Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Health-care bill wouldn't bring real reform TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz ad_icon COMMENT 248 Comments | View All » POST A COMMENT You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register Why Do I Have to Log In Again? Log In Again? CLOSE We've made some updates to washingtonpost.com's Groups, MyPost and comment pages. We need you to verify your MyPost ID by logging in before you can post to the new pages. We apologize for the inconvenience. Discussion Policy Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article By Howard Dean Thursday, December 17"

Why do we need big banks?

If you look at the Gallup results for unemployment/underemployment, it stands at 20.3% for March.

I was tooling around the internet for awhile yesterday, looking for a transcript of the Congressional hearings that featured Goldman Sachs executives and traders as the star witnesses, before I realized that nowhere in print was there any real sense of what had gone on. Congressional hearings may have been effective at some point in the past, but these days, the witnesses are usually far too polished and used to dissembling for hours at a time to be of any real value, and the senators and congressmen who are asking the questions are usually too polite to do more than ask questions of little or no value. Senator Carl Levin tried to deviate from that formula on Tuesday. He was harsh, unyielding and relentless. "Your clients lost. Goldman profits" rang out several times during his opening address. But Senator Levin didn't have enough of an understanding of the business to really pin back the ears of any of the witnesses, including Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs chairman. I couldn't figure out for the life of me why his staffers didn't line up a few disgruntled traders and insiders to give the senator a three or four day crash course on the business. His gambling analogies were something that might appeal to my grandmother, who puts gambling of any kind up there with the cardinal sins, but missed the mark when it came to characterizing Wall Street's shenanigans.

Americans want government off our backs ... that is, until a folding crib crushes the skull of our baby, Toyota accelerators speed us to our death, banks blow our savings on gambling sprees and crude oil smothers the Mississippi. Then, suddenly, it's, "Where was hell was the government? Why didn't the government do something to stop it?"

It's Supreme Court nomination time again, which means that it will soon be nomination hearing time, which means that Elena Kagan will soon be asked how she believes the Constitution should be interpreted. But just in time comes a new book - "The Living Constitution," by David A. Strauss - that tells us not to bother about that question because, odd though it might seem, the Constitution does not play a central role in constitutional interpretation.

Sanders/Dodd Audit-The-Fed allows audit of TARP + TALF, but not FOMC, discount window operations, or agreement with foreign central banks. "Even the so called "independent" leftists, Kucinich and Sanders, have both capitulatied to the corporate, class markets and their class despotism, proving they are not real opposition leaders, but phony socialists, phony anti war activists." ~Eric Albert Schwing I read all three versions of the Sanders amendment carefully, and I believe Sanders made a good call if the decision was compromise with Dodd or have no amendment at all. The big differences with the compromise are: -Single audit covering December 1,2007 to May 2010 rather than open-ended audit until all bailout funds are recovered. -Specific parameters on the audit focusing on whether proper procedures were followed and what could be done to improve Fed governance. However it is not clear that the audit is limited to these items. -Fed website still must report lots of previously undisclosed details about the bailout measured-who got what and why. ~bmull

Why Obama and so many Dems think the "deal" is a fair compromise, not a total capitulation or cave-in... Strategy 101.

Why Obama Won Debt Deal by CRAIGCRAWFORD on JULY 31, 2011 · 91 COMMENTS · in ALL POSTS The President got what he most wanted, postponing another debt ceiling fight until after the election and without politically damaging entitlement cuts. Everything else is eye wash. Most of the spending cuts are in the out years, which is another way of saying it won't happen. And one more committee to study cuts? Oh please, even if they call it a "super" committee that's always a Capitol Hill euphemism for doing nothing. Adding so-called triggers for cuts if goals aren't met also means nothing. Remember Gramm-Rudman? Giving up tax increases on the wealthy is probably Obama's biggest concession, but that fight lives for another day when the Bush cuts are scheduled to expire later on.

Maybe some of you can tell me why so many very smart people have, since the day Obama was inaugurated, deluded themselves into thinking that this admittedly very smart man, albeit one with limited political experience at the national level, was somehow going to step into office and proceed to rewrite the political laws that have governed presidential politics for the last two centuries? I'm listening.

If the banks can create trillions of dollars in credit out of thin air for lending, why can't the government create it for the people? Read about introducing $2.5 trillion of debt-free money into the economy (via the Cook Plan). Pretty radical suggestions here. But they make sense to me.

The AARP just met with the leadership of the Mayo Clinic, one of the most outstanding medical institutions in the country. They provide excellent care at a cost that is less than most other parts of the healthcare system - and with improved outcomes. We asked them about their secret to success.\n\nMayo has an electronic medical record and all their patients have their information online. The physicians are on salary, so there's no incentive to order unnecessary tests or procedures, and Mayo has an ethic of patient-centered care, with a long history of attracting the best people and rewarding them.\n\nIf Mayo can do it, why can't everyone else? The AARP believes that the potential is there for most communities to have excellent care - we must emulate the care delivery of institutions like the Mayo Clinic, and put in place payment and information systems that will coordinate care management better. It's a big job and will take some investment, but we have many opportunities to do a better job than we're doing today.