Utterly agree with you. I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, and whilst I think the free market is a great thing, it certainly needs regulation. Much of my political theory on things like drug control is that it's better to be legalised, opened to the free market and then regulated and taxed, than to use the criminal system for it. Tax dollars (or pounds) could then be used to fund programs to help people get off or get counselling if they need it.

So I'm by no means opposed to regulation (or tax). In fact this entire crisis was clearly caused by a lack of oversight. Banks were over-leveraging themselves in the pursuit of greed, and there's nothing wrong with that, per se, as that's how capitalism works. But greed must also be counter-weighed by fear, and there was no fear. Moral hazard subverts capitalism and creates a win-win situation for business but a lose-lose situation for taxpayers and consumers, which isn't what capitalism is about. As you say, the goal is to ensure the market works for everyone, not just the big players.

Capitalism is never self-regulating. For example true capitalism wouldn't give a jot for the environment, or for the welfare of its society, so if it were left with absolutely no supervision, our world as we know it would cease.

This is my primary objection to U.S. neo-conservative philosophy - that at it's heart, it's about helping the wealthy first and then hoping the effects trickle down.

Oh don't get me wrong, I do subscribe to supply-side economics, also often misnamed "trickle-down" economics (even though technically the effect is supposed to be felt at the bottom and filter upwards to the entrepreneur at the end of his/her labour). But that's not the same as helping the wealthy.

And I think too many governments are guilty of the latter. It's not just the US, or even just the Republicans. Obama's Wall Street contributions in 2008 were huge, and McCain was dwarfed in comparison. Wall Street tends to go with whoever they think is going to win, in order to buy in some favours.

Which is precisely why I can see Obama talking a good talk and then ending up watering down his reform proposals to appease the bankers.

I'd say that in order to prevent systemic risk, you need a functioning system with appropriate oversight, "sunlight", and regulation. To paraphrase Reagan, "trust, but verify".

Couldn't agree more. The free-market works best when subjected to just the right amount of regulation, not so much that it's stifled and can't grow, but not so little that it brings the entire world to its knees when things go wrong (as is precisely what's happened now).

Unfortunately, with the financial sector so "in" with the politicians (Geithner, Paulson before him), I can't really see things changing anytime soon.

The trouble here in the U.S., as you point out, is largely political and, to some extent, cultural.

The situation, argued by most U.S. conservatives or at least the ones with large media networks, is that they oppose any government regulation. The belief put forth is that capitalism is a self-regulating system.

Of course they primarily use this argument when they want to deregulate something. It takes the form of "let the markets work".

Until they don't, that is. Then, it's "too big to fail".

So I don't necessarily agree or disagree with your thoughts except to say I think some level of regulation is not only necessary, but beneficial.

The big opportunity here, for either party willing to seize it, would be to take a different view than: "let the markets work". It would be a different view other than deregulation is always good. Something along the lines of "ensuring the markets work for everyone" or "the right amount of regulation" or even "preventing systemic risk" :).

Until this happens and someone can make a sound economic argument that has a longer term vision and demonstrates the role of regulation in a well-functioning economy, I don't think there will be much change in the U.S.

There's simply not enough political capital and the monied interests are going to continue to fight tooth and nail for continued deregulation. Unfortunately, it might take a complete collapse to hit at the heart of this guiding underlying philosophy is flawed.

This is my primary objection to U.S. neo-conservative philosophy - that at it's heart, it's about helping the wealthy first and then hoping the effects trickle down. This is why they are able to argue for "letting the markets work" in some situations and large bailouts in others.

I'd say that in order to prevent systemic risk, you need a functioning system with appropriate oversight, "sunlight", and regulation. To paraphrase Reagan, "trust, but verify".

-David

The government now owns 36% of Citibank.

Our government owns over 74% of Royal Bank of Scotland (which, despite the name, is/was a privately owned bank). It owned 74% last November, and then decided to pump in another £25.5 billion ($40 billion)

They also own 40% of Lloyds TSB and nationalised Northern Rock (so basically, 100% government owned). Our bank bailout dwarfed yours.

TARP, which bailed out the auto makers too, cost $700 billion. Our bank bailout alone cost $1.3 trillion, and is projected to a cost a lot more once long-term effects are felt. Considering our vastly lower GDP (ours is $2.7 trillion, yours is $14.4 trillion), that makes the relative cost of our bailout that much worse.

It's the right thing to do, as is taxing the hell out of bankers' bonuses. In no way am I a defender of the super-rich, but I also think that people are being quick to blame the banks and take no personal responsibility for taking out loans they could never hope to pay back. They bear some blame too.

Yet now you don't want to reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banks?

First of all, I don't actually oppose the separation. I just think lauding it as "the solution" is short-sighted as there are other, more important, reforms that would do a lot more to prevent similar crises occurring. Glass-Steagall would have done little to prevent the crash; it just would've, arguably, made some difference to whether banks would needed bailouts afterwards.

I'm thinking about ways to actually prevent a similar crises from occurring.

And secondly, yes, having thought more about it, I can see some risks that Glass-Steagall could've made things worse. Systemic risk is, by definition, nondiversifiable, so the risk still would've been there, just less noticeable.

That could have caused more problems. True, I also see your argument that perhaps some of those risks wouldn't have been taken if banks were on the hook for the potential loss. Which is why my solution wouldn't be to break up the banks, but to make changes to the FDIC scheme to limit insurance.

Like the deposit insurance system in the UK, the FDIC scheme in the US is a mess. We, in the UK, insure deposits of up to £50,000 ($78,000) per bank account, and in the US I believe it's $100,000 per account. It's too much.

I've long said (even before this current crisis) that the UK should insure only deposits of £25,000 ($39,000) and limit this to one account per person. This would equate to roughly an average year's salary in the UK (not sure what an average year's salary in the US is, but it should be that amount). This would bring down the debts of both governments drastically. The scheme is insane.

Less protection from the FDIC scheme would've stopped banks taking those crazy risks with customer's money (as they're still on the hook for deposits) without requiring breaking up banks into tiny chunks and hiding risk.

Note: I'm not opposed to separating investment from commercial banking if it can be done in a way that wouldn't hide the systemic risk. Tiny banks are not the solution, but a division between riskier securities trading and loans could certainly be helpful. The key is not to mask the systemic risk.

(OK, I did that from memory, it's probably wrong...)

I was thinking of Fizzbin exactly, as I read your post about the Senate rules. :D

Just so we're clear on the rules.

* The game can be played with a standard Earth deck of cards, despite the slightly differing deck on Beta Antares IV.

* Each player gets six cards, except for the player on the dealer's right, who gets seven.

* The second card is turned up, except on Tuesdays.
* Two jacks are a "half-fizzbin".
* If you have a half-fizzbin:

* a third jack is a "shralk" and results in disqualification;

* one wants a king and a deuce, except at night, when one wants a queen and a four;

* if a king had been dealt, the player would get another card, except when it is dark, in which case he'd have to give it back.

* The top hand is a "royal fizzbin", but the odds against getting one are said to be "astronomical".

Fizzbin and Temporal Mechanics always gives me nosebleeds..

Michale.....

OK, I'm doing this from memory, but here's what I understand (this could be wrong). In about 1975 or so, the filibuster was changed from 2/3 of PRESENT members to a flat 60% of the entire Senate. Subtle, but it means no matter how many are present for any one vote, the number doesn't change. With 100 Senators, it's always 60.

I believe Nelson Rockefeller, who was VP at the time, pushed this through. And he may have done so by bending if not breaking the rules as they stood (the rules are contradictory, a big part of the problem). Rockefeller was, by the way, a Republican, but the Senate had more Dems at the time, so this caused an uproar. In the midst of the uproar, Rockefeller (or perhaps the Senate itself) declared that even though he had used the 51-vote rule himself to change the filibuster, that from now on it would require 67. But it's never been put to the test, and like I said, the rules are contradictory.

Meaning Biden could go down to the Capitol, and pretty much singlehandedly decide that 51 votes was OK with him, but only at the start of a new session (every two years, next one will be Jan 2011). Not that this wouldn't cause an uproar, but it's one of those balance of power things that has never adequately been settled.

I believe also at the same time, the "cloture" idea came into being, so that Senators didn't actually have to stand up and filibuster, just hold a vote on their intent to do so.

I've written about this before, because I consider changing filibuster rules fraught with danger, because the political pendulum ALWAYS swings. At some point, Dems are going to have less than 45 Senators, in which case they would want the filibuster back. It's one of those ideas (reducing the filibuster number), in my opinion, that looks better on paper than in actual use, because it can turn and bite your party on the ass.

Besides, there's reconciliation, if anyone with a spine would actually start threatening it.

Sorry for the complicated explanation, but it's a murky area in Senate tradition (not law, note, but Senate rules and tradition only). Michale, perhaps a "Fizzbin rules" quote would be appropriate here?

"Only on Tuesday?"

(OK, I did that from memory, it's probably wrong...)

:-)

-CW

First, you argue that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was partly responsible for the financial crisis and that this can in part be attributed to Democrats including Bill Clinton.

Yet now you don't want to reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banks?

I think a Glass-Steagall replacement would go a long way towards separating risky securities trading from safer consumer lending. And it would keep the gamblers from gambling with consumer assets.

The bigger issue is that these consumer assets are backed up by the government. So the banks knew they could take a lot of risk and get bailed out. The investment banks ... different story. But I'm not concerned with bailing them out. They take the risk, they should go under.

But it's banks like Citibank using consumer assets to role the dice in the securities market. This is what got them into trouble. Not bad loans. At least not directly. They thought sub-prime securities were safe investments.

Requiring them to have greater capital reserves might help some, but it wouldn't have saved Merrill ... or Goldman ... or Citibank. The government now owns 36% of Citibank.

Glass-Steagall worked for 70 years. And it also helped to prevent banking monopolies.

Regulations can be a good thing for the economy!

Remember the Savings and Loan Crisis? This came about several years after the S&Ls were deregulated in the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.

Proper regulations ensure that there is trust in the markets and that they benefit both producers and consumers. This trust is required for properly functioning markets. This is the role government should be playing.

-David

p.s. I'm with everyone who wouldn't end the filibuster. First of all, it's such a great name. And second, there's better ways. Shine a light on the obstructionist tactics instead!

The Obama bank fee will simply be passed onto customers. The idea that banks who do this will be less competitive misses the point; this custom probably ends up going to banks just under the $50 billion threshold and they'll end up paying the tax too, and passing on to the customers too...

It's a vicious cycle with US taxpayers paying themselves back. Madness.

Whilst the banks should probably pay back the AIG bailout (as it was in their benefit too) the motor industry should be forced to pay back its own.

Meanwhile, I think breaking up too-big-to-fail banks is short-sighted and it actually misses the point. It was systemic risk, not individual banks, and any approach to prevent similar crises needs to prevent such massive levels of systemic risk appearing again (by setting and enforcing a 10-20% capital reserve requirement). Spreading the risk around by breaking the banks up would actually simply make it harder to see such a problem on the horizon, do nothing to stem the level of systemic risk and make decisions over TBTF that much harder to make (not to mention, more arbitrary).

Breaking up the banks would do nothing to prevent the problem. Nor would the idea to split investment and commercial banking. Many of the banks that got into trouble did so by making stupid loans, not by buying securities. The ones who were involved in trading the securitised products - firms like Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers and AIG - weren't involved in commercial banking

The problem wasn't the risk taking. It was the leverage and margins. Bailouts would have been required even with all the proposed reforms; the only thing that would prevent future bailouts, or limit them, is capital reserve limits.

Long story.. Just roll with it.. It's a lot more fun. :D

So far the Republicans are coming off a lot better on DADT than Democrats. Trust me, I was as surprised as anyone to see this, but it is what it is. Obama needs to push DADT repeal through, and not just a partial reform either.

This also isn't the first time that the GOP has co-opted a Dem staple issue and made it work for them. But it's by far the most effective job done to date.

When you have Darth Vader himself supporting a very basic Dem issue, you KNOW the Democratic Party is in trouble..

Thanks for the book tip Michale.

I am actually surprised it hasn't been more widely read. I have always considered FAIL SAFE one of the giants of American Literature...

If you do get a chance to read it, I would love to hear your thoughts on it, in the context of the terrorism/The Ends Justifies The Means debate..

Michale...

He's Michale, not Chris ;-)

The fact is, the Grand Old Party keeps hitting the same wedges but now those wedges are between them and the independent voter.

Except we now have several prominent Republicans saying DADT should be repealed. Gates, Mullen, Olsen, Powell and Cheney. Gay Democrats are angry and disappointed in their own party's response to this, not the Republicans.

(If you want more on this, read the Americablog article I linked to earlier)

This isn't the first time this administration has begun isolating their support amongst the gay community. Remember the brief Obama's DOJ filed which likened same sex marriage to incestuous ones or ones with underage girls?

That caused a massive uproar. You can argue that they had to support the DOMA (I'd argue they had no such obligation) but even if they did, the way they went about it ruffled a lot of feathers. Bear in mind that the guy who stood against Obama in 2008 opposed DOMA.

So far the Republicans are coming off a lot better on DADT than Democrats. Trust me, I was as surprised as anyone to see this, but it is what it is. Obama needs to push DADT repeal through, and not just a partial reform either.

I am reminded of a quote from a 1960s novel, FAIL SAFE..

In it, a Brit journalist was describing the US government..

"Your system of government is fascinating. Two equal political parties wrestling for control. But one is slightly more equal than the other so things do get done, but at a snail's pace."

Seems to fit very well. :D

By the bi, if you ever want a lesson in the "The Ends Justifies The Means" adage, FAIL SAFE is a VERY good read that illustrates the point perfectly. :D

Michale.....

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2010/01/29/ftp109/comment-page-1/#comment-7618

Michale.....

And your supporting facts are... what, exactly??

This is something American society accepts, Chris.

And why do you think that is, Shirley??

The fact is, the Grand Old Party keeps hitting the same wedges but now those wedges are between them and the independent voter.

Seriously??

It seems that all the wedges that exist today are between the independent voter and the Democratic Party??

Or maybe you have forgotten Virginia, New Jersey and the Massachusetts Massacre???

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

As for the reaction: professional translators don't talk much about their personal lives. Someone might know this if they read the Field Manual instead of relying on Tom Clancy novels as research. The point is to elicit information, not to give it away.

And yet, ACLU types were showing terrorist scumbags photos and personal bios of their interrogators..

You HONESTLY don't think that an interrogator's sexual orientation will come out??

Honestly, what world do you live in, Shirley?? It must be a very nice place to visit..

Michale....

There is zero logic in that proposition. This is something American society accepts, Chris. The fact is, the Grand Old Party keeps hitting the same wedges but now those wedges are between them and the independent voter.

As for the reaction: professional translators don't talk much about their personal lives. Someone might know this if they read the Field Manual instead of relying on Tom Clancy novels as research. The point is to elicit information, not to give it away.

Heh.

I agree with Moderate about the filibuster. It might potentially be tweaked a bit, but certainly not eliminated entirely

I just think one of the great things about the US political system that I wish we had more of in the UK is the way that the system almost forces bipartisanship. For example here in the UK, the Executive branch is formed by the party that has a majority of seats in the Legislature. That means they can push their agenda through unchallenged for up to five years.

There you have many cases where the Legislature is held by a different party to the Executive. Elections are held a minimum of every two years, but this is done in a way that doesn't entirely disrupt the government. Senate elections are staggered and Presidents are elected every four years instead of two.

That way it prevents the kind of tyranny of the majority we can get over here a lot of the time, without needing the sort of chaotic government that some European countries (like Italy) have. Things like the filibuster only serve to further heighten the need to be bipartisan, which brings politics back into the centre and prevents far-right or far-left governments (and Europe is littered with examples of both during its history) from being successful .

Thanks, Supreme Court Rulers Of The United Money States! (do the acronym for yourself.)

Now THAT was funny!!! :D

Michale....

What I was driving at was it wasn't Democrats being receptive to a Republican agenda, but rather that there wasn't, for a while, a Republican/Democratic agenda, but only an American agenda.

VERY well said...

Kudos...

Michale.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harvey-rosenfield/barack-obama-meet-gray-da_b_435055.html

I agree with Moderate about the filibuster. It might potentially be tweaked a bit, but certainly not eliminated entirely. the stimulus i think is like treating an amputated limb with a band-aid - i don't see why anyone would want to take credit for it, or TARP, or any other program that skirts the real issue, which is that our trade policies are incredibly unfair to American workers. That doesn't look like it will change anytime soon. Thanks, Supreme Court Rulers Of The United Money States! (do the acronym for yourself.)

http://www.americablog.com/2010/02/dick-cheney-today-said-its-time-to-end.html

Seems like even DADT may not be the hammer to bash the Republicans over the head with anymore. They're coming off more liberal than the Democrats.

Just discovered that it used to be 2/3rds of Senators present and voting, so it would've required 67 when all 100 Senators were present. Ouch.

Besides, if the Democrats are being handicapped at losing up to seven seats in November, it's possible that even if 51 votes were all that were needed, they'd struggle to get them if all they have is 52 seats. Democrats are also defending twice as many seats as the Republicans at the next two elections.

What I'd propose is something similar, but spread over a longer time. The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, things are supposed to take a long time to get done. So I'd suggest that after six months on a particular bill, the requirement to break filibuster drops to 57 votes. After another six months it could be reduced to 55. But it should still require a sizeable majority, it must never be allowed to get as low as 51 (because the filibuster is meant to prevent tyranny of slim majorities).

And be grateful. Our "upper house" in Parliament is entirely unelected, either hereditary or appointed for life. If you think having 41 elected people block the elected government is bad, try having a legislature where there are more unelected members than elected ones (the House of Lords has 700 members, the House of Commons has just 650)

you're right, there is definitely some level of hypocrisy there, but the hypocrisy goes both ways. If we measure objectively by the number of nominees held up, the republicans of this president's term are more than two and a half times as hypocritical as the Dems of the last president's first term. (to be exact, 177/70 = 2.53) Or to quote Senator Leahy,

"Those who just a short time ago said that a majority vote is all that should be needed to confirm a nomination, and that filibusters of nominations are unconstitutional, have hypocritically reversed themselves and now employ any delaying tactic they can."

It's not hypocrisy. It's just representing one's constituents. Now had they gone on record as criticising those who took stimulus money, that would clearly be hypocrisy, but that isn't the case. They criticised the existence of the stimulus itself, and that shouldn't stop them trying to make the most of a bad situation.

I apologise for not being clear enough. That's actually what I meant. What I was driving at was it wasn't Democrats being receptive to a Republican agenda, but rather that there wasn't, for a while, a Republican/Democratic agenda, but only an American agenda.

The Massachusetts Massacre...???

I like that.. Has a nice ring to it. :D

Michale.....

I have to somewhat disagree here.

I still have a dim (very dim, considering) streak of idealism in me.

When something like a 9/11 happens, I feel that Americans come together and forget partisanship and political bickering and remember their common bond of citizens of this country.

Maybe I just see what I WANT to see. It all can be (maybe is) political grandstanding.

But it's nice to THINK that we can actually put aside our differences and rise to face a common enemy.

Shirley:

Anything? Like, say, needing a translator?

One must offset the need for a translator with the alleged issues in the ranks that might arise of having an openly gay member on the team.

And there IS some logic to that position. Can you imagine the reaction of a terrorist scumbag to being interrogated by a gay man?

I love it when imaginative guys who've never served a day in uniform tell me how the military ought to be run.

I *KNOW* you can't be referring to me. :D

My military bona fides are well-established a long time ago..

Michale.....

"Anything, and I mean **ANYTHING** that compromises the military's ability to perform "The Mission" is a no go.."

Anything? Like, say, needing a translator?

I love it when imaginative guys who've never served a day in uniform tell me how the military ought to be run.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6198284.shtml

They probably didn't spend any more, and probably didn't notice a huge hike in their savings either (would you notice an extra $13 on your life savings?).

Which only adds more power to Michale's "cup full of water" point.

This way he still wields the big stick, but can retain the talk of working with the Republicans not against them. If forced to use recess appointments by further Republican "obstructionism" it gives him a perfect opportunity to shine a light on it. He can say "See, I asked them to work with me, but they just want to say "No""

(For the record, I'm not saying recess appointments are wrong; they're entirely constitutional and Republicans have used them before.)

Reid's worried about losing his seat. Not only are polls showing him with a 20% chance of retaining his seat against any of the likely Republican picks, the potential primary challengers have a better chance of retaining the seat than he does, which means he could possibly lose the primary if Democrat voters realise that he has little chance of keeping the seat.

He needs to have something to campaign on, and this jobs bill could be his last chance to keep his seat. There's no way he wants to be the first Senate majority leader to lose their seat in something like seventy years.

Republicans voted against the Stimulus, not tax cuts. The Stimulus contained a lot of very bad ideas, along with the tax cuts. Or what Michale said works equally well. Democrats cannot spin the Stimulus as a good thing because unemployment went up under it and they now need another bill to create more jobs. Good job!

Meanwhile, the only thing that stopped a complete economic meltdown was the policies Bush implemented at the peak of the crisis. If it weren't for him, there wouldn't be a banking system worth toffee, and no banking system = no economy to save. Focusing on the Stimulus will help the Republicans.

I'm with you on DADT. Democrats need to bang that drum as loudly as they can, in the hopes that the Republicans will come out with rhetoric that makes them look bigoted and out of touch with Americans. It could work too.

By the way, Michale's right. The last thing Democrats want to do is eliminate the filibuster. How else would they block judicial appointments like they did with Bush? Besides, like Michale said, it's win-win. Either they reform, pass a raft of bad legislation and then get booted out (only for Republicans to then be free to push their agenda through, ensuring they win elections for a long time to come) or they don't reform and Republicans can save the American public from Obama and his terrible legislation. They win either way. ;-)

All partisan joshing aside, the filibuster is designed to prevent tyranny of the majority. It's actually a lot less of a tyranny of the minority than is claimed; it could be a lot worse (could you imagine if it took 67 votes to break one?)

By the way, back in 2005 when Republicans threatened reform of filibuster the Democrats said it required 67, so they can't insist on it being 51 now. Unless, of course, they want to appear as hypocritical. Again.

Or are they talking about privatizing Social Security once again? Boy, that would have worked out just dandy for retirees when the stock market crashed.

Heh. Well, in the UK our pensions are so crap that nearly everyone has some form of privatised retirement fund which is invested in the markets. This, by the way, wasn't to cut down costs; it's because our government is inept and ended up spending too much money. They then left themselves not enough money to adjust the pension properly for inflation. One of the biggest areas of government waste was, by their own admission, healthcare.

As of last week, the Senate had failed to act on over seventy of President Obama's. This is political obstructionism at its worst. Republicans have been using tricks to deny the president his chosen nominees in important positions, some of which relate to national security.

Ahem. Republicans aren't the ones blocking seventy nominations. One Republican is. A Republican who, as Osborne pointed out, used to be one of yours. Shelby isn't ideologically a Republican, he's one of those career politicians that does whatever it takes to get re-elected. Heck, the switch was only done because the Republicans won the majority (and I bet if the Democrats cut a deal to give him the billion dollars, they'd not only get the hold removed but they could probably get that 60th seat they want so badly in the wake of the Massacre in Massachusetts).

Republicans have their usual crop of funny (to them, at least) Valentine's cards up on their national website.

Hey! I resemble that remark (yes, I really did think most of them were funny).

Years ago I heard Paul Samuelson, just before winning his Nobel Prize in economics, point out that "the greatest danger to capitalism is NOT communism or socialism [now this was only years after the McCarthy witch hunts, so he had everyone's attention]?but oligopolies . . ."

And I agree with him. Which is why the correct reform is to allow greater competition by opening up the channels of interstate commerce. Let's not forget that the Democrats ideal model, if they thought they could get it passed, would be a single-payer option. In other words, a monopoly.

Now, from my rudimentary understanding of economics, monopolies are worse than oligopolies. The Democrats, in other words, are suggesting that America jump out of the frying pan and into the fire. The government-run scheme could essentially be manipulated into a "stealth tax" very easily.

-- buried in the back pages of my local paper yesterday was a single paragraph based on annual reports and S.E.C. filings of the top five insurers (Well-Point, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Aetna and Humana).

Their own numbers show that in 2009 they covered 2.7 million FEWER people than in 2008 and RAISED their profits 56%. Three of them CUT the portion of premiums spent on customers' medical care while using those funds to INCREASE salaries, administrative expenses, and profits.

Years ago I heard Paul Samuelson, just before winning his Nobel Prize in economics, point out that "the greatest danger to capitalism is NOT communism or socialism [now this was only years after the McCarthy witch hunts, so he had everyone's attention]
but oligopolies . . ."

Our current system allows a few mega-corporations to make enormous profits [the top five earned $12.2 Billion in profits, not net income, but profits, in 2009] in an industry where effective competition for their services is dwarfed by their size & ability to function as a "virtual cartel."

Capitalism really can be the most effective economic
model, but it also can be distorted under the guise of straw-man fallacy "anti-socialistic" rhetoric to hide our current system's real failure to provide affordable health care for all Americans. I'm waiting for a real debate which addresses the real root of our health care failure to do that.

It's kinda hard to get excited about the cup full of water that Democrats pulled out of the Titanic.. :D

2} Gays in the military

While it's true that this has been a GOP hot button issue, the simple fact is, many Dem leaders are also against the repeal of DADT.

I, personally, don't have a problem with DADT being repealed.

But ya'all need to keep in mind that the military is NOT the place for social experiments. The one overriding factor in ANY decision pertaining to the military is "The Mission".

Anything, and I mean **ANYTHING** that compromises the military's ability to perform "The Mission" is a no go..

The ability to perform "The Mission" is the ONLY relevant consideration.

3} Harkin on the filibuster

I saids it before and I'll saids it again. Dems don't WANT to mess with the Filibuster because they know they will be the minority party in less than a year. I betcha that the GOP is just foaming at the mouth to get the Dems to threaten the Filibuster.

"Go ahead. Make my day."
-Dirty Harry

I would be another win-win in a long history of win-wins for the GOP...

4} Deficit reduction

I don't know squat about economics, so I'll let this TP stand. :D

5}Republican hypocrisy on stimulus funds

Not only have nearly 70 House Republicans been caught trying to take credit for recovery funding that's brought the economy back from the brink of collapse

Yea, and we have Biden and Obama taking credit for the stabilization of Iraq when they were so adamant against ANY action in Iraq in the Bush years..

The nature of the political beast..

Make political hay on the nominees

See above regarding the nature of the political beast.. It's always dangerous for Democrats to "make hay" from the things they themselves do.

They run the risk of being labeled hypocrites. And rightly so..

7} The GOP sends you a Valentine.

Happy Valentine's Day

That's Rahm for ya.. :D

Michale.....

Because I am on a roll, prognostication-wise, here is my layout for the upcoming Kamikazee Summit.. :D I labeled it this way because it is obvious that the summit is a last-ditch desperate move by the Democrats to show at least a semblance of relevancy for the upcoming mid-terms.

The illusion of the Party Of No label has been maintained by one factor and one factor only. The complacency of the MSM that is in bed with the Obama administration.

This is slowly changing. The MSM is slowly seeing that the Emperor has no clothes. This process will get a big jolt into warp speed with the very public airing of the Republican's "Short Bill". One page long, costing a mere fraction of Democrat's CrapCare and is actually REAL reform..

After the Kamikazee Summit, the American public will come to realize that, all along, it has been the Democratic Party that is the "Party Of No"..

NO Good Ideas and NO Real Reform....

Place yer quatloos... :D

Michale.....

Yeah, I don't know why I hid Shelby's name twice in today's article, unless it was possibly to deny him press he didn't deserve. But you are on top of the situation, and are right to point out that Shelby was both the extortionate GOP senator on the "hold" thing, as well as the one negotiating with Dodd.

-CW

"Dodd had been in negotiations with the ranking Republican on the committee, but Dodd finally threw his hands up in the air, and declared these negotiations weren't going anywhere."

And that ranking Republican is...? Richard Shelby! The funniest thing about that billion-dollar tribute he wanted? I remember when a DEMOCRAT named Richard Shelby got elected by hammering the Republican incumbent over earmarks and pork.