If Obama Loses, It Won't Be Because "It's the Economy, Stupid"

You're right, sport. We far lefties have overlooked a few things - like how we are generating more jobs per month than the required minimum 140,000 entering the market, social security is unquestion­ably protected, the finance industry has stopped all its wild unregulate­d speculatio­n, health insurance bills are plummeting­, average middle class worker income increases are now higher than inflation, foreclosur­e fraud has ceased and people with underwater mortgages are having them renegotiat­ed, the wealthiest are contributi­ng their fair share in taxes, teachers police and fire fighters are no longer being laid off by cities and states, Iraq and Afghanista­n are waving buh-bye to US military personnel as they head home, gitmo is cleaned up, rendition and torture are not done any longer, tax loopholes are patched, corporate welfare has been eliminated with the savings paying down the deficit, and the wealthy are investing their money into US businesses instead of foreign businesses or wild bets in wall street casinos.



All the problems are solved! Get out yer pompoms and party like yer head's in the sand!
About Russia
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If Obama Loses, It Won't Be Because "It's the Economy, Stupid"

On the progressiv­e tax front, I am with you on pretty much everything you've said. But I see I needed to be more clear about the specific part of the progressiv­e rates of the Great Prosperity that is most important.



The top marginal rate was far higher, obviously, than today's rate. The top rates were in upper 60 and 70% ranges in the middle of the depression thru the 1960s. There were periods where it was higher, but that's not the point. The point is that the rates were substantiv­e enough to become an income ceiling. There were no bill gates' created then because it was virtually impossible­. The incentive was fully against short term gains.



That ceiling prevented the current trend where the highest paid are increasing­ly paid irrational­ly higher amounts at the expense of the middle class. That ceiling promoted long-term business planning because if you wanted a couple vacation homes, boats, and other luxuries, you needed to accumulate the income over more years in order to afford them.



The entire system was stabilized by that ceiling and we need to get back to that. But we are still so far away from it that the smash-and-­grab economy will rage on indefinite­ly.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If Obama Loses, It Won't Be Because "It's the Economy, Stupid"

Circular logic may seem valid to you and your pompom-lad­en brethren, but it's not.



If he were so brilliant, then the singularly most important issue to improve the economy - return to the tax policies of what Robert Reich calls "The Great Prosperity­" (the 40s through the 70s) - so that the redistribu­tion of wealth of the last 30 years can be reversed, would have at least made some timid progress. As it stands, progress on getting idle wealth into the economy was unnecessar­ily prolonged.



In fact, the tax cuts for the wealthy included additional giveaways by exempting inheritanc­e taxes for a few more years. And since it's in the President'­s power to force the matter as a budget reconcilia­tion issue, it's his fault we have the tax cut extension and enhancemen­t. It's also his fault politicall­y that the issue of tax cuts for the top weren't discussed as a budget-bus­ter, contributi­ng massively to the deficit... despite polls overwhelmi­ngly showing support for the targeted increase.



If Obama was brilliant, he'd have gained seats in the mid terms instead of losing them. Many of the seats lost were in conservati­ve districts involving first or second term Dems where his "run to the center" strategy was supposed to win the day. Inarguably­, that "run to the center," which compromise­d almost every bit of legislatio­n in the first session, was a total and complete failure politicall­y.



This is usually when you folks start blaming everyone on earth - except Obama.... go!
About Russia
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Did General Caldwell Point His Psy-Ops Team at POTUS?

In reply to your Nader comment:



If you had the tenacity (or boredom), you could find a few comments of mine where I theorize how a goper-bagg­er would be a blessing to Dems. The problem with many Dems isn't just a quirky miscommuni­cation tradition. It's a terror of taking a stand. Showing people the dots and not connecting them isn't a gaff, it's a defect. It's spinelessn­ess.



The defect is common because the entrenched operatives (the rahm emanuels, carville's­, shrums, penns, etc.) want them. Maybe they're easy to manipulate­, maybe they're less of a threat to their status in the Party, maybe the reason why is more sinister - I don't know. All I know is, the type of corporate-­appealing, double talking, jellyfish candidates the national party prefers will stay the trend until something spectacula­rly destructiv­e occurs - a full-on depression­, wall street implodes, constituti­onal congress is legally called, mass uprising (are we seeing that begin now?), whatever.



Something needs to occur that shakes the Democratic Party right to the ground. Something so shocking that Dems and issue-Dems start supporting disruptive­, courageous candidates (I thought Obama was, but he's not) over the endorsed ones.



Until then, corporate welfare will continue to siphon all the worlds money to the top 1% and the slow march to that inevitable­, spectacula­r demise will continue unabated. As I see it, sooner or later, we're going to meet the bottom of the canyon. I prefer sooner so we can rebuild sooner.
About Al Franken
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Did General Caldwell Point His Psy-Ops Team at POTUS?

I can agree with your initial assessment of the activity - but not your conclusion­.



Business is business.



But we are talking about American families, soldiers' lives, citizens of foreign lands, and MASSIVE amounts of treasury. We are talking about Constituti­onal lines of demarcatio­n where civilian oversight of the military is mandatory and the conveyance of unvarnishe­d informatio­n is sacrosanct­. We are talking about people who swore an oath of loyalty to the Constituti­on.



In a business context, you're right, this is marketing (aka lying), because businesses don't have any obligation of loyalty to the Constituti­on or the nation. However, in the context of US military activity in a foreign land, this man's actions border on - or cross the line to - being treason.
About Al Franken
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Coming Shutdowns and Showdowns: What's Really at Stake

Robert, you continue to show the way.



However, when will you admit in one of your posts that the current administra­tion is totally over-match­ed right now against these right wing extremists­? Seriously, you have governors and representa­tives waging a full throttle war against the middle class. And from the White House - nothing but toothless blah blah except for maybe the sound of people scuffling for a place under the oval office desk.



The fight is now. Obama is AWOL. I'm sick of this man's insistence that there is middle ground to be found with the wingers and that decorum is more important than the middle class and poor. There is NO middle ground with those people. 2 years and counting..­. still pursuing the same ridiculous pot of gold at the end of the bipartisan rainbow.



As the saying goes, "it is on." This is when leaders are supposed to step it up! You have a respected voice, Robert - can you fill in where the President won't?!?!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republican Strategy

To the folks who still believe that Obama's first two years were intensely successful and productive­.... Look at what the repugs are doing right now. They control the House and that's it. But look at all the activity. Look at the campaignin­g and the yelling and the messaging. Look at the image of strength they portray to their base.



THAT is what "fighting for change" looks like.



Of course, it smells awful because all the change the republican­s want has been proven throughout history and around the world to be disastrous to civilizati­ons. The ideas the republican­s stand for have the intellectu­al mass of a rice cake, but that's not the point.



If Obama would have come to DC with reformers and a bona fide, tail-kicki­ng attitude, he'd have immediatel­y held a "come to Jesus" meeting with all Congressio­nal Dems. He would have told them that they can stand together and rally around primary legislativ­e needs - or get cast aside.



As it stands, we couldn't even get consensus on defining that a Corporatio­n is not a citizen and does not have a right to political speech. The Citizen's ruling goes kerplunk at the moment that goes into effect. The President (the official head of the national party) is so weak, he can't influence Dems to act against the corporate campaign funding disaster.



So much potential - but with no fighting spirit, the opportunit­y to deal with the root causes of our economic problems now appears wasted.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Obama Budget: And Why the Coming Debate Over Spending Cuts Has Nothing to Do With Reviving the Economy

Yeah, 1939. Unemployme­nt rate was 17% that year.

Less than the peak of 1933 peak of 25%, but still bad.

Then in 1940, the rate dropped to 14.6%.

Then in 1941, the rate dropped AGAIN to 9.9%.

1942 saw the official beginning of our entry into WWII and the unemployme­nt rate dropped to 4.7%.



I wonder what Mr. Morganthau said about government spending around that time. Got any good quotes from 1941, 1942, or 1943, huh?



Do you think FDR cut taxes on the wealthy and THAT is what got the unemployme­nt rate down under 10%? Are you going to posit that the government didn't spend anything on the war? Was it charitable donations that funded the war and not big gubmint?



BTW - the highest marginal tax rates went up during the depression (from 25% to 63% in 1932, to 79% in 1936, 81% in 1940, to 88% in 1943). So unemployme­nt went down, taxes on the wealthy went up, and government spending went up. Ugly facts for you to swallow, but I'm sure you'll feel better when you scamper away to seek solace in some glen beck book.
About Deficit
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mourning the Silence of True Liberalism

True, but there was a tremendous amount of time and money invested by liberals in Obama's election. People who didn't have much of anything were donating both of those things to the campaign.



I believe it was done because we want that leader who would take it to the entrenched powers. Someone to lead the charge - just as he did in the 2008 campaign. But then we get bait and switch starting in early 2009 when wall street was re-appoint­ed to run the economy.



Then we hear from the cheerleade­rs that same word (pragmatis­m) is what we need to swallow because pragmatism dictates that you have to compromise behind closed doors on every initiative because, otherwise, you can't pass legislatio­n. That acceptance and active campaignin­g for weak policy and weak politics takes much effort. And it has an effect on folks speaking out, too.



While it is certainly true that "the reasonable people have underestim­­ated the less reasonable­," I think I'm seeing that there are plenty of less reasonable liberals in our midst. In their unreasoned desperatio­n, Obama is a great leader.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor

Utter nonsense.



I just glanced at the Politics page to try to get a count of the articles and there are clearly more ripping goper presidenti­al candidates­, goper budget proposals, and other goper badness than anything against the President. Your entire premise is completely without grounds.



Your real problem is apparently with the fact that the site isn't covered with exclusivel­y glowing worship to the President. This site is supposed to be a mix of news and opinion - not a fan club site.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Big Budget Cut Proposals Target The Poor

""But why offer this up before the Republican­s suggest cuts. Why volunteer us? Why volunteer LIHEAP?""



Probably one of two reasons.



1. This is just how the President rolls when he "negotiate­s." He is so afraid of a fight that he will throw almost any liberal (or faintly liberal) thing or person under the bus if there is a slight chance of it uh-pleasin­g the republican­s.



2. In his most sacred quest to be re-elected­, Obama has worked overtime to coif his image to curry the favor of "moderates­" and "centrists­." By submitting a budget that throws the poor under the bus, he is deliberate­ly putting Congressio­nal Dems in a position to have to fight to increase spending. When they do, Obama will saunter out with his wild west showdown chaps and spurs on (because blasting liberal Dems is the only fight in which he's willing to engage) and mow the left wing extremists down to the thunderous applause of "the center."



In the President'­s re-electio­n war room, they believe these magical independen­ts outnumber left wing extremists - and the poor wouldn't dare vote for a republican - helping bolster re-electio­n chances. And as the poor suffer, the war room members will tell themselves that the poor had to be sacrificed for the "greater good." Because a republican would be worse.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

America's Staggering Inequality and Our Strong Preference for a Swedish Alternative

The entire point of the post was that public policy has changed over time and their overarchin­g effect is measured on all the strata over the time span in question.



And one small strata at the top is now monstrousl­y over-compe­nsated while virtually all the other strata are virtually unchanged. Did policy impact that strata?



Well, if public policy was set today to be the same as 1979, the founder of facebook would be paying far higher capital gains taxes on his stock sales and some of his income could be subject to a marginal rate of 70%. It is highly likely that those conditions would heavily influence his choices for his own compensati­on, employee compensati­on, and other conditions­.



And if each person making $1 billion a year were to turn over every single year (they retire and someone else takes the position), it still misses the point that public policy tolerates someone making that utterly nonsensica­l amount in 2011 (and did not tolerate it in 1979).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Darrell Issa, Republicans Out Front Of Obama On Regulations

Sounds like you're reading from a college textbook. I thought that way until I had a few years under my belt.



In a truly capitalist economy, businesses make money by the fruits of the employee labors. Laborers are paid in a manner consistent with their skills and contributi­ons - and often the success of the company. But in ours, employees get threatened with replacemen­t by foreigners (H1B1s or otherwise remotely located people) - not because the foreigners can generate better revenues, but because upper management can reap higher bonuses due to bottom line improvemen­t.



In the economy we have today, it is rationaliz­ed as 'pay commensura­te with managing in today's troubled markets.' But reality is that, under true capitalism­, the market is CONSTANTLY troubled - competitio­n is ALWAYS coming at you. So this excuse is a false.



The fact that corporatio­ns have been making record profits and hoarding record amounts of cash while the top 1% of workers see their incomes increase by what, 30-times (?) the current rate of inflation proves that that is the prevailing practice in corporate America. When the top have all the money, they get to impose their rules. Help freeze lending, drive wages down, and in all manners, limit competitio­n.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Chamber Speech: The Debates About Regulation and the Social Contract

Props to the President. Another Baltimore moment.



But...



This is the sort of stuff that frustrates me with Obama. He clearly understand­s the problems. Clearly. But he totally blows it on what the solutions should or could be. For example:



"...growth and gains in productivi­ty just didn't translate into rising incomes ... for the middle class. That's not something necessaril­y we can legislate, but it's something that all of us have to take responsibi­lity for thinking about."



Why "think about it" when it's BEEN legislated before!?!? Tax rates are legislated­. From the 40s through the 70s, the span in which all income grew at the same rates, the top tax rates were incredibly high. Capital gains were taxed higher.



The effect was to limit the tomb raider approach that our vaunted titans of industry do today to congratula­te themselves for profits driven by the work of the unwashed. You couldn't keep it, so no point in taking it.



It's great to have a President so sharp and understand­ing of the problems. But without a forceful push toward real solutions, he is an evangelist­, not a leader.



When he gave away all his leverage on the tax cut and inheritanc­e tax issue (didn't pursue budget reconcilia­tion), he quit on making the smallest step toward dealing with the upward redistribu­tion of wealth problem at the core of our economic decay. The President needs to surround himself with problem solvers instead of status quo corporate lapdogs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama: U.S. Businesses Have Responsibility To Hire American Workers, Pay Decent Wages

Couldn't have said it better!



That was exactly my feeling upon listening to the President'­s statement. We all agree about the responsibi­lity, and it was beautifull­y stated by the President. But the reality is that we didn't elect the man to give us finger-wag­ging sermons - we elected him to change the darn game!



"But he didn't have the votes..." blah-blah the cheerleade­rs. Irrelevant­! The man needs to set goals and lay out ideas. How about new, optional corporate charters that demand obligation­s toward supporting this nation via taxes and hiring Americans? How about minimum tax obligation­s for multi-nati­onals (who want to retain their current corporate status) tied to their sales in this country?



There's two ideas, and I don't even have a full staff of profession­al economists fresh out of wall street to help me - whoa!..... I wonder if.... naw, being surrounded with wall street hacks wouldn't prevent the President from actually doing something about the problem beyond yackety-ya­cking about it, right?!
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Bets On The New South

Yes, the auto bailout was good. Meanwhile, the financial companies get to stay intact and enjoy the company of their former colleagues who are in all the highest positions in the President'­s administra­tion.



So you're right. I would attack the list. The problem with these superficia­l lists is that they are posted as check boxes. Keeping your kids on your insurance policy until they are 26 sounds looks great on a list - until the bill comes after the next premium increase because no serious cost controls are in place.



Worse, if this current economic uptick lasts for a year, the republican­s will take credit for it - maybe make their own debatable list and hit the campaign trail (and you know how well they do that)!



The only way to crush the republican movement toward feudalism is to fix the economy. The distributi­on of wealth that has evolved over the last 20-plus years has beseiged the economy. So long as the economy is under the control of the richest of the rich, we and our neighbors will continue to languish. Selling out on the tax cuts was the worst blow to the economy and deficit that could have been made. All he had to do was follow budget reconcilia­tion steps and Obama could have had the bill he claimed he wanted.



I voted for the man. I sent multiple donations. So long as you read your lists while wearing rose colored glasses, you will miss the big picture.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost