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.