Well yes, if you target employers then the illegal immigration issue would vanish utterly. They won't come here if they can't get jobs. Problem is employers don't like being targetted, they like employing illegals on the cheap without compliance with labor regs and they have the ability (unlike illegals) to make life difficult for politicians that mess with them.

Easier to target the immigrants themselves. It pleases the voters who're upset about illegal immigration and doesn't actually effect the companies at all. Political win win for any immigration hawk pol.

With Europe? Yes. Greece was headed for this fiasco from the get go. The "FIRE" thing merely exposed the fact they weren't wearing any swim trunks somewhat sooner than it otherwise would. The fundamentals were there from the get go and FIRE was mostly incidental to that: The Germans were getting a free trade market without having to pay money to the periphary to buy their German made stuff. The periphary was able to spend like (worse than) Germans without having to work like Germans. Borrowing and cooked government books made up the difference. This couldn't have gone on forever. Either dissolution of the monetary union or closer political union had to happen.

 I'd say what really differentiates the US from the Eurozone is that the US could very easily fix its financial problems versus the Eurozone can't. If the US slashes spending and hiked taxes they'd have to do comparatively moderate amounts of both to balance the budget. That'd translate into lost votes and grumbling. The Eurostate on the other hand is looking at riots over the necessary cuts and their taxation is very clearly both being massively evaded and is already very high which means their options are badly limited. All those fundamentals are aside from the bonus ability of the US to print money and be the global reserve currency.

Really the difference if the US's budget chrisis is mostly artifically created by politicians while the Euro budget crisis is pretty fundamental to their entire system as it's currently set up.

Jay: Libya? Yes, I'd say exactly like Libya, you lob a few cruise missiles, pass the buck to the Europeans and dump the old dictator on the cheap while trying to cut defense spending at home. The conservative policy, on the other hand, is hike desense spending while advocating for a land war with Iran. There is a contrast there.

You left conservatives off your list of villains Dude, it's not the progressives or liberals who're leading the charge trying to build up defense spending and foreign interventions.

Burt, inflation requires that there be too much money chasing too little economic production. With the massive slack in the economy at the moment that's a large countervailing effect against inflation. Add in the global flight to what is viewed as the strongest and safest currencies and that adds up to a massive demand for dollars that is hammering inflation into the ground at the moment.

With regards to Europe I can't help but be bemused at Al-Jazeera, I mean there'd be fewer more imperial acts the US could take then suddenly taking over Europe’s bond financing, how odd to see them advocating it. More characteristic perhaps though is Al-Jazeera essentially advocating for the US to step in and be the villain so that everyone else can publicly bitch about it while privately being relieved. The writing is on the wall for the Euro and everyone is keenly aware of the unpleasant decisions that have to be made but no one wants to actually make the decision. The Germans really really would like to continue to have the greater Euro market wide open to their industries so they can sell their stuff to it but they really hate having to pay their neighbors for that privilege and be responsible for them. The periphery really really would like to be able to borrow like Germans to buy stuff without actually generating the economic oomph to do so but they really don't want to cede control of their budgets to a more centralized Euro state.

I mean it’s obvious what the choices are but the various actors and electorates involved hate their options.

Choice #1; the Germans (and other industrial states) can pony up the dough, the ECB then can step up to the plate and guarantee the sovereign debt of the periphery becoming in essence the Fed of Europe. The voters of the industrial nations, however, don’t want to pay for it and the voters of the periphery don’t want to cede the control of their finances that would absolutely HAVE to be part of the deal in order for anyone to ever consider allowing it.

Choice #2; they bust up the Euro and the Euro market. This would be utter chaos and guarantees an absolutely epic recession (global mind, we North Americans and the Asians will eat this too). The Euro-periphery would be looking at collapsing banks, collapsed pensions and quite possible collapsed governments with new currencies with hyper inflation. The Euro-industrial states would be looking at massive investment losses, likely collapsed banks and more keenly a massive blow to their employment as they essentially lose a massive amount of their access to their neighbors markets.  

Given the choices obviously #1 is preferable in general but the political actors really have conflicting motives. The German pols have every incentive to play hard ball and hope hope hope that something somehow forces them to do option #1 against their will so they can tell their voters there was no other choice. The periphery polls hope hope hope exactly the same thing. The ECB, nervous bureaucrats that they are, are scared to do anything until some politician tells them what’s what. What the whole mess needs really is for some politician to essentially blow up their career and become reviled in order to make this happen. Obviously none of the pols involved are eager to step into that role and so they dither and tinker and hope they can somehow muddle through.

Deal=dear gah.

Humblest apologies my deal lady.

Ah yes even more liberal groupthink from the echo chamber of the liberal lamestream media. This kind of lazy humor is why conservatives are the last best hope for reasoning in America today.

I do too but I came to a point where it became a conscious decision: you either accept that the past is gone and try and embrace what they have made of them in the now ad enjoy the new stuff or you refuse to accept the changes and lose every aspect of the muppets and must console yourself exclusively with the old material.

Hogwash David, do a post about the glories of the combustion engine and its infinite superiority both in function and asthetic, to the outmoded primitive technology of wind and sail.

Alas, Mr Trub, you misread me for I am one of those very "damnable republican types" though to be fair to my opponents the Monarchy against which I will be tilting is the consitutional Monarchy with its' attendand Paliment system currently in force in the notable failed states of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Bermuda and the UK, rather than the more classic absolute Monarchies that preceeded them.

A wall is attractive because it'll impress the voters (especially the ones in the geographic region that the pols advocating it most want to impress); it'll funnel Federal money to this region both for construction and upkeep (see point #1) and most especially because it won't actually accomplish a damn thing (which means the corporate and business wings of the party won't mind it).

I may play if I can find the time. Maybe I'll try putting the arguement against the Monarchy through its paces.

Oh muppets.. I remember my parents tuning in to the show on the old B&W TV religiously. I'd look on and found it greatly enjoyable but didn't understand why the 'Rents were so worked up over all the boring humans doing things in between the cool muppets.

Then I watched it again on DVD around 2007... mind blowing. Mind blowing, like entertainment archeology.

Ack, now I'm impaled atop the twin horns of my dual American/Canadian nature! Oh this is a fine pickle to be in!

You wouldn't want us. With the exception of Alberta (and they're centrist) we're all to the left of you. We'd tip the balance to Democrats in no time, or worse one of our several parties would grow like a bacteria in a virgin electoral sample, eat the current lazy fat American parties alive and seize power in Washington!

One word; Snookie.

Two words; Paris Hilton.

Calm and cheerful will serve you and your arguements better than this language my dear Kimmie.

Well we have apologized for Brian Adams and also for Celine Dion.

I talk to myself occasionally, does that count as praying? I don't get down on my knees and put my hands together nor do I usually implore myself or thank myself for much. I don't think I'd take me very seriously if I did.

Canada has some embaressing black spots on its national character and their treatment of free speech is one of them. For citizens this involves emeshment in their extra-judicial HRC kangaroo courts who impose nonsensical remediation and painful legal expenses. For non-citizens it involves specially trained punitive beaver commandos squads. I find your rampant Canukophobia offensive so i've submitted your name to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If you have any trees, waterways or largely lumber structures within a one hundred mile radius of your residence I'd advise you to spend some time with them building up memories.

So my friends niece claims. I think it's at a frequency inaudible to the male ear.

Be nice James. I mean the boy is Canadian for one thing and for another thing he's delivering a good demanded by the market (with the market in this case being defined as 13-30 year old women).

That said I never listen to anything he sings.