How far to the left do you think this country will go..

Well, it's almost as big as the annual war budget. Cut the corporate welfare from both (pharma and arms) and you'll still have enough for decades to come. But I do agree that the 'social security' these programs seem to provide are simply fucked up. Every 'socialist' European system is run a lot cheaper. I can see how this needs reform, and fast.

Well, about half (5 trillion or so) is owed to the public at home and abroad. These owners can't really organize.

The rest is probably the strongest weapon against the US. And a 'huzzah, we simply won't pay' isn't gonna cut it. The answer is as simple as it's painful: no more credit based business with America, on no level. So yes, you can worry about that - and always be nice to those who own you.

Liberals throw out "corporate welfare" as some sort of trump card in an argument with conservative types on government spending. What conservative types here on Wordforge have defended corporate welfare? As far as I can tell most everyone, liberal or conservative despises corporate welfare and subsidies.

So who is in favor of corporate welfare? I'd like a list.

You're in favor of a huuuuuge war budget to buy lots and lots of guns to feel good about yourself. Where do you think a good part of that money goes?

To be fair, it's the same wit Medicare etc.

I'm in favor of a huge war budget? Care to back that up?

Congress.

How about , instead of welfare, some corporate "workfare" for a change, where corporations that want handouts or bailouts have to open up their books and submit to a high degree of regulation to make sure that they use the workfare check in an appropriate manner, to keep them from doing dumb shit all over again, and to try to get the corporation to a stage where it doesn't need the government in order to behave openly, honestly, and profitably?

Yes, because government sets such a shining example in that area.

There are some cases like that. Tax incentives, for example, that come with the condition that the company agree to create and maintain at least a certain number of jobs.

Yes. Case in point being the FAA and Southwest airlines.

More stupidity.

Look at the last budget the DEMOCRATIC congress passed....spend, spend, spend. Not too mention every other budget before then. Dubya is one part of the problem, but to blame him for everything is stupidity.

Ever met a war you didn't like? No? So, you're in favor of it.

God forbid you ever supporting a war that needs to be fought.

And what about the ones that don't?

I don't think you know me as well as you think, newbie.

Or do you.

Again, got a link to my warmongering?

This should be easy, I'll be waiting.

Are you claiming that the huge deficit came without spending any money?

Nah.

You just come across as a peace-nik.....and if I'm wrong there, prove it.

Fact is....some wars need to be fought. Like Afghanistan for example. Pour 150,000 troops into there, and you're stuck with the same escalating cost that the Iraq War has.

5 years of that, and everyone would be bitching too.

There's a whole list of US military actions starting with the Whiskey Rebellion right up to the whole Kosovo mess that I disagree with.

Cassandra a peace-nik? No.

If she had the opportunity to march every last Christian into the 'showers' and ovens tomorrow, she'd jump at the chance. But at least she's convinced that her particular brand of hate is righteous and just.

This apple didn't fall to far from the crimes of her ancestors.

Now thats better.

Oh dear.

George Bush is on the extreme right of a very narrow political spectrum in the US. Whoever succeeds him will be marginally more "liberal" than he. But they will not be far left, and the American parties are not "polarised", seeing as they have fuck all in the way of principled disagreements about anything.

George Bush is also not a "conservative" in the sense those here would like. But such a person has not been President for a very long time.

In case you weren't paying attention in government class, it is congress that controls the gub'mint cheese tray, not the executive.

I imagine that when Obama is elected, there will be a lot of celebrating going on. Just like when Clinton was elected in 1992, liberals will be rejoicing that they are coming out of the bondage of an evil Republican administration. And now that a Democrat is in office, the streets will be paved with gold, and little bunnies will be dancing around flowers, etc, etc.,

Then in a year or two, after realizing what kind of change they have gotten, the American public will vote in some nice gridlock.

Who signs the budget? Where does the buck stop?

I think that the 6 years of the republican triumvarate that Bush enjoyed made the american public realize that some degree of gridlock is good no matter which party is in office. That congress really blew it by not checking Bush. the Gingrich congress that balanced the budget never would have if there wasn't a Democrat in the white house, IMHO. And I don't think that Clinton's indiscretions rose to the level of require an independant investigator much less an impeachment.

I think we can expect gridlock for some time to come.