From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

There’s a large number of citizens, interested parties, and pundits who have spoken on the success/failure of President Obama’s first term of office , usually with a clearly partisan divide. Republicans, and conservatives in general, tend to find great fault with anything, and everything, the President has done, on both factual and imaginary grounds, while liberals are divided amongst themselves on whether or not the President has been effective thus far.

What if, instead, an analysis was provided on President Obama’s clearly demonstrated liberal politics? What if this analysis was done with an eye toward political pragmatism, rather than the ultimate goals of the progressive wing of liberalism? What if the dislike-by-default ideology of Republicans and conservatives, often tainted with various forms of bigotry, was ignored altogether?

President Obama has two main problems, currently. First, there’s the stalwart opposition that the GOP has provided since he was inaugurated, which has quite effectively made even the most mundane procedures laborious and rancorous. Second, and perhaps more importantly, stand the idealistic notions that many American liberals have of not who President Obama is or what he ran on, but rather what he should be and what they believe his 2008 campaign was about.

Progressives and leftists of all types have been at the President’s heels from the beginning, pressing him to enact everything he’s ever promised and immediately reverse all that has been wrong with the country for the decade previous. This, in all honesty, is a naive and immature view of the American political system, especially since the system was specifically designed to be full of delay, debate, and disparity. With a few, rare, exceptions of a President with nationalistic passions behind them, typically at the beginning of military conflicts and their conclusions, if successful, Presidents simply don’t have as much influence on the legislative and judicial process that most citizens believe they do.

As a result, his agenda, an overwhelmingly liberal agenda, has taken time to implement, because of the longterm implementation strategy necessary in the current, extremely hostile, Congressional climate. The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”  was not fast, by any means, but the process has resulted in an essentially ironclad repeal of the military’s discriminatory policy for its LGBT members. Correspondingly, President Obama’s approach to so-called gay marriage has been publicly described as “evolving,” which many believe is code for “be patient, it’s coming.”

Going through, item by item, President Obama has had great success as a liberal President. While he has shown himself not to be the bombastic, forceful President of liberal causes that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was, the current President has enacted more liberal policies and pursued liberal ideals more than any President of, at a minimum, the last three decades. Has President Obama solved the problems of the United States, and the world, as he turns a country away from its ever-more-conservative path? No. Is he the latest incarnation of George H.W. Bush or his son? Ronald Reagan? Richard Nixon? A policy doppelgänger of John McCain? Obviously not.

Even with the issue of the federal debt, deficit, and debt ceiling, there are two central facts often forgotten about Barack Obama: he’s a highly intelligent individual known for his ability to play, and win, political games, and he’s a Democratic President who actually cares about the citizens of the United States. For all that liberals complain about the speed or agenda of this Administration, it must be remembered that the alternative was the ticket of John McCain and Sarah Palin, which would have been far worse. There could have been no better Democratic President for this moment.

President Obama’s aims are not truly in question. Although his methods are open for inquiry, he has a history of pulling last-minute victories out of apparent defeat, all while advancing the nation in a more pragmatically liberal direction.

 ”Addendum: This piece was written prior to the President’s July 25th speech on the debt, debt ceiling, and Congress. However, the outcry of progressives afterward only serves to prove the point that they are never sated with a Democratic President, no matter how capable or self-consistent they are.”

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com. 

From American Corespondent Kyle Brady…

Hello, all.

My name is Kyle Brady, and I’ll be the shadow behind the “Brady’s Badge” pieces. I’m a young writer, author, and political scientist; currently, I’m writing a book , prepping for graduate school, and blogging on politics. I also write for The San Jose Political Buzz Examiner.

As far as interests go, mine are wide-ranging, but I’ve come to appreciate more the longview of politics, both domestic and international, than the day-to-day minutiae that tends to be the focus. Foreign policy, international relations, domestic security are just three of my interest arenas – I’ll be writing on these topics, and more. If you’d like to learn more about me, visit my blog , find me on Twitter, or send me an email.

Stay tuned for intelligent, insightful, and largely unbiased reports on politics of all kinds.

*****

NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, was birthed out of World War II, in 1949 through the North Atlantic Treaty , as a way to ally the United States with its interests, economic and otherwise, in Europe. What began as a political alliance shifted to a military operation, and it now stands as somewhat akin to an intergovernmental organization (IGO) with military interests, but no standing military force. It’s an organization with a number of problems and a hazy future.

The first, and most important, problem with the current incarnation of NATO is its core structure: while it may be a multilateral organization, it relies, heavily, on the United States for financial and military support . As a consequence of this reliance, the opinion of the United States tends to weigh strongly in the organization’s decision-making process. Historically, any military action taken by NATO has almost wholly depended upon the involvement of the United States – even the current efforts in Libya see American efforts as key, while its leadership simultaneously claims to be a mission led by states other than the U.S. The United States is increasingly interested in itself and taking military action only where it sees fit, and so the existence of America as a core factor of NATO’s success would seem to be in jeopardy, if the other member states do not reconfigure their positioning.

The dependence upon the United States points to the second largest problem facing NATO: its military operations are comprised of military contingents from its various member states, all with varying levels of technological capability, language skills, and specialty. While not all of its members are militarily backward, the division between the military strength and capability of the United States and some of the other leading members, such as the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, is striking. If NATO is to survive, it must create a more stable fighting force, in all four arenas of warfare: land, sea, air, and space. Furthermore, this fighting force must be a standing one, with allegiance to NATO first, and their individual states second. The repeated failure of the U.N.’s peace making/imposition and peace keeping/enforcement efforts make this extremely clear.

NATO has been successful in a majority of its efforts for three main reasons: the involvement of the United States, stated limited objectives, and the membership of appropriate states. During the Cold War, NATO became a tool to battle the Soviet influence in Europe, which saw the expansion of NATO from simply a European interest to including states in Central and Eastern Europe – the process continues today, as new states are being considered for membership. NATO is an extremely attractive body, for both its political and military influence, to states under the shadow of an increasingly-aggressive Russia, but their potential membership presents a third problem of great significance: their level of contribution. The question of whether states incapable of defending themselves, much less contributing to the defense of others, should be given membership to the Alliance is a difficult one, as a denial of membership leaves open a window for Russian dominance, but the acceptance of such states creates a structural deficiency.

The importance of NATO has not waned over the decades – in fact, its influence and reputation has grown substantially. This organization that began as a bit of political theater now carries out military operations for the U.N., while also keeping an eye on its own interests, which is a clear sign of strength. However, the issues of American dependence, a transient military, and its membership structure must be addressed, in the near-term, in order for NATO to continue to be successful in carrying out its mission in the interests of its members.

Kyle Brady is a young political scientist and writer interested in everything from domestic politics to foreign policy to political theory, currently living in San Jose, CA.  He blogs at kyle-brady.com, is writing a book on the modern political scene in America, is on Twitter as @brady_kyle, and can be reached at kyle@kyle-brady.com.

From Larry Wohlgemuth…

Republicans have been declaring for more than a decade that we now live in post-racial (and by implication prejudicial) America. Actually it should be stated as post-racial/prejudicial, because that insinuates that we have moved past all petty prejudices to a point of frank, open and honest discussion on issues that affect us all. That means we’ve moved past bigotry based on nationality, gender, religion or any of the myriad of preferences which identify us as individuals. It implies that no one any longer looks down his or her nose at anyone else.

I would like to believe it to be true, but the racial/prejudicial period ended too easily for me to accept it on its face. When something has been as institutionalize as have our prejudices, it generally ends with thrashing about and gnashing of teeth rather than a whimper. Yet the Republicans have declared it, so it must be so, right? It begs the question, who did the Republicans think they could convince that we had entered this utopist and idyllic post-racial/prejudicial world?

I wondered if they are talking about 30-year-old Anthony Hill of Winnsboro, SC, or possibly James Byrd, Jr. of Jasper, Texas when they refer to this as a post-racial society. Hill was dragged to death behind a pickup truck driven by 19-year-old Gregory Collins of Newberry, and Byrd was dragged to death in 1998 behind a pickup truck by three men, Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer and John William King. I’m sure that the fact these two murders took place in what were considered as highly racist states in pre-post-racial/prejudicial times is merely a coincidence, just as was the fact that the victims were black and the perpetrators were white. This is just how things play out in a post-racial/prejudicial society.

Then there’s Dr. George Tiller, gunned down in his church for having the audacity to perform abortions, a procedure that is legal in the United States. However we can be sure in this post-racial/prejudicial society that a mentally deficient man like Scott Roeder would never have considered Dr. Tiller’s vocational activities when he walked into that church with a loaded gun and shot the doctor dead in front of the congregation. Once again, we can be sure that this didn’t happen because of prejudice, because the Republicans have assured us that we are now a post-racial/prejudicial society.

And we have the good Dr. Laura, who although she’s white felt entitled to use the N-word 11 times in a five-minute span on her radio program because black comedians on HBO and Showtime do it. You see, in a post-racial/prejudicial society we’re all free to use any words we choose, because we couldn’t possibly be making a racist innuendo. No, we’re simply exercising our First Amendment rights, and besides, we know this wasn’t a racist remark because Dr. Laura told us so several times right after she said it. If you can’t trust Dr. Laura in these post-racial/prejudicial times, then who can you trust?

Finally there are the cases of Lawrence King, Matthew Shepard, Danny Overstreet, Philip Walsted, Sakia Gunn, Glenn Kopitske, Scotty Joe Weaver, Daniel Fetty, Jason Gage, Ryan Keith Skipper, Roberto Duncanson, Sean William Kennedy, Steven Parrish, Lateisha Green and Seaman August Provost, among many others, who were killed, but not for being gay. It seems that their attackers admitted that the victims’ homosexuality was the impetus for the attack, but in a post-racial/prejudicial society we have to take their admissions with a grain of salt. After all, they can’t possibly be aware of the post-racial/prejudicial dynamics that are taking place around them, making their attacks of the non-racial/prejudicial type. I mean, even the case of Ronnie Antonio Paris Jr., a three-year-old boy killed by his father because he was afraid his son might be gay, that’s just the way straights and gays interact in the post-racial/prejudicial era.

Okay, it’s pretty clear that we are not in a post-racial/prejudicial time based on what’s happening around us. So what’s going on? I mean, why are the Republicans working so hard to convince us that something exists when it obviously does not?

In this country there are only 5%, maybe 10%, of the people that are actually Republicans, and the rest are posers although they don’t realize it. To be a Republican means being a capitalist, and only a tiny fraction of people fit the description. The problem is, part of being a Republican is being able to look down your nose at other people, and the vast majority of the Republican Party are just working assholes like you and me, so there was some work that had to be done. It was necessary to create a significant enough underclass so that the idiot who makes $10 per hour working on an assembly line and watches Glen Beck can actually feel superior to somebody, and therefore a member of the Republican club. Minorities fill that bill nicely, thank you very much, but as the line of separation blurs so does the ability of the moronic masses in the Republican Party to look down on someone. Feeling superior is a crucial tenet to making the pseudo-Republicans believe they really are part of the club.

So how do they make this work? They behave even more racist and prejudiced than in the past, and then repeat over and over again that this is how things are in a post-racial/prejudicial world. They know if they say it long and loudly enough, and nobody objects, there’s a chance people will start to believe it. The problem is that genie is out of the bottle and they can’t regain control, try as they might. If the illusion of superiority ever leaves the working class schlemiels of the Republican Party they might quit participating, or even worse become Democrats. It’s a lot of work making a guy who earns $10 an hour believe he’s in some way superior to a brown person with a PhD.

So the Republicans will continue lest 70% of their party come to the realization that they are superior to no one. It would be a devastating blow for them. As a result we can expect to see more blatant racism followed by still more disingenuous, wide-eyed denials that racism was the intent. Without it their party shatters into 1 million pieces.

The one good thing is that the Republican demographic is dying, literally, and I have to be honest about the fact that it bothers me little. There are some people that just don’t deserve to waste our oxygen.

What you are about to watch is the result of a nation where the likes of Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are revered by millions and continually reported as legitimate political and journalistic voices by the mass media. In a fast and furious stump speech for his bid to become Ohio Stark County Treasurer, the equivalent of a village bean counter, Davison flies into a bizarre political berserker rage, very much in the same vein as Beck or Limbaugh. His level of intelligence and preparation, and the resulting unintended humor, mirrors Palin in every way, and his self importance falls in line with the one and only Mr. O’Reilly.

With an audience of only a few dozen people, Davison does his best to imitate his GOP heroes and in the end, actually pulls it off. What we here at RELATIVITY OnLinecan’t figure out is how in the hell no one in the room didn’t burst out laughing.  Ah yes, Republicans certainly do have a way with words.

News Corp. disclosed recently that they donated $1 million to the Republican Governor’s Association, an amount far exceeding donation limits for federal level campaigns, and this simple act of partisan bias belies a basic fact that is laid more bare by the day: Rupert Murdoch’s operations are anything but unbiased.

As the parent company of FOX “News,” the famously conservative and anti-Obama TV network that masquerades as a news channel, and The Wall Street Journal, an increasingly politicized publication since the change in ownership, News Corp. has no business getting directly involved with politics. Even prior to such a cash expenditure, so-called entertainment hosts Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly, along with a multitude of other party-line lackeys, had pushed the network into the realm of opinion and bias more than anything resembling journalism. MSNBC, the only comparable network with an opposing, but similar, bias, donates to political organizations, but makes sure to do so in equal amounts to both sides of American politics, just as they are able to maintain the truth in their reporting necessary to attain the label of journalism.

This is the Fourth Estate? News Corp., courtesy of its properties, claims to be of the fabled private sector group intended to provide accountability and a semblance of transparency for the American government, even while behaving in a contrary manner. It’s one issue to have opinions on politics or other arenas of life that may bleed into other avenues, but it’s entirely different to allow those opinions to influence the thoughts and beliefs of the masses. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but untruthful journalism is its circus.

The institution of journalism is, on all fronts, fading in America, as more individuals choose to read, watch, and listen to only what agrees with their viewpoints, if they pay attention to the outside world at all. With the degradation of television and print vehicles for news delivery, and the rise of entertainment-oriented pseudo-information enterprises, over the last decade, the citizens of the United States are more politicized, influenced by demagoguery, and ignorant than ever before – the blatant, open, and utterly shameful actions of those like News Corp. do not aid the situation.

Journalism should, by definition, be as unbiased as possible, and adhere to a certain set of principles that include integrity, honesty, and gravitas – FOX “News”, WikiLeaks, and any number of online efforts simply do not qualify to be placed in such a category, except that they, for some reason, are. If this method of self-determined labeling would be applied to other industries, BP would, right now, be a consumer-friendly, environmentally-conscious energy company, just as AT&T would be a reliable and popular-by-choice communications network.

Why is such behavior tolerated? Keith Olbermann may have openly liberal opinions, but not only does he carefully designate which portions of his show are news and which are commentary, he does not participate in outrageous invective, sponsor borderline-treasonous movements, or shill for corporations, all of which makes him, and MSNBC, his employer, a false comparison to the disturbingly dedicated talent seen on FOX “News”. WikiLeaks is run by a man with a clear agenda that involves anti-government, anti-corporation, anti-conflict sentiments, even when a situation justifies government involvement, large companies, or military action, yet he is hailed as an unbiased hero of journalism, despite having nothing in common with journalists or legitimate whistleblowers.

There was, once upon a time, a requirement for news organizations to be unbiased, or, if not unbiased to at least equally present opposing viewpoints, that would have prevented such a situation from evolving within America – except that it was repealed long ago and never reinstated. The time has come, although admittedly long past, for Congress, the FCC, the President, or any other body with the political power to make it clear, via any means necessary, that news organizations have obligations to the American people that must be met, lest the organizations lose the freedom to call themselves a journalistic enterprise. Or, at a minimum, for it to be made clear to citizens nationwide that when a company decides to donate large sums of money to a single political party, they are most definitively not unbiased.

Not even close.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.

The Rise of the New Right is an hour long documentary recently aired on MSNBC and hosted by Hardball’s Chris Matthews. The documentary looks at the rise of the Tea Party movement and a number of other right-wing organizations and militias that have formed since Barack Obama was elected President of the United States in 2008. Matthews said the wide range of individuals and groups profiled in the piece all seemingly share a fear of the current American government.

“There’s a similar message. This government’s a tyranny and it has to be, if not overthrown, then something like it. They treat the American government like a foreign occupying force,” say Matthews.

“He’s going to destroy this country,” Allan Keyes, the Republicans last-ditch effort to stop Obama’s inevitable election to the US senate in 2004 at one point says, “We are either going to stop him, or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, the documentary will stir people up… which is the whole point.

Ridiculous court decisions financed by large corporations and industries seem to not only be increasing in number, but also be ever-more transparent in their intent – the recent block of President Obama’s moratorium on deep-water drilling by a Federal Court is no exception. Even more preposterous is the support of the State of Louisiana for the overturning of the drilling ban, despite the ongoing ecological disaster that very state is currently experiencing at the hands of an industry they so blatantly choose to support.

The problem of Deepwater Horizon surrounds a search for profits over safety and a complete disregard of federal regulation, not any sort of accident or event otherwise removing BP, Transocean, and Halliburton from positions of culpability – who’s to say that this is an isolated incident? Given the vicious, highly litigious, heavily lobbying industry that is Big Oil, it’s very easy to assume that such practices are being carried out on other oil operations in an effort to maximize their bottom line. This is the simple reason for the temporary ban on deep-water drilling, a mere six months, allowing regulators and other oversight bodies to ensure the proper construction and operation of facilities that have the potential for disaster of comparable, or greater, proportions.

It should come as no surprise, sadly, that the judge responsible for this despicable and utterly shortsighted ruling, Martin Feldman, was appointed by Ronald Reagan, the founder of the deregulatory and anti-government era, and has a personal investment in the success of American oil operations. This sort of personal investment is the very reason for recusal, and yet the illustrious Judge Feldman didn’t see fit to behave in the official and unbiased fashion for which he is employed – instead, he chose to continue the precedent of conservative judges claiming neutrality while making sure he, his friends, and his ideological interests benefit in the greatest possible way from his rulings from the bench. This type of behavior can be expected to continuously resurface as healthcare reform is challenged by irrational litigatorselection results don’t suit the conservative fringe.

Worringly, however, is the response of Louisiana: a state with an anti-Obama governor who vehemently opposed the very existence of the federal government suddenly demanded extreme government intervention, while also supporting the classic conservative financier known as Big Oil in their efforts against the President. Why would a state ravaged by the abhorrent behaviors of an oil company also litigate for those same companies to continue operating as if nothing happened? The state’s ecology is in dire peril and its people are losing their way of life, yet Big Oil must, apparently, be defended, lest a Republican-led state appear to be too pro-regulation, or in favor of anything President Obama does. This is hypocrisy at best, and extreme ignorance at worst.

The Gulf Spill should not be a politicized event, simply due to its nature and magnitude, but the GO(B)P are doing absolutely everything in their power to make it so. Extreme partisanship continues to be the political stance of Republicans, and it’s doing nothing but embarrass them on the national stage – perhaps they should continue, so that not only are Democrats in a better electoral position come November, but Eric Holder will have a number of opportunities to ensure that intelligence, in the end, rules the day.

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From Kyle Brady…

The public’s response to the BP oil spill and its handling, most especially from Republicans, has been puzzling, at best: a cry for government intervention and aid from the very people who find such behaviors abhorrent, making President Obama out to be somehow responsible for the deregulatory activity of the last three decades , and demanding that a magic solution be found for a difficult engineering problem. It’s important to remember that while President Obama is President of the most powerful nation in the world, he’s not a comic book superhero, and is no more capable of singlehandedly solving the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis than he is enacting sweeping political change overnight. While certain actions could possibly have been taken by President Obama prior to the spill, such as a more critical look at the MMS, it’s doubtful that even those steps would have gone so far as to alleviate the brash and brutish mentality currently on display by both British Petroleum and Halliburton.

Even more puzzling has been the demand, on both sides of politics, for President Obama to “be more active”, “have a greater presence”, “show control”, and other such theatrics – wasn’t he elected, among other reasons, for the simple fact that his sense of melodrama is severely understated compared to his predecessor? Visiting beaches and recovery efforts provides for a nice photo-op and while they may help to communicate the gravity of the situation, in some small fashion, the actual presence of any top level bureaucrats does absolutely nothing for the cause – neither does a public display of righteous anger. To those that have come to understand President Obama’s political style over the last eighteen months, his concern for, and outrage regarding, the situation is visibly present in his remarks, even if his calm, professorial demeanor seems to indicate otherwise. The President’s job is not to babysit or micromanage, to exploit situations for personal political benefit or to feign personae tailored to the situation – his job, rather, is to run the country, lead the military, influence policy, and stand as a figurehead for the nation.

Both the near-term and long-term aftermath are, however, within the President’s job description: once the situation stabilizes, whether that means the well is sealed or that sealing efforts have been abandoned remains to be seen, he is to make sure the event, as a whole, is analyzed and properly dealt with. The process begins with a National Commission to deliver details on the timeline, parties responsible, and overall impact, and ends with retribution. For the time being, however, all President Obama can do is to continue to express his distaste for the situation, admonish the corporate arrogance, and wait for the process to turn to him – nothing more.

Most importantly, while this oil spill happened during President Obama’s time as President, his hands are not the ones covered with oil and the blood of all the animals killed by it – President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are. Without the help of deregulation, unenforcement, and what’s now being referred to as a “revolving door” between the regulators and oil companies, the present situation would have, statistically, had a better chance of never occurring. Furthermore, the colloquial “drill, baby, drill” mentality of many members of the federal government exacerbated an already bad situation by placing an emphasis on results rather than process. This is not “Obama’s Katrina”, this is, instead, just another disaster inherited from the previous eight years, much like the Great Recession or the various mismanaged military engagements.

Until President Obama makes a mistake or acts against the interests of the nation, he deserves the respect that his office demands. No-one should be asking for the President of the United States to produce impossible results, nor should they ever forget the root cause of the problem. It’s shameful to see some of the most intelligent people in politics put on a show for the Gulf Coast’s oil crisis, and for President Obama to stoop so low would be not only embarrassing, but debasing.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Investment banks have, once again, made record profits while the country, and the world, still languishes in the humble beginnings of a possible recovery. Greece is a financially failed state, with other nations quick on its heels with their own impending bankruptcies. The United States holds massive amounts of debt. Most of Europe is in financial chaos. Banking executives see no wrongdoing in their predatory behavior, massive salaries, or unwarranted bonuses, and refuse to institute voluntary change. Entire nations are being propped up by external governments and organizations who often have no liquid financial resources of their own.

Why hasn’t this been recognized for the problem that it is, as a whole? If the majority of Western nations have become bankrupt, are low on capital, or are so economically threatened as to worry about their immediate future, who’s to say that this financial pandemic isn’t indicative of a greater, and more troubling, underlying problem?

The last two centuries have focused on the basic premise that economic growth is not only inevitable but required to make, and retain, success as a nation. While this capitalistic ideology is theoretically reasonable, its realistic implementation is altogether something quite different than the free market imagined by Adam Smith. Recent history, if not the entirety of humanity, has proven that those with money and power not only wish to keep it, but to make it grow – even at the extreme expense of others. More importantly, the sort of power that’s associated with obscenely large bank accounts in a democratically-oriented environment virtually ensures the inability of smaller companies and individuals to compete, be treated fairly, and have what is promised to them by their ideology.

This suite of facts has been made abundantly clear from the rampant opportunistic behavior of corporations like Goldman Sachs, who has profited off of the economic collapse of both the United States and Greece, and is undoubtedly involved in international crises that have yet to become public. It’s not far fetched, scapegoating, or even unreasonable to point the fingers of blame at Lloyd Blankfein and his ilk, simply because of their documented and verifiable behavior – history prefers to pass judgments based in fact, of which there is an abundance against investment institutions.

There can be no doubt that economies worldwide are fragile and need support where possible, but the future must be quickly assessed, if further similar catastrophes are to be avoided. Regulation of financial institutions is an obvious response to the current situation, but it is a far cry from an all encompassing solution: nations must be forced to spend only what is immediately available to them, or, at worst, in limited quantities of debt. The United States’ debt has increased by the size it has due to recovery efforts and rampant deficit spending by a previous irresponsible figurehead, but it’s not entirely permanent debt, as even now its reduction is occurring thanks to taxes, loan repayments, and various other common sense practices.

The concept of debt is psychologically tricky, which has led to the massive amounts of personal debt accrued by many, but the same “spend it before you have it” mentality has sadly infested those who are tasked with the operations of a nation. Taxes, while not always politically favorable, are absolutely necessary for a functioning government, and, subsequently, the era of tax cuts and irrational citizen anger must be swiftly put to rest – this simple principle of paying what is required has eluded most occupants of Greece.

Financial security is a multifaceted issue that involves proper tax rates, citizens who behave financially as expected of them, rational national spending, and appropriate regulatory levels of the financial industry. A failure to fulfill even one of these requirements will inevitably result in financial and economic disaster, as evidenced by the multitude of countries that have fallen for one or more of the reasons listed. Greece should not be pitied, nor should the United States: these are countries that are experiencing self-inflicted pain due to a basic, fundamental level of incompetence, standing as shining examples of deplorable behavior to avoid in the future. Perhaps the concept of capitalism must be finally reconsidered, with an eye towards slightly greater control structures and limitations on types of behavior.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

From United States Corespondent Gibbs Burke…

Almost two months after the signing of the health care reform plan the economic repercussions have already started to surface. We were told all these wonderful facts about how the bill would reduce the deficit, cost less, and cover more Americans. This facade was just a hypocritical ploy to convince Americans the bill would benefit them. Like most legislation however, the backlash seems to be harming more Americans then the bill is helping. 

The corporate healthcare plans that have dominated American coverage since World War II are in jeopardy of becoming extinct. Immediately after the bill was passed, major US corporations declared large losses. In retaliation, the Democrats threatened the CEO’s by summoning them to Washington to grill them on their actions. It was also demanded they turn over all internal documents regarding the new health care bill. AT&Tand Verizon were among these corporations that declared as much as a one billion dollar loss due to the new health care bill.

After reviewing the documents and understanding that these corporations were only following the letter of the law (a corporation must make public to its share holders profits and expenses), the Democratic committee revoked its threat, and quietly walked away from the situation. It has now resurfaced stronger and more powerful then ever.

Recent documents turned over to the Democratic committee from AT&T reveal the ultimate consequences of the bill. AT&T by denying coverage to its employees can post a profit of 4.1 billion dollars. AT&T is not the only corporation thinking about denying health care coverage. Many corporations will be considering the cost to profit ratio, and come September do not be surprised if you find yourself shopping for health care.

So while the Democrats admit that the projected numbers were wrong, our phone bills are doubling we’re shopping for health insurance. Who will take the responsibility for it? I’m sure it won’t be Obama, because things just slip off him like a Louisiana Oil Spill. Just remember… I told you so.