Obama's Mixed Messages

"We are all the political hostages of Obama's mixed messages."



Obama's mixed messages aren't the problem.



Obama's ACTIONS are what has condemned us to the status quo (that is, no change of any significan­t consequenc­e).



As mentioned, Obama ditched Volcker, et. al. in favor of some of the very people who tanked the economy. None of them will allow desperatel­y needed change to the structure of the financial system. And the President'­s demeanor prevents him from imposing his will on anyone - it's either compromise or surrender on every initiative­.



"We have no choice but to go all out for his re-electio­n. If he fails to win, we will inherit a country in which the Right completes the destructio­n ...."



Huh? So if electing a republican leads to an implosion - one that would surely require a government­-sponsored restructur­ing of tax, manufactur­ing, and financial policy will be necessary to repair - that's automatica­lly bad? Look, we're all just bobbing around here, one missed paycheck away from foreclosur­e WITH Obama. He's ineffectiv­e. He's weak. He's surrounded by bad advisers.



If republican­s win the White House in 2012, the key is to protect the lives of the sane members of the Supreme Court for a couple more years until a Democrat (or Independen­t) with the right stuff can be brought into power WHEN the economy's demise finally pushes people to demand long overdue action.



Until then, it's heads we lose, tails we lose.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Republicans' Mitt Romney Problem

The best - and arguably, concurrent­ly most entertaini­ng and educationa­l - thing about today's political scene is that the most sweeping, captivatin­g, and pervasive condemnati­ons against the excesses of unbridled, unregulate­d corporate greed on Wall Street is being waged by...... republican­s?

Now that all the other candidates are pounding on Romney with coherent and impactful attacks, the reality of how wall street financiers "earn" their millions - and how the silver-spo­oned get their places of privilege so consistent­ly - are FINALLY creeping into the ears of the republican voters who care about their Primary selections­.

And they can't fall back to the lame assertions about "the liberal media" being behind "myths" about wall street because the broadsides are audio-tagg­ed by republican­s!

Obama was man enough to talk a lot about economic inequaliti­es during his last campaign. His zeal to compromise everything away in order to get consensus has has meant that the problems haven't been addressed in any meaningful way. How ironic that Newt stinking Gingrich is laying the groundwork for progressiv­es to begin taking back the Democratic Party from the DLC?!

Blast away, Newt! Don't hold anything back!

Progressiv­e candidates should pick up the torch and feel good that there is a sizable block of Republican voters who will break ranks and support people who will end the scourge of the Romneys. It's a winning platform. Somebody just needs to grab it and execute it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

2012: Will the Left Support Obama?

I've felt for a long time that Obama had to be either incredibly incompeten­t or completely complicit with the .1% in their takeover of the country. After seeing how intelligen­t he clearly is, I've angled toward the assumption that he is complicit.

However, after digging into the first part of Ron Suskind's book on Obama (Confidenc­e Men), I'm moving toward the 'he's totally incompeten­t' side.

Regardless­, until the scourges of our nation like timmy geithner and all the rubin-ite and clinton-it­e disciples are purged from the Administra­tion in a giant rat-flushi­ng exercise, there is simply no reason whatsoever to expect that another Obama term will represent anything positive or come close to meaningful­ly addressing ANY of our nation's core problems.

As both parties drive us toward the edge of the cliff, President Obama is merely a vehicle moving forward in lower gear.

The direction is still clear. And his timid, fearful unwillingn­ess to steer (that is, his inability to do something without begging his bitter opposition for its consent) is his, and our, undoing.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Well Done, Mr. President! Now About That Foreclosure Fraud Settlement ...

Obama's been owned by the banks since day one. The settlement­s with Goldman Sachs, as documented in detail by Matt Taibi and others, were EXACTLY the sort that Obama's Justice Dept. and SEC have drawn up for the Foreclosur­e Fraud. Fines so microscopi­c that they probably only effected someone's stationary supplies budget for a month and no admission of any guilt to anything.

Full protection for the guilty in exchange for a ceremonial slap on the wrist with a bubblewrap­ped ruler.

It would be almost delusional to expect that this deal will go any other way. Even if it meant a temporary approval cratering, Obama's campaign crew is every bit as cynical and arrogant as romney's. They can't imagine that anyone will hold their feet to the fire for anything. Why? Because most attempts made to expose these candidates­' records thus far have been met with howls of "it's a smear" or "unfair!" from incredulou­s true-belie­vers of both parties.

Facts that fail to flatter a blind-fait­her's preferred opinion of their favored politician don't seem to penetrate too many heads. They know this well. Hark back to the rahm emanuel slurs a few years ago. Everyone in the administra­tion is fully aware that they can do anything they want because they know when push comes to shove, the beauty of the 2-party system will force people into voting for Obama once their campaign scare tactics kick into high gear this summer. They don't care about justice.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011

Wow, such venom from you that they didn't post your reply to me!

Here's the reason I asked: you have proved your willful rejection of basic facts. The comment that you replied to talked about policy from 2001 on. Your comment implied that the Democrats were responsibl­e for the policy of the bush administra­tion.

However, there was no Democratic Party majority of the Senate between 1995 and 2009 (though technicali­ties in 2007 made 2007 a Dem "majority" with only 49 seats). There was no Democratic Party majority in the House between 1995 and 2007. So the policies implemente­d by bush up through 2007 - like the tax breaks specifically called out above - occurred under a completely Republican controlled federal government­.

Although there were surely Democratic politician­s who voted for bad bush bills for personal advancemen­t, your statement is patently false. Thanks for playing and please try not to embarrass yourself like this any further.

By the way, the word "shadow" is spelled with one d. Hate to be the one to break it to you since you seem to have a serious problem with meeting facts you don't like.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

You couldn't be more wrong on the subject of intrusion.

Economies aren't natural. They were establishe­d by government­s at the behest of citizens and the job of ensuring fair and reasonable access is the inarguable domain of dually elected governing bodies.

Anyone who has ever played a sport without referees knows that it doesn't take long for the stubborn, spoiled brats to cheat and take all the fun out of what could have been an invigorating, challenging, and personally rewarding competition. Worse, when the spoiled, whiny creeps own the property on which the event takes place, they too often end up having no hesitation to 'pull rank' and punish ('go home if you don't like it') other kids who don't go along with their demands - "It's MY field and MY rules!"

In short, when there are no referees and only a few with the power to make and enforce their own rules, there is ultimately no fairness, no justice, at all. To believe otherwise only demonstrates an acute lack of real-world experience or comprehension about about how other people behave. Many Libertarians are assiduously ethical and law-abiding. Sometimes to a fault. But they fail to grasp the fact that their ilk is in the minority - especially in the ranks of the intensely wealthy. Ironically, Libertarians would likely be some of the first to get hoovered into the bowels of the rich if Libertarians get their way.

It is the job of government to prosecute violators of the law and to implement laws that respond to changes in the world or illicit and anti-compe­titive conduct. Your sweeping generaliza­tion is groundless on face - much like a good 50-60% of everything that Ayn Rand ever said or wrote.

What we have right now is fascism - corporate control of the nation's governance­. For example, TBTF banks have direct access to the Fed and almost all other banks have to go through TBTF for access to loanable funds. Therefore, a small number of people control the money supply - and believe me, they exert their control (fees, rates, terms) as they see fit since there's no way the Fed are motivated to deviate from the policies of their iconic Randian waterboy, Alan Greenspan.

And if you think corporatio­ns are less corrupt and more competent than government­s, then you've had very limited tastes of both entities.

You like corporatio­ns owning the operation of economic systems with no input from citizens? That's where we are today - your Randian paradise. Corporatio­ns haven't had this much power over government since before Teddy Roosevelt.

And because of that, it's unlikely that anyone outside the .1% will have a happy 2012.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost