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