Harry Reid is rich, and has earned a Congressional salary most of his life. Men like Mr Wynn are the ones who enabled this, and I'm not naive enough to think he got nothing in return.

Sorry you didn't get what you thought you were getting with Obama. I feel your pain.

It could always be worse. The way things are going, it may be.

As Glenn Reynolds said in response to this statement by Wynn: "Another rube self identifies"

Redistribution is only OK when it involves other people's money.

Wynn may be a rube, in the sense that Glenn uses the term, but he is a very, very good speaker and makes his points very effectively. I wish any of the Republican contenders had the same talent.

And what I consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in Congress.

Isn't. Going. To. Happen. The One wouldn't know leadership if it jumped up and bit him squarely on his ass.

You should thank your lucky stars, Mr. Wynn, that The One doesn't have the capacity for leadership, or he would have been able to ram more of his policies thru Congress back when he had majorities in both chambers of Congress.

Mr. Wynn is obviously a flaming racist.

But seriously - he's obviously a resourceful, intelligent, savvy man to be so successful. How is he so f-ing retarded to have fallen for Obama/Reid's BS, when millions of Americans knew exactly what was going to happen?

I hate to say it, but when it comes to politics, a lot of our current crop of big businessmen are whipped. Over the past two decades or so, they have become accustomed to the idea that if they just pay enough protection money, in the form of campaign contributions (to both parties), the government will leave them alone. Wynn, for all of his protestations, will fundraise and make donations for Obama in 2012. Mustn't disturb the status quo.

I think Wynn's point here is a lobbying position - business always complains about regulations - not a good analysis of why his business is slow. The biggest real problem in the economy is low demand, not regulations:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303661904576452181063763332.html

Demand is low because of high unemployment, the employed deleveraging, low home values, etc. As someone in the business of convincing people to gamble and lose big quantities of money and spend huge dollars on lavish meals and hotel rooms, it is entirely unsurprising that Wynn's business is struggling right now. Just as it benefited disproportionately from the real estate boom and loose money of the last 20 years or so, Vegas is now disproportionately hurting (as are other tourism and real estate dependent places, like Florida).

Despite the "oppressive" regulatory environment and the president's language (though I don't think "redistribution" has featured in it much lately), our company has nearly tripled in the number of employees since the recession began. All jobs with decent salaries, health care, and 401ks. Partially we were in a position to do this because we manage our money conservatively and did not have to cut back operations as we lost revenue early in the recession, but a lot is because what we do is well suited to the current economic climate. Wynn's business is not. That is the nature of the business cycle, which is something the president has a lot less control over than people like to believe.

There may some truth in Wynn's rant.

I thought Bush jr. missed a great chance after 9/11 to radically streamline our military to the minor threats we actually face today: a few dozen, or perhaps more than a hundred terrorists, loosely affiliated, mobile, who strike primarily civilian targets. Bush jr. could have shaved hundreds of billions annually off of the defense bill, and also avoided the $4 trillion spent in Iraqistan. Maybe he would have even killed bin Laden.

And Obama missed a chance to become a "pro-business" Democrat. He could have cited a deep recession, and the need to boost business confidence, and that government needs to work collaboratively, not adversarily, with domestic businesses.

Key opportunities have been missed.

"The biggest real problem in the economy is low demand, not regulations"

Hook, line, sinker.

i.e. - lemonade stands, cornrows.

Hook, line, sinker.

Me and all the gullible Obama fans at the WSJ, right?

"The biggest real problem in the economy is low demand, not regulations"

So why is demand low? People have less money to spend and what they want to buy is too expensive.

Why? Because taxes are high and we have too few jobs for those who want to work. Thus there are few people with money to spend.

Why so few jobs? Well, you could look at taxes and regulations that make it attractive to do things overseas, but that doesn't fit the narrative.

You could also argue that we are already so prosperous that we don't need or want anything more than what we already have. I'll believe that when I believe regulations and economic uncertainty are not problems.

MarkD taxes are and have been at or near post WWII lows, and have been for some time. Payroll taxes have also been cut since Obama took office. Taxes are not the problem.

The biggest reason for weak demand is the painful deleveraging of our economy. Massive amounts of mortgage and consumer debt were built up in the bubble, and it will take years for that to be reduced to levels where people feel comfortable spending again.

Hey Christopher, what about public sectors lack of confidence in this "transparent" administration and their current political philosophy as it get's applied before our eyes in real time.

Not sure where the logic is in spending more money to get out of debt came from, but it would be nice to know that the guy behind that bright idea got fired and they have corrected the problem. But it just looks like to me, between Obama's boner for redistribution and paying off the political capital he owes others in order to get elected, we are fucking sunk...

Feebie, I don't recall anyone suggesting spending money is e way to get out of debt; what I think you are referring to is e government using deficit spending to stimulate demand in the face of a liquidity trap, which is a position that many economists favor.

I'm not here to defend the Obama administration. I'm not a fan. But, as someone who makes business decisions, and talks to others who run businesses, what we focus on when growing our business is demand, and how to meet it. It's not some vague fear of potential regulations that you read about in these editorials. That's the business community lobbying, which is fine. I just don't buy that it's a prime reason for their decisions. Wynn's business is hurting because it is a fundamentally frivolous enterprise, at a time when the economy is slow. It will get better the next time things are frothy and people feel rich. But that's going to be a while.

"MarkD taxes are and have been at or near post WWII lows, and have been for some time. "

How do you figure? The top bracket was 28% when Reagan left office. It's 36% now, and it's going up at the end of this year. Plus, inflation continues to push people into higher brackets and/or the AMT even when their inflation-adjusted income stays the same.

Since Obama took office, the American private sector has shrunk by 9%, while government has gotten bigger. There's your reason why tax revenue is down.

That's why I wrote "at or near", Cousin Dave:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

The top rate is higher than at the end of the Reagan era, but our still quite low historically speaking, and taxes as a share of GDP are at historic lows (the reason you mention is certainly part or it). Since taxes have remained the same or been cut since 2003, during which we have seen both economic boom times and a terrible recession, I think it is safe to say high tax rates (which we don't have) are unlikely to be the source of the problems in our economy.

when one speaks of taxes you need to look at the entire tax structure. I live in california, I own a home, my entire tax picture is at least 50 percent, so dont tell me about my low tax rate. I think we are amongst the highest taxed people in thw world. And let's add in, the gas taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, city taxes. It is way out of control as far as Iam concerned

"I thought Bush jr. missed a great chance after 9/11 to radically streamline our military to the minor threats we actually face today: a few dozen, or perhaps more than a hundred terrorists, loosely affiliated, mobile, who strike primarily civilian targets."

No, what has been missed here is another chance to think - because you have just advocated a standing American army acting within our own borders.

And you apparently have a crystal ball, to predict what a rebuilding Russia and surging China will do next.

Well, no.

Stipulated— BOTU is a flaming idiot dorkasaures.

But...

> you have just advocated a standing American
> army acting within our own borders.

Where did he do any such thing, at least in this comment stack?

Let's review one last time:

"I thought Bush jr. missed a great chance after 9/11 to radically streamline our military to the minor threats we actually face today: a few dozen, or perhaps more than a hundred terrorists, loosely affiliated, mobile, who strike primarily civilian targets."

I don't think Dubya ever had such a "chance". And we have bigger problems than "terrorists". For starters, there are many, many more than "a few dozen, or perhaps more than a hundred." To describe the current threats to America as so trivial is ludicrous.

And of course the targets are civilian. I mean, like, of fucking course they are. Who on the surface of the globe is going to bomb Pearl in the 21st century? The question collapses on itself. We have that power, so it's not challenged.

And yet....

It's not challenged. The unipolar world spins nicely. We have no contenders in military strength. No one is even pretending they could come after us in conventional warfare. No enemy has an economy that could build a respectable force; those nations that do are sheltered by us anyway.

The Chindians aren't going to do it, either. Their people are hungry and horny: They have other things to worry about. The Chinese may eventually develop some blue-water capability, but this will not be a factor for several decades. When they threaten us, it will not be through 19th-century aggression.

So...

If we COULD trade these behemoth power, or at least a substantial fraction of it, for something deft and modern, AND GET ALL OUR FUCKING MONEY BACK, that would be a bargain to investigate.

We can't, of course.

And it's great to be the biggest swinging dick in the jungle.

But let's not pretend that we're sitting pretty... That we've invested well in preparation for global violence in the 21st century.

"Where did he do any such thing, at least in this comment stack?"

Please! Just where do you think terrorist cells operate when they strike civilian targets?

Ordinary crime succeeds because of two things in American society: the presumption of innocence (which lots of people are eager to give up in the name of "security"), and criminals behave exactly like the law-abiding except when committing a crime.

Hey, I bet that's obvious now that I posted it, but this sort of thing is all over the Web in discussions about how far the police go with SWAT teams and other semi-military action. I dunno where you've been, but go look around. When you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and if you spent millions on fancy weapons, well, gee, they don't get any press sitting in the locker.

Hey. Wait. Hasn't this blog fretted about police misconduct w/r/t the "War on Drugs"?

Why yes, it has!

What about changing the uniform from black to BDUs is appealing to you?

| Just where do you think...

So, he didn't actually SAY that.

I mean, I wouldn't give him credit for thinking things through that far. Y'know, the guy says so much that is so wrong.... Wrong, wrong, wrong. If you're just in the mood to fuck with him —and who amongst us isn't from time to time?— there's no need to go extrap-o-late'n.