It had to be from the Dems, they know everything!!!!

So figure out a way to earn it. It's not like we all stood in a line and were handed out jobs paying at different levels - luck has very, very little to do with it.

Then, after you've done what it takes to make that kind of income, come back here and tell us how eager you are to turn more of it over to the government.

I'm not a tax attorney, but doesn't it depend on how the owner of the business has it set up? The way I understand it, a sole proprietorship grossing over $250k is subject to the tax, even though the owner him/herself isn't bringing home all that money as salary.

I seem to recall the Reagan years as a time of growth and prosperity. Things certainly improved over the Carter years...

Remember too that Reagan recognized that corporations needed to pay their fair share and closed a number of loopholes, which were reopened by the George W. Bush administration. Unfortunately, the middle, and especially moderate and lower income brackets also ended up paying a lot more.
When looking back over the last 43 years, it seems like the same cast of characters (Cheney, Rove, et al) are present when really bad decisions are being made in the White House. George Bush the First fired Karl Rove because he didn't care for his tactics. He raised taxes because they needed to be raised and he ended up being a one-term president. These guys and their mega-corporate friends have a lot of buying power. We ordinary folks cannot match their purchasing power but we can vote. When a politician proves her- or himself to be in the thrall of Big Business we need to vote them out of office, get someone who is committed to representing their constituents in, repair the damage done and move on. It's not going to happen if we Americans don't start researching our candidates and thinking things through. That goes for both sides of the aisle and independents too.

What "loopholes" are you referring to?

"I seem to recall the Reagan years as a time of growth and prosperity. Things certainly improved over the Carter years..."

Only for some, CowDung. The Reagan years were the start of 'lean and mean' downsizing and corporate takeovers. Wall Street loved it, and so did the people who kept their jobs. The ones who didn't found it hard to get re-employed in their middle-class professional jobs. It was the beginning of the slide, although the appearance of general prosperity masked it.

Randy:

What was the unemployment rate during the Reagan years? It started out around 10% and went down to around 5%. There couldn't have been that many people that found themselves out of a job and struggling to find work...

Jay, loopholes as in tax breaks that kept mega corporations from paying their fair share of taxes. Here's a quote from Forbes.com: Everyone remembers Reagan's 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture--a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984. A decade later, when a serious recession and higher spending began to upend the fiscal outlook again, the first President Bush similarly raised taxes on higher-income people in 1991; Bill Clinton doubled down and raised them again in 1993." (http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/02/barack-obama-ronald-reagan-budget-taxes-opinions-contributors-rob-shapiro.html)
"Conservatism" really meant just that at one time. For instance, President Eisenhower also warned about the growth/influence of the defense industry back in the day. Not to mention the fact that Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency, Teddy Roosevelt set aside the most national parkland, and Abraham Lincoln was the first president to set aside land for preservation. These were intelligent, forward-thinking Republican presidents who understood the need to look at the big picture, not just what would help keep Republicans in office.

Bren:

I think the comment posted on that article makes the point:
"Total cumulative tax cuts = $275.3B, Total cumulative tax increases = $132.7B. Total Net Tax Cuts = $142.6B. "

What specifically are these loopholes that "kept mega corporations from paying their fair share of taxes"? Are you considering any tax break enjoyed by a business to be a 'loophole'? Which ones did Reagan close that GW Bush reopened?

Cow, I'm going to pass the research baton on to you on the "specific loophole" question. I can quote and source 'til the figurative cows come home. It's the people who don't research candidates and issues that give the profiteers the upper hand. The more I research, the more sick at heart I become. So why don't you dive in and share what you find?

Cow, concerning your comment to Randy about the unemployment rate during the Reagan era, "according to data from the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 1981, Ronald Reagan's first year in office, the U.S. average unemployment rate stood at 7.6 percent. During Reagan's presidency, it reached a high of 9.7 percent, and had declined to a level of 5.5 percent when Reagan left office. The rate from when Reagan entered office through his last year declined by 2.1 points, far less than the eight-point drop for which Brooks credited Reagan." (this is from Media Matters and from Brooks' appearance on the Lehrer News Hour in March 2006. Brooks claimed that unemployment had dropped from 13% to 5%). Reagan raised the retirement age for Social Security benefits and some taxes, too.

If you look at Carter years there were no recessions, true gas was hard to find, and I certainly dont think Carter was a good president, but fact is there were no recessions.

Bren, Reagan did do that to the tune of 50 billion, he also signed the progressive tax reform act which was the largest tax increase in our history. After 1981 Reagan was a huge tax president. Gas tax, Business tax increase to the tune of 450 billion(imagine that in todays dollars and what people would say if Obama tried that. And this was Reagan the Star(still today) of the Republican party.

Bren:

When claims are make about unnamed "loopholes", specific people responsible for closing and reopening them are named, and those "loopholes" are blamed for bad things happening, I would have thought that you actually had some actual knowledge to back up your claims. It seems that your claims are just fabrications of your imagination.

Yes Bren, Reagan came into office with unemployment at 7.6% and spiked up to around 10%. That's the effect of the Carter economy--the high inflation (among other things) during the Carter years was setting the stage for recession in the early 1980s.

Cow, I take your comments about "fabrications of my imagination" as an indicator that you haven't seen my other, source-heavy posts on this site. Suffice it to say that I appreciate that it is harder to research than to bloviate, so I'll give you a starting place for your research assignment. Here's a link to a New York Times article that discusses rollbacks in corporate tax cuts during the Reagan administration: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/opinion/08KRUG.html. Here, too, is a nice "corporate welfare" timeline during the GW Bush administration. (My daily enabling quota has now been met). Information is the friend of every voter!

OK--I see rather clearly now. "Tax Cuts" = "Loophole" in your world...

And if something had happened to McCain during his presidency, the Oval Office could be adorned with the first Journalism undergrad president of modern times.

It's hard from a manufacturing standpoint to not move jobs overseas. If the jobs involve low skill level tasks, it makes sense to pay someone in China or India a lower wage than to employ someone here at a relatively high wage. It's one of the negative aspects of the global economy.

Companies like Exxon-Mobil and GE get subsidies from the government because they do the specific research/development activities that are required to obtain the subsidies. They aren't awarded on a 'need' basis, they are granted because the government considers specific activities (alternative fuel research, environmental improvements, etc.) important enough to fund.

Growth in countries overseas should benefit the US in the long run by providing new trading partners for US companies. Our challenge is to evolve our economy to where we can develop new jobs that aren't as easily outsourced so we can continue to produce products that can be exported to the expanding markets overseas.

@CowDung...Opening new trading partners is fine in theory if you are producing or manufacturing something to offer. We have moved so much of our manufacturing overseas to take advantage of low wages, relaxed environmental regulations, cheap transportation and cheap energy; that we have passed the tipping point. Without developing new high tech products and manufacturing, it's all downhill from here. Read Adam Smith and the "Wealth of Nations"'s section on imports and exports.

Which is exactly why I stated that we need to 'evolve our economy'...

@CowDung...Evolve it how?

Exactly how you stated--high tech manufacturing, developing products that require a (relatively speaking) higher level of skills to produce.

Perhaps products that involve cheap assemblies from overseas combined with software or other specialized 'components' that are produced here.

Lyle:

As far as the jobs that moved South, you are correct. Eventually, low skill manufacturing jobs are going to go to the least expensive worker. The only thing we can use to justify our higher labor costs is to employ those with skill levels that aren't as easily replaced by overseas labor. At some point, the skills of the overseas worker will also rise and be comparable to what we have here, and those jobs will end up being outsourced as well. This will not stop until we have some level of wage equity throughout the world.

@CowDung...What are we going to do until the other countries reach parity? This is clearly a regression toward the means and our population can't survive on $5.00 per day unless everything is devalued and deflated. Welcome to the third world!

I'm not sure that there is a good solution Lyle. It's definitely going to present challenges for us.

I am hoping that we will not get to the point where we will have to live on $5/day, as the standard of living is going up pretty rapidly in parts of India as they 'evolve' their economy. I'm hoping that the rising tide will lift all boats and we all come out OK.

What I dont understand is why dont we go after the "green tech" Even if you dont believe in global warming its business sense and there is A LOT of money to be made there. The Chinese know this and are taking over this industry when we could have been making item like wind turbines, and hybrid vehicles and so on.

Jay:

We are making advances in the 'green tech' areas. The biggest problem is a shortage of good engineers to actually do the development. The US lags way behind other nations in math and science and we are feeling the effects.

Craig, it's the extra Government spending during the GW Bush era plus the tax cuts that exploded the bubble, starting with the very first "refund" checks (which should have gone into repaying borrowed Social Security principal IMO). Money had to be borrowed to cover the process and postage and a deficit was immediately created. Enacting the Dept. of Homeland Security resulted in the highest level of government employee hiring since the Eisenhower administration. The number of soldiers in Iraq was (relatively) low because an almost equal corresponding number of mercenaries ("contractors") had been hired at an average wage of $100K. Instead of having the military handle admin, Dick Cheney's "old" company Halliburton was hired for untold billions. Untold barrels of oil were stolen out of Iraq, some of which funded the insurgency but who knows where the rest went. Irregardless, the Iraq War didn't "pay for itself" so Social Security was raided again and borrowing continued. The Bush tax cuts grew the deficit even more. Add deregulation as the cherry on the sundae.
So what gets cut, Craig? I would look at everything that grew during the Bush administration because that's when the troubles peaked. I wouldn't touch Medicare or Social Security because saving money shouldn't risk people's health or lives. I'd ask Halliburton for a refund but they've moved their HQ overseas to avoid U.S. laws and taxes. I would reverse the Bush tax cuts because they cost, not created, jobs.

Craig, While I agree that govt spending is way up there and too much lets look over the last 30 years who championed that overspending. Since 1980(basically when we started having debt) we have had 31 years. In those 31 years Republicans have held the oval office and submitted budgets or passed budgets for 20 years. During the 8 years of Clinton he was the only President to get the economy to a surplus for his last 3 years. So who are the real spenders here? Everyone always points the fingers to Dems but its really not.

I also believe that the bigger problem even more so than govt debt is how much influence big corporations have on our govt(and that is on both sides, dem and rep.) I think this is the major problem, not even the politicians run govt anymore the big business does and all they want is more more more money. Why do you think the corps are currently sitting on over 2 trillion in cash? They have not used tax cuts to hire they just stuffed their pockets and will continue to do so.

Ben, did I say anywhere that rich people and corporations are "evil?" Corporations actually are required to file tax returns, Ben. They pay few or no taxes because of loopholes and deductions, but they are required to file. But you do bring up an interesting point about the cost of things. Maybe we're buying too many "things." Perhaps Big Business has miscalculated. Sure they save labor costs by exploiting workers in other countries but Americans who are now out of work or have had their salaries slashed can afford to buy fewer "things." Further, jacking up minimum payments on credit card bills helps the credit card companies but also keeps people from buying more "things." The burst economic bubble will eventually impact everyone, even at the top.
And Ben, your analogy is inaccurate. Government isn't a spoiled lady, it's an administrative system run by people. When people make decisions to cut revenue and increase spending in their own lives, what happens? They go into debt. That's what's happened here. George Bush "bought" a war in Iraq and gave massive and unnecessary tax cuts to his rich friends (remember that 20 million jobs were created during the Clinton years, with a 36-39% corporate tax rate). So we went from a surplus to a massive deficit. Big Business could help a lot just by bringing factories and jobs back home.

@Bob McBride II...Wow, something we are in 100% agreement. I started researching some 10 years ago connecting the dots concerning the structure and impact of our economy going back 40 years. Something that immediately popped out was the stupidity of the consumer. Couple that with ever cheaper consumer pricing to stimulate growth, the goal of marketing to spur ever increasing consumption, easy credit and the message of immediate gratification; the nation was primed for what we got ourselves into. In the seventies the wages began a slower growth rate than pricing, which people decided to go on the credit train and get it now and pay later. In order for consumption to continue to grow in light of fewer dollars to spend, movement of production went overseas to cut production costs. Finally the day of reckoning is here and our past excesses and taking the easy way out has caught up. In my estimation, we have been living in a false economy for over 30 years. We will not come out of this until personal debt is down, savings are up and people become knowledgeable and wise consumers.

The biggest factor is that there are now are, available, other sources of production outside the US that are every bit as good and efficient as ours. Couple that with technology that makes it easy to conduct business virtually anywhere at anytime. Both those things are relatively new, having really started to take off in the '90s. Up until that point, any increase in consumer spending for the most part benefitted businesses in the US. So a standard of living that encouraged consumption actually had a positive effect on our economy. Once production shifted outside the US, the benefits began to decrease dramatically and the credit issues you mention became an even greater factor.

It's interesting to consider what an average middle class family possessed in the 60s. Generally a moderately sized home, with kids sleeping two to a bedroom. 1 TV set. 1 car. Maybe one vacation a year where they traveled generally within the state. The largest expenditures for kids were probably a bike and the yearly purchase of new clothing for the school year.

Shoes were repaired when they wore out. Radios, TVs and other appliances all repaired rather than disposed of and replaced when they broke. Trips to restaurants were for special occasions. Refrigerators were smaller, closets were smaller, one car garages were the norm. Air conditioning was for rich people. Shopping was done only when necessary, instead of engaged in as a hobby.

@Bob McBride II...Amen!

A lot of that had to do with the generation that was in charge of expenditures at that time. They'd lived through the depression, seen what it had done to their families. Learned to get by on the necessities, even if they could afford more. Saved their money for a rainy day. Rarely bought anything, aside from the house and car, on credit. If you couldn't pay for it out of what you saved while still maintaining that rainy day fund, you didn't buy it.

I live fairly conservatively but even at that, with two people in a two bedroom house now, we have two cars, 5 TVs (God knows why) 6-7 radio/music devices, a computer, two cell phones, central air, a microwave, 5 bikes (again, God knows why), several powered pieces of lawn equipment, a walk-in closet full of clothing plus two ancillary closets and, that's after last year's flooding trashed a couple of additional TVs, two computers, and a bunch of other stuff that was taking up space in the basement. And compared to a lot of people I know, that's a pretty spartan existence.

@Bib McBride II...LOL, You're such a spend thrift. One of the things I've learned over time; is I don't need much. If we don't need it we don't have it. Quite a simple life and very fulfilling.

Don't worry, the greed in the US will be regulated by the market eventually. Given the mountain of debt (both personal and government) and QE1 and 2, interest rates will rise. More than likely, they will rise substancially, making debt more and more expensive. Given the global competition we face, salaries will not increase and stagnate; however, global demand for products (BRIC countries) will keep pressure on demand... driving inflation. With the combination of low salary increases, high debt cost and inflation... consumption within the USA will drop dramatically.

@Craig...You sure have your own interpretation of history. We have been supporting two unfunded wars and now were playing chicken with default. There's more than enough blame to go around.

As far as national health care is concerned, a single payer system would be far cheaper than the current system we have.

Lyle:

What is it about a single payer system that would make it far cheaper than what we have now? The profit margins of the health insurance companies average around 3 to 5%. If you want to drop the costs further, you need to either cut back on the health services we get or start paying our healthcare providers less.

@CowDung...The single payer health system eliminates the high administrative costs that insurance companies have built into their structure. An immediate savings of 15% to 20% saving could be experienced. Also, just as in medicare health costs are controlled by how much the provider would be reimbursed. This would deeply cut into defensive medicine practices. Finally, the 3% to 5% profit that you are stating is net, net profits. Insurance companies could still sell supplemental insurance just as in medicare supplemental insurance. As complicated as everyone wants to make it, it's really simple; all we have to do is have the will to do so.

While insurance companies have higher administrative costs, Medicare has much higher rates of waste and fraud. I would imagine that those costs will cut into any savings realized by the lower administrative costs. Medicare also covers way fewer people. Who's to say that costs won't increase if Medicare was providing the same level of coverage to as many people as the private insurance companies?

I don't see how defensive medicine costs are going to be reduced--are you saying that a single payer system won't pay doctors for tests/treatments that the government deems to be unnecessary? I would hope that the docs get to decide what is necessary and what isn't. Unfortunately, their malpractice insurance costs are probably dictating the level of defensive medicine that docs practice...

@CowDung...In nations that have single payer systems, such as most of Europe; fraud is nearly nonexistent. Obviously the system would have to be routinely audited. The single payer system would set the procedure reimbursement for area and region. Also, just as in Wisconsin there could be a malpractice insurance pool with limits on punitive damages. Again we don't see excessive litigation with current medicare recipients and other nations with single payer systems. This is all doable.

Certainly it is doable. The question is if we actually gain more than we lose by doing it.

The examples of government healthcare that we have currently (Medicare, Medicaid and VA) all have some serious flaws, so there is little reason to think that any new system will be run any better or will be less costly--particularly when the coverage expands from target groups to the population of the entire country.

The same malpractice pools and damage limitations that you mention can be used if we have a single payer system or not. Haven't these ideas been put forward for a number of years now and end up being rejected? I doubt that the trial lawyer lobby will like the politicians that they paid for to favor such legislation...

@CowDung...It's like we are inventing something new. Most of the developed world has a single payer system. I don't give a damn what the trial lawyers want. Some other things that could be done is to increase the number of physicians by opening additional medical colleges and provide government financing for medical school. To receive the medical school grants physicians would be required to work six years for public health which could take over for health preventative services.

Those sort of things are possible without having to make the move to a single payer system as well.

Lots of other nations have a single payer system--that doesn't mean that it is the best way to go. Switzerland has a system where the government subsidizes insurance coverage for those that cannot afford it, so everyone ends up being covered. Getting coverage for everyone seems to be the biggest flaw in our current system. A move to that sort of system seems a lot more 'doable' than scrapping the current system and moving to a single payer system. Our government has all sorts of financial troubles, I don't want to have to count on them for my health coverage.

"Our government has all sorts of financial troubles, I don't want to have to count on them for my health coverage."

Interesting discussion, CowDung, but whom do you rely on now for your health coverage? An employer who could change your plan or go out of business entirely? If you're self-employed and have enough money to buy your own, that could change too. You could get sick, be unable to generate income, and your premiums could rise beyond your means. Or your company could drop you. Either way, once you would get sick, your doctors would be paid by a company that will do anything it can to deny your coverage. Doctors don't decide what's appropriate treatment anymore -- insurance companies do.

My employer certainly could change my plan or go out of business entirely. In my 20 or so years in the workforce, I have experienced those changes fewer times than the federal government shut downs...

As far as being dropped by insurance companies or having premiums jump in price in response to an expensive illness, those issues would seem to be easily addressed by adding a bit of legislation that either subsidizes payments above a certain level or offers protection against being dropped by insurance providers. Besides, how often does that sort of thing really happen?

If you are dropped or you premium increases substantially you can get HIRSP coverage within Wisconsin; an insurance program for people denied private private health insurance coverage due to a pre-existing condition. The rates are subsidized through a tax placed on on health insurance providers that do business in our state.

Jay- HIRSP is very expensive because it is for only those who can not buy coverage anywhere else due to being uninsurable.
Don't fall for the lie that it is affordable for anyone, because it is not even close.

@red...We've had a lot of less than capable people residing in the oval office.However, if the journalism grad were to take occupancy we would experience a new low in the history of the nation.

@red...Fox News? Really, credible sources. Did they get their information from wiretaps?

@Craig...We already experience rationing of care, but it's now based on income. If you take all the money currently paid for healthcare plans, it far money needed to fund a top flight single payer plan. Also, Insurance companies administrative costs run 20-30% and Medicare runs 3%. You do the math.

@Craig...I agree that China got favored nation status under Clinton, but that's not the problem with China. The problem with China is American business. Clinton also pushed through NAFTA and that's been a disaster. George W. Bush took a surplus and quickly created a deficit. It was under his watch that the economy went to hell in a hand basket.

George W. Bush took a surplus and quickly created a deficit. It was under his watch that the economy went to hell in a hand basket.

---under his watch that the economy went to hell in a hand basket.::::It was under the Democratic controlled Congress that the basket got revved up.

----And Obama drover it to the lower regions of hell 3 times as fast. So when is the messiah going to turn it around? There has not been a post-war recession this long. His socialist approaches are bringing about just what you would expect - shortages, poverty and calamity.

@red...Too bad that you don't have a clue about socialism and you continually misstate that which you have no knowledge. Keep trying, you might get right in a decade or two.

Lyle...A Dr. charges $200 for a consultation (office call), medicare pays $18. At certain facilities they accept medicare as payment in full.
Who in their right mind would accrue hundreds of thousands of debt for school to become a Dr. under a plan that pays ten cents on the dollar?
If I have no insurance, the appointment costs me $200. I should only be getting charged $100, but the medical profession makes up for the lack of payment from medicare by gouging me!
Not many Dr.s will see only medicare patients, some do not take them at all. I do not believe medicare has operating costs of 3% either.
If you were an MD- who would you want to see for patients? You do the math.

Yep, just a denying lib living in la la la liberal . I also included CBS.

Just like Van Jones..

One day you'll see a headline about Eric Holder resigning and since you drink the Obama syncophant media cool aid, you won't know that happened.

Agents from the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testified Wednesday that the risky Operation Fast and Furious program was a "disaster."

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061611_atf_congress/atf-agents-terry-family-blast-gun-walking-investigation/

Operation Fast and Furious saw US agents allowing hundreds of guns into Mexico illegally with the hope of tracking them to major arms dealers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14057363

You have to read a European paper to learn what Nixon - I mean Obama is doing to our neighboring country.

@red...Sorry, I don't drink kool aid, no matter whose providing it. Foreign news sources, must be Murdock owned. I'm not big on conspiracy theories, but I do believe in the "Peter Principle". If the Operation Fast and Furious is such a disaster; so what's one more in a long and infamous series of disastrous programs in the war on drugs and immigration. Legalize drugs, control distribution and tax the hell out of it. Just like prohibition, take the profit out of it.

---Foreign news sources, must be Murdock owned.

Duh... the BBC is owned by Fox. I learn a lot here with the liberals teaching me

--If the Operation Fast and Furious is such a disaster; so what's one more in a long and infamous series of disastrous programs in the war on drugs..

You wouldn't be so robotically detached if it were the evil Bush that had let thousands of weapons loose in an attempt to curtail American's rights.

@red...I will accept the BBC. Bush releasing weapons to threaten Americans? Red, you have to accept that in the big picture of things, this is not going to seriously threaten the US. Find something else to rail about.

I find it interesting that so many on the left are trying to demonize FOX NEWS because of the "scandal" in the UK, when the tabloid there did nothing worse than what Julian Assange did, and he was lauded a hero by the left-wing wackos.
And Socialism doesn't work because eventually you run out of other people's money.

@red...Sorry, you proved my point about your lack of knowledge concerning socialism. I don't see the US government owning the means of production, so where is the socialism? How do you perceive socialism as responsible for the debt crisis in Europe? You just keep coming up short; try again.

I believe that Lyle did run his own business...

@Ben Hogan...Your absolute guarantee is wrong.
1. Served in the US Navy from 1965 to 1974, 1846 flight hours in P3s
Clinical director for a US Navy Counseling and Assistance Center 1972 -1974
2. Over the course of 40 years I have been an owner or partner in 12 enterprises
and created plenty of jobs.
In the last 30 years I have worked for three different multi-national corporations
I am currently retired and run a part time consulting service specializing
in environmental friendly industrial lubricants
3. One of the enterprises I owned and operated in the early 1970s was a book store
in the San Fransisco Bay Area.
4. Currently I research and write social commentary articles. My focus is social and
ethical philosophy
5. I teach adolescents part time at a local religious school social ethics.
6. Politically, I support social democracy

I hope this answers any questions you might have. You shouldn't go off and make assumptions. All you have to do is ask.

Lyle: Thank you for your service to this great country.
Seems to me you are still serving by teaching our kids.
I may not agree with much of your views politically, but I respect you as a person.
The joke about half price books was made prior to your post about your resume.

Solar is the way to go...although I am not sure about the legal issues in broad daylight.

@Ben Hogan...I'd love to, but I can't get the link to connect. What's the date and title of the piece?

@Ben Hogan...I was able to finally read the piece on Steve Wynn's remarks. I don't know how much I can add to his points, but I do have to agree with his assessment of the uncertainty that business investors are stating. Obama has, in my estimating, expended all of his political capital, which was limited to begin with. The Obama style is a legislative approach rather than an executive approach. He is much more comfortable with consensus building and reaching compromises rather than a George W. Bush approach which is to push forward with a singular purpose. Obama's approach does not inspire confidence because he tends to be over analytical, talking to people in a professorial manner. Woodrow Wilson comes to mind, he had a similar problem. All said and done, Obama might be more effective if he hadn't lost the House in November 2010 to not just the Republicans, but the most libertarian ideological freshman class in history. Posturing and making no compromise stands are what they do best and don't understand end games, while Obama depends on compromise. What Wynn and others seem to be saying is that Obama needs to find a successful means to overcome these intractable libertarian blocking maneuvers.

I don't know what Lyle would say, but this is what I'll say. Steve Wynn is from Vegas, and as such, he might be a little bit out of touch with what works in the real world. People in Vegas usually have money to spend (whether they ought to or not) which might not be the case in Red Granite Wisconsin.

I'm a little bit afraid of Barack Obama too -- but because he turns out to be a flip-flopping centrist in Progressive's clothing. You can't rely on him to do what he promises. That's still better than the other side, who absolutely will do what they promise, but no thank you.

Steve Wynn is a Democrat who voted for Obama. As a businessman, he knows firsthand how anti-business the Obama administration is. This is why unemployment is remaining high even though companies have the $$ to hire. As Wynn says, they won't a long as Obama is president because of the uncertainty of how much his policies will cost them.

@Kieth Best...I disagree with your conclusion on what Steve Wynn stated; he did not directly or indirectly imply that the business would not recover as long as Obama was president. He did in fact state that the hiring would not occur until the direction is clear. If that means that it doesn't occur until Obama leaves, then that will be what it will be. Steve is a money guy putting together deals and he sees all that investment capital sitting out there not doing anything and that restricts hem making the deal. Also Vegas has been hit harder than almost any other city.

During the Great Depression there was a lot of capital that wasn't being invested and it took WW II to finally pull us out once and for all. I see the recover lasting much longer and slower. We must make economic structural changes all through the nation.

@red...I have been dealing with venture capitalists for over thirty years and if the uncertainty of direction is settled, then they will begin to invest again. Uncertainty is the enemy. This has nothing to do with socialism but everything to do with psychology. Business decision makers do care about the atmospherics. As far as Obama seizure of power and ill will toward the Marketplace; you have a rich fantasy life. The marketplace has done so much for our economy; ie Wall Street corruption, continuing moving production off shore and outsourcing just to name a few. But I can understand how Steve Wynn would be upset when Obama encourages people to prioritize their money and not waste it on gambling. Also businesses that received TARP monies holding sales meetings and conventions in Vegas, clearly fiscally irresponsible.

Actually, Lyle, Vegas can be one of the most economical places to hold sales meetings and conventions. Unless you expect them to brown bag it at a Motel 6 off the belt line.

But while were on the topic handouts, how about that $1.32 billion the US taxpayer is going to be eating for the bailout of Fiat's new American division?

@Bob McBride II...Ouch!

@red...So what's your point, these are all good things.

@Brian Dey...Sorry Brian, whether you like it or not the government does have a role in the economy. You will grow your business when demand comes back. I went through the recessions of 1980s, 1990s and the year 2001. Business will come back, but it won't as long you act like a frightened rabbit. As far as the real estate market goes, that's what happens when a bubble bursts and the bankers have been committing fraud and raping the markets for their own short term personal gain. This is not the worst time in American history, don't forget the great Depression.

@red...You sure are obsessed with power and control.

There was no constitutional authority for Obama to shake down BP for the gulf oil spill. There was no constitutional authority for Obama to fire the GM CEO. He has no constitutional authority to impose carbon taxes when Congress couldn't pass the law. His Secretary of the Treasury hinted Obama would issue debt lacking a debt ceiling hike in contravention of the Constitution. His BATF and Justice department run guns to Mexico so they can have a 'crisis' as the basis to attack 2d ammendment rights.

There is apparently no action that this President could take that you couldn't excuse away. If you don't see out of control government and incipient tolitarianism, then you must approve of government's perpetual growth at the expense of our liberty.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

'When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.'

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.

@red...There are black helicopters circling your home.

Oh no, Lyle says that Greece is a market-based capitalist economy.

@Brian Dey...For your information the home ownership situation started as far back as the 1970s. It sounds as if you're in the real estate business. If you are you probably made a boat load of money before the bubble burst. As far as mortgage interest deductions go, they should have been fazed out long ago along with unlimited dependent deductions. There isn't anything wrong with renting. Too many people bought homes who should have never done so. Along with 1st mortgages people have been using the equity as a big charge card and that's just plain wrong. Greece is a social democracy but the government does not own the means of production. You need to understand socialism better.

Lyle- Never worked in real estate or banking. You have a lot to learn and understand about finances and our capitalistic society. Our federal government has no business spending money on things that are not specically outlined in the constitution. The federal government, which created this massive progressive tax system and socialistic programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and mandated health care. All which have created dependancy on the federal government, meaning a lobbyist system that dictates policy by funding campaigns.
for favors. That my friend is the beginning of socialism.

Oh no, Lyle says that Socialism only occurs when the government owns the means of production - like General Motors, Chrysler and AIG.

@Brian Dey...Socialism no, social democracy yes. As far as capitalism is concerned I was actively involved in private business for the last thirty years until my retirement this year. I don't know what type of business you own, but you seem to be blaming government only, when there is plenty of blame to go around. True socialism doesn't work but neither does pure free market capitalism.

@red...Too big to fail?

lyle- And Obamanism is a total failure.

Too big to fail... Yes, another Crony Capitalism achievement of Obama. Wall St deserved to be punished for its part of our collapse. A few bankruptcies would have corrected much of what was wrong. But Obama played footsie with all his big Wall Street contributors and Frank and Dodd institutionalized to big too fail. As Brian said, this is a clear indication that elite government (Democratic and Republican) will screw this up.

Lyle- And Karl Marx had that same philosophy. The only thing that scares me more is if you said you were a teacher. Good night comrade!

@Brian Dey...I do a little part time teaching at a private religious school. I specialize in morals and ethics. As far as Karl Marx is concerned, he got more wrong than he got right. Good night Comrade, I look forward to our next exchange.

@Craig -- so blame 'minorities' rather than the greed that gave out bad loans that expected to collect interest, eventually foreclose, and STILL make a profit? That statement verges on racist.

By the way, all three people I know who have defaulted on mortgages lately were white.

Randy- Don't you dare play that card with me, you do not know me. If you take a few more seconds to re read my post, you will see there is nothing racist or race related at all. I simply laid out the history of the promblematic process, and explained how it got to the straw that broke the camel's back....JUMBO loans. All this took decades to turn to a big pile of steaming poo.
You assume I am white, is that because I seem to be GOP or Libertarian? Isn't that a bit racist?

In that case, Craig, blame the greedy interests that jump in like vultures to exploit any attempt to repair social wrongs. A person's skin color or gender has nothing to do with his or her credit-worthiness. Or anything else. I had a female relative who was paid to front as the head of a 'minority' business back in the day.

I never made any assumptions about your race, just your politics.

Randy you tried to make me a racist because I lean to the right. Many people who are not white are right wingers.
The program initiated by Carter to help minorities and expanded upon to make lending more profitable is the problem. Race is not an issue, black, white, yellow or green- we are all in this mess together.

@Craig...Let me remind you that what Carter was attempting to address was the practice of "red lining", which was a very real problem. Over time, financial institutions figured out how to manipulate the system with complicity of members of Congress. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are some of the worst. I know you are anti-government involvement in business, but we cannot trust the financial industry to self regulate and do the right thing.

Lyle, you are 100% correct, I couldn't agree with you more. As for the self regulatory portion of the financial services industry, NOTHING has been done to fix that issue. FINRA (former NASD) has not made any changes that will make a bit of difference. Obama claims regulation will fix the issues, but where is that regulation? At the height of the crash, it was impossible to sort out the CMO's.
In an industry that regulates everything from file contents and documentation of almost everything, there was no way to figure out what mortgage was part of what bundle. Had the Government stayed out of the mortgage business in the first place, this problem may never had happened.
Bernie Madoff is an example of those who avoid being caught by a system of regulation regardless of how well regulated that system is. He broke every rule in the book and avoided regulatory authorities for far too long- we should have left him a free man and let his victims have at him as they see fit.

@Craig... In 1930, FDR first got the government in the mortgage business with the creation of Fannie Mae. LBJ turned it into a quasi-public entity in 1968, in order to remove the liabilities from the government balance sheet. So this mess was a long, long time in the making. Currently, Fannie and Freddie and FHA control about 90% of the secondary mortgage market.

@Jay Sykes...I think you better check your 1930 date. FDR didn't take office until March 4, 1933.

@Brian Dey...You left out to unfunded wars and tax breaks. Other than that your correct about the deficit spending against reduced revenues. However, why is our import tariffs on China and India only 3% when theirs is 40% and 50% respectively. The other thing is we can't have tax revenues when our jobs got shipped overseas and the income earned on foreign profits remain offshore so businesses don't have to pay taxes. Adam Smith is turning over in his grave. No jobs=no taxes=no consumption. Great system we have.

Because we borrowed so much money from them, we can't raise tariffs or face China demanding repayment of our debt to them. Jobs got shipped overseas because the Democratic Party empowered the unions. When factory sweepers were making $60k per year, and had the full support of the Democrat politicians they bought and paid for, our jobs left. Why not, other third world countries treated these corporations like kings. A lot of companies also went over seas when the federal government was taxing over 90% of their capital gains. More our leaving now because of the cost of healthcare, environmental policies and strict regulations. They were smart business owners. When regulations and tax burdens shift depending on which party is in power, it makes it real hard to run a profitable business. I didn't get into business to give it all to my employees or the government, and stockholders don't buy stock to lose money, so that some unambitious person can live off the government paid for by my risk and my earnings.

@Brian Dey...Sorry friend your just wrong. I was involved with global corps as far back as the late 1970s. You are just wrong, it wasn't the unions that forced business overseas, it was greed and short term gain. No social responsibility at all. China still needs us as much as we need them. Where do your loyalties lay. I know you aren't in business to give it all to your employees or the government; it's all yours and you should keep it and pass it on to the next generation who passes it on. BTW I support a 100% inheritance tax. Every body needs to start out in the same place and work their way up based on merit and hard work. I hope your kids enjoy all your hard work.

@red...Too Big to Fail came right out of the George W. playbook. TARP. BTW I am not an Obama supporter and there isn't a Republican running that is up to the task either. So what are we going to do, hope for another world war? Oh, we couldn't win that one either since we have shipped all of production capacity off shore.

@Chuck... Clinton signed the law repealing Glass-Steagall banking regulations. While Bush II was a big deficit spender, he is actually on record attempting to rein in Freddie and Fannie; Barney Frank objected. So, the blame runs across a long string of 'players', that goes back to the Carter administration and their community reinvestment act. Obama's deficit to date, is about equal to the Bush deficit in his total of 8 years.