Where is the US economy headed?

Are you shorting the market squirt? Put your money up and make millions.

Obama sees Wall street and the market as the enemy, one would be crazy to put their money into the market.

Coming from okie, this is either a fantasy or a lie.

Ah, here is the key to okie: he confuses fact with opinion.

It's not a fantasy or a lie; he just doesn't remember history like everybody else that understands it.

Please, stop embarrassing yourself.

Eisenhower supported Civil Rights only after Brown v. The Board of Education at Topeka. He did so because he feared the negative opinion of Europeans.

What sort of ignorant list is this, allegedly from georgeob:

Who is Franklin D. Roosevelt Washington and Wilson Jackson and Truman Wilson? And when was Lyndon B. Johnson Eisenhower president?

So short the market squirt.

You sell stocks you don't have with the knowledge you can buy them back later after the market crashes and you make lots of money. There's no risk since you know the market will crash.

When I was in college and grad school, all the liberals knew the Gulf of Tonkin incident was actually two separate events and that "it" was a lie. It was the right that remained willfully and staunchly ignorant.

Duh! At least you seem to have a dim recognition of economic principles.

There are too many people in the world.

The world is too polluted.

Jobs have been shipped overseas.

Smaller merchants have been chased out of business by the Gap, Starbucks, WalMart, etc., which limits choice.

What else would you like to know?

He has repeatedly demonstrated how poor his memory is. Has he ever evidenced understanding anything?

Great question.

I would like to know if you are ever going to make a clear point on any given subject.

I would like to know why you continue to spread your special brand manure here.

I would like to know why you are such a hate filled individual.

What is the incentive for anyone to earn lots of money?
Wouldn't that make someone a member of the evil rich you liberals hate so much?

Look at the pot . . .

I see you when I do, but this does not explain know why you are such a hate filled individual.

Ah, here is the key to plainoldme: she confuses fact with opinion.

I note today that Alfred E Kahn has died at the age of 93.
He was a Cornell economist who, back in 1978, while serving in the Carter administration, crafted the U.S. Airline Deregulation Act.
He strongly believed that "public utilities" should compete head-on without government intervention. Back then, airlines were public utilities, with fares and routes regulated by the feds as they had been for 40 years.
The Deregulation Act resulted in massive cuts in air fares. Some airlines (e.g. Pan Am) couldn't adapt and failed while others (United, American) have repeatedly drifted into and out of bankruptcy. Salaries and benefits for industry workers fell dramatically and low-cost, no frill airlines (SouthWest, JetBlue) emerged.
I don't have the numbers and they probably aren't relevant, but I would contend that for 25 or 30 years airline travel surged even if the experience of flying was not exactly getting more pleasant.
Thank Alfred E Kahn.
As an aside, I read today that inter-city bus travel in 2010 took a good bounce up. Greyhound's traffic was up a bit but the big increase was in "curbside" traffic from say D.C. to NYC. Fares are competitive and the travel time compared to flying is fairly favorable. And buses ain't like they used to be. WIFI, video, snacks. Watch that trend.

We also need speed rail to transport people quickly and at reasonable cost.

I am afraid you hit a nerve with me there, TAK. I have been reading a bit about high speed rail. I can't make it make sense economically.
You should realize that here on the east coast the existing rail infrastructure is largely devoted to freight. Some sort of high speed system from, say, DC to Boston would need new right of way through congested cities. It would be incredibly expensive. Maybe, but I would question, it would be cheaper to build on the west coast. The "reasonable cost" falls away unless there is some sort of massive government subsidy.
The "transport people quickly" notion also doesn't work for me. Sure, we are envious of Europe and Japan with their trains spanning relatively short distances. But cutting the travel time between point A and point B from X to X-1 hours. Is that really worth the cost when all (most) of the passengers have all of their toys/gizmos with them to stay in touch with whatever is important to them?
I realize I am ranting, but by how much would a high-speed rail system shorten the trip from SF to LA? Is that like 500 miles?