>> ^rougy:
At this point in time, mandatory service equals compulsory brainwashing.


Perhaps I would agree if we were talking about mandatory military service, which is clearly not what has been proposed. And even on that point, the experience with the draft during Vietnam actually shows the opposite, rather than becoming brainwashed, both those inside and outside of the military establishment resisted the principles being put forth.

>> ^NordlichReiter:
aaronfr you forgot several other countries. But I think we know who they are.


Sweden had a mandatory military service for people aged 18-25 until just recently. Why'd they stop? Because they haven't been at war in almost 200 years and the military is nothing but a money hole.

That some totalitarian states have mandatory military service doesn't automatically make it a bad system, as I'm sure you know. There are up- and downsides to it of course, but it's nothing like the annoying, early 20-something brat in this video tries to make it out to be with his nasal whining.

>> ^lantern53:
Aren't RE and BO from the same chicago political machine?
they think alike.


that is so psychologically ignorant, it's ridiculous.

I don't really like giving my views on these topics -- everyone is so biased by ideologies that it's almost impossible to sift through attacks and just bullshit.

Over the past six months I've spent many late nights trying to figure out what is happening to the US, and how it's going to affect my life in Australia. Our government seems to be following suit (create money, bail out failing industries, announce huge budget deficits).

Isn't it time to ask the question - is it worth 'stimulating' an economy that seems to be fundamentally flawed?

We, in western countries, have lived in probably the most leveraged state in history. Not just banks, the entire society. We used this leverage to purchase and consume goods made abroad, and to fund a service sector economy that is crashing now.

Now all this money that can't be paid back has to be written off. It can't be paid back. The leverage that existed because of this capital is gone.

Paulson and Bernanke pulled off a deft maneuver with the original TARP package.

There would have been a complete collapse of the American economy if they didn't act. The elephant in the room is simple though - what actually is the American economy?

It's a consumer and service sector based economy. Very little real goods are actually produced. The US has run a trade deficit since 1975.

There isn't a viable economy to stimulate. Even the automotive industry, considered the pinnacle of American manufacturing, burns cash at rates that render it unable to compete in a global market.

I've only read 200 pages of the act so far, and it seems like (excluding the TARP packages) it is the biggest transference of wealth from taxpayers to whomever the government decides in all time. It's a quick fix that will keep the government in power thanks in part to keeping a lot of people employed... by the government. A new social contract will emerge as written by Rahm Emanuel in his book "The Plan".

The whole saga has shown the world -- or at least myself, just what I suspected about America all along. The 'values' that they proudly proselytize to the world don't mean a god damn thing when a real test shows up.

Sadly, the next two years will probably sound the death knell for capitalism in my life time.

Cliffs:

a) America's economy is fake and nothing can 'save' it, it needs to be reinvented
b) America is bankrupt and will eventually default on it's debt to the rest of the world
c) Primarily, the manipulation of the Fractional Reserve Banking system caused the problem

Thoughts?

PS. I apologize if this is a little all over the place, I'm writing it between meetings at work.

>> ^Fade:
What on earth gives you the impression that Obama has any choice in the matter?


haha 7ru7h

I appreciate the Real News' attempts to retain a bipartisan, objective view by doing hard-hitting reporting on both Democrats and Republicans, and pointing out the shortcomings of both.

However, they always seem to have "experts" who vastly overreach in their conclusions. Yes, the Democratic party leadership made the Machiavellian decision to feign powerlessness to stop the war so they could use it again in 2008.

Yes, Rahm Emanuel cracked heads and kept the Democratic party in line with that strategy, even down at the electoral level.

However, there's no reason to assume that Rahm agreed with the Iraq war. Now that there's no strategic advantage in continuing it there's no reason to doubt that he will be cracking the heads of pro-war Democrats to get them to help stop it.

Further, there's no reason to assume that Obama picking Emanuel means that Obama is in favor of continuing the war -- it just means he wants a Machiavellian ball-breaker as his Chief of Staff.

As someone who's been reading/watching/listening to almost every piece of news about Obama for nearly two years, I gotta say this guy is talking out his ass when he moves from the facts into speculation. He just doesn't know what he's talking about.

As for holding Obama to his promises about restoring justice and the Constitution, he's absolutely right. I'm watching for his Treasury Secretary at the forefront right now, but I'm going to be watching who he picks for AG just as closely, once we start hearing noises about it.

"Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.), the Democratic Caucus chairman, has told new Democratic members of Congress to steer clear of Stephen Colbert, or at least his satirical Comedy Central program, “The Colbert Report.”" ....

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/emanuel-tells-freshmen-to-avoid-stephen-colbert-2007-03-14.html

From Crooks and Liars (has full transcript).

DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel was scheduled to debate RCCC Chairman Thomas Reynolds on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Entangled in the Foley page scandal himself, Reynolds ducked the debate, sending Rep. Adam Putnam in his stead.

Emanuel gives a nearly perfect performance. He easily dispels Putnam's attempts to blames the Democrats for the scandal. In the end, Putnam's attacks appear desperate and hollow.