Krugtron the Invincible, Part 3

"In my previous two articles, I have shown that Paul Krugman - revered by his acolytes as the Invincible Krugtron - failed to anticipate the financial crisis and wrongly predicted that the single European currency would fall victim to it."



What you've shown in 3 articles is the depth of your spectacularly petty jealousy and a desperate pathological need to be considered better at things (economics and the application of logical thought with facts for starters) that you have demonstrated time and again over the years to be rather poor at.



I see a great future for you at faux news... a perfect match for anyone needing to publicly exercise their pointless, personal diatribes to an audience that will never fact check.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What Reid, Pelosi, and Obama Should Say Now

If you're going to go so far as to introduce a Constitutional Amendment on the matter of Congressional pay, you're leaving half the cake on the table.



One thing that something in the neighborhood of 70% (polls vary depending on the questions) of the voters believe is that DC has been taken over by greedy manipulators. People ranging from Tea Partyers to Communists may disagree on which of the parties or individuals in Congress are beholden to lobbyists (Dems are supposedly in the pockets of trial lawyers, Reps in the pockets of anyone with some money inside those pockets) - but there is uniform dislike to the Citizen's United decision and the amount of money spent on elections.



So if you want to make the Amendment even MORE popular, include a provision that gives the FEC and (!) the States the ability to regulate financing of federal elections and explicitly states that campaign contributions and campaign activities are NOT equivalent to Free Speech. For any given State, whichever laws are more stringent on candidates takes precedence.



Add the impossible task of defending unlimited campaign contributions to the republican's to-do list (a fight they will vigorously wage to their detriment) and ride the wind to House majority in 2014.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

M.I.A. Caught In Legal War With NFL Over Super Bowl Middle Finger

That's all fine and dandy. I never said I could change the capriciousness and hypocrisy of corporations.



However, that wasn't the point you tried to make in your original comment where you said that she violated her contract and is rightfully subjected to the lawsuit brought on by the NFL.



My point was that others violate the conduct clauses of their contracts vastly more egregiously and that these other violators are left alone. If the NFL truly cared about the image vs. getting a pound of flesh, they'd have been hauling dozens of players into court every year.



I'm no lawyer, but I can't believe that any court will accept an argument from the NFL that alleges this brat caused $1.5 million in damage to the league. AJ Hawk did the same thing while playing in a game (toward his bench) on live TV and was fined - hold onto your hat!!!! - $10,000. Based on that, the Riley Cooper pass, and plain common sense, any jurist would, or at least should, laugh this allegation out the door. It's obviously a petty, personal vendetta. And selective enforcement in every venue is not tolerated by courts.



Of course, if AJ Hawk was fined $1.5 million and Riley Cooper was fined something north of $1 million, then I'd have agreed with your initial statement - treat everyone the same. However, like most courts. I'm against cherry-picking your contract enforcement work because it's, plain and simple, unjust.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How <i>The Guardian</i> Is Quietly and Repeatedly Spying on You

Wow, what news! Corporations have congress in their pockets? Zowie! Next thing you're gonna tell me is the sun will come up again tomorrow - I can't take all this at once!



Somehow between your stunning revelation and name-calling, you missed the point. No one at Booz Hamilton has the authority or ability to put me away. Period. You may think they do, but they can't. No one at a federal prison or CIA-controlled facility is going to obey their orders.



Similarly, a Congressperson can't put me away. A lot of people need to be spun up, paperwork has to be done, authorizations have to be sought - and none of these critters has the courage to go that far for anyone.



It's infuriating that the patriot act allows a president to convict someone of terrorism and sentence them without a trial. But ultimately, it's only the president (and make no mistake, Obama WANTS this power) who has that authority to take an order from a rich person and put you away.



Any other path requires a ton of coordination and collusion and isn't gonna happen except like how cheney and bush railroaded some Dems in the south. I'm sure you remember those - but I suspect you forgot that Obama REFUSES to pardon those victims nor investigate those actions.



Given the above, I see you have good reason to fear Obama because he's as corrupt as the last few administrations. So disregard my previous statement - I should be
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

1. Clearly you're not sharp enough to understand that he can't say what's in and not in the classified reports. So you have to read between the lines. Of course, you don't need to read what he's got to say about the situation - you already know everything! All he's had in his hands is the sum of all evidence, but you have better insight than that, right?! Pathetic.



3. So some insipid bumper-sticker slogan from you somehow invalidates his analysis? There was a character on an old sitcom that would wave his arms and declare that he was invisible... and obviously remain in plain view. You've decided to model your logic after his and it's just as strong.



4. Sounds like your "I'm morally offended and someone will pay!" trumps all reason. Your outrage is so impressive!



5. Others are apparently less impressed with the evidence.



6. So for your tortured logic to work, you're saying that Ukraine (or one of the "certain foreign countries") has a right to bomb Houston in order to kill bush. Because that's the only way the comparison works. Taking someone into custody when on their soil and putting them on trial is whole lot less of an act of war than summarily executing acts of war. I'm surprised the concept is lost on you - but there it is.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

1. Yes, there is.

- Try again. Per Alan Grayson who has read the 4 page unclassified brief and the 12-page classified brief on "proof" - he's very disappointed. He compares it highly unfavorably to the mountain of data received from HRC on Bengazi.



2. Creamer never said there was something to win.

- You've obviously missed my point which is to counter the article's title. Was that too obvious?



3. This president is not trying to pick a winner in a civil war; John McCain is.

- The link to Soltz's piece is in my comment. Read it to get a up to speed on the sides in that war and how bombing impacts it - or stay in the dark, your choice.



4. That is not our problem because it is not our war.

- Every action has a reaction.



5. Saudi Arabia has stated publicly it supports us attacking Assad. In the ME, that's all that counts.

- Last count I saw is about 5 countries now that support. Out of what, 200? My point was that more countries supported the Iraq invasion.



6. It's called crimes against humanity.

- The United Nations is the internationally recognized entity charged with handling those crimes. Not Obama. "Rule of Law?" "Act of war?" Either of these matter to you?



Try answering the relevant questions and not the ones you feel like answering.

- You go first.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Congressional Resolution on Chemical Weapons Is Completely Different From Iraq War Resolution

In debates such as this, I defer to better authorities than "sources." Someone like Jon Soltz who was on the ground in Iraq. In his latest piece on this subject (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-soltz/the-military-case-against_b_3865965.html), he notes that both rebels AND Syrian government troops fought against us in Iraq.



That fact should give anyone riding their soapbox of righteous indignation a moment of pause and step down for a bit.



Here are the things that are EXACTLY like Iraq:

* There is no concrete evidence to support our government's position as judge, jury and executioner.

* There is nothing to "win" in any action at all. If assad DID use these weapons, he will clearly have no less compunction to do whatever he wants against innocents.

* Whatever side "wins" the civil war, most of the combatants will not be sending us a thank you note for our part (we will be welcomed in Iraq, remember?).

* There is no end game here.

* No one else in the world community, other than France (it's almost hilarious if it weren't so utterly strange), who will sign up for this. OK, so this may be an exception, there is LESS support in the world for this action....

* We continue to feel like we are some high authority ordained to mete out justice around the globe.



I probably missed a few others, too.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Military Case Against Syria Strikes

I thought the reason we did up Iraq was to send a message to the world that the US wasn't going to tolerate yellow cake-wielding, citizen-gassing dictators attacking their populace.



Are you trying to say we didn't make the point?!?!



Well, fret not Jon, our President, dubya the second, will set the record straight THIS time... all we need is blind faith in Him... the Him who is seated on most high and is incapable of error.... He is leading the World right now in their unanimous support for US military action.... and this time, He will fix all that is broken in Syria because it is our solemn obligation as Americans to blindly follow Him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Howard Dean On Syria: Obama Won't Be Damaged If Congress Votes No

In the former Yugoslavia, evidence of genocide was everywhere and was publicized pretty openly.



In this case, not so much.



Was there an attack using gas? Yes. After that, there's a little bit of work to do to prove this was perpetrated by the person(s) the President is determined to attack. And yellow cake is absolutely a pertinent allegory. Whether or not the president at that time lied about yellow cake is moot - the point is that there was no evidence to back up the claim and the claim was used to justify desired action.... just like there is no evidence yet to conclusively prove the source of this attack in Syria.



As he's done several times before, this President has demonstrated his willingness to believe lies (the Brown firing and the Acorn defunding are the two most known ones) and then act impulsively on them in self-destructive and humiliating ways - and all done to get along with the cool kids that he so desperately seeks to be validated by: the republicans.



Of course, I expect a small piece of circumstantial evidence to be found, but the UN investigation is still ongoing and the president has already concluded that a strike is required or else our nation's credibility is at stake. This sounds very much like a man on a mission - facts and evidence be damned.... just like bush's mission.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical Liberals

Not surprising to see your 3rd grade retorts.



You are so off you don't even see the absurdity of your unreasonable propositions. Just look at the first one (not that you are capable). Obama doubled down on the bush-bernanke bailout to avoid the depression. Therefore, you're equating Obama's intelligence to that of bush. After all, bush had the idea first. Therefore, bush - by your "logic" - is definitively the most skilled president in history above Obama.



For reasons unknown, you're completely lost in your opinions and convinced that they are fact (even when they are incontrovertibly opinions - and not even opinions which survive any scrutiny). You aren't just confused, you have a condition that requires treatment.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

President Obama's Education Plan -- A No-Brainer for Colleges

Rubio unwittingly puts wind in Obama's sails over yet another well-promoted major production of nothingness.



Metrics are great. But they can be acquired right now if there was a need to - or much more importantly, if there were an administration that actually gave a rip about what those numbers ended up suggesting.



It's not rocket science. The article noted the key numbers - 250% price increase for the 'product' while family income has risen only 16% in the same time frame. The only productive path to take here is to find out the answer to WHY tuition has risen that high. All other pursuits are pointless.



Once we understand why tuition is what it is, a set of regulations for institutions to follow in order to reduce tuition (and room/board) costs should be created - and any educational institution who'd like to accept students who will pay with federal loans and grants (not just for tuition, but for qualifying for research awards as well) must abide by them.



This "get colleges to compete" smokescreen is yet another deplorably weak attempt by this woeful President to continue to sternly pretend that he's doing something meaningful while serving his inexplicable compulsion to sound like republican and coopt their hollow talking points. It's a two-fer in overall policy awfulness and general uselessness. All talk; that's it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'We Were Bored... So We Decided to Kill Somebody'

It seems my problem with you is semantics.

If you have your guns locked up or secured in a locker at a gun range and someone manages to break into them and take your guns, then you are indeed a victim.

However, since there are virtually no rules that require anyone to responsibly maintain custody of their personal weapons in that fashion, guns end up being easily stolen or misappropriated. In the cases where weapons are left around where a casual thief could get hold of them (i.e. NOT in a safe), I think the owner should bear responsibility for the loss and down-range incidents.

We're not talking about someone taking a car like others try to compare a gun to. A car's purpose is transportation. A gun's purpose is to put holes into living things. They are not comparable and different protection standards are fully justifiable.

I know plenty of gun owners who are very meticulous about maintaining custody of their weapons and they don't worry me in the least. The guns used to slaughter kids at that elementary school belonged to the shooter's mother. Had they been locked up without him knowing the combination, maybe he's going to have a much harder time pulling off his suicidal stunt.

(A commenter re-asserted his point that a stolen car used in a crime is no different than a stolen gun. The person also noted that the Nancy Lanza paid the price for her mistake... so I restated...)

Whatever price Nancy Lanza paid is peanuts compared to what hundreds of innocent people are paying for her lack of responsibility. If we lived in the 1700s and miles away from each other, then negligence like hers would rarely amount to anything. But those days are long gone. We're in a civilization where people are close together and negligent gun care contributes to the loss of innocent lives.

And where you're wrong is your implicit suggestion that people who've had guns stolen from an open desk drawer are no different than people whose car was stolen. They simply are NOT.

Cars are stolen every day to be chopped up and sold for parts. They are very rarely ever stolen to commit a felony. But guns are stolen and used for one purpose: committing violent crimes (or selling to people intending to commit violent crimes).

You can't compare a gun to a car - it's objectively a nonsensical proposition. Guns are uniquely, gravely dangerous - you obviously know that or you wouldn't lock yours up (do you lock your car in a safe?).

Everyone should be required to secure their weapons to prevent unauthorized use - or face legal consequences when custody is lost. You know firsthand it's not hard to do and if you allowed yourself introspection, you'd probably agree that it's a very reasonable thing for gun owners to exercise in the year 2013 to protect your neighbors from gun crime.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Senator Warren's '21st Century Glass-Steagall Act' Is Never Going to Happen

It's pretty clear which side of the fence the author is on with this.... the last sentence is the clincher ("it's too obviously one-sided, so put in a throw-away at the end for 'balance'") after proposing a "what the hell?"-inducing revisionist history of the Glass-Steagall Act and noting how supporters of this new bill haven't projected costs for its impacts (oh, those poor, poor banks!.... how will they ever contend with this unforgivable meddling!).



Of course, by deriding the inability of this bill to fix every problem in the industry, the author - knowingly or unknowingly - parrots one of the republican's favorite, go-to excuses for soft-selling the blocking of legislation: insistence that any bill to address a problem must be one, single, all-encompassing one. Nice work there.



Keep those checks coming, huh?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Cory Booker Wins Senate Primary: The Far-Left Wins Nothing -- Again

As just about everything you say is irrational, a response from you that makes no sense at all isn't much of a surprise. But you've gone over the top with that sept1c tank explosion.



You want to compare me to a teabagger? At least those guys get elected by telling voters what they are going to do and then have the integrity to actually try to follow through with their irrational, destructive, racist policies. They at least have the decency to stick to them instead of hiding behind their little legions of weakkneed enablers (that would be you) like Obama and all the corporate Dems, who then cry their eyes out over how hard it is to govern and how just really meany-pants everyone is. If the Democratic party had the same courage to say what they want to do and then do it without selling out virtually every time a poll wind scares them out of their wits, then we'd get somewhere.



Until you've ever won an election (or at least occasionally post a comment that makes any sense), you and Cesca are just a bunch of all-talk blowhards with nothing behind you but your conventional wisdom that's as decayed and rotten as Congress. When Booker becomes the next guy to vote for a reduction in Social Security, party hard.... because that's what winners do, right!? We know who to thank.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Cory Booker Wins Senate Primary: The Far-Left Wins Nothing -- Again

More sanctimonious, holier-than-thou pontification from the "pragmatic" wing of the party focused on winning elections.

NAFTA was pragmatic, so is staying in Afghanistan, so is 'looking forward, not back' when justice was demanded by voters in all parties, so were the new free trade pacts being executed now in secret, so is gutting Social Security because innocent people must suffer in order to get the dirty business of running the country done. Nonpragmatic things like messy racial equality protests of the 60s would shock and offend the senses of a self-anointed "pragmatist" like the author.

Winning elections is totally pointless if the direction of this country on it's unwavering, 30+ year march toward plutocracy isn't challenged. And since the path doesn't change even when the DINOs like Obama are behind the wheel and groupies like the author aren't chiding anyone who doesn't bend to the "pragmatism" of maintaining the status quo, people of conscience will stand to be counted. Throw whatever you want at us.

As it turns out that Mr. Booker has built his own cronies group (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/nyregion/bookers-web-company-struggling-sought-buyer-as-senate-drive-began.html?_r=1&), and the odds that Mr. Booker will maintain the status quo seem to be on the high side - at least, it would be more "pragmatic" for Mr. Booker to not rock the boat.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Evidence Is In -- Again -- GOP 'Trickledown' Economics a Failure

Part 2.

At no point did I state that CG cuts were solely responsible for the bubble. I stated they were a significant contributer and never once rejected the existence of other factors. However, the fact is that future gains expectations by VCs would be taxed at the CG rate. That rate had just been lowered.



And somehow you're claiming that the simple logical conclusion that a lower tax rate on investments had almost no effect on investor actions at that time. On face, that position is simply preposterous. In addition, all the economic data shows that investments have increased when capital gains rates are lowered. No economist has denied that this occurs and it's denial isn't even cogent to fact that trickledown is a total failure.



The context of the whole debate is who gets credit for the failings of trickledown. Clinton contributed substantially to perpetuating TD with tax and regulatory policy. And if that happens as advertised (and it did), then why are all the boats sinking in the 'rising tide?'



Because, in the end, low CG rates increase investment - and the ultimate failing of TD is that investments that make the rich richer don't help anyone else. In other words, wealth in pursuit of more wealth in a "free market" has no inate benefit to an economy - period. If trickledown has proved anything, it's that an unregulated business environment controlled by only a few extremely powerful people will destroy an economy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Russian Meeting

"The current system of government appears to be based more on a philosophy of kleptocracy than democracy.... It is government of vested interest that cannot tolerate change nor has prepared for change."



Funny.



On one side, you have a nation whose government has worked hard since a cataclysmic national crisis several decades ago to ultimately maintain a singular focus on protecting and enriching the ruling class of its society, resulting in an open and obvious direct tethering of those few wealthy patrons to the politicians who pretend to be concerned about the will and needs of the citizens.



On the other side, it's the same thing only they speak Russian.



Yes, the Russians are a one-trick pony and when that pony dies, they have nothing.... except nukes and other raw materials. Maybe that'll give them the chance to topple the KGB's rule once and for all.... maybe. But it'll be another spark of revolution to help throw off the yolk of oppression which our nation is too passive to recognize nor respond to. So who's ship gets right first? Place your bets!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is There Any Point To Economic Analysis?

See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/is-there-any-point-to-economic-analysis/

It would seem all these well-thought comments to the post and in the post itself would mean something... if it weren't for the fact that the media and the VSPs work for the, you know, 1%.

Changing capital gains rates, lifting social security tax caps, adding additional, higher marginal income tax rates, financial transaction taxes, a government funded well enough to regulate large corporations, and a government powerful enough (i.e. not gutted and under-funded to properly police) to level a playing field are all things that would come out of dealing directly and honestly with the economic problems we have today.

Therefore, the problems must be recast ("Let's say that it's 'structural' and the world has past us by... they'll take their lot in life more casually!") in order to facilitate the continued neutering of the 99% and government because economic honesty is far, far too dangerous. And that is what you're seeing... even in PBS, who is probably trying to placate republicans who perpetually demand its demolition.

Kentucky Senate Poll Shows Alison Lundergan Grimes A Serious Threat To Unpopular Mitch McConnell

Both sides don't play games. Polling groups like PPP have a methodology that they describe and follow. PPP's results tend to be accurate to slightly favoring Dems. On the other hand, Rasmussen has a methodology and theirs always favors Rs, sometimes off by double the margin of error.



But that doesn't matter too much except when aggregated and bias-corrected by guys like Nate Silver.



I suspect this race is a little too early to call (!), but when an incumbent's challenger who has almost no record has, at minimum 40% of the vote, and is this close before any campaigning has even begun, it would be wise to sleep near the lifeboats instead of a few decks below on the good ship mcconnel....
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Kentucky Senate Poll Shows Alison Lundergan Grimes A Serious Threat To Unpopular Mitch McConnell

The thing that would be very helpful with these polls is if they could elicit specific reasons why people approve or disapprove of a politician.



Asking who they'd vote for or other conclusion-tallying polls like this are really not very useful. It also feeds the crummy media sloppiness because it farms out the job of figuring out "why" to the limbaughs and fox and friends creatures.



George Soros is attacking Kentuckians? Could maybe a few Kentuckians dislike mcconnel because he and his minions talk at them like they'll believe anything they're told?? I for one, would like to know how many are sick of that treatment (among many other things) - and how many of those are R, D, and I.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Evidence Is In -- Again -- GOP 'Trickledown' Economics a Failure

It's clear your admiration of the former president clouds your thinking.



There is no "gravy" until you sell your tech company ("go public" or otherwise). When you invest, the money goes in. The expectation is that magic happens inside the overpriced leased office space with overpriced decor and a dozen air hockey tables.



THEN.... later on when the magic gets enough press and interest, you can try to get something from that gravy train. And when you sell your magic-peddling tech company, the proceeds are taxed as what type of income???



Now if you're trying to say that the bubble would still have happened without a low capital gains rate, then you could have just said that and made your point 3 comments ago. But I think you'd be pushing the limits of credulity to say that a huge drop in that rate in 1997 didn't immediately motivate people to seize the opportunity to dump piles of money into specious companies - especially in view of the fact that you pointed out before, clinton raised CG rates earlier... gotta cash in and out before that happened again.



Simple opposite of the inverse rules of logic also apply here: if the rate jumped tomorrow to 50%, few would sell their assets and large investment would slow dramatically. So my opinion is grounded in sound reason/logic while you rest on 'it was a coincidence and incentives don't work' to counter it. Your position is not strong.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gag Me With Lawrence Summers

I can guarantee one thing - if (well, 'when') Obama nominates summers for the post, there will be only a few marketing-related rants against him by republicans - because they have to do that to save some face with their frothy base. But they will confirm him in huge "bipartisan" numbers in the minimal amount of time.



Getting anything meaningful done is not part of Obama's interests. He wants "bipartisanship." That's all that matters to him. And the sooner the O'loyalists realize the disaster this man is, the sooner we can get through elections without falling for more of the same bait-and-switch nonsense from future candidates.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Time to Promote Sandberg to Manage the Phils

Between the human bobblehead running the team as if it's still got four 30+ HR per season starters (flounder around each game waiting for a couple guys to knock one out) and the pitching coach whose super power is turning average pitchers into human gas cans, I think we have to take immediate action on multiple fronts.

The team is 6 games under .500 right now and a mile away from the chance at a wildcard play-in game. The players have checked out because they know how good they are compared to the likes of the Tigers. They know they have no chance of winning anything this season.

Charlie isn't bright enough to make any change in his managing approach, which again, the players already well know. (OK, maybe that's a slight exaggeration - he did start bringing in relievers for one hitter instead of intending to keep them in for a full inning, which is the lazy way to manage relievers that you can get away with when you don't have an incendiary relief staff and terrible coaching..... but he only started doing that around the all-star break when we already had lost multiple leads in games due to his lazy, sloppy methodology.)

So it's human nature to pack it in when you recognize the utter futility of this sort of situation - it's bad and unlikely to get better soon.

Anyone who tries to tell them they can compete with the Cardinals and Tigers is going to get no respect at all. "Ummbh, welluhhh, we'bbuh gotta just go out and fight! Dats all." Inspiration!

We need to sell before the deadline passes to load up on near-term prospects. Then we need to send Charlie (maybe re-assign to work with Amaro temporarily as a goodwill gesture?) and Dubee (he's horrible) on their way now so that Sandberg can grab hold of the clubhouse and start working on a plan for 2014.

Some players may not like that approach, but everyone has to be on notice that the team has to alter it's approach at the plate and field to become successful in the absence of four 30+ HR hitters. It may be considered unfair to Charlie, but it can't get any more clear than it is today that he can't get anything out of these players. And running this mess out for the next couple months is more unfair to the fans than to any of the millionaires wearing a uniform (coaches and players alike).

If he's going to be gone next year, there is no sense to me to waste the rest of the season running into brick walls - use the opportunity to start working on a new approach.

Evidence Is In -- Again -- GOP 'Trickledown' Economics a Failure

With all due respect, the GOP economic plan has been aided and abetted by a large number of Democrats over the years. Clinton and his pro-deregulation economic team killed Glass-Steagall and cut capital gains rates (rates which help pretty much only one small, tiny group at the tippy-top of the economic ladder) more than he raised marginal rates.


A quick internet search will show the austerity crusaders raise clinton to a god-like status because, in their words, clinton's tax cuts are what drove the boom in the 90s.


Clinton also opened the "free trade" flood gates with Mexico and helped turn China into the powerhouse of US-industrial job destruction that it is today.


And today, Obama is sooooo focused on getting his "bipartisanship" merit badge, that he buckles under to the republicans on every turn. For every issue he gets from them, they get nine notches in their guns. It's so lopsided it's almost like collusion. And Congress wanted no catfood commission - so Obama created it and appointed two trickledown austerians to lead it - who parlayed that position into headliner evangelists for austerity.

While the GOP has clearly earned our animosity, let's not forget to give a shout out to ALL those who have contributed so much to our economic mess and dysfunction.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Salon's Shocking Comparison: Obama is George Zimmerman, Trayvon is Al-Awlaki

The top US CEOs have collectively gotten another 16% boost over the previous year - while the income for the vast majority of Americans has gone down on average.

Unequal distribution of wealth still runs rampant.

Yet you can still pretend to believe that the rich are out to get him? All they want is more of what they've been getting... maintain tax loopholes, secret trade negotiations that help offshoring, lax regulations, etc.

Would they prefer a good ole boy like the Mittster? Of course! But if you think that the rich are holed up in bunkers desperately and singularly trying to sink the President, you've deluded yourself pretty thoroughly.

They're doing super fantastic under Obama's "scourge"... and I'm sure they appreciate you perpetuating this whimsical cover story so that they can get some pity votes for their hand-picked politicians from the poor but sympathetic republicans.

About Trayvon Martin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

David Axelrod: 'Hillary Clinton Probably Will Be The Candidate' In 2016

A step forward from what?

We need to step away from the status quo - the set of power brokers ordained by power brokers. How can you expect change when the power brokers NEVER change?!?


No more royal family rule in this country. No more bushes, clintons, nor their courtiers. Enough already!

By the way.... I've seen better made-up bodies inside coffins than that photo of Axelrod... gruesome. 

About Elections 2016
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Student Loan Deal Set To Increase Borrowing Costs, Swell Government Profit

What?? Are you 10?

Anyone who's had a job (at least in PA) knows that you pay school taxes toward public education - regardless of whether or not you have kids. I'm not sure how it's "free" after I've personally paid probably in the neighborhood of $100,000 so far in school taxes, and these are taxes which I will pay well after these kids are out of my house (if they can ever afford to do so). Ever since they've been 16 and working, they have also paid school taxes.

A good rate would be the rate that the Fed charges the big banks (0.5%). Since it's illegal to default or back out of college loans, the repayment is guaranteed and less risky than loaning the money to the banks.

You seem to have absolutely no idea how any of this stuff works. So, seriously, you're in something like 5th grade, right? There's nothing wrong with being in 5th grade and writing comments here. It's striking that comments from 5th graders are often indistinguishable from adult right wingers. So study hard, junior, and elevate yourself to higher places!

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Student Loan Deal Set To Increase Borrowing Costs, Swell Government Profit

My daughter enters college in a few weeks. I would like to personally thank the President for once again caving to the vicious, immoral republicans and, as this article describes, showing us all how truly, reprehensibly horrible a leader he is (especially when compared to outstanding leaders like Elizabeth Warren).

Once again we have beatings for Democrats in Congress and hugs/kisses for the republicans. I have selected a couple digits to arrange in a salute of deep thanks and appreciation to the President in recognition of the outstanding work putting the screws to my daughter and countless other innocent kids who will subsequently be trapped in these bankruptcy-unforgivable loans for decades.

Don't demand a nuclear option to get a vote on a sensible loan rate - because that wouldn't include enough republican pain to inflict on the middle class.

I wonder if the President's kids will ever have to pay a student loan...

It's sad so many wingers rail against the President for made-up reasons. There's such a bounty of legitimate reasons to call him a complete disgrace - but this one is especially heinous.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fed Chair to Congress: Stop Killing Jobs

I still see comments akin to pompom waving for the President. It's quite undeserved. This President has been continuously, publicly promoting the vital need to slash the deficit since 2009 thru, oddly, to about four months ago.

This President created the cat food commission, appointed co-chairs who have been ardent government spending slashers to it, and has been demanding the commission's findings be implemented. This President has already proposed cuts to Social Security that are 20 years premature and only inflict pain on the current (and future) vulnerable elderly - all in the name of gashing Federal spending.

The sequester was not something that Congress forced on the President - it was a terrible concept proposed by the administration that they thought was shrewd but completely backfired (if we are to believe Woodward's highly documented treatment to be non-libelous)... or it did precisely what it was intended to do, slash spending (except, as we see now, the defense cuts are in process of being restored).

So here we have a Fed Chair - who was originally appointed by a far-right extremist president - publicly pleading a case to increase federal spending.... a position that the sitting President has been against since the neutered stimulus was passed.

And this is cause for praise?!?

Obama is a train wreck... like every other right winger pretending to be a Democrat.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Growing Republican Irrelevance

I prefer to think that Dems don't simply fear republicans at some visceral level. I think it's worse than that.

Most Dems that I've rubbed elbows with fear the media and how it will portray them if they take a position that's not shared by republican voters. Republicans are loud and they have no loss of pride whatsoever when their raised voices display their ignorance, lack of data, or lack of logical thought.

Somewhat cogent is Obama's quote, sourced by Taibbi, fretting in a meeting over how markets will respond if his words aren't perfect. So many of these "Dems" worry about public reaction and what it'll mean to votes and fund raising and image (ie. personal vanity - "I don't want to be thought of as 'weak'...").

In other words, they fear how people will interpret their actions. I say this is worse than fearing republicans because you can't control republicans - but you CAN control your message!! Bernie Sanders does it just fine. Same with Grayson, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, etc.

They're unafraid of the shrieking voices of the right wing fringe. And because of that, they are strong. People know they're strong. They attract campaign contributions. They get exactly the opposite of what most feeble, elected Dems expect.

To me, it's just like watching a frustrating horror movie when a victim has a gun pointed to the head of a murderer, doesn't pull the trigger, and then ends up the next victim. Drives me up the wall.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Growing Republican Irrelevance

You can't say republicans are becoming irrelevant so long as "Democrats" like Obama cede power to them and adopt republican policies like reducing social security, imposing austerity (i.e. the sequester), and increasing defense spending.

Maybe now that world-renowned tough-guy Harry Reid is going to take his 4th swat at the filibuster, I have to wonder if he'll bring a real bat or use the whiffle ball bat he's used each previous time. I thought we were to find out yesterday about that, but 'Dirty Harry' hasn't taken care of business yet. Again.

Until we finally implement serious reforms in the Senate, we elect a Dem President with courage and policy convictions that are at least slightly more liberal than Richard Nixon's, and vest campaign finance control authority in Congress or the states via Constitutional amendment, the republican party will remain the minority power that completely controls the Federal government.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Elizabeth Warren Rips Joe Manchin On Student Loans

Cannot say enough good things about Elizabeth Warren. She is everything we could want in a politician.



Now let's turn to the White House to see how the "LEADER" of the entire Democratic Party and this nation is working toward framing the issue, making it a top priority, establishing guidelines, or in some way showing the country that he's concerned about the problem and wants a solution: [crickets]



Once again, Mr. President, thanks for absolutely nothing. I'm not sure what's worse - a President like dubya who leads the nation off a cliff or a President like Obama who doesn't lead at all.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Menendez: Edward Snowden Asylum Would Be 'A Step Against The United States'

Yeeeeeah....

After ALLLLLLwe've done to you Nicaragua, Venezuela, and Bolivia - I mean FOR you guys.... THIS is the thanks we get?!?

I used to have respect for Menendez. Just another pretender trying to look tough in the "war on terror" reality TV show (the 'never-ending' version).

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Robert Menendez: Edward Snowden Asylum Would Be 'A Step Against The United States'

If you knew anything about how "our enemies" operate, you'd realize they know full well we listen to their cell phone conversations. The only time they use them is to bring a missile onto themselves or a wedding party or a school.

Telling our enemies that we listen to our own citizens is probably making them laugh heartily. They hate us because of our "freedom," isn't that supposed to be the storyline folks like yourself drink up? Well, the last laugh is on you.

Just keep chanting "USA! USA!" until the pain of knowing what your government is doing to you goes away.

About edward snowden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him

The ONLY way to do "everything at their disposal" to prevent terrorist attacks is to declare that no non-citizens are permitted in this country and assign 1 police officer to every citizen for 24-hour surveillance purposes.

That may sound dumb. And it is. But it's the logical conclusion of your ridiculous blanket statement. There must be limits on what the government is allowed to do in the pursuit of "safety." Your comment implies none.

I remember not too long ago that my father couldn't get through airport security lines in less than 4 hours because his name was the same as someone who had a problem. This went on for 3 years before he gave up enjoying travel in his retirement. There was no safety in this practice at all. It was nothing more than irresponsible use of power and refusal to use brains.

If there are to be limits, then you have to accept the fact that others are more comfortable living in a society which has some inherent risk of harm than to living in some totalitarian - yet safe - state.

About Glenn Greenwald
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Glenn Greenwald: Edward Snowden Confirmed WikiLeaks Statement Was Written By Him

You clearly know nothing of history at all - even as recent as 2002 - if don't know that people in power in our government have, over time, abused your trust, made up enemies, attacked false enemies, and worse... all under the guise of keeping us "safe."

But who is keeping the men and women in our military (almost none of whom are prodigies of the top 20% income earners) safe from these lies?!?! Obviously not you, unless you feel the job of our soldiers is to jump into a volcano for no purpose other than to follow orders.

You may feel free to surrender your right to hold government accountable. But don't you dare try to take mine away.

About Glenn Greenwald
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

To Serve Society

Some people feel fulfilled by sexually assaulting women or children. Some people feel fulfilled by firing people randomly in order to ensure that employees fear them. Some people feel fulfilled by selling toxic financial instruments to other rich people all the while knowing they're a time bomb. Some people feel fulfilled by cutting costs of production by firing hard-working people and hiring a foreign company and using slave labor - because they'll get better stock options and a new yacht.

Seeking fulfillment is always OK, right?

Maybe - just maybe! - the issue isn't whether or not a person is rich or in a position to get rich. Maybe the issue is what people in power choose to do with their power.

And that is incompatible with ayn rand's fairly simplistic rich = good philosophy. The immortal leader of the ayn rand glee club, alan greenspan, even admitted on the record that he made the mistake during the inflating of the finance bubble of believing that powerful people would innately do the right thing.

It's interesting that most people have observed and understood that to be absurd on face for centuries. But the great greenspan couldn't figure it out until our economy became a smoldering hole in the ground. But it seems that those stuck in the make-believe world of ayn rand's vacuous philosophy seem to fall the fastest for that one. The better the suit, the more you can get away with.

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The GOP's Endless War on Obamacare, and the White House Delay

The republicans and their disciples' ability to believe anything that they are told is amazing. All the dead-end, empirically false stand-bys used from Social Security, Civil Rights, Medicare, and others - are trotting around the track for another inglorious lap.



If these "leaders" ever tried to use logic, facts, or the scientific method once in a while, they wouldn't look so ridiculous.



That said, Obama is either actively helping them or still as resolutely tone deaf and feeble as ever. The republicans go on a continuous assault against the plan - with virtually NO counter attack whatsoever. The republicans know one thing very well (it's probably the only thing) - repeated attacks, even if wildly inaccurate lies, will, over time, become accepted wisdom (like supply-side economics).



It's a weakness in humans (unsurprisingly and primarily those humans who refuse to believe that they have weaknesses) that this occurs. And without a countering argument waged by the President, the republicans will continue to win the near term election battles. The President makes campaigns much, much more difficult for Democrats when he takes the "high road" because the "high road" is really a well-worn and illegitimate excuse for running away from a fight.



While he has the bully pulpit, every individual candidate has to burn money and time to defend the program in their districts. This President needs to be that last courage--free Dem "leader."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Republican Obstructionism Leads to Doubling Student Loan Rates

Yes, actually.



Why does my kid need to pay 150% MORE than what the government pays to investors for a 10 year bond?!?!



Why do your swine buds feel that they need to pay so much more for their loans than what rich people get paid for parking money in a place for 10 years?!



How do you justify crushing kids like mine like that?



Other than that, I've had enough from you. Thanks a pile.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Dear Dr. Krugman, This is Why

My Economics Hero, Paul Krugman doesn't understand what turned the public around so fast for gay marriage. I posted this comment on his blog on the subject because I think this is why:


There hasn't been any transformation, really.

There was the status quo....
Then there was a challenge to the status quo....
Discussion of the status quo and the challenge took place....

End of story. People just needed to have the discussion forced into their consciousness to realize the pettiness of the status quo.

25 years ago no one dared admit to being gay, but now it's commonplace. People used to only know gay people from pictures of flamboyant parades, but now pretty much everyone has met someone who is gay and most realize that they are just as human as anyone else.

This is what enrages me about how Obama and Dem "leaders" deal with issues social and economic. Obama, recall, was against gay marriage during his original campaign in 2008 because that was the convenient position. If you want to change our direction, you can do so with strong leadership that forces people to confront and discuss the critical issues in an open debate.

But no Dems beyond Warren, Sanders (ok, technically not a Dem), Grayson, and a few others have the courage to do so. We get a push for austerity when we desperately need stimulus. We get toothless financial regulations. We get no mortgage reform after continuous egregious abuses.

"We have to be REASONABLE - we can't achieve these things..." is the standard defense of this abject cowardice.

Well, DOMA's demise and the public polls are Exhibit A proving the fact that you can get something when you push for it in a positive way with a grounding in real human experience.

Obama To Netroots Nation: 'I Need You'

Re-read your comment and I don't see how I missed this quip about a database. It's so off the wall I had to comment on that...


Having a phone number database is a number of things:

• Useless - call an operator and ask, or get a warrant and ask for it.
• An absurd waste of time and taxpayer money - if all you want is a phone number or two, finding out every call being my to/from everyone else is the slowest and most costly way to find the numbers.
• Absurd on face - it has been made clear already that the intent was to create patterns of phone usage. If you believe that that is the same thing as building a phone number database, then you aren't just naive, you're not of sound mind.

And to answer the initial question, terrorists HAVE killed Americans with such patriot act in place. The 911 attacks could have been prevented because we had intelligence about it and the president at the time was warned 29 days prior to the attack but elected to do nothing about it.


We have thousands more traffic deaths a year than terrorist attacks. Spending money on safer roads and vehicles would be far more effective than wasting it spying on Americans.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jim Allen, Illinois GOP Official, Resigns After Racially Charged Attack On Erika Harold

Now THAT is what I would call "astonishing."



First, I'm not sure where I stated that the republicans are the only people who have exhibited their racist bend, but just because you perceive it doesn't mean I said it.



Second, I'm not sure where my comment suggests that causality of racism is bound to one's political affiliation. Clearly it's the exact opposite. Racism is based on a combination of fear of the unknown, crippling insecurity leading to fear of discovering facts that undermine your opinions, and an ability to accept illogical and irrational concepts. People with those traits are overwhelmingly attracted to the republican party because facts and science are, as evinced in many polls and studies, not just uncomfortable things, but demonized. On the other hand, Dems believe in science and tend to demand evidence before accepting concepts - an uncomfortable environment for racists.



Third, Since the legislation under the Great Society, the racist Dems made very public moves to the republican party. The republican party has been a haven for racist candidates ever since and a simple accounting of public events like this one empirically demonstrates that fact rather conclusively.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jim Allen, Illinois GOP Official, Resigns After Racially Charged Attack On Erika Harold

"“The astonishingly offensive views expressed by Chairman Allen have absolutely no place among the leaders of our party at any level," Priebus wrote..."



"Astonishingly"?!



This is a joke, right???



I need to be out with a group for only about 15 minutes before I hear talk like that guy's email come out of the most boisterous republican(s) in the crowd.... which is then followed immediately with nods, chuckles, and guffaws from the rest of the republicans. No need to check voter registration cards, just count the bobbing, sputtering noggins.



I think this guy meant to say, "These offensive views are wholly consistent with our 'base' and we need Mr. Allen to resign his current post so he can accept a more vital 'get out the vote' position for our state party machine."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton: Obama Risks Looking Like A 'Wuss,' 'A Total Fool' If He Doesn't Act On Syria

Or maybe I misinterpreted you....



My view is that where there are CLEAR malefactors and a good chance that justice can be brought into a situation (Korea in the early 50s, WW II [ultimately], and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait for example), then intervention feels like the right thing to do. I don't know what to make of WWI because it was as choreographed as Gulf of Tonkin and at a point in history that was forever shaped by its brutality.



Blindly supporting our "ally" in South Vietnam was a complete and utter disaster - largely because the Vietnamese had no more interest to be brutalized by "our brutal dictator." As Ellsberg helped us learn, we knew we had no chance of winning, but threw tens of thousands of US lives away to purely maintain an image of combating Communism - which is now search-replaced policy-wise with "Terrorism."



Helping the Northern Alliance topple the Taliban was probably a fair meddling. But the occupations of Afghanistan in a vain attempt to 'tame the savages' and an Iraq with simmering, seething racial hatreds were lost before they began (just like Vietnam). There was simply no way to possibly bring any sort of justice (as we like to think of it).



All one needs do is float accusations of [aiding] terrorism to justify almost any unthinkable act. That has to end.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I Ask Again: Is Technology Blocking the Path to Full Employment?

One overlooked aspect of this debate is a critical one that I suppose is lost in the bowels of faceless economic models has to do with the effects of competition in an actual capitalist economy. Ours is not a capitalism in the way that Adam Smith had described it.



In his vision, and the one that I think most folks identify, competition drove up innovations and drove out inefficient, inferior, or defective products. In our economy, for example, home builders can build unsafe or generally crappy homes and sell them for a massive profit because they have more money in their coffers to buy properties and build houses. In other words, the concentration of - and restricted circulation of - wealth has contorted the mechanisms of capitalism just as it has in the gilded age.



With a system so lopsided and rigged to siphon wealth from others and to restrict competition, I'm not sure how anyone can make any categorical claims as to what technology is doing or not doing. The fact is that technology and other tools are used just as mightily to keep the pumps running that keep the flow of cash up to the 1% as they are to run an assembly line or execute precision welding.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I Ask Again: Is Technology Blocking the Path to Full Employment?

Anyone quoting ayn rand excludes themselves from any legitimate debate by definition.



Included in this rule are folks quoting Howdy-Doody and reading messages from God hidden in cow dung.
About Unemployment
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton: Obama Risks Looking Like A 'Wuss,' 'A Total Fool' If He Doesn't Act On Syria

99.5% of the security experts don't matter - they aren't in elected/appointed positions where they represent the people of this nation. Presidents and high-ranking members of the last few administrations (like Sec of State) - people who DO speak for the nation - all heaped praise and monetary aid on Mubarak.



The rest of your comment is baffling. It seems that you're advocating that we pick a starting line, amass all of our fighting-capable men and women, and march around the globe slaughtering everyone who gives us the hairy eyeball to make it safer for us. Just as we've seen over and over in Afghanistan, 100 acts of kindness can be overturned with 1 act of recklessness or hatred. Where there were 1,000 neutral parties, you've now created 500 who want to harm you. This makes no one safe.



I can live just fine knowing that there may be someone out there who hates me for no good reason and who may try to kill me if they had the chance. Why can't you? Why do you allow yourself to be terrified all the time?



And if the only way you can feel safe is to kill others, than you have, by definition, made many others increasingly unsafe. It's wrong at minimum, evil at its worst.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Bill Clinton: Obama Risks Looking Like A 'Wuss,' 'A Total Fool' If He Doesn't Act On Syria

Did you forget how highly praised our beloved ally in Egypt was? Of course, that was only up to a few months BEFORE it became clear that we wouldn't be able to rely on him holding people down in Egypt any longer. THEN we gleefully mocked him.



Propping that guy up beforehand with massive aid packages is part of our interventionist approach and it's humorously backfired in Egypt.



Our foreign policy is based on your premise - we should manipulate other nations to be under our control or at least not threatening to us. Once every nation is properly g3lded, then it's good because there's "peace." Never mind the abuses that our peaceful puppets inflict upon their populace - our demand for peace-of-mind and verdant fields for our international industrialists to enslave or plow trumps civil rights!



Well, you can't ignore those impacts. And tyrants suppressing the expression of ideas you find scary provide you no security nor safety whatsoever. It's not our choice to anoint rulers of other nations. Rarely does anything good come of it (if ever).



If staying out of conflicts within borders of countries where all sides represent nothing but more of the same is "isolationism," then that's exactly what we need.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Edward Snowden: "Hero or Traitor"?

Obviously, we agree on darn near everything here.



I guess my (still semantical) position is that the patriot act is inherently an abuse of power. So to me, anyone using it is exercising questionable judgment. I know warrants were obtained, but these are wide, wide, wide nets being cast (like the search of AP phone records), which is not right. If this were for phone records for me and you, it's one thing, but this is entirely different.



bush is a god-awful human being and I can see that comparisons to him/it evoke a visceral response. bush engineered the patriot act, the torture regime, and other hideous systems. But I can't get past the fact that Obama has elected to use all of those systems as a matter of course - as if they were all mundane, benign systems like inter-office mail. These are, in fact, a malignancy that should offend everyone.



Maybe I'm being unfair. BUT he could have vetoed the re-authorization of the patriot act and didn't. He could have reverted us back to FISA and he failed. So I just can't give him a pass on any of it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Edward Snowden: "Hero or Traitor"?

I think we've got some semantics issues on this.



If I'm not mistaken, the timeline was that dubya first went the illegal route. Then the patriot act was delivered to, among other things, help indemnify all those complicit with this illegal, warrantless spying (and dubya). After patriot act was adopted, the President could do pretty much any spying he wanted. So long as the President can blurt out "terrorist!," he can justify literally (?) almost any action of any kind. If you can classify enough information to make it virtually impossible for anyone to see if the President was adhering to the patriot act's meek oversight stipulations, any President can act as a good old-fashioned dictator.



Still, the President may be technically doing things that are legal to the letter of the law, which is where my semantics break is with your comment. To me, hiding behind an hideous set of tools, legal or not, like the patriot act doesn't really make the actions of the President any less immoral or unethical in my view. The patriot act is a disgrace.



If the President followed FISA laws to the letter in here, then I would walk back my disdain for the President. But I'm pretty certain this isn't the case.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Edward Snowden: "Hero or Traitor"?

Well said.



The process of totalitarianism includes this step when the Stalins and Marcos's of the world purge the government of 'untrustworthy' people and permit only friends to participate. This is indeed the sort of easy, 'logical' step that can occur fairly unnoticed by the population because so many still accept the "double standard" you so aptly noted.



I accept the fact that there are secrets that shouldn't be released because the harm it creates is more than the transparency maintains responsible governance. However, as a few commenters have noted here, the information released by Snowden is neither surprising nor new.



If, in fact, this is true (and all indications are that it is), then there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the information to have been classified. The author bemoans that a formal declassification process doesn't really exist while demanding Snowden's head on a pike. I'd be fine with the author's opinions if they included not just a 'wish' for a declassification process but some sort of amnesty program until such a process, a process [devoid of partisan appointed hacks] is created and implemented so that our republic might be able to avoid the next step toward a closed government.



But without that, I just can't deal with the enablers of mass document classification fraud by government agents. Government can classify anything and there is no way to challenge it or bring those who improperly classify data to justice.



Double standard indeed.
About Wikileaks
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Grand Bargain Loses Center For American Progress Support In Major Blow To Austerity

This President continuously demonstrates that he is 100% committed to adopting as many republican policies as he can so that he can be remembered as the most awesomely bipartisan person in the post-partisan era of partisanship.



It doesn't matter how bad the policies are, he's going to pull all the stops in their pursuit - even if he has to starve the elderly to do it!!!



I can't figure if it's vanity, insanity, or inanity - but regardless, it's profoundly sad to behold this quixotic nose-dive day in and day out.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Mitch McConnell Charges 'Culture Of Intimidation' On Obama Nominees

Accusations unanswered are accusations agreed to. Will the President brush the footprint marks off his chest and confront this latest absurdity?!



I sure doubt it.



Obama has made it clear from day one that his intended legacy revolves entirely around the hope that he can transcend partisanship and become known as some sort of political peace-broker. The reason that the republicans get away with saying and doing the incredible things they do is because they know the President is too mortally terrified of being called an intimidating bully to call them on the carpet - it would destroy his sacred quest, even though all the rest of us can clearly see that the quest is a completely unattainable fantasy.



Until he gives up this absurd pursuit of bipartisan kumbaya, his legacy will be one of being a doormat for schoolyard thugs.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

CWA President Larry Cohen To Senate Dems: Fix The Nomination Process Or Lose Our Support

Well, I can only hope the unions will show some spine in a united front on this matter. One of the things that candidates in primaries do as a matter of course is garner endorsements from unions. If unions would be willing to DE-endorse elected candidates ti could help embolden challengers to those who've failed to get their job done. This would be especially helpful in the House.



In the Senate, the terms are a little long to help hold feet to the fire as efficiently. But I think it'd be beneficial if unions could settle on some key matters of social justice (not workplace rules - trade policy, social security preservation, tax fairness, etc.) and establish a gentlemen's agreement for all unions to follow when supporting candidates. For example, if a Congressperson votes against or contravenes these universal tenets or specific legislation, no union should cross this 'virtual picket line' and endorse or support the offending candidate(s) in any way.



But nothing like this can work if the unions won't circle the wagons and make it happen. Unions are very much taken advantage of by the DLC elite like Obama, Clinton, et. al., as categorically stated by rahm emanuel early in Obama's administration.



Unions have been a bastion of courage for a century and if they can stand up to be the first to offer a purge of the Democratic Party of servants to the aristocracy.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fire Eric Holder

At least clinton had the sliver of integrity needed to fire the sin eaters that became bloated in his administration. Obama is so cynical (or spine-free) that he can't even manage to make that token gesture.



dubya's 4th term continues with business as usual...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Good Grief, Barack Obama!

"The Constitutional amendment you're talking .... has never been proven by any court, .... which I doubt you'll get!"



Lame. And I mean, seriously weak on two levels.



First, when you are in a leadership role, you have to work to get things done. Sometimes that means forcing a festering issue up to the surface, you do it. What citizen wants to be known as a deadbeat nation? Even if the case lost in SCOTUS (their jurisdiction), the court of public opinion would be massively for the President and could've helped the 2012 elections.



When I was in elected office, I had a couple lawyers telling me, "you have no chance of winning this in court." I asked why. They shrugged, effectively saying, "that's what everyone has accepted." I asked why others lost and heard why. I said, "but our case is nothing like that. So get the hell on it." We won all three of them. And every provocation against the municipality stopped afterwards.



Your suggestion is also weak because your exact reasoning has been used against Obamacare. No one has ever forced US citizens to buy a universally required product from private industry before that bill. You probably didn't accept that "scary courts!" argument back then because you thought the bill was better than nothing. Well, you can't have it both ways - you lead and deal with consequences, or you quit.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Chelsea Clinton Eyes Health Projects With Her Father's Foundation, Work On Gay Rights

That's really nice.



But seriously, when is the family royalty-worship going to end in this country? I can't take these HRC 2016 comments. We demand change in DC but we keep putting, literally and figuratively, the same people back there, election after election.



And then we send their spouses, brothers/sisters, and their kids. Enough! Our problem isn't propagating the status quo, it's ENDING it! Was it the founders' intention to create a class of ruling elite families?!? My guess is not - and for reasons that should be obvious.



Whoever thinks another Clinton in DC is going to help anyone in the 99% has a 'kick me' sign on their back. Stop waxing nostalgic about the clinton family. HRC will not be any different than Obama, who has been barely different than dubya. They all LOVE their corporate financiers, likely much more than any concern for the 99%.... or has the money collected by the clinton foundation come from a big lottery ticket payout instead of wealthy international industrialists (the same gang refusing to pay taxes or give up slave labor)?



And don't ever forget who supported and signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall which doomed us to economic disaster. Snap the out of it, people....
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Good Grief, Barack Obama!

Even when Obama had a majority in Congress, he wasted his political capital (and tons of time!) scurrying around the republican caucus on his knees and letting the neos own the midterm election messaging. He squandered his best chance to make a big impact.



Obamacare is a very feeble compromise, although it IS an accomplishment. But on virtually all other matters (e.g. the Constitution CLEARLY negates this ceremonial 'debt ceiling' nonsense, yet even with that weapon at his disposal, he won't use it), he brings a wad of silly putty to a gunfight EVERY time. Last debt ceiling fight cost us a lot of tax revenue from the 1%. In fact, I believe the last tally I read (on HuffPo) for that deal was that the 1% scored breaks on the order of $20 billion and the unemployed/etc. scored around $4 billion. Honestly, I could NEVER look myself in the mirror ever again if I was in his shoes and had made that deal.



With friends like that, we 99% are just ducks in a barrel.



So even if the House comes back to Dem majority, there is absolutely, positively, unarguably no reason to have any confidence whatsoever that this President will change his insidious timidity and move anything else forward for the 99%.



In the meantime, enjoy those delicious crumbs!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Good Grief, Barack Obama!

Part of the process is that you deliberately propose substantive, wildly popular bills as standalone legislation. Start with simple tax loophole closure. Toss in something like Senator Warren's college loan proposal. Propose a few bills that do things like mandate the identification of donors to these new PAC organizations.



In other words, produce bills that would require ridiculous pretzel logic to try to justify burying them or voting against them. THAT is what you club them to pieces with - incontrovertible proof of working for the wealthy.



Immigration is going to be a very difficult and controversial bill. I know the President is being pushed to do something in order to keep Spanish-speaking constituents support, but that's not the topic to pull the opposition's pants down over because the public is still very divided.



As far as comparing me to a TP extremist, that's pathetic in every way. If the TP espoused any law or societal structure that has ever succeeded in the history of man, then you can compare. Obama's method is to negotiate a TP proposal of 2+2=8 to 7.5. My methods aren't extreme, Obama's is.



And when perusing the poll data, please note how many favor the Dems over the other side. The public has been taught that Dems are just as bad as republicans and my whole point here is that Obama MUST reverse that if we are to take back the House after all the gerrymandering.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The 1 Chart That Reveals Just How Grossly Unfair The U.S. Tax System Has Become

You, of course, missed the point. Hence my assessment of your remedial analytical skills proves true.



But it's easy to predict with folks like yourself who are blinded by your own selfishness and ego. Regardless of how much money you get from whatever you do, you feel that YOU have a special right above others. Like Leona Helmsley, you feel "taxes are for little people." Only poor people should be allowed to be pulled over by the police for reckless driving. You're so singularly important - and everyone else and every rule is just an obstacle for you. You are so special - we owe you a debt of gratitude. You don't need data to be right, all you need is a moment to blurt out an opinion and it divinely becomes fact.



Well, the news for you is that Narcissism is an illness, not a basis for a functional society. Every successful and failed nation is testament to that and to the dysfunctional, self-worshiping libertarian silliness you hold.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Good Grief, Barack Obama!

For starters, recess appointments.



Most importantly, forcefully campaigning against the intransigence by changing his strategy from 'smoke-filled-room negotiations' to an all-out public appeal for all voters to pay attention to daily activities of their representatives will yield massively better dividends over the mid-terms and beyond. Name names, cite the transgressions, the statistics, and tie it all in to how the 'bring down Obama' strategy is a 'destroy main street' strategy (tho, admittedly, as a worshiper of wall street, the President's credibility in pulling that off is strained). The fact is that until he gets a Dem majority across the board, only tiny, insignificant things can be accomplished.



So there is simply NO justification at all to invest time in trying to achieve "bipartisanship" and its insignificant advancements. Passing a bill is a battle - fixing the economy is a war... and the war cannot be won unless the public is brought into the debate and they begin to understand better how the republican party is working against us all (there are a disconcerting number of Dems who are also working against us and I'd call them out, too).



Now, you may disagree with my suggestion. However, it's worked for Presidents in the past. And this President's strategy is most clearly and obviously a failure. So the only wrong - the only illogical and unreasonable - answer here is to keep doing over and over that which has been failing and hope for better results.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Good Grief, Barack Obama!

Been saying this for years. It was clear to everyone that this was going to be the case from inauguration day in 2009. I'm continuously amazed at this truly quixotic spectacle.



And I think it's safe to say, Obama will not ever change.



Sadly, history's recount of his administration is going to be one filled with as much amazement over the benchmark of electing our nation's first non-white President as it will of bewilderment over how someone so dynamic could be so incredibly incapable of allowing rudimentary intellect to overcome his stubborn, emotional attachment to the currently impossible achievement of "bipartisanship".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The 1 Chart That Reveals Just How Grossly Unfair The U.S. Tax System Has Become

Junior, in the real world, people of all stripes want something for nothing. When they are poor, you call them deadbeats and vilify them. When they are rich, you call them shrewd titans of industry and drop to your knees in front of them.



At the end of the day, people who try to find ways to avoid paying their fair (or any!) share of taxes in exchange for the benefits of living and operating in this nation should be paying up.
About Taxes
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The 1 Chart That Reveals Just How Grossly Unfair The U.S. Tax System Has Become

Romney did no work at all last year and paid an effective rate of about 50% less than mine after I worked 60 hour weeks for the same year. Are you saying he got an unfairly good deal? Or does society owe him something because he's been able to legally extract more money from the economy than I have?



If you make more, you have benefited more from the publicly funded resources this nation offers and you should pay more.



Your 3rd grade-level analysis doesn't do anything to help your credibility. I had similar opinions when I got out of college and thought I knew how things worked. Then I got into the real world and realized how far off I was. Textbooks are quaint.
About Taxes
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Justice Department May Be Right

If you blindly take the word of folks like gw bush, dick cheney, mitch mcconnell, george petraeus, et. al., then you have less than nothing. You have a 'knock me down and take whatever you want' sign around your neck. But that wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that enabling these "leaders" to get re-elected and do whatever they like ends up knocking me and my family down, too.



You want to believe them because you want to see that everyone is good at heart and will do the right thing for the country. But there are thousands, if not millions, of people who are not like that. And many of them are in the highest places of corporations and government.



It takes some work and you have to replace your rose-colored lenses with those that let in all the light. Reality is unpleasant, but it's better if everyone dealt with it head-on with courage than hide behind blind faith.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Justice Department May Be Right

OK, so you have nothing except the word of investigators AND the concordance of a couple folks who despise civil liberties as a general concept. To be clear, republicans have NOT confirmed there was a leak - they are merely, as usual, supportive of any civil rights transgression that suits their personal feelings.... there is a HUGE difference that you're overlooking. At the same time, there are a myriad of republicans running around decrying the AP issue in the same breath as the other issues. As usual, the republicans are wisely playing both sides of the fence in order to corner off the ring with persistent attacks against a wall-flower President who won't fight back.



Besides, in general, if McConnell is FOR something, it's almost always a tremendous idea to be fully against it. And if all you've got in your corner is blind faith in this President bravely doing the right thing and a vote of confidence from Mitch McConnell, you have absolutely NOTHING AT ALL in your corner.



Neo c0n lies (like those continuously told by McConnell) are just as bad as lies from Dems. If you choose to believe the latter aren't capable of lies, then you should be ashamed of yourself. No more free rides for anyone.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Justice Department May Be Right

Bombs! Airplanes crashing! Al Qaeda!... stir and serve to get immediate public buy-in. By the way, how many people bought into the yellow cake story and wouldn't let go?



Information for this story can be leaked via e-mail, in person, voice over IP, or intermediaries. Calls to/from several AP offices will not likely help find any but the sloppiest of leakers. And if they were so sloppy, they should have been discovered by directly examining the phone records and accounts of the potential leak suspects. After all, if a leaker called the AP, it'd be in the leaker's phone records - no need to fish around AP's records!



I didn't believe that nonsense yellow cake story back under dubya and given the current administration's record of attacking whistle-blowers, I don't buy this one either. It makes more sense that this is a cover story for a fishing expedition.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost