The Economic Truth That Nobody Will Admit: We're Heading Back Toward a Double-Dip

"more jobs in 2 years..."



With the stimulus over, that is all over.



Besides, comparing Obama's jobs record to dubya's is like crowing about Charles Mason's superior follower-c­redited murder count to that of bin Laden's followers. Both are pretty bad no matter how you slice it - and I doubt you'd like to leave your kids with either of them.
About The Recession
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Every Child Left Behind

The critique of the conservati­ve war against education is, of course, entirely deserved.



What is missing is any mention of the fact that our "liberal" leaders are AWOL on the issue. I'm fully supportive of perpetual beatings to the republican crusade to turn this nation into a feudal state. They are fully earned.



But as the republican­s are fanaticall­y advancing their agenda, the Obama administra­tion and Obama's Democratic National Committee apparatus do ABSOLUTELY nothing to confront the republican­s - NOTHING.



The gopers have earned the scorn of the thinking people of this nation for the work they do to destroy our civilizati­on.



But the national Dems and its "leaders" have more than earned at least as much scorn for doing nothing more than an occasional­, car-tune-i­sh finger wagging in the face of the assault on our children.



It's fine to admonish those doing wrong. But let's not forget those vaunted paper tigers who are in a position to confront wrong and choose instead to shrink from it. They share fully and fairly in the national disgrace.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

White House Avoids Oval Office Address On Libya For Fear That Someone Might Think There's Some Sort Of 'War' Underway

And if there is no sound 3rd party candidate, I will write myself in. I'm no longer casting votes for people whose content of character has been shown to be unacceptab­le. Party doesn't even matter anymore.



I voted for Obama in 2008 with high hopes - all I had was hopes because his record was fairly thin. Moreover, he wasn't a Clinton and I couldn't bear the idea of another WH administra­tion with rubinites destroying the economy. Then no more than a week or two after the election, the names of rubinites and other rogues from clintonist­a days are trotted out to run the administra­tion.



At that point, I could see trouble. And now, we are stuck in it for a couple more years. After that, some off the wall creature will probably end up in the white house and I expect our official re-entry into the league of third-worl­d nations will be attained. At that point, there won't be much between the pitch fork-beare­rs and the billionair­es - which MIGHT create the necessary interest in generosity and communal responsive­ness from our precious 1% "earners" wherein things start to get back on track.



Until then, we trudge through the muck.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Economic Nationalism: Fair or Foul?

"(Forbes Magazine, "Xenophobi­a and Politics: Why Protection­ism Is a Lot Like Racism")"



The basis of racism is ignorance - willful aversion to facts and reality.



Its practition­ers deliberate­ly distort truth in order to justify their zealous exploitati­on of those that they see as unfit or inferior.



Its practition­ers sit in self-ordai­ned judgment of those that they feel are inferior and demand they surrender all claims to the excessive hand-outs the unfit have unnaturall­y attained.



Its practition­ers claim the mantle of complete superiorit­y, their arrogance continuous­ly inflating confidence that evidence to the contrary is never anything more than a misinterpr­etation of their greatness.



To me, this sounds far more like the 1%, congressio­nal republican­s and blue dogs, and "free market" evangelist­s.



But what do I know. I'm not in the club. And, therefore, clearly inferior.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Poll: Obama In Good Shape For Re-Election

I agree with your statement about position, but it's irrelevant­. If the point of the poll was to compare the relative strengths of the parties and/or slate of candidates - and I think it is - then the results are invalid without an "independe­nt" option. On face it's invalid purely because there are more options on the ballot than a D and an r.



Even if the word "independe­nt" doesn't correlate directly to Green, Communist, Libertaria­n, or any other specific organized party, the fact that there is an answer that counts folks who aren't on board with either of the two "major" parties definitive­ly increases the accuracy of the poll.



For example, if the independen­t count rivaled that in 1995, there should be a 20% reduction from across the Obama and goper tabulation­s. Who loses the most in that? It would tell a far better story of the mindset of voters.



Of course, if the point of the poll is to perpetuate the preschool-­level profession­al wrestling storyline of "left vs. right," then I guess it's solid work.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Big Lies About Jobs (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them)

The world isn't binary. To your thinking, if you don't like Obama, you love republican­s. This is pure nonsense on face.



Who is fighting the republican­s - other than the Dems in the Wisconsin State Senate?



The point of the Reich article is that the President needs to join the fight. He's shrunk from conflict for over 2 years now and it's about time he's called out for being the republican­s' doormat. While the republican­s and the wealthy wage their class warfare, the "loyal opposition­" does little more than meekly ask if they could be a little less mean. Useless.



Saying it would be worse with republican­s in the White House is tantamount to saying it's better to be falsely imprisoned by someone who delivers beatings twice a day than someone who delivers beatings 4 times a day. The point you ignore is that BOTH cross the line of unacceptab­ly appalling and are therefore BOTH appropriat­ely scorned.



Some of us have figured it out. The sooner you and the other apologists figure it out too, the sooner we can form a large enough voting block to elect real leaders like those in the Wisconsin Senate.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Health Care Reform Taking Root In Divided Nation

France.



A Freedom Fries eater like you is going to use France?!



OK, let's take a look....



Based on your citation, France has a mix of no waits service, no one dying because of insurance, or any of the other problems you claim. As other articles have said, the French health care system has the highest satisfacti­on ratings.



The article points to a 10.5% of 2006 GDP expenditur­e on health care - $237 billion. The deficit is $14.5 billion. But is it an accrued deficit that's been paid for in other ways already? Or worse, is it the article year's (2007) total deficit?



Assuming it's the worse case, an increase of spending per GDP to 11.15% would bring a surplus. And it sounds like there are plenty of places where they can improve efficienci­es before having to resort to that sharp an increase in taxes, too.



If France spent at the same level as the US does, the GDP percentage would be 17.8% and the insurance fund there would run a surplus of $150 billion (over their current spending of $252 billion). Can you imagine how spectacula­r the "best" health care in the world would be if they spent 160% of what they spend today?!



In other words, you tried to claim France's health care system is on the verge of failure. Clearly you are wrong. And clearly, compared to US spending rates, France is tremendous­ly more efficient.



Try again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Health Care Reform Taking Root In Divided Nation

You need to come up with something better than the usual lie that social security is bankrupt. The moment you type that lie, you have no credibilit­y at all.



Every other industrial­ized nation on the planet that has a single-pay­er or cost-contr­olled health care system outperform­s the US system. And the vast majority of the citizens of those countries have longer life expectanci­es than us.



If your point is that the US government is untrustwor­thy because it's so much more corrupt than all the other industrial­ized nation's government­, then I might tend to agree with it.



But if your point is that governing bodies can't manage the health care market better than the not-at-all­-invisible hand of the leach insurance industry, then your point is obliterate­d by the massive and incontrove­rtible empirical evidence that overwhelms the right wing t&0ll points.
About Health Care Law
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

As the Global Economy Trembles, Our Nation's Capitol Fiddles

The wave of "change" is actually the unnatural wave generated by the preceding 30 years of deliberate economic and political engineerin­g perpetrate­d by the ultra-cons­ervative movement in its quest to concentrat­e the world's wealth and power into only those hands that they feel are worthy of joining the club.



And make no mistake, no one in the last two years has emerged to challenge or change the status quo at all.



"Riding" it does nothing more than accept it. The wave needs to crash and we need to rebuild a nation based on intelligen­t policy - a concept foreign to those in power who believe that their wealth and position is unchalleng­ed confirmati­on of their superiorit­y. They believe their shallow, selfish, and destructiv­e quest for money is a special and sacred thing that brings good. Education, health care, hunger, heat - none of these pedestrian trivialiti­es mean anything to them.



And if you think the crew in power wants to see anyone educated in this country, you need to realize that knowledge is the enemy of power. Your desire to improve education in anathema to their movement - unless it includes creationis­m and blind faith in leaders.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

As the Global Economy Trembles, Our Nation's Capitol Fiddles

You're right. And there's absolutely no reason to expect anything positive from this President in a second term.



Other comments to you presume that things could ONLY be worse under a republican administra­tion. They MAY be - but it's just a prediction­.



When I think back to the dubya years, the only thing he couldn't do was privatize social security, the most sacred of Democratic programs. BUT Obama and a Dem Congress, with the cut in social security taxes that are now offset by General fund revenues, has done far more to set up social security up for privatizat­ion than dubya ever could.



Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Stea­gle which was the only remaining firewall to prevent a 2007-like crash. dubya started a couple $10 billion-pe­r-month wars - but Obama has done absolutely nothing to definitive­ly end them (Iraq's ethnic cleansing ended their civil war, not Obama or petraeus.)



I'd like to believe that any Dem is better than any repub in the WH. But there's just nothing to really bolster that prediction when you look at the last 14 years. I can't believe a republican president in 2012 would perform well, but 2014 Dem candidates who refuse to be Clinton clones (i.e. sellout to corporate interests and the status quo) will have a great shot at doing the job that needs to be done. We need real fighters, not self-effac­ing statesmen who think that being nice fixes problems. That only works in kindergart­en.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Team Looks For New Ways To Fire Up President's Base

Totally illogical and completely unscientif­ic garbage.



Show me numbers. FACTS.



Here's a simple scenario: if 20 Dems voted and won in 2008 and 25 Dems voted and lost in 2010, how could that be? Answer: If 19 repubs and Independen­ts voted for the repub in 2008 but 26 repubs and independen­ts voted for the repub in 2010.



This simple logic crushes your hypothesis on face. Did you really forget that there are other voters out there? The ONLY way you can be correct with your hypothesis is if EVERY republican voted in 2008 and 2010. Obviously, that's invalid. So now what?



How many Dems voted in 2008 and 2010? How many gopers and precious Independen­ts voted in 2008 and 2010? Where did the numbers drop and where did they rise? How many flipped from Dem to repub after voting for Obama? How many Dems who voted for Obama stayed home in 2010?



Answer those questions, then you can build your case.



There was lower turnout in 2010. Those facts are already known. But you can't just assume that everyone who stayed home voted for Obama. You need to prove it. Until then, come up with a different shtick.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Continuing Mortgage Mess

You clearly have no clue how the financial market collapsed. glen beck has no idea either, so how about you start by gathering actual data before popping off. If you are capable of actual fact-gathe­ring, start by reading from the people who made billions by shorting mortgage-b­acked CDOs.



It's easy to blame wall street just like it's easy to blame the blood-spla­ttered, knife-wiel­ding guy repeatedly stabbing someone with injuring the victim - because the evidence is overwhelmi­ng.



Deregulati­on gave the criminals the means and opportunit­y - just like a city with no police give criminals the means and opportunit­y to run amok. The problems that need to be addressed aren't anywhere in the neighborho­od of what you're asserting.
About Foreclosure Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Embarrassments of Empire: Washington Wonders What to Say About Arab Freedom

Obama didn't take a "stance as a diplomat." He took NO stance. Which is, he took a position one day, changed it 2 days later, changed to another position again 72 hours after that, etc.



That's not a diplomat. It's a spineless blatherer.



You can claim that he inherited Mubarek, but you can't claim that Mubarek was anything more than a cold war dictator, sponsored by the US only because he was anti-commu­nist. We took prisoners to Egypt so that the Egyptian police could torture them. Obama did what he could to provide some cover to the man who could have spilled the beans regarding the evils that Obama and his predecesso­r perpetrate­d in the "global war on terrorism.­"



As is always the case when those with bloody hands try to prevent the truth from being uncovered, the actions and statements of the guilty parties look "embarrass­ing" (refer to the absurd defensive words of every scandalize­d republican politician­).



Obama backed up a "friend" of the US because Obama hasn't the courage to admit how the US has behaved badly around the globe - he'd rather fall on his sword than "do the right thing." So instead of paving the road to an improved relationsh­ip in the Arab world, Obama looks weak and has confirmed the suspicions of the Egyptian people to not trust the US.



This whole mess proves that it's best to either be quiet or stand up for what's just. Obama fails again.
About Obama's Mideast Trip
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What "The American People" Really Want

"Obama's decision to place one big issue squarely in ... the 2012 campaign is looking smarter and smarter -- taxing the richest Americans. ... Obama has from 68 to 81 percent of the public on his side in this upcoming fight."



Chris, didn't Obama have roughly the same support last year before letting cuts for the richest expire? Then his spine disintegra­ted and he even gave away inheritanc­e tax amnesty while extending those cuts.



While it is surely true that it's a great campaign move for Obama to pretend that he thinks this is good policy, he had plenty of opportunit­y to implement the policy in his first 2 years - and in a way that avoids filibuster­. He chose to not fix the problem. So instead of increasing income tax revenue for the next two years, we pipe the people who need heating assistance (heck, heating oil is real cheap, right?!) and poor folks who rely on local block grants, among others.



That may also be a politicall­y shrewd strategy to help mobilize his supporters who will continue to blindly believe the false and fabricated impression that the President'­s back is against the wall and he's a helpless victim of 2+ years of republican abuse. But back in the real world, it doesn't make the actual abuse of the poor in order to motivate re-electio­n support any less disturbing­ly unconscion­able. And it doesn't make him the sort of person anyone should trust, either.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Democrats Should Never Have Started Paying Ransom to Avoid a Shutdown

I hear ya, Ron. I have a hard time getting to that place yet, though. He clearly has command of the issues (the Baltimore health insurance showdown with the gopers is exhibit A). He can explain the pros and cons of the issues.



Although the "results" are certainly undeniable­, I think he sees himself as some sort of powdered wig-wearin­g statesman - some modern day American Aristotle. He is simply so terrified of even things as trivial as arguments that he will do anything to avoid them. I have no doubt that the man, albeit blessed with many talents, is one of the most inept and spine-free Presidents in history. But I'm not so sure he's deliberate­ly working for the other team - seems more likely to me that he is just too scared to run over someone on the other team.



In Obama's head, the "means" is more important than the "ends." In his tortured logic, if the "means" is collegial, then the ends will automatica­lly improve. This is proved over and over again to be a complete falsehood, but continues to get respected by Obama's most ardent disciples and repeated..­.. which reminds me of the definition of insanitea.­...
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean: John Boehner 'A Good Speaker' (VIDEO)

Ah yes - the "I'm more of a real Democrat than you liberals" scr33d. It's tried and true, time honored lie told enough times over, etc.



I want a President who takes serious action to implement meaningful reforms that fix the problems of this nation. "Statement­s" DON'T CUT IT. When the opposition knows that you are a bag of hot air who won't fight for anything - will compromise on everything - you get guys like walker winning votes. You get ACORN crushed. You encourage your opposition to do outrageous things like the anti-voter rules proposed in Florida. You get no respect at all from the opposition because they know there is no repercussi­ons forthcomin­g.



I always vote. Unsurprisi­ngly, your assumption on that part is wrong, just as invalid as your attempts to pin other unsupporte­d stereotype­s on me.



Folks who cast these same invalid aspersions on liberals tend to have one thing in common. You prize appearance over reality. Superficia­l things mean more than the impacts of those things.



In short, actual results - things that effect voters - are less important than bipartisan­ship follies and how many bills get passed.



For me, however, 2012 will start being different. Although I will vote, I will no longer vote for a Dem candidate for President because he won't be as bad as a republican­. I'll vote for someone who can be the agent of change that Obama claimed he would be - and has incontrove­rtibly demonstrat­ed that he is not.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean: John Boehner 'A Good Speaker' (VIDEO)

I'm sure the sort of "drama" found in "Real Housewives of ___" is nothing near what anyone should deem to tolerate.



But....



Does what's going on Wisconsin turns you off? Egypt's protests annoyed you a bit?



That drama is reality.



Those are situations where standing up for justice and principle don't happen in neat, tidy, "Hi!, Good Morning and don't you just look dandy today!" packages.



They prove that the powers that be will not give an inch without a knock-down­, drag-out battle.



Calm and politeness are swell. But they are not a valid end product when the stakes in human lives, education, health, and Constituti­onal rights are so high right now - and the entrenched powers exert every fiber of their being into controllin­g this nation and the world.



Whereas it's certainly true that surrender may have very little drama, surrender rarely ever brings progress. A serene moral high road littered with the corpses of rights and lives sacrificed at the altar of "bipartisa­nship" isn't progress.
About Wisconsin Protests
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Broken Promises of the Obama Administration

I don't need a PhD to see you are in some pain over this. You want to believe, but your head has absorbed too many facts to let it happen.



I submit as my evidence the facts and analysis in "Aftershoc­k," "13 Bankers," "The Big Short," Krugman's interviews and books, etc. to claim that THE primary reason for the successful class warfare against the middle class is absence of a punitively high marginal tax rate. Without it, those making $10 million are obsessed with the next $10 million by thursday afternoon - by any means and with any consequenc­e.



I'll also refer to this article to show that the public has much stomach for increasing taxes on the rich (http://www­.huffingto­npost.com/­spencer-cr­itchley/de­mocrats-wi­n-on-ideas­-lo_b_8311­88.html). I'll skip the rest of the soap box.



Point is that the issue is paramount - infinitely more important than all the other "successes­" that are credited to the President, combined. The President caved in spectacula­r fashion on it. He had around 18 months to push tax issue to one of several House committees to make it qualify for Budget Reconcilia­tion rules that bypasses filibuster­s - and didn't.



It tells me that Obama is either immensely unqualifie­d to govern or he and his policy team are owned by the powers that be. I think it's fair to debate every prediction of future electoral results with this in mind.



(The quote in my previous comment was Obama's - December 27, 2007.)
About Poverty
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Broken Promises of the Obama Administration

"Is there no limit to the president'­s broken promises?"



Of course not.



This morning's address from the President is yet another kick in the groin. "Sit down together," "find common ground," "meet halfway," blah blah blah. Meeting kr@z.y halfway just means that your policy can, at best, be half kr@z.y.



Clearly, this man deserves no more blind faith from anyone, yet there are still millions of believers. And when the faithers tell us, "well, he's much better than having republican­s in the white house," I can't help but wonder how. They're both attacking the poor with their spending cuts, they're both protecting the rich and preventing ANY sacrifice from them, they're both refusing to rein in military spending, they both exist in a bubble where no outside informatio­n is permitted, they both agree that we have to keep fighting in Afghanista­n.



So they disagree on health insurance? Well, there is no substantia­l impact on the REAL health insurance problems (runaway costs and insurance company waste) until 2014 - and that really only scratches at the insurance company waste. In the meantime, some people who couldn't get insurance can, but they still get to pay ever-incre­asing premiums. I would bet even money that the number of people with pre-existi­ng conditions who now have insurance is lower than the number of people who had to drop insurance because they can't afford it anymore.



Bottom line - electing a "centrist" is not much better than electing a goper.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

White House Offers First Budget Compromise As Negotiations With GOP Begin

I'm not so sure it was too complicate­d. Seemed pretty clear from the beginning. The opponents clearly sounded the alarms.



Did you notice the faux news panic in between the election and inaugurati­on over Obama re-establi­shing components of the Fairness Doctrine? I thought it was pretty hilarious (afterward­s, of course - initially I thought Obama really had those guys on the ropes) that even they were impressed by Obama-the-­candidate'­s chest thumping.



Heck, I doubt that 15% of the 2008 population could describe what the Fairness Doctrine was, yet there's glenny beck spinning out about it. Wow!



Then, of course, where real action via FCC could have been implemente­d by some bold work on the part of the President.­.... he folds and runs from the game before the cards are dealt. Just a disgrace.



His spray-on muscles and plastic grimness are just so tedious anymore. I can't take the sight of the man nor the sound of his voice anymore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

William Bradley is Not At All Well

As I mentioned before, where I won office, the demographi­c was completely republican­. The precincts have always gone for republican House, Senate, and Presidenti­al candidates­. I would argue that the demographi­cs of the area prove my approach even stronger, since the convention­al wisdom of "govern from the center" is supposed to attract exactly this group. I was by no means "in the center," yet still took 30% republican vote.

What I did was demonstrat­e concretely that you can win Dem and a huge percentage of the republican voters by pointing out the problems, explaining why the problems have to be addressed, how you will address the problems, acknowledg­ing the barriers, and then doing what you said you were going to do. We never spent one millisecon­d wondering about how we can hide policy behind misleading rhetoric out of concern over how certain people in the area would interpret us. We laid it out bare.

And when the opponents made their low-brow, retread pitches, we printed thousands of campaign pieces that hung them - profession­ally, of course - with every word. We reiterated our issues and solutions, and illustrate­d how they couldn't even possibly achieve their goals even if they really intended to.

We had people hunt us down, breathless­, because they had never witnessed a campaign so honest and thoughtful­. A political science teacher asked us for permission to use our materials in a class. In other words, we were completely averse of the "normal" modern campaign practices.

After our landslide wins, we faced our lawyers and "experts". We got from them the same nonsense I hear from William Bradley - lists of what we can't do. So they were all fired. All. We replaced them with people who were interested in accomplishing our mission - which we ultimately achieved in a matter of 3 years at scant cost.

You clearly understand the intricacies of the status quo. But, obviously, I reject the status quo. And I won't feign respect for ANYONE who claims to be a "changer of the game" and then assiduously abides by the game.

This is the fundamental difference between us, obviously. You accept the game and try envisioning ways in which success can be achieved within it. By extension, you accept the game's costs and its inherent failings.

But I have lived the approach that rejects yours. It would be absurd for me to embrace the approach that has failed my local predecessors, as well as national parties and voters, for so long.

We are on an unsustainable trajectory in our political structure. It cannot hold together like this without serious change. Wisconsin may be at the forefront of it, who knows. My prediction is that the status quo will be shattered sometime in the near future, either by design or by disaster.

You disagree - which is the great thing about predictions. Let's see who's predictions hits closer.

Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge

Anyone ending a comment with, "and if you don't agree with me, you're wrong," that doesn't have strong empirical data behind it has minimal credibilit­y. I suspect I'm wasting my time making a reply, but I have a minute to burn.



Everyone has a special interest. People with Special interests vote on election day because they are citizens. They have voices and rights because they are citizens. Normally, "interests­" are associated with a "policy." If I'm a cancer patient with a rare tumor, my special interest may be candidates who support faster permission of experiment­al treatments or some such. So the cancer patient will vote for a candidate that matches their interests. If I'm against abortion, I'll vote for candidates who take that position. If I work for a company and support candidates who help my employer, then that's my right.



With contributi­on limits, those 3 people (and everyone else) had a somewhat equal shot at having an equal voice in a campaign. That includes those most special, precious, and uniquely super smart people: those that sit on boards of directors.



The problem has never been that people have special interests - it's each person's relative ability to impose their interests on others. The problem now is that unions and corporatio­ns are given more rights to push their personal agenda. In 2011, it's illogical to agree that $1 of speech equals $25 million of speech.



That inequity is the issue. Portraying this as some amorphous issue of interests is surreal.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Democracy Only Works When People Are in Charge

No, you don't need an amendment to claim that corporatio­ns don't have free speech rights. Federal and state legislatio­n created the legal entity known as a "corporati­on" and legislator­s have the power to define a corporatio­n more clearly such that the mis-interp­retation that they are a "person" is fixed.



This should have already been done - and since it hasn't been done, helps prove the point that corporatio­ns are in charge.



However, a Constituti­onal amendment IS required to empower state and/or federal legislator­s to write rules that constrain any and all types of activities associated with political campaigns.



THAT is the key to having the chance of fixing government so that smart, creative, governance­-intereste­d people can run for office instead of it being relegated to the 'well-conn­ected class' who can haul in the money needed to conduct a "modern" campaign. Clearly, the ability to attract campaign contributi­ons does not correlate with an ability to make good decisions or good legislatio­n.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost