That's the insidious nature of US based conglomerates having majority ownership of most media outlets. It's further complicated by the fact that several of them received government bailouts/subsidies to "weather the storm" in 2008. So I'm not at all surprised that a Canadian newspaper has more in depth coverage of this event. More often than not, foreign newspapers will cover highly "sensitive" issues that US based newspapers and media outlets will only cover superficially. The upside is that the blogosphere covers these issues ad nauseam, so it's not as if people are not completely oblivious to what is going on.
And too many has an entitlement mentality. Nothing is good enough for them if they can get the government to pay for it. Just make a baby, and the benefits will keeps coming, but it is never enough.
They are mandated to pay these retirement promises, so they are not cutting public sector benefits. Essentially they are using a credit card, which they know the Congress cannot cut off.
Well, they're mandated to pay many things... However, promising to pay is one thing, while actually not paying is another. Well, that was my impression of the majority view here on ET.
Your rant against publicly traded companies and traders is non-sensical and irrelevant to the topic of the thread. And I'm sure nobody appreciates being yelled at, denoted by the capital letters you feel compelled to use. But you do raise a good point about political contributions by corporations and the inherent conflict of interest that arises from this. The USA should implement a law like we have in Canada that bans corporations (and trade unions) from donating to politcal parties. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90557&lang=e