That might just be the biggest load of horseshit I've ever seen posted in a single sentence on this forum.

Those salaries and jobs both belong to/are at the discretion of the employer ... many of whom are better off having cut the albatross of unwarranted expenses of employees who too often simply didn't justify their continued existence.

We don't have a shortage of jobs, we've got an excess of people who simply cannot produce goods/services/value equal to their maintenance cost.

I agree that it is utopian (and inevitably, the way it's going to be without man's sin nature) and that a balance could theoretically be achieved. But in the meantime, one has to promote true charity (particularly faith-based) and private entrepreneurship against those that want to penalize them.

So you are supporting a strong centralized govt with a leader who is capable of cutting the chaff and other things that don't warrant their continued existence. It would certainly be efficient.

Meanwhile money and power continue to be consolidated by the few at the top. The few who provide the jobs and feel that they are truly more responsible for the country than anyone else.

Jobs that were not expendable before the economy collapse that was directly related to greed of the few who controlled the money and power.

Congress will still be Congress as long as the voters see politicans as a means to stop "them" from getting more of their money. It is much easier to keep and take power when there is a perceived enemy.

It seems that the most expensive things are used/enjoyed by most people. It is a shred Machiavellian move (or just human nature) that convinced every individual that their benefits are not the problem, it's those other (rich/poor) people.

(Just my opinion, and I am a little grumpy)

I agree there is a lot of dead weight in the salaries of most businesses, you can find it right at the top of the pyramid in some of the most useless pieces of flesh we've ever seen (just see one of them squirm in front of Congress and try and claim they don't make your stomach turn).

The problem with the modern business is it is detached from shareholder value. The majority of executives are in the game of liquidating the massive amounts of wealth built up into these businesses over decades into their hands. You can find numerous examples where they have basically sold out the shareholders for that purpose.

I don't think the companies are getting leaner in preparation to grow, they are getting leaner so they have more cream to skim off the top before they bail on the company altogether. I'm just hoping there are a few smart businesses that see the market share that will become vulnerable due to these actions and they will ratchet up employment to grab it.

The economy is not zero-sum, there is not some magical number of worth out there where anything above that is simply waste. I don't propose companies should load up on useless employees and make them play out scenes from Dilbert, but the greatest wealth in history accompanied the growth of the middle class and distribution of wealth. We can have the petty tyrant with his 99% of wheat and rice middle ages, or we can have the same person with 90% and abundant food, cars, computers, and luxuries beyond mention.

Believe it or not it is workers that grow the economy and make it a funner place overall to live, and the rich men get richer when they play into that instead of worrying about strategies to maintain their fiefdom. I want to be a billionaire of course, but if I had to choose between a billionaire in a stagnant economy with mass drudgery, or a billionaire where new products are always introduced and people are generally cheery, I choose the latter.

I think social liberalism & the like can be overseen effectively by government...it just needs a different structure than we currently have. The problem is when elected fools have no real or tangible accountability for bad policy, and the people have no real or tangible mechanism to counter-act such bad policy. Hence my "move it to the states" position as it at least has to be weighed against practicality, and if that fails, then accountability will follow.

They have tons of cash sitting around but until opportunity (or perceived opportunity) opens pops up...they simply don't need to expend that cash.

This is why I cannot believe we still have not made an energy policy that says we must be 90% independent by 2020...and here's how we'll start that. This is the type of government interventionist commitment that spurs businesses to move. When they see $2-3T in potential revenue to be expended in such an effort...you bet your ass they will begin trying to understand how to benefit from it & how they can invest to be positioned best for it.

I would just insert "long term" in front of shareholder value. Too much of of today's business is driven at this quarter's numbers and the effect on the stock price this week. Otherwise can't really argue with anything you wrote.

But there were at least two times when he could have changed the outcome. First, the debt ceiling could have been part of the tax negotiation last December. Second, he could throw out the hammer of the 14th amendment, even if he wouldn't really use it. Instead he's signaled over and over again that when pushed he'll bend. I never thought I'd see the day when a Democratic president agreed to gutting the New Deal with no concessions from the GOP.

That's where I think you have a mistaken view. I have no interest in penalizing the successful. I want more people to have the opportunity to be successful. I think a functioning safety net with a progressive tax system will lead to more people being able to spend which will make everyone more wealthy. I also believe in laws that make it more difficult for vast sums of wealth to be hoarded over time which makes it more difficult for new talent to rise to the top. In short, I think the government has a role to play in the proper functioning of a vibrant capitalist economy. That's not to say I agree with every law and regulation, but I think pulling the government off the field of play won't benefit anyone other than those with vast sums of money.

Where those lines will be will always be a guessing game and a moving target as the world changes and men make mistakes. But right now I don't see anything that would limit the successful about a return the the Clinton tax rates. In fact, if the deficit is a major concern I would think a combination of cuts and tax increases would lower the deficit more quickly.

Obama's no Democrat. He's a Corporatist. I'm done with him.

In other awful news:


At least when a bunch of data gets leaked we'll be able to assure ourselves by saying, "Nobody could have known."

Short term valuation is important because they are trying to liquidate their shares or justify various options or bonuses. So I think my message is still valid, they don't care about the value of the shares, merely how it relates to them extracting wealth out of the company.

He's a fucking moron. I have been done with him for a long time now. I am at the point where everything he represents makes me mad.

Ya'll going third party then? The Republicrats are hardcore corporate lapdogs.

That's my question too. I guess Nader will still be an option for you.

When you're ready for me to take over as dictator, just say the word. It'll be a sacrifice but I believe I'm up for it. Democracy, as we've devolved it over 200+ years, is a sad joke & unfortunately for us all the lowest common denominators have had too much sway for too long.


Many of those jobs were always expendable, although I wouldn't dispute that it was inertia (or outright laziness) rather than benevolence that kept that out there as long as it did.

I'll probably sit out the Presidential in 2012, but I can see voting for Obama as I'll be voting on most of the other races anyway. But I'm done with voting to best of two bad options. I want to know what the Dems stand for because right now I don't think they stand for anything. There are a handful that have priorities, but the overwhelming bulk of them are content to argue they aren't quite as bad as the GOP. I'm sure, "I cut Medicare, but not as much as the other guys wanted," will be a winning message.

If this deal goes through Obama and the current Dems will have done far more damage to the New Deal than any GOP president ever has. In fact I think there's a decent argument that a GOP president would face much stiffer opposition if he/she tried to do what Obama has apparently agreed to.

The party needs to be battered to find a spine. That process is going to suck when Bachmann is president, but what I'm getting right now isn't much better.

Ahh, Rome, how fondly we remember you. All Hail Caesar Jon!

Democracy would work better without all that democracy?

Honestly I am going to exercise my right to not even vote on national politics. I have been an independent always and will remain one.

No way. Obama pretty much has to say "I got Osama," and that should clinch the 2012 election.

It certainly seems to have helped get the GOP moving in the right direction, at least a little bit. Long way to go though, no shortage of treacherous dogs still to be weeded out.

In fairness...there is nothing stopping a state from enhancing any social safety net that (potentially) could be cut back. Then it would be on the tax base to collectively determine whether they will allow their society to devolve into barbarism or simply keep their voting base civil.

I believe in progressive taxation to a point as well. I just think that the way to fairly (in my view) collect it should be transparent & about choice.

{suggests reading that again}

What we currently have bears so little resemblance to what the F.F. seem to have intended that I'm surprised the earth hasn't shifted off its axis from them spinning in their graves at such a rapid rate.

If I'd only spent more time studying physics & whatnot I might be able to understand why that hasn't happened. I suspect it has something to do with them spinning in different directions or something.

Nobody gives a shit about Osama with nearly 10% unemployment. And, Bachmann is going to be able to say, Obama cut your Medicare, but I voted against that deal. Sure it's horseshit, but Karl Rove's group is already running ads hitting Obama for cutting Medicare. Barring a very unlikely recovery before next Fall, I would bet Obama is 40% or less for reelect against anyone but Casey Anthony.

Sounds like my argument for states having more direct control of social policies (and the democracy as it were having the ability to hold them accountable). :)

[steps down from soapbox]

Same was true for Health Care Reform and what turned out to be the Stimulus Bill (albeit a true stimulus could have been governmental direction rather than simply giving aid & tax cuts).

Nobody cared about either of those as priority compared to whether they would have a job. Dems blew it previously, now Repubs are busy blowing it believing the populace gave them a mandate to reduce social program spending and cut government. I firmly believe both parties were wrong in their (publicly-espoused) beliefs of what their elections meant and next round will be no different.

For the record, InTrade has Obama at 57-43 right now but there's a long way until election time.*

*And that's chance to win. That probably equates to a, what, a 51-49 actual voting spread?

SI

Oh God yes! Finally someone who put into words what I have been trying to say since 2008.


51 or 52 would be a landslide at this point. 57-43 seems really high, but I'm sure that pre-election we will end up closer to 51 or 52 to 48.

No, I mean a 57% chance to win right now is a win by a point or two in the election. It's a very close spread

SI

Good news for now ... will be interesting to read the analysis this week on winners and losers.

White House, congressional leaders reach debt deal - CNN.com

Washington strikes deal on debt ceiling - politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com

Great! We extended the amount they can spend. Wonder how long it will take to get to this new number after making these "huge" cuts?

Winners: Banks, corporations, the rich.

Losers: Basically everyone else.

Funny how the details of this deal are what a lot of the posters always bitch about in other threads (rich man steps on poor man's throat) but thought was so dire to do this time and "this time only". Well the bankers win again... congrats on encouraging their shell game! How long after returning to your abusive husband who convinced you "This time things are going to be different!" until he starts kicking the shit out of you again?

What did you think was a better solution panerd?

Grom the Washington Post:

That's one stinking shit-sandwich of a "deal."

Fuck you Obama. And fuck you elected "Democrats" who voted for this thing. And fuck you elected "Democrats" who didn't do fuck-all to fix it up.

So they fixed absolutely nothing. Wonderful.

Of course they didn't but did anyone really expect them to? If so, please explain why.

I catch a lot of shit for refusing to engage in the lesser of two evils debate. I also often get made fun of because I "have no answers". How long is it going to take for the people who say they are "done voting" to realize their continued vote (and they will be right back in the partisan bickering come 2012) is more damaging than mine. At least I am trying to get a third party viable, a vote for the lesser of two evils just continues the bullshit system. They are the same party folks, shills for big money and the military industrial complex. Yes I honestly believe that having a few Libertarians or Greens or whatever Nadar is calling himself nowadays would make a huge difference in calling out all sides on corruption and bullshit. Its pretty obvious most of the Democrats and Republicans have no interest in exposing themselves.

Actually...

I love how David Wu is a "winner" in that :D

Also, could someone explain to me why a guy who looks like he's DM'ing at Gencon this weekend in Grover Norquist has a bunch of the GOP running scared? It'd be like if, I dunno, Austan Goolsbee were making ever Dem sign a pledge that all bills were tax neutral to everyone making under $30K and somehow could scare all the Blue Dogs into going along. I just don't get it- how does he have a seat at the table?

I mean, at what point do you not hear the words uttered "Eff you, Grover Norquist. I'm the GD speaker of the House and I don't care about your pissant pledge because we have a chance to get so much more if we made a deal". I mean, not in public, as fighting among the ranks is never popular, but at least in private.

SI

Third party. I obviously like what the Libertarians have to say but to someone more liberal maybe the Greens or Nadar. Its all a game to them (bread and circuses, terror fear, economic fear) and the "lesser of two evils" is an important part of the game. Look at the mainstream analysis of this and the "winners and losers". The American people are the big losers, this does absolutely nothing to help fix the house of cards that is about to come tumbling down. It fixes nothing.

Nope, I didn't expect them to, but was sure hoping one side would blink and we'd get some real reform. A pipe dream, I know.

My guess is, is somehow he has leverage (giving them "campaign funds", dirty secrets, etc...) on these people who have signed his pledge. What I find more disturbing though, is these elected officials signing a pledge to a private citizen, when their duty is to represent their constituents. That should be raising some big red flags in my opinion.

No I totally agree with you. I too fall for the abusive parents stuff every once in a while. (Tea party being a recent example that had me going for a while, Obama and some of his anti-war stuff gave me some "hope" after the 2008 election) What's funny though is the two sides take turns beating the shit out of us and instead of going Menendez and killing them both we choose to turn on each other instead. This debt deal being the latest case of both parties just fucking everyone but somehow the mass media will spin it as D vs R and the usual suspects will line up on here and debate the talking points. I suggest anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two parties reads the actual cuts and then tell me what has changed and how things are any different now that we headed off "doomsday".

EDIT: My memory may be spotty on whether the Menendez brothers were justified or not so subsitute any abused kids the point still remians the same.

There is a very clear difference between the two parties to me: the Democrats take my money and give it to the "poor" and their cronies, while the Republicans take my money and give it to the "rich" and their cronies. Any last vestiges of difference went out the window during the Bush II spending sprees.

Except that there's very little of value to be found in the Libs & Greens except fertilizer.

Don't get me wrong, they're (relatively) honest about the horse manure they're selling, it's just that there's not many people are interested in buying their crap.

I have little respect for someone who would endorse Chuck Baldwin for President. As for Nader, he no doubt would be closer to me on the issues than Obama. But then so would Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, or Randi Rhodes. And I wouldn't trust a single one of them with running this country.

More brilliant strategery from the WH.

I used to buy the Libs horse manure. But being a dairy farmer, I'm much more attracted to the bull manure that the Dems are selling now.

One things for sure, regardless if it's dem or repub, it all smells like shit.

According to the CBO, saving $2.1T is not bad. Was it earlier this year they got into a pissing match on saving $30b vs $60b? Knew they could do it before the deadline without raising taxes. Now onto major tax reform...

Okay, that was funny stuff, I don't care which side of the aisle you're on.

We all had a good (sad) laugh about that one... *sigh*

SI

You need quality candidates in a 3rd party to make a difference. The Libertarians and Green Party are led by conspiracy filled kooks who make the other two parties look like political savants.

Interesting stuff: http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/fil...0ct%201206.pdf

"After September 30, 2011, and not later than December 31, 2011, the House of Representatives and Senate, respectively, shall vote on passage of a joint resolution, the title of which is as follows: ‘‘Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.’’.

Also:

"If, not later than December 31, 2011, the President submits a written certification to Congress that the President has determined that the debt subject to limit is within $100,000,000,000 of the limit in section 3101(b) and that further borrowing is required to meet existing commitments, the Secretary of the Treasury may exercise authority to borrow an additional $900,000,000,000, subject to the enactment of a joint resolution of disapproval enacted pursuant to this section." There's more there too. A lot of what ifs.

There's also nothing in the news about the changes in Pell Grants and student loans. Shoddy news markets.

I'm pretty sure the Pell stuff has been out there.

I mean, I know roughly what you're talking about & I haven't read anything beyond pretty much the standard summaries.

Yeah, that was the first thing that caught my eye browsing thru.

So, I haven't been able to read much on this yet. Anybody have a reader's digest version?

My understanding is that there are no new taxes, no cuts to Medicare, and the figures do not include cuts which could include draw-downs in Iraq or Afghanistan....so where is most of the money being cut from?

The 'deal' is useless, although I guess garbage in (office) garbage out. Not a one of these people has a true set of balls among the entire damn Congress (except maybe a couple outliers who have near zero true influence).

The problem with most existing third parties is they play to extreme niche groups. A better source would be a couple strong independent candidates to get some momentum (not necessarilly at president level either) and then a party forms around that.

Right now the Republicrats are hardcore corporate socialists, if enough people could scramble up the brainpower they could knock out a solid bloc for themselves (run on job creation, fiscal responsibility, and not giving all our money to the rich and you mobilize all the votes you will ever need while not being too pie in the sky to make it work). No one wants to vote for socialism for people with golden toilets and both the Democrats and Republicans have so much dirt on them in that regard it should get easier and easier to build that case and get the public aligned with it.

That is if you can break them from the us vs them rhetoric which I think is being deliberately overstated these days in a tricky Orwellian game (actions speak louder than words, and the 'tension' between the two halves of the Republicrats seems to be all talk when things always end up in a lukewarm wash that sells out even more to the corporate welfare state).

A third party President couldn't get anything done. They would have no ability to get things through congress. That's why with all their flaws I think working for change through the two major parties is more likely to get things done. But with the vast sums of money in campaigns, I'm pretty cynical as to whether any change is possible.

My wife watched a bit of the coverage last night on the national news. After watching it, she was pretty sure she was just going to vote for the non-incumbent in all national and state races in the 2012 election. I think that's where a lot of Americans stand at this point.

I remember my parents saying similar things back in the '80s. Every now and then we kick a few incumbents out, but not enough.

A lot of people do feel that way, agreed, MBBF.

But I've spent a lot of time mocking, poking unrealistic people from the right, it's time for some of the left-leaning folks here to get a dose of reality here.

WHAT THE BLOODY BLUE BLAZES DID YOU EXPECT?

Half the left-leaners wanted Obama to push a power he himself doesn't believe he has (the "14th amendment option", to push a constitutional crisis and risking impeachment (actually, I would say that it would definitely lead to articles of impeachment passing the House, probably not making it through the Senate), definite downgrade, etcetera. That wasn't going to happen, except in left-leaning fantasies.

The other option was to stonewall everything and let the United States default on its good faith and credit and try to win the blame game. That's a stupid idea.

A "technical default" happened in 1979, where two weeks payments were delayed due to a debt ceiling increase delay and a word-processor failure. The affect? The cost for America to borrow went up SIXTY basis points. That doesn't sound like much (an extra 0.60%) but this was when the national deficit was $800 Billion. That's less than we're saving in this deal over the next ten years. So, yes, just like the right of the right wing needs to grow up and download reality, the left of the left wing needs to download reality and put aside the partisan game playing.

As it stands, both sides have real reason to come up with good faith spending cuts and revenue generators in this "Super Committee": Half the penalties do come out of Medicare, but it's Medicare REIMBURSEMENTS (not medicare benefits), and the other half comes out of defense spending (so, both sides have "skin in the game", so to speak). And the Tea Party can't sink this one. All the House and Senate can do is pass "a motion of disapproval" that only stops the president from raising the debt limit if they have a veto-proof two thirds in the House AND the Senate. Ain't gonna happen.

Does the deal have issues? Yes, but that's because neither side got what they wanted. Don't like it, vote the bums out in 2012. (which may just happen.. but I'd challenge any of you folks to do any better to get the debt ceiling raised in these circumstances)

In addition, it isn't like Obama ever campaigned as a far left candidate. If people actually listened to him, he sounded very much like a moderate left of center candidate. So if the far left is pissed at him its because they put their own hopes on him and when he showed that he wasn't what they hoped he'd be, they felt (for whatever reason) betrayed.

I don't think he had to use the 14th amendment, but taking off the table early in the negotiations was a terrible move. Politically, Obama was worse than wrong, he was weak. That weakness, played out over and over again in dealings with the GOP, is why I think he's toast in 2012. Independents may want people that compromise, but as Clinton said during the healthcare negotiations, strong and wrong always beats weak but right.

edit: To be fair I don't think that problem is limited to Obama. The entire Dem caucus has no foundation. I honestly couldn't tell you what Dems would like to do if given the opportunity. They don't seem to have any platform.

another edit: Isid: I'm upset with Obama because he got nothing close to what he claimed to be his desire of a balanced approach. I don't expect him to stand with the Progressive Caucus, but I'd at least like to see him stand more firmly for what he says he believes in.

This isn't true. He campaigned on a public option, ending the wars sensibly, closing Guantanamo, etc.

I don't see a third party president anytime in the near future all I want is a third party president in the debates to call both major parties on their bullshit. I am certain that Perot led to a lot of the "Contract with America" stuff. Did it last? Of course not, but at least it did have some effect. So again I know that a lot of people are turned off by Paul or Nader but you have to admit it would be fantastic for either of them to ask Obama and whoever the Republican shill ends up being what the hell they are talking about when they dance around the questions about the war or corporate welfare.

I don't understand why there isn't a third party in the debates, the commission that decides this has one Democrat and one Republican on it and they are all on the major tv networks who fight every day with the tough questions to expose this system. Very confusing. :confused:

He campaigned on universal health care and part of his plan was public option, but he didn't exactly campaign on that public option (it was merely part of his plan that he negotiated away). He did end Iraq and "ending the wars sensibly" is, as you know, a matter of interpretation. Nixon campaigned on ending Vietnam with honor, after all.

Closing Gitmo was a broken promise, of couse.

However, where did candidate Obama say he'd usher in a new progressive age?

What was Obama supposed to do about the public option? He was threatened a filibuster from members of his own damn party. Yeah, he could've pushed harder and ended up like Clinton where nothing got done at all. Obamacare isn't close to the end result I want, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. There's plenty of areas to criticize Obama (Gitmo, Patriot Act), but Obamacare is a clear victory and any liberal who doesn't see that is foolish.

What I find amusing is all the progressives who now proudly boast about how they supported Hillary in the primaries. I'm not sure why she's seen as some kind of liberal icon with her pro-Iraq War pro-Patriot Act votes. I see her being just as pragmatic as her husband and compromising on a ton of issues. She would be to the right of Obama if anything.

I would love it if we could get Howard Dean or Russ Feingold as President, but that's not happening anytime soon.

I agree with the idea that he wasn't anywhere near as left as his critics wanted to portray. But just for fun, after he got the nomination he did say,

I'll dig some things up later.

Pet peeve - people who call it Obamacare.

That's just begging for it to be put on the chopping block. It needs a better name for PR purposes.

Of course what someone believes and what they are willing to fight for are two different things ;).

That was the point, right? I always assumed it was a right wing coinage.

Call it whatever you want. The point is that it may only be a good bill, it was a great accomplishment.

Hence my problem.

I don't fault Obama for the ACA, congressional Dems were wimps, but that's not Obama's fault.

The Dems from the WH to Congress aren't willing to stand for much of anything. Going back to pre-2010 they've either surrendered or failed to take the field time after time. They wouldn't pass a budget, so they had to negotiate for a continuing budget bill. They wouldn't stand against an extension of the Bush tax cuts, so they punted. They didn't include the debt limit in the tax cut negotiation, so we got this crisis. They didn't get anything done on the Bush tax cuts so now that will play out in the runup to 2012 and I can't see Dems having the spine to force the elimination of all the tax cuts so they'll end up extending them all again.

They also won't say a thing about the continued unprecedented use of the filibuster on nearly every piece of Senate business. They won't say anything about the way the GOP is holding up nominees to critical posts as another hostage drama. They won't say anything or do anything about the GOP blocking most federal judicial appointments. They won't say anything about the GOP union busting plan that has the FAA nearly shut down and costing the country 200 million a week. And now Norquist is giving hints that the next fight will be against the extension of the gas tax, which I can bet the Dems will say little about.

I'm a grown-up. I don't expect a party to give me 100% of what I want. I do, though, expect a party to stand for something other than handing their lunch money to the school bully.

15000 woot!


(that's all i have to contribute)

In before the lock!

My vote goes to Kodos...if of course, he throws his hat into the ring.

It's a two-party system. You have to vote for one of them!

And boy-oh-boy would JiMG be upset if I were President! (Although I do support the death penalty, so he could feel good about that.)

Probably not as upset as you'd be in the reverse.

After all, you can probably guess my position on aliens :D

I'm guessing he doesn't have a valid US birth certificate either. :)

Kenya believe it?

This

That's pretty much where I'm at with everything these days. It's why we saw a huge surge in Democrats in 2006 and 2008 and it reversed in 2010. The parties are similar, so people just want to vote out everyone.

And while it's nice to see Giffords looking better, it's pathetic they dragged her out for that vote. Shit publicity stunt to turn attention away from the anger people had.

You had me going back and looking for something scathing. Curse you! :mad:

We are crashing.

Market Report - Aug. 2, 2011 - CNNMoney

Fantastic news as far as I'm concerned. Any investor who didn't sell 10-14 days ago is an idiot. This was far too easy to see coming. I'll make thousands off the stupidity of others.

It's only going to get worse. With the revising downward to basically flat of the last couple quarters of GDP growth, and the thinking (which I read in a JP Morgan quick analysis last night) that the cuts in spending forced by the "debt deal" are going to result in an ongoing 1.75% drag on the GDP through 2012.

Basically we've been flat for the last couple quarters. With a 1.75% drag on the GDP caused by the decrease in government spending we're going to be full on into contracting.

Say hello to the double dip we had all been fearing.

Stupidest thing is that it could have easily been avoided.

But low taxes mean more jobs. They couldn't possibly be wrong about that, right?

Country first!

I don't buy that last line, frankly. If you're saying this little three ring circus caused, it, I don't think so. There were some little jitters from the debt "crisis" but the majority of investors had this pegged: lots of hand wringing and a last minute deal. What's killing the market is bad report after bad report- jobs last month, manufacturing data, and now slow GDP growth. And those were things long in the making that have nothing to do with the debt deal.

SI

My action (or lack thereof) would have changed nothing. It's a speculative market. Anyone else should have seen this coming and made money off it. Even if you buy now after selling earlier this week, you'll still make thousands off the fall over the last week or so.

I'm not the problem here. The predictable idiots who made me free money are the real problem. It's bad enough they're pissing away my tax dollars. I'm not going to sit back and let their actions piss away my investment money too. I'm glad you think that's OK.

The FAA partial shutdown may be near an end. The House GOP has demanded a ransom, but luckily Sen. Reid is there to give in to their demands.

Worthless.

It's the fantastic news part that rankles.

Nah...not solely this last little three ring circus. The whole approach to the recession has been FUBAR. Too little too late.

It doesn't surprise me that you would be in favor the National Mediation Board and its tactics. Union bullying and corruption has to stop.