Study a little bit more about Obama and "his team". Unity is not a word they understand. Winning at all costs, they understand. Domination, they understand. Domination as in the 60% Democrat Senate and terrible tax policies. Their definition of unity is when a Republican votes with them. Hope you study some more - a lot more.

And "...the most knowledgeable minds in the country...." Are you kidding? Rahm Emanuel? the others? Please.

The actual most knowledgeable minds in the country are making money for their shareholders and staying as far away from government as they can.

First: The election is over - and 'they' won. Now it is implementation time!

Are you kidding? Rahm Emanuel? the others? Please.
To all concerned: These are the guys who 'won'. They beat the Clintons; the Republicans; etc. They are forming a team that the global market and the US citizens are 'beginning' to trust.

The actual most knowledgeable minds in the country are making money for their shareholders and staying as far away from government as they can.

Your most knowledgeable minds are the guys and gals who screwed the Joe Plumbers and the rest of the country royally. The Government (not the people) was allowed to run amok with no regulation whatsoever - and here we are. The 'knowledgeable minds' you refer to worked for their shareholders - not the people.

Domination, they understand. Domination as in the 60% Democrat Senate and terrible tax policies.

The 'people' gave the Republicans 'domination - and the Republicans took it too far. The Democrats/Legislators hopefully will learn from the mistakes of the past - and never allow this country to enter into two wars; spend with no 'budget' or 'plan'; and allow their friends to assume responsibility far above their competence level.

If this newly elected administration appears to be going in the direction of the past - I'll be the first to protest. They're not even in office yet - but their presence and appearance of preparing to work cooperatively with the present administration in making the transition a smooth one is encouraging to the US citizens and the citizens of the world. Your concern about 'taxes' means nothing until our citizens have jobs and an income that can be taxed.

If you don't see the need for 'unity' during this chaotic time, you are feeding right into our enemies hands. Persons with diverse ideas regarding problem solving should come together now rather than stand on the sideline and throw rocks.

If you don't see the need for 'unity' during this chaotic time, you are feeding right into our enemies hands.

Where has your precious unity been for the last 8 years? Where was the unity when Harry Reid was telling every American that the Iraq war was lost? Where was the unity when members of the Senate were calling our brave soldiers "murderers"?

Where was the unity when Nancy Pelosi turned off the lights in the house when Republicans were trying to come to an agreement on an energy policy.

Screw Unity!!! Democrats don't respect it so why should anyone else.

We will give Mutt & Joe the same respect that democrats gave President Bush and Vice President Cheney. (which was none).

By the way, I'll bet every "O" on the White House computer keyboards is in place when Mutt and his Clinton retread crew move in. (Unlike the classless libs that stole all of the "W"'s from the keyboards when President Bush moved in.)

what were the votes after 9/11 when the Congress ceded so much authority to the President to "do what needed to be done"? THAT was the most outstanding display of unity in recent history. And the result of THAT sort of unity? The executive branch has since gotten us involved (economically, at least)in the Middle East while all but ignoring the basic rules of economics at home. Don't you conservatives believe in learning from your mistakes? It is overcoming that sort of 19th Century thinking that peppers your ideology which will prove the most difficult task for the next President of the United States. The people are looking for something better than "staying the course" or "more of the same". Keep the faith.

People are concerned about: Jobs; Losing loved ones in a war; Having loved ones respected and cared for who have served in a war; Keeping their homes; Being able to travel abroad as Americans without fearing terrorists; etc., etc., etc. Americans will support leadership that will help us work together to achieve the peace and prosperity that we deserve. We've seen what a divisive leadership has accomplished. We've experienced 'divide and conquer. Most Americans are anxious to join together as Americans and assist with the problem solving. Fred, those of you who can't see the big picture - and insist on wallowing in defeat- are not productive. There are those who see an opportunity for a united effort for recovery - and will work for an opportunity to lead again. You, evidently, are not one of those.

Fred and his ilk are still fuming over the election and could care less about working together for the betterment of our country or finding a remedy for the sinking economy. It's his kind that will continue to shrink the Republican "tent" so that only malcontents (Dick Morris), hatemongers (Limbaugh, Hannity), fake Christians, homophobes, and white supremacist's are members of that comatose political party. Fred and his group will be nipping at Obama and his administration for the next 4 years, blabbering like idiots to try and prove that they are still relevant, which they aren't anymore.

Good riddance.

Yup - and I'm going to stop listening!!

"We've seen what a divisive leadership has accomplished. We've experienced 'divide and conquer."

And we are still experiencing it with the "leadership" of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, who have led Congress into single-digit approval ratings. Now, they stand to gain more power.

It is you and the rest of the democrat party that do not see the big picture, david's mom - you think that because now that the mutt is POTUS, that we should all pull together, hold hands, and sing kuhm baye yah. It ain't gonna happen. The democrat party is all about control over the individual. They could care less about unity.
Just look at the mutt's cabinet choices - nothing but a bunch of Clintonesque retreads from the 90's.

WHERE'S THE CHANGE???

My fellow reasonable Americans: Time is too short. Days are too few. Ideas are too precious to be lured here into a Counterfeit "I lie every time I say my real name is fred garvin" post. Honestly folks, how do you take this person seriously, at this point? Not that a time will not come when "fred" offers more than the ideas of others which he harvests from internet web sites and pamphlets, but at this point, "fred" is basically the gentleman dressed in rags on the street corner yelling "repent or die." This is the same person who was so concerned about President Elect Obama's half brother that he posted ad nauseum of our need to rescue the African man from the poverty President Obama somehow perpetuated.

Mike King, I put your name in the subject line because you are unapologetically conservative. You are also undeniably reasonable. I won't even try to list conservatives with good ideas and conversation here because there are too many. My point is, there are reasonable voices from left, right, and center. And then...... there's counterfeit "fred."

My humblest of suggestions is we give "fred" the opportunity to find him or herself. But if you need some comedic relief, I understand the occasional visit to his or her angst-filled world.

The REAL Fred Garvin

"Diva" - At least I have the guts to post my real name. You're just mad because you got your hand slapped by the editor for an inappropriate posting.

You seem to be really obsessed with me and/or my name for some bizarre reason. I never asked that you read my posts, and if you don't like what I have to say, then I suggest that you just ignore it the same way tha I ignore most or your inane rantings.

"fred," there is nothing "brave" about blogging with your fake name or real name. Any drunken cheerleader can do it, mate. But, "fred," if you become both joke and punchline in your postings, don't be surprised if people laugh. Heck, you are much needed comic relief here.

Oh. What's an inane ranting?

Brave is walking into a Starbucks on a Saturday morning when you know you look like crap and have been up all night, walking up to a table that you rightly assume to be fellow bloggers, and nervously saying, "Hi, I'm Dawn...well, call me Shannon". I didn't know if I was walking into comfortable conversation or a showdown, but did so anyway, putting aside my insecurities and ideas of inferiority. I left there, feeling greatly pleased to have met you all.

I know that, speaking for myself, when I created my username and opted to go with my middle name of Dawn, I was simply trying to be safe. Giving up too much info about yourself in cyber space can be dangerous, especially for a female.

Good night. Until we meet again....

Shannon Dawn

I thank you not only for the compliment, but for placing my name with such esteemed company.

Should we all place less emphasis on placing blame and more on finding and creating solutions the better we become as a group. It's simpy a matter of synergy. An example I give is how unified America became after Pearl Harbor, Apollo XIII, and even 9/11. We somehow have lost focus after the attack in New York and whether the blame lies with the national leadership(or lack thereof) or of having an incorrect purpose, we can only opine.

I would offer that with the challenges facing our President-Elect that it is in all of our best interests to give him the support and backing else we face a severely divided nation. To do this will require "give" from not only the right but from the "left" as well.

Consider that you have fallen into a well with no one around, it matters not why you fell but of critical importance is how you will get out.

Just my two cents worth.

Who left the cover off the well!

When I get out, I'll find that rascal before he tries to kill someone else.

That is the American way, although not the way of those who may be culpable, maybe!

These are going to be difficult times. I certainly don't envy the elected leadership. It is encouraging that those with different approaches to problem solving are not averse to working together. Your 'two cents' means alot!!

What's your pedigree that allows you not to be a 'mutt'?

"...[Iraq]never should have been authorized and never should have been waged."

I have a couple of questions and let me begin by saying that I realize, on politics, that I am your intellectual inferior. So, I ask the following with honest curiosity and seek your respectful answer.

What was it that Hussein used to gas the Kurds? Was it not a weapon of mass destruction? Why did we, both parties, allow his insolence regarding U.N. resolutions and sanctions to go on for more than a decade after the Gulf War? Did he not threaten Israel with scud missiles that were out of range for what he was sanctioned to have? Do we not have a clear understanding of who comprises the 'Axis of Evil' (although we can now add Pakistan and possibly Syria to the list)? Do we, nations of more rational thought, need to keep in check those rogue nations that seek these weapons either for their own use or for sale to those who wish us harm? While I agree with most that Afghanistan should be the utmost priority, do we ignore the threats that are present from so many others? Why do we need to seek the approval of the U.N. when so many of it's members were being bought off by the very entity posing the threat? And, finally, if we pull out now, will it all have been for nothing? Are we really a 'paper tiger'?

Please remember, I ask these questions respectfully - be kind to me if you respond.

It was the democrat leadership that got our country into this financial mess. Dodd and Frank should be in prison for the stuff that they pulled.

Jimmy Carter was so inempt that his policies nearly drove the country into a depression. Good thing the Gipper came along to save the day.

Just good politics? Baloney. Luckily barry's advisors were smart enough to tell him that pulling the tax cuts would destroy our economy- everyone knows that barry was too dense to figure that one out for himself.

The detention of the Gitmo detainees and the subsequent waterboarding (not torture) saved thousands of lives and was absolutely necessary to the safety of our country

It's such fringe thinking that will keep your Party in the minority for years to come. Hopefully long enough for us to repair the damage it did.

"Luckily barry's advisors were smart enough to tell him that pulling the tax cuts would destroy our economy- everyone knows that barry was too dense to figure that one out for himself."

Jeff C., are you somehow suggesting that you have support for the idea that President elect Barack Obama is not "too dense" as counterfeit fred has claimed? You're going to have to offer up more than just calling the imminently reasonable "counterfeit fred" a "fringe thinker!" What say you??

I've got nothing else for fred. First off, his concern that Obama's raising taxes back to the level of the Clinton administration would destroy the economy is laughable considering that his Party has almost single handedly presided over the destruction of capitalism in the United States.

Fred's Party has put the country on the line for $3.18 trillion dollars so far. I'm not inclined to take economic advice from them except to reevaluate my position if we ever happen to be in agreement.

U.S. Pledges Top $7.7 Trillion

His opinion of waterboarding as not being torture is simply contrary to the long held position of the US and international legal institutions. I have previously cited case after case of legal precedent, many of which were prosecuted by the United States which well establishes the practice as torture. Fred's willingness to embrace state sanctioned torture shows him as the moral equivalent of a Robert Mugabe.

I listen to the wingnut radio then see their malarkey appear in fred's commentary. When called on it, like I previously did for him to back up his claims about Eric Holder's statements on the Geneva Conventions, fred can't respond. There's a very good reason for that.

Waterboarding saves lives, and hurts no one.

Mugabe is a genocidal maniac that kills his own people.

Capiche?

In the Land of Cholera

You are on the wrong side of morality and history Fred, as well as being in denial of the facts (as usual).

Although I realize that you think you know more than the military chiefs that have said over and over that torture is ineffective, here is the latest opinion piece from Matthew Alexander who led an interrogations team assigned to a Special Operations task force in Iraq in 2006.

“I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.”

AN INTERROGATOR SPEAKS

Capiche?

You quote an opinion piece out of the liberal Washington Post?

Give me break - the writer has no facts to back up his case and would have to be reading the minds of the islamic terrorists that were captured in order to substatiate his comments.

Here is a statement from retired military brass opposing the nomination of the despicable Alberto R. Gonzales to be Attorney General because of his support of torture.

Brigadier General David M. Brahms (Ret. USMC)
Brigadier General James Cullen (Ret. USA)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote (Ret. USA)
Lieutenant General Robert Gard (Ret. USA)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn (Ret. USN)
Rear Admiral Don Guter (Ret. USN)
General Joseph Hoar (Ret. USMC)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson (Ret. USN)
Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy (Ret. USA)
General Merrill McPeak (Ret. USAF)
Major General Melvyn Montano (Ret. USAF Nat. Guard)
General John Shalikashvili (Ret. USA)

Retired Generals against torture

Here is a statement by Gen. David H. Petraeus: "Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary,"

Gen. Petraeus Warns Against Using Torture

Rear Admiral Don Guter, a former Navy judge advocate general, “Not only does mistreatment of prisoners produce bad intelligence, it violates the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions, creates damaged soldiers and has ruined the United States' standing around the world.”

The case against torture

Here is a letter signed by:

General John Shalikashvili, USA (Ret.)
General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
Admiral Gregory G. Johnson, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Jay L. Johnson, USN (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Charles R. Larson, USN (Ret.)
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.)
General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.)
General William G. T. Tuttle Jr., USA (Ret.)
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Daniel W. Christman, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Paul E. Funk, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Jay M. Garner, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret.)
Major General John Batiste, USA (Ret.)
Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.)
Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.)
Major General Michael J. Scotti Jr., USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O’Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John K. Schmitt, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)
Ambassador Pete Peterson, USAF (Ret.)
Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret.)
Honorable Richard Danzig
Honorable Walter B. Slocombe
Honorable William H. Taft

Which calls for the US to abide by the Geneva Conventions and says in part, “If any agency of the U.S. government is excused from compliance with these standards, or if we seek to redefine what Common Article 3 requires, we should not imagine that our enemies will take notice of the technical distinctions when they hold U.S. prisoners captive. If degradation, humiliation, physical and mental brutalization of prisoners is decriminalized or considered permissible under a restrictive interpretation of Common Article 3, we will forfeit all credible objections should such barbaric practices be inflicted upon American prisoners.”

38 Retired Military Leaders Against Torture

I could cite many other instances in which the top military commanders and leaders have denounced torture but with little hope of changing your position of championing such barbarism. Fortunately it does not matter now. As I stated before you are on the wrong side of morality and history and your views have been rejected by the majority of Americans and by the new administration.

You can add hutch866, OS2, USN, (not retired just quit) to that list.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Guys, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. While these radical islamic terroists would just as soon cut every one of our heads off, I just don't see the rationalization in not using coercive interogation techniques (not torture) to get valuable information from our enemies.

We gained very valuable information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed when he was interrogated aggressively, particularly names and addresses of people who were involved with al Qaeda in the U.S. and Europe. One terroist plot, which would involve an airline attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles, was thwarted thanks to the use of these techniques.

Is that some of us think that America's values are better than theirs and we do not wish to sink to their level.

Maybe it is all in the definition of what constitutes "torture". I think there are varying opinions of is considered torture and what is considered "aggressive interrogation". One thing is for sure, I do not believe we have ever been on "THEIR" level.

...torture simply does no good.
I could make an exception for the likes of certain politicians who greedily garner personal funds while in elected office.

That would be The Community Reinvestment Act of 1978. Notice how the Dems dress up a pig by giving it a pretty name.

Anybody who can't see the connection between this horrible piece of legislation by do-gooder social engineers and today's mortgage mess is a complete fool.

Of course Clinton and Janet Reno and even Eric Holder helped accelerate the problem by using the police power of government to force the banks to make even more of these loans that would not be paid back. And for you Bush haters out there - yes it became an enormous problem under Bush - although McCain did send a alarm about FNME 2 years ago that was ignored by Congress, so we can add Pelosi and Reid to the list of enablers, but let's not - instead let's blame Bush.

Banks that were covered by the CRA made less that 6% of the sub-prime loans. Not 6% of the ones that failed... 95% did not; just 6% of all sub-prime loans.

Your assertion that, "Clinton and Janet Reno and even Eric Holder helped accelerate the problem by using the police power of government to force the banks to make even more of these loans that would not be paid back" is just silly. Show me one part of any law that forced a bank to make a loan that wouldn't be paid back.

Absolute fantasy.

That is the law that FORCED the banks to ignore their previously self-imposed redlining of certain districts which had a poor repayment history on loans. ACORN and others pushed this along at the local level by using childish antics such as making frequent deposits and withdrawals using pennies until the banks actually started approving loans in the questionable areas.

Clinton's AG pushed back the banks' attempts to overturn the CRA of 1978 in the 1990's by telling them they better not try to circumvent the law and that the government would be watching. My ex-brother in law was a bank examiner back then and he was told to look for any departure from the CRA by local banks and report same to the state and the feds.

Your 6% number is completely bogus since there has been no final tally on foreclosed loans in any area, but it is true that most of the subprime loans were made by banks not covered by the CRA and that most of them were made after 2004 when the Dems ignored McCain's FNMAE alert. That emboldened the lenders and they made those loans and immediately packaged hem for resale and passed them off as something they were not - an earning asset.

Democrat nanny state policies promoted by do-gooders who have no business sense or responsibility and then Nancy Pelosi somehow blames this on Bush. Morons.

Some inside details are become public regarding the collapse of both Freddie and Fannie.

Here are just a few of the details:

Internal Freddie Mac documents show that senior executives at the company were warned years ago that they were offering mortgages that could pose dangers to the firm, hurt borrowers and generate more risky loans throughout the industry.

At Fannie Mae, top executives were told it was necessary to develop "underground" efforts to buy subprime mortgages because of competitive pressures, although there were growing risks and borrowers often didn't understand the terms of the loans, documents show.

Fannie and Freddie's distress has its roots in the new, risky mortgages the companies bought and guaranteed in increasing numbers, largely from 2004 through 2007. These new products included home loans made to people with blemished credit histories, called subprime loans, and mortgages made without verification of income, assets or employment, often called Alt-A.

But the documents show how top executives at both companies were told that the new subprime and Alt-A loans were dangerous both to the companies and to the borrowers they were charted by Congress to help.

..others expressed concern about another type of mortgage Freddie was buying, where neither income nor assets were stated on the loan application. Andrukonis said these were popular with Hispanic borrowers, but the delinquency rates of 8 to 13 percent were much higher than on conventional loans.

People familiar with the matter said Freddie was being pushed by advocacy groups to come up with new loan products to offer to low-income and minority borrowers.

Washington Post Story

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

were for refinancing existing homes. Put the blame where it belongs, with lenders and these "creative products" that got completely out of control without regulation: Refinancing spurred sub-prime crisis.

I agree that we need to get past the blame game, but denial of the reasons is not how to go about that, it takes acceptance of responsibility to move on. At least that is what it takes in my life to get past my stupid mistakes.

"I can't wait until tomorrow, because I get more lovable every day."

“That (CRA) is the law that FORCED the banks to ignore their previously self-imposed redlining of certain districts which had a poor repayment history on loans.”

Yes.

But that's not what you said when you alleged that: “Of course Clinton and Janet Reno and even Eric Holder helped accelerate the problem by using the police power of government to force the banks to make even more of these loans that would not be paid back.”

The CRA required banks that took deposits from an area to have other criteria than a zip code for denying loans in that area (redlining). There was never any requirement that loans be made to unqualified people, just that loans be evaluated according to their ability to be repaid instead of being summarily rejected based on the recipients street address.

No part of CRA forced, “the banks to make even more of these loans that would not be paid back.”

Nor will you be able to cite any section of the CRA that proves your point because you are simply wrong.

Again, show me one part of any law that forced a bank to make a loan that wouldn't be paid back.

Still absolute fantasy.

We need to get you to Washington because you obviously, with the aid of your ex brother in law, know what this problem we are facing is all about: Poor people that used pennies to force banks to loan them lots of money. We could sure use a government that looks out for the powerless bank owners, can't we?

Just one thing that always brings a smile to my face.....

When gentlemen and gentle ladies like yourself try to use the term "do-gooders" like doing good is a "bad" thing? That always makes me chuckle. Thanks for the laugh.

....issue is settled, what would be the first step toward a remedy? And while we're at it, how about a resolution of some type to prevent my great great grandchildren from paying of debts created during my lifetime?

Robert any way this pig is dressed or the color of its lipstick, there is ample blame for all. My bet is that if the Congressional Record was researched, those voting for this measure would come from both sides and you could possibly be surprised at just who supported or opposed it.

My point being that is far too serious a problem to waste time blaming someone(s). Let's put a recovery into place and once were satisfied that it's working, then we can all go to DC en masse and tar and feather the bastards.

On your resolution to prevent our great grandkids from paying our debts, would that include the costs of the Iraq war, initially estimated at 50 billion and now closing in on 1 trillion? To my knowledge it's all being charged on our national credit card.

Yes, and you make my point to "pay as you go". In a true emergency borrowing is necessary, but payment can be made soon afterwards as part of a resolution to create the debt. As private citizens do we not have time limits upon which our personal debts must be satisfied? The same should apply to government at all levels.

Iraq certainly qualifies. If you remember the actions of 2003 were approved by a strong majority of Congress, so please, let's not get into the blame game.

Blame is not really the issue - except to educate the Bush-is-responsible-for-everything crowd.

The real issue is don't try to solve this or any other problem with socialistic spread-the-wealth solutions like a phony tax break (which is actually a tax increase on those who already pay the most tax) or outright giveaways. The bailout for banks is silly as well. The real solution is to let the free market decide the fate of bankers, car makers, builders, retailers and everything else. Sure we will have a serious 3-year recession, but during those 3 years we can contemplate what actually works and what doesn't.

Nobody is too big to fail. Failure should follow bad decision-making or greed or in some cases outright theft. Why should we sweep all this stuff under the rug simply because we would be inconvenienced by a prolonged recession?

All this bailout stuff is just designed to cover up the real underlying problem and of course for the politicians to grow government and their own power.

And nothing is ever going to bail your great-grandchildren out - or mine. This country will be divided up into pieces long before then and a 60% tax rate is probable. Maybe the urban liberal sections can tax their people to death and the rural folks can grow their own food and be self-sufficient.

Even the most "leftist" among us realize that the American public will not tolerate a 60 percent tax rate at the federal level. What most do not realize is that when one adds all the different taxes to which we are liable (federal & state income tax, sales tax, gasoline tax, estate tax, property tax, etc) our burden for governance is much higher than we realize. For most productive citizens it is already 40-50% and I see our major obstacle being how to gain productivity out of half the nation currently not paying income taxes but creating the largest drain on goods and services.

I agree totally that no entity is too large to fail. For much too long America has come to accept not only mediocre performance, but outright failure as well. Citizens have the right to declare bankruptcy without having to reduce their standard of living and do so at an alarming rate. Corporations are no different, just look at Wall Street.

We can only educate and set the standard for our posterity as our Education System was never designed to replace parents, although many now believe that is its purpose. This country is enroute to an economic train wreck that may cause us to sell off either Alaska or Hawaii just to repay international debt.

Our elected officials continue to act as did Nero while Rome burned with no concern for tomorrow. Currently, it is convenient to blame the ills upon a sitting President, but what will be their recourse should the actions our President-Elect fail? Will he simply declare bankruptcy and just walk away?

You're correct, "Failure should follow bad decision-making...", and the free market should be left alone. For capitalism to work, the market must be allowed to occur naturally with ALL it's booms and busts. What we are seeing now is the kinetics of this roller coaster - the higher we climb, the faster we will fall. The Scream Machine comes to mind right about now.