It's funny now though because Obama is in power. If this were a Bush directive the liberal crowd would be calling for impeachment hearings. It's sad on both accounts. Now there are conservative politicians (who have voted for the "patriot" act and other nonsense) who are outraged at this. Sorry but either you are against it or for it (there are logical reasons for both sides) but don't change your opinion based solely on an R or D next to the name of the person in the White House.

I have no idea why people think this makes them safer and why they can't see the bigger picture. It isn't even secretive that they want these machines on subways and trains. Napolitano's vision: Body Scanners at Subways, Trains, and Federal Buildings - Yakima conservative | Examiner.com I am sure at some point it will be any mode of public transportation. But as long as the company (with some serious ties to politicians of both parties) can continue to sell their $150000 body scanners I guess we sheep will continue to roll over. Can't wait until like 2014... how did all of this happen?

I saw a Dylan Ratigan piece that showcased the transfer of wealth actually being from taxpayer to wealthy, through the bailouts, when the rhetoric from the right during the election was that the redistribution of wealth under Obama would be from wealthy to poor. Pretty interesting look at it. Without the bailouts however, IMO, we were all doomed to feel the effects of the depression again. Im sure we'll have one someday and even if its 100 years from now Im sure some will blame it on these recent bailouts.

Sorry, I think my take on this is up the thread a bit but for the record, this is a case where I've completely parted company with what seems to be the majority of conservative commentators lately.

I fully support the use of the latest addition to the travel security arsenal (although I'd prefer to see it used in conjunction with/in support of other methods, starting with detailed profiling).

You do know that these scanners are unlikely to have been able to detect the "underwear bomb" that inspired their addition to the screening process? Everything I have read says that is true. In what ways do you think this will actually make flying safer? The evidence seems flimsy so far.

I grew up in England, there was a nudist beach not that many miles down the road from us - as such I'm fairly comfortable in the fact that naked people doesn't have to be sexual or scary .... heck its how you arrive in the world and clothing is an artificial construct ...

For kids - yes teaching them that those are their 'private parts' is sensible and helps prevent molestation, however I'm grown up now and can make decisions myself thanks.

this made me LOL because I agree

WASHINGTON -- President Obama plans to announce a two-year pay freeze for civilian federal workers later Monday morning in his latest move intended to demonstrate concern over sky-high deficit spending.

So...instead of actually doing something real about "sky-high deficit spending" (like pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq ahead of schedule), we get a symbolic gesture that will reduce federal spending by less than 0.05 percent.

And with that symbolic gesture we witness President Obama's unfortunate alter-ego, President Gimmick. President Gimmick isn't serious about solving any of our problems, he's only serious about demonstrating his desire to solve our problems.

President Gimmick doesn't offer up plans designed to do anything, he only offers up plans designed to give him zingers for his 2012 debates.

How about that the "symbolic gesture" includes freezing raises for employees on alternative pay systems? So my agency falls in line, despite not receiving taxpayer funds and having a completely different revenue source.

Or include the military in on it as well.

That is awesome. Take more money from the people who need it, meanwhile the fat ass politicians continue to fleece America.

Unfortunately here in america, it is a rather modest/prudish society. We are, after all, in the very same country that a person who moons someone can be put on a sexual predators list. This is a very sexually repressed society here compared to europe. Look at the freak out that was caused because Janet Jackson's exposed covered nipple was on tv during the super bowl a few years back.

We would be better off capping the contracts awarded to DOD contractors rather than our actual soldiers. Still, I'd love to see all the troops come home tomorrow and use that money for something more useful (like debt service). So many people who whine about the supposed expense of health care have never found a war they didn't want to wage.

Just following the deficit chair's plan. Rich people have fleeced the nation and the only way out is if poor and middle class folks sacrifice more.

Most municipalities and state governments have endured a pay freeze for the past 2-3 fiscal years. Why hadn't the federal govt. done the same?

From what I've seen of historic pay graphs most 'normal' people in America have had pay-cuts continually for quite a long period of time on average*.

Call me a horrible socialist but instead of enforcing a declining standard of living on the people within America why not force some of the tax dodging corporations (ie. most of them) to actually pay some tax ? .... remember society isn't meant to be something which looks after corporations, its meant to be looking after the good of its members first and foremost.

At the moment the US Government seems to be trying to pull 'smoke and mirror' distractions as to the cause of the deficit, rather than admit that most large corporations pay next to no tax and that the cost of the military are a huge drain on the country they're trying to steer peoples emotions towards the fact that government workers haven't had pay-freezes .... despite the fact that the actual percentage of GDP involved in those pay-rises is a minute fraction of the GDP.

(what can I say I'm a cynic ;) )

*Check out the graph on this page from 1991 to 2003 if you are wondering where I got this impression from:
Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I won't speak for Bucc here but just for myself... I am not a Libertarian because I think the free market is perfect or without problems (the free market has a whole new set of problems all together) But I know the government just causes more problems. What will happen if corporations are taxed more? Smaller salaries for its employees and/or higher prices for the customers. How exactly is this going to help to middle and lower classes? (A lot of people like to label me and Bucc as too cynical but I am waiting for somebody to prove us wrong)

I am with you 100% on the military but one needs to look no further than the war threads or the TSA threads to see that a large portion of the country doesn't seem to understand the huge costs of these wars and willing to continue fighting them even if it means losing. (not losing in a war sense but in a bankrupting this country sense)

Thats actually not at all proven to be the case - if you look at more 'socialist' countries, say in Europe the workers have more power with regards to wages, holiday entitlement and suchlike*.

Why is this? - its simply that they have some footing on which to negotiate, if they lose their jobs then they don't have to worry about feeding their families or their mortgage being paid because the state will step in and assist them in that case.

This leads to them being able to negotiate more aggressively with employers for salaries and thus a better standard of living, not just in terms of wages but in terms of paid time off and suchlike which imho are often more important than salary itself.

If you look at companies as a whole during this recession outside of the banking sector very few have actually posted losses (and indeed a fair few have in the last couple of years posted very respectable profits, record profits in quite a few cases), however this hasn't prevented them laying off staff and attempting to maximise their profits by engendering a culture of fear and dissuading pay-rises ....

This is simply the free-market exploiting the current situation and is fairly standard if you look back through history - during times of recession large corporations will pressurise their employee's to minimise pay, but also play hard-ball with governments in order to get concessions on tax paid, regulations and such like - they know that they're in a dominant position (ie. by threatening to reduce employment within their corporation and/or relocate elsewhere they can basically scare people) and they'll push as far as they can in order to maximise their gain during this point in time.

In most instances individual person isn't in a situation to control or counter this without assistance from a collective - whether thats a labour union or their government.

(to me its farcical that today in a time of 'plenty' with more automation and efficient production than ever before people across the world are working longer hours than the generation before us - surely this shows that something is wrong, in this day and age surely people should be required to work less and be taught to enjoy their free-time productively?)

*Which isn't to say that the situation in those countries is perfect and indeed in many cases its going backward in the name of (cough) progress ... go figure.

Just a quick extension to my prior post:

One of the reasons I think European governments have been 'quick' to embrace the 'austerity' program setup as a whole is that they realize that corporations have acquired too much power in recent years, partially because the countries themselves are loss making and so have little ability to negotiate with corporations because they require the jobs and revenue they provide.

If a country is profit making (ie. surplus GDP) then corporations are in a much worse position with regards to trying to force a situation upon that country.

This is also probably why the US isn't particularly concerned about the size of its deficit (which is actually proportionally worse than many countries in Europe who are taking serious action) - the US is happier to allow corporations to have a large influence in things .... in fact many people here appear to trust corporations to act in their interests more than they do their own government (which to be quite frank I find astounding).

Not trying to be a dick but asking a serious question... why exactly did you move to Florida? Seems like a lot of business people come to the United States. (of course I have absolutely no data to back this and could be talking out of my ass)

I think you're misreading that. It's not that people think corporations act in anyone else's best interest, or "trust" them in any way. Instead, they're a predictable, fire-breathing dragon that can benefit society if it's pointed in the right direction. When the power of corporations is properly curtailed, they create jobs, tax revenue, technical innovation. There's no "trust" involved - we know corporations would destroy everything in their path to meet their own ends if they could.

Government is scarier, and more dangerous because they're like the dragon handler, but they pretend to be on our side. They're SUPPOSED to be looking out for out best interests, but they're going to utilize the dragon's power for their own ends.

People love to personificate corporations as evil and immoral or scary, but they're just a piece of paper, (or a predictable monster that will destroy whatever you let it.)

We also have to realize that the same people running our government are often in charge of corporations as well (albeit not concurrently). Both entities are greedy and disturbing, but at least corporations don't pretend that they have our best interests in mind.

I must have been imagining all of those television ads in which spokespeople for various corporations proclaim how much those corporations care about the environment, people, and families, and work round the clock to promote the betterment of mankind ;)

Great plan! Let's just vote out the corrupt/dishonest/incompetent officials next election, and vote in nothing but selfless public servants. Who are also geninuses. How come nobody ever thought of this!!

Term limits?

So if you do get lucky and elect someone who is a public servant, you end up forcing them out of office?

There are always unintended consequences. If there are term limits, I foresee a great expansion of the influence of lobbyists on the legislative scene, even more so than today. They will be the ones that have the seniority if there are a new batch of legislators every 6 or so years.

Another unintended consequence is shortsightedness. An example of this is the state government in California. They have term limits for all state wide offices. If you know you can push off big problems to someone else, then why worry about things long term? You only have to worry about your 6-8 year fixed cycle.

I moved to Florida because my wives sister had twins and she was located here. Thus by us relocating we are to be able to help her with them if needed.

PS - Don't get me wrong with any of my comments - I like it here and find much in America which the country should be very proud of, however us English are (in the main) taught to be incredibly self-critical and as such I'm a natural moaner about anything and everything :D

Incidentally I'm also now 'homeless' in my own opinion, that is like many ex-pats I miss things about my homeland - however similarly when I'm in England I miss things about America, thus I doubt I'll ever truly be 'home' again ;)

Thanks for that - was an interesting analogy and an insight into a thought pattern very different to my own.

(its the short approach to corporations decision making which makes me most scared of them (ie. the banks gambling hugely without concern for what could and in the end did go wrong etc.), although tbh most government decision making isn't much better in this day and age imho)

But the corporations don't govern us. At least, they're not supposed to. (The Democratic and Republican parties disagree)

If corporations are too powerful - who's fault is that?

I have never met anyone who believes any of that nonsense, nor do I believe the corporations actually think they are fooling anyone, but I could be wrong.

Could not agree more. Everyday is becoming more of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario....

I'd disagree with this. It's similar to the faux trickle down argument that is always thrown around for lower taxes for the rich.

If a company makes $100 million in profits vs $90 million in profits, they aren't magically going to go out and give everyone raises. They aren't going to lower their products costs out of the goodness of their hearts. They'll take a larger bonus, maybe give themselves more stock options. But there is no incentive to pay employees more than market value.

And this isn't a tax the rich argument either. I've been on record as saying the rich pay more than their fair share of taxes and it's a shame that we have such a large percent who don't pay a dime (and thus have no vested interest in where the money goes). But rich people don't become/stay rich by giving away all the extra money the make. Just watch the business networks and see when a profitable company lays off 10,000 people because their profits didn't hit expectations and they didn't want to see their stock take a hit.

We've had a plutocracy for some time now. It is likely our fault, although the system is setup so that change is nearly impossible.

The people can enforce term limits on their own. It seems many people want term limits for everybody else's Representatives and Senators, but not their own.

Only "centrist, center-right, and right-wing politicians"? If you believe that, you are more fucking delusional than ever. Or are you just looking at a select group of evil corporations and industries while ignoring those like Big Labor, Big Green, Big Agri, Big AARP and Big Pharma that buys those on the far left as well as those in the whole spectrum? Your faith in public greed, corruption, grafts, extortion and favoritisms at the taxpayer's expense is sickening.

Why waste your time with this guy? Some of the other liberal posters have different viewpoints but aren't communist cheerleaders. This guy is a joke. Everything needs to be equal in this country since he is below equal but when asked whether everyone in the world should be equal thats a different story. 9K is a shitty life, no internet, nah SteveBollea just wants to get richer off people that are more successful than him. (And I am not one of the "successful" either. I make a modest salary but do allright for myself. I just don't feel like those who have done better owe me anything)

The right doesn't really believe in a free market either as seen by their stance against labor unions. They just want free markets for one side of the equation.

Not this again.

Care to show proof on the large percentage that don't pay a dime of taxes?

On the far left of you maybe. :)

They only want a free market when it is in their best interest. That's why I don't pay much attention when they do bother to whine about it, because I know it is merely a temporary condition.

I think Karl Marx might think Stevebollea is a little "out there". :)

More things that are principled defenses of the Constitution and certainly not racism. From Talkingpointsmemo:

Ron Paul (accused by the mass media in the past of being racist) has always said the most racist thing a politician can do is support a war without a draft. The front line soldiers are almost always lower/middle class and disproportionately black. I will give you that a lot more Democrats than Republicans speak out against the war but that is the true test of integrity (and non-racism) in my opinion and sadly a shitload of members of both parties seem to fit the profile pretty well.

Obama is urban apparently. I guess that is Iowaspeak for black?

Actually being from St. Louis and living in Columbia for years the Midwest tends to have an us vs them mentality against anyone from the "cities" white or black. Of course I have no idea who this guy is and have no desire to defend him. But urban generally means "big city guy" who doesn't understand people who hunt and farm.

Yes, let's be fair. SteveBollea would likely be center-left in many (if not all) European countries today. Let's not act like he is some kind of Marxist (you folks have no idea what a true Marxist is). And to the center-left in Europe, including Labor in the UK, the Democrats are more center-right than any major right wing party in Europe.

So calling him some sort of radical is kinda silly.

And, yes, it was Richard Nixon, of the Republican Party, who advocated for national health care on a single payer type model back in the 1970s.

:confused: He advocates quite frequently for massive redistribution of wealth. He talks about success being largely a product of where you were born. Sorry but DT & JPhillips are liberal(center left). They want better health care and bank regulations. SteveBollea is the board's counter to JiMGa. Not sure that you are really reading any of his posts.

Please do bear in mind that within England many people (including me) don't consider we have any left wing politicians remaining - just varying degree's of right winged parties.

Old labour were wholly different from the spineless ninnies which Tony Blairs labour ended up ... bah humbug, never thought I'd miss Neil Kinnock - but at least he was an honest politician and you knew where you stood with him (normally on a picket line ;) ) ... not sure I can name a honest politician today.

We just don't hear enough of this in America. :)

Once again, he's a European center-left. The difference in the 'center' in Western European countries compared to the US is striking. Britain is by far the furthest right of Western European countries.

And success is a good deal the product of where and to whom you were born. I'm not sure that is a controversial statement (unless you are about to call me a commie ;)).

Is Friendman his Commie name?

This is what happens when your Grandpa gets the internet.

My sentences would make more sense in opposite order. There isn't any question that your birth parents and the location of your birth determine a lot about your life. (religion being another big one) Most people's solution for this isn't rapid redistribution of wealth. I think that's pretty radical and not shared by even most liberals. (How exactly would Sean Penn or Bill Maher justify their lifestyles?) SteveBollea really believes in this nonsense.

I'm not sure he believes in much different than European center-left parties in France, Germany, etc, believe.

Recall that a mere 10 years ago, you could go to university in the UK for free and that when the Blair government suggested tuition fees, people went nuts! The Conservative government of David Cameron got into power because the Conservatives promised they wouldn't touch the NHS, a single payer health system. It's a very different economic world, and frankly, I don't think they'd consider SteveBollea to be crazy... those of us who self identify as Republican, OTOH...

Why are we comparing europe to america? It's an apples to oranges comparison. What may work there, may not work here. The only thing that is the same between europe and america is, we both have politicians and we both have human beings.

Dude, what do you mean? Europe is just like here:

I would NEVER wear a pink head band for my wedding.

Because when someone claims that someone else has lunatic views, it is good to have a bit of perspective and leave behind provincialism, as if that explains anything.

GOP says it'll block bills until tax cuts extended - Yahoo! News

Bring it on, we'll swing right back to a dem supermajority in 2 years :)

Want to bet on it? - they'll block any constructive acts from happening then blame the government for inaction ....

Gotta love politics.

huh?

I'd also argue that the rules aren't the same either. If my small business makes bad decisions, I go broke. If their big business makes bad decisions, they get money from the government to keep it running.

If you're rich, the government won't let you fail.

Well, having run a small business for many years, I understand where you're coming from and have some sympathy, RainMaker. But being a little more objective isn't the truth that if your large and your collapse will have a significant effect on the economy and cause many people pain it's then the government will not let you fail?

It certainly doesn't make it any more palatable, it may not even justify it ethically, but it does make practical sense.

The problem is it doesn't really - supporting a large failing company by nationalizing it and letting it fail gracefully DOES make sense ... however propping companies up and giving them 'free money' doesn't because it actually reinforces bad habits.

One of the main issues with corporations today is that CEO's are paid for short-term results, as such its in their best interests to take huge risks and maximise their rewards in the knowledge that a single years good profits is enough to give them a decent level of financial security ... whereas prudence might get them the sack if other companies are taking risks and out-performing their company.

If you then reinforce this by bailing out failing companies it gives even more negative reinforcement to CEO's in their decision making by lessening the likely fall out if things go wrong for them.

Its this sort of crazy situation which makes capitalism more dangerous as a way to guide society than it would be otherwise - who wants a private company running a nuclear power station knowing they'll be likely to cut corners in order to maximise profits? .... sound crazy you say, hmmmm BP cutting costs in order to maximise profits from oil drilling and risking an environmental disaster is equally crazy surely - don't allow profit driven ventures to be in charge of things with wide ranging consequences.

(if you look through history most worth while inventions HAVENT been created out of the drive for 'profit' - they come from inquisitiveness combined with direction in the main, this is one of the reasons I'm very disappointed with whats happening to NASA at present ... the drive to reach space gave modern society so many things we take for granted today and imho creating a viable colony on the moon would have brought us many more, ho hum :()

I've wondered if we've had a couple of Democrat/Republican paradigm reversals the last decade or you (usually dealing with things like civil liberties), but is this another one - is the Democratic party now the party of trickle down economics?

Edit - I mean when Michael Moore and Ron Paul view something the same way, there's gotta be something up.

I have been pissed off at NASA for nearly two decades. But I think that is mostly due to my addiction to Tang.

Seriously though, NASA is committing robbery every day by raking in tax dollars and having really nothing to show for it. Great, we have a few guys sharing a space station with the Russians. Why the hell haven't we had a manned mission to Mars or another one to the moon yet?

Really? - so the computer I'm posting this from which is wirelessly connected to a satellite orbitting the planet is nothing? .... don't underestimate the amount of functionality which is tied to things which NASA has been responsible for.

Mobile phones, GPS etc. all require satellites ....

While I agree more could have been done I think the 'international space station' was a good show of inter-nation co-operation and has proved very useful in many ways it needs something to grab the publics attention and instil excitement imho.

Building a colony on the Moon for instance would do that ... I don't think a manned mission to Mars would, people are too 'fickle' and the trip time too long for todays audience, however plan a colony on Mars then say you're recruiting for it and allow a small percentage of candidates to come from the general public via. visible recruitment/testing and you're on a winner imho .... Pop Idol NASA style ;)

I honestly don't follow NASA nearly enough and am not all that knowledgeable about most of their programs. However, isn't most of the satellite, GPS, mobile phone, wireless networking more directly related to private industry and less to NASA?

Not everything NASA does gets instant results. There's a probe right now on it's way to Pluto. Should be there around 2015ish if I remember correctly. Some projects take decades from concept to completion. They aren't perfect, but, as far as tax dollars are concerned, I'd rather my money go to them than some country where the heads of state horde the money from their populace.

The only problem I have with NASA is the lack of competition which leads to some complacency there. However, that seems to slowly be changing with things like the X Prize.

Today yes, but that technology is built on 50 years of research and development by NASA.

Indeed. The economic term is "moral hazard". If they don't have to face the consequences for their bad actions, it allows them to not fear doing it again.

WHAT?!?!?!?!? You have got to be kidding me:

Anti-earmark Tea Party Caucus takes $1 billion in earmarks - Yahoo! News

/sarcasm

Fantastic speech, I recognise the name but know little about him - is this his 'standard' stance?

I heart Bernie Sanders.

First time I've heard an American politician and wished I was American so I could vote for him - cracking stuff, especially as its not likely to win him many friends; which makes me think he must mean it :D

If anything, NASA has helped those companies dramatically and thus the economy. We like to pretend that private industry magically does all this expensive research into useful stuff, but often they don't. Marketing plays a much bigger role than quality in today's world.

I guess I just don't have a problem with a group of really smart people coming up with really useful research/technology. It helps advance society as a whole. And it goes beyond phones and GPS devices. A lot of medical technology has been based on NASA research (pacemakers, breast cancer biopsy, etc). Smoke detectors, power tools, memory foam, diapers, braces, and even credit cards.

So I'm not sure how you can say they have nothing to show for it. None of us would even be discussing this in this format if it wasn't for them.

That "I" in front of his name tells you he means it.

That's one of the major problems with american politicians...they are so scared to not get re-elected, they do nothing. There should be no such thing as a career politician.

Actually, he didn't appear to get shit done until he knew he was dying. Just another career politician that didn't do anything too controversial that would prevent him from getting re-elected. Plus I'm sure he got plenty of sympathy votes because of what happened to his brothers. However, what he did to Mary Jo, he should never have been elected again.

He was never in danger of being booted from office though. There are only a handful of politicians who have that kind of notoriety.

I love Bernie. He's our only crazy socialist :)

SI

A pair of really dumb questions from the world of politics the past couple of weeks:

1) Why can't the tax cuts for the 250K and lower be rammed through with reconciliation?

2) Anyone with some insight on the new START treaty. All I can find is people who love Obama saying it's great and those who hate him saying how the Commies took us for a ride (really, guys, commies? Putin's a good ol' fashioned fascist- that's the opposite side of the political spectrum). I don't trust either source and I don't have a grasp on the issue.

SI

I like Sanders, Kucinch, and Ron Paul. I am sure I am unaware of a few others like these three who are extremely consistent with their message regardless of the current political scorecard… integrity. I would never vote for the first two but hold them high above fakes like Pelosi and her Patriot Act votes and Boehner and his sudden newfound love for financial restraint.

I would have counted Russ Feingold among that group as well. The list is quite short, tho

SI

Agree on Feingold. Only senator to vote against the patriot act and one of only a handful to vote against the war in Iraq. Stuck with this stance even when Obama came to power and all of the Democrats crying about the outragous war crimes of Bush and Rumsfeld decided they were now hawks. Somehow McCain and Obama were solid presidential candidates though. :confused:

That's why we have bankruptcy laws that do help bigger companies. I think it was a terrible mistake to prop up GM for a short-term approach, instead of letting them go through the bankruptcy process, while it would of been painful, it would have been better in the long-term.

I agree with you on the CEOs being rewarded for short-term results. Of course, part of it comes from the expectations of shareholders to deliver immediate results. I've always felt that companies that are always thinking long-term (while not ignoring the short-term either) are the ones that will be the best.

Also share your disappointment on what's happening with NASA. Isn't the budget that NASA has a sliver in our budget? Another thing is we also have to maintain the research dollars and standards at our universities, which to me is one of the backbones our country.



Define wealth for me. Income? Assets?

GM did go through the Chapter 11 process. Without the government intervention, they would have gone Chapter 7, which is liquidation.

For those against bailouts/government intervention - are you saying no to any/all or just selectively saying no to some?

IMO we really were looking at falling over the cliff and we needed the government intervention. (I really have to find time to read Paulson's book soon).

We let Bear Stearns collapse and Lehman was the one that supposedly pushed us over. Even if we bailed out Lehman, I think this mess would still have exploded with the "next one" etc. Post-Lehman (or the next one), credit markets would have froze etc. I suspect we would have gone through the same painful process sooner or later.

For the big car companies, we propped up GM and Chrysler. I was part of the group leaning towards letting GM fail since its been so dysfunctional for so long but in retrospect, it looks that GM has come back and will be able to pay some/most back. There is no doubt it would have been very painful as their failures, combined with everything else going on at that time, would have had severe downstream effects to suppliers, peripheral businesses etc.

Recently we found out that bailout/government intervention was more extensive that the big stories.

NYT: Fed reveals breadth of crisis measures - Business - The New York Times - msnbc.com

Not perfectly executed, taxpayers got screwed with some companies paying big bonuses, some probably got more than they deserved, other less etc. but hey, overall, we are through that mess and on the slow mend. I think the alternative of government inaction (e.g. let the free markets work), would have been much worse.

Credit to GWB and his team.

1. All the bailiouts do is make it happen down the road insteaed of today. You can't continue to artificially inflate things. The economy has clearly become about the belief in it coming from the American people and little else. That's frightening to me because once the people realize it's all smoke and mirrors, it's gone all over again.

2. Bailing out these companies is like raising kids. Bankruptcy is supposed to be a deterrent to running a company in a nature that will produce such a result. If a company is bailed out once, they expect they will be bailed out again and while it won't happen immediately, they will expect the same treatment next time.

I think it'll stagger along for a fair old while yet - why? .... because its the only game in town, simple as that, normal people have no choice but to ignore their common sense and work within the economy as its presented to them*.

The people in power want it to continue and while the various power centers will bicker and things will remain rocky I expect the farce to continue for quite a while .....

*One of my 'hobbies' is reading google finance and watching the various news feeds try and 'explain' the reasons for the market fluctuating up and down erratically .... it'd be refreshing if once, just once they'd post the trust (ie. that in the short term there is quite often 'no' real reason for the market fluctuations beyond the decision making of a (compared to society) small group of people controlling an awful lots of assets who are attempting to game a system and maximise their profits.

OK, so why do you mock everyone that distrusts this government that orchestrated this corporate takeover?

I'd argue that this is a case of the countries financial footing being unsteady enough that they can't do anything BUT cater to the rich whether thats individuals or corporations they're overly reliant upon them (it isn't just the US in this boat, many European countries are in similar positions to a greater or lesser extent).

Simply put the country is in the dubious situation that someone living on credit cards is, they're in the hole and its getting worse each month - but they aren't in a position to pay the debts off; so have to pretty much put up with whatever the companies who control their finances want.

Its this increasing power outside of government hands which is causing the imbalance imho, governments have traditionally acted somewhat as a balance against inequal distribution but with their hands tied against helping their citizens at present corporations are increasingly able to treat their workers more and more poorly (both in terms of pay and benefits, working hours etc.).

PS - I believe its the fact that the European countries are trying to get things back onto an even keel so they have more control over their destinies which will cause some very interesting events to play out in the short-term; I doubt that the corporations will sit back and watch the austerity programs going on without trying to rock the boat and fragment the situation .... they're surely aware that if the strongest European economies are in all in surplus in a decades time that they will find it far harder to push for tax breaks and suchlike.

It looks like there's going to be a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts, for everyone, for at least 2 years.

Bush Tax-Cut Deal Between Obama and Republicans Is Near - NYTimes.com

President surrender strikes again. Now we can replay the 2010 election in 2012.

btw- Let's not here any more bitching about the deficit from the right, okay?

Obama is turning into Jimmy Carter. Carter was paralyzed to do anything. The biggest thing that I remember about Carter's administration was his failure to do anything that would 'rock the boat', except for the attempted Iran hostage rescue and by then, it was too late to save any chance of him winning a second term.

It's good to see the US government doing what it does best, and perhaps they only thing that it knows how to do anymore: decrease revenue and increase expenditures! Way to go, pols.

It comes down to trust, credibility and accountability. A lot of people do not trust the federal govt. to spend their tax monies wisely, effeciently or smartly. So why give them more? Until they can prove that they can manage within their (balanced) budgets, as many states and municipalities have been doing for a few years at least, the mantra will be to live within their means first.

A good lesson would my city, one of the largest libertarian-minded city. Municipal ballot propositions that state a general purpose need for extra taxations will regularly fail. But specific requests for extra taxations, spelled out in plain language, will usually pass. Credibility and accountability.

Nice "deal" by Obama... Was it a white flag or both hands in the air surrender?

I just wonder why this tax rate seems to be considered ideal? Why didn't republicans look to get the top 2% of the income tax bracket a larger break if it is so vital to keeping the economy in such fantastic shape? We can always borrow more money from China to pay for it, right?

So, uh, good job with the compromise, Prez. Give up the tax cuts battle 100%- not even meet halfway at like a $1M bracket or something that might actually work going forward. *AND* Bonus time offer, give the GOP political cover so that they don't have to explain every time they drag their feet with unemployment.

My only hope is that there was a stealth deal to get DADT out of this, but I'm pretty much out of hope at this time. Punt on any sort of meaningful health care reform (read: public option, at the very least), don't even give a swing at cap and trade, and now keep the Bush tax cuts for the rich.

Yeah, you'll probably have my vote in 2012 but only because I'm going to be afraid of who will be on the other side of the ballot.

SI

How about letting them keep tons of cash? Are people still thinking it's their (federal govt) money?

Truthfully, I wouldn't have given it much thought if they had not kept the cuts for those over $1m. But I think whatever extra revenues that might be realized (remember, tax rates affect behaviors), the real deficit reductions come in cutting spending, as most of us do, and in ensuring growth in the private (taxpaying) sector.

Why do the wealthy have to pay any tax? It's not the government's money, after all... I mean, where does it say that the government can take anybody's money?

Oh yeah... The Constitution. Dammit!

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.