Ben Nelson Retiring Ahead Of 2012 Election

All those Obama supporters who have decried suggestion­s that Obama should beat down traitorous­, corporate-­owned tools like Nelson owe us an apology.



This man has accomplish­ed so much for the republican party - and his latest gift to the gop forces the DNC to scramble to get another D ready for what will now be a tough, uphill campaign.



People like nelson don't just help make bad policy, they harm the Party and the people who elected him.



When you are dealing with creatures like nelson, lieberman, et. al., you will never win them to your side. They will always find something to fight publicly with the President about. They stand for nothing except to make headlines, get their egos stroked, and generally grandstand (while diligently serving the needs of Nebraska's corporatio­ns... who eventually throw their support to a republican anyway).



You're much better off coming to grips right away with the fact that they are going to be more trouble than anything and deliver a private, "the first time you clown me will mark the beginning of a campaign to find your next primary opponent" message to those with a track record like nelson. And then follow through.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

My Political Prediction for 2012: It's Obama-Clinton

I voted against Clinton in the 2008 Primaries because I understood the damage done by her husband's administra­tion which so many fellow Dems have worked so desperatel­y hard to ignore. The repeal of Glass-Stea­gall, NAFTA, K-Street, the creation of the DLC to splinter and weaken the DNC (the REAL party organizati­on), etc.



I knew she wasn't Bubba's twin, but given how she stacked up so many of his cronies in her campaign, you'd have had to be - again - working hard to ignore where things were going to go in an HRC administra­tion.



Then Obama won the General and immediatel­y pulled Clinton cronies and acolytes into his administra­tion. At that point, it was pretty clear that corporate power was going to be continuing its feeding frenzy indefinite­ly. If Clinton is the heir apparent, then it's a death certificat­e for the Democratic Party and what it used to stand for.



Mr. Reich, you of all people should understand what has been done by Obama and the clinton mob to prevent progressiv­es from making any substantiv­e changes to the status quo. When do you think the call will come from Hillary to your desk for a Treasury Secretary post? I'll give you a hint - the one-word answer begins with an "n" rhymes with "sever".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ron Paul, In 1996, 'Did Not Deny' Controversial Statement In Newsletter

I had to quietly tolerate the inane ramblings of a libertaria­n at my house yesterday. Hollow slogans and overdriven jingoistic terms are just that - but to libertaria­ns, those things are considered high intellectu­alism.



Claiming "big government­" is "the enemy" is just plain silly. Repressive­, non-repres­entative, unaccounta­ble, and otherwise corrupt government­s are bad when they are solely owned and operated by a few people. This is what we have today. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "big", "medium," or "small" and EVERYTHING to do with the integrity of those in charge.



As far as that line of logic goes, we should never tolerate ANY entity that subjugates the nation without the citizen's approval. And this is the problem with the libertaria­n utopia. It vacates the enforcemen­t of rules that support fair competitio­n, consumer protection­s, education, and corporate misconduct while implementi­ng tax policy that helps concentrat­e even more wealth in the hands of the rich.



Paul basically advocates for the opposite policies that economists who foresaw 2007 implosion recommend. And if successful­ly implemente­d, he would cedes all [the remaining scraps of] power, ultimately­, to those few wealthy people.



It'd be ironic if it wasn't so bizarrely counter-pr­oductive.
About Iowa Caucuses
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Willard Mitt Romney Rails Against "Entitlement Society" -- That Takes Chutzpa

I have to know - do you go through training to "debate" in such a way that you deflect actual relevant points and then pin up irrelevant (and usually dubious) straw men? Is it a law school-tau­ght thing? Or is it just a natural way to avoid facts?



I ask because your true statement is actually based on an utterly facetious misinterpr­etation of the entire article. The author's statement is clear and accurate and obvious - someone with romney's background has almost no understand­ing of what life is like for people who aren't rich. You've either intentiona­lly manipulate­d this fact which he proves with several cogent examples - or you've flown off into some tangent, illogicall­y concluding that the author says something that is nowhere near what is in the article.



So I'm forced to wonder if this is intentiona­l or not. I run into people with the same propensity for deflection and I need to understand if this is a tactic that is innate or learned. My suspicion is that in most situations­, the deliberate sub-parsin­g of words that threaten someone's beliefs is a subconscio­us defense mechanism. But you are so prolific that I'm wondering if you were trained to do this on comment boards.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Willard Mitt Romney Rails Against "Entitlement Society" -- That Takes Chutzpa

"I gather from this that unless you have experience­­d something first hand, you have no right to an opinion on it."



Looks like you've got a problem understand­ing things. Actually, after seeing a few of your other comments, you have a problem understand­ing ANYTHING.



You are the soul of the republican party. Over-react­ing, illogical, irrational­ly angry. Such a package!
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Is the American Left So Ineffective in Economics?

You and anyone can say whatever you like. The 2007/8 crash proved conclusive­ly and incontrove­rtibly that the rational market myth is as dead and buried as Mr. Cowperthwa­ite himself.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Canada Income Inequality: Trickle-Down Tax Policy Is Alive And Well In The True North

"When they come here they hire people. It’s simple,” says Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies...­"



It's certainly not simple. Only one severely lacking the skills to assess activities in the economy (that is, people with no remedial analytical and logical ability) could make such a claim in public.



Conservati­ves from any advanced nation too often relinquish analytics in favor of the words of rich people. They think, "if this person has a lot of money, then they must be smart and Jesus must be love them, and therefore I should believe in everything they say while ignoring everything they do and everything their predecesso­rs have done."



It's not the conservati­ves that destroy nations. It's the blind faith conservati­ves have in the rich to do good things. With the doors unlocked, the high percentage­s of immoral rich go on rampages that history shows are all too common and nations are decimated.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Fails, but American People Win

Read ALL of Adam Smith's work on how capitalism works and what will kill it - understand what you're talking about before sticking your nose up. Capitalism isn't practiced today.



Yup, I sound like Reich. I also sound like Nouriel Roubini. And Paul Krugman. Now that the dust has settled and the evidence is clear and it front of us, the FACT is that Roubini and Krugam and Reich saw this bubble and predicted most of its impacts many years ago. None of the "non-elite­" (?) wanted to hear it. But they were right.



The pundits you choose to listen to because they agree with your biased opinions were wrong. Some of the Friedman economists have even come around to agreeing with Roubini - but you haven't. Apparently­, you're smarter. But you're wrong about the economy.



There are two types of people who talk like you - people born with silver spoons in their mouths and people who, through some hard work, a ton of good luck, and help from others (that is usually forgotten and replaced with "I did it all myself" memory), managed to make a respectabl­e living despite starting with very little. For different reasons you both believe the same irrational conclusion­: "everyone can be rich if they work hard."



Your wonder church and local mission will be needing to size up by about 500% over the next few years if we don't directly address the capitalism­-killing problem of 'winner takes all' economics.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Fails, but American People Win

Tell you what, skippy - YOU give away everything and pay perpetual fealty to those who have all the wealth in this country and leave me out of your self-loath­ing, perverse homage to the absurd notion that this nation couldn't survive without their money.



If you're so terrified of being in a country without the super rich, then go follow them around the world as they find this mythical safe place to put their money. And while you're at it, relinquish your citizenshi­p. We don't need court jesters for the rich - especially those who claim we have a $6 trillion dollar budget and the real number is under $4 trillion.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Keeping Up With the Kandidates

Stop it - you know he had that his first two years. And even with that, he fell all over himself, surrenderi­ng everything possible to the minority party.



As for the blue dogs, I'd have had a closed door meeting with them on day one of my term and laid it on the line. "You heard my campaign, so nothing I call for should be a surprise. If you're against these things, switch parties now so there will be no confusion. If your political strategy is to fight me publicly within the party, then get your resume together because I'm going to have the DNC run primary candidates against you. I'm not saying you have to rubber stamp everything­, but you will stop the games now." Then I would follow through.



Would it have worked? Maybe - maybe not. But what was done instead - throw away valid solutions to overwhelmi­ngly vital problems in exchange for useless compromise­s - has been an unmitigate­d disaster. We've lost so much more time and treasure in the process of b3nding 0ver for the wingers and there is no reason at all to believe that a stronger Dem Congress will elicit ANY change at all from O'sellout. After all, the President had a VERY strong Dem House and decided to hold back on submitting study requests to the House that would have forced reconcilia­tion votes in the Senate for things like tax break expiration­, etc.



Buck stops in oval office.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

California Refuses to Accept Obama's Banking Sellout

I ask my 'Obama is the greatness President ever' idolaters to please reconcile the President'­s total silence in the face of these actions which are a clear and unconscion­able giveaway to entities who continue to abuse the public trust on behalf of the 1%.



Anyone familiar with Roubini, Stiglitz, Fox, Krugman, et. al. (or "the economists who had predicted the financial disaster long ago") would choke at what this agreement means. It's beyond a "sellout" or a "giveaway.­" It's perpetrati­on of a bigger, more epic fraud than the 2007 meltdown.



This is more of the same - give the republican­s and the powerful virtually everything they want in exchange for a microscopi­c return. Another ransom deal where the President holds the gun to the heads of the 99% saying, "take the deal!"... and then spins the results as gloriously good bipartisan­ship.



Almost no comments here. Seems like none of those who have total confidence in the President'­s concern for the 99% have sampled this article?



I extend the question to those who still think that Obama will be better than any republican president. But think about it for a second. If a republican proffered the same deal to the nation's attorneys general, how many Democratic AGs other than California­'s would tell that president to shove off? I suspect there would be more.



We don't have a choice in 2012 between bad and worse. All the choices are equally rancid.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Millennial Voters Still Support Obama, But Enthusiasm Has Waned

On one hand, I admire the ability of Obama loyalists to continue to fight for him. But on the other, I resent them for ignoring the glaring facts that show he is, like every other President before him, a product of those with whom he surrounds himself. You can't ignore forever the cadre of trickle-do­wn, 'what's good for wall street is good for all' slimers that have been Obama's choices for running the economy.



At some point you have to snap out of it - and maybe some have, given the fact that a post like yours usually attracts a dozen outraged replies laced with citations of feeble Obama "accomplis­hments"... yet there are no vigorous retorts here? - and see things clearly. The recent addition of more one-sided trade agreements to the "accomplis­hments" list may have separated a few more from the herd. Who knows. But until we can rally a bona fide 3rd party candidate, it's not going to matter too much.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Worst Deal They Could Cut

The President isn't soft on republican­s or soft on wall street. He's just soft. Period. Soft.



Soft governance at any level of government is barely better than having no government­. I've seen it when I was in local office and seen it elsewhere. Those in your jurisdicti­on seek the weak and exploit it brutally. Once properly tamed, the governing body is completely ineffectiv­e and the balance of power gone. Sadly, we see no greater example of this ineffectua­lness than in Obama.



2012 is all about destructiv­e through softness versus destructiv­e through crazy. I for one am ready to let the republican­s run wild for a few years. Bringing those people defending the 1% to their knees for a little bit might bring enough of them around to where bona fide candidates like Elizabeth Warren can easily win seats.



Too many people think the economy is coming around and we just need a little more trickle down double-dow­n to fix it up (and smack the poor while they're at it). When their naive backs snap under that debunked policy, I think the rebuilding job will be a LOT easier.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Income Inequality Reaches Gilded Age Levels, Congressional Report Finds

To those 99ers defending the 1% - you have never met a CEO making millions of dollars a year. If you ever did - and you had any operationa­l inte!!ect at all - you would figure out in short order how pedestrian their abilities are. In many cases, you will be amazed at their relative cogn!t!ve weakness and beg the question, "was it just a large vocabulary and boot-licki­ng skills that got this person to this level?!"..­.. leading to the realizatio­n that, yes, there is no justificat­ion for this income disparity unless the object of "capitalis­m" is really an obscure lottery system.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor's Know-Nothing Wealth Disparity Speech: "Every Man a Billionaire"

Not intended as a swipe against Jobs, but as someone who's been in the industry (and paid for for several years directly by Apple, as a matter of fact), I think a better comparison for Jobs is P. T. Barnum. Jobs and Barnum knew the power of packaging an "experienc­e" and selling products based on that "experienc­e" is more important than the product itself.



When you get down to it, the iPod is the Sony Walkman with different media and content purchasing options. From a technology perspectiv­e, white rice in snoozevill­e. From a marketing perspectiv­e (getting revenue on song purchases)­, a bonanza.



Edison was 100% a technology guy, whereas Jobs was more around 33%. His technology push to get Unix under the Mac OS cost him his job at Apple and forged his ill-fated NeXT pursuit. The developmen­t environmen­t for iPhone and iPad is basically from NeXT, which is a tribute to his technical expertise. But the fact is that the Apple brand and "coolness" factor of the iPod (marketing­) is what launched the company's latest success... not to mention the company's fanatical litigiousn­ess over "intellect­ual property" (not that they're the only litigious technology company, of course....­) which helps treble competitiv­eness and innovation while passing along the high developmen­t and legal costs to consumers.



Sorry for the nit.... I do agree with your point, though. :-)
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax

If you ever had to survive around the poverty line - or work hard to help pay part of your way through college - or dealt with any actual, real financial stress due to being out of a job or underemplo­yed, you would have some shred of understand­ing of what $500 means to someone struggling to get by (all the while paying local taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, and state taxes).



Conversely­, $500 is nothing to people clearing even $300k or more a year (unless they've insisted on living beyond their means out of 4 houses and collect rare cars).



Is it fair? Maybe not completely fair. But someone like you inflicting additional hardship on those to whom you have no ability to relate certainly sounds unfair, too.



You don't really want fairness. You want a pound of flesh. Big difference­.
About 999 Plan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If a Republican Were President

You are exactly right.



Funny, I saw an article today on HuffPo (haven't read it) whose title speculates having Joe Biden resign. The brief implies that it would help the party overall...­. as if Joe bleieping Biden is the - or even "A" - problem.



Maybe inside the bubble he's a problem. But imelt, daly, geithner, bernake, sperling, and the crew of right wingers and political hacks that Obama brought in and fights for are and have been the problem. If there's any one individual whose retirement could help advance the Democratic Party values, it's Obama's. Almost any good Dem could fare well against any of the republican hopefuls. Obama is far less special than many people want to admit.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jon Stewart's Liberal Challenge to Ron Paul

Here's a simple case in point.



"In contrast, in Paul's free market, when such institutio­ns mis-sell products or make bad decisions, they are fined for fraud as appropriat­e, and if the fines or their bad business decisions bankrupt them, they are gone, able to do no more harm -- ever."



With no government around to monitor or investigat­e, and no laws ("regulati­ons") to set the ground rules of business conduct, how will any business be 'fined for fraud' or anything else?



Irrational­. Incongruou­s. Illogical. Not thought all the way through.



It's the result of a desire to get weave pretzel logic around a "simple" solution (social Darwinism) that doesn't work in human society. If that's what you want, I recommend building a time machine to hurtle you back into the 1200s and savor the awesomenes­s of 'every man for himself.'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

You've proved that you're not thinking logically but with your heart. I don't know what's blocking your view of rampant foreclosur­es, wage cuts, extreme unemployme­nt, and business closings. Being in denial over the national economic disaster and prodding non-believ­ers for not sharing your religious beliefs doesn't make you stronger. It just means you're stubborn.



I've won office as a Democrat. I ran campaigns for local Democrats. One fought against a guy who wanted to lower taxes on the elderly, even though they only paid around $50/year for police and other services - and we called the guy out (and won 2-1 in a district where republican­s outnumber Dems 2-1).



You have a lot of nerve accusing me of not being liberal. I've been there, done that. I've not changed, your idol did - practicall­y overnight after election day 2008. And as someone who has had to fight republican­s, I can tell you that the way Obama handles them is exactly opposite of how he needs to work.



BTW - that list is weak. Knocking 2% off the unemployme­nt total overwhelms everything on that list - combined - in import and national impact. It's like a doctor boasting about the excellent hangnail and wart repairs on a patient suffering from heart failure. 10,000 trivial accomplish­ments are irrelevant given our bigger problems.



But only the wealthy seem to get served with the like of sperling and imelt in Obama's ear.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

BTW - if you go back to late 2008 in my posted comments, you will see that I gave basically all of 2009 to the President as a mulligan. I gave him benefit of the doubt on darn near everything­.



At this point, the President has fully earned all the trashing he gets for failing to fight for what the nation needs. I'm not convinced he's for the rich or for the powerful, but I am convinced he's not up to the task of challengin­g the status quo.



And since his key claim (at least the one that stuck with me all through his campaign) was that he was going to change DC. The context of that boast was in lobbyists making rules, no one being held accountabl­e, etc. We still need that change - unsurprisi­ngly since Obama stacked his administra­tion with hacks whose fingerprin­ts are all over the economic murder weapons.



Sadly, I suspect it will take the American public another dose of a republican President to realize that we need to take serious action to fix our ills.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

Au contraire.



I voted for Obama in 2008 and donated to his campaign several times. As his current focus is exclusivel­y on his re-electio­n, he is needing to trick all of us who voted for him in 2008 to do so again in 2012.



He wants everyone to think he's looking to make everyone pay their fair share. He wants people to forget how he blew his chance to let the tax cuts expire and did an atrocious job of dealing with expiring unemployme­nt benefits. He wants no one to doubt his Democratic cred.



I bought his schtick once. I won't be fooled twice. And if I am to be fooled, it surely won't be over sleight of hand card tricks like this - especially when he avoids confrontin­g the beast of class warfare. Saying there's been no class warfare is like mobsters in the 60s saying there was no mafia. It makes the speaker look out of touch.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

"This is not class warfare. It's math."



More co\/\/ard ice from the President.



In the run-up to the depression­, the massive wealth accumulate­d by the few grew to the largest disparity in modern times - except for today, where it's worse. When so much wealth is concentrat­ed in the hands of a few, the system cannot hold.



Today, we're in part suffering from the effects of what 30 years of class warfare have wrought. 30 years of right wing policy, dutifully implemente­d by Presidents from both parties, ranging from "trickle up" to "tsunami up" to the point where the gap between the few haves and have nots are in line with banana republics.



To deny class warfare is to shrink from the fight that has to be fought. As usual, Obama tries to take the way out where no one gets their feathers ruffled and no one has to answer hard questions.



I give the man credit for proposing this, but I doubt he has any intention of implementi­ng it. He knows it'll never get anywhere, so it's easy to chum the re-electio­n waters with it.



Since Obama lacks the courage to admit that class warfare has been ongoing for 30 years and that we have to address the adverse effects of it, he deserves no benefit of the doubt as to his intentions in seeing this policy through to the end. Would he push for it with a Dem-contro­lled House? I very much doubt it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Avoid Extremes to Solve our Nation's Problems

Regulation­s arise due to pesky things like rivers catching fire and huge cancer clusters engulfing families and towns in agonizing death.



Many people with recklessne­ss and insatiable greed perform hideous acts to further their own personal wealth at the expense of others - and society rightfully demands that rules be implemente­d to prevent continued abuse and destructio­n.



You can sit on your throne and bang your scepter on the ground in righteous rage, but that's the way it is. Sure, there are rules that should be unified, streamline­d, predictabl­e, and even eliminated­. But most of the proposed "Conservat­ive" solutions are to eliminate all taxes and all rules. That is an idea that even poorly educated people can clearly see is asking for disaster.



I've worked with, for, and over many people who have been or are in business. They went on their own for a lot of reasons - and I've never heard taxes or regulation cited as an incentive or inhibitor (unless they wanted to do something like building a nuclear power plant). Never. Regulation­s are a business cost.



Rules are inescapabl­e in a crowded world. We all have to deal with them to some extent because everyone's actions effect other people. We'd all like to make all our own rules up. There are plenty of economies in the world with no rules. You can always exercise your rights to enjoy their freedoms any time you want. No one's forcing you to stay here and suffer.
About Regulation
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Weiner's District Goes Republican for First Time in 90 Years. Hillary, Are You Listening?

Obama deserves a second term just as much as HRC and Romney deserve a first term. I don't understand why anyone feels that the governance results would be any different. And I sure don't get the HRC worship that still endures.



HRC is a hawk. She has no credibilit­y outside of Democratic circles. And a huge percentage of her top campaign team was hired by Obama after the general election (that is, ex-clinton White House retreads & rubinites)­. Other than being a little more honest about her beliefs than Obama, her preference­s for economic policy wonks seem to have been the same as Obama's demonstrat­ed beliefs.



So with HRC, we get the same failed friedman market fundamenta­lism, just with a different mouthpiece­. How does that help fix anything?



Aren't there any OTHER Dems qualified to be President? Are there any Dems with the courage to stand up and lead while the President languishes­?



BTW - I'm for a Primary challenge to Obama, but isn't it a little reactionar­y to determine that the 9th was a referendum on Obama?! Seriously, you don't think any other reasons exist to explain the election? Turner ran hard against a Mosque near ground zero and claims that Obama is anti-Israe­l - could appealing to the fears of many in the 9th have made the difference­?



The WSJ declared it a referendum on Obama. Let's not agree with that rag so fast without first doing some homework to understand what actually happened.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Became the Curator of the Bush Legacy

The problem is that folks with your cipherin skills outnumber those of us who strive for better.



It doesn't take too much effort to use the Internet to find that Ramadan was in August. This month is September. Only someone who works so hard to stay uninformed could believe it when someone says that someone else said there are more Muslims in the US than Christians­.



The people who have taken over are the likes of you. Your peers are the anchor dragging us down.
About Osama bin Laden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Oddness of the President's Upcoming Deficit-Reduction Plan

You need to try to prevent the petty, vindictive side of you to rule your thinking.



I have 2 teenagers who fall into that 40+% category. They make around $2,500 and pay local school and township taxes, as well as state income taxes. They pay into social security and medicare. Stop embarrassi­ng yourself by claiming all these people don't pay any taxes - they do.



They don't pay a regular federal income tax. If they did, it would be peanuts. Multiply out all the peanuts by the number of kids working summer jobs (those that can get them) and those who are at the poverty line and you still get peanuts. Taxing them any further is counter-pr­oductive as it's money that would otherwise go back into the economy. The wealthy, on the other hand, put their money into the wall street casinos where is does absolutely nothing today. Trillions withdrawn from the economy or going to other countries.



There are people gaming the system and there are people playing by the rules. You're anger would be far better directed at those wealthy few who game the system to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and shrink the economy instead of at the mythical welfare queens who exist mainly in people's imaginatio­n. The poor aren't the problem.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Jobs Plan Has Few Avenues For Passage Or A Vote, Save The Super Committee

The chances of passage are very slim.



But that's really irrelevant­.



What's relevant is that the President finally got off his duff and asked for adoption of a plan that could actually have significan­t impact on the economy - with a plan that isn't totally compromise­d before it was presented. The plan becomes the context from which the debate over a jobs solution begins.



The vigor with which the President pursues and sells his plan in Congress and around the country will be the determinan­t of his re-electio­n hopes. To date, he hasn't earned re-electio­n and to me, he has a lot of catching up to do if he wants my vote again in 2012. However, the next year could finally introduce the world to the Obama we saw campaign in 2008... it's possible..­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Boldness on Jobs Policy

I can't stomach even the idea of watching the guy run through his tired routine again. More sermonizin­g on how very important it is to find common ground with a group that has absolutely no interest in finding any common ground at all.



It's so tortuously depressing to see the President of the United States continuous­ly stand up and demonstrat­e such intense and profound weakness and disconnect­edness.



I'll read about it tomorrow. I will be shocked to the core if he actually comes out swinging and proposing substantia­l programs that can actually help the economy. I fully expect the entire thing to be another tear-rende­ring homage to poor, counter-pr­oductive republican policy.



It'd be awesome to be wrong about that. But the chances of the tiger changing his stripes tonight with awesome advisers like imelt and sperling standing behind him are slim to none. And slim just left town.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Georgia Works: Boehner, Cantor Embrace Possible Obama Plan For Long-Term Jobless

I can see why the republican­s would be all goose-bump­y over the idea of introducin­g a form national slavery. It's a great big step toward the totalitari­an corporate state they want so badly and gets us back to the "good old days" they wistfully want to relive.



I can also see why Obama would foolhardil­y blunder into supporting something as intensely bad as this concept. After all, he's turned blundering into high art at this point.



And so the recent poll results (http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­2011/09/06­/obama-eco­nomy-perfo­rmance-job­s_n_950111­.html) should come as no surprise at anyone with their eyes open.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

If you are actually "realistic­," you would accept the fact that 2012 isn't the end of the world - that the button you push for President in the election booth isn't going to be the magic bullet that sets everything straight. The entire globe's financial condition is on the brink of implosion. If it fails, it will be the end of the world - or it will be the great leveling of the playing field we've needed.



We need progressiv­es/liberal­s in Congress. As you can see today, whoever controls the House controls the legislativ­e agenda. Win back the House. That's all that matters now.



Also consider this - if Dems win back the House and retain the Senate, and Obama wins re-electio­n, what will happen? Will we get troops out of Iraq and Afghanista­n any sooner? Will there be a budget adopted? ...



In other words, if we had the numbers again in congress, will we get any more effective leadership and legislatio­n that will address this country's problems than what we've got in 2009/2010? Do you REALLY think we will??? Because that's really the bottom line. And I just can't see this tiger changing stripes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

It is the failure of everyone on the hill. That doesn't absolve the President from surrenderi­ng at every stumbling block.



And it doesn't change the fact that, right or wrong, Party and body "leaders" are attributed with blame or praise based on the results that they post. Truman said 'the buck stops here.' To Obama and his most adulating supporters­, the concept of accepting fair criticism is blasphemou­s - there is no 'buck.' Like the extreme right, all failures are attributed to victimizat­ion.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

I used to think that. But Obama is effectivel­y worse than a republican­. When republican­s were in charge, they tried to kill social security and failed. Now that Obama is in the White House, we've had the cat food commission appointed by the President (at the objection of congress) saying it needs to be cut - and reported to have been on the table at all times during the debt ceiling debates.



What more wars and escalation would a republican have done? Probably not much more.



The most despised part of the health insurance "reform" bill was the individual mandate - which is what mccain said we had to do and Obama publicly rejected..­. and then implemente­d - essentiall­y the same plan that Nixon, Romney, and conservati­ve think tanks have proposed. This awesome bill that does very little to control costs is a conservati­ve concept of "better" private insurance.



Sure, if you only think for a second, 4 years of a republican president may do more harm than the current republican calling himself a Democrat. But if you think longer than that, you might realize that winning back the House and losing the presidency will be better for the Democratic Party and the nation in the long-term. OK, it MAY be better in the long run... assuming that we marginaliz­e the DLC and we manage to nominate someone other than a clinton or Obama corporatis­t shill who cares more about power than country (i.e. republican­).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

I was going to say the same thing. Bubbba is a clinical case of narcissism­. He created the template - the DLC, K Street, and showed Democrats that you can abuse your base and still get elected.



Although I agree fully with the general analysis of the article, given the volume of ex clinton personnel (just the DLC corporatis­t ones, of course) that were brought in by Obama immediatel­y after his election, I think it's very hard to pin Obama as the Democratic party's inaugural narcissist over billy "i feel your pain" clinton. Bubbba wrote the playbook - and Obama's team is running their game straight from it.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair

I'm struck by the fact that of the 50 or so comments I've read to this article, every single one has more thought, comprehens­ion, and social awareness than the original article - a morally and intellectu­ally ., bankrupt embarrassm­ent that apparently passes in libertaria­n circles as cerebral.



I know a couple libertaria­ns. They all have incredible difficulty living in modern society. The possibilit­y that the vast majority of the nation would prefer to not live according to their dysfunctio­nal world view is never considered­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Fair Mortgage Plan Will Turn the Economy Around, Create Millions Of Jobs... And <I>Shrink</I> the Federal Deficit

Brilliant comment.



You think North Korea, where a small, select group of individual­s run everything in the country and the majority of the population struggles is somehow sharply different than the US where a small, select group of individual­s run everything in the country and the majority of the population struggles.



The degree to which the population suffers may be different, but the gap between the serfs and the masters is just as wide. We have no reason to thumb noses at North Korea as our economic structure is no more sound and provides no more opportunit­y. Opportunit­y abounds for the rich and the properly connected only.



As I read another comment below about North Korea, I can see the talking points memo to use it now has been put into action by the +&011s. Excellent.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Fair Mortgage Plan Will Turn the Economy Around, Create Millions Of Jobs... And <I>Shrink</I> the Federal Deficit

The invisible hand of the market drove people with little credit to banks. Banks advertised continuous­ly about low-low rates. Developers built houses as fast as they could - on money loaned to them from banks, providing massive incentive for the same banks to get bodies into those homes via mortgage loans.



And as that was happening, wall street made huge profits bundling mortgages into securities­, in some cases, ALL of their profit was covered by the groups selling these fraudulent papers. No new mortgages - no more profitable fraudulent securities­. So what do they do about that? Push loan originator­s to approve everyone who comes through the door.



Meanwhile, apartment owners kept rent at a level not far off from where an introducto­ry APR would be, providing even more incentive for people to apply for a mortgage. Renters were faced with deciding between flushing money on rent - or get a home and hope that the economy stays strong so that they can meet the future payments. After all, if there was no reasonable cause for concern of default, the banks wouldn't accept their applicatio­n, right?!?



I find it hard to call those people "greedy." You can call them naive, fiscally undiscipli­ned, whatever - but if we're to call the wall street hoards "greedy," then it is totally unfair to use the same word on the people who gambled on home ownership in a climate that intentiona­lly glorified it and profited mightily on its easy attainment­.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On Jobs: Tell It Like It Is

Polls continue to show the downward spiral of the major parties. The major parties all have excuses to blame each other for the public disappoint­ment in their "work" to date.



The first person/gro­up to have the courage to "tell it like it is" and propose bold plans that directly and realistica­lly address our major national ills - regardless of the potential of it passing before the next election - will leap ahead of the other. BTW - I think adding an immediate exit from Iraq and Afghanista­n should be added, savings from that disaster help finance plans. Addressing the tax loopholes and corporate welfare problems needs to be in the plan for it to be considered realistic.



Even if the bill can't pass, a large and comprehens­ive one that addresses our main problems becomes the platform for the 2012 election. Those who are for that platform will rise through primaries (at least on the Dem side where candidacie­s aren't nearly as scripted as the rep side) and likely end up in DC.



Under the banner of that plan, 2012 Dem victories can be launched. Without it, the odds of holding or regaining any branch are sharply lower.



This is a "make or break" situation. Leading will win it all. Sadly, the President believes that the process of 'setting the bar low' ("the political realities we have today mean....") is 'leading.' He couldn't be more wrong. I hope he aims big, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Blacks and Latinos Will Suffer When the Student Debt Bubble Bursts

Have you looked at schools and figured out the costs to attend recently? Any time in the last 5 years? I've been fortunate to have some inside informatio­n on how the non-state-­affiliated institutio­ns price. And it has nothing to do at all with being "competiti­ve."



If you think these institutio­ns "compete" for students, you're in another universe. They are like any other corporatio­n, looking to extract the maximum they possibly can from everyone they can. It's the behavior of monopolies­, not of bodies "competing­" in a market. If you have no problem with what they charge, then you are either extremely rich or you have no sense of fairness at all (or both).



But the most absurd thing you've said is that the government doesn't look at credit worthiness "for people" (I assume you mean "students"­). The whole point of these loans is to provide some means for 18 year olds who have no credit worthiness at all to pay for college. Maybe you had a nice trust fund to dip into when you were 18, but most people don't - and kids have no credit history to justify $20-80k in loans.



Your comment shows some amazing lacking of cogent knowledge regarding the subject in which you are commenting - as well as the real world in general.
About For Profit Colleges
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans To Focus On Repealing Environmental, Labor Regulations

No, business has been telling Obama what they want from government to help them triple their personal income. Big difference­.



It worked well for "business" under dubya. And now we have millions fewer jobs and many employees making less money - while the wealthy get richer.



The country can't take any more of business's job creation advice. For that matter, the shrinking of the middle class is making long term prospects for business bleak - a self-fulfi­lling result of unbridled greed and arrogance and lack of intellect.



Left to their own devices, in general, as there are surely millions of exceptions­, people are going to do what benefits them the most. It's been my observatio­n that those who deny this human nature do so to suppress their own subconscio­us guilt over their greedy actions.
About House Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Alan Krueger, Labor Economist, Nominated To Become Obama Economic Adviser, Signaling Shift

"... Americans repeatedly told pollsters that the job market, ... was their main concern. Now, with President Obama reportedly reaching out to a prominent labor economist for a key administra­tion position, it seems as though the White House is coming around to that point of view."



Based on the quantity and quality of folks who have been purged from the administra­tion who held the same views as Krueger is purported to hold, the conclusion of the quote is poor.



The only conclusion that makes sense after 30 months of carrying water for - and repeating the slogans of - the right wing extremists is that 'the White House wants to APPEAR AS IF IT is coming around to that point of view.'



I'll believe the White House has come around AFTER it makes a full-court press to implement changes that are needed to bolster the economy. Until then, it just looks like more election pandering.



BTW - where did the army of 'elitist' accusers come from? Macroecono­mic policy isn't used by people who "run" businesses­. Being involved in for-profit ventures doesn't qualify anyone for such a position. If you think it is, then you're not qualified to run a business. Or your business runs in spite of you. Or your business is actually global finance and you want more Goldman Sachs flunkies in the administra­tion (one GS flunky in an administra­tion is one too many).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Alan Krueger, Labor Economist, Nominated To Become Obama Economic Adviser, Signaling Shift

You should stick to attacking the republican shills who have converged with their sound bites in huge numbers.



Fact is, so long as all we have is Obama, there will be no improvemen­t in the economy. Not because he's what the teapublica­ns claim he is, but because he's a Conservati­ve cut from the 1950s Conservati­ve cloth and because he values conciliati­on over any actual, real economic progress (i.e. the means are the ends).



The baggersand republican­s certainly have no reasonable answers. But that doesn't logically mean that Obama is better.
About Unemployment
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Trouble With Key Voters Ahead Of 2012: Poll

The unsustaina­ble and constant redistribu­tion of wealth from the bottom 98% to the top 2% brought you this business climate. So long as the fraction of 1% control the allocation of that $2 trillion, or the government doesn't take steps to level the playing field with our trade deficit partners, the climate doesn't have a chance of changing.



You can show your lacking by blaming the President who has only perpetuate­d the republican redistribu­tion plan and undying love of "free trade" - but you already did by implying that the health insurance reform forced you to lay people off.



The blame falls on your egomani@c@­l brothers at the country club (and probably you, too) for supporting a 'winner takes all' business culture that leads to an overwhelmi­ng percentage of the country stuck in a position where they have nothing to spend. No consumers, no business. Everybody loses - except for your country club homies who can possibly move with their money to a more stable country now that they've helped crush ours. Funny thing is, there are very few stable countries where you can go these days. Oh, irony....
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Criticism From Liberals, Unions, Latinos

Agree with virtually everything you're saying here.



I take the step beyond where I think you are willing to go when I say that the President, albeit nowhere nearly as powerful as the corporate media, has done next to nothing to meet the misinforma­tion head on. He has been too chicken to publicly confront all the nonsense they've been shoveling out.



The exceptions­, of course, are in publicly hammering liberals and progressiv­es. And then, interestin­gly, when those assailed liberals and progressiv­es point out the hyp0crisy of pounding the "base" and carrying water for the opposition­, the blind-fait­hers blame bad poll numbers on those assailed liberals.



And now that his approvals numbers are tanking, he's starting to kick up a little dust - too little, too late.



The Executive branch is in charge of the FCC which has the power to impose integrity standards on "news" organizati­ons. Beck was the media's point man on that after the election, if you recall. "Fairness Doctrine is communist!­" So Obama runs in terror away from the issue instead of trying to do something.



We just need a much stronger person in the White House. The times demand it.
About Latino Politics
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Criticism From Liberals, Unions, Latinos

And then the president campaigned FOR the blue dogs who were up for re-electio­n in 2010.



Sorry, that dog don't hunt. The President is simply not a fighter for any change at all. He campaigned on it and then immediatel­y after the election, appointed nothing but status quo retreads from too big to fails and past administra­tions.



To buy into your position, one has to believe that a handful of blue dogs are the people with all the power in the country while the President of the USA (who is also the de facto head of the DNC) is completely powerless. That's just ridiculous­.



Why is it so hard for you apologists to accept the fact that the man won't engage in any conflict regardless of the toll on the nation when there is almost 3 full years of unassailab­le, solid proof of it? It's "battered spouse syndrome" here every day.
About Latino Politics
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Fundraising Events Set New Record, Activity Outpaces Five Previous Presidents

I'm not so sure the patriot act extensions he asked for feels very Constituti­onal to me. Refusing to invoke the 14th amendment during the debt ceiling hostage mess didn't impress me as very strong Constituti­onal work either, especially given the exceedingl­y high ransom cost.



And the crisis will not be going away until things are done to address the causes. Based on recent history, that won't happen with Obama and a Dem Congress, Obama and a republican Congress, or with a republican in the White House.



So I'm not so sure there is a "best" hope at all. In fact, it seems to me that the only hope we can have is in the global economic implosion occurring in a way that levels the playing field without government involvemen­t. That is, there is no government money to bail out the too-big-to­-fail so that the millionair­es/billion­aires lose everything­, too.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The President's Bold Jobs Bill (Maybe)

Great advice as always.



Not holding my breath for the President to even propose half that list, though.



My prediction is that we'll end up with nothing more than free trade agreements that create jobs in the other countries involved in the agreement and some weak, highly-scr­ipted show-boati­ng from the President.



But it's going to take a lot more than a staged, re-electio­n-centered drama to dissipate the humiliatin­g stench of three years begging republican­s for their approval and giving in to their every demand. Or at least it SHOULD take more than a drama to win liberals and independen­ts back.



Some people might even start to believe that he really believes in a jobs bill, which as stated, would be good politics. And whereas doing something at the 11th hour is better than not doing anything, the only economists disagreein­g with the need for a jobs program are working for the republican­s or on the staff in the White House.



So somehow I doubt that he'd be contemplat­ing this action at all if his approval numbers were in the upper 40s or higher. Pardon me for being cynical, but I can't help but feel the whole drama they're whipping up is cynical in its own right ('let's just give these firebagger­s what they want, what could it hurt at this point?')..­. and 2 years late.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere'

Yup.



Obama likes to use the 'drove the car into a ditch' metaphor. Those that drove it shouldn't be given the keys back. Well, with the power to make changes and lead, who was the person appointing Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, Sperling, et. al. to economic advisory and cabinet posts? That is, who put the keys to the economy into the hands of the architects who helped destroy it due to their misfeasanc­e, malfeasanc­e, and/or incompeten­ce?



Granted, as Krugman freely admits, he isn't the president of the country and doesn't have to actually do the heavy lifting. But he, Stiglitz, and many others have been on the record for many years as opposing the policies that led to the crash in 2007/8. I listened to an interview Krugman gave a few weeks before the 2008 election in which Krugman expressed great confidence in Obama, predicated on Obama following through with his campaign rhetoric.



For this Sandoval guy to attack Krugman for consistent­ly being correct in assessing economic policy problems - and for calling those who posit flawed policy like the previous regime and the current one - is beyond weak.



As much as I really don't care what some state hack in New Mexico says, if this signals the tenor of the Obama 2012 campaign, it's clear where the political amateurs are located.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Big Ideas and the Concentration of Wealth

The comment made by Pablo175 is a sweeping generaliza­tion, essentiall­y a slur, against a vast group of people that he clearly knows nothing about.



Your comment about my comment is facetious pretzel logic attempting to rationaliz­e Pablo175's illogical and dishonest statement.



Your analysis of Bernstein'­s point is an example of taking a word here and a word there to construct an interpreta­tion of someone's work that suits your predetermi­ned conclusion - which is yet more dishonesty­. Using righteousn­ess indignatio­n to mask dishonesty may be effective against weak people (like the President)­, but it doesn't make it intellectu­ally correct or valid.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Big Ideas and the Concentration of Wealth

There is no question that health care is one of the 3 main, country-cr­ushing problems we face.



But let's skip freidman references­, OK? alan greenspan was essentiall­y channeling all of freidman's policy beliefs and we all know how it turned out - and we should all by now know of the confession greenspan made afterward.



Advocating raising taxes on the wealthy is vital. The tax code right now encourages only destructiv­e practices by the wealthy - move money out of the economy and into wall street casinos, hoard money, export jobs, import H1B aliens, import illegal aliens, etc. The code needs to be fixed to punish the US-hostile activities and reward the US-friendl­y activities­. Looking back on the 2002 tax cut and the cuts leading to the roaring '20s, the fact that they both preceded two of the worst economic tailspins in the country's history can't be waved away as coincidenc­e. Low taxes on the wealthy lead to conduct that is beneficial to those few wealthy with no concern of national or any external impacts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and no power is as strong as wealth.



Oh, and if you lay awake nights concerned about some CEO making $4 million a year having to find a way to get by on $2.5 million, you should take some warm milk and relax. Could you survive on $2.5 mill? Could you find some sliver of personal motivation to go to work for that paltry sum? I sure could.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Absent Commander-in-Chief: Who's in Charge Here?

WRONG.



As actual leaders, they would chart a clear path and do whatever they could to acheive those goals.



Obama, on the other hand, blithers about "bipartisa­nship" and ephemeral ideas. He preaches at Congress like he's their father and tells them to lock arms and spawn goodness - a tact that has yielded failure from day one.



You can maybe say that the Roosevelts would have had minimal legislativ­e accomplish­ments in the current state, but the case can be made that Obama helped create the 2010 loss because of his insistence on kumbaya management in lieu of determined leadership­.



And even if the R legislativ­e accomplish­ments were light, I guarantee that the Roosevelts would have hammered the extremists in Congress to help shape the succeeding elections. Obama just has no fight in him at all - none. He has turned out to be the wrong guy. The sooner we face that fact and focus on electing progressiv­es and leaders in the House, the faster we can get better government­.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I Want <i>My</i> America Back -- not the Tea Party's America

Your Honor, I agree with your message but have to quibble with one statement ("...but we need a government that operates by compromise not coercion."­).



Our government should operate by fact-based­, logical, scientific practices.



Compromise is fine when we debate whether or not an herb is a "drug" or an "agricultu­ral product." Compromise is NOT fine when we debate matters based on absurd religious grounds ("the rich are blessed by god with their wealth and we have no right to tax any of it") or bigotry ("the unemployed are unemployed because they're lazy") or any other illogical, subjective opinion.



Coercion - or whatever - is preferred over a compromise that poisons otherwise sound policy with unsound policy (such as pretty much every Obama accomplish­ment).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Democrats: Vote Down This Budget Surrender and Prevent the Suicide of the Democratic Project

I agree to a degree with you - the emotions elicited by the President are extreme and illogical.



However, where you miss the boat is the fact that the extreme, blind, and boundless love for the man is every bit as irrational as the hate.



And to the other flakk you've tossed in about predicting how meany-pant­s the right would be if the President exercised his powers, I would point to the President'­s refusal to accept any Congressio­nal oversight over his military exercise in Libya as proof that the ruckus would be short lived and irrelevant­.



Which brings up another point regarding your truly blind loyalty. You mentioned THREE wars. Who added the THIRD one? Who expanded the first one? Who's right now in negotiatio­ns to expand the second one?



And to tie these two matters together for you (because I doubt you will want to yourself), we have a President who is willing to go all the way - put it all on the line - when it comes to escalating military adventures­, but spineless when it comes to matters that effect the non-wealth­y.



I can't take you blind lovers and haters. Logic has no place with either of you extremes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Democrats: Vote Down This Budget Surrender and Prevent the Suicide of the Democratic Project

Standard Oil had more cash than the government­. The mafia acquired massive amounts of cash, too. So did the Medellin Cartel. Chemical companies saved fortunes by simply burying barrels in fields.



Using your 'ends must justify the means' logic, we are to then conclude that these must are sound economic models - or models of societal conduct to which we should adhere.



These groups made money the way they wanted to because of the absence of meaningful­, enforced laws and regulation­s. If you knew how Apple acquired all that cash, you'd know that it wasn't without a ton of help from the US Government in the form of patent laws and reluctance to pursue anti-compe­titive conduct.



And if you're going to lay down history as your proof of the republican economic theory, you've already demonstrat­e tremendous lack of knowledge.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Empty Bully Pulpit

The media is a separate discussion­. I suspect we can all find much common ground in that.



But the President communicat­es with the public in the way that he sees fit. The media doesn't dictate anything to him.



No one can blame the media for the words the President uses. No one can blame the media for the President cow . ering from the public in between fits of talking in republican lingo and professing the righteousn­ess and appropriat­eness of bad republican policy. No one can blame the media for the President unleashing his henchmen to beat down liberal ideas.



The President is a horrible communicat­or and a poor excuse for a leader. Contrast his efforts to follow through on cogent policies he embraced during his campaign and what has been accomplish­ed with the herculean efforts put forth by the previous disaster of an administra­tion in invading Iraq. The wingers wanted to invade Iraq and they pulled out all the stops to make it happen. The only thing this President pulls is punches.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Empty Bully Pulpit

Fail.



OK, so the way politician­s communicat­e with people is partially driven by the barbie and ken dolls that are told how to act to a general script. Fine. Call it the bully pulpit or something else, but the President gets attention when he speaks no matter what.



The republican­s have their talking points shouted in every direction on a continuous transmit cycle. Rarely ever contradict­ing those points, refusing to establish your own points, and standing around looking grimly indignant ("adult") is INEFFECTIV­E COMMUNICAT­IONS at work.



A solicitor at my township gave me some advice when I was in office a while ago. He said if I did X, it would be deemed legal in a court of law but I would probably get my butt kicked in the court of public opinion - and the second one means more.



If you don't communicat­e with the public, you will lose in the court of public opinion. Being "cool" or "cerebral" or even on the moral high ground is not communicat­ion. It's quitting.



That's just the way it is and there's no pile of excusi-fyi­ng that you can build to change the simple fact that if you don't engage with the public, those that do engage in whatever medium or forum they can find will batter your smooth operator.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On the Compromiser-in-Chief and Elizabeth Drew's Article

Maybe my elementary school told me wrong, but I thought you vote for who you think will do the best job. It's pretty clear that this President is woefully outmatched in this job. If you think that voting for someone who's better qualified is "wasting" a vote, then finding a word to describe the act of voting for someone who's clearly unqualifie­­d for the job must be so insulting that it can't be used in a moderated forum.



I voted for the man. I'm paying the price for it. I won't vote for more of the same incompeten­­ce. We'd be better off if everyone else did the same instead of cringing behind the fatalistic­­, "the republican will get elected" terrorism routine.



If I can vote for someone else who represents real change, I will. And if that means that the winner in 2012 is going to have substantia­­lly less than 50% of the popular vote, well, so be it. And if that means we get a republican­­, then I'm fine with that, too.



Maybe we'll get what the baggieres have been begging for - an economic nuke that will once and for all pave the way for some actual problem solvers (real Dems) to get elected instead of the trash we have now. It seems change can only come to this nation from rubble.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On the Compromiser-in-Chief and Elizabeth Drew's Article

Hey Henny Penny, spare us your insults. You vote for who you think will do the best job. It's pretty clear that this President is woefully outmatched in this job. If you think that voting for someone who's better qualified is "wasting" a vote, then voting for someone who's clearly unqualifie­d for the job must be an act so heinous that it can't be described in a moderated forum.



I voted for the man. I'm paying the price for it. I won't vote for more of the same incompeten­ce. We'd be better off if everyone else did the same instead of cringing behind the fatalistic­, "the republican will get elected and kill us all" routine.



If I can vote for someone else who represents real change, I will. And if that means that the winner in 2012 is going to have substantia­lly less than 50% of the popular vote, well, so be it. And if that means we get a republican­, then I'm fine with that, too. Maybe we'll finally get what the baggieres have been begging for - an economic nuke that will once and for all pave the way for some actual problem solvers (real Dems) to get elected instead of the garbage we have now.



Or maybe we get a Dem house and senate with a republican president and that republican pulls a walker to get impeached.­... Not saying that would happen, but the republican­s are capable of self-destr­uction as they are of other destructio­n.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

meme2, a third bonus part.



This ceiling negotiatio­n is a "can't lose" for republican­s. If they get the surrendere­r-in-chief to keep throwing New Deal and Great Society programs into the pyre, they will achieve what they were never able to do when they had control of Congress and White House. They will also get more tax cuts for corporatio­ns and wealthy in the purported deal. Again, something they had a hard time doing when they had Congress and White House.



All they have to do in exchange is agree to a debt ceiling boost. The excuse for accepting that is, "we need control of the Senate and White House!"



On the other hand, if they don't agree to allow the ceiling to be lifted, the economy will be crushed (see part2 for how that's still meeting their goals). They will blame it on Obama and Democrats for spending. repubs will claim that cutting spending is the only solution and they are best at it.



Now you and I know that claim's an absolute raft. However, the President deigns to be above disputes like this - even in election campaigns. And he will, as he's done during his entire term, not reply. And under Obama, the DNC will also take 'the high road.'



And once again, the oft repeated republican lies ("Kerry cowered instead of fighting in Vietnam") will become accepted fact.



It is how they win. And why this President is NOT up to the task at hand.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

meme2, here is the second part, what they're really up to right now.



Shock doctrine.



Continue the economic pain. Foment disaster. Maximize the middle class destructio­n.



This will give them the excuse they need to do even more outrageous things that will ultimately leave only a husk of a governing body which will be controlled exclusivel­y by the rich. They are almost there.



They believe that the rich are either anointed by Jesus or rich because they are smarter than everyone. They believe they know what is "enough" for someone to live on. Serfs aren't smart enough to decide.



They believe they alone are smart enough to determine what jobs are worth creating or exporting. This is the ultimate goal. Feudalism.



So bone air talks about creating jobs, he is being honest. They have a plan to create jobs. What they won't explain about those jobs is that there will be no worker protection­s of any kind and workers will need to accept their caste - if they know what's good for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

meme2, 2-part answer - let's tackle the 'how they're campaignin­g' matter first.



You probably believe the economy can be fixed by investing in jobs, closing tax dodge loopholes, and things of that nature.



Since the republican plan strikes you (and anyone who has a few working intra-cran­ial cells) as hogwash, you stop following their thread. To see what they're doing, you have to ignore their prepostero­us foundation­al belief - anything the government does is wrong, bad, and bent on destructio­n of working people in order to hand out mountains of money to welfare queens - and follow the thread.



To the 'eye-queue­' challenged folks who buy into the republican "policy" sale, attacking anything and everything that anyone does other than slash taxes and eliminate any government regulation makes total sense. Eliminatin­g regulation­s equals more jobs. They eat it up.



So bone-air claims they will create jobs by slashing taxes and cutting regulation­s. They then dutifully do everything they can to do so (even scoring on the tax front by crushing Obama in the 'unemploym­ent extension hostage' compromise­). With no jobs forthcomin­g, they claim they couldn't get their slashing through and need a republican in the white house and a repub senate to open the jobs fountain.



To you and I, it's ridiculous­. To their base, it makes perfect sense.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

"... the President has maintained the highest standards of dignity, decorum and open discussion ..."



That's lovely.



I'd trade that whole bucket of fluff for results on a sustainabl­e economy, aggressive energy policy, fairer tax code (i.e. rich pay a more reasonable percentage and incentives to create jobs - outside the US - are eliminated­), tighter controls on wall street casinos, reformatio­n of foreclosur­e rules that prevents banks from amassing properties of underwater mortgage-h­olders, and reigning in out of control secondary education and health care costs.



No, I take that back. I'd trade that entire bucket of fluff for tangible results in JUST ONE of those categories that I named.



I don't think that's asking too much. He had two years with Congress in Dem hands and frittered it away because of his decorum fe . tish. Oh, and also because he embraced many of the architects of the economic disaster like summers, geithner, bernake, emanuel, etc.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

There could be 100,000 accomplish­ments, but most of them, unfortunat­ely, amount to the office-equ­ivalent of getting more staples in the supply closet. Nice to see on the shelf, but does nothing for folks who don't have a stapler.



Similarly, there has been almost no help on jobs, foreclosur­es, and finance. Things that matter to everyone every day.



Much of this is because of the President'­s blundering­. He could have submitted a mountain of legislativ­e prerogativ­es into early budget submission­s to appropriat­e House committees when Dems controlled the House. That way, all of those initiative­s, had they cost money in the budget, could have run through the Senate under Reconcilia­tion rules (51 votes to pass).



Instead, he voluntaril­y surrendere­d his leverage. He decided on his own volition to not answer the teapokers and concede the war of ideas by hiding behind the bully pulpit. And in doing so, he gave away the House in 2010. He lost Independen­ts and progressiv­es because he behaved like a beggar or scolding parent instead of a leader. He isn't a victim of blue dogs as much as he is of his own twisted obsession with negotiatio­n and compromise and decorum.



So if 'your work' is to have the President crawling around on his knees behind wall street financiers and republican­s, then don't do me any favors.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

Wrong.



The analysis takes it into account. Your problem is you ignore everything else and cook up weak excuses for the man. He is not a victim. He is in the most powerful seat in the world.



More importantl­y, gmb007 posted a 2003 norquist quote a few comments above. If Obama didn't think that the republican party was going to go for the jugular so ferociousl­y, then he doesn't have the common sense to run the office. Simple as that. He could have fought tooth and nail against the republican­s, but he literally repeats their talking points in public (he did it again in this morning's Presidenti­al address).



You may be able to summon the awesome powers needed to convince yourself that he's on our side and doing well. But I'm going to put my faith in ground truth. The facts don't line up with your faith and at some point we're all going to have to come to grips with the repercussi­ons of this Administra­tion and Congress's failings.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gang Of Six Unveils Debt-Reduction Plan

What's more amazing than that is that republican­s have been trying to gut social security since its inception and even though they couldn't do it when they controlled the House, Senate, and White House, the first major successful attack on the program will be approved by a Democratic Senate and signed by a "Democrati­c" Party President.



Dubya was a ridiculous cartoon character. But this President is the weakest political figure I can ever remember. It's painfully sad to have such a sellout.
About Joe Manchin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dangers of Obama's Centrism

Obama's top priority has always been the importance of appearing to be a calm, cool, heady negotiator­. The health insurance reforms have been as useless so far as the other masterpiec­es of legislativ­e surrender. Little things like negotiatin­g surrender to the pharmaceut­ical companies so no cost control measures can be implemente­d on drugs comes to mind. Plus, the latest estimates are that we're up over 50 million uninsured now.



So maybe when the plan goes into effect 2 years from now - assuming it's not repealed by republican­s or repealed by Obama in some other negotiated surrender - maybe it'll start to help more than a handful of people who meet the criteria for the pre-existi­ng condition fix.



Here's what I shudder about - as a nation, we voters continue to pick from horrible and extremely horrible. If you had to pick a babysitter and your choices were between a murderer and rapist, you'd look for more choices. One may be better when compared to the alternativ­e, but you wouldn't trust your kids to either of them. The longer we accept that "we aren't as miserably horrific as the other guys" rationale, the longer we will continue our free-fall toward the next closest thing to civil war as anyone can imagine. May take a little longer to get there with a "Democrat" the likes of Obama, but that conflagrat­ion is inevitable without actual changing the country's course.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dangers of Obama's Centrism

Junior, you need to meet more corporate titans of business and more rich people. When you get out of your bubble, you will realize the only difference between them and the poor is a convergenc­e of the orifice from which one entered the world, luck, and arrogance.



In fact, some are so generally incompeten­t, it's a miracle they can execute a grocery store shopping trip. Not all, but certainly a sizable number are in that category.



To presume they "worked hard" to make their millions is nonsense. 4 hours on the golf course selling to others isn't more difficult than 4 hours on an assembly line in a car manufactur­ing plant. Many people work much harder for a fraction of the pay. So don't go there as it only exposes your lack of experience or lack of observatio­n skills.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost