As stated $17 billion isn't even real money to the Feds. If the goal is to get the budget under control than number one on the list must be MILITARY spending (nearly 1/3rd of all spending). After that is Medicare/Medcaid (a big chunk of the rest) and followed up with farm subsidies (the largest and most wasteful area of 'discretionary' spending).

Until real debate starts on those items any discussion of 'controlling' the budget is meaningless.

I've been saying for days, absent some majors changes in how our economy works the US is in for jobless 'recovery'.

All the retraining in the world means nothing if the only jobs available are low-skill service jobs. And it means even less if workers don't see the reward (ie increased WAGES) from their increased education and productivity. Something that the modern economy has denied the average worker for over a decade.

The system did get out of whack. Over the last 30 years the American worker has increased productivity by more than 300% but wages have risen by only a few percent (less than 30% if memory serves). And over the past decade wages have stalled or even retreated for the vast majority of the workforce. The vast majority of the increased wealth created by the productivity gains have gone to the wealthiest 5% of population. Hence the credit bubble to make of the difference and give those with stagnant wages the temporary illusion of progress.

In the previous 30 year period (post war to early 70s) that disparity was far narrower. Productivity gains were much more evenly distributed among the ENTIRE population (the wealthly tended to get a larger chunk but more like a few percentage points greater, not orders of magnitude greater).

The system no longer rewards work. It no longer rewards productivity.

Henry Ford did understand how the system is supposed to work. Mass production means nothing if the masses can't afford to buy what is produced.

The key question is where the '$2 trillion' in savings going to go. Will it go to lowering prices for medical services and insurance premiums or will the money simply be used to increase profits?

After 9/11 the Democrats panicked, just like Bush and Cheney (who wet their pants when they realized the fourth plane was aimed at them). They were terrified of another attack. Pelosi, Reid and the senior dems on the intelligence committee KNEW the CIA was torturing detainees. They were kept in the loop.

That's why Obama is trying to hide this now. If he goes after Bush officials who broke the law then he will have to go after the Democrats in congress who knew and approved of that lawbreaking. I believe he should go after them but the politics win out so he won't. Everybody gets a pass because everybody was in on it.

Your argument is true if the bondholders were being bought out at 4 cents on the dollar. But that is not what is happening. They are being offerred 10% equity stakes ie stock. They have the option to hold that stock until the value gets back to where it was (as it did in the Argentina example you sight). They only take a loss if they sell the stock at a loss.

What the bondholders want is a bankruptcy where all the cash goes directly to them (100% return). The only way that can be achieved is by breaking up and selling off GM piece by piece. Forget the 20,000 layoffs it would be a total meltdown of GM.

If lieu of that they want a majority owernship stake again for the purposes of sucking the cash out of GM leaving everything else behind. It is pure short term thinking (I'll get mine now and to hell with the long term health of the company or the economy).

The treasury is right to stand up these vultures.

and the media will start hailing the Republicans as vissionaries.

Basic truth number one. Terroist attacks are going to happen. Truth number two. There is no way to stop truth number one. Period.

Unfortunately Americans don't understand those two facts. So when the inevitable terror attack does occur they will panic and turn to the people who promise the most blood.

How many IRA bombings happened on British soil? How many Basque separatists attacks did Spain endure? Both those countries managed to continue functioning as Democracies. As have Germany and France and lots of other countries around the world.

Terrorists can only destroy a nation if the nation destroys itself out of fear and stupidy.

It's been nice knowing you USA.

Debit cards are charged a lower fee by banks but (and this is a big but) the card has to be processed as a debit card. If it is run through the system as a credit card (or no distinction is made) than the higher credit card fee is charged. That's why larger retailers and stores make people press a botton indicating whether they are using debit or credit.

Smaller retailers often can't afford or don't know about such systems and end up running everything through as if it was a credit card (which is why you sometimes have to sign a slip even though you used a debit card) and thus pay higher fees.

Everybody forgets that the conventional wisdom on Sept 10th 2001 was Rumsfeld would be turning in his resignation by January. He'd alienated much of the senior military brass, ticked off congress and had few allies outside of Cheney (who was not that popular at the time).

9/11 saved Rumsfeld's career and elavated Cheney's status high enough to give his old friend all the room he wanted to play.

The system is broken and the lack of truly competetive primaries is one the biggest weaknesses. Both parties have gamed the system to give imcubents enornous advantages denying new voices (both on the left and the right) a chance to be heard.