Spurred on by political bickering of pundits fighting for ink and pixels, it seems the American public - including the old & now new media - forget their basic economics. Now more than ever, there is the need for robust capital formation and wealth generation as our economic system bears a burden of carrying social programs designed decades ago and which have not yet been appropriately modified to reflect changing demographics or new (often costly) technologies. Some are very worthwhile, others are not. Opinions will vary and in the end, our elected representatives must work out the details in a way that does not place the economy into recession and which represents the best (economic and social) interests of their electorate. Accountability needs to be measured by adding to or pruning those programs no longer needed. At the very least they need to be better managed to reflect changes, be they social, economic or technological. Both the Executive and Legislative branches, where our votes count most, are responsible. In essence, the system is giving us what voters have asked it for -- chaos through less than clear priorities and the brainwashed driven messaging in the media. Can anyone explain what is a "growth recession" and why such a term is used? Can anyone explain why so many Americans beleive the economy is in recession, when in fact the economterics in dispute do not support such a position?

As for irresponsible tax cuts that don't reach the little guy, the little guy doesn't foot the tax bill paying for the programs (s)he benefits from. Its the concept of wealth transfer that makes people uncomfortable for fear of being labled, whether its protecting the right to say "I should determine how to spend my money..." or "We are obliged to help our fellow citizens and government is the best way to provide assistance..." Remind us again just how much of the social program benefits funding pie comes from taxpayers earning up to $100k? Perhaps if their burden were higher and they understood just how mismanaged their contribution to the public pool of funds is, America's political leaders would indeed truly be the servants they pay lip service to being each election cycle and turnout at the ballot box would be far greater than the apathetic numbers we read after each local, state and federal election...

In the end, we all move to protect out best interests, no matter how beneficial or destructive they might be to our fellow citizens. This fact transcends earnings power, race, sex, political affiliation, and nationality...

Spurred on by political bickering of pundits fighting for ink and pixels, it seems the American public - including the old & now new media - forget their basic economics. Now more than ever, there is the need for robust capital formation and wealth generation as our economic system bears a burden of carrying social programs designed decades ago and which have not yet been appropriately modified to reflect changing demographics or new (often costly) technologies. Some are very worthwhile, others are not. Opinions will vary and in the end, our elected representatives must work out the details in a way that does not place the economy into recession and which represents the best (economic and social) interests of their electorate. Accountability needs to be measured by adding to or pruning those programs no longer needed. At the very least they need to be better managed to reflect changes, be they social, economic or technological. Both the Executive and Legislative branches, where our votes count most, are responsible.

As for irresponsible tax cuts that don't reach the little guy, the little guy doesn't foot the tax bill paying for the programs (s)he benefits from. Its that transfer of wealth thing that makes people uncomfortable, whether its protecting the right to say "I should determine how to spend my money..." or "We are obliged to help our fellow citizens and government is the best way to provide assistance..." Remind us again just how much of the social program benefits funding pie comes from taxpayers earning up to $100k? Perhaps if their burden were higher and they understood just how mismanaged their contribution to the public couffer is, America's political leaders would indeed truly be the servants they pay lip service to being and turnout at the ballot box would be far greater than the apathetic numbers we read after each local, state and federal election...

In the end, we all move to protect out best interests, no matter how beneficial or destructive they might be to our fellow citizens. This fact transcends earnings power, race, sex, political affiliation, and nationality...