Obama Takes On GOP On Taxes, Economy In Weekly Address (VIDEO)

I've read your comments here and I admit I find them compelling. But this is where I think I veer off a bit ('don't know if GS repeal was good or bad.'). To me, repealing Glass Steagal is like repealing laws that ban smoking at gasoline pumps. GS enforced a separation of forces whose connection facilitates disaster.



Like holding AA meetings at a bar, it was just a disaster waiting to happen. If there wasn't a large, highly motivated, independent, active, and empowered group of regulators to prevent the drift into abuse, the end was assured. Only the specific means and extent and calendar date for the explosion were in question.



When Obama says of the repugs, "since many of their leaders were among the architects of that failed policy", he's right. But what he fails to admit (understandably), is that many of his administration's economic leaders were among the architects of that failed policy as well. Recycling rubinites is a major fail from Obama.



Clearly, you are correct in pointing out how this has been a failure whose proposed "solutions" are fueled by bipartisanship amnesia. But there are some types of abuses that you can easily predict. And the repeal of GS had no real upside potential while it's retention wouldn't have adversely impacted the economy or the precious finance industry at all. (OK, so 20/20 hindsight helps a little with that assessment, but was it really tough to predict the abuse?)
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Zombie Myth of Presidents "Not Connecting"

Thank you!



Performance stands on its own - in particular, performance that impacts people and families in a meaningful way bonds people to leaders. I see excusetrolls posting lists of wonderful things that have been achieved. But the problem is that people still continue to lose jobs, income (especially to health insurance premiums), retirement, and homes. Those lists are nice but they are overwhelmed by survival-related issues.



None of the wonderful things "connect" to significant enough impact on our daily lives. THAT is where the "connection" has been lost here.... the connection between governance and positive impacts on people's lives. We still have no real solution to addressing the survival problems, in part because, the President prizes decorum over results.



The "connection" semantics argument from the author is talking about building relationships with the people. So whereas I agree that the concept of overtly building rapport with voters is generally unproductive, I disagree with the implication that the President doesn't have any vested interest in demonstrating his/her commitment to getting results for the citizenry. If the President isn't getting results, he at least has to demonstrate a zeal for pursuing results - and the "Cool Hand Luke" persona doesn't work on that front.
About Pollster
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bob Woodward Book: Top Obama Afghan Advisers Doubt Policy, Sharply Divided

Those that ARE brave and strong can take the first punch and then go on to win the fight. Your comment implies you are neither. Perhaps like dubya, you'd prefer to find someone in a wheelchair and su.ckerpunch her - and then go strut around in a jumpsuit?



Or better yet, find someone else to go rough up the invalid. You wouldn't want to mess up the hand that would affix a flag magnet to your trunk.



Spare us all.
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What the Heck Is a Libertarian?

The only difference between the republican party and libertarians is that the repugs believe that a strong, central government is needed to abuse and control the serfs in order to support the wealthy and powerful (the only people who matter) - and libertarians believe that the wealthy and powerful should abuse and control the serfs directly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Deficit Commission's Rumored Deal Would Pit Middle-Class Seniors Against the Poor

roudy and way, the SS commission is a trap set by Wile E. Coyote.



You falsely assume that the pugs won't do anything but walk straight down the street, oblivious. These people are the masters of political judo and have millions of $$ behind them to get their spin out whenever and whatever the commission does.



You WILL here a phrase very similar to this, repeated by pugs thousands of times: "The president's own commission said that he needs to ____ in order to save social security, but he isn't listening to the excellent advice from a panel of experts. He will destroy Social Security."



Watch how well it works. And if you happen to be at the bottom of a cliff, watch for falling coyotes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Will Elizabeth Warren Get the Nod or Not?

An economics professor I had in college defined money. He said it wasn't definable and that the closest he could get was to say that money is what money does. Lawlessness is as undefinable.



Blind trust/faith in anything is a bad idea. Leads to unwelcome outcomes. Blind faith that humans in regulatory roles will always do the right thing is wrong. It's why there are elections and oversight authorities, to provide some protection. When those are corrupted, they have to be fixed and systems exist to facilitate that. We can debate how effective those systems are today because we seem to be able to change parties but not change the resulting actions much.



We have seen countless demonstrations over thousands of years of recorded history that the absence of regulatory and law enforcement lead to bad and worse outcomes with more certainty (i.e. if a multimillion-dollar corporation could make another million by killing me, and there is no entity strong enough to prevent or prosecute them, they will surely deprive me of any rights). We know that power will be abused. So any system that relies on a "free market" or assumes that corporations and the wealthy have an implicit interest in 'doing the right thing' instead of one that provides for the public appointment of central authority is innately inferior. Of course, that doesn't mean that at any snapshot in time the former can run better than the latter - just that it's unlikely.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Will Elizabeth Warren Get the Nod or Not?

Depends on what glen beck is yelling about, what the polls look like, how rahm's "just for men" supply is holding out, and what the magic 8-ball says to the question, "is it safe to do something today?"



We can't afford to boldly do anything like appoint a person to a post. We have to take our time, ponder, and analyze; examine all the possible ramifications, ruminate over the potential objections, agonize over the message control.



I've frequently noted that congressional election success will depend on tangible results produced by legislation. If families can't feel any progress, then incumbent parties will suffer to some degree. The longer this post remains unfilled, the worse it is for Dems (and I doubt Obama doesn't understand that). She would have the power to start kicking the duffs of the low-life scam artists and make huge headlines. She can implement rules that can actually help families feel the benefits.



There is really not anyone or anything else that can produce this needed type of result between now and election day. Every day without someone steering that ship dutifully into battle with the titans of the financial world is another wound inflicted on the Democratic Party by the President.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Democrats Can Own the Future

Ugh.



This is way, way, way, way over-analyzed and superficial.



Establishing fealty to some sort of subjectively defined concept of new or old is useless because the screamers on the right will simply redefine what "21st century solutions" mean - or worse. It assumes that they will have nothing to say about the marketing gimmick, which is all this really is.



The thing that will enable Dems to own the future is for them to define the repugs as neanderthals incapable of salient contribution to solutions, and to steamroll them with effective, progressive legislation designed to get RESULTS tangible to the voters of the nation.



Look at what the pugs did to the Dems in congress during dubya's years. Did anyone care or object? No. Definitive decisions were made. And pretty rapidly. Of course, they were mostly horrible decisions, but people didn't get angry at the process - they got angry when the negative RESULTS hit home.



So RESULTS are what matters. If Dems clubbed the sons and daughters of repugs but got things done, their re-elections would still be likely. The more Dems listen to pundits and consultants who blather about trite, cotton candy like this article advises, the bigger the hole they dig for themselves.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Obama Is Proposing Whopping Corporate Tax Cuts -- and Why He's Wrong

Another example of the sham that this Administration has become. On one hand, we have a reasonable, sensible stimulus for $50 billion. Good stuff.



Then we get hit with this manipulative, political gimmick that will very likely get spiked back in Obama's face by repugs.



If legislation materializes from the White House, the repugs will immediately seize on it: "See, our opposition to the Democrats has paid off. The president is finally doing what we want. We call on the Speaker to bring Congress back to vote on this splendid bill."



Then after the bill is signed, before the elections, the next blitz: "You can expect more excellent stuff like this if you vote us into majority control!"



But I'm reluctant to conclude that this means the White House is not smart. I think this is what they want. They want Obama vs. the evil empire instead of solutions or economic and social progress - just like what they had with bubba. That worked out awesomely for bubba and his DLC loyalists, so I suspect they're pulling out the old set list from the 90s and they'll do it all over again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Reich: How To End The Great Recession

Good try, bucko! Take one of the tiny dolls from the loser's prize bin for your effort!



The lenders knew what they were doing. They had to fill the bucket with "approved" loans so they could chuck them onto the derivatives market where they knew that, one day, there was a good chance it all blows up. But until then, bonuses and drunken high times for the finance industry!



Until you come up with a valid reason to absolve lenders from the guilt of approving loans to unqualified borrowers, the blame goes to the lenders. Period.



Better luck next time.
About Unemployment
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost