Guantanamo General Tells Story of the Hidden Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)

Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.

2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).

This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

Taxation as Progressives Understand It

Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

Truth and Consequences

Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

The Hidden Agenda Exposed

The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself � everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.

This was interesting to me particularly in light of the fact that he said he was a Christian during the campaign - and when he spoke at Georgetown DURING the campaign, he had no problem with the name of Jesus being shown - but now he requests the Name be covered when he is there.

Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, covered up religious insignia symbolizing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday after the White House requested the change.

April 14: President Obama speaks about the economy at Georgetown University's Gaston Hall. The school covered up religious symbols bearing the name of Jesus during Obama's remarks at the behest of the White House. (Reuters)

Georgetown University hid a religious inscription representing the name of Jesus during President Obama's address there Tuesday, FOXNews.com has confirmed, because White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage.

The monogram IHS, whose letters spell out the name of Jesus, and which normally perches above the stage in Gaston Hall where the president spoke, was covered over with what appeared to be black wood during the address.
"In coordinating the logistical arrangements for the event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind the Gaston Hall stage," university spokesman Andy Pino told FOXNews.com.

The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and a host of American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events. "Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events," said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement released Thursday.

Georgetown is a private Catholic institution founded by Jesuits in 1789. The auditorium where the president spoke Tuesday is adorned with religious imagery, but only the symbols directly on the stage -- those likely to be picked up by a television camera -- were obscured.

Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, accused the university of "cowardice" for acceding to the White House, and criticized Obama's team for asking a religious school to "neuter itself" before the president made his address.

"No bishop who might speak at the White House would ever request that a crucifix be displayed behind him," he said.
The White House insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."

Though his advance team asked that the religious signs be veiled, the president himself took up religious discourse and discussed a passage from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as he outlined his plans for an economic recovery.
"We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand," he said during his remarks, which came two days after Easter. "We must build our house upon a rock."

It was Obama's first visit to Georgetown since being elected president, but he also spoke at the school on Sept. 20, 2006 about the need for energy independence. A photograph of the event does not seem to indicate that parts of the stage were hidden during that address, which Obama made while still a U.S. senator.

Another Catholic university, Notre Dame, came under fire in late March for inviting the president to speak at its May 17 commencement. Obama supports abortion rights, which are considered anathema by the Catholic Church.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/25/AR2006062500764_pf.html

Democrats Cite Report On Troop Cuts in Iraq
Pentagon Plan Like Theirs, Senators Say

By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 26, 2006; A01

Senate Democrats reacted angrily yesterday to a report that the U.S. commander in Iraq had privately presented a plan for significant troop reductions in the same week they came under attack by Republicans for trying to set a timetable for withdrawal.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that the plan attributed to Gen. George W. Casey resembles the thinking of many Democrats who voted for a nonbinding resolution to begin a troop drawdown in December. That resolution was defeated Thursday on a largely party-line vote in the Senate.

That means the only people who have fought us and fought us against the timetable, the only ones still saying there shouldn't be a timetable really are the Republicans in the United States Senate and in the Congress, Boxer said on CBS's Face the Nation. Now it turns out we're in sync with General Casey.

Sen. Carl M. Levin (Mich.), one of the two sponsors of the nonbinding resolution, which offered no pace or completion date for a withdrawal, said the report is another sign of what he termed one of the worst-kept secrets in town -- that the administration intends to pull out troops before the midterm elections in November.

It shouldn't be a political decision, but it is going to be with this administration, Levin said on Fox News Sunday. It's as clear as your face, which is mighty clear, that before this election, this November, there's going to be troop reductions in Iraq, and the president will then claim some kind of progress or victory.

At issue was a report yesterday in the New York Times that Casey presented a private briefing at the Pentagon last week in which he projected that the number of U.S. combat brigades -- each with about 3,500 troops -- would decrease from 14 to five or six by the end of 2007. About 127,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, including many support troops beyond the combat brigades.

White House and Pentagon officials declined to confirm the projections, saying only that Casey met with President Bush on Friday to discuss how the military might proceed in Iraq after Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forms a new government. Bush has often said the U.S. military will stand down as Iraqi forces become adequately trained to handle security.

One White House official said there was no formal plan presented or signed off on in Casey's meeting with Bush, only a discussion of various scenarios to guide their talks with the new Iraqi government.

We are entering a phase where discussions with the Iraqis will begin to practically define what 'stand up, stand down' will look like over the next two years, said this official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal conversations.

This official dismissed the suggestion by some Democrats that Casey's approach resembles their approach. A conditions-based strategy outlined by our generals on the ground is a far cry from politicians in Washington setting an arbitrary date for withdrawal, the official said.

A Pentagon official said his impression is that Bush and Casey had no lengthy discussion about troop reductions, and that any projections of specific numbers remain speculative. This source noted that Casey had said that he hoped U.S. force levels would be substantially reduced this year but has decided against such a move because of the continuing violence in Iraq.

I think there will be a modest decrease between now and the end of the year, the official added. But, he concluded, Nobody really knows.

U.S. commanders have long wanted to cut the size of their force in Iraq. But plans to do so have proven difficult to realize.

Before the U.S. invasion in March 2003, the Pentagon's war plans called for a swift reduction, from about 150,000 to 30,000 by the early autumn of that year. Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy defense secretary, told a congressional committee that the thinking behind this was that it is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam [Hussein] Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army -- hard to imagine.

That plan was shelved when a fierce insurgency broke out in the summer of 2003. That fall, top commanders hoped to cut the U.S. presence to about 100,000 by the next summer. But a major escalation in violence in the spring of 2004, along with the collapse of the new Iraqi police force and parts of the new army, forced that plan to be discarded as well.

The result is that the United States has kept about 135,000 soldiers in Iraq for the past three years, with occasional fluctuations to as high as 160,000.

The widespread expectation inside the Army is that the U.S. presence will be cut to about 100,000 by the end of this year, with further reductions in 2007 to perhaps 50,000 to 75,000. That size could be maintained almost indefinitely by the Army and the Marine Corps. But whether those new plans will be realized will depend on events in Iraq, which have proven difficult to predict.

Casey's meeting with Bush followed an eventful several weeks in Iraq that included the death of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the completion of a new Iraqi government. It also followed particularly rancorous debates in the House and Senate, in which GOP lawmakers -- with the encouragement of the White House -- went after Democrats for being insufficiently supportive of the war effort and said decisions about issues such as troop deployments should remain with the president.

Coming so soon after the congressional debates, the report of Casey's briefing served to keep the debate going another day.

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), who co-sponsored an unsuccessful resolution setting a July 1, 2007, deadline for the removal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq, issued a statement saying the Casey plan looks an awful lot like what the Republicans spent the last week attacking. Will the partisan attack dogs now turn their venom and disinformation campaign on General Casey?

But Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, played down the significance of the reported briefing. The department's drawn up plans at all times, but I think it would be wrong now to say that this is the plan that we're going to operate under, he said on Fox News Sunday.

Warner counseled patience. We have struggled and made tremendous sacrifice to give this nation its sovereignty, he said. They are now beginning to exercise this sovereignty with a young government. Give them a chance to move out. We will consult with them. I'm confident our government will not let them make mistakes that would reflect adversely on troop withdrawals.

Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, voiced some skepticism that the administration can reach the conditions set for withdrawing troops.

Given current events in Baghdad, in particular, reported on every day quite apart from Anbar province, the violence is horrific, he said on Face the Nation. So getting to the plans either of General Casey or Maliki are a broad sweep. But it is good news to know that there are contingency plans.

People rarely speak of the majority you mentioned. Invading Iraq was a huge mistake since Iraq and Iran were basically enemies, working against each others interests. Now, thanks to US, the area has been split wide open with positive Iranian influence now present in Iraq, something Saddam Hussein had fought.

I came here at first to debate. It took two posts of acting people to be reasonable in debating (all can be found on this board) before I was labeled by gt. Since then, after multiple attempts at trying to debate, I have come to point out that while you may think you have taken the higher ground, you have indeed created a cesspool. So proud that the conservative board is "quiet and peaceful" when those who made it otherwise are posting here daily. Most of the posters on the convservative board afforded you the decency and honor of not posting here. But that favor was never returned. You (and I mean others, I have no idea who YOU are since everyone picks the name of the moment) bullied, brow-beat, denigrated and beat to a pulp any poster who dared to post on the Conservative board. And it wasn't just AG and Nan and MT. It was anyone. Well, you have your wish now. You are queens of everything Masters of your domain. Live in the land where NO ONE DARES TO DISAGREE with you. Happy now? As if.

No I did not watch the youtube link you posted. That is definitely not a credible source for such an important issue as this. The CERTIFIED copy on Factcheck (and never mind discussing the credibility of Fact check) should be enough, it shows the fold marks and clearly the certification and signature.

Many, many years ago, I worked in a small hospital and in addition to my MT-ing, part of my job was to obtain birth certificate applications from new moms. I know that my birth certificate has the AGE of my parents at my birth, not their birth dates. It also lists the state in which they were born. I do not know what Hawaii requirements for birth certificates are but when it is certified by the STATE I would assume it to be legitimate. The hospital issued "birth certificate" is not and never has been to my knowledge, a legal document.

With the furious campaining done by Hillary and McCain, do you not even stop to think that if they had not been absolutely certain that his birth certificate was legitimate they wouldn't have blown the lid off months and months ago, especially when it became obvious he was likely to win??? Saying otherwise is ridiculous. They had no problem trashing him with Ayers, etc. up until Day Last did they? Anything to try to knock him out of the race. So are you saying they are part of the conspiracy to "cover up" Obama's birth certificate? Come on.....legitimate MTs are more intelligent than that. Since I don't know you, I have no idea if you are an MT or not.

How many fat kids in school were popular? Not many, eh? This type of behavior stems from home. How many of us talk bad about other people in front of our children? I'm not just talking about homosexual bashing either. How many of us gossip about what so and so wore, etc.? How many of us bash others when we don't think our kids are paying attention?

How many times do Christians post on here and are bashed horribly for their beliefs and called names? How many Christians post on here bashing homosexuals and calling them sick freaks? This type of behavior comes in all shapes and sizes and comes from all sides....black vs white, gay vs straight, believer vs nonbeliever.

You cannot take on particular subject like homosexuality and us it soley to teach tolerance of people different than you. There are many other things that children are picked on for than just that one subject.

Oh look at 4 eyes over there or how about that dork with the braces, etc. Look at the kid not wearing designer clothes. Look at the freak with the emo makeup on.

See what I mean.....tolerance is such a broad thing to teach children that you can't just use homosexuality to teach tolerance and I think it is unfair to people who do not agree with homosexuality that their kids are being taught ACCEPTANCE and not just tolerance on that issue anyway.

Like I said before....I keep my God out of school.....keep your homosexuality out as well.

Then came October. Sales plummeted an astounding 45% over the same period last year, a result of a slowing economy and a dearth of financing for would-be car buyers. Total U.S. car and light-truck sales this year could come in at 13.5 million, 2.6 million fewer than last year. "That's in nobody's business plan," says Kimberly Rodriguez, an automotive specialist with Grant Thornton. "The best planning in the world cannot survive that fluctuation." It's now clear that GM can't survive as an ongoing entity without massive federal assistance. The company is burning through more than $2 billion each month. It has $16 billion left. As if they were aboard a dirigible losing altitude, GM's bosses have been frantically throwing all manner of stuff overboard � retiree health-care benefits, people, assets, new car design � to conserve $5 billion. That will get it through the year. (See pictures of the 50 worst cars of all time.)

But 2009 is the year of reckoning for GM and the rest of the domestic auto industry, if not the economy as a whole. The GM crisis is raising once again the issue of how far the government should go in rescuing banks, insurance companies, mortgage holders, credit-card issuers and now carmakers. GM has no doubts about it. "Immediate federal funding is essential in order for the U.S. automotive industry to weather this downturn," GM president Fritz Henderson admitted to investors during a conference call in which GM announced a third-quarter loss of $2.5 billion.

No one is more aware of that need than Barack Obama, who carried Michigan by a huge margin. The President-elect is committed to helping the Detroit Three, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading a rescue party that plans to get a bailout bill in front of President Bush before Thanksgiving. So far, the President has offered only to speed through Congress an already approved $25 billion loan to help Detroit create new fuel-efficient models. But GM needs an additional $10 billion simply to pay its bills next year and $15 billion more to close plants, compensate redundant workers and dump some of its lesser-performing brands.

The issue boils down to a historic proposition: Is what's good for GM still good for the country?

"If GM were to go into a free-fall bankruptcy and didn't pay its trade debts, then the entire domestic auto industry shuts down," says Rodriguez. The system � the domestic auto plants and their interconnected group of suppliers � is far bigger than GM. It includes 54 North American manufacturing plants and at least 4,000 so-called Tier 1 suppliers � firms that feed parts and subassemblies directly to those plants. That includes mom-and-pop outfits but also a dozen or so large companies such as Lear, Johnson Controls and GM's former captive Delphi. Beyond those are thousands of the suppliers' suppliers.

Although the Detroit Three directly employed about 240,000 people last year, according to the industry-allied Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, Mich., the multiplier effect is large, which is typical in manufacturing. Throw in the partsmakers and other suppliers, and you have an additional 974,000 jobs. Together, says CAR, these 1.2 million workers spend enough to keep 1.7 million more people employed. That gets you to 2.9 million jobs tied to the Detroit Three, and even if you discount the figures because of CAR's allegiance, it's a big number. Shut down Detroit, and the national unemployment rate heads toward 10% in a hurry. (See Pictures of the Week.)

Even if just one of the Detroit Three � and GM is the most likely, as Ford is in better shape and Chrysler is much smaller � spiraled into a free-fall bankruptcy, the systemic effects, at least initially, would be huge. The whole industry would not be able to build cars in the U.S., because of the lack of parts. "Unlike the airlines or steel, when you look at the automobile industry and the fact that the whole supplier base is connected � to Ford, Chrysler, Toyota � it will have a ripple effect on the entire industry," says Nicole Y. Lamb-Hale, a bankruptcy expert at the Detroit office of Foley & Lardner, a law firm that represents some GM suppliers.

A carefully planned, prepackaged bankruptcy would still be troublesome, she says. Throwing 479,000 GM retirees onto the rolls of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., for instance, could overwhelm it. And GM's agreement to fund the United Auto Workers' voluntary employee beneficiary association (VEBA) � thus getting a $50 billion unfunded liability off its books � might then be in jeopardy, as would the union's health benefits. The VEBA has already saved GM nearly $5 billion in the past quarter, and still greater benefits lie ahead.

A bailout won't spare GM or its workers pain. Assuming the government bridges GM to the future � or provides debtor-in-possession financing in a bankruptcy � there is still a ton of restructuring to do. The company operates 21 plants in North America and has three more that are scheduled to close. But Grant Thornton's Rodriguez says that still leaves five to go to match demand. "They still need to take structural steps: reduce suppliers, reduce the number of plants, reduce the cost structure and get rid of excessive debt." Most analysts say GM has to dump underperforming brands too.

Shutting down plants and cutting labor are costly � it's one of the ironies of the auto business. Deutsche Bank estimates that GM would have to spend $12 billion to chop labor costs and compensate dealers who lose their franchises. That would lower GM's North American operating costs from the current $31 billion to $25 billion annually, says Deutsche Bank. (See pictures of the global financial crisis.)

None of this can happen without the cooperation of the UAW, which is probably feeling better knowing that Obama is on his way to Washington. Although it hasn't shown its hand, the UAW may try to mitigate job losses in the U.S. by pushing GM and Ford to build fewer vehicles in Mexico, according to Sean McAlinden, chief economist at CAR. Obama might be sympathetic to that argument; he said during the campaign that NAFTA needed to be re-examined. The carrot for GM is that any new workers it hires in the U.S. will make $13 to $14 an hour and collect limited benefits rather than work for $29 an hour and get full benefits � the old UAW wage.

There's also a legitimate question as to who would do the restructuring. GM CEO Rick Wagoner has made the case that his crew is best placed to run the turnaround since it knows where the cost buttons are. But critics like Jim Schrager at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business say the wrong people are in charge: "I think you would only put money in GM if you had a complete change in the board and the current management. They are diligent. They worked very hard, but it just hasn't worked." In Schrager's view, GM is a strategic failure. It can manufacture high-quality cars, but it neither makes the right kind nor markets them effectively. He'd bust the company up into three independent firms: Chevy, Buick-Pontiac-GMC and Cadillac-Saab-Saturn.

If that's ultimately where Detroit ends up, is it worth the price to get there? Put another way, does GM deserve to be bailed out or left at the mercy of the market and almost certain death? "The University of Chicago training in me says the market should prevail," says Schrager. "But the Chrysler bailout was a success, and, gosh, I'd love to save it." That sentiment is not shared by everyone, and it goes to the heart of the central economic debate facing the country � between hard-nosed capitalists, who believe the market should decide, and public-policy types who view the economy as something far more organic than a balance sheet. But ultimately, whether GM is dead or alive, the taxpayers are on the hook for billions, for everything from lost tax revenues to higher unemployment costs to taking over GM's pension obligations. The decision that Washington has to make is whether we pay for GM's survival or for its funeral.

and I don;t like that in anyone. Bridge to nowhere, earmarks, etc. Don't like a hypocrite. What I really do not like, which is not actually her fault, is the fact that she is being foisted on us like she is so exceptional and we are lucky to have her. I don't think a woman whose main goal in life was to a sports reporter on TV has the brilliance and love of country we need in a leader. To be able to state with a straight face that she can see Russia from Alaska qualifies as foreigh policy experience is an insult to my intelligence. She entered a beauty contest and then wanted to coast along on her looks by looking pretty and reading a teleprompter on TV. That is just not a combination worthy of such a high office.

First, it tells me that he has an excellent work ethic. He worked very hard to be the best lawyer he could be, which leads me to believe if he were President, he'd work just as hard to be the best President he could be. In my opinion, Bush has NO ethics -- work or otherwise.

Secondly, it tells me that I don't believe in popularity contests. If he won or lost his own state is irrelevant to me. I respected what the man had to say, and the thought of a President Edwards over a President Bush has been looking better and better on a daily basis every day for the last year. If we can't have a leader who has firsthand experience as a combat veteran in a foreign war, then the next best thing is to have one who actually HAD to work for a living, someone who went from being poor to being rich by virtue of hard work and dedication, instead of someone being born, as Ann Richards once said, with a silver foot in his mouth.

As far as bankrupting any STATE, the most damage Edwards could have done was to decrease some PROFITS of insurance companies (easily recouped by raising malpractice insurance rates). I doubt he did any financial harm to the state. Because of him and his lawsuits, though, there might be a few more doctors practicing CARE now when they practice medicine. Don't forget. Million dollar verdicts are handed down by juries, peers of plaintiffs, in these matters. Maybe you think it's okay for doctors to get richer and richer as a result of getting sloppier and sloppier, but I don't. Negligence should be punished. That's what punitive damages are for. If the lawsuits were meritless, they would have been thrown out of court. Simple as that.

The third thing it tells me is that I'm entitled to my liberal opinion, on the LIBERAL BOARD, whether CONSERVATIVES like it or not.