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.