This need to please, IMO, is a huge part of what makes Obama, on so many issues, fall back on conservative stances.  And it is what will make it IMPOSSIBLE for him, as some still hope will occur, to have some great progressive awakening in his potential second term.  

Total lack of understanding at the depth and breadth of structural damage the sub prime debacle caused.  They have a total disconnection on how to untangle the mess, because like the Wall Street boys who caused it, none of them have ever had to deal with a real person facing the catastrophe.  

If I was president I would have taken real homeowners in default, assigned each one to the team, the top staff of the Treasury, the top staff of the regulatory agencies and told them, help this person get through this mess.  First ten days.  Then after that, they could get to work.  Our housing finance system is broken and no one has the capacity to fix it.  

What confounds me is the arrogance of this administration, right now, of putting so much emphasis on re-election.  There is nothing subtle
about it either; press releases umpteen email campaigns, fundraisers.  That billion dollar goal it self was itself heartless.

when the "main" mistake occurred. In my view it was during the First Hundred Days,

In my view, it was in 2008, when the candidate with the far better grasp of the economy was run out of the race by a party that changed its rules to do so.  I said it then, and I'll say it now:  Anyone who didn't see the problems in the economy even early in 2008 and didn't realize the sort of president that we would need -- they also share in responsibility for this debacle.  And as the problems became more apparent, anyone who still allowed themselves to be distracted by glits and didn't see the problems during the campaign in Obama's allegiance to the U of Chicago school of economics, and in his poor performance in the debates when it came to questions on the economy -- they especially share responsibility for the current debacle.

So they are getting what they deserve.  But I don't deserve it, and my family suffering in this economy don't deserve it, so you can bet that I never will forget nor forgive.  And I am hearing that sentiment a lot these days among many of the suffering, so my bet is that these new Dems will get what they deserve in 2012.

Romer's claim that the housing market has been stabilized is straight out of wishful thinking wonderland.  Housing prices continue to decline except in a few areas.

She's against the Paul Ryan plan, but is still touting her and Pete Domenici's plan. Ooof. More muddying the waters for Democrats trying to win or hold on to Congressional seats.

The basic concept of premium support is to provide beneficiaries with a subsidy to select among comprehensive health plans offered on a regulated exchange. The plans can all be private or can include a public option. The plans must accept all eligible beneficiaries--guaranteeing access and preventing cherry picking--but the plans will be fully compensated for taking care of older or sicker people. The government subsidy will be capped at a predefined level and growth rate, so it is a defined contribution system, but the cap can be changed by law. If this general structure reminds you of the Massachusetts Connector, the subsidies and exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, or even Medicare Part D, then you get the idea.

The Bipartisan Policy Center's Debt Reduction Task Force, which I co-chaired with former Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), proposed transitioning Medicare to premium support starting in 2018.  In our version, all Medicare beneficiaries would have a choice: Either stay in traditional fee-for-service Medicare or choose a comprehensive health plan on a newly created Medicare Exchange. The growth of the total subsidy--both for traditional Medicare and for the Exchange---would be capped at the growth of the economy (GDP) plus one percent.  If the cost of traditional Medicare grows faster than that, then its beneficiaries would either have to pay an additional premium or move to the exchange.  To protect lower income beneficiaries, the premium could be related to income, although we did not actually spell this out in our plan.

I just completed making my selections for Medigap and RX supplemental coverage. I had looked into a Medicare Advantage plan here in NJ, but the copays were a tad high and the insurance company refused to tell me what run of the mill lab tests would cost: "Anywhere between $35 and $125 per test," they would say, if they said anything. I took extra time collecting diagnostic codes from my doctors -- and still got the same answer.

So I could not in any fact-based way compare the cost of Medigap to Medicare Advantage. It was infuriating.  I tried to imagine being ill and in my upper 70' or 80's trying to get usable information out of the insurance company reps in order to make my annual insurance decision.

That's when I decided to go with an AARP supplemental plan. Even the docs who don't take assignment are covered, so I at least know what my exposure for the remainder of the year is. And I won't have to deal with health insurance games and misinformation.

Now, Rivlin wants to make Medicare into ObamaCare, the health insurance company profit protection plan Obama worked so hard to get through Congress.  Instead of trying to give everyone "something like Medicare," Rivlin (with Obama's support, go ahead?) wants to drag seniors down to ObamaCare's unequal coverage. The kind of insurance which doesn't really cover much.

No thanks, Ms. Rivlin. But I figure the Repubs will use your words, this post to attack Dems from the left, as they did so well in 2010.

Have we no real Democrats from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party any longer?