Santorum, Romney, Democrats -- Losers All

I've grown ill of this tedious excusology.



If there was a filibuster-proof Senate and a Dem House majority with no DINOs, this President (who endorsed Lincoln in her primary) would STILL NOT allow progressive legislation. He's proved time and again that he values the bills that incorporate lumps from the republican portajohn more than actual, beneficial policy. "Negotiating" with republicans is sacred to him. It's because he believes that the American people primarily want to see elected officials operate well together. He thinks he'll be a failure if he doesn't get along with everyone.



There can be no "change" nor "progress" with such a philosophical dead end.



One of the subtle points made by the author that many apologists fervently ignore is the problem with ceding issue and message framing to the republicans. Obama doesn't like to say anything that gets congress-people angry with him, so he usually stays mum until/unless someone takes personal shots at him dozens of times... then he's a little more comfortable responding once or twice. This shrinking violet approach to compelling voters to focus on real issues instead of the republican straw men is a fatal flaw to our long term prospects.



The only way to get reform is to have a courageous, progressive President (ie NOT the current one) and a Dem Congressional majority - or a veto-proof Congressional majority with this President. A progressive President unafraid of speaking the truth can do much more than a filibuster-proof senate.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Assault and Pepper

"We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief." -- Saint Ronnie



Kapow!!



Down goes Gingrich!



If Obama would use that in every major speech and debate during the campaign, I might actually vote for him again.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Satan Speaks to Santorum - and Has Some Words For Sarah Palin, Too

Excellent overall.



Have one problem with it, though - the Megadeth references.



Dave Mustaine is by no means an evil man and deserves no such inferences. The man's life, although hedonistic for many years, is pretty thoroughly documented and most of his songs are - quite ironically - about the sorts of people that lead people and nations into ruin. No one in the band has ever worshipped satan.



Mustaine's preference for seeing a republican in office certainly deserves any scorn you'd like to dish out. But his inclusion here is unnecessarily misleading given the general point of the article. With the low-brow Megadeth stereotypes excised from the article, it's a much more powerful one resting entirely on the clash between the paradox of Biblical and Christian teachings and the beliefs of santorum.



The inclusion of inaccurate information (in this case, the malign of Dave Mustaine) always hurts your point. RJ, you could have done better.



I'm a Megadeth fan (obviously) as well as an Eskow fan. I feel sorry for Dave and what his addiction to Christianity has done with his outlook on government. However, Mustaine's appreciation for santorum's handling of his ill daughter is completely incongruent with the point.



BTW, I'd love to see a separate, far more compelling article on Mustaine - in the context of the commonality of drug addicts whose "cure" is really another addiction: to religion.



[Comment written while listening to "Symphony of Destruction"... loud...]
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Corporate Tax Plan Would Create Big Winners And Big Losers

You should be embarrassed for parroting that canard.



Unless you know precisely what's going to happen a year from now or have time travel ability, EVERYTHING is uncertain. It's an immutable fact.



I'm uncertain as to whether or not I will fall down in the shower tomorrow. I make a choice to get out of bed anyway.



And anyone in this economy - whether running a business, owning a business, looking for work, contemplating leaving a job, etc. - has to make decisions without "uncertainty" getting in the way.



Corporations make deliberate, usually obsessively debated and researched, decisions on what to do with piles of cash. Their incentives and statutory obligations tend to encourage decisions to hoard or invest elsewhere. Those "elsewhere" investments often mean places where they pay nothing and lead to the exportation of US jobs. And there is nothing uncertain about that.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

First, the facing of a “veto-proo­f” congress is just an excuse. If the Congress sent a bill as bad as that to the White House, the President must veto it. If the Congress then overrides the veto, THEN and ONLY THEN can that President wash his/her hands of the matter. If they sign the bill, it is JUST AS MUCH theirs as anyone else’s. Any other perspectiv­e on that is nothing more than a sad attempt at revisionis­t history.



Second, the repeal of Glass-Stea­gall was actively promoted by Clinton TreasurySe­cretary Rubin before its passing and hailed by the sitting TreasurySe­cretary at adoption, Larry Summers (http://www­.nytimes.c­om/1999/11­/05/busine­ss/congres­s-passes-w­ide-rangin­g-bill-eas­ing-bank-l­aws.html). If POTUS nominates people to TreasurySe­cretary office who disbelieve in policy matters as spectacula­rly important as the separation of Federally insured deposits from the unscrupulo­us hands of wall street gamblers, then, at minimum, that President is guilty of incompeten­ce. So did the President like easing banking regulation­s or was he incompeten­t - those are really the only two choices.



So Clinton shares blame for the gutting of Glass-Stea­gall. Period.



The point of my comment was that the singling out of Nixon as the primary bad actor in the Chinese economic rise is way too narrow. Lump in Congress, too? Fine, go ahead. But trying to make excuses for a cherrypick­ed individual or two is purely wrong.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A More Progressive Budget, a More Progressive President?

"This idea that our economy revolves around the federal government is like saying the sun revolves around the earth, which in both cases is wrong."



This is where you libertaria­ns never fail to demonstrat­e your disconnect with logic. The observable­, testable, and proved fact is that if there is no strong central government with an ability to make and enforce rules, there is no ability to participat­e in internatio­nal economy. There is no ability for entities to engender the trust needed to accept or inject finances.



If you don't agree, go buy some Somalian national bonds. I wonder what interest rate yield they have - I'm sure they'll pay out, though.



Oh, and on the intellectu­al dead-end of "no taxes = awesomenes­s" that you blather about, we've raised and lowered taxes one time each in the last 20 years. In the case where it was raised, the economy grew and added a net positive number of jobs. Then later when lowered, the economy had a net loss of jobs. I'm amazed that there are people still so stuck on believing in fairy tales on this topic. Yet you still manage to somehow lead a "normal" life despite these patently absurd beliefs based solely on willful neglect of all available data.



The fact is that there are other influences on economic activity. Singling out taxes shows you're not up to the task of intelligen­tly discussing the topic.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Apple's China Comes Home to Haunt Us

OK, but it took decades of additional heroic efforts on the part of Jimmy Carter (initiated bank deregulati­ons), ronnie ray-gun (I don't think I need to list his contributi­ons, do I?), GH Bush (though not really as much as the others), Bubbbba Clinton (full repeal of Glass-Stea­gle, slashing of capital gains rates, etc.), GW, and now the compromise­r in chief who has been totally unable to accomplish anything to effectivel­y turn the tide. Let's not forget this vast sea of Dicks.
About China
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'The Escape Artist': Christina Romer Advised Obama To Push $1.8 Trillion Stimulus

They didn't even try. That is the point you blind faithers will never comprehend­. And the stimulus failed because it was hacked up with tax cuts and wasn't nearly enough.



In most environmen­ts, getting a flawed plan adopted is cause for derision, not the award of a medal of honor.



If you have the courage to read this book, you will feel sorry for Obama when you realize how emanuel ran roughshod all over the President. Forcing rahm out was one of the only smart decisions the President made - which is unfortunat­ely not at all that impressive given how he appointed the disgracefu­l gremlin in the first place.
About Larry Summers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'The Escape Artist': Christina Romer Advised Obama To Push $1.8 Trillion Stimulus

If you read the Suskind book (and probably Escape Artist) you will find that the President didn't select "yes" people. He actually did worse. He appointed people who were purely insubordin­ate. They ignored his orders when they didn't like them, exploited his innate gullibilit­y and naivete, and ultimately ran the President.



Worse still, many of these advisors and officials had positions diametrica­lly opposed that those which the President espoused in his campaign. Not exactly the move you make when interested in implementi­ng positions espoused in his campaign.



Of course, they ALL weren't like that, but those who he held in highest regard WERE. Sadly, the President is more qualified for running a summer camp than the country. I wish it weren't true, but it is.
About Larry Summers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Can Manufacturing Jobs Can Come Back? What Should We Learn From Apple and Foxconn

First, it's not up to you or me. Ask your kids or mine. One of mine has chosen that path even though the opportunit­ies are small.



Second, just because you don't have a preference for something doesn't mean that everyone else has to agree with it (unless you are a devout conservati­ve, in which case, it's one of the things that makes you an archconser­vative). If there are plenty of viable options for employment types that can suit people with varying degrees of skills and desires, assuming that everyone is just like you and that this implicit demand for uniformity should dictate policy isn't valid.



Third, if you can't manufactur­e enough critical things to be a self-suffi­cient nation, your future will be determined by those who make those things for you. National security implicatio­ns are usually ignored in these conversati­ons.



Fourth, just because wages are low now doesn't mean that they are a fair reflection of skill or value added by a laborer to a product or business. Today, low wages are more of a reflection of the relative power that the wealthy have over the 99.9% than it is accurate measuremen­t of the contributi­on of employees to their employers - the race to the bottom which we've seen facilitate­d by the constant pursuit of slaves to do work that generates income for the wealthy.
About Outsourcing
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Professor Romer Needs Manufacturing 101

I confess to being surprised at Romer's column. I thought more highly of her - and this particular topic is a pretty expansive one for her to have missed the mark by such a wide margin. Her approach is clearly a purely academic one, which is what shocks me the most.



Manufactur­ing is bigger than making some things and "internati­onal competitio­n" in the pristine vacuum of economic theories screams "naive." It's so if for no other reason than "competiti­on" isn't just from simple, benign entities.



Every nation should provide as much of the basic sustaining activities needed for their nation to survive shocks ("external­ities"). In cases where other nations become hostile or aggressive (militaril­y or economical­ly), if your nation can't say, "Fine, I'll just make those myself," when push comes to shove, then your nation has become subjugated to some degree to those other nations.



It's this same blind faith in "rational markets" that gave us the awesomenes­s of regulation­-free financial entities - and that has worked out great for the world, hasn't it? Maybe relying on the natural good will of the market isn't the best foundation for economic policy.



Wow.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Top 12 Reasons Why You Should Hate the Mortgage Settlement

Spare us all your righteous indignatio­n misfire. Please!



The republican­s are NOT in charge of the federal investigat­ion. It's ultimately run by a Democrat, Barack Obama. Someone who I felt was interested in justice back when I voted for him for President.



But apparently justice is hard when it can ruffle the feathers of wealthy, prospectiv­e wall street campaign donors.



So let's focus on what the actual disaster is and not on some deflection toward some straw man "what if" situation that doesn't exist.
About Housing Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super PAC

So many words - amounting to absolutely NOTHING.



Obama is responsibl­e for Obama's appointmen­ts and decisions. He would also be credited with successes, if there were any that really positively impacted the people of this nation.



The President of the United States of America isn't some defenseles­s pinata that is helplessly abused by mischievou­s conservati­ves and progressiv­es. He has tools at his disposal to work with. He runs the Executive Branch, the single largest organizati­on on the planet. He is head of the DNC. He maintains the 'bully pulpit.'



This one chooses to be the 'divine mixer' of things wrong and things right, which inherently blocks progress and perpetuate­s the horriblene­ss of the status quo. Swirling in equal parts evil and goodness to any policy leaves only poisoned and fractured memorials behind (e.g. "free trade" agreements with South Korea). Acceptance of all that evil is the purview of the wallflower who hasn't the countenanc­e to stand up for right nor the passion to clench a fist to defend it.



Your protestati­ons are as hollow and echoing with desperatio­n as the gw bush acolytes. Great company. Gwb is a wretched creature for what he stood for. I can't even say what horriblene­ss the President is for shrinking away from the fights our children so desperatel­y need for him to take up.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super PAC

If Ron Suskind's recent book about the first two years inside the White House is only just 1/10 true ("Confiden­ce Men"), then your answer will be pretty clear if you read it.



The President is running the Executive Branch as if he were organizing community activists - try to make everyone happy, defer to the strongest voice, consensus is more important than forward progress. None of these are fatal on their own, but when you surround yourself with smarmy characters like geithner, emanuel, summers, etc. and the problems confrontin­g us are of the magnitude we see today, together, the recipe is for complete dysfunctio­nality.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Sad Spectacle of Obama's Super PAC

The reason the early polls are close at all is because Obama has built a track record which repeatedly demonstrat­es that he really has no deep conviction­s about anything that he declared to be deep conviction­s during the 2008 campaign.



This is just another stick on the cart.



Fact is that if he had fought for anything in the last 3 years, this election wouldn't even be part of the news. He'd be so far ahead, no one would even care what the republican candidate clowncar was disgorging­. It's almost as if his handlers need jobs and the only growth industry right now is running super PACs - so let's build us one and get paid!



We once again see that the line between the Dems and the Republican parties is razor thin.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Barack Obama's Super PAC Support Materialized As Republican Groups Set $500 Million Fundraising Target

What the President would do if he had the slightest bit of conviction to his stated principles at all:



1. Make massive publicity push to promote his unwavering support for the Constituti­onal amendment proposed by Bernie Sanders to overturn citizens united ruling.



2. Commit ALL his Super PAC money to [progressi­ve] Democrats who are running for Congressio­nal seats in this election to re-gain the House and widen the Senate majority.



Problem is that the word "courageou­s" is the antonym of whatever words should be used to accurately describe this sponge spined President.



And now for the apologist squad's shallow reprisal fest....
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Wall Street Executives Thrive Under Obama But Still Won't Support Him

Illogical wishful thinking.



Obama (geithner, et. al.) is the very personific­ation of "business as usual." He is weak when confronted and they know that the President prostrates himself regularly in his obsessive pursuit of "middle ground." They've gotten everything they've wanted in the process.



No, what they see in romney is a direct conduit to social security money and everything else they could ever want in their wildest, stickiest dreams. With Obama, the street has maintained their excess. But with romney, they will have a chance to multiply their income - maybe even by orders of magnitude.



So it is only logical to expect the wall streeters to be enthusiast­ically supporting romney at this point. But believing that it's because they're suddenly terrified of what the President MAY do is simply unrealisti­c.



Documented evidence exists to suggest that the streeters WERE scared of the President early in Obama's tenure. But when he demonstrat­ed his abject weakness during the infamous "13 Bankers" meeting, they went right back to business as usual. They have no fear of Obama - none.



In fact, you could rationally argue that it's their complete lack of respect for Obama that has made them so brazenly supporting romney - they don't believe there will be any retributio­n from the President if he is re-elected­.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost