Fingers For Neocons

Obama's Mixed Messages

2012-01-23T15:04:00.001-05:00

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

Obama's mixed messages aren't the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republicans' Mitt Romney Problem

2012-01-13T17:24:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012: Will the Left Support Obama?

2012-01-11T21:13:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

2012-01-05T16:00:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Top 6 Reasons Obama's Economic Policies Failed in 2011

2012-01-02T12:32:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-02T12:14:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Nelson Retiring Ahead Of 2012 Election

2011-12-29T09:01:00.001-05:00

All those Obama supporters who have decried suggestions that Obama should beat down traitorous, corporate-owned tools like Nelson owe us an apology.

This man has accomplished so much for the republican party - and his latest gift to the gop forces the DNC to scramble to get another D ready for what will now be a tough, uphill campaign.

People like nelson don't just help make bad policy, they harm the Party and the people who elected him.

When you are dealing with creatures like nelson, lieberman, et. al., you will never win them to your side. They will always find something to fight publicly with the President about. They stand for nothing except to make headlines, get their egos stroked, and generally grandstand (while diligently serving the needs of Nebraska's corporations... who eventually throw their support to a republican anyway).

You're much better off coming to grips right away with the fact that they are going to be more trouble than anything and deliver a private, "the first time you clown me will mark the beginning of a campaign to find your next primary opponent" message to those with a track record like nelson. And then follow through.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

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

2011-12-28T18:52:00.001-05:00

I voted against Clinton in the 2008 Primaries because I understood the damage done by her husband's administration which so many fellow Dems have worked so desperately hard to ignore. The repeal of Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, K-Street, the creation of the DLC to splinter and weaken the DNC (the REAL party organization), etc.

I knew she wasn't Bubba's twin, but given how she stacked up so many of his cronies in her campaign, you'd have had to be - again - working hard to ignore where things were going to go in an HRC administration.

Then Obama won the General and immediately pulled Clinton cronies and acolytes into his administration. At that point, it was pretty clear that corporate power was going to be continuing its feeding frenzy indefinitely. If Clinton is the heir apparent, then it's a death certificate for the Democratic Party and what it used to stand for.

Mr. Reich, you of all people should understand what has been done by Obama and the clinton mob to prevent progressives from making any substantive changes to the status quo. When do you think the call will come from Hillary to your desk for a Treasury Secretary post? I'll give you a hint - the one-word answer begins with an "n" rhymes with "sever".
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Ron Paul, In 1996, 'Did Not Deny' Controversial Statement In Newsletter

2011-12-26T17:35:00.001-05:00

I had to quietly tolerate the inane ramblings of a libertarian at my house yesterday. Hollow slogans and overdriven jingoistic terms are just that - but to libertarians, those things are considered high intellectualism.

Claiming "big government" is "the enemy" is just plain silly. Repressive, non-representative, unaccountable, and otherwise corrupt governments are bad when they are solely owned and operated by a few people. This is what we have today. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with "big", "medium," or "small" and EVERYTHING to do with the integrity of those in charge.

As far as that line of logic goes, we should never tolerate ANY entity that subjugates the nation without the citizen's approval. And this is the problem with the libertarian utopia. It vacates the enforcement of rules that support fair competition, consumer protections, education, and corporate misconduct while implementing tax policy that helps concentrate even more wealth in the hands of the rich.

Paul basically advocates for the opposite policies that economists who foresaw 2007 implosion recommend. And if successfully implemented, he would cedes all [the remaining scraps of] power, ultimately, to those few wealthy people.

It'd be ironic if it wasn't so bizarrely counter-productive.
About Iowa Caucuses
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Willard Mitt Romney Rails Against "Entitlement Society" -- That Takes Chutzpa

2011-12-24T08:22:00.001-05:00

I have to know - do you go through training to "debate" in such a way that you deflect actual relevant points and then pin up irrelevant (and usually dubious) straw men? Is it a law school-taught thing? Or is it just a natural way to avoid facts?

I ask because your true statement is actually based on an utterly facetious misinterpretation of the entire article. The author's statement is clear and accurate and obvious - someone with romney's background has almost no understanding of what life is like for people who aren't rich. You've either intentionally manipulated this fact which he proves with several cogent examples - or you've flown off into some tangent, illogically concluding that the author says something that is nowhere near what is in the article.

So I'm forced to wonder if this is intentional or not. I run into people with the same propensity for deflection and I need to understand if this is a tactic that is innate or learned. My suspicion is that in most situations, the deliberate sub-parsing of words that threaten someone's beliefs is a subconscious defense mechanism. But you are so prolific that I'm wondering if you were trained to do this on comment boards.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Willard Mitt Romney Rails Against "Entitlement Society" -- That Takes Chutzpa

2011-12-23T09:15:00.001-05:00

"I gather from this that unless you have experienced something first hand, you have no right to an opinion on it."

Looks like you've got a problem understanding things. Actually, after seeing a few of your other comments, you have a problem understanding ANYTHING.

You are the soul of the republican party. Over-reacting, illogical, irrationally angry. Such a package!
About Health Care
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Is the American Left So Ineffective in Economics?

2011-12-12T21:46:00.001-05:00

You and anyone can say whatever you like. The 2007/8 crash proved conclusively and incontrovertibly that the rational market myth is as dead and buried as Mr. Cowperthwaite himself.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Canada Income Inequality: Trickle-Down Tax Policy Is Alive And Well In The True North

2011-12-01T07:51:00.001-05:00

"When they come here they hire people. It’s simple,” says Minister of State for Finance Ted Menzies..."

It's certainly not simple. Only one severely lacking the skills to assess activities in the economy (that is, people with no remedial analytical and logical ability) could make such a claim in public.

Conservatives from any advanced nation too often relinquish analytics in favor of the words of rich people. They think, "if this person has a lot of money, then they must be smart and Jesus must be love them, and therefore I should believe in everything they say while ignoring everything they do and everything their predecessors have done."

It's not the conservatives that destroy nations. It's the blind faith conservatives have in the rich to do good things. With the doors unlocked, the high percentages of immoral rich go on rampages that history shows are all too common and nations are decimated.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Fails, but American People Win

2011-11-28T09:56:00.001-05:00

Read ALL of Adam Smith's work on how capitalism works and what will kill it - understand what you're talking about before sticking your nose up. Capitalism isn't practiced today.

Yup, I sound like Reich. I also sound like Nouriel Roubini. And Paul Krugman. Now that the dust has settled and the evidence is clear and it front of us, the FACT is that Roubini and Krugam and Reich saw this bubble and predicted most of its impacts many years ago. None of the "non-elite" (?) wanted to hear it. But they were right.

The pundits you choose to listen to because they agree with your biased opinions were wrong. Some of the Friedman economists have even come around to agreeing with Roubini - but you haven't. Apparently, you're smarter. But you're wrong about the economy.

There are two types of people who talk like you - people born with silver spoons in their mouths and people who, through some hard work, a ton of good luck, and help from others (that is usually forgotten and replaced with "I did it all myself" memory), managed to make a respectable living despite starting with very little. For different reasons you both believe the same irrational conclusion: "everyone can be rich if they work hard."

Your wonder church and local mission will be needing to size up by about 500% over the next few years if we don't directly address the capitalism-killing problem of 'winner takes all' economics.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Super Committee Fails, but American People Win

2011-11-25T08:50:00.001-05:00

Tell you what, skippy - YOU give away everything and pay perpetual fealty to those who have all the wealth in this country and leave me out of your self-loathing, perverse homage to the absurd notion that this nation couldn't survive without their money.

If you're so terrified of being in a country without the super rich, then go follow them around the world as they find this mythical safe place to put their money. And while you're at it, relinquish your citizenship. We don't need court jesters for the rich - especially those who claim we have a $6 trillion dollar budget and the real number is under $4 trillion.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Keeping Up With the Kandidates

2011-11-15T13:28:00.001-05:00

Stop it - you know he had that his first two years. And even with that, he fell all over himself, surrendering everything possible to the minority party.

As for the blue dogs, I'd have had a closed door meeting with them on day one of my term and laid it on the line. "You heard my campaign, so nothing I call for should be a surprise. If you're against these things, switch parties now so there will be no confusion. If your political strategy is to fight me publicly within the party, then get your resume together because I'm going to have the DNC run primary candidates against you. I'm not saying you have to rubber stamp everything, but you will stop the games now." Then I would follow through.

Would it have worked? Maybe - maybe not. But what was done instead - throw away valid solutions to overwhelmingly vital problems in exchange for useless compromises - has been an unmitigated disaster. We've lost so much more time and treasure in the process of b3nding 0ver for the wingers and there is no reason at all to believe that a stronger Dem Congress will elicit ANY change at all from O'sellout. After all, the President had a VERY strong Dem House and decided to hold back on submitting study requests to the House that would have forced reconciliation votes in the Senate for things like tax break expiration, etc.

Buck stops in oval office.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

California Refuses to Accept Obama's Banking Sellout

2011-11-10T09:21:00.001-05:00

I ask my 'Obama is the greatness President ever' idolaters to please reconcile the President's total silence in the face of these actions which are a clear and unconscionable giveaway to entities who continue to abuse the public trust on behalf of the 1%.

Anyone familiar with Roubini, Stiglitz, Fox, Krugman, et. al. (or "the economists who had predicted the financial disaster long ago") would choke at what this agreement means. It's beyond a "sellout" or a "giveaway." It's perpetration of a bigger, more epic fraud than the 2007 meltdown.

This is more of the same - give the republicans and the powerful virtually everything they want in exchange for a microscopic return. Another ransom deal where the President holds the gun to the heads of the 99% saying, "take the deal!"... and then spins the results as gloriously good bipartisanship.

Almost no comments here. Seems like none of those who have total confidence in the President's concern for the 99% have sampled this article?

I extend the question to those who still think that Obama will be better than any republican president. But think about it for a second. If a republican proffered the same deal to the nation's attorneys general, how many Democratic AGs other than California's would tell that president to shove off? I suspect there would be more.

We don't have a choice in 2012 between bad and worse. All the choices are equally rancid.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Millennial Voters Still Support Obama, But Enthusiasm Has Waned

2011-11-05T10:32:00.001-04:00

On one hand, I admire the ability of Obama loyalists to continue to fight for him. But on the other, I resent them for ignoring the glaring facts that show he is, like every other President before him, a product of those with whom he surrounds himself. You can't ignore forever the cadre of trickle-down, 'what's good for wall street is good for all' slimers that have been Obama's choices for running the economy.

At some point you have to snap out of it - and maybe some have, given the fact that a post like yours usually attracts a dozen outraged replies laced with citations of feeble Obama "accomplishments"... yet there are no vigorous retorts here? - and see things clearly. The recent addition of more one-sided trade agreements to the "accomplishments" list may have separated a few more from the herd. Who knows. But until we can rally a bona fide 3rd party candidate, it's not going to matter too much.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Worst Deal They Could Cut

2011-11-01T13:56:00.001-04:00

The President isn't soft on republicans or soft on wall street. He's just soft. Period. Soft.

Soft governance at any level of government is barely better than having no government. I've seen it when I was in local office and seen it elsewhere. Those in your jurisdiction seek the weak and exploit it brutally. Once properly tamed, the governing body is completely ineffective and the balance of power gone. Sadly, we see no greater example of this ineffectualness than in Obama.

2012 is all about destructive through softness versus destructive through crazy. I for one am ready to let the republicans run wild for a few years. Bringing those people defending the 1% to their knees for a little bit might bring enough of them around to where bona fide candidates like Elizabeth Warren can easily win seats.

Too many people think the economy is coming around and we just need a little more trickle down double-down to fix it up (and smack the poor while they're at it). When their naive backs snap under that debunked policy, I think the rebuilding job will be a LOT easier.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Income Inequality Reaches Gilded Age Levels, Congressional Report Finds

2011-10-27T11:18:00.001-04:00

To those 99ers defending the 1% - you have never met a CEO making millions of dollars a year. If you ever did - and you had any operational inte!!ect at all - you would figure out in short order how pedestrian their abilities are. In many cases, you will be amazed at their relative cogn!t!ve weakness and beg the question, "was it just a large vocabulary and boot-licking skills that got this person to this level?!".... leading to the realization that, yes, there is no justification for this income disparity unless the object of "capitalism" is really an obscure lottery system.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Eric Cantor's Know-Nothing Wealth Disparity Speech: "Every Man a Billionaire"

2011-10-24T13:43:00.001-04:00

Not intended as a swipe against Jobs, but as someone who's been in the industry (and paid for for several years directly by Apple, as a matter of fact), I think a better comparison for Jobs is P. T. Barnum. Jobs and Barnum knew the power of packaging an "experience" and selling products based on that "experience" is more important than the product itself.

When you get down to it, the iPod is the Sony Walkman with different media and content purchasing options. From a technology perspective, white rice in snoozeville. From a marketing perspective (getting revenue on song purchases), a bonanza.

Edison was 100% a technology guy, whereas Jobs was more around 33%. His technology push to get Unix under the Mac OS cost him his job at Apple and forged his ill-fated NeXT pursuit. The development environment for iPhone and iPad is basically from NeXT, which is a tribute to his technical expertise. But the fact is that the Apple brand and "coolness" factor of the iPod (marketing) is what launched the company's latest success... not to mention the company's fanatical litigiousness over "intellectual property" (not that they're the only litigious technology company, of course....) which helps treble competitiveness and innovation while passing along the high development and legal costs to consumers.

Sorry for the nit.... I do agree with your point, though. :-)
About Eric Cantor
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Flat-Tax Fraud, and the Necessity of a Truly Progressive Tax

2011-10-22T13:28:00.001-04:00

If you ever had to survive around the poverty line - or work hard to help pay part of your way through college - or dealt with any actual, real financial stress due to being out of a job or underemployed, you would have some shred of understanding of what $500 means to someone struggling to get by (all the while paying local taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, and state taxes).

Conversely, $500 is nothing to people clearing even $300k or more a year (unless they've insisted on living beyond their means out of 4 houses and collect rare cars).

Is it fair? Maybe not completely fair. But someone like you inflicting additional hardship on those to whom you have no ability to relate certainly sounds unfair, too.

You don't really want fairness. You want a pound of flesh. Big difference.
About 999 Plan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

If a Republican Were President

2011-10-16T14:32:00.001-04:00

You are exactly right.

Funny, I saw an article today on HuffPo (haven't read it) whose title speculates having Joe Biden resign. The brief implies that it would help the party overall.... as if Joe bleieping Biden is the - or even "A" - problem.

Maybe inside the bubble he's a problem. But imelt, daly, geithner, bernake, sperling, and the crew of right wingers and political hacks that Obama brought in and fights for are and have been the problem. If there's any one individual whose retirement could help advance the Democratic Party values, it's Obama's. Almost any good Dem could fare well against any of the republican hopefuls. Obama is far less special than many people want to admit.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Jon Stewart's Liberal Challenge to Ron Paul

2011-09-30T08:27:00.001-04:00

Here's a simple case in point.

"In contrast, in Paul's free market, when such institutions mis-sell products or make bad decisions, they are fined for fraud as appropriate, and if the fines or their bad business decisions bankrupt them, they are gone, able to do no more harm -- ever."

With no government around to monitor or investigate, and no laws ("regulations") to set the ground rules of business conduct, how will any business be 'fined for fraud' or anything else?

Irrational. Incongruous. Illogical. Not thought all the way through.

It's the result of a desire to get weave pretzel logic around a "simple" solution (social Darwinism) that doesn't work in human society. If that's what you want, I recommend building a time machine to hurtle you back into the 1200s and savor the awesomeness of 'every man for himself.'
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

2011-09-20T08:30:00.001-04:00

You've proved that you're not thinking logically but with your heart. I don't know what's blocking your view of rampant foreclosures, wage cuts, extreme unemployment, and business closings. Being in denial over the national economic disaster and prodding non-believers for not sharing your religious beliefs doesn't make you stronger. It just means you're stubborn.

I've won office as a Democrat. I ran campaigns for local Democrats. One fought against a guy who wanted to lower taxes on the elderly, even though they only paid around $50/year for police and other services - and we called the guy out (and won 2-1 in a district where republicans outnumber Dems 2-1).

You have a lot of nerve accusing me of not being liberal. I've been there, done that. I've not changed, your idol did - practically overnight after election day 2008. And as someone who has had to fight republicans, I can tell you that the way Obama handles them is exactly opposite of how he needs to work.

BTW - that list is weak. Knocking 2% off the unemployment total overwhelms everything on that list - combined - in import and national impact. It's like a doctor boasting about the excellent hangnail and wart repairs on a patient suffering from heart failure. 10,000 trivial accomplishments are irrelevant given our bigger problems.

But only the wealthy seem to get served with the like of sperling and imelt in Obama's ear.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

2011-09-19T18:35:00.001-04:00

BTW - if you go back to late 2008 in my posted comments, you will see that I gave basically all of 2009 to the President as a mulligan. I gave him benefit of the doubt on darn near everything.

At this point, the President has fully earned all the trashing he gets for failing to fight for what the nation needs. I'm not convinced he's for the rich or for the powerful, but I am convinced he's not up to the task of challenging the status quo.

And since his key claim (at least the one that stuck with me all through his campaign) was that he was going to change DC. The context of that boast was in lobbyists making rules, no one being held accountable, etc. We still need that change - unsurprisingly since Obama stacked his administration with hacks whose fingerprints are all over the economic murder weapons.

Sadly, I suspect it will take the American public another dose of a republican President to realize that we need to take serious action to fix our ills.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

2011-09-19T13:41:00.001-04:00

Au contraire.

I voted for Obama in 2008 and donated to his campaign several times. As his current focus is exclusively on his re-election, he is needing to trick all of us who voted for him in 2008 to do so again in 2012.

He wants everyone to think he's looking to make everyone pay their fair share. He wants people to forget how he blew his chance to let the tax cuts expire and did an atrocious job of dealing with expiring unemployment benefits. He wants no one to doubt his Democratic cred.

I bought his schtick once. I won't be fooled twice. And if I am to be fooled, it surely won't be over sleight of hand card tricks like this - especially when he avoids confronting the beast of class warfare. Saying there's been no class warfare is like mobsters in the 60s saying there was no mafia. It makes the speaker look out of touch.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Unveils Deficit Reduction Plan, 'Buffett Rule' Tax On Millionaires

2011-09-19T12:22:00.001-04:00

"This is not class warfare. It's math."

More co\/\/ard ice from the President.

In the run-up to the depression, the massive wealth accumulated by the few grew to the largest disparity in modern times - except for today, where it's worse. When so much wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few, the system cannot hold.

Today, we're in part suffering from the effects of what 30 years of class warfare have wrought. 30 years of right wing policy, dutifully implemented by Presidents from both parties, ranging from "trickle up" to "tsunami up" to the point where the gap between the few haves and have nots are in line with banana republics.

To deny class warfare is to shrink from the fight that has to be fought. As usual, Obama tries to take the way out where no one gets their feathers ruffled and no one has to answer hard questions.

I give the man credit for proposing this, but I doubt he has any intention of implementing it. He knows it'll never get anywhere, so it's easy to chum the re-election waters with it.

Since Obama lacks the courage to admit that class warfare has been ongoing for 30 years and that we have to address the adverse effects of it, he deserves no benefit of the doubt as to his intentions in seeing this policy through to the end. Would he push for it with a Dem-controlled House? I very much doubt it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Avoid Extremes to Solve our Nation's Problems

2011-09-16T09:48:00.001-04:00

Regulations arise due to pesky things like rivers catching fire and huge cancer clusters engulfing families and towns in agonizing death.

Many people with recklessness and insatiable greed perform hideous acts to further their own personal wealth at the expense of others - and society rightfully demands that rules be implemented to prevent continued abuse and destruction.

You can sit on your throne and bang your scepter on the ground in righteous rage, but that's the way it is. Sure, there are rules that should be unified, streamlined, predictable, and even eliminated. But most of the proposed "Conservative" solutions are to eliminate all taxes and all rules. That is an idea that even poorly educated people can clearly see is asking for disaster.

I've worked with, for, and over many people who have been or are in business. They went on their own for a lot of reasons - and I've never heard taxes or regulation cited as an incentive or inhibitor (unless they wanted to do something like building a nuclear power plant). Never. Regulations are a business cost.

Rules are inescapable in a crowded world. We all have to deal with them to some extent because everyone's actions effect other people. We'd all like to make all our own rules up. There are plenty of economies in the world with no rules. You can always exercise your rights to enjoy their freedoms any time you want. No one's forcing you to stay here and suffer.
About Regulation
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Weiner's District Goes Republican for First Time in 90 Years. Hillary, Are You Listening?

2011-09-15T09:32:00.001-04:00

Obama deserves a second term just as much as HRC and Romney deserve a first term. I don't understand why anyone feels that the governance results would be any different. And I sure don't get the HRC worship that still endures.

HRC is a hawk. She has no credibility outside of Democratic circles. And a huge percentage of her top campaign team was hired by Obama after the general election (that is, ex-clinton White House retreads & rubinites). Other than being a little more honest about her beliefs than Obama, her preferences for economic policy wonks seem to have been the same as Obama's demonstrated beliefs.

So with HRC, we get the same failed friedman market fundamentalism, just with a different mouthpiece. How does that help fix anything?

Aren't there any OTHER Dems qualified to be President? Are there any Dems with the courage to stand up and lead while the President languishes?

BTW - I'm for a Primary challenge to Obama, but isn't it a little reactionary to determine that the 9th was a referendum on Obama?! Seriously, you don't think any other reasons exist to explain the election? Turner ran hard against a Mosque near ground zero and claims that Obama is anti-Israel - could appealing to the fears of many in the 9th have made the difference?

The WSJ declared it a referendum on Obama. Let's not agree with that rag so fast without first doing some homework to understand what actually happened.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How Obama Became the Curator of the Bush Legacy

2011-09-14T20:00:00.001-04:00

The problem is that folks with your cipherin skills outnumber those of us who strive for better.

It doesn't take too much effort to use the Internet to find that Ramadan was in August. This month is September. Only someone who works so hard to stay uninformed could believe it when someone says that someone else said there are more Muslims in the US than Christians.

The people who have taken over are the likes of you. Your peers are the anchor dragging us down.
About Osama bin Laden
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Oddness of the President's Upcoming Deficit-Reduction Plan

2011-09-13T07:50:00.001-04:00

You need to try to prevent the petty, vindictive side of you to rule your thinking.

I have 2 teenagers who fall into that 40+% category. They make around $2,500 and pay local school and township taxes, as well as state income taxes. They pay into social security and medicare. Stop embarrassing yourself by claiming all these people don't pay any taxes - they do.

They don't pay a regular federal income tax. If they did, it would be peanuts. Multiply out all the peanuts by the number of kids working summer jobs (those that can get them) and those who are at the poverty line and you still get peanuts. Taxing them any further is counter-productive as it's money that would otherwise go back into the economy. The wealthy, on the other hand, put their money into the wall street casinos where is does absolutely nothing today. Trillions withdrawn from the economy or going to other countries.

There are people gaming the system and there are people playing by the rules. You're anger would be far better directed at those wealthy few who game the system to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and shrink the economy instead of at the mythical welfare queens who exist mainly in people's imagination. The poor aren't the problem.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Jobs Plan Has Few Avenues For Passage Or A Vote, Save The Super Committee

2011-09-09T17:59:00.001-04:00

The chances of passage are very slim.

But that's really irrelevant.

What's relevant is that the President finally got off his duff and asked for adoption of a plan that could actually have significant impact on the economy - with a plan that isn't totally compromised before it was presented. The plan becomes the context from which the debate over a jobs solution begins.

The vigor with which the President pursues and sells his plan in Congress and around the country will be the determinant of his re-election hopes. To date, he hasn't earned re-election and to me, he has a lot of catching up to do if he wants my vote again in 2012. However, the next year could finally introduce the world to the Obama we saw campaign in 2008... it's possible...
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Boldness on Jobs Policy

2011-09-08T15:00:00.001-04:00

I can't stomach even the idea of watching the guy run through his tired routine again. More sermonizing on how very important it is to find common ground with a group that has absolutely no interest in finding any common ground at all.

It's so tortuously depressing to see the President of the United States continuously stand up and demonstrate such intense and profound weakness and disconnectedness.

I'll read about it tomorrow. I will be shocked to the core if he actually comes out swinging and proposing substantial programs that can actually help the economy. I fully expect the entire thing to be another tear-rendering homage to poor, counter-productive republican policy.

It'd be awesome to be wrong about that. But the chances of the tiger changing his stripes tonight with awesome advisers like imelt and sperling standing behind him are slim to none. And slim just left town.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Georgia Works: Boehner, Cantor Embrace Possible Obama Plan For Long-Term Jobless

2011-09-06T17:08:00.001-04:00

I can see why the republicans would be all goose-bumpy over the idea of introducing a form national slavery. It's a great big step toward the totalitarian corporate state they want so badly and gets us back to the "good old days" they wistfully want to relive.

I can also see why Obama would foolhardily blunder into supporting something as intensely bad as this concept. After all, he's turned blundering into high art at this point.

And so the recent poll results (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/06/obama-economy-performance-jobs_n_950111.html) should come as no surprise at anyone with their eyes open.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

2011-09-06T12:22:00.001-04:00

If you are actually "realistic," you would accept the fact that 2012 isn't the end of the world - that the button you push for President in the election booth isn't going to be the magic bullet that sets everything straight. The entire globe's financial condition is on the brink of implosion. If it fails, it will be the end of the world - or it will be the great leveling of the playing field we've needed.

We need progressives/liberals in Congress. As you can see today, whoever controls the House controls the legislative agenda. Win back the House. That's all that matters now.

Also consider this - if Dems win back the House and retain the Senate, and Obama wins re-election, what will happen? Will we get troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan any sooner? Will there be a budget adopted? ...

In other words, if we had the numbers again in congress, will we get any more effective leadership and legislation that will address this country's problems than what we've got in 2009/2010? Do you REALLY think we will??? Because that's really the bottom line. And I just can't see this tiger changing stripes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

2011-09-06T12:08:00.001-04:00

It is the failure of everyone on the hill. That doesn't absolve the President from surrendering at every stumbling block.

And it doesn't change the fact that, right or wrong, Party and body "leaders" are attributed with blame or praise based on the results that they post. Truman said 'the buck stops here.' To Obama and his most adulating supporters, the concept of accepting fair criticism is blasphemous - there is no 'buck.' Like the extreme right, all failures are attributed to victimization.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

2011-09-06T12:01:00.001-04:00

I used to think that. But Obama is effectively worse than a republican. When republicans were in charge, they tried to kill social security and failed. Now that Obama is in the White House, we've had the cat food commission appointed by the President (at the objection of congress) saying it needs to be cut - and reported to have been on the table at all times during the debt ceiling debates.

What more wars and escalation would a republican have done? Probably not much more.

The most despised part of the health insurance "reform" bill was the individual mandate - which is what mccain said we had to do and Obama publicly rejected... and then implemented - essentially the same plan that Nixon, Romney, and conservative think tanks have proposed. This awesome bill that does very little to control costs is a conservative concept of "better" private insurance.

Sure, if you only think for a second, 4 years of a republican president may do more harm than the current republican calling himself a Democrat. But if you think longer than that, you might realize that winning back the House and losing the presidency will be better for the Democratic Party and the nation in the long-term. OK, it MAY be better in the long run... assuming that we marginalize the DLC and we manage to nominate someone other than a clinton or Obama corporatist shill who cares more about power than country (i.e. republican).
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Great Betrayal

2011-09-06T11:40:00.001-04:00

I was going to say the same thing. Bubbba is a clinical case of narcissism. He created the template - the DLC, K Street, and showed Democrats that you can abuse your base and still get elected.

Although I agree fully with the general analysis of the article, given the volume of ex clinton personnel (just the DLC corporatist ones, of course) that were brought in by Obama immediately after his election, I think it's very hard to pin Obama as the Democratic party's inaugural narcissist over billy "i feel your pain" clinton. Bubbba wrote the playbook - and Obama's team is running their game straight from it.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Soaking the Rich Is Not Fair

2011-09-04T11:21:00.001-04:00

I'm struck by the fact that of the 50 or so comments I've read to this article, every single one has more thought, comprehension, and social awareness than the original article - a morally and intellectually ., bankrupt embarrassment that apparently passes in libertarian circles as cerebral.

I know a couple libertarians. They all have incredible difficulty living in modern society. The possibility that the vast majority of the nation would prefer to not live according to their dysfunctional world view is never considered.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Fair Mortgage Plan Will Turn the Economy Around, Create Millions Of Jobs... And Shrink the Federal Deficit

2011-09-01T08:59:00.001-04:00

Brilliant comment.

You think North Korea, where a small, select group of individuals run everything in the country and the majority of the population struggles is somehow sharply different than the US where a small, select group of individuals run everything in the country and the majority of the population struggles.

The degree to which the population suffers may be different, but the gap between the serfs and the masters is just as wide. We have no reason to thumb noses at North Korea as our economic structure is no more sound and provides no more opportunity. Opportunity abounds for the rich and the properly connected only.

As I read another comment below about North Korea, I can see the talking points memo to use it now has been put into action by the +&011s. Excellent.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Fair Mortgage Plan Will Turn the Economy Around, Create Millions Of Jobs... And Shrink the Federal Deficit

2011-09-01T08:38:00.001-04:00

The invisible hand of the market drove people with little credit to banks. Banks advertised continuously about low-low rates. Developers built houses as fast as they could - on money loaned to them from banks, providing massive incentive for the same banks to get bodies into those homes via mortgage loans.

And as that was happening, wall street made huge profits bundling mortgages into securities, in some cases, ALL of their profit was covered by the groups selling these fraudulent papers. No new mortgages - no more profitable fraudulent securities. So what do they do about that? Push loan originators to approve everyone who comes through the door.

Meanwhile, apartment owners kept rent at a level not far off from where an introductory APR would be, providing even more incentive for people to apply for a mortgage. Renters were faced with deciding between flushing money on rent - or get a home and hope that the economy stays strong so that they can meet the future payments. After all, if there was no reasonable cause for concern of default, the banks wouldn't accept their application, right?!?

I find it hard to call those people "greedy." You can call them naive, fiscally undisciplined, whatever - but if we're to call the wall street hoards "greedy," then it is totally unfair to use the same word on the people who gambled on home ownership in a climate that intentionally glorified it and profited mightily on its easy attainment.
About Financial Crisis
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On Jobs: Tell It Like It Is

2011-08-31T12:03:00.001-04:00

Polls continue to show the downward spiral of the major parties. The major parties all have excuses to blame each other for the public disappointment in their "work" to date.

The first person/group to have the courage to "tell it like it is" and propose bold plans that directly and realistically address our major national ills - regardless of the potential of it passing before the next election - will leap ahead of the other. BTW - I think adding an immediate exit from Iraq and Afghanistan should be added, savings from that disaster help finance plans. Addressing the tax loopholes and corporate welfare problems needs to be in the plan for it to be considered realistic.

Even if the bill can't pass, a large and comprehensive one that addresses our main problems becomes the platform for the 2012 election. Those who are for that platform will rise through primaries (at least on the Dem side where candidacies aren't nearly as scripted as the rep side) and likely end up in DC.

Under the banner of that plan, 2012 Dem victories can be launched. Without it, the odds of holding or regaining any branch are sharply lower.

This is a "make or break" situation. Leading will win it all. Sadly, the President believes that the process of 'setting the bar low' ("the political realities we have today mean....") is 'leading.' He couldn't be more wrong. I hope he aims big, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Blacks and Latinos Will Suffer When the Student Debt Bubble Bursts

2011-08-30T19:18:00.001-04:00

Have you looked at schools and figured out the costs to attend recently? Any time in the last 5 years? I've been fortunate to have some inside information on how the non-state-affiliated institutions price. And it has nothing to do at all with being "competitive."

If you think these institutions "compete" for students, you're in another universe. They are like any other corporation, looking to extract the maximum they possibly can from everyone they can. It's the behavior of monopolies, not of bodies "competing" in a market. If you have no problem with what they charge, then you are either extremely rich or you have no sense of fairness at all (or both).

But the most absurd thing you've said is that the government doesn't look at credit worthiness "for people" (I assume you mean "students"). The whole point of these loans is to provide some means for 18 year olds who have no credit worthiness at all to pay for college. Maybe you had a nice trust fund to dip into when you were 18, but most people don't - and kids have no credit history to justify $20-80k in loans.

Your comment shows some amazing lacking of cogent knowledge regarding the subject in which you are commenting - as well as the real world in general.
About For Profit Colleges
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Republicans To Focus On Repealing Environmental, Labor Regulations

2011-08-30T08:47:00.001-04:00

No, business has been telling Obama what they want from government to help them triple their personal income. Big difference.

It worked well for "business" under dubya. And now we have millions fewer jobs and many employees making less money - while the wealthy get richer.

The country can't take any more of business's job creation advice. For that matter, the shrinking of the middle class is making long term prospects for business bleak - a self-fulfilling result of unbridled greed and arrogance and lack of intellect.

Left to their own devices, in general, as there are surely millions of exceptions, people are going to do what benefits them the most. It's been my observation that those who deny this human nature do so to suppress their own subconscious guilt over their greedy actions.
About House Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Alan Krueger, Labor Economist, Nominated To Become Obama Economic Adviser, Signaling Shift

2011-08-29T14:45:00.001-04:00

"... Americans repeatedly told pollsters that the job market, ... was their main concern. Now, with President Obama reportedly reaching out to a prominent labor economist for a key administration position, it seems as though the White House is coming around to that point of view."

Based on the quantity and quality of folks who have been purged from the administration who held the same views as Krueger is purported to hold, the conclusion of the quote is poor.

The only conclusion that makes sense after 30 months of carrying water for - and repeating the slogans of - the right wing extremists is that 'the White House wants to APPEAR AS IF IT is coming around to that point of view.'

I'll believe the White House has come around AFTER it makes a full-court press to implement changes that are needed to bolster the economy. Until then, it just looks like more election pandering.

BTW - where did the army of 'elitist' accusers come from? Macroeconomic policy isn't used by people who "run" businesses. Being involved in for-profit ventures doesn't qualify anyone for such a position. If you think it is, then you're not qualified to run a business. Or your business runs in spite of you. Or your business is actually global finance and you want more Goldman Sachs flunkies in the administration (one GS flunky in an administration is one too many).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Alan Krueger, Labor Economist, Nominated To Become Obama Economic Adviser, Signaling Shift

2011-08-29T14:19:00.001-04:00

You should stick to attacking the republican shills who have converged with their sound bites in huge numbers.

Fact is, so long as all we have is Obama, there will be no improvement in the economy. Not because he's what the teapublicans claim he is, but because he's a Conservative cut from the 1950s Conservative cloth and because he values conciliation over any actual, real economic progress (i.e. the means are the ends).

The baggersand republicans certainly have no reasonable answers. But that doesn't logically mean that Obama is better.
About Unemployment
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Trouble With Key Voters Ahead Of 2012: Poll

2011-08-28T12:47:00.001-04:00

The unsustainable and constant redistribution of wealth from the bottom 98% to the top 2% brought you this business climate. So long as the fraction of 1% control the allocation of that $2 trillion, or the government doesn't take steps to level the playing field with our trade deficit partners, the climate doesn't have a chance of changing.

You can show your lacking by blaming the President who has only perpetuated the republican redistribution plan and undying love of "free trade" - but you already did by implying that the health insurance reform forced you to lay people off.

The blame falls on your egomani@c@l brothers at the country club (and probably you, too) for supporting a 'winner takes all' business culture that leads to an overwhelming percentage of the country stuck in a position where they have nothing to spend. No consumers, no business. Everybody loses - except for your country club homies who can possibly move with their money to a more stable country now that they've helped crush ours. Funny thing is, there are very few stable countries where you can go these days. Oh, irony....
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Criticism From Liberals, Unions, Latinos

2011-08-21T14:30:00.001-04:00

Agree with virtually everything you're saying here.

I take the step beyond where I think you are willing to go when I say that the President, albeit nowhere nearly as powerful as the corporate media, has done next to nothing to meet the misinformation head on. He has been too chicken to publicly confront all the nonsense they've been shoveling out.

The exceptions, of course, are in publicly hammering liberals and progressives. And then, interestingly, when those assailed liberals and progressives point out the hyp0crisy of pounding the "base" and carrying water for the opposition, the blind-faithers blame bad poll numbers on those assailed liberals.

And now that his approvals numbers are tanking, he's starting to kick up a little dust - too little, too late.

The Executive branch is in charge of the FCC which has the power to impose integrity standards on "news" organizations. Beck was the media's point man on that after the election, if you recall. "Fairness Doctrine is communist!" So Obama runs in terror away from the issue instead of trying to do something.

We just need a much stronger person in the White House. The times demand it.
About Latino Politics
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Faces Criticism From Liberals, Unions, Latinos

2011-08-21T10:32:00.001-04:00

And then the president campaigned FOR the blue dogs who were up for re-election in 2010.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. The President is simply not a fighter for any change at all. He campaigned on it and then immediately after the election, appointed nothing but status quo retreads from too big to fails and past administrations.

To buy into your position, one has to believe that a handful of blue dogs are the people with all the power in the country while the President of the USA (who is also the de facto head of the DNC) is completely powerless. That's just ridiculous.

Why is it so hard for you apologists to accept the fact that the man won't engage in any conflict regardless of the toll on the nation when there is almost 3 full years of unassailable, solid proof of it? It's "battered spouse syndrome" here every day.
About Latino Politics
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Fundraising Events Set New Record, Activity Outpaces Five Previous Presidents

2011-08-19T14:01:00.001-04:00

I'm not so sure the patriot act extensions he asked for feels very Constitutional to me. Refusing to invoke the 14th amendment during the debt ceiling hostage mess didn't impress me as very strong Constitutional work either, especially given the exceedingly high ransom cost.

And the crisis will not be going away until things are done to address the causes. Based on recent history, that won't happen with Obama and a Dem Congress, Obama and a republican Congress, or with a republican in the White House.

So I'm not so sure there is a "best" hope at all. In fact, it seems to me that the only hope we can have is in the global economic implosion occurring in a way that levels the playing field without government involvement. That is, there is no government money to bail out the too-big-to-fail so that the millionaires/billionaires lose everything, too.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The President's Bold Jobs Bill (Maybe)

2011-08-18T08:01:00.001-04:00

Great advice as always.

Not holding my breath for the President to even propose half that list, though.

My prediction is that we'll end up with nothing more than free trade agreements that create jobs in the other countries involved in the agreement and some weak, highly-scripted show-boating from the President.

But it's going to take a lot more than a staged, re-election-centered drama to dissipate the humiliating stench of three years begging republicans for their approval and giving in to their every demand. Or at least it SHOULD take more than a drama to win liberals and independents back.

Some people might even start to believe that he really believes in a jobs bill, which as stated, would be good politics. And whereas doing something at the 11th hour is better than not doing anything, the only economists disagreeing with the need for a jobs program are working for the republicans or on the staff in the White House.

So somehow I doubt that he'd be contemplating this action at all if his approval numbers were in the upper 40s or higher. Pardon me for being cynical, but I can't help but feel the whole drama they're whipping up is cynical in its own right ('let's just give these firebaggers what they want, what could it hurt at this point?')... and 2 years late.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama Campaign Staffer Sends Out Email Bashing Paul Krugman And 'Firebagger Lefty Blogosphere'

2011-08-17T13:54:00.001-04:00

Yup.

Obama likes to use the 'drove the car into a ditch' metaphor. Those that drove it shouldn't be given the keys back. Well, with the power to make changes and lead, who was the person appointing Summers, Geithner, Bernanke, Sperling, et. al. to economic advisory and cabinet posts? That is, who put the keys to the economy into the hands of the architects who helped destroy it due to their misfeasance, malfeasance, and/or incompetence?

Granted, as Krugman freely admits, he isn't the president of the country and doesn't have to actually do the heavy lifting. But he, Stiglitz, and many others have been on the record for many years as opposing the policies that led to the crash in 2007/8. I listened to an interview Krugman gave a few weeks before the 2008 election in which Krugman expressed great confidence in Obama, predicated on Obama following through with his campaign rhetoric.

For this Sandoval guy to attack Krugman for consistently being correct in assessing economic policy problems - and for calling those who posit flawed policy like the previous regime and the current one - is beyond weak.

As much as I really don't care what some state hack in New Mexico says, if this signals the tenor of the Obama 2012 campaign, it's clear where the political amateurs are located.
About Elections 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Big Ideas and the Concentration of Wealth

2011-08-15T13:36:00.001-04:00

The comment made by Pablo175 is a sweeping generalization, essentially a slur, against a vast group of people that he clearly knows nothing about.

Your comment about my comment is facetious pretzel logic attempting to rationalize Pablo175's illogical and dishonest statement.

Your analysis of Bernstein's point is an example of taking a word here and a word there to construct an interpretation of someone's work that suits your predetermined conclusion - which is yet more dishonesty. Using righteousness indignation to mask dishonesty may be effective against weak people (like the President), but it doesn't make it intellectually correct or valid.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Big Ideas and the Concentration of Wealth

2011-08-15T10:32:00.001-04:00

There is no question that health care is one of the 3 main, country-crushing problems we face.

But let's skip freidman references, OK? alan greenspan was essentially channeling all of freidman's policy beliefs and we all know how it turned out - and we should all by now know of the confession greenspan made afterward.

Advocating raising taxes on the wealthy is vital. The tax code right now encourages only destructive practices by the wealthy - move money out of the economy and into wall street casinos, hoard money, export jobs, import H1B aliens, import illegal aliens, etc. The code needs to be fixed to punish the US-hostile activities and reward the US-friendly activities. Looking back on the 2002 tax cut and the cuts leading to the roaring '20s, the fact that they both preceded two of the worst economic tailspins in the country's history can't be waved away as coincidence. Low taxes on the wealthy lead to conduct that is beneficial to those few wealthy with no concern of national or any external impacts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - and no power is as strong as wealth.

Oh, and if you lay awake nights concerned about some CEO making $4 million a year having to find a way to get by on $2.5 million, you should take some warm milk and relax. Could you survive on $2.5 mill? Could you find some sliver of personal motivation to go to work for that paltry sum? I sure could.
About Economy
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Absent Commander-in-Chief: Who's in Charge Here?

2011-08-11T21:33:00.001-04:00

WRONG.

As actual leaders, they would chart a clear path and do whatever they could to acheive those goals.

Obama, on the other hand, blithers about "bipartisanship" and ephemeral ideas. He preaches at Congress like he's their father and tells them to lock arms and spawn goodness - a tact that has yielded failure from day one.

You can maybe say that the Roosevelts would have had minimal legislative accomplishments in the current state, but the case can be made that Obama helped create the 2010 loss because of his insistence on kumbaya management in lieu of determined leadership.

And even if the R legislative accomplishments were light, I guarantee that the Roosevelts would have hammered the extremists in Congress to help shape the succeeding elections. Obama just has no fight in him at all - none. He has turned out to be the wrong guy. The sooner we face that fact and focus on electing progressives and leaders in the House, the faster we can get better government.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

I Want My America Back -- not the Tea Party's America

2011-08-08T11:30:00.001-04:00

Your Honor, I agree with your message but have to quibble with one statement ("...but we need a government that operates by compromise not coercion.").

Our government should operate by fact-based, logical, scientific practices.

Compromise is fine when we debate whether or not an herb is a "drug" or an "agricultural product." Compromise is NOT fine when we debate matters based on absurd religious grounds ("the rich are blessed by god with their wealth and we have no right to tax any of it") or bigotry ("the unemployed are unemployed because they're lazy") or any other illogical, subjective opinion.

Coercion - or whatever - is preferred over a compromise that poisons otherwise sound policy with unsound policy (such as pretty much every Obama accomplishment).
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Democrats: Vote Down This Budget Surrender and Prevent the Suicide of the Democratic Project

2011-08-01T10:45:00.001-04:00

I agree to a degree with you - the emotions elicited by the President are extreme and illogical.

However, where you miss the boat is the fact that the extreme, blind, and boundless love for the man is every bit as irrational as the hate.

And to the other flakk you've tossed in about predicting how meany-pants the right would be if the President exercised his powers, I would point to the President's refusal to accept any Congressional oversight over his military exercise in Libya as proof that the ruckus would be short lived and irrelevant.

Which brings up another point regarding your truly blind loyalty. You mentioned THREE wars. Who added the THIRD one? Who expanded the first one? Who's right now in negotiations to expand the second one?

And to tie these two matters together for you (because I doubt you will want to yourself), we have a President who is willing to go all the way - put it all on the line - when it comes to escalating military adventures, but spineless when it comes to matters that effect the non-wealthy.

I can't take you blind lovers and haters. Logic has no place with either of you extremes.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

House Democrats: Vote Down This Budget Surrender and Prevent the Suicide of the Democratic Project

2011-08-01T10:30:00.001-04:00

Standard Oil had more cash than the government. The mafia acquired massive amounts of cash, too. So did the Medellin Cartel. Chemical companies saved fortunes by simply burying barrels in fields.

Using your 'ends must justify the means' logic, we are to then conclude that these must are sound economic models - or models of societal conduct to which we should adhere.

These groups made money the way they wanted to because of the absence of meaningful, enforced laws and regulations. If you knew how Apple acquired all that cash, you'd know that it wasn't without a ton of help from the US Government in the form of patent laws and reluctance to pursue anti-competitive conduct.

And if you're going to lay down history as your proof of the republican economic theory, you've already demonstrate tremendous lack of knowledge.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Empty Bully Pulpit

2011-07-31T12:35:00.001-04:00

The media is a separate discussion. I suspect we can all find much common ground in that.

But the President communicates with the public in the way that he sees fit. The media doesn't dictate anything to him.

No one can blame the media for the words the President uses. No one can blame the media for the President cow . ering from the public in between fits of talking in republican lingo and professing the righteousness and appropriateness of bad republican policy. No one can blame the media for the President unleashing his henchmen to beat down liberal ideas.

The President is a horrible communicator and a poor excuse for a leader. Contrast his efforts to follow through on cogent policies he embraced during his campaign and what has been accomplished with the herculean efforts put forth by the previous disaster of an administration in invading Iraq. The wingers wanted to invade Iraq and they pulled out all the stops to make it happen. The only thing this President pulls is punches.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Empty Bully Pulpit

2011-07-30T21:10:00.001-04:00

Fail.

OK, so the way politicians communicate with people is partially driven by the barbie and ken dolls that are told how to act to a general script. Fine. Call it the bully pulpit or something else, but the President gets attention when he speaks no matter what.

The republicans have their talking points shouted in every direction on a continuous transmit cycle. Rarely ever contradicting those points, refusing to establish your own points, and standing around looking grimly indignant ("adult") is INEFFECTIVE COMMUNICATIONS at work.

A solicitor at my township gave me some advice when I was in office a while ago. He said if I did X, it would be deemed legal in a court of law but I would probably get my butt kicked in the court of public opinion - and the second one means more.

If you don't communicate with the public, you will lose in the court of public opinion. Being "cool" or "cerebral" or even on the moral high ground is not communication. It's quitting.

That's just the way it is and there's no pile of excusi-fying that you can build to change the simple fact that if you don't engage with the public, those that do engage in whatever medium or forum they can find will batter your smooth operator.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On the Compromiser-in-Chief and Elizabeth Drew's Article

2011-07-25T23:36:00.001-04:00

Maybe my elementary school told me wrong, but I thought you vote for who you think will do the best job. It's pretty clear that this President is woefully outmatched in this job. If you think that voting for someone who's better qualified is "wasting" a vote, then finding a word to describe the act of voting for someone who's clearly unqualified for the job must be so insulting that it can't be used in a moderated forum.

I voted for the man. I'm paying the price for it. I won't vote for more of the same incompetence. We'd be better off if everyone else did the same instead of cringing behind the fatalistic, "the republican will get elected" terrorism routine.

If I can vote for someone else who represents real change, I will. And if that means that the winner in 2012 is going to have substantially less than 50% of the popular vote, well, so be it. And if that means we get a republican, then I'm fine with that, too.

Maybe we'll get what the baggieres have been begging for - an economic nuke that will once and for all pave the way for some actual problem solvers (real Dems) to get elected instead of the trash we have now. It seems change can only come to this nation from rubble.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

On the Compromiser-in-Chief and Elizabeth Drew's Article

2011-07-25T18:07:00.001-04:00

Hey Henny Penny, spare us your insults. You vote for who you think will do the best job. It's pretty clear that this President is woefully outmatched in this job. If you think that voting for someone who's better qualified is "wasting" a vote, then voting for someone who's clearly unqualified for the job must be an act so heinous that it can't be described in a moderated forum.

I voted for the man. I'm paying the price for it. I won't vote for more of the same incompetence. We'd be better off if everyone else did the same instead of cringing behind the fatalistic, "the republican will get elected and kill us all" routine.

If I can vote for someone else who represents real change, I will. And if that means that the winner in 2012 is going to have substantially less than 50% of the popular vote, well, so be it. And if that means we get a republican, then I'm fine with that, too. Maybe we'll finally get what the baggieres have been begging for - an economic nuke that will once and for all pave the way for some actual problem solvers (real Dems) to get elected instead of the garbage we have now.

Or maybe we get a Dem house and senate with a republican president and that republican pulls a walker to get impeached.... Not saying that would happen, but the republicans are capable of self-destruction as they are of other destruction.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T18:49:00.001-04:00

meme2, a third bonus part.

This ceiling negotiation is a "can't lose" for republicans. If they get the surrenderer-in-chief to keep throwing New Deal and Great Society programs into the pyre, they will achieve what they were never able to do when they had control of Congress and White House. They will also get more tax cuts for corporations and wealthy in the purported deal. Again, something they had a hard time doing when they had Congress and White House.

All they have to do in exchange is agree to a debt ceiling boost. The excuse for accepting that is, "we need control of the Senate and White House!"

On the other hand, if they don't agree to allow the ceiling to be lifted, the economy will be crushed (see part2 for how that's still meeting their goals). They will blame it on Obama and Democrats for spending. repubs will claim that cutting spending is the only solution and they are best at it.

Now you and I know that claim's an absolute raft. However, the President deigns to be above disputes like this - even in election campaigns. And he will, as he's done during his entire term, not reply. And under Obama, the DNC will also take 'the high road.'

And once again, the oft repeated republican lies ("Kerry cowered instead of fighting in Vietnam") will become accepted fact.

It is how they win. And why this President is NOT up to the task at hand.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T18:26:00.001-04:00

meme2, here is the second part, what they're really up to right now.

Shock doctrine.

Continue the economic pain. Foment disaster. Maximize the middle class destruction.

This will give them the excuse they need to do even more outrageous things that will ultimately leave only a husk of a governing body which will be controlled exclusively by the rich. They are almost there.

They believe that the rich are either anointed by Jesus or rich because they are smarter than everyone. They believe they know what is "enough" for someone to live on. Serfs aren't smart enough to decide.

They believe they alone are smart enough to determine what jobs are worth creating or exporting. This is the ultimate goal. Feudalism.

So bone air talks about creating jobs, he is being honest. They have a plan to create jobs. What they won't explain about those jobs is that there will be no worker protections of any kind and workers will need to accept their caste - if they know what's good for them.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T18:15:00.001-04:00

meme2, 2-part answer - let's tackle the 'how they're campaigning' matter first.

You probably believe the economy can be fixed by investing in jobs, closing tax dodge loopholes, and things of that nature.

Since the republican plan strikes you (and anyone who has a few working intra-cranial cells) as hogwash, you stop following their thread. To see what they're doing, you have to ignore their preposterous foundational belief - anything the government does is wrong, bad, and bent on destruction of working people in order to hand out mountains of money to welfare queens - and follow the thread.

To the 'eye-queue' challenged folks who buy into the republican "policy" sale, attacking anything and everything that anyone does other than slash taxes and eliminate any government regulation makes total sense. Eliminating regulations equals more jobs. They eat it up.

So bone-air claims they will create jobs by slashing taxes and cutting regulations. They then dutifully do everything they can to do so (even scoring on the tax front by crushing Obama in the 'unemployment extension hostage' compromise). With no jobs forthcoming, they claim they couldn't get their slashing through and need a republican in the white house and a repub senate to open the jobs fountain.

To you and I, it's ridiculous. To their base, it makes perfect sense.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T15:15:00.001-04:00

"... the President has maintained the highest standards of dignity, decorum and open discussion ..."

That's lovely.

I'd trade that whole bucket of fluff for results on a sustainable economy, aggressive energy policy, fairer tax code (i.e. rich pay a more reasonable percentage and incentives to create jobs - outside the US - are eliminated), tighter controls on wall street casinos, reformation of foreclosure rules that prevents banks from amassing properties of underwater mortgage-holders, and reigning in out of control secondary education and health care costs.

No, I take that back. I'd trade that entire bucket of fluff for tangible results in JUST ONE of those categories that I named.

I don't think that's asking too much. He had two years with Congress in Dem hands and frittered it away because of his decorum fe . tish. Oh, and also because he embraced many of the architects of the economic disaster like summers, geithner, bernake, emanuel, etc.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T14:06:00.001-04:00

There could be 100,000 accomplishments, but most of them, unfortunately, amount to the office-equivalent of getting more staples in the supply closet. Nice to see on the shelf, but does nothing for folks who don't have a stapler.

Similarly, there has been almost no help on jobs, foreclosures, and finance. Things that matter to everyone every day.

Much of this is because of the President's blundering. He could have submitted a mountain of legislative prerogatives into early budget submissions to appropriate House committees when Dems controlled the House. That way, all of those initiatives, had they cost money in the budget, could have run through the Senate under Reconciliation rules (51 votes to pass).

Instead, he voluntarily surrendered his leverage. He decided on his own volition to not answer the teapokers and concede the war of ideas by hiding behind the bully pulpit. And in doing so, he gave away the House in 2010. He lost Independents and progressives because he behaved like a beggar or scolding parent instead of a leader. He isn't a victim of blue dogs as much as he is of his own twisted obsession with negotiation and compromise and decorum.

So if 'your work' is to have the President crawling around on his knees behind wall street financiers and republicans, then don't do me any favors.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

What's Happened to Obama?

2011-07-23T13:41:00.001-04:00

Wrong.

The analysis takes it into account. Your problem is you ignore everything else and cook up weak excuses for the man. He is not a victim. He is in the most powerful seat in the world.

More importantly, gmb007 posted a 2003 norquist quote a few comments above. If Obama didn't think that the republican party was going to go for the jugular so ferociously, then he doesn't have the common sense to run the office. Simple as that. He could have fought tooth and nail against the republicans, but he literally repeats their talking points in public (he did it again in this morning's Presidential address).

You may be able to summon the awesome powers needed to convince yourself that he's on our side and doing well. But I'm going to put my faith in ground truth. The facts don't line up with your faith and at some point we're all going to have to come to grips with the repercussions of this Administration and Congress's failings.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Gang Of Six Unveils Debt-Reduction Plan

2011-07-19T13:44:00.001-04:00

What's more amazing than that is that republicans have been trying to gut social security since its inception and even though they couldn't do it when they controlled the House, Senate, and White House, the first major successful attack on the program will be approved by a Democratic Senate and signed by a "Democratic" Party President.

Dubya was a ridiculous cartoon character. But this President is the weakest political figure I can ever remember. It's painfully sad to have such a sellout.
About Joe Manchin
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dangers of Obama's Centrism

2011-07-18T12:08:00.001-04:00

Obama's top priority has always been the importance of appearing to be a calm, cool, heady negotiator. The health insurance reforms have been as useless so far as the other masterpieces of legislative surrender. Little things like negotiating surrender to the pharmaceutical companies so no cost control measures can be implemented on drugs comes to mind. Plus, the latest estimates are that we're up over 50 million uninsured now.

So maybe when the plan goes into effect 2 years from now - assuming it's not repealed by republicans or repealed by Obama in some other negotiated surrender - maybe it'll start to help more than a handful of people who meet the criteria for the pre-existing condition fix.

Here's what I shudder about - as a nation, we voters continue to pick from horrible and extremely horrible. If you had to pick a babysitter and your choices were between a murderer and rapist, you'd look for more choices. One may be better when compared to the alternative, but you wouldn't trust your kids to either of them. The longer we accept that "we aren't as miserably horrific as the other guys" rationale, the longer we will continue our free-fall toward the next closest thing to civil war as anyone can imagine. May take a little longer to get there with a "Democrat" the likes of Obama, but that conflagration is inevitable without actual changing the country's course.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Dangers of Obama's Centrism

2011-07-18T10:52:00.001-04:00

Junior, you need to meet more corporate titans of business and more rich people. When you get out of your bubble, you will realize the only difference between them and the poor is a convergence of the orifice from which one entered the world, luck, and arrogance.

In fact, some are so generally incompetent, it's a miracle they can execute a grocery store shopping trip. Not all, but certainly a sizable number are in that category.

To presume they "worked hard" to make their millions is nonsense. 4 hours on the golf course selling to others isn't more difficult than 4 hours on an assembly line in a car manufacturing plant. Many people work much harder for a fraction of the pay. So don't go there as it only exposes your lack of experience or lack of observation skills.
About Republican Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Debt Ceiling Fight May Help Obama Win Independent Voters In 2012

2011-07-17T21:10:00.001-04:00

It's been one surrender after another for this guy. Why in the world would you hold any hope at all that he won't either fold completely or throw more of the most helpless citizens under the bus on his way to another [sellout] "compromise?"

Republicans play him like a fiddle. If there was an actual Dem messaging strategy running here, the absurdity of the republican positions would be getting pounded into voters heads and 2012 could be a wipe out of epic proportions. Instead, the President repeats the gop talking points.

There's no chance that the republicans come out of this without getting everything they wanted. And then they'll immediately shift into marketing mode for election season and successfully rebrand themselves as job creators. In the constant vacuum of DNC messaging incompetence, they will re-win enough support to have a good chance of keeping the House.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fred Karger: Michele Bachmann A Liar, 'Hypocrite And Bigot'

2011-07-13T19:34:00.001-04:00

Dear Mr. Karger,

Have you ever actually talked to ANY members of your political party at any length? I think you'd find so many bachmann's that you'd be sufficiently motivated to re-examine your affiliation.

You might also be forced to consider that the positions held by those political "peers" of yours are brought forth from such heinous characters that maybe these positions aren't really as well-grounded in deep, intellectual fortitude as you had hoped?

Oh well. Have fun on the campaign trail!

timm0
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The President's Jobs Plan (Not)

2011-07-12T21:05:00.001-04:00

I'm not advocating that Obama knows what he's doing with the economy.

However, it's intuitively obvious to even the most non-distracted observer that the people to whom all the tax benefits were to go in return for the unleashing of a torrent of new jobs have delivered a total, abject failure.

It's failure unless, of course, your goal was to make them more wealthy and focus those jobs on citizens of countries outside the USA. Because in that sense, there is no denying that their enrichment has been a spectacular success.

Clearly, businesses and the wealthy don't have any better ideas as to how to create jobs than anyone else. Business is not magic and it's not the purview of gods. If you think it is, you're already on thin ice.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Frank Rich: Obama's Failure To Hold Wall Street Accountable Could Cost Him In 2012

2011-07-04T20:32:00.001-04:00

I'm wondering if you know more that VERY little about anything at all, because if you did, you'd realize that the point MyNameIsJames made isn't about specific economic policies. The point is that FDR didn't tip-toe around DC - he took control and did what he could to fix the problems.

And right back at you on "over-simplistic" comments. "DEMOCRATS [... were...] one of the most productive Congressional periods in American history" is a spectacular over-simplification. If they passed more legislation than every Congress in the history of mankind - but we still sit mired in a worsening recession, with high unemployment, high underemployment, record foreclosure rates, record high income for the wealthy, continuously increasing numbers of uninsured, and record high amounts of cash in corporate coffers, THEN WHO FLIPPING CARES IF CONGRESS GENERATED A TON OF BILLS!!!

Apparently, little or none of it have made enough of a difference to turn anything around. And even if it 'could have been worse,' so what?! It's intensely bad and it's not getting better. Obama, Paulson, Bernanke, Summer, and Geithner fixed up the wall street and TBTF players. Everyone else is drowning.

Krugman, Reich, Johnson, and others have written much about what needs to be done to get the economy going. Maybe you don't read them because they don't write columns or books that solely praise the President. You don't need large bill quantities - Congress needs to pass the key ones that will make a real difference.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Balanced Approach

2011-07-01T13:05:00.001-04:00

Hahaha!

"next"

You flip that out there as if you have some sort of intellectual heft behind it. Seeing you're still in the learning to tie your shoes stage, I'm just going to bail, but only after making a point that is likely to clank off your coconut and fall to the ground.

The way the rest of the argument goes is that you ultimately have no choice but to face the abject silliness of flinging a concept like "freedom" around as a solution. "Resources" are available to economies that have rules that, when enforced, provide a secure environment to conduct business without being killed, ripped off (and there are thousands and thousands of ways to do that), or otherwise unjustly mistreated. By definition, that means you're not 100% "free." That's the deal - accept rules that curtail your "freedom" which foster a stable environment - or live in a paradise of pure unadulterated freedom like Somalia.
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Well, Don't We Liberals Hate the Public God?

2011-06-29T18:22:00.001-04:00

Professor, you can try to sanitize the guy's comments, but the statement he made is borderline hate speech, justified with the all too frequently displayed persecution complex noncents.

Mentioning God in public is something that virtually everyone tolerates. It's the push to institute Christian prayer in schools, spending tax dollars to erect monuments to Christian statuary or images on tax-payer-owned property, and prevention of nonChristian equivalents from similar favorable treatment - under the patently false premise that the Founding Fathers wanted a Christian Nation - to which many people object.

He even went out of his way to explain how he meant to make it a sweeping generalization against liberals (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/28/todd-akin-god-liberals_n_886279.html)! Liberals hate God. Therefore, liberals are evil. Just like communists.

The congressman's statement was a creedist slur against people whose religious tolerance doesn't match his intolerance. His words served no other purpose.

Personally, I don't care what religious stuff anyone hangs around their house, their property, their cars, whatever. The line is crossed when public money and favoritism is granted to religious groups. I don't want Christian symbols installed on public buildings - for exactly the same reason that I'm against anyone forcing Christian churches to install statues of Buddha.

Do you think Akin would support a taxpayer-funded Hindu statue in the public square? Really?!

There are plenty of places of worship around - seek them instead of the courthouse if you need inspirational religious symbolism.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Set No Firm Lines After McConnell Re-Affirms Opposition To Tax Revenues In Debt Deal

2011-06-29T09:52:00.001-04:00

The American people are just as tired of a do-nothing, stand for nothing Dem President who won't publicly advocate for the middle class as they are of the 'protect the rich at all costs because from their swollen nipples doth jobs flow' republican nonsense.

What Americans - the poor and middle class and elderly - truly "hate" is the fact that they are helpless to stop the onslaught from the wealthy and powerful via their friends in DC.
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Democrats Set No Firm Lines After McConnell Re-Affirms Opposition To Tax Revenues In Debt Deal

2011-06-29T09:44:00.001-04:00

"If the Dems fall for these fake threats they are complete chumps."

They've played the role of "chumps" so many times - I can't take it anymore.

You're right as to what the republican plan is. But the Dems in the White House and Congress are either supporting that plan or they are so focused on conflict-aversion that they lay down in front of the steam roller. Pathetic.
About Photo Galleries
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

2012: Who's Going to Vote?

2011-06-24T18:16:00.001-04:00

I'm with you, but I don't believe the results of the protest will matter.

The problem here is that the President's assembled posse - which you have accurately named - believes 100% that no liberal will vote for anyone else in the general election. Therefore, they don't care what anyone does as a protest in the primary.

You should understand that they truly and passionately dislike us, too. The President and his team don't have anything in common with us. They enjoy republicans and their ideas much more as they are tightly aligned in their respect and admiration of the wealthy.

Without a real, general election protest vote, the clintonites, DLC, et. al. will continue to court wall street, implement policy that helps the wealthy at the expense of the not, and, in general, prolong the status quo. The only difference between the republicans and the Obama economic plan is that they bring the US economy to its inevitable third-world destination at different times.

I'd be happy to write in anyone you like in the primary, but I will not vote for either Obama or any other republican candidates in the general election. I'll very likely vote for Dems for Congress, but no republicans nor Dems who pretend to be Dems will get my vote.

If that brings in a republican president, it remains to be seen that I will have some way of telling the difference after the fact.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

U.S. Patent System Overhaul Approved By House Of Representatives

2011-06-23T20:11:00.001-04:00

Generally speaking, it seems that if the Republicans are for it, it means average Americans are gonna get hosed.

The patent system is a disgrace. The global economy so loved by the milton friedman disciples needs to implement "improvements" like these to ensure that only the powerful and wealthy can get patents through. And when they are awarded, they can protect themselves while those scraping by can be crushed or bought out cheaply.

Little guys will have no chance. Worse, people simply doing their job can become part of a patent infringement suit with the absurdity of patenting "business processes." The whole concept is perverse.

Here's a far better reform that helps everyone: patent filers include all the costs of their research and development with the patent application. If they get a patent for their device, algorithm, etc., they file an income statement for the licenses or products sold based on the patent. When the income on the patent reaches 4 times the cost of their R&D, the patent expires.

The continuously creeping ahead clock that the WTO and others push for patents ONLY benefits the wealthy firms.

This creates NO JOBS in the US. None.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's 2012 Campaign Slogan: From "Change You Can Believe In" to "Things Could Have Been Worse"

2011-06-19T11:37:00.001-04:00

Your analogy is great except that the gun has no firing pin and the sword a dull stick of rust. Critical factors to consider because the republican candidates and this President are functionally as useless.

Kerry had plenty going for him - he wasn't an incompetent like dubya. He had a proven record as a fighter for justice and a fighter for right even when right wasn't popular.

But he listened to the same sort of advisors with whom Obama has full faith and confidence. Instead of pushing for solutions or balling up a fist against the opposition, he decided to let the swift boaters plow him over with barely a wimper. And that reinforced the "weakness" meme that the republicans continue to play up during every election season... just as Obama's constant capitulation and acquiescence of leadership make him weak. Not "noble" or "adult" or "presidential" - weak.

You may be right that a candidate should have emerged by now to be able to make all the deadlines and raise money. But even if one doesn't emerge, I can't justify voting for a bumbling failure or a well-meaning failure. If the choices end up being only between those two, then it's between losing my house in 2 years or 4 years. Great options.

We'll see the landscape more clearly over the next few months while republicans continue to make a spectacle of themselves, using the "debates" to bash the President... and the President will continue to be silent.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

By Not Challenging the Tea Party, the White House Makes It Stronger

2011-06-19T09:22:00.001-04:00

If you replace "Tea Party" in the title with just about any other group name or ideology (except "Democratic Party" or "Progressives" and the like), it would work.

The bottom line here is that this man we call the President doesn't challenge anything. He's terrified of retribution from everyone - you name it, wall street, baggers, corporate elite, wealthy, etc. Worse, in many cases, he respects the irrational and illogical views of his opponents, giving deference to them for inexplicable reasons.

Everyone except liberals, of course. Not too unlike serial animal abusers, the President is content with kicking his loyal dogs when angry, but will never actually direct his frustration to those who strive every day to fleece this nation. And by rarely ever challenging his adversaries, he weakens himself to the current state of uselessness.

The White House has made everyone who opposes the middle class much stronger through it's incessant, cringing capitulation.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's 2012 Campaign Slogan: From "Change You Can Believe In" to "Things Could Have Been Worse"

2011-06-18T12:06:00.001-04:00

"#1, the political system now is vastly different than it was in 1912."

Other than women's suffrage, both 2012 and 1912 have huge numbers of people are fed up with both major parties. It's very possible that there are more fed up today than 1912.

"#2, most of those Perot votes were ... reinforcing my earlier point."

Analysts still debate the Perot vote sources, but irrelevantly. You can count votes after cast not before. You deign to determine it beforehand without benefit of candidate slates, etc. That is dishonest, self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Obama doesn't push for the impossible, because if he did he would fail and look weak."

Total nonsense. Obama doesn't push for ANYTHING THAT IMPACTS our core economic problems, and THAT IS WHAT MAKES HIM WEAK. You enable failure from the man by not only expecting it, but accepting it.

"But choice c does not exist."

Thank you for implicitly agreeing with my contention that your point is illogical. You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it does. To deny it is to deny reality, which is illogical. You may believe the chances of option c being effective are low, but that doesn't eliminate it as a choice and is simply your prediction - just like so many predicted that dubya couldn't possibly win a second term after how bad his first term was.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's 2012 Campaign Slogan: From "Change You Can Believe In" to "Things Could Have Been Worse"

2011-06-17T10:11:00.001-04:00

It's illogical to ignore solution options. In this case, you choose to ignore the possibility that a 3rd party candidate could improve our lot. I've provided some simple empirical data that disputes your contention.

Here's an extreme example to illustrate the choices to help frame the situation a little more vividly.

Your spouse and your 2 children, your living relatives, and some strangers are walking down a hallway after a building was closed down. There are only three doors that are unlocked. They are the only way out.

On the first door is a note explaining that of those who enter, 20% will be burned to death, 50% will be sexually violated, and 10% will be poisoned. The survivors will be set free at the other side of the room.

On the second door is a note explaining that of those who enter, 10% will be burned to death, 25% will be sexually assaulted, and 10% will be poisoned. The survivors will be set free out the other side of the room.

On the third door is a word that says "Not really sure what is in here."

If you have a depth of awareness regarding the state of our economy and its inexorable decline that we are in, you would give a lot more credence to going for the third door. The first two doors are totally unacceptable. The first two have delivered our disaster and/or proved incapable of attacking the root causes - they are terrible options.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Of Snake Oil, Puff Balls, and the Need for a Real Jobs Plan From the President

2011-06-15T09:07:00.001-04:00

Disagree Rascal.

First, Perot got just under 20% in 1992 during an economic recession that is nowhere near the magnitude of our current one. He got that number because of his opposition to the pending NAFTA and push for policies that would make this country stronger economically.

In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt got 27.4% of the vote, coming in second to Wilson's 41%, as the candidate from the Bull Moose Party.

In other words, if his message resonated with 20% 20 years ago, the number should be much higher in 2012 if the issues Mr. Reich speaks to are championed by a credible 3rd party candidate. History clearly shows it can happen. And I think the times are so unique today that history can surely be made in 2012.

Second, our nation has several explosively bad problems right now and they aren't being addressed. They weren't addressed when Obama had a majority, and I'm sure, based on all of the overwhelming evidence collected so far (latest: http://baselinescenario.com/2011/06/09/the-banking-emperor-has-no-clothes/), none will be seriously addressed by Obama EVER.

So how is a president that will not directly deal with the actual causes of our core national problems better than anything else? THAT is the issue. "Better" or "worse" isn't relevant. Massive job, home, and health insurance losses will not stop under Obama. If Obama stays in for another term, NOTHING improves.

In other words, there is NO baby in the tub.
About Careers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Will the President Pass the Warren Test?

2011-06-10T09:19:00.001-04:00

Affordable Care Act - goes into full effect (MAYBE) in 2014. In the meantime, when first debated, we had 44 million without health insurance. Now we have over 50 million.

Stimulus bill was enough to hold off a depression. But it was a stop gap bill, even though it was heavily compromised by including tax cuts (which we all no does NO economic stimulation whatsoever) instead of actual spending.

So stimulus, even with Obama's pointless genuflection to the republicans, was good at buying some time to get changes to the financial world implemented. Sadly, since nothing was done on THAT front, wall street casinos rock on, the stimulus is gone, and we are heading to a double-dip.

DADT is good, but doesn't do a lot for jobless, homeless, and insurance-less. Not to belittle anyone, but I think most people would agree that policies directly effecting the free-fall economy are paramount.

As far as sticks and stones shattering the President's bones, well, that's just terribly sad that you believe it has any effect on him. In fact, I have to believe the President welcomes the abuse. After all, he keeps crawling back to the republicans for more.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Canaries in the Coalmine of Obama Reelection

2011-06-06T12:39:00.001-04:00

The President had his chance to make a deep and lasting change in DC in his first two years. We all knew that the republicans had only one plan - take down the black man in the White House.

But even knowing these simple facts, the President squandered all his political clout, leaving the critical problems unaddressed (wealth concentration [tax breaks for wealthy], corporate tax loopholes, attacking job exporters/rewarding job creators, uncontrolled finance industry since Glass-Steagle was repealed, punted health care cost explosions to 2014, etc.).

I have no idea what he or his advisers were thinking - but from the personal glimpses we've been able to see of the President, he has made decorum and superficial appearances of comity the highest priority. He has accepted the illogical concept that if someone with opposing is elected to office, then you have to yield some percentage of your ideas in deference to those that oppose you - even when your opponents shout fully disproved bunk like "lower taxes increases employment".

That mindset crushed the effectiveness of the stimulus and has been an on-going self-gelding maneuver that has encouraged over the top behavior from the right wing camp.

But at the end of the day, republicans will scare a lot of people to vote for Obama - even though he has proved himself unworthy. If a solid candidate emerges to run as a 3rd party with the courage to face and address our problems, then the President's reelection is in trouble.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Agriculture Industry Fears Disaster If Illegal Immigration Enforcement Program E-Verify Is Implemented

2011-06-05T12:33:00.001-04:00

I was always taught in the schools that supply and demand of labor in capitalism was a fact of life. If the job was harder or more dangerous, the supply of labor would be smaller and force higher wages until something mitigated the conditions.

So this situation is a clear demonstration of what the extreme right really wants: to have no rules and ensure that no one else can ever have the means to establish rules for them to follow.

It's amazing that things have gotten so perverse in our culture that these industrial farmers can have the stones to stand up on the record and claim that the ONLY POSSIBLE way they can EVER keep solvent is to hire illegals. I'd like for these folks to explain themselves to the families of slain Customs and Border Protection agents.

This is so grotesque.
About Immigration
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

As Republicans Declare War on Bank Customers, A Call to Support Warren

2011-05-22T11:14:00.001-04:00

"No one who believes the job of government is "to help families" should be given singular and absolute control over consumer credit."

Since families and citizens - not banks, corporations, or even "the economy" are what is The United States of America, appointing someone with an eye for the fair and equitable treatment of families is exactly what we need more of in government. You are a full 180-degrees from the right approach.

"The job of government is to provide national security and protect property rights and freedom."

So you're arguing that businesses and homes and pensions and income are not property whose rights must be protected from marauding banksters? Not an extremely solid argument.

"The only changes the Republicans are requesting are that there be a committee of 5 in control, that the bureau be subject to appropriations like all the other agencies, and that the bureau have adequate Congressional oversight like every other agency."

Nonsense. They want this position to be like the FCC, SEC, Fed Board, etc. - diluted with hacks who continuously operate in the interest of the wealthy at the expense of the consumer public, with no chance of being publicly exposed. This is one of the many ways the right wing serves their masters.... not that you would want to face the truth.

Your excuses don't cut it.
About Jon Stewart
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

As Republicans Declare War on Bank Customers, A Call to Support Warren

2011-05-22T10:50:00.001-04:00

"Whether or not the president wants this battle, it's on. He can either attack or retreat. There's no third choice."

RJ, there IS a third way and it's exactly the path I expect the President to take.

Don't make a recess appointment. After the recess, run the nomination through it's paces and complain wildly and publicly about the rejection. That morphs into a 2012 re-election centerpiece.... while consumers suffer and bankers continue to rip off the public.

The Opologists will eat it up. And this third way might help him energize more supporters - although it would be a pretty evil trick to pull... and not too transparent to those with open eyes.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

How the McEconomy Bombed the American Worker: The Hollowing Out of the Middle Class

2011-05-09T22:48:00.001-04:00

I can think of two groups that are stupid enough:

1). Those with enough money to believe that they can own their own army of serf soldiers to protect them when police can no longer be paid for.

2). Those who believe that Jesus will soon be shipping them to an eternal paradise with hot and cold running virgins (wait... do they get the virgins or someone else?... well, no matter... they're all equally sensible). And if Jesus doesn't come, then they'll take jobs protecting the people in group number 1.
About Unemployment
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Trump Gets Traction From Trade

2011-04-20T13:57:00.001-04:00

Unbalanced trade means economic decline for the net importer. It's pretty much as simple as that.

We are in a trade war today. We are getting our teeth kicked down our throat and are economically at the breaking point. If the WTO wants to support unfair and unbalanced trade practices (importation barriers for USA-made products are OK, but no import barriers are allowed into US for any other nation's goods), then they are at war with us and should be recognized as such.

If the other nations want to "punish us" by forcing us into being isolated, then that's fine by me. It will force us to live in a more sustainable lifestyle, rebuild industry, and should give us the conviction to drop our global police department ambitions once and for all.

Can the rest of the world make it without the US? Who knows. Probably. But the economy is an entity created by man. It's unnatural. We can make it whatever we want it to be. With or without the rest of the world.
About Donald Trump 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Obama's Opposition To GOP Budget Proposals Could Stand To Be A Lot More Oppositional

2011-04-14T11:04:00.001-04:00

Absolutely NO DIFFERENCE at all between folks like you and the breathless supporters of george bush who blamed the Dems for the bad economy (inherited a crash from clinton), failed wars when a couple Dems asked for more data on Iraq's programs ("not supporting the troops when you say something bad about a war-time president!"), and every other failing - even though the republicans had a majority in Congress for almost all of the man's two terms.

The only difference I can see is that some of you folks will say that Obama's problems are due to registered Democrats who want to see the President push for policies that are at least vaguely reminiscent of sensible Democratic policies instead of mutants flawed to the core by bad republican ideas - as well as appointment of advisers who weren't high level participants in the buildup to our economic ruin. How dare we ask for better! At least the republicans rarely blame their own voting ranks for their problems (bagggers notwithstanding).

You and your brethren are full of the same stuff that those bush worshippers are full of. To both groups, the apple of your eye is incapable of being at fault for anything, ever. You both readily accept preposterous excuses in the process of doing so.

To those in both of the cult of personality camps, reality is a place rarely visited.
About Barack Obama
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why the Right-Wing Bullies Will Hold The Nation Hostage Again and Again

2011-04-11T13:50:00.001-04:00

No, we may not compare this to a broken bone, maab.

We may compare this to a heart attack at the end of 30 years of high-fat eating, smoking, couch-potato-ing, and drinking. We need dramatic change in lifestyle or we will die.

You know that the wars were just put on the books. I know that, too. Who else knows? Huh?! Obama quietly does the right thing and what do the republicans do in response? They announce to the public that the war losses that Obama put on the books are an example of his out of control spending. "The nerve!" you say - me too!

So what do you do in the face of such unabashed unethical spin when you're this President? Nothing. You do nothing about it. Say nothing.

Is it "turning your nose up?" Is it "staying above the fray?" Is it collusion? Is it in comp etence (you're not allowed to spell some things)?

I see no other possible explanation to the inaction. Can you? Assuming you can't, I find no redeeming quality in these. Not fighting for what's right, not standing up to wrong, secretly agreeing with the wrong, or not being able to understand the wrong - these are all indefensible fatal flaws for a leader.

Mind you, this is just one example... I use it only because you cited the matter.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Progressives Keep On Losing and the Right Keeps On Winning

2011-04-10T20:40:00.001-04:00

To answer your initial question, no.

Absolutely true, stimulus money is working. It HAS been working, despite the nonsense the republicans spout. But it's gone after this year and the President has fallen right in line with the republicans in accelerating our descent into third-world status by cutting needed spending.

Tax cuts are useless to me. I have my first kid about to go off to college. I qualify for no aid at all, yet I live month to month. I could sell my house, but I'm sure I'd have to pay to get out of it, making it impossible to go to a different house. So the only option I have is to put the house up as collateral for loans that I MAY be able to pay off when I'm 80 and stay employed the whole time.

In short, I will be bankrupt, probably before I die. I make good money (no inheritances, tho), but the minute I lose my job, I will be a statistic.

But enough of me! My son will surely enjoy a booming economy when he graduates, get meaningful employment, and earn a decent living!

Right??

In short, I'm beyond "not optimistic." I'm teabagger mad - only I have REAL reasons for it. And the solutions that are needed are relatively clear. Krugman, Stiglitz, Johnson, Reich, and many more have laid out well-researched recommendations. This President and Dems have become a disgrace. We're just postponing the inevitable at this point.
About Ralph Nader
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Progressives Keep On Losing and the Right Keeps On Winning

2011-04-10T09:21:00.001-04:00

I blame the fans. The fans are too negative. That's the problem with your pitching - at least so I'm told by the fleet of O'pologists on HuffPo.

You're up there on the mound and those batters are really scary and mean. You've intentionally walked many batters and given up tons of runs because they were very intimidating and you didn't want them in the batter's box yelling at you - it's not dignified to quarrel with your opponents!

If the fans would just close their eyes, appreciate how hard it is to pitch, and cheer more wildly, then I know you could top 200 MPH. You can then gracefully strike some of them out and win that future!

And if you can't, well, at least you weren't as bad as Manny Ramirez. That's all we should ever hope to expect, anyway.

So I say, Yay! Go Stranger!

batta-batta-batta-batta-batta-SWING!
About Ralph Nader
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Why Progressives Keep On Losing and the Right Keeps On Winning

2011-04-09T20:48:00.001-04:00

RJ, at one point you note that no XFK leader is coming. Then you kick into the "vision" of representative ryan. I think you contradict yourself.

Like it or not (and it makes my flesh crawl, like most right winger "visionaries"), ryan is a leader. He has taken command of an agenda, shaped it, and is pushing it forward. It's what leaders do.

You accurately note that there is no 'official' Liberal/Progressive vision. I know the theme is to get the grass roots moving on a vision. But that vision (BTW - it includes ending our various imperial excursions), is pretty commonly known and held.

We DO need a leader(s). The righties have them and the baggeroos have them. The baggeroos have leaders who locally target candidates and try to replace them with their libertarian trojan horses (leaders). They have enough mass to influence a few dozen candidates.

You and I (well, maybe not you, but certainly I) can't push the progressive vision forward. We can't legitimize it on the national stage unless we run for office or are in office. We need leaders. We won't get anywhere without them.

I can understand the sentiment to give up hope on finding any. We don't want to go back to the same showroom after being stuck with a lemon like this President. But we need new leaders - not funny hats and un-proofread posters. And like the baggeroos, we must become willing to embrace leaders outside the Democratic Party.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

The Theory That's Killing America's Economy -- and Why It's Wrong

2011-04-08T13:58:00.001-04:00

I think the entire economics field is a fraud. I cite this article as Exhibit A.

Economists try to put people and the artificial world of the economy into a model. Then they try to predict what will happen based on that model. Problem is, all models are 100% susceptible to the "garbage in, garbage out" law. It is possible to model some things, but only when you can know how everything in the model will behave in every situation. Clearly, this is essentially impossible to do in this context.

Basically, here's all you really need to know about economics:

Entities (people or corporations) with more usable wealth than is needed to live/operate well will resort to virtually any means, legal or otherwise, to get more wealth. If there are no rules to restrain the leverage that wealth gives people to inflict any harm (or the occasional, accidental blessing) on a society within the market, a disproportionate amount of wealth will be directed to those wealthy operatives (and/or the operative's designees), usually at the expense of the non-wealthy (i.e. those with minimal strength in the market).

Or in other words, without any strong adults nearby, the kids in the sandbox will be ruled by the strongest bully - and it's usually at the expense of the other kids becoming unable to derive anything positive at all out of the sandbox experience.

There. All college level economics classes are canceled for the semester. Thanks for coming.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost