The tax cuts and the deficit

Geez, wasn't it just a few weeks ago we had an election and the republicans spent untold cajillions of dollars telling the public how they were going to balance the budget and cut federal spending? Or did I miss something? And didn't the public reward them in a show of support for that goal? 

Now this same party, before the folks that have been recently elected can even take office, are abandoning all of that and going off on a spending spree with their democrat buddies to pass tax cuts on which are going to increase the deficit. 

The newest talking points is that this tax cut is going to be "stimulus." Oh really? Wasn't it the Bush tax cuts that ultimately are responsible for doing in the economy? Didn't the democrats campaign on how bad the Bush tax cuts ruined the economy? Maybe it's all a dream. 

The problem doesn't go away. Now all the politicians are saying that to balance the budget will be worse for the economy than going further in debt without increasing income. Can that be right? So where are the journalists in holding these peopel accountable? Just this afternoon I heard on an NPR report that Moody's was projecting that the US credit rating was going to be lowered in the months to come. And why shouldn't they? We talk about trying to balance our budget, but that day isn't anywhere on the horizon. How many year mortgage do you we have on our future? Is it 30 year adjustable? Or maybe a 50 year fixed? 

But it blows my mind how these politicians can blow like the wind. What they said yesterday doesn't mean a thing if they think they can get away with saying something completely different today. And a lot of the time, they do get away with it. Amazing.

 

Sunday News Shows

I have to say that I found the Sunday news shows a little more interesting today. The number one interesting thing that I gleaned from the shows was the republican talking points that Obama had won a huge victory in his negotiations and deal on the tax cuts with the republicans. Both Krauthamer and Buchanan both said it. And not only that, they used the same term - that Obama had gotten his "second stimulus" with this deal.

I didn't remember any of the mainstream media commentators up to this point saying that Obama had gotten his "second stimulus" with this deal. But my initial reaction is to be suspicious. There's quite a bit of gamesmanship going on here, and it is very interesting to see the republicans positioning themselves on the losing end of this deal when the democrats, especially those in the House, are screaming bloody murder about it. I think it's just a strategy, but it's interesting to see it dumped on the public during the Sunday news shows.

Mike Bloomberg was interviewed on Meet the Press. He said he wasn't going to run for president. Probably a smart move on his part. With Wikileaks and the like out there on the prowl, no telling what might come out about him. I don't think he relishes that.

 

Obama and the republicans and the democrats

I'd be remiss if I didn't at least comment about Obama's press conference today and his handling thus far of the far from over saga of the tax cuts for the richest americans, umemployment benefits for the long term unemployed, and other of the issues in which there seems to be a chasm between the major political parties. Obama made an agreement with republicans. Many pundits question whether he got a good deal.

But maybe a very defining pundit is Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist and columnist for the NY Times. He was on the Jim Lehrer News Hour with a conservative think tank economist. The conservative think tank economist kept pushing for the spending cuts. Krugman, on the other hand, thinks that the government hasn't spent enough to benefit most people.

But even Krugman had a hard time giving unqualified support to Obama's position. There is definitely a grassroots movement, including MoveOn, to have the democrats in congress defeat this agreement. But Obama doesn't want to do that. If he is going to push things toward a government shutdown, he wants it to be a much more cut and dried issue.

But I have to say that Obama has changed. He is, like all of the others before him, aging in the office. But at the same time, he is growing into it. He is a very intelligent man - one not to be underestimated. The republicans best not be cocky in dealing with him. 

On the other hand, Obama better not forget from whence he came. He is a democrat, and if he keeps his natural allies on the sideline, he may regret it when he really needs them. I can't wait until tomorrow when the pundits are going to be talking about his calling the republicans hostage takers. That's going to be a good one. Do we see a presidential apology coming?

Sunday News Shows

Since the government made the antenna TV digital, we have lost the signal for our ABC and CBS stations. So, we depend upon PBS to give us the majority of our Sunday News Shows. We still get Bartiromo and Meet the Press on NBC. The rest are all PBS. Those include Comment on Kentucky, To the Contrary, Inside Washington, and McLaughlin Group. 

If you watch them all, you get a good idea of who has what talking points, what the press is focusing on, etc., for a given week. I did get to see Bartiromo and Meet the Press today, but they were beyond unmemorable. And KET, the network that provides us with our PBS, has been doing fundraiser the last two weekends, and has pre-empted the news shows for concerts and other programs that think will entice more money from their viewers. 

But in my opinion, having these news shows on goes to the heart of what PBS should be all about. If KET can't spare 90 minutes to air To the Contrary, Inside Washington, and McLaughlin Group on Sunday morning, then it has a real problem.

"Food Safety"

Congress is going to pass a bill to more regulate food production in the U.S. But these congressmen and women are so far removed from knowing what actually happens during food production that their opinions on the subject are more than likely counterintuitive. And when you add in that they get mega campaign contributions from the industrial agricultural interests, the odds that congress is going to do anything to promote any kind of sustainable agriculture is about nil.

Sure, about any ground can produce a minimum of corn, because the industrial agricultural complex thinks they have figured out the way to do it. But, I think the situation is more akin to the situation in the movie "Bedazzled," and old Dudley Moore movie modernizing and re-telling the story of Dr. Faust selling his soul to the devil. 

In that movie, Moore made a deal with the devil that he thought would lead to him getting his wishes fulfilled. But, the devil ended up being more of a lawyer than a devil, and kept finding all these loopholes in Moore's wishes, and turning the situation around on him so that what happened was just about the opposite of what he had hoped for. That's exactly what I fear those that are buying into the Monsanto/Dekalb version of agriculture are doing - they are being bamboozled.

The true measure of how sustainable ground is comes when you are dependent on a crop from the ground but the normal inputs aren't readily available. Now, just about all of the agricultural land, on a percentage basis, in the U.S., is dependent on some kind of industrial input to be able to make any kind of what is considered respectable crop. For about all of the corn and soybean crop, it means all kinds of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not to mention the significant genetic modifications that are done to the corn and soybeans to make them more tolerant to the chemicals being used to produce them. The problem with most of these lands is that if these inputs, which are very expensive, are not applied, the crops will be significantly less - and in the language of money, not profitable.

The questions are how long can the inputs be provided at a cost that still allows for farmer profits, and how will these chemicals in the environment manifest their impacts. A widespread cancer or non-cancer illness that is relatively easy to trace to a particular agricultural use could result in lawsuits that stifle a lot of farmers. I actually think most of the farmers know, but face the choice between bankruptcy and doing the right thing. That's a false choice that the public should reject. 

Safe food is a legit question. But a superficial whitewash of the subject will do nothing to improve our food supply. And that, or worse, is what I'm afraid we are getting.

Sunday News Shows

The story of the day, although not dealt with nearly as much as it apparently should have been, is the WikiLeaks leak today of a bunch of raw correspondence between. US "diplomats" and spies and government chiefs in Washington D.C. This morning the mainstream media was mentioning it, reporting that this document dump was coming and could be potentially damaging and embarassing to the U.S. government. By this afternoon, when the contents of the documents were starting to be circulated around the world, it was headline news. Even Andrea Mitchell, mainstream of the mainstream reporter from NBC, said on NBC night news this evening that this is a game changer in our relationship with other countries because they won't trust us anymore.

The US mainstream media is reporting this afternoon that these cables discuss all kinds of international characters. For example, NPR reported that one of the subjects was the relationship between Vladmir Putin and Sylvio Berlesconi. And that's not to mention that the White House has directed our united nations diplomats, apparently, to out and out spy and collect all kinds of personal information, including, for example, DNA, from united nations representatives from other countries. Ouch. Between that and the failure of the senate to ratify the newest START treaty with Russia, I'm sure that our international relations with Russia and other countries are going to be taking a dive. Just what we need when we're trying to fight two wars and North and South Korea, who we are responsible for in a way, are on the verge of war. 

Could it be that we, thinking that we are the world policeman, have spread ourselves too thin and can't properly cover all of our obligations? That's very dangerous, because a cornered animal is very dangerous because it will do whatever it has to to escape. With the U.S., that means turning to our formidable, well, no, terrifying nuclear arsenal? Would we use it? It's scary to think about. 

The continued problem with our international relations is that we are arrogant, and that comes across strongly in these leaked communiques. We are always out to get an advantage, and our representatives have no regard for the truth. All they care about is maintaining an advantage for us. Now they have gotten caught. I just hope that it turns out that Obama and Clinton weren't aware of it, or had been mislead, because if they are directing this, this is going to seriously further split the democratic party. 

I'm an open government advocate. I think the world overall is better off the more open that governments are, and I'm not just talking about ours. Ours is more open than a lot. 

I hate to see anyone put into the danger of violence, especially working on behalf of my country. But if this kind of information was required to be made public regularly, those folks representing us overseas might be more careful in what they write and say and do. I'll just leave my commentary at that.

 

Sunday News Shows

The Sunday News Shows today were pretty mundane. I think one of the highlights had to be David Gregory's interview with Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press. Well, maybe it became a lowlight when he asked Clinton to speculate on potential Sarah Palin presidential run, and any similarities she may have with Clinton in terms of being a female similarly situated in the political world. Clinton didn't bite in the least - brushing off the question like she would a fly.

Clinton made a lot of sense. At this point I'm sure a lot of people are second guessing themselves about whether we might be better off with Clinton as president. I'm not sure. The problems are so huge that the same kind of obstacles would have appeared to Clinton as to Obama. But, Clinton is older and her and Bill have been through about every kind of political snare that is out there. And while I generally think Obama is doing an OK job, he has seemed a bit naive and not ready for the level of conspiracy out there by his political opponents to bring him down. It is hard to imagine that it could be so brutal, but it seems that he did let the opposition get ahead of him before he figured out that he needed to get a little aggressive in fighting back politically. Too little too late. 

Hillary Clinton is a big time asset to the democrats. She escaped this last election cycle pretty much unscathed. They need her to help get them back into a better position politically. Hopefully they will not forget that.

McLaughlin Group tonight

I guess McLaughlin is going back to his conservative roots. Well maybe not completely, cause he did chide the US republicans a bit by giving some coverage to a group of people in the UK who do not the monarchy and want it eliminated, calling themselves republicans. 

For that particular issue, I'm with them. A monarchy is outdated in a democracy. Why the US national press is giving so much attention to that is beyond me. Our country is supposed to be more about the little guy - the opposite of a royal - being able to rise up through his hard work and ability to a level that is greater or equal to that of anyone born of privilege. Monarchy represents privilege strictly because of who you are. That's just not what most people think should be the most telling about someone. Most people think that you should be judged on your actions, not on your genetics. And I agree with most on that. 

Pat Buchanan does have to get some points for truthfulness. He said, in defense of the monarch, that he was an "empire man." I totally believe him. I think he would be for some cruel despot - which is what is needed to build a true empire. 

We need an empire built on peace and love. Maybe an old hippie should be the king or queen!

Israel and Hillary

I have to admit that my curiosity is up after hearing an NPR report this afternoon on All Things Considered that the Israeli cabinet won't approve the so-callled last 90 day moritorium on settlements in occupied territories. The Palestinians won't participate in any further peace negotiations unless the Israelis agree to a continued freeze, but the Israelis are building as we speak.

Apparently Sec. of State Clinton promised the Israelis a bunch of concessions, like military weaponry, a pledge that this will be the last time we ever ask anything like this of them, and on and on, if they agree. But the agreement couldn't just be signed off on by Netanyahu - he had to get the approval of a majority of his cabinet. It was reported this morning by US media that it was thought that it would pass by a vote. Ahhh....but it didn't - they are holding out for these Clinton promises to be put officially in writing by the US government. As the song goes - "easier said than done." 

So, without these promises in writing, which the New York Times has described as a great deal for Israel, the Israelis will keep building, and the peace talks will fall apart - one more embarassment for Obama just when he doesn't need it. And the irony is that we need peace between Israel and the Palestinians as a counter balance to all of the bad feelings that we are creating by our killings in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.

The Israelis seem very confident of their military advantage. I'm not sure that is so wise after Herzbollah fought then to a draw, and continues to ramp up their arms. Population wise, the Israelis are outnumbered big time. If not for their military advantage, they might not have survived. They owe their military advantage to the US. But the US is running out of money, and who knows anymore who has nuclear weapons in the middle east? 

Israel is playing a high stakes game if they don't show some outward willingness to make some concessions. They don't seem to be showing that, however. It seems that there is a bad moon continuing to rise over the middle east. I hope that Hillary can make something good happen.

Sunday News Shows

I give the best discussion of the day to the McLaughlin show for their discussion of the morality of dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, to end WWII. The fact that the question was even on the table is significant to me. The question was pointed toward the knowing killing of civilians in large numbers. Kudos, that is a good question. 

But what about the tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that have been killed as a result of our invasion and occupation of Iraq for no reason? Isn't that just about as bad, or maybe worse. At least Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor and we had an official declaration of war. In Iraq, we had nothing - just the personal grudge of our president against the leader or Iraq - hardly a legal justification for going to war. Unfortunately, congress rolled over and shares the blood on our nation's hands. 

There were some interesting discussions about the budget deficit commission's report this week. But, generally, most of the commentators don't believe it will go anywhere, regardless of the merits, because it won't get able to get the supermajority in the commission that is necessary to get it to go forward. But even Mort Zuckerman apparently is having a hard time swallowing the arguments about not lifting the tax cuts for the richest americans. Apparently he is more worried about the long term impact of the deficits than what he might have to ante up to the government if the tax cuts are lifted. That's interesting. McLaughlin himself was seeming a little self-centered about the issue. 

The elections are already a long ago memory. We have a lame duck congress, where most of them think little will happen (don't be so sure). Then the republicans take over, and we'll see how they overreach...um...I mean...govern.

repealing or keeping bush tax cuts

I can't believe that McLaughlin had the bush tax cuts and whether or not they should be kept or left to expire, which means that the different income level rates will go up. It's obvious that congress will not allow the tax rates for the lower income americans to increase, but what about the rich?

First, it's hard to understand why are people still arguing that tax cuts are going to create "growth" in the economy, when it did just the opposite. It ran up deficits and eventually contributed to the economic meltdown. It's just truly amazing to me that people with a straight face are proposing that we keep doing it while saying they are creating jobs. It's one of the most amazing jobs of hypnotism that I have ever seen. How easy to forget the past, but such a recent past? 

Those are ignore history are doomed to repeat it. And it seems likely that's what we are getting ready to do. I do believe that things are so tight with people in what is considered to be lower income that additional taxes would be a detriment. But this argument that the rich shouldn't be taxed anymore because this is the money that they would be spending on creating jobs is a bunch of bull. It's the corporations which are "flush with cash" as the media says, that can create jobs. And now that they have inflicted some serious damage to Obama, they ought to feel a little more safe spending some of that money on hiring.

Reality is going to set in

I'm for the budget hawks, actually. I think in the long run that trust is the most important factor in our system, and when debts get so big that they can't realistically be repaid, that eats away badly at trust. That is why the stock market took hits recently because of the debts that much smaller countries like Greece have accumulated. 

But we need to get real about the worldwide debt. It probably never will be repaid. That means readjusting the currencies, which means more hardship for those peoples with less, like me. People that pay their bills on time, like me, don't like the concept of running huge debts that you only pay a tiny percent off each month while you accumulate more. That's the kind of debt that has helped to get us in financial problems.

To that extent, I'm with the Tea Partiers. But if they think that they can just slap an equal bill on everyone, regardless of people's actual ability to pay in light of their expenses, then that isn't going to solve anything. So the news today that Obama was going to compromise with the republicans and let the richest americans keep their Bush tax cuts for awhile longer, although not surprising, is disappointing. But the disappointment has to mostly be placed with the american people, because they set the tone for it. 

The mainstream media has really been pushing back against repealing the tax cuts for the richest americans. And I guess that is logical, because the media is ultimately owned by rich people who don't want to pay more taxes. But if we are going to cut the budget, actual things are going to have to be cut. That's when reality will set in big time for the republicans.

Mayfield city council gets it right - finally

The Mayfield, Kentucky city council today reversed a vote which was a reversal of an original vote which was to allow a group of Muslims in Mayfield to rent a building just off the downtown square for a mosque. At first, the vote was to approve it. But, it turned out, this was right about the time that the issue of establishing a mosque a couple blocks from "ground zero" in New York City was getting national attention. Right at that time, there was a sort of fever pitched, albeit irrational, disdain which was bubbling up against Muslims in general. 

So when word got out that the city council had approved this mosque, a bunch of reactionary people in the community basically stormed the city council and demanded that they reverse their decision, which they did. They did it because, they determined, there wasn't enough parking. Not only did that get a lot of publicity, in the tailwind of the New York issue, including some mentions in national press, but, that also turned out to a bunch of bull. And then the ACLU got involved and pointed out that the city council was acting in either abject willful violation of the law, or they were just ignorant. 

Not wanting to get sued, the city council laid low for a number of weeks, and surfaced briefly today to vote that, golly, after all of this, they were going to grant them their permit afterall. Good thinking!

This was only a week or so after Mayfield had thrown out their long time mayor in favor of the mayor's long time secretary in the election. I'm not sure if there is a connection there, but in a smaller city like Mayfield, the assumption would be that there is a connection.

But for those folks that tried to be very parochial about this and say that anyone from outside Mayfield didn't have a right to say anything, I have a response. When your actions are branding our entire part of the country as religious discriminators, then that becomes the business of the region, which I am a member. So I have the right to speak out. Keep your local affairs local and they won't become regional.

3rd Anniversary of Rural Thoughts

I posted my first blog entry on Aug. 20, 2007. This will be entry 437, ost of them mine, but a number of really good columns were written by West Kentucky writer Berry Craig, and Craig Rhodes also contributed a little. My wife Kristi has contributed a few writings, and some photos.

I don't regularly get tons of hits or anything like that for the webpage, although some people do read it. Some of my pieces though, have gotten a number of hits, like my piece about Mitch McConnell's campaign ad about the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant workers. I haven't paid for any advertising for this webpage, and I haven't been paid for any advertising. 

I have thought about it though, and have had discussions with other people about it. The reality is that I just don't have the time to pursue it right now. It's hard enough to get the time to sit down and write your thoughts, and I've been trying to spend less time at the computer, not more. That, too, can be difficult to accomplish in today's world. 

But I've made some predictions that the mainstream pundits have missed, and have written some political opinions which eventually became mainstream, not because I wrote I them, but the fact that I wrote them before a lot of the paid folks says something I think. For example, I predicted long before the mainstream pundits, that Obama would get the Democratic nomination for president. 

I posted a lot of photos once up a time, and I plan to start that up again. I think I'm going to post some poetry and other kind of writing. Why not? Interestingly, the photo that has gotten the most hits is the photo of Kristi standing next to the life sized statue of Mr. Wardlow, the world's tallest man. 

Well, I have to get off this computer right now. I at least wanted to scribble a little something to commemorate the day. But I do plan on keeping this going, at least for now.

Sunday News Shows

The Sunday News Shows today were kind of interesting. Not the best, but better than the last several. The main subjects were upcoming primaries, Kagan, and the oil spill. Those are all very relevant issues.

The discussion of the elections come on the eve of a number of primaries in which incumbents or establishment candidates are facing real challenges. I found most interesting the discussion of the "Democratic primary" for U.S. in Pennsylvania, where Arlen Specter, who switched parties to "Democrat" in order to avoid losing in the Republican primary (that seems to be happening more and more these days, doesn't it?). He is being challenged, as I predicted, http://www.ruralthoughts.net/?q=node/280 and the prognostication today by these high paid (where's my pay, I'm living under the poverty level!) was that Specter is going to lose to Representative Joe Sestak, who has created and run an ingenius political ad which was played a number of times today on the talk shows, which only makes things worse for Specter. The ad makes Specter look awful. He looks like a conniving sleazebag. Go Joe Go, I say. 

I guess the most significant thing about the Kagan discussions is that more than one show brought up that there were rumors going around, which had not really surfaced to the most mainstream of press, that she was a lesbian. Even Krauthamer had to say that should never come up, and was irrelevant. What a way to air the subject! Of course, no mention of the Truthout article about Kagan sticking up for Monsanto which circulating on my email lists a few days ago, http://www.truthout.org/supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-goes-bat-monsa... although the commentators did acknowledge that Kagan was being attacked from the left - but on her views of executive authority and not about the GE crops issue. Interestingly enough, McLaughlin himself used my lingo from a previous column that I wrote after the nomination saying that Kagan was a "shoo-in." That's for better or worse, but was just an observation. Let's hope it's for better.

Once again, Bonnie Erbe's "To the Contrary" was perhaps the most interesting show. It definitely provided the best quote of the day. In a discussion about Kagan, in which the republican females were downplaying Kagan being a female and the democratic females were saying, oh yeah, it was great and would make a difference, Erbe blurted out, that the republican women "saw women as the same as men" and the democratic women "saw women as women." Boy, did that ruffle those republican feathers. They crowed in denial, but it's hard to deny the obvious. 

Also significant on "To the Contrary" was Eleanor Norton stating that both "conservative democratic" U.S. senators as well as republican senators were "bought off" by big money. The reference came in response to an interview Erbe had with U.S. Senator Cantwell, from Washington state, who is trying to get the Glass-Stegall legislation re-instated. It was a post-depression era piece of legislation from the early 1900s which separated commercial and investment banks. It had been repealed in the 1990s, which had lead to the so-called "sub-prime" mortgage meltdown, which was made much worse by bundles of mortgages marketed by banks as good investments, even as they bet against them. 

Of course these senators are bought off. Most politicians are. And the U.S. senate is worse than most. But it's very shocking to hear a fellow member of congress say it.

University of Kentucky dragging feet on advisory board members

OK, so after a little time had passed and I hadn't received the one document that I had requested in the meeting and the one document that was taken from me by force, I sent an email to the study leader asking for a list of the advisory board members. I'm sure this is a bunch of names of "influential" folks in Paducah. I certainly wasn't on it. But I think it's important for the public to know.

In the powerpoint the night of the meeting, the researchers referenced this advisory board, and the minute they did, I asked for a list of the members. They didn't provide me a copy that night, which I thought was really being ill-prepared or deceptive, one of the two. But promised that they would send it to me. When I didn't get it after several days, I wrote to the study leader. I guess since I had contacted the research integrity people, the study leader didn't want to respond to me. He forwarded my request to them. So today I got my initial response. I wanted to share it with everyone. If anyone is interested, the actual letter is attached to this post.

"Dear Mr. Donham,

"Your request sent via Mr. Ormsbee was forwarded to me for reply as official records custodian of the University of Kentucky.

"You said that you would provide me with a list of the advisory board members...but I haven't received it yet...and also the visualizations from the scenarios presented....

"RESPONSE Due to the travel schedule of the General Council for University of Kentucky, it will take several business days to retrieve and determine what, if any, non-exempt responsive materials exist....We will respond by May 17....

Frank Butler, Custodian of Records, UK

Wow. So they can't even disclose who their "advisory board" is, even though the research leader said at first that this was who chose the 12 scenarios that were in the envelopes? 

And this is an "open" government? Hah!

Does the Queen of England actually have power? Geez...

The national news was reporting that the queen of England had called David Cameron of the conservatives in England and asked him to form a government. According to news broadcasts that I have heard in the last several days, that is what happens when there is no clear winner in an election and a coalition government is having trouble being formed. 

But I have to say, I find it a little hard to stomach that the so-called "queen" has any political influence at all. It's so anti-democratic, and supposedly England is our closest ally, how can we stand by and let a so called "queen" have any influence on the politics of our closest ally?

Didn't we revolt against that very monarchy in favor of a democratic form of representational government? Tradition is one thing. Symbolism is one thing. But actually giving the so-called queen any real political power really seems wrong to me. She already gets more of the public coffer than she should, and is elitist and never had to run for any office. She shouldn't have any more influence in the system than a janitor in the local school district. 

I never have really liked the concept of "royalty." And to hear in the news that English royalty is part of the actual process, in any form at all, is really disgusting to me.

 

Kagan a shoo-in

Elena Kagan is a shoo-in to be confirmed as the newest Supreme Court nominee. The republicans are not going to try and block her, unless they find out that she has been snorting cocaine out behind the Supreme Court building. I doubt if that is going to happen. Let's hope she has a compassionate mind. It still, bottom line, isn't going to change the 5-4 make up of the court, which is why the republicans aren't going to waste needless political hits on this. Already the republicans have suffered setbacks with all kinds of political blocs, and they don't need to further alienate women when the outcome of the battle will not determine the war. So Kagan will skate to her nomination - at least that's my prediction.

 

Sunday News Shows

The Sunday News shows seemed scattered, unfocused, and late today. The ol’ “a dollar short and a day late…“ Not that there isn't a lot of really significant stuff going on, there is. The unprecendented "attack" on Wall Street Thursday, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the unrest in Greece and Europe are all way up there on the scale of importance. 

But, and while these dudes that make a lot of money doing this, should be able to come up with some informative discussions about these situations, they fell short today. By the time Sunday got here, what they discussed was stale. There was Meet the Press, and it's interview with AG Holder. D. Gregory tried to say that big news had been made, but I don't think so. Gregory is trying to catch the wind.

All the shows discussed the oil spill, the economic situation globally and nationally, and politics. But to me there wasn't much new. They were repeating themselves today. Why weren't they talking about how this wall street thing went down? I mean, I have read a number of accounts of the thousand point fall, and the reports are all over the place. This idea that someone hit a “b” on their computer rather than an “m” has not been substantiated. The New York Times says that there was a lot of trading around 2:45 out of Chicago, but that was as far as it went. Why aren’t these high paid sleuths out there discussing what really happened. If this kind of thing can gut the value of major international corporations in a matter of minutes, as well as various investment portfolios across the world, shouldn’t that be of concern. Sure it “bounced back” in a matter of minutes, but to me that doesn’t provide much assurance. The whole thing could have been a test for a much larger and sustained attack. Could we all wake up one day with computers telling us we are penniless? So where were the big boys on that story? Asleep it seems. 

And by the Sunday News shows were on, BP had already said that their first dome attempt hadn’t worked because the outlet had frozen up. Somehow I have to think that it is more than that. But I don’t think the big boys are really out there trying to learn exactly what the future holds for the coasts in that region. 

And finally, as far as the “sovereign” debt issue goes, and the civil unrest in Greece, you have to be pretty much braindead not to know that uncollateralized debt owed by entities that don’t have the money to pay their creditors is a worldwide problem, including in our nation. What is happening in Greece, and what could happen here is a contraction of entitlement programs the government has for it’s citizens. The average person is of average means by definition. With prices going up constantly and incomes going down, people are really having a hard time making ends meet, which means more debt on a personal level. Why aren’t these talking head dudes really going into depth about what this might mean in the future to the average citizen?

Makes me think that either they don’t even think about such things or they are afraid to bring it up. Either of those scenarios is not good.