only encourage it. No loss of liberty there. The government closed down small businesses in order for the greater majority of them to have a chance. Not to mention those businesses would of gone under anyways. Oh and most of them just switched to another car maker and are still open today. How is that loss of liberty?

This statement is being used to support your argument for how government intervening in business as an example of NOT being a loss of liberty. But, it actually demonstrates precisely how government intervention into which businesses, products, or services succeed or fail in the market results in the loss of liberty.

 

[chunkymonster]

Chunkymonster - As a result of the bail out, the Treasury Department still holds about 500 Million shares of GM. The Treasury is unwilling to sell the shares because it would result in a $15 Billion dollar loss to the tax payers. The government coerced tax our tax dollars to save a company rather than the consumer deciding whether that company's products were still competitive in the market. When the government restricts, prohibits, or otherwise mitigates the citizen's ability to actively participate in the market place, it is a loss of liberty.

The government gets to decide what it does with tax money, NO LOSS of LIBERTY there. There is absolutely no coercion there, I am guessing you misused the word? The company was managed poorly but still had products that citizen's wanted, so by keeping it alive they kept those choices in place for said people. If the company had gone under those choices would of been gone all together.

There are obviously fundamental differences in how we view the role of government. Whether you realize or accept it or not, Government by it's nature is imposed on the citizen by force, the primary difference in America is that we accept the force of government under the compact that government does not pass laws that inhibit our liberty. This is the primary reason why the American Constitution outlined the restrictions placed on government and was not written to enumerate the liberties government grants to the people. This is best expressed by the preamble to the Constitution...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key words being "We the People of the United States..." and not the "Federal Government of America...".

I am growing tired trying to explain the constitutional role of our federal government. It has become apparent that years of progressive indoctrination or the inability for critical thinking has thoroughly skewed even the most basic concepts of the rights, responsibilities, and role of the American citizen within our constitutional republic. It has become apparent that the liberal tactics of transference, citing unsupported sources, responding indirectly, changing the subject, taking matters out of context, accusing the opponent of not answering questions, demonizing opposing views, and denying evidence exists has replaced reasoned, rational, and logical discourse and discussion.

Incidentally, it is with an understanding of four words; republic, citizen, liberty, and constitution that empowers someone with enough knowledge to understand why and what the government does results in a loss of liberty.

Republic (rɪˈpʌblɪk), Noun; A form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power.

Citizen (cit-i-zen), Noun; A native or naturalized person living within a nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protections.

Liberty (lib-er-tee), Noun; Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Constitution (ˌkɒnstɪˈtjuːʃən), Noun; The fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state.

I honestly don't expect johnsonma to understand how these four words provide a framework for understanding how government intervention results in a loss of liberty.

 

[johnsonma]

This statement is being used to support your argument for how government intervening in business as an example of NOT being a loss of liberty. But, it actually demonstrates precisely how government intervention into which businesses, products, or services succeed or fail in the market results in the loss of liberty.

Exact same counter response you have had the entire discussion. You say something demonstrates precisely how liberty is lost but you cannot for the life of you explain what liberty is actually lost.

 

[wanamingo]

Didnt we the people just have a vote on who our next president is? Didnt we the people vote for Obama?

Besides if you get tired enough maybe you will just stop posting....

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Its funny, these arguments were a vast minority years ago, and frowned upon then.
And before that as well.
Whats changed?
This fundamental change is often seen by former (unwilling) communists, and is seen as it really is, at least by them.
The systems they came from failed miserably, and it all started by unification, promises not possible and making claims how the previous ways had failed.
Things like fairness, for the every citizen leaves room only for a true ruling elite

 

[wanamingo]

Thats all fine and dandy but what about slavery? Wasnt the civil war one of the largest power grabs by the government.. under your definitions?

Or the space program would have been scrapped under your definitions. The government used its own money and scientists to work with private industry to create chips for its computers. In essence choosing winners and losers.

Under your definitions of freedom and liberty wouldnt you get rid of the military, states should provide their own militias? We would also get rid of EPA

Or Civil rights....

Or women's rights....

Or OSHA.....

Or having poop free food....

What you guys want is a race to the bottom, to become like China or another third world production country.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

See:
Constitution

As for huge investments in markets, selecting winners/markets are as important as governments capabilities.
When they fail (see anything solar), it usually shows someone out of touch with reality of markets.
As example, to compete in solar, we would have to raise the costs of natural gas to levels and lowered production, it would harm economies, while little gain, as the Euro market has cooled down on solar, would be seen.

Looking forwards in such positions as POTUS should be easy, but getting to those future/forwards positions, maybe not
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g25G1M4EXrQ

Point here is, doing a macro, such as NASA/space vs flooded markets in only 1 market shows a change of forwards thinking

 

[wanamingo]

Why do liberals always equate limited central government with NO government at all?

Total mental disconnect.

Well then its just a matter of opinion. What does limited government mean and why cant people have different definitions of it?

 

[johnsonma]

There are obviously fundamental differences in how we view the role of government. Whether you realize or accept it or not, Government by it's nature is imposed on the citizen by force, the primary difference in America is that we accept the force of government under the compact that government does not pass laws that inhibit our liberty. This is the primary reason why the American Constitution outlined the restrictions placed on government and was not written to enumerate the liberties government grants to the people. This is best expressed by the preamble to the Constitution...

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The key words being "We the People of the United States..." and not the "Federal Government of America...".


I am growing tired trying to explain the constitutional role of our federal government. It has become apparent that years of progressive indoctrination or the inability for critical thinking has thoroughly skewed even the most basic concepts of the rights, responsibilities, and role of the American citizen within our constitutional republic. It has become apparent that the liberal tactics of transference, citing unsupported sources, responding indirectly, changing the subject, taking matters out of context, accusing the opponent of not answering questions, demonizing opposing views, and denying evidence exists has replaced reasoned, rational, and logical discourse and discussion.

Interesting, a complete bashing of opposing viewpoints without ever actually providing any intellectual input into any subject involved in the discussion. Instead of focusing on your perceived causations for my way of thinking maybe you should stick to the subjects involved in the threads? By the way I grew up in one of the most conservative places in America, your "argument" has no merit with me.

Incidentally, it is with an understanding of four words; republic, citizen, liberty, and constitution that empowers someone with enough knowledge to understand why and what the government does results in a loss of liberty.

Republic (rɪˈpʌblɪk), Noun; A form of government in which the people or their elected representatives possess the supreme power.

Citizen (cit-i-zen), Noun; A native or naturalized person living within a nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protections.

Liberty (lib-er-tee), Noun; Freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.

Constitution (ˌkɒnstɪˈtjuːʃən), Noun; The fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state.

I honestly don't expect johnsonma to understand how these four words provide a framework for understanding how government intervention results in a loss of liberty.

Say what you will about me but you cannot explain how true liberty is lost on most of the matters you've brought into question. You continually say that you don't expect us to understand, without ever even providing an explanation. You might as well say the earth is going to blow up, then when people ask why you say "I don't expect you to understand". The one attempt you made to explain how liberty was lost with the bailout involved the idea that there was less choice now than there was before the bailout. This was based off assumptions that the weak brands that bled the company dry would still be around if it wasn't for the bailout. The statement falls flat when faced with the logic of the situation. Beyond that no explanation about the loss of liberty has been presented for almost all the issues. I have come to the conclusion that this is because there WAS NO LOSE OF LIBERTY and that this entire thought process involving our liberty is fabricated from media biased tv/radio shows, these in turn have convoluted the subject to the point of ignorance for the sake of division.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

No loss of liberty by demanding no soft drinks larger than 16oz either?
And so, who cares about the ecology?
Im thinking I see how this all fits

 

[chunkymonster]

What you guys want is a race to the bottom, to become like China or another third world production country.

Stating that lack of government is race to the bottom is a miss-characterization of what you understand limited government means. This is an example of the fundamental difference between how we view the role of government.

The Federal government was never intended to legislate civil rights, women's right, etc...Those powers are not enumerated within the Constitution and were intended to left to the people or the State's themselves; hence the reason for 9th and 10th Amendments. The federal government is intended to be subservient to the States and to the People. The States, counties, and municipalities within each state were intended to the be central legislative bodies as they are the closest to the people who ultimately retain the power to self govern. The States were intended to operate within the confines of their borders, essentially as their own little countries, and able to pass laws as the people of that State saw fit. That is why laws vary from State to State. If you did not like living under the laws in one State, you have 49 other States that you, as a free citizen, are able to move to without consequence or government approval. If the people and the States want the issues to be addressed at the Federal level, then that is why there is the Amendment process, so the people could change the constitution and change it with their consent. As more issues are legislated at a federal level or mandated without an Amendment to the constitution, the right to self governance is farther removed from the States and the people, effectively making the laws uniform for all States resulting in a loss of liberty to the people.

Please understand that government does have a legitimate place in our lives, but the primary issue is HOW and WHERE the government exercises that power; the how and where argument is part and parcel to the federalist/anti-federalist debates so key to the passing of the Constitution and the reason for the Bill of Rights.

Thats all fine and dandy but what about slavery? Wasnt the civil war one of the largest power grabs by the government.. under your definitions?

In reality, Yes! The Civil War was one of the biggest power grabs by the Federal Government as the Southern States were forcefully restricted from exercising their Constitutional right to break the compact made with the federal government and retain themselves as individual and sovereign entities. If you read early American history, the Civil War was not the first time States rallied to secede, i.e.; Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, the Hartford Convention. If you read early American history and the debates between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, it is rife with the arguments against a centralized federal government and the power that it can take from the States and the People.

Or the space program would have been scrapped under your definitions. The government used its own money and scientists to work with private industry to create chips for its computers. In essence choosing winners and losers.

First, the government does not have any money, they have tax dollars collected from the people, any money the government spends.originates from the people. I would argue that the space program is probably one of the few acceptable uses of the general welfare and common defense clause. The cost of the the space program is greatly outweighed by the products and benefits return to the American people.

Under your definitions of freedom and liberty wouldnt you get rid of the military, states should provide their own militias? We would also get rid of EPA

Or Civil rights....

Or women's rights....

Or OSHA.....

Or having poop free food....

No, would not get rid of the military, just get rid of the Army and the Air Force. The Navy, Marines, National Guard, and Air National Guard are constitutionally sanctioned, whereas the Army and Air Force are extensions of Military Keynsianism.

Wouldn't get rid of the EPA, FDA, or OSHA as the federal government retains the right to regulate commerce between the States and there would need to be equitable environmental and safety standards between the States. The issue here would be where the power of enforcement and how monies are delegated.

Civil rights and women's rights are a tough discussion. There is the emotional racial discussion and then there is a matter of the law. Legally speaking, I do not understand why civil rights are still such an issue, especially with the passing of the Civil Rights Act(s) of 1875 and 1964 and women rec'd suffrage in 1919. If those laws to not address the issues, then follow the legislative process to correct them, no big deal. Personally, I always thought civil rights and women's right were the same issue, as women are part of the people. The law does not see gender or race, it is only when the law becomes about gender or race that discrimination becomes an issue; Lady Justice wear a blindfold for a reason.

 

[wanamingo]

Oh crap! I just realized exactly how fringe conservative you guys actually are!

Have a nice weekend.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

The States, counties, and municipalities within each state were intended to the be central legislative bodies as they are the closest to the people who ultimately retain the power to self govern.

TY, finally the truth

 

[riser]

Didnt we the people just have a vote on who our next president is? Didnt we the people vote for Obama?

Besides if you get tired enough maybe you will just stop posting....

We also voted to keep Congress the same. Which means Republican control of the House is what the people wanted. Congress makes the laws, not the President. That means Obama should stop pushing his agenda's laws and compromise with Congress.

 

[wanamingo]

We also voted to keep Congress the same. Which means Republican control of the House is what the people wanted. Congress makes the laws, not the President. That means Obama should stop pushing his agenda's laws and compromise with Congress.

Funny you say that... more people actually voted for democratic congressman but because of redistricting republicans kept their majority (Losing 8 seats though I might add...). So in reality people would favor a democratic congress over a republican one, which is why Boehner is looking like a fool right now. Also the president has a much higher approval rating than the current republican help congress.

 

[riser]

Losing 8 but also gaining others you forgot to mention.

 

[wanamingo]

They had a net loss thought right? And more people voted for democrats in the House right? So wtf does Boehner mean when he says he has a mandate?

If anything this is just reinforcement to let the dems do what they had originally intended and what the people voted for.

 

[riser]

Boehner won re-election in a State that went to Obama. That would mean that the people apparently agree with him, right? Considering most in the state voted for Obama.. Makes sense, right?

 

[wanamingo]

Im not sure how you want to spin it riser.... more people voted for democratic congressman than republican. And it probably helped that no democrat chose to run against him, probably made being speaker a bit easier when you dont have to worry about campaigning.