What the Rest of The World Thinks of America

[ruaidhri]

D-pad, thanks for your post. It's understandable that you don't understand exactly what's going on in Wisconsin. The problem from my perspective is that the Republicans politicians and in particular the tea party are being used as flunkies by big money corporate interests to control the American government. Many years ago, 50 to be exact, an outgoing President issued a warning to Americans. His name was Dwight David Eisenhower. His warning was against the military industrial complex. We didn't heed his warning and now we're facing the consequences.

It's very important to note that President Eisenhower was a Republican. He was also a General of the Army (5 Star) and the Supreme Commander of the allied effort to defeat the Axis during WWII. Actually, he was more liberal than either Clinton or Obama. Times were very different in 1960.

Today, in Wisconsin, the right wing effort was to blame our current economic problems on workers, namely, state, county and city, including teachers and public nurses, garbage truck drivers, police, fireman and anyone else paid with public dollars. The charge was they were paid too much and they had better pensions and benefits than most other people. The enemy according to the right-wing was their unions and collective bargaining. Those rights, the right-wingers, claimed gave them an unfair advantage over other non-union workers at the taxpayers expense. They used these workers as scapegoats just as 77 years ago another group of politicians used jews to bear the blame for all their countries woes. In the last election the corporate controlled Republicans won both houses of the state legislature and the governor's race. They also controlled the state Supreme Court.

The Budget Relief Bill stripped the public unions of their bargaining rights and also gave the governor unilateral right to sell any state facility or park or museum to a private corporation without legislative review or competitive bids. It also reduced state aid to education and health benefits. And, it even stopped the state from offering low cost low value ($1,000 to $10,000) life insurance to citizens even though it was totally self supporting and had no cost to the state.

It didn't make any difference that the people protested. It didn't make any difference that the polls were entirely lopsided against them. They marched lockstep into the capitol and voted to give the corporations exactly what they wanted.

so, I'm upset. I'm mad. And, I'm going to become very active in politics to see that these assholes are removed from office. Considering that they control both houses of the legislature impeachment is impossible. But recall isn't and we will see that they are removed. The right-wingers won the battle but we, by God, will win the war.

Now, do you understand why I'm so pissed. If you lived here you would be too.

My wife and I are going to Madison tomorrow. The protests continue. I'll let you know what happens.

[ruaidhri]

D-pad, we're back from Madison. It was inspirational. The people there were all ages and all committed. We are not going to forget and we will not rest until we win. I thought you might enjoy a video of the protests. Note that it is cold in Wisconsin. That didn't stop these people from getting off their duffs and getting out to let their anger show. I'll write more later and upload some of my pictures, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXNA4uQ3J7Q&feature=related

[Trump]

Thanks for keeping us updated! It's an important issue that could have repercussions across the country.

[ruaidhri]

Here is a link to the pictures my wife and I took at the Madison, WI protests on March 12, 2011. This was the day the farmers drove their tractors to the Capitol to support the state workers, teachers and nurses right to collectively bargain.

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2116858&id=1428849305&l=b7c1de946d

[h2orowe]

Watching the Daily Show repeat covering day 14 of the protests. What the conservatives are saying about this is so infuriating.

[ruaidhri]

Attached is an opinion from William Cronon, a professor of history, geography and environmental studies at UW-Madison. It was published in the Mar 21, 2011, New York Times. What Professor Cronon is describing is the soul being ripped from the state of Wisconsin.

What's happened is just not Wisconsin's way of doing business. With the possible exception of Sen Joe McCarthy we have always listened to and had respect for each other. There is so much wrong with Scott Walker. He plans to sell off Wisconsin's Assets (electrical power plants, parks, etc.). He's making top positions in state offices political appointments instead of civil service. He's interfering with local governments. He wants to bust all unions not just public. The list goes on and on. But, inch by inch, yard by yard, we're gathering the recall signatures.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/opinion/22cronon.html

[Trump]

I'm glad the judge has blocked that law at least for now. I'm still in shock over the whole thing, even though it has been weeks since it started.

[ruaidhri]

So, state law provides that the Secretary of State must publish laws within 10 days. The legislature broke Wisconsin's Open Meeting law to pass the bill to strip collective bargaining rights from public unions so opponents filed a lawsuit to stop publication. The judge issued a temporary restraining order instructing the Secretary of State to not publish the bill. Instead of holding another meeting and passing the bill again (this time in accordance with the Open Record Law) the Republicans appealed the courts Decision to a higher court.

Then, Wisconsin's Supreme Court (the highest court) claimed jurisdiction. Now, the Supreme Court is controlled by the Republicans. The justices are not appointed and are subject to reelection. One of the conservative justices is up for election in April. He has strong opposition and is in danger of losing. So, what did the Republicans do? They had the Legislative Reference Bureau publish the law and declared it legal and in effect. With control over all three branches of Wisconsin Government there appears there's little we can do but protest.

America's federal and state constitutions are built on separation of powers, executive, legislative and judicial. We're learning that when the checks don't work tyranny can soon follow. It's the Republicans in all three branches marching in lockstep with their eyes, ears and minds closed that scares me because we are losing the America we so often proclaim to love. How can a country proclaim to be the greatest in world when they ignore a segment of their population?

Maybe, instead of putting our hand over our heart when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance we should cross our fingers behind our back.

[ruaidhri]

When the Nazis came to power in 1930's Germany they first attacked the unions. Next, was the universities, their professors and students that questioned what they were doing. Read this and ask yourself if there is a parallel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/opinion/28mon3.html

Is professor Cronon a threat to America or are the new Republicans?

Here's Professor Cronon's web site http://www.williamcronon.net/ and here's his blog that has gone totally viral with over 2,000,000 hits in the past 24 hours. http://scholarcitizen.williamcronon.net/2011/03/15/alec/

Is our republic in danger? What do you think?

[Trump]

I think our republic has been in danger for quite a while. We have gotten complacent surrounded by our luxuries and stagnant in our lives. People listen to advertising instead of doing research to find the facts. People don't seem to want to work hard to improve themselves and their lives any more. When did this change occur? I'm not really sure. But I look around the world today and see so much going on to make me wonder what will happen. There are riots in the middle east and controversy in Canada's government. What will happen in the US?

[Druid]

I think our republic has been in danger for quite a while. We have gotten complacent surrounded by our luxuries and stagnant in our lives. People listen to advertising instead of doing research to find the facts. People don't seem to want to work hard to improve themselves and their lives any more. When did this change occur? I'm not really sure. But I look around the world today and see so much going on to make me wonder what will happen. There are riots in the middle east and controversy in Canada's government. What will happen in the US?
Revolution, one can only hope. Either in ideology or in government, readjustment is in order. We must either change the way in which we do business or we must change the tools with which we do business. Either way, one of those is necessary in order to keep the US from falling into an educational and financial cesspit.

edit: Almost 3 years and I still cannot assemble a coherent post. Damn.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I agree. I've always been afraid that the U.S. could go down this path. We are too ready to accept emotional appeals over logic and reliable facts. All too many of us love dirt and believe what we constantly hear without seeking any form of verification. What makes everything worse is that we are easily manipulated to work against our own best interest, which I fear could result in our losing the freedoms we claim to cherish.

Is America the only country in danger? No, of course not. What makes us particularly dangerous is that we have the world's most powerful and, therefore, most dangerous military muscle.

When did this first occur? I believe it has always been a part of our political landscape. What's different, I believe, is large corporations and super rich conservatives are now free to flood campaigns with negative ads that have most to do with fear and little to do with truth. The Tea Party is their army that threatens anyone that opposes them and although a minority within the Republican party has the party leadership marching to their orders.

Wisconsin is in the midst of a campaign for State Supreme Court. One of the candidates is a Walker conservative and the other a stated independent not beholding to either party. The big out-of-state dollars are flooding the airwaves with outright lies about the independent candidate. Who will win? We'll find out tomorrow.

[Druid]

When did this first occur?

Bloody Ronald Reagan.

Coincidentally, might I ask how much of a myth has that man become compared to his actual time in office? I'm interested in your view on the subject, sir.

[ruaidhri]

Druid, Reagan? Yes, he was a conservative but so was Goldwater and before him McCarthy and Coolidge, Harding and Hoover. The difference today is how easy it is to put ads on TV that manipulate how people think and act.

I have been involved in every election since 1960. Today's are the most vicious because they're never ending and you simply can't escape their reach. How many people are willing and capable of separating the lies from the truth. Many simply believe the lie especially when they hear it over and over and over again. While American campaigns have always had their dirt nothing in the past compares with how efficiently today's dirt is delivered.

I believe what's threatening America is a dangerous disregard for the truth supported by unlimited funds. This is all exacerbated by the news media's unwillingness or inability to truly report the news and reveal the lies. All too many of today's TV reporters are nothing more than news readers who are spokespeople for their corporate owners. Where's Edward R. Murrow when we need him?

[ruaidhri]

Druid, Reagan was an actor. He was handsome and was a fantastic figurehead for America. People liked him even when they didn't agree with his politics. Mostly, he was a hands off President allowing his team to do much of the management of Executive.

There is little doubt that he changed America from helping the little guy to opening the door for mega profits for the richest Americans. His tax cuts that continued with each Republican administration along with the disassembling of regulatory oversight are the cause, I believe, of many of today's economic problems. His legacy is that all politicians both Democrat and Republican are far more conservative than those that preceded Reagan. Consider, for example, Dwight Eisenhower or Richard Nixon, both American President who were Republicans and more liberal than either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. You want to see a real old time liberal look up Lyndon Johnson. If it weren't for the war in Vietnam, he might have actually won his war on poverty. If that happened, America would be a very different place today. I think it would be better.

[Trump]

It's interesting how you say both parties are more conservative than they used to be. But is conservatism really the problem? I mean the two parties seem to have forgotten the meaning of the word compromise. How long have they been working on the budget? Over a year now right? How can we justify giving these people jobs if they can't fulfill their main purpose?

[ruaidhri]

First, I must agree that compromise and bipartisan cooperation is no longer practiced by either party. I believe the increased conservatism of Republicans, especially with Tea-Party influence has made compromise difficult, if not impossible, for liberals. In years past there wasn't that much ideological difference between the two parties. It was easier to come together. Many had friendships across the aisle. Today, that's rare.

Second, I don't like celebrating anyone's death BUT I'll make an exception for Osama Bin Laden. Now, the world can view Bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization as losers and not as David against Goliath. Worldwide, countries and their people are congratulating America. Certainly, I don't expect terrorism to roll over and die. What I do anticipate is less acceptance of their methods to bring about change.

Also, I do credit President Obama with this successful operation. President Obama demonstrated extraordinary leadership in locating Bin Laden's potential location, careful and competent management of his resources to verify the data before acting and finally balls to order a unilateral operation in a sovereign nation with mixed support for the United States. President Obama has, in my opinion, proven himself as a strong Commander-in-Chief.

[Fred]

Druid, there were lots of people who thought Reagan was a monster for a number of reasons. He cut a lot of domestic programs with disastrous consequences for low-income families. He did a huge disservice to unions when he broke the Aircraft Controller strike. There has also been talk of secret negotiations with the Iran hostage takers to postpone releasing the hostages until after his election. However, wealthy people got wealthier, so he is generally seen as a good president.

An then there was the whole Alzheimer's thing. People know he slept through his meetings. They knew Nancy helped him answer questions sometimes. They just didn't realize how bad off he was.

[ruaidhri]

I have to pass two YouTube video's on regarding the birther issue and Donald Trump. The first is President Obama's talk at the White House correspondence dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8TwRmX6zs4&feature=related

And the second is Seth Meyers talk, also at the White House correspondence dinner and again about Donald Trump: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv4MzaGk2VI&feature=related



edited to show correct youtube video for President Obama

[Trump]

I think it would be interesting to see a president Trump + a democratic congress/senate. I'm not advocating that at all, I just think it would make for great entertainment. I almost wonder if that would work? Regardless, after his obsessive focus on the birth certificate thing again I can't vote for him.

PS my screen name is for card games not the man.

[Swede]

Ruadhri, that first link you posted was just that Seth Meyers video again, but here is the Obama one: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/president-obama-takes-on-trump-and-birthers-at-the-white-house-correspondents%E2%80%99-dinner/

[ruaidhri]

Thanks Swede. I was showing my wife the videos when I discovered my error and edited my post. I appreciate your posting the correct video. The President is pretty good at delivering a line, isn't he?

[Trump]

That's why he got elected right?

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

That's why he got elected right?

It's not why I voted for him, that's for sure.

[Raenir Salazar]

My opinion is that Mitt Romney probably has the best centrist appeal currently of all Republican candidates and would if he won the primaries have the best chance of any of them.

The problem is that he's probably one of the most moderate republicans and has to deal with "Romneycare" and other issues that would hurt him in the primaries against the crazier competitors.

If its Romney it'll be a hard fought close race very dependent on the issues and Obama's ability to keep the support he had in 2008 going, what will hurt Obama is probably a number of people who are upset with him in "for not going far enough" and may stay home if they aren't willing to simply vote against the Republicans.

If its a tea partyer they'll scare the American middle, if its someone like Newt he won't have the appeal as my impression is that Newt seems too "intellectual" for many.

[CNagy]

Newt Gingrich has the additional problem of trying to win support in the family values, when his history of adultery and divorce makes it very clear that he does not practice what he preaches.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Newt Gingrich has the additional problem of being a horrible person that nobody likes.

[h2orowe]

I prefer his brother, Salamander Gingrich.

Also, that Obama video still has me laughin' my butts off.

[MeneerDijk]

I don't think Obama couldn't have asked for a better media-coup. The birth-certificate and subsequent roasting of Trump, and then the death of Bin-Laden. I have a lot more faith in his re-election than beforehand.

Besides, would anyone think Trump actually stood a chance?

[Raenir Salazar]

I don't think Obama couldn't have asked for a better media-coup. The birth-certificate and subsequent roasting of Trump, and then the death of Bin-Laden. I have a lot more faith in his re-election than beforehand.

Besides, would anyone think Trump actually stood a chance?

Of course not, but I think it IS possible he might have won the primaries thus signing the death warrant of the GOP 2012 presidential race.

[Druid]

I can only hope that Obama forces his party to grow some testicles and starts putting some strong, focused legislation involving energy into Congress. Bush did quite a bit even though he had the minority practically all of his presidency in the Senate and House, so maybe Obama can overcome the cesspool of tea partiers and lay down the law. Literally.

[ruaidhri]

Druid, we can certainly hope but, as the old saying goes, "you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first". I believe the current Republicans in Congress don't want to give any victory to the Democrats, especially with an election on the horizon. Can President Obama stand firm and let the government shut down? Will he allow America to default on its loans? Or, will he surrender and allow the draconian "remedy" proposed by Congressman Ryan to become law?

Many democrats, myself included, didn't like many of the actions of President Bush. Still, we worked to find middle ground. We recognized that solutions require our representatives in Congress to be the people's voice not that of party leaders or major contributors. We also didn't have the tea party breathing down our neck ready to "punish" errant legislators by introducing well financed primary competition to replace them with someone more cooperative.

What do I hope Obama will do? I hope he stays tough and doesn't cave in. He's the only hope for the Middle Class. We need him to remain strong even in the face of threatened government shut downs and defaults on our loans. He can't blink first.

[Druid]

Unfortunately, compromise is the one thing we can't have here. Compromise and good intentions (along with the reemergence of the spoils system) coupled with severe lack of foresight is what got us here in the first place. There hasn't been any effective preemptive legislation that's come out of D.C. in the last 15 years or so (that I can recall). It's all just been knee-jerk reactions to current problems that have gotten too bad to ignore.

The man that Obama portrayed during his campaign for Presidency is what we need. Someone with vision and a willingness to cause that change. All we've gotten out of Obama is, "It's hard to change government."

As for that Vox Populi thing; HA! Around half of the populace doesn't vote. What does that tell you? Vote of no confidence, that's what. As much as we expect our representatives to listen to our concerns, I believe we also expect them to make decisions. When you divide it down party lines, you have effectively only a quarter of the populace being represented in any bill (one half of 50%, don't cha' know). When that happens, it's high time that you start making effective changes and enacting plans as opposed to trying to pander to the faceless masses. Appeasing everyone and hoping things will be ok in the end never works out. As the saying goes, "Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

I want shit to get done, FDR style.

tl;dr: We need a leader, not just a Commander-in-Chief.

[bluestars87]

Druid, we can certainly hope but, as the old saying goes, "you can wish in one hand and crap in the other and see which one gets filled first". I believe the current Republicans in Congress don't want to give any victory to the Democrats, especially with an election on the horizon. Can President Obama stand firm and let the government shut down? Will he allow America to default on its loans? Or, will he surrender and allow the draconian "remedy" proposed by Congressman Ryan to become law?

Many democrats, myself included, didn't like many of the actions of President Bush. Still, we worked to find middle ground. We recognized that solutions require our representatives in Congress to be the people's voice not that of party leaders or major contributors. We also didn't have the tea party breathing down our neck ready to "punish" errant legislators by introducing well financed primary competition to replace them with someone more cooperative.

What do I hope Obama will do? I hope he stays tough and doesn't cave in. He's the only hope for the Middle Class. We need him to remain strong even in the face of threatened government shut downs and defaults on our loans. He can't blink first.
Wait, so what would happen to my school loans if the government shuts down?

[Raenir Salazar]

A NeoNew Deal would be awesome.

[ruaidhri]

Compromise is not a dirty word. The Republicans control the House of Representatives. The Democrats can’t pass any bills through Congress if they can’t get sufficient votes in the House. Compromise is the tool the parties use to attempt to convince their opposition to vote for the bills they sponsor. Certainly, it’s not a perfect system. But, it’s what we’ve got because if either side of the aisle doesn’t agree or sits on their hands nothing will get done. That’s the situation we’re facing now and it’s not good. I certainly don’t believe compromise is always appropriate but without compromise we have a Mexican Standoff. Today, that would be catastrophic with the government literally shutting down, actions not taken, bills not paid and our dollar devalued against the world’s currencies.

After saying that, I do believe President Obama should stand firm and seek the public’s support, which is another tool available to party leaders. If enough voters are screaming for or against an action our elected representatives take note. If they don’t they risk losing their next election and without an office a politician is nothing more than a citizen.

So what are negotiable items? The Republicans want to cut spending and the Democrats want to increase taxes on the rich. Perhaps, we could do some of both. But, without compromise, we’d do neither and our problems would remain unresolved.

The point to remember is that America is a union of 50 individual states and our government is a democratic republic. That is, we democratically elect people to represent our interests. We have a constitution and we have separation of powers in our three branches, executive, legislative and judicial. So long as the three branches operate independently, we avoid government by decree, which I hope no one would want. That leaves working together to get things done. And, the tools are public opinion and compromise.

The Democrats can no more say “It’s our way or the highway” than the Republicans. That’s not responsible leadership. If the two parties can’t find common ground then everyone fails, including you and me and every other American.

[bluestars87]

Hmmm...does this mean I don't have to pay my student loans back? Because that would be awesome.

Sorry I'm really bad when it comes to politics.

[mugen]

Hmmm...does this mean I don't have to pay my student loans back? Because that would be awesome.

Sorry I'm really bad when it comes to politics.
At this point, I don't think anyone knows. But is the prospect of not having to pay back your student loans really better than a country where there is still some semblence of normalcy and stability?

[D-pad]

I dunno, "broken country" is pretty good excuse to stumble around a bit.

[ruaidhri]

Bluestars87, if there's one thing that will follow you forever it's unpaid student loans. Not even bankruptcy can wipe them out. In fact, I believe if you die, the government will go after your estate to repay the loan. So, the answer to your question is no.

D-pad, you're not 14 anymore; you're 20 and have a child. Do you want that child to grow up in a country unable to take care of itself what less its citizens?

[mawande]

I do credit President Obama with this successful operation. President Obama demonstrated extraordinary leadership in locating Bin Laden's potential location, careful and competent management of his resources to verify the data before acting and finally balls to order a unilateral operation in a sovereign nation with mixed support for the United States. President Obama has, in my opinion, proven himself as a strong Commander-in-Chief.

I am so glad the forums are back. I missed informed, educational posts from ruaidhri. I know that things are not simple, but oh I will make my vote.

[Druid]

Compromise is not a dirty word. The Republicans control the House of Representatives. The Democrats can’t pass any bills through Congress if they can’t get sufficient votes in the House.
Allow me to deconstruct.


The Democrats can no more say “It’s our way or the highway” than the Republicans. That’s not responsible leadership. If the two parties can’t find common ground then everyone fails, including you and me and every other American.
Happened time after time during Bush's first term (split congress) and subsequent re-election (complete minority after 2006). As to the current presidency, even when Obama had both the senate and house, he did very little to affect actual systems, such as the stock market and banks. Seeing the aftermath of the legislation, it appears that the symptoms, as opposed to the disease, were addressed. Neither of those things fixed either of those systems and will only prolong the inevitable relapse of both those institutions. Which, I suppose, relates us to the heart of the matter that I want to get to.

So what are negotiable items? The Republicans want to cut spending and the Democrats want to increase taxes on the rich. Perhaps, we could do some of both. But, without compromise, we’d do neither and our problems would remain unresolved.

-Both of these ideas are, quite frankly, useless and insipid. Spending less or taxing more will not fix a broken economic system that is 14.3 trillion dollars in debt when your yearly GDP per year is only 15 Trillion. Why that is so is a completely different thread, but the idea that our total debt is just about equal to us working collectively as a country for a year being a bad thing should be obvious.-

What Congress is debating about is a readjustment of the system; what is actually needed is a new system combined with a change in how we do business. This is something that was promised, but has not happened.

The only person that can make that happen is a President who is capable of circumventing the bullshit of both parties and putting the talented members to use. Obama, unfortunately, has not been that guy. He wants to be, I think, but he's not cutting it. So far, Obama hasn't been capable of utilizing- nor circumventing the bullshit of- his own party, much less reaching out to the Republicans. But, then again, he can't even get them to complete a budget that was supposed to be finished last year. I suppose asking him to reconstruct the the economy is too forward thinking.

Compromise is the tool the parties use to attempt to convince their opposition to vote for the bills they sponsor. Certainly, it’s not a perfect system. But, it’s what we’ve got because if either side of the aisle doesn’t agree or sits on their hands nothing will get done. That’s the situation we’re facing now and it’s not good. I certainly don’t believe compromise is always appropriate but without compromise we have a Mexican Standoff.
And yet, even with that tool, we have that exact situation that you describe! Furthermore, when that tool is used, the idea is never as good nor as effective as the original proposal. Obama's cannibalized Healthcare bill is an example of this.

Today, that would be catastrophic with the government literally shutting down, actions not taken, bills not paid and our dollar devalued against the world’s currencies.
Minus the Government shutting down (which would save a couple billion, I'm sure) all of those things happen every single day. If it takes a month of a public display underscoring the Government's ineptitude to garter attention, that's what needs to happen. I prefer suffering and discomfort to the slow death of my nation.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Friendly reminder that up until the Republicans retook the House, Obama was practically constantly trying to compromise with the GOP, often to the detriment of Democratic legislation. The healthcare bill became an enormous handout to insurance companies; the climate bill became non-existent, the stimulus package became rife with completely useless tax cuts (infrastructure spending is far more likely to put more money back into the economy per dollar spent than tax cuts); Obama gave in to continuing the Bush tax cuts; and on and on. The idea that Obama and the center-right Democrats haven't been more than willing to bend over to GOP demands is hilarious.

Yet despite all the worthless Blue Dogs in the House, the House under Democratic control managed to pass a bunch of okay to decent legislation, only for it to head to the Senate and die.

Both of these ideas are, quite frankly, useless and insipid. Spending less or taxing more will not fix a broken economic system that is 14.3 trillion dollars in debt when your yearly GDP per year is only 15 Trillion. Why that is so is a completely different thread, but the idea that our total debt is just about equal to us working collectively as a country for a year being a bad thing should be obvious.

Removing the Bush era tax cuts and increasing taxes on the rich would help to reduce the deficit by a substantial amount, I'm not sure how this is debatable. The debt is another story but if you have another idea for getting rid of it please continue.

[bluestars87]

Not sure if this counts, but I'm going to post it in here anyways. I went to school tonight to work on a final for one of my classes. Before I went there I stopped at a McDonalds. I usually don't like stopping at McDonalds in general (their food is kind of boring and for obvious health reasons), but this was the only place close enough that was open in the financial district on a Saturday.

So I order and wait for my food to be prepared. In the meantime this scruffy looking white man in about his mid 40's comes in and places an order. There is this young Chinese girl working the register. She has an accent and you can obviously tell English isn't her first language. There are a lot of Asian people working at this McDonalds in general.

In any case the man asks for two McChickens and an Apple Pie or something to that effect. She tells him they only have Cherry Pie today. The man remarks with a little attitude about them having Apple Pie the previous day and no Cherry pie. He then just wants the two McChickens. For whatever reason, the girl behind the register gets confused a little or doesn't hear correctly and wants to confirm the order and says "I'm sorry One McChicken?" The man then storms out and says "forget it...SPEAK ENGLISH!!" and leaves.

This really didn't seem to effect the girl's morale that much or anything and she had another customer in line so she continues. Regardless I just personally felt disgusted of the behavior displayed by this guy. Really, did he believe he was taking some sort of moral high ground by leaving the facility all pissed off? I've seen drama at this McDonalds before with another white guy giving attitude for to someone because they forgot his fork or whatever. And this guy was in a three piece suit. It's just amazing how people get so upset about fast food service at times. Especially when these people are doing their best to serve you your food. If someone gets your order wrong, no big deal. Just work through it. For all my faults as a person, I can honestly that I at least have the common courtesy to treat others how I want to be treated. Especially if they're serving my food to me.

I remember a co-worker of mine told me a while back about human nature and people when situations arise. You have the ones that run away from the problem and don't want to deal with it, and then you have the ones that try to work through it and find a solution. Then there was just the spectator folks, but we didn't really talk about that. Obviously all American's aren't like this, but I just thought about our world reputation for a split second when this happened today. Maybe it's because I'm also learning another language and I know how hard it can be sometimes. I don't know. Just a really sad state of affairs. Felt like I should have done something.

Also maybe it's because I've been exposed to some excessive form of propaganda, but I also have had the notion for a while now that as an American I really need to represent the brighter side of our culture when I interact with people from foreign counties. Going to China last winter and seeing how a lot of the service industry worshiped our business and wanted to emulate our style in certain aspects really just surprised me. I didn't think it was to that high of a degree.

[Druid]

Removing the Bush era tax cuts and increasing taxes on the rich would help to reduce the deficit by a substantial amount, I'm not sure how this is debatable. The debt is another story but if you have another idea for getting rid of it please continue.

The total value of all the billionaires and millionaires in the US is something like 12.2 Trillion. That's not liquidated assets, that's the total estimated value of all property/investments and personal possessions. If we were to take/sell all of their money/possessions and get 100% of the value back (stealing ftw), that would only reduce the total debt by 86 percent, give or take. That would still leave two trillion or so left.

Now, let's say we raise taxes. Even if we were to raise taxes to around 50% , let's say we get an extra 1.5 trillion (I'm pulling this particular number out of my ass, by the by. everything except the 1.5 is a statistic you can find on .gov or other related economic sites). Debt increases by about a billion dollars a day. So, in the fiscal year we took to collect that 1.5 trillion, we would lost about 370 billion off the extra money we collected in taxes, bringing the actual number down to 1.15 trillion or so. Doing this alone would still leave 13 trillion dollars to account for. That is assuming, of course, inflation stays at the current rate (which it won't).

So while a couple hundred billion is a substantial number on it's own, it's not really something that's going to save us in the end. Neither, of course, is figuratively pinching penny's out the budget which always increases in size every year. Except for this year, oddly enough, seeing as we don't have an official budget yet. Are you seeing why what's going on in DC is profoundly stupid?

Ways to fix this? Several. First off, we could shut down The Federal Reserve and put the control of our currency in Government hands. If you are confused about how this works, look it up. Personal edification is always best. Followed with that, we could break up bank trusts, crack down on insider trading, and begin to seriously regulate wall street. After that, we go after the health care system and have a serious, no nonsense evaluation of the care being provided and the actual costs associated with it. We could also start cutting inefficient government jobs and employees, institute a flat tax and get rid of the IRS.

After that, we could downsize our military and begin pulling troops out of foreign bases and nations. Additionally, we can end global and free trade, eliminate outsourcing of US jobs, and being instituting austerity measures across the board. Lastly, we could begin lowering regulations on new businesses in the US to encourage the increase of exports.

That, I think, would fix America's debt issue.

Yeah.

[D-pad]

D-pad, you're not 14 anymore; you're 20 and have a child. Do you want that child to grow up in a country unable to take care of itself what less its citizens?

I believe in the abilities of those who will be alive when this current system goes to poop. A blank slate is necessary at this point, and when I say at this point I mean it would have been nice any time in the last 30 years.

So let's catch some shit on fire. Let's listen to some good music, and let's solve our problems in a new way...with action.

[CNagy]

that would only reduce the total debt by 86 percent, give or take. That would still leave two trillion or so left.

Debt increases by about a billion dollars a day. So, in the fiscal year we took to collect that 1.5 trillion, we would lost about 370 billion off the extra money we collected in taxes, bringing the actual number down to 1.15 trillion or so. Doing this alone would still leave 13 trillion dollars to account for. That is assuming, of course, inflation stays at the current rate (which it won't).

So the main thrust of your argument is, essentially, no matter what we do we'll still have debt this time next year? Solving the debt problem is something that will be over the course of 10-20-30 years, and in that time frame knocking $300 billion off the debt per year amounts to a fairly significant number.

Here's the thing: the world is a debt-based economy. The problem is not that we are in debt but rather that we have a lot of debt and it is growing. This shakes confidence in our economic strength. If we have a lot of debt but we have a plan that consistently works to lower it year by year, then confidence in the US economy will strengthen.

What you are doing is saying that--because nothing we could do would solve our debt immediately, silver bullet style--we need to follow an anti-fed, flat tax, no IRS agenda. I agree with some of your points: wall street needs regulation, health care needs an overhaul (or a public option, which amounts to the same thing as government cost setting), and smart regulation is always a good thing.

But flat taxes are shown to impact the poor disproportionately, and high taxes do not significantly cut down on investment unless you are talking pre-Reagan levels. Setting the tax levels for the highest bracket back to the Clinton-era levels puts extra money in the hands of government with no tangible downside aside from the fact that people with a lot of money are going to be a bit put out that they don't get to hold onto all of it.

Rather than abolish the IRS, give them teeth; the IRS is severely underfunded to the point where they don't have the resources to pursue most high profile tax evasion cases. The ones that they do pursue will often be settled out of court for pennies on the dollar (and no admission of wrongdoing by the evading party) so that they can use the resources saved by not going to court to pursue other big fish. Give them enough funding to go after corporate tax evaders, because their current level means mostly going after small time evaders who can't afford to defend themselves with legal representation.

Close all the corporate tax loopholes, and then lower our corporate tax rate to anywhere from 20-25%. The number of corporations who do business here without ever paying taxes is staggering and, in some cases, they manage to not pay taxes here while amassing billions in tax credits on our system. This would go a long way towards operating in the black again.

I agree with downsizing the military, because the nature of war has changed and we need to change with it. Foreign bases aren't so much the problem as our standing army size. Taking on the military is a tough job, though, because they traditionally receive spending increases every year and the defense budget is in the part of the budget generally considered inviolate.

[Druid]

So the main thrust of your argument is, essentially, no matter what we do we'll still have debt this time next year? Solving the debt problem is something that will be over the course of 10-20-30 years, and in that time frame knocking $300 billion off the debt per year amounts to a fairly significant number.
No, the thrust of the argument is that the main points being considered will never solve the problem. I'm simply demonstrating how, using the most extreme form of the proposals being given, the idea could not possibly work. Furthermore, we should look at our total debt as a nation and consider how that's being taken care of as well. Right now our total is something like 52 trillion (52636.2 Billion, to be precise). Let's say we pay off that 14 trillion (including interest) on the tail end of 20 years. What about debt in the private sector? We can't possibly take care of our credit issue as a nation unless our governing body gets itself out of the hole first.

Here's the thing: the world is a debt-based economy. The problem is not that we are in debt but rather that we have a lot of debt and it is growing. This shakes confidence in our economic strength. If we have a lot of debt but we have a plan that consistently works to lower it year by year, then confidence in the US economy will strengthen.
Whoa, whoa, let's backpedal. You have to realize that once you reach a certain point on indebtedness, it's practically impossible to get past it, right? In order to pay for our current debts, the government borrows from the fed, which only exacerbates the problem. Right now, given our current financial system, it is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to pay off our debt. As in: 0% chance. Our debt is too large and our compounded interest is too high. As to "confidence in the economy", that only affects speculation and other such institutions. Increasing confidence will not make the amount owed a penny less.

What you are doing is saying that--because nothing we could do would solve our debt immediately, silver bullet style--we need to follow an anti-fed, flat tax, no IRS agenda. I agree with some of your points: wall street needs regulation, health care needs an overhaul (or a public option, which amounts to the same thing as government cost setting), and smart regulation is always a good thing.
Nothing can solve the problem immediately, as you say. Again, I was simply demonstrating the idea by using hyperbole. Furthermore, I was trying to demonstrate how the idea was fundamentally flawed. With my other proposals, those too would take time, but they would most likely work. Nothing, as they say, is certain.

But flat taxes are shown to impact the poor disproportionately, and high taxes do not significantly cut down on investment unless you are talking pre-Reagan levels. Setting the tax levels for the highest bracket back to the Clinton-era levels puts extra money in the hands of government with no tangible downside aside from the fact that people with a lot of money are going to be a bit put out that they don't get to hold onto all of it.

The current levels are around 35%. The Clinton level tax rates were around 40%. 5% is not going to make an appreciable difference even over the long term. We're going to accrue over a trillion dollars in interest in the next year. Unless we do something like 200%, we're not going to make a dent.

Rather than abolish the IRS, give them teeth; the IRS is severely underfunded to the point where they don't have the resources to pursue most high profile tax evasion cases. The ones that they do pursue will often be settled out of court for pennies on the dollar (and no admission of wrongdoing by the evading party) so that they can use the resources saved by not going to court to pursue other big fish. Give them enough funding to go after corporate tax evaders, because their current level means mostly going after small time evaders who can't afford to defend themselves with legal representation.
On one hand, the IRS constantly breaks laws and is, as you say, a limpdick organization. To give it more funding would be to encourage bad behavior. On the other hand, you have legislation like the Fairtax bill ( It's a progressive flattax with exemptions, if that makes sense. It's awesome) which streamlines the tac code and eliminates the IRS. No contest, in my opinion. Good times all around. Read about it, if you wish:http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_bills

Close all the corporate tax loopholes, and then lower our corporate tax rate to anywhere from 20-25%. The number of corporations who do business here without ever paying taxes is staggering and, in some cases, they manage to not pay taxes here while amassing billions in tax credits on our system. This would go a long way towards operating in the black again.

Hate to say it, but that's still not gonna cut it either.

I agree with downsizing the military, because the nature of war has changed and we need to change with it. Foreign bases aren't so much the problem as our standing army size. Taking on the military is a tough job, though, because they traditionally receive spending increases every year and the defense budget is in the part of the budget generally considered inviolate.
Tru fax.

Extra information, yo.
On average, the amount in debt that we owe has been increasing on average by 4 billion per day since 2007. The current increase is around 3.5 billion per day. That's $150 million every hour, $2.5 million every minute, and a little over $40,000 a second.

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

Why are you so concerned with the country completely paying off all $14 trillion of its debt? Restoring Clinton tax rates would bring in hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of ten years and would be a fantastic place to start lowering the debt as a percentage of GDP, as well as its deficit.

[ruaidhri]

Druid, I know my limits and I admittedly know little about macro economics. Most of what I write is based on basic knowledge and having lived through so many events as a citizen and taxpayer. I seriously doubt your solution will fly with either american political party; the choice will remain between reducing costs and increasing revenues.

I sure hope the situation is not as dire as what you painted. Actually, I doubt it is. Again, I fall back on memory. The stagnation of the late 1970's was the worst period I remember and many believed we would never recover. We did by eliminating regulation, exporting jobs and importing manufactured products from third-world countries. Yes, Reagan also reduced taxes.

We may need to reestablish regulations with strict enforcement. We also need to bring manufacturing jobs back to America. And, I most definitely believe we need to protect unions and collective bargaining because higher wages and better benefits will strengthen the Middle Class and increase purchase of good and services that will expand our economy and further increase tax revenues.

I am a bleeding heart liberal. I admit it. I do not support most cuts to social services. I also do not support cuts to education. I'd rather my dollars went to feed and educate then to bullets and bombs that kill. I support a strong national defense but question how invading Iraq and engaging in a long war in Afghanistan made America, or Iraq, or Afghanistan any safer.

I agree we have to have a cleaner tax without so many deduction that afford the rich the opportunity to masterly avoid paying taxes. I also believe we all should pay taxes based on our total income regardless of its source. That is, I believe capital gains should not be singled out for a special rate. The source of income for the richest of the rich is not from working but rather from investments. While I believe investors should be able to deduct their losses, I question why they should also have a lower tax rate. And, I support a progressive tax where those with higher incomes pay higher taxes.

[ruaidhri]

D-pad, What? Are you saying that total economic collapse is your solution? You are suggesting that out of the chaos wise people will materialize and solve our problems. If our economy does collapse, I seriously doubt you, your child and his mother will prosper. I certainly would fear what would happen to me and my family.

[D-pad]

You are suggesting that out of the chaos wise people will materialize and solve our problems.

Yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting. Hit the nail on the head.:bored:

I'm saying that obviously we're looking at a problem with no solution. Fuck sitting around discussing plans that might start showing signs of impact in 20+ years time. Let shit go to hell. I'll be ready to get mine.

Stupid? Yes.

WEEE!!!

[Trump]

Debt itself is not a problem. Most people get by just fine with debt totalling 2-3 times their yearly income. (example, home mortgage)

A few ideas about debt.

As long as you can pay the interest on the debt you can hold the debt indefinately. This actually strengthens your credit rating since people know they will make money off your debt.

However, having debt for the sake of having debt is stupid because you are just paying someone else for nothing. Debt provides you with

Debt needs to be working towards some goal. Taking debt to just spend it on a vacation is pretty dumb in the long run. Debt is intended to provide you a way to work towards the future. You take some debt and use it in a way that makes you more than you could before. Many companies take debt monthly because they have to pay their workers before all of their income shows up. It allows them to keep their workers happy while still conducting business.

A house is another example where you rely on the value of the house increasing (and the fact that you aren't paying rent otherwise) to improve your situation. That was the big problem a few years ago, everyone was buying houses beyond their means, expecting them to increase in value and sell them again quick to gain a profit.

I have trouble with the government's debt right now because it is difficult to understand how much of it is an investment in ourselves.

Are the wars stabilizing the world economy so we can excel? Are they establishing good relationships to allow us cheap access to resources?

Does our military expertise gives us a technological advantage we can sell to other countries?

Do social programs (health care, social security, etc) improve the standard of living and attract jobs?

These are the questions that have to be analyzed and answered.

Unfortunately, with a budget so out of balance I have to believe we are over-extending ourselves. Our investments seem to be taking longer to turn a profit than expected and we cannot sustain this level of spending without an increase in revenue. Does the economy have to crash for us to get out of this? Absolutely not. I don't even believe there have to be ridiculously drastic cuts to fix this mess. However, politicians need to realize we need to restrain ourselves until we have a more solid foundation to build on. That may mean cuts to social programs or military spending. Unfortunately, no one seems willing to do anything right now.

[Trump]

Regarding middle class income:
I think the income of the middle class is fixed with regard to prices. If middle class income goes up then the cost of the goods they produce also increases. Overall it doesn't change the standard of living at all.

So the only way to improve middle class income would be to change the type of jobs the middle class does. Bankers, engineers, and doctors make more than the taxi drivers and carpenters. The only way to improve the overall average would be to increase the ratio of better paying jobs. How to do that is beyond me, but I think you would have to create an environment that attracts those activities.

[ruaidhri]

Trump, I don't doubt what you're writing is correct. It's simple short term supply and demand. But, as time go one, more people with more money will increase supply and reduce costs. Also more people with more money will pay more taxes, which will help reduce the deficit.

I like what you wrote about debt. By itself it is not bad. It allow people to have what they need when they need it. It certainly makes sense to borrow money to increase your net worth. Conversely, it doesn't make sense to use credit to go on vacation or buy a meal, a drink or go on a date.

Managing debt is a tough lesson. It certainly took me awhile. When my boys were younger I had incredible credit card debt. I wasn't wise and I was soon paying big dollars in interest. Eventually I realized what I was doing and concentrated on eliminating all my debt. First, I paid off my credit cards and then my car loans. I still owe some on my home but that is tax deductible at only 5% interest so it's not of great concern. I'm amazed at how much extra money I have now that i'm not paying huge interest charges each month.

[ruaidhri]

Looking at my last post I'm having second thoughts. More people with more money will increase demand while a proportional increase in supply will only maintain the status quo not necessarily reduce costs. But, more people with more money will indeed increase tax revenue.

[Trump]

Talking about this stuff makes my head want to explode. I don't know quite enough to be able to explain it but I (think) I understand the basic principles somewhere in my head. There are so many interconnected aspects that I can't even figure out how to talk about a piece of it.

Overall, tax revenue has to do with GDP more than average income. For example more people with lower income would produce about the same tax income as less people who make more. Obviously, it isn't exact as we've complicated the tax system to the point where it makes calculus seem like a newborn could do it.

Since changing the number of people isn't really feasible, the best way to increase tax income (without raising taxes) is to improve average income. The big ways to do that would be to reduce unemployment, attract better paying jobs, etc. I don't think that really affects supply and demand in that way. Labor would cost more, so jobs that required less expensive labor would migrate elsewhere (outside the country) while jobs that need well paid skilled labor would come to the country. It really wouldn't affect the cost of goods (at the country level) too much. Worldwide the costs would still be about the same since the demand really is the same.

Personally, I think the fact that the government is spending, what, something like $18k per citizen per year makes me think that improving income and fixing the economy can't be enough. I mean, there will always be people who don't even make that much per year, and people still need to be able to live. We have to cut spending somehow that doesn't crash the economy. The effects of government spending? Man, I don't even want to touch that.

[ruaidhri]

Today, what DOES the rest of the world think of America? We certainly aren't what we were. Oh certainly, we do have our military. We can kick your butt. We can destroy. But, can we build?

We're seriously in debt and that's only the tip of the iceberg. Our infrastructure is falling apart. our bridges are in danger of falling, our dams of collapsing and our highways and roads are disintegrating all while we dodge the consequences. We can't even guarantee that the 100 year old water pipes below our streets will deliver water to our homes.

What caused our rapid collapse from the leader of the free world. I believe it's our unwillingness to pay the price for success. We fight taxes at every turn. Well, if we want an environment where our families and businesses can survive and prosper we need infrastructure and that costs money. Money we don't have without taxes.

The problem wasn't created by Obama. It goes back to Reagan and Bush, Senior. Clinton solved the problem but Bush, Jr. gave it all up making it impossible for Obama to bring us back from the brink. Now, the deficit is so huge, we can only hope a miracle will save us.

Can America survive? Or, will it become yet another failure?

[Darrel]

Clinton actually approved the bill that many consider the root of the 2008-2009 recession, although much of it was based on Republican "deregulate the economy" ideology.

Check out the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, it is one of the major pieces of bank regulatory legislation that was passed primary as a response to the Great Depression.

[Trump]

History is important yet as we progress history gets more and more complicated. How many of these mistakes have we made in the past?

[ruaidhri]

Just a note to remind everyone that today is the 67th anniversary of D-Day when allied troops won the beaches of Normandy and opened the door for the defeat of Nazi Germany. We will always owe them a debt of gratitude.

[Raenir Salazar]

*cough* All Praise the Victors (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GWYq1bFRDw) Very Informative presentation (http://english.pobediteli.ru/)*/cough*

:)

[stsparky]

The debt is nothing compared to where we were at he end of WWII.

[Darrel]

The debt is nothing compared to where we were at he end of WWII.

True, but things were also waaaay different back then, socially, finacially, economically.

Plus the whole world owed us money back then.

[h2orowe]

The whole world owed us money? Even the Ukraine?

Heh heh heh.

[Raenir Salazar]

Technically I think portions of Lend Lease was a loan to the USSR, but I'm having a hard time imagining them not paying it asap by 1950 or so.

[Raenir Salazar]

I think http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/12-MOH-Airborne kinda sums up what most of the world thinks of America.

[whispering]

http://pics.kuvaton.com/bshit/stay_classy_america.jpg

[CNagy]

Right now, I imagine that the world thinks America is going to fail to produce a new credit card with a $2.5 trillion limit, and plunge the world into a double dip recession.

[Daishikaze]

http://pics.kuvaton.com/bshit/stay_classy_america.jpg

Damn I'm glad I missed this when it happened, I'd have ranted for days at these assholes. Especially since Japan has been having so much trouble this year, they deserved to win at something

[whispering]

Right now, I imagine that the world thinks America is going to fail to produce a new credit card with a $2.5 trillion limit, and plunge the world into a double dip recession.

Nah, we know we can plunge the world into a double dip recession without your help :P

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/110726/beck-slammed-dead-teen-hitler-comparision

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/26/bill-oreilly-media-breivik-christian_n_909498.html

Whatever the rest of the world thinks of America right now, Fox News sure isn't helping. The people there are human garbage.

[Daishikaze]

Well, Beck again proves he knows absolutely nothing. And Bill seems to have flunked out of History as a child, forgetting the Crusades, the 30 years war, The Spanish Inquisition (which no one expects), World War II, etc. etc.

Human garbage indeed.

[Darrel]

Bashing Murdoch News?? Count me in!

We need someone to wikileaks the crap out of Fox News, I bet they'll turn up all sorts of dirt.

[ruaidhri]

I’m sure it would surprise no one that I am a subscriber to The Nation, the voice of the Left and the oldest continuously published weekly magazine (July 6, 1865) in the United States. There was an interesting editorial in the October 17, 2011 issue about how American have become cruel both outside and within their borders. The article is worth reading because it posts yet another warning of the consequences of allowing hate, fear and anger to set our nation’s path.

This isn’t a long article and it’s easy to read; but, it is scary because it foretells a different America, one without a heart where we can ignore suffering and think only of ourselves. From my very first post in this thread I’ve consistently expressed my love for America, its politics and its people. I still believe most Americans haven’t changed but what’s happening today with the Tea Party and its billionaire leaders could easily create a different America none of us would recognize.

This tells me that I should overlook my frustration and oftentimes disappointment with Obama’s presidency and do everything I can to ensure his reelection. Further, it tells me to support Democrats in all offices local, county, state and federal. They, unlike the Republicans, aren’t being blackmailed by the Tea Party. They aren’t giving in to Tea Party demands. Now, today, is the time to take a stand before we lose what we love.

Here’s the article I recommend you read. What's your impression?

http://www.thenation.com/article/163690/cruel-america

[Trump]

I think there are two problems.

I think the moral compass of politicians in general has been worse and worse. This rubs off on the general population and you can kinda see that in the response to killing Bin Laden. We needed to catch him, but we shouldn't have been rioting in the stree once we did. The political machine had encouraged so much hate and that was the result. This relates to the character of those we elect, and I'm not even sure moral people run any more. How can we elect good people if no good people run (look at the republican field... geez).

The other problem is personal responsibility. People have gotten to the point where they almost expect the government to do everything for them. The fact that hurting a burglar gets you sued is an example. You have a pool and someone else breaks in and drowns in it and it is your fault? That doesn't even make sense to me. Parents rely on schools to teach their children and don't expect to have to work with them at home. I mean, we've now gotten to the point where many in govnerment feel it is their responsibility! How do we correct that?

I understand there are flaws in our system. The immigration issue is a problem, what's wrong with helping them stay here legally? The health care thing is a big deal, if you want to opt out and accept the consequences, why is that a problem? The death penalty, if someone is unremorseful and guilty, I don't have a problem with it. But these are secondary issues. You can patch them and try to change those issues, but until you address the core flaws regarding moral politicians and personal responsibility those are just symptoms of a worse problem.

[Buckwheat]

Overall I agree with the article that ruaidhri posted. I think that a large part of the problem is that the media has latched onto the lunatic fringe (on both sides) and caters to them, that's what brings in the ratings after all. the parties have allowed this to become their main rhetoric, but the candidates that support it quickly alienate swing voters.

Another issue is the GOP's outright hatred of Obama and their efforts to block him at every turn. They stated that their main goal was to ensure that he was a one term president and that has led to a enormous division in the country and an inability to work together. Ever bit of legislation is judged not on what would be best for the people, but for the party.



I didn't like his mention of Bradley Manning, while his treatment might be on the cruel side his crimes are real. Military law is very different from civilian law and he breached the trust his country placed in him. The material he leaked was not classified due to its contents but because of the source it came from. Believe me, a great deal of classified material is absolutely boring. Just because one of the files he leaked was inflammatory doesn't mean there was a cover up and doesn't make him a hero.



On a different note, I'm pretty impressed with the Occupy Wall Street movement lately. They're doing something similar to the Tea Party but without the backing of Fox News. While I doubt that they'll become a similar political force they are initiating some good conversations on the who/why/how of our economic situation. The right has been trotting out the idea of protecting the "job creators" and what we're seeing is that for all their protections; there haven't been more jobs, many people aren't making a living wage and the top 1% is still pocketing more money than ever.

[ruaidhri]

Something I've always found perplexing about Americans is their long standing disdain for intellectualism. Politicians, particularly those on the right, often make sport of calling intellectuals with opinions that differ from their own "egg heads" or "effete snobs" or "know it alls" who don't understand the real world. These detractors believe their faith or whatever supports their selfish best interest doesn't require facts because they hold that what a person believes can ignore logic simply because everyone has a right to their opinion. Often it's the spin more than reason or facts that wins the argument with the public.

edited for clarity

[stsparky]

As some know - I find distrust of the smart and the slavish devotion to the greedy baffling.

I also have reminded Ron Paul what he is and isn't.

Send me a message if the Donner Party on FaceBook is your thing. https://www.facebook.com/groups/donnerparty/