jackson33

Those of you looking for historical 'cause/effects' of homosexuality are not looking in the right place. Simply its under 'sodomy' and well documented through history. There have been societies based on sodomy, but for the most part society has always frowned on such activity. There are no laws in the US, forbidding ANY CHURCH, its pastor (or whatever) to perform a ceremony for gays/lesbians to equal that of heterosexual couples or in fact are their ANY LAWS to prevent any other person or business from accepting that unions meaning. The question is governments sanctioning such unions, which in large remains objectionable to the majority, even where is currently legal. There are no doubt thousands of 'same sex couples, living in every US State, married by a church in that State and not living in some closet. Your welcome to 'google' where same sex couples can be married, find not inly specific churches but how to become a legal performer of such marriages. Hint; Indian Reservations are not subject to many US law and deeply involved in what I believe to be a scam. Marriage is and has been primarily a religious act or ceremony and is written about in ALL religious text dating back to where the Old Testament was taken from(2500BC). Same Sex Marriage could not have been mentioned for two reasons; Sodomy was itself illegal or before laws unacceptable, certainly to religious leaders over time. Women until very recently were not 'equals' in any sense of the word having no specific rights even to choice of a mate. This in fact remains the dominant opinion of most religions today. Since this thread is based on 'Obama's' dealing with the issue and very hard for me to agree with the man on any issue, in this case I believe he is correct. It's a State issue or an issue betweens individuals. In having two clergy members diabolically opposed to the others, can only serve to bring the issue to the attention of all Americans. As mentioned several times, there should be a consistency to LAW. In the US, laws are and have been lining up to give 'same sex' equal status to 'one each'. IMO, it seems counter productive to recognize the rights to raise children in a 'same sex' home', giving them the equal rights to certain government programs, then deny those same people other rights. This then to me is where the discussion will go and the US SC or Congress itself will HAVE to set US Government policy on the issue. One other misconception (IMO) has been the notion the US was NOT formed under and by VERY RELIGIOUS individuals. In fact they were and the majority of people coming here were for that very reason. The founders WERE opposed to mandating personal beliefs on the people and mentioned often in their arguments. Additionally it was their belief and maintained to this day, that Government should not be involved in any religious activity, nor any of the customary traditions practiced in those days. In fact Congress and government operated on December 25th, like any other weekday well into the 19th Century. It is said 80% of the US populace today believes in a God and the vast majority in Jesus as their messiah and no President has ever been elected (through legislative or popular vote of electors) that was agnostic of an atheist.

While 'Theoretical Physicist/Scientist' generally try to prove through Mathematics seen/detectable phenomenon, Einstein was one that made predictions on mathematical possibilities on some issues still speculative or to disprove other observations (Newton's Gravity). I am sure other have done much the same or at least stated opinions, that were later proved correct. Wikipedia list well over a hundred of the better known, dating back to to philosophers (Democritus/Archimedes) to folks like Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, Pascal, Kepler, Newton, Plank and of course Einstein. I do agree with you both (I think), that whether from a two or three dimension viewpoint of space, there is no natural curvature. The said proving of this from the Solar Eclipse and the said many confirmations were in fact repeating the of the original error. Observations of light IMO are always from the source. Where that light came from and in its time. During the eclipse test, what I feel was seen is a result of what was a second ago or so, from around the moon, possibly in combination with the sun eight minutes ago and from the source of an object light years away. I like to use 'strobe lighting' to show how illusions can be created in/by visual (photographic) means are used. Whether in person or being filmed, strobe lighting creates the illusion of slow motion, however in reality the actions are in real time. We in short see only the results/effects of certain wavelengths of energy... iNow; Please note, no one has claimed Einstein's theory is incorrect or that the theory has been reputed, but rather questions the conclusions of the test involved and accepted as proof. Where else but on a Science Forum, and in some alternative theory category, would you suggest they go to explore their opinions. Using the authors own analogy, Albert Einstein would have been banned for lack of reference, by you...

Yes I know, think about Nov. 16th on the notion his replacement would have a better shot of being seated on one or another committee. What bothers me here, is whats gone on since and he taking his personal choice for that slot into his own administration. Maybe more going on in Illinois than whats being reported....Most don't resign early for that additional couple pay checks and hard to oppose, I would do the same.

It will be interesting how Obama accepts his opinions. Scientist's are not noted for accepting compromise or adapting policy to conform to public acceptance. Since, I also like seeing a non-politician at the Cabinet level from a related field/profession, I'll just ask if you all read the replies...not exactly total endoursements....Then Berkeley....

Bob; Please... "Most charismatic leader in modern times", is being a bit presumptuous, based on a person that has yet to lead anything. I'll grant you he gives a good speech off a TelePrompter and knows how to ride an audience enthusiasm, but has shown me no ability to form a sentence with out some very deep concentration, then not always coherent. Aside from that, his base or the fragments of the Democrat Base are looking for actions directed at their pet peeve, not a good talker.... My opinions on 'MAN CAUSED', global warming, cooling' or whatever you call it, have nothing to do with politics. We are in the third or forth generation, where governments (all ideology), social engineering and the Educational Institutions have been literally preaching of our pending demise at our own hands and that one of 500 things must be done to correct. We correct one then it goes to another and has for the 50-60 years the subject has been alive....If we all died today, nothing would change any differently than is already in our unknown future. We are only here to begin with as conditions change in Earths past, where those conditions allowed primarily atmospheric condition and we are hear now in magnitude (6.6 Billion) for the ideal conditions. The past few hundred million years since complex life began on the 5 Billion year old rock, would be hard to cover on this post, but condition today are not going to be the same a million years from now, whatever is on the planet. I said McCain's 'Biggest' error, not "only". He made far to many to mention and of no interest to you or anyone today. Obviously Obama, made the correct approach to the public, or at least those that ran the campaign. Think we covered 'sore losers' awhile back. Pangloss; Democrats in Illinois, tend to win 2 to 1 over republicans, especially in Senate races. But guess anything could happen. Obama is the President Elect, or will be on January 5th, 2009 when a Joint Session of Congress certifies the electoins...

Bob; If this is correct and both you and Pangloss, would seem to agree, then what will be the uniting argument bonding the extremes with in the Democratic Party. Your back to Environmental Issues, Capitalism and every little self perceived disenfranchised group in the country, with a defined agenda no core belief. The Administration will try, as they all have, to blame the previous one(s) for their own failures or the end results if not favorable to their base wishes. How many times did you hear 'Reaganomics', 'The Carter Years' and so on this cycle, by both sides. It is normal, politics as usual and I agree non-effective to the majority of the electorate. McCain's, biggest error, IMO was ignoring his base. I understood his idea in that the based should follow and he was aiming his campaign at Independents and moderate Democrats. What happened was he did get some of those, but his base sat out the election. As for Palin, well she did stir the interest and obvious to me in turn outs at any event, but people have always tended to vote for the head of the ticket. Pangloss; The Illinois Congress will probably remove the Governor, if he doesn't resign first, but whether from Election or appointment by the now Lt. Governor, do you actually think a Republican could receive/win the Senate Seat??? bascule; The recount has been completed, only to bring up another issue, a difference of about 177 missing votes and additional disputed votes. They are both making some effort to pull the disputed, but as long as neither will concede their legal teams will continue to play games. IMO, and again I don't think either party is particularly concerned. The Republicans know, they would not have the votes to shut down an issue the Democrats really want, probably down to 55 or 56 Dems/Ind...Those 19R running in 2010 are not going to rock the boat.

Bob; What I AM saying is that by 2012, IMO the Democratic Party WILL be divided and much more than the Republican. I am basing this opinion on the absolute impossibility of satisfying both the Far Left and Centrist or Moderate factions of the one party. Add to this Bush will be gone and what has held these factions together in the first place has been 'Hating Bush'. I DO NOT dislike Obama and certainly don't dislike many of the so far appointments. Whether this election is Historic or not, is not the issue. Yes we had two women (Clinton/Palin) run, a Latino (Richardson), a Mormon and of course a Black, who won the General Election. I wish him luck and if I support an issue, will be behind him but will oppose vigorously anything seen radical. What I have said during the campaign and remain convinced, is that he is not qualified to be President and can think of 6 or so others that did run that are were qualified, including Clinton. He as a Constitutional Graduate of Harvard Law School and with a required basic knowledge in American History, has shown me no understanding of how government works much less the duties and responsibilities of that office. No, you have evidence of a few political pundits, wanting to continue working for future candidates, place blame on anyone they can for their loss. Accusations against Ms. Palin, by them have in large been dismissed and the only future split likely will be those few. Frankly most political strategist gave McCain absolutely no shot to winning until she became the VP pick, including myself. Yes, I know Obama did VERY well with the Latino vote and was quite a surprise to me having lived most of my life in South Texas, NM or Arizona and doing business IN their communities. I can only guess that during the campaign, they were continuously exposed to media closing down business and throwing Latinos on buses headed for Mexico. I didn't like that any more than them, but have no idea what they are expecting. They are a very hard working, religious group, wishing to be rewarded for success and based their lives on the dreams America has offered. Seems like you have another problem 'steeling jobs, won't learn the language' which are neither true but another topic... bascule; Anything can happen in Minnesota, but I do think enough is enough and it should be the losing person by all accounts (even if low numbers) to just concede and get on with life. With 19R Senate seats up for grabs and 17D in 2010, Obama/Reid/Polosi have their filibuster proof majority, surely until after those elections. The only possible reason might be Iraq, the War on Terrorism or National Security are involved, but it would likely be Democrats joining republicans to stop actions opposing some 'status quo', especially if Israel is involved...IMO, Coleman will be seated and would place the odds at 99 to 1...

My goodness; It's been awhile in basically agreeing with a poster, I get such a response. Colman, will be seated...predict all you want. On the future of the Republican party, verses the problems in the Democratic Party, I ALSO was/am predicting the future. Think thats what "the fight WILL be" infers. NOW disagreeing with you, I feel the Democrat Base will revolt against an Obama Administration, probably weeks or months from him taking office, earlier the longer he plays president before inauguration. I'll go further and predict his major problems will come from the Democratic Congress and those with specific issues, which will NOT get addressed, or addressed to far less an outcome than expected. He ran, particularly in the early weeks as a populist (saying what a specific group wished), get out of Iraq, tax the rich, place profit taxes on the oil company's and the like. When he began to run as a centrist, he began losing and probably would have if Ms. Clinton and her handlers had planned ahead. They hadn't planned on a Campaign past Super Tuesday, in the first place, doing very well on near no money compared to her challenger. The divide then IMO began... Republicans do have some problems and the big one will be Illegal Immigration. Like it or not, they don't, Latinos in the US are going to become a major block and their is no logical link to the Democrats, at least over the Republicans. They also now have the perception of GWB last 8-10 months in office and the 'Financial Crisis' and a perceived patronizing of the Obama Camp into problem. But its NOT a Palin problem, Ron Paul problem, McCain like problem or one that would split the party.

Yes, under Cap and Trade Policy, The 1990 Environmental Act or some Congressional Mandates, Factory emissions of most industry is included in some manner. We are talking limitation of a produced item and the limits of what by average CAN be produced. Winnebago, International (and other Big Rig producers) are governed in one way, as they produce only low mileage/higher emissions and are only hurt by the lowering averages. Auto Company's the have produced both, the averages are out of line to the rest. GM for instance was a producer of School Buses, Volvo Big Rigs and other items, which were long ago sold off, to lower their averages. Toyota (and the rest) all came into the US markets with small environmental friendly product, can easy meet these standards. Truck models, which includes SUV's have always used other standards and helped F/GM for some time, but as these standards have changed, they required building more and more small vehicles. Back to the point, they produce these small vehicle only to allow the production of the larger...making no money on the smaller and making money on the larger IN THE US. Where these same Government requirements do not exist...China, India, Russia, they are producing greater percentages of the large vehicles and still doing quite well. Remember during this same period, Saturn had been a GM success and possibly the one reason they didn't go 100% Truck Sales (PU/SUV's). Then also the desire to someday compete in the Electric or other alternative fuel models. I understand the concern for a 'slippery slope' in requesting aid, which would seem to have no bottom. Every little business has been effected and IMO the basic problems have come from government, Federal, States or Local. I don't think they should have bailed out ANY Financial Concern, but understand why they felt the need to, and I don't think the Federal should even entertain the idea of bailing out Cities or State Governments, especially California. And yes, I could argue in favor of this since Federal Mandates w/o financing them have hurt. Its IS a mess, I have nothing to offer but opinions and the end results will have to come from those that understand the problems. On alternative Transportation modes, which includes flying, we already have a very good system WHERE USED. Most Metropolitan areas have very good commuter train systems and we have Amtrak which is not used, nor are Bus systems for longer trips. The basic infrastructure exist in a massive rail system, well maintain by private industry and could convert anytime if the public would use. The same infrastructure already has replaced a good share of Trailer/Container traffic across the North America, well over 50% of the non-timed delivery requirements.

Briefly, I am a 'Free Market Capitalist' and seriously support the principle. As have said (and others) Government has already been involved in the auto industry. The biggest event, was percentage of products that had to be produced with -X- fuel mileage and -X- emmision requirement, to what they produce in total and actually can make a profit. GM and Ford, were doing just fine, producing what they believed and the public was buying, PU Trucks and SUV's and few small cars. They then had to start building and selling small cars in numbers they couldn't sell and losing money on each car sold, just to be ALLOWED to produce the ones they could sell and at a profit. I'll go further and suggest if permitted, they each could have produced these small cars overseas and imported making a profit, but this would not fit into the laws imposed on them. Food for thought only, since I think we basically agree.

iNow; The purpose of law, is to judge on the 'cold hard facts' of the case or in the case of an issue before the SC, the issue as it pertains to US Laws and the Constitution. There are quite a few references available, where Obama would like to take the SC, by appointments and the use of the US Judicial System to alter these purposes to the emotional or if you prefer the circumstances a perpetrator commits crime, rather than the fact the crime was committed. This is called 'Extenuating Circumstances' and are already considered, but in sentencing. Google; Obama+SC+Nominees Obama+SC+Visions, or if you have an advanced search engine you can get his arguments while an attorney for ACORN. At the 'Althouse' site; To planned parenthood Obama said..."We need somebody who's got heart, the empathy to recognize what its like to be a teen age mother". This is particularly scary to me, for SC Justices to come from those with personal backgrounds where any influence in decision, could be based on any event in their life, RICH OR POOR. He as a graduate in Constitutional Law, should know better than the average person, this was neither the intent of the founders, or the true purpose of law...

Possibly because Ms. Clinton was his only major competition, Obama ran against the Clinton policy, usually saying past 20-30 years to whatever referenced. As for the Clinton influence, I'll take another path, suggesting his handlers or advisor's are making the picks. Their already in 2012 campaign mode, but will admit the move is somewhat settling, at least to me. I'll disagree and suggest the hardcore left, those wanting out of Iraq yesterday, wanting social changes or the as in Capitalism (taxing Big Oil or the rich, Unionizing or some environmental cause) would or should be consistent with individual rights. Even today, Obama is professing a passionate approach to interpretation of the Law/Constitution over that of pure legality.

It's now 42, but you still correct, Democrats now have a virtual filibuster proof Senate, if ever needed. I have never understood the Teddy Roosevelt Conservative connection to the modern day Reagan Conservative. Whether Palin runs or not in 2012, think the fight will be in the Democratic Party, not the Republicans. Republican's currently do have a young fresh crop of politicians coming up through State Government and gaining some ground on University Campus. Palin, should be considered to head the RNC, which won't happen, or somehow get to Congress. Splitting Social/Fiscal Conservatives, your idea, would end the party in total and NOT create anything near what now has a shot.

npts2020; Under normal circumstances I would oppose bailout in total. With regards to the Auto Industry, government has been indirectly trying to manage what/how they produce (at least in part), for vary long time. They then IMO are responsible (again in part) for their current financial situation** and to be honest, I am not sure government in near total is responsible for the actual financial breakdown, which happen to happen when they were already stressed while retooling. **Another topic, but Fanny/Freddy are regulated by Congress, or in this case almost unregulated to what constituted a legitimate loan. Fanny was in fact part of Government until 1978, when privatized and Freddy organized then, both under Congressional control. As for Government actually operating a business, they are statistically the last place to invest. Productivity is so far below the average, yet wages and perks so much above the average, it simply make no sense. I am sure their are some in Government, that have some business knowledge, but in Business you have one CEO and CFO who are responsible and often replaced by a board of directors or the stockholders. Congress on the other hand is 535 individuals and nearly impossible to get one removed, much less enough to make a difference.

If anything the turnout was light where traditional voters were concerned and believe one point of the thread. Wouldn't it then be logical those rather conservative 'referendums' on 'same sex' or 'abortion' 'gun issues' have been defeated more soundly. Then noting PE Obama's various statements, how many of these issues would he rather have turned out different. To vote or base a vote on change (Obama), then voting for 'status quo' (referendums)seems to make no sense...or at best showing a very weak case FOR Obama. I am curious on what change you personally are expecting, or for that matter anyone idea of expectations from an Obama administration? If he continues to follow Clinton's policy, with my blessing certainly seems to be, he will lose his base.

Before the primary season and well before Fox News or Rush, even considered a potential upset by Obama over Ms. Clinton, I wrote much the same on PL and under my real name for publication (won't divulge). It was in response to the statement 'Obama Hussein Obama' a black liberal, with a questionable past and little known, had no possible way of defeating Hillary Clinton, in the up coming primary season'. My response then was very simple and stated, 'Be very careful here, because those things are exactly why and how he could defeat Ms. Clinton'. For the record however, I also said, it would depend on our candidate but most likely lose to the Republican Candidate, even in what should be a easy Democrat Cycle victory. My conclusion in those articles was "Clinton would, most likely be elected" over each of the then known Republican Candidates. At the time, I did not consider an Obama victory, primary or general election a probability. Later, I advocated a thousand times to GET OFF the name/Wright/messiah and other comment/issues, as was turning into sympathy factor, where media was picking up the issues as 'dirty politics, as usual'. I don't recall Limbaugh or FNC, ever mentioning these opinions and what was mentioned, fell along other media comments. Your welcome to think I have no personal opinions or capable of self thought, pick the above apart on 'hind sight/made up' comments and continue to think Obama if John Smith a white from Omaha, with identical credentials would have pulled this off, but frankly IMO, that is an absurd opinion, thought, with out any historical precedence.

iNow; Your perceiving change desired by the electorate as equal to that of you. The US demographics have changed dramatically in the past 50 years. Woman are taking prominent rolls in Business/Society/Politics and we have a large number dependent on Government in some way, even if just Social Security. The change you feel seen in Obama (if just another white guy), would never have been accepted over that of the obvious change in direction offered by Ms. Clinton or what was obvious to me in Ms. Palin. I don't have the time to check out all the names, but many members of 'so called' minorities have been elected in increasing numbers over the past 50 years and this influence has been felt on the National Level. I first noticed this with Ann Armstrong, Elizabeth Dole, Ma Richards and more recently in Governor Jindal of Louisiana. IMO, its almost inevitable we will have a woman President in 4 years or 8 at the most. On message; Including Reagan, in higher degrees all candidates since, the message offered in campaigning and actions of the winner have had no commonality. You would probably have to backtrack to FDR, to find any resemblance to 'Party Platform' and the actual operation of an administration. If race makes no difference to the electorate, why didn't McCain get at least 10% of the black vote. He adopted and helped raise two children from Africa, along with his own kids and during a period this was not 100% acceptable, at least in Arizona. He advocated bringing 'Illegal Aliens' into the society and spent most of his life in the struggle for equality of all races, including a formal forgiveness to a people, who imprisoned him for five plus years. He lost both the Latino and Asian vote. His educational policy was directed at placing minorities on an equal playing field and in both National and Arizona has advanced/influenced Native American policy. Does three years working with ACORN, or opposing Constitutional Law, really equate to MCains 30 years?

It's difficult for me to argue against anything that prevents Congressional Actions, but one purpose they serve is to further actions from the House, which is and was designed to be where the people were directly linked. The filibuster was first used in the mid 19th Century, where some Senator actually talked for as long as possible, much later changing to an act of tabling an issue. In theory then, if the House by majority vote, followed by the Senate by majority vote and the President then signs...it would follow the intent of the Constitution. Any action requiring 'Super Majority' already exist and should be the only limitations beyond the 'simple majority'. With communication we have today, with phones, computers, even telegrams or the usage of our local papers, anything outrageous will get plenty of opposition from the electorate, which every branch of Government will notice. Rio; Bi-partisan, to me means compromise. Compromise to me means simply changing of minds. If you oppose an issue, say 'Illegal Immigration' and you currently oppose, what could you possibly give up to change you vote if it meant defeat on the issue? Or what would it take in grants going directly to State or District? Isn't this the real problem with politics, in the first place. On any issue, no person with any conviction on any issue should be coerced/bribed or threatened to change his/her mind or in my mind be in Washington in the first place.

"my grandmother, a typical white woman" would cross the street rather than confront a couple black guys or " I don't look like that guy on the dollar bill" are racially toned statements intended to create sympathy from a segment of the electorate, IMO. I'll ask again; Does any one think, Obama would have received the required national press coverage, the attention he did receive or even one primary victory, if he was a white guy from Des Moines, with the exact same history? Add to this the resumes, credentials and experience of what his ten opponents, which he apparently now has embraced, and the only answer is NO. iNow; It is my opinion, he, Axlerod and the rest of his team wanted race an issue, BUT UNDER their terms. They knew well, name recognition would be required and what other characteristic/qualifications of this man could he have achieved this purpose. Since you seem to have an obsession with open discussion on race, let me repeat; If I were one of those advisor's or the candidate himself, I would have done the same thing.

IMO; Any comment made, making race an issue to influence the electorate is playing the race card. In making those and a few others not mentioned, he was directing comments to two select groups...(The Young and those that harbor some guilt from their ancestor's policy). Personally, I would have done the same or advised him to do so, taking the potential issue off the table. Regardless how you accept the mention, it did work and he went on to take both demographics. As for McCain and "Maverick" or "My Friends" I certainly agree. He probably lost more votes using those two 'slogans' then Obama gained by his, or many just sat out the election. Think you know, but the Maverick tag was placed on McCain, while in the Hanoi Hilton and never had anything to do with his politics.

Since Article VI, is with in the Constitution, some will consider this meaning to US Laws as they developed. Others, and many do take your version but will say the motive was to enforcement of laws of States. That is if you commit a crime in one State, flee that State, then that State must apprehend and extradite that person on request. We have thousands of State Laws which counter other laws to degree of any other State, not only to rights but limit to rights. Keep in mind on how the system works; Until 2003, sodomy laws existed in pockets throughout all States. This US SC 6-3 DECISION, made all law in all States with regards to sodomy illegal to enforce. Long before this, the potential for 'Same Sex Unions' was becoming an issue. The DOMA, you refer to was passed by Congress..Senate 85-14...House 342-67 and signed by then President Clinton in 1996. It clearly was intended for Federal Purpose and allowed States to make law to design law to their wishes. Hawaii had already done so and the rest have followed. At this point, MA. and CT. stand on legal grounds, as would California but no other State would be required to accept those unions, for purpose of legal or benefit rights, nor would the Federal.

"They are going to tell you, he has a funny name, and by the way, did you notice, he is black".... This statement, I heard no less than 10 times by Mr. Obama and have no idea how many times over media, is as 'Race Card' as any statement I have ever heard. "This is not Black America, White America, Mexican America....but one America". Who were they; Aside from the Clinton's and few Democrats, like the Reverend Jackson or friends of Obama, like the Reverend Wright, I never heard any person bring race up or in fact we had a divided America. During the Campaign, on two conservative forums, I saw very little comment on his race at all and any comment attacking his policy (what there was) was met by pundit responses of racism. I understand what your saying however, just as I would consider a candidate from my State, hopefully still voting on issues, many folks voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black (all races and for various reason) and certainly if I were black I would have voted off policy for him. I would further argue, if he was not black, did not have funny name, he nor any other person with his background would have won one primary, much less the General Election...In My Opinion. I don't know of any primary season or legislative picking of candidates through history that had so many qualified candidates, where the two least likely were picked w/o credentials, as this cycle.

It has always amazed me how so many votes are along party lines in the first place. It hasn't always been this way and today most from both party's run according to their State populations want. Logically every vote, should have a good many from each party on both sides any issue. The House of course, will be running in 2 years again and another third of the Senators. If tradition holds (probably will) whatever Obama wants will happen, at least through the first year, then depending on public perception the second year will be based on that perception. In short, however configured, the Senate has had a Filibuster proof majority since it hit 55 Democrats..IMO...

Acceptable business practice is set by the people who chose to work for that operation. I wouldn't disagree with workers in any operation, having a spokesperson for them, with managements approval, to talk over issues as needed. As for throwing trash out your window, long before government intervention, folks decided it just looked bad and changed their attitude. Business people, over the years have changed many policy to encourage longevity with some company and protect the investments in their employees. You are correct, the Foreign Auto Makers didn't bother to build vehicles in the US (always could have) until our labor laws and their home country laws equalized the cost. It was simply cheaper to build outside the US labor jurisdiction, pay the tariffs/shipping cost and maintain a nice profit margin. As States made Union affiliation a choice, shipping cost increased and incentives of many communities became the rule, they moved to where the markets actually existed. Minimum wage, set by the Federal, is simply a minimum in the first place. I see no reason, why they exist in the first place or many laws that restrict entry level into any type business. States, if they wish to discourage hiring the young or inexperienced folks, can set any limit they want, but here again as a minimum. Many companies, farms or folks just wanting to get around these laws, can very easily offer piece work wages, voiding those minimal wage laws. GM/Ford/Chrysler and other long gone US Auto Makers (about a thousand) have/had worked with Unions for years. Do you understand that in ALL cases, it has been Management that negotiated with Unions for perks/wages/conditions and so on, which in the end THEIR pay/perks and so on ALSO increased. The Boards of Directors and Stock Holders (investors) who are the owners in any publicly traded company, have been left out of this process and much of the current problem. Having said all this; I do favor the current 'bailout' programs but for entirely different reasons than have been suggested. Unions are not going to give in much and the retiree's are not going to accept cuts demanded by government or are their communities going to be able to absorb the loss. I also am concerned about the perception of buying a 20-50k dollars item from a company under any chapter of bankruptcy, when nearly the same vehicle can be bought from a profitable firm. Lastly, its my opinion, many of the mandates made on this one industry, by government in the first place and over many years have added to the current problems. Autos sold in California have to have this and if sold in Florida have to have that and so on into what the Federal has demanded... Its not just the Auto Industry, but was in the many other industry now long gone or currently effecting others. Government Employees and Teachers Unions the obvious. It boils down to a pyramid scheme mentality to satisfy the few for the detriment of the majority. Could add Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and some forms of Welfare, where inevitably more is required to cover each generation and the society populations have stagnated or decreased. An additional stumbling block has been average life expectancy and if you have noticed the cost of medical care. Their are a good many people in this country, that are now receiving twice (possibly more) their working Career wages, having aged medical expense averages 10-20 times what was when they worked. IMO it was as SS has become, a means to uneducate the public on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, depend on Government. Guess what, time is running out and in 20/30 years, in some manner 2 working people will be supporting another person in every aspect of life. NO, employer has ever figured these kinds of problems, when hiring a person, however the wage/benefits broke down.

So if you save a few dollars, open some (7-11) type corner grocery, you want government to set the pay scale, tell you then what you can earn, probably what percentage of profit allowable. Your money and your ideas are 100% at risk, government risking nothing and your employees I hope you think should be your choice, could very well be the single factor in going broke. How can any person, especially in Government, possibly understand the differences for 'required minimal wage in one much less one States to another, but one town to another. If you make it universal, that little store in LA, where cost of living is five times higher than Hutto, Texas would receive the same wage and that Hutto business would be gone with the first pay check.