Based on this, and numerous other comments, you seem to have exceedingly poor reading comprehension. I am not, and have never been, an Obama supporter. Whether or not I think someone will or won't win is a completely separate issue from what I would actually like to see happen. Those are two separate things, and in general, people don't seem to have much trouble with the distinction.
They're not in over their heads. They are sticking to their script. Even if you were born yesterday, you could go to YouTube and watch all the videos of what guys like Ross Perot said like 17 years ago and watch the talking heads who're still around today attack him. All this fake concern and love for the American people is just public relations damage control for the major parties. The average American has been molded into becoming the losing counter-party of every "trade", so to speak.
Wow... so less than 10% of Obama's cabinet appointments have any experience in private industry at all??? This is very disturbing. It's scarily reminiscent of FDRs "brain trust" that came very close to permanently wrecking us in the 30's. The idea that an admistration that is composed over 90% permanent bureaucrats who have never even set foot in the real world is running our government is frankly terrifying from the standpoint of a business person who will have to cope with whatever crazed policies these people come up with. Is it any wonder businesses are too scared to invest?
Some perspective might be in order. The most fiscally irresponsible administrations have generally come with the highest levels of sourcing from the private sector. One might think that one palm was greasing the other. If one were so inclined.
Mr. Zuckerman's criticism of Mr. Obama's leadership may be well-deserved, and he is on the mark when he implies a lack of progress in dealing with future entitlement liabilities. Nevertheless, it is not at all clear that Mr. Zuckerman understands the true root of the entitlement problem. Mr. Zuckerman writes: "This has obvious implications for our debts and deficits. How are we to meet this obligation in the face of long-term deficits that stem from approximately $60 trillion of unfunded entitlement liabilities? " But, Mr. Zuckerman, the fundamental problem does not lie with entitlements. And the long term deficits don't at all stem from $60 Trillion of unfunded entitlements, as you claim! For example, the brilliantly conceived old age pension plan, otherwise known in the USA as Social Security, is in fine shape on paper as it requires only very minor tweaking, in spite of changing demographics, to make it financially sound into the foreseeable future. (It is a two cent on the dollar of earned income increase in contribution rate that is needed.) Even the worst entitlement problem, viz., Medicare, has not much to do with its fundamental soundness, though in this case its nature does contribute to make the problem slightly worse. The problems "stem" instead, and almost exclusively, from fiscal irresponsibility, including mindless military spending, and the raping of the Treasury by Corporate interests for the benefit of a few percent of the population. The ideologues in Washington have allowed it. What has happened is that there is no money to pay the entitlement trust funds what is, by law, owed to them. And now their bonds will be redeemed with badly devalued dollars. Those dollars will buy far less than the American people realize. In this perverse way the American people have had their hard earned money stolen from them. Does Mr. Zuckerman really understand that. It doesn't seem he does. The ideologues*, whose goal all along has been the destruction of certain social programs, could not achieve their goal directly. But they succeeded anyway, and in the process made themselves rich. __________________ *It's ironic that the neo-conservatives, epitomized by Irving Krystol and whom I believe Europeans sometimes term neo-liberals, long ago accepted the new deal as necessary to a cohesive and vibrant social structure; yet this seems to be at odds with the radical movement also known as neo-conservative or "neocons". The term "conservative" is now as useless as the term liberal, unless one adds qualifiers, such as "social-liberal", "social-conservative", etc.
They did what voters demanded. This is what happens when voters discover they can bequeath themselves Big Gov't (and Big Military is part of that) while paying Low Taxes.
I don't recall the politicians campaigning on, and the voters asking for, LBJ's Great Society, or for Bush's Prescription Drug Program, or for Obamacare, or the Obama Stimulus Plan, or for TARP, or for Vietnam, Iraq, or for Afghanistan, or for Libya, or for the original Gulf Wars, or QE 1,2,3, etc. etc. . All of these were very high cost unilateral decisions with huge fiscal ramifications made by politicians once installed in office and pushed by the MSM onto us like a Fifth Avenue generated promotional campaign. Remember Nancy Pelosi famously telling us that we had to pass Obamacare to actually see what was in the legislation ? Essentially that type of bullshit use of power exemplified in all those examples I cited in my first paragraph. I mean, LBJ did not campaign on the "Great Society" entitlement scheme in any way, shape, or form in terms of how the eventual legislation was enacted. But you are essentially correct in that all of the politicians are whores and pimps - regardless of stripes and species.
If you can not cheat and steal, rob! If you can not resolve domestically wage an international war! Libya war is the first post-financial-crisis war in transferring the crisis to others. More wars to come if the cirsis worsens.
There have been dozens of elections since then. Americans have had every opportunity to undo gov't spending, and have chosen not to. Their actions are crystal clear - Americans like big government. In a democracy, it starts and ends with voters.