Today in the economy

[VictorCharlie]

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

[CFH]

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

I've been avoiding this thread like the plague, but I want to say that I agree with this 100%.

[VictorCharlie]

And we have a Saddo's first
CFH and I agree. I am a moderate conservative who is leaning more and more to the Libertarian party but I am sick of both parties.

[CFH]

And we have a Saddo's first
CFH and I agree. I am a moderate conservative who is leaning more and more to the Libertarian party but I am sick of both parties.

Both parties represent essentially the same interests, they support corporations while paying lip service to the interests of the indivual middle/working class person. If I was an American, I would loathe them both even more than I do now. Not like the political parties here are any different, but because of the power the American Government wields their influence is a lot farther reaching.

As for my political leaning, I have some that are to the right and many that are to the left. I sympathize with the Libertarian position, but I'm unconvinced that it can ever become a true reality. I would describe myself as a leftist social democrat, with views somewhat in line with some leftist European governments. University has really turned me into a pinko though, I used to be much more conservative that I am now.

[VictorCharlie]

Socially speaking I am a moderate. For the legalization of drugs. Very against gun control. Dislike abortion but kind of feel its none of my business. Gay marriage really isn't an issue to me. I see both sides arguments. Very against affirmative action. Firmly believe in seperation of church and state but I also believe our nation is founded on judeo-christian values. I just really hate white/christian apologists and being politically correct.

Now when it comes to size and scope of government and spending I am very libertarian. I would like to see a drastic decrease in the size and scope of our federal govt and more and more issues left up to individual states. I do not believe in wealth re-distribution and a big fan of a market economy with strong oversight.

As far as energy goes I'd like to see the nation's power grid on nuclear energy and a coal based synthetic gasoline to get us off of foriegn oil.

Strongly believe in border control. Deport illegals aggresively but more importantly jail employers of illegals no questions asked

Believe in a strong military as well as a pro-active foreign policy. Not pro war but in a world of rogue states and international terrorists I believe in the ability to unleash quick and decisive punitive military strikes. NO nation building and NO regime changes.

anyway thats me in a political nutshell

[CFH]

Socially speaking I am a moderate. For the legalization of drugs. Very against gun control. Dislike abortion but kind of feel its none of my business. Gay marriage really isn't an issue to me. I see both sides arguments. Very against affirmative action. Firmly believe in seperation of church and state but I also believe our nation is founded on judeo-christian values. I just really hate white/christian apologists and being politically correct.

Now when it comes to size and scope of government and spending I am very libertarian. I would like to see a drastic decrease in the size and scope of our federal govt and more and more issues left up to individual states. I do not believe in wealth re-distribution and a big fan of a market economy with strong oversight.

As far as energy goes I'd like to see the nation's power grid on nuclear energy and a coal based synthetic gasoline to get us off of foriegn oil.

Strongly believe in border control. Deport illegals aggresively but more importantly jail employers of illegals no questions asked

Believe in a strong military as well as a pro-active foreign policy. Not pro war but in a world of rogue states and international terrorists I believe in the ability to unleash quick and decisive punitive military strikes. NO nation building and NO regime changes.

anyway thats me in a political nutshell

Well, I agree with most of your first paragraph. Our perspectives diverge rapidly after that.

[killersheep]

Lobbying is fundamentally essential to a capitalist economy.

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

Nobody complained about precedent when the government abrogated union contracts for their bailout. Why not do the same for bankers?

And military force is no use against terrorism. Quite the opposite in fact.

[VictorCharlie]

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

Nobody complained about precedent when the government abrogated union contracts for their bailout. Why not do the same for bankers?

And military force is no use against terrorism. Quite the opposite in fact.

I assume you are referring to UAW and the bailout of the auto industry. Now just for the record I was against that one too. Considering that UAW pensions and inflated salaries are part of the problem was it too much to ask them to tighten their belt as well? Anyway the changing of UAW contracts was done in order to get the bailout not punitively changed after the fact. Do you not see the difference in changing a labor agreement in order to get a loan necessary not to go bankrupt and abrograting contracts in a punitive nature? I'm not defending the bonuses but shouldn't Geitner/Dobbs and every senator/congressman that voted for it w/o reading the bill all of said something a long time ago?

In regards to military force our leaders simply have not used it wisely. When given a well defined mission the United States Military can out perform most government agencies. Like I said no nation building and no regime change. Terrorist organizations need funding, training, equipment and safe harbor. Obama should put the world on notice. Any of the above mentioned will earn a punitive military strike. More importantly since most terror orgs originate from radical islam and the middle east lets get off foriegn oil. The more we can insulate ourselves from the region the better.

[Kirkland Laing]

I'm kind of getting into this late but let me take a shot here.

1. Democrat/Republican is interchangeable for blame here. There is plenty of blame to be spread around. We won't be able to get away from this until we can put a wedge between elected officials and lobbyists. What is your vote compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars for re-election?

2. I was against all of the bailouts from jump street. If you are too big to fail your to big to manage. Nationalize them and sell them off or let them fail. But since we did bail them out and the legislation protected the bonuses then I'm staunchly against the Gov't using a punitive tax. If they are guilty of fraud then prosecute them. But we set a dangerous precedent by canceling contracts and changing the tax code to be punitive. I really don't see what "fair" has to do with it.

Nobody complained about precedent when the government abrogated union contracts for their bailout. Why not do the same for bankers?

And military force is no use against terrorism. Quite the opposite in fact.

I assume you are referring to UAW and the bailout of the auto industry. Now just for the record I was against that one too. Considering that UAW pensions and inflated salaries are part of the problem was it too much to ask them to tighten their belt as well? Anyway the changing of UAW contracts was done in order to get the bailout not punitively changed after the fact. Do you not see the difference in changing a labor agreement in order to get a loan necessary not to go bankrupt and abrograting contracts in a punitive nature? I'm not defending the bonuses but shouldn't Geitner/Dobbs and every senator/congressman that voted for it w/o reading the bill all of said something a long time ago?

In regards to military force our leaders simply have not used it wisely. When given a well defined mission the United States Military can out perform most government agencies. Like I said no nation building and no regime change. Terrorist organizations need funding, training, equipment and safe harbor. Obama should put the world on notice. Any of the above mentioned will earn a punitive military strike. More importantly since most terror orgs originate from radical islam and the middle east lets get off foriegn oil. The more we can insulate ourselves from the region the better.

Detroit car worker wages only add a small amount to the cost of the car versus other car company labour rates, just a few percent, far less than the discount firms like GM have to give on their cars to get people to buy them versus better competition. The problem with Detroit for decades has been the management but they're still flying around in private jets. They can pass an amendment to the AIG bailout legislation or write new legislation -- either way people under investigation for fraudulent deals who've bankrupted their company should not be paid bonuses for doing so. It goes against everything America and capitalism is supposed to stand for. Politicians now claiming "it's in the legislation, there's nothing we can do about it" are full of it. It's not like AIG has any serious negotiating position, they're under investigation in two countries, bankrupt and 80% owned by the government. They can't make the claim that they need to pay those bonuses to keep valuable staff because the staff are the diametric opposite of valuable, qed.

Military force just creates terrorism. If you bomb any country that's helping terrorism you're just going to end up with a more radical government who'll give more support to terrorism. 9/11 was an attempt by Middle Eastern people to use force to change America's behaviour and make them less likely to interfere in their countries. How well did that work out? Bombing let's say Iran would just make the Iranian regime more radical than it currently is. US energy companies don't want us to get off foreign oil and they run US energy policy so no real attempt will ever be made to alter the status quo. America will continue to be involved in the Middle East for decades which will obviously spawn more terrorism.

[VictorCharlie]

Kirk, for one I find it curious the personal involvement you take in America considering that you don't fly the Stars and Stripes under your name. Do you live in the US? Secondly I'm not hearing you give reasonable solutions. If AIG is guilty of fraud then they will be prosecuted and then one way or the other the bonuses will be re-couped. If there is a legal means of getting the bonuses back then so be it. But to allow the feds to change the tax laws to punish is a dangerous step. If you know our govt then you know you give them a inch they will take a mile. Considering how inept our federal govt has been both past and present why grow their scope and impact? Lastly our military has been utilized poorly. We could make aiding and abetting terrorist groups so horrible a crime even Iran would think twice. Now I can safely assume this attitude doesn't suit you so what is your solution to dealing with islamic radicals? You can't really feel that there is the chance for rationale thought or real two way dialogue, do you?

[Kirkland Laing]

Kirk, for one I find it curious the personal involvement you take in America considering that you don't fly the Stars and Stripes under your name. Do you live in the US? Secondly I'm not hearing you give reasonable solutions. If AIG is guilty of fraud then they will be prosecuted and then one way or the other the bonuses will be re-couped. If there is a legal means of getting the bonuses back then so be it. But to allow the feds to change the tax laws to punish is a dangerous step. If you know our govt then you know you give them a inch they will take a mile. Considering how inept our federal govt has been both past and present why grow their scope and impact? Lastly our military has been utilized poorly. We could make aiding and abetting terrorist groups so horrible a crime even Iran would think twice. Now I can safely assume this attitude doesn't suit you so what is your solution to dealing with islamic radicals? You can't really feel that there is the chance for rationale thought or real two way dialogue, do you?

I used to live in the US and still pay taxes to the IRS which gives me a right to complain about how the country is run. There's no guarantee that AIG will be prosecuted for anything. The government has gone to great lengths not to open any investigations of Wall Street and will almost certainly continue to do so, something that greatly damages the US economy in the long run.

The US has a tax code with so many loopholes that if you do make a lot of money you can pay a single digit/low teens tax rate every year, and these loopholes have been gained by lobbying. I don't see why the country can be effectively cheated and looted but the first time it makes an effort to end the cheating and looting then changing tax laws is suddenly something you can't do -- it was fine to move things in the opposite direction for the last thirty years.

The governemt has handles the financial crisis ineptly because the mechanisms they used to have for regulating finance have been dismantled, most notably over the past seven years. There are some areas where the government needs to grow its scope and impact.

Bombing foreign countries will just create more terrorism, qed. Military action to prevent terrorism failed dismally in Iraq, Bush was reduced to putting terrorists on the US payroll so they wouldn't kill as many American soldiers. America can't say abetting terrorist groups is punishable by military action when America also supports terrorist groups, but in general if you try and use military force to enforce your will some people on the other end of that action are going to violently disagree with you. Even George Bush's Secretary of Defence has advocated negotiating with the Taliban.

In general I'd like to see America extend and prolong its position in the world for as long as possible and not piss it up the wall in as short a time as possible, but that's what America's leaders seem determined to do.

[VictorCharlie]

So like I said whats your solution?