It's never that the king himself is evil or wrong-headed -- because that would be an insolvable problem -- rather it's that the king receives "bad advice."

They even believed this of Stalin. This fantasy never faces the fact that the king CHOOSE his adviser BECAUSE the adviser gives him advice he wants to hear!

Obama doesn't WANT to do anything about unemployment because that would "spook the markets."

And we must all bow to the markets. He won't get rid of Geitner -- not EVER. That would "send the wrong signal to the markets."

He just said essentially this in response to questioning by House Democrats last week. He angrily rejected the notion that he ought to be more assertive in defense of his policies.

Why? Because the markets might get spooked if he used too strong language! God forbid!

We eat a lot of produce - I spend more time - and money - in the produce department than probably anywhere else in the store, and I've been feeling the effects of rising food prices; it's a sad day when one's hand hovers over some nice avocado that are selling for $2 each, and feel like to buy more than one is an indulgence.

So, we made plans and have a plot that is about 20 feet by 100 feet or so; with 26 tomato plants, I have a feeling I am going to learn how to can, and I've been feeling a little like "Bubba" from Forrest Gump, thinking about how we can make salsa, and spaghetti sauce, and sun-dried tomatoes, and tomato juice and tomato soup, and can whole tomatoes, and...see?

But there's corn and onions and garlic and carrots and celery and beets and beans and peas and broccoli and red cabbage and lettuces and peppers and fennel and cantaloupe and watermelon and pumpkins and cucumbers (for pickles and for salads) and squash and zucchini.

I can't wait, to be honest, to be able to put some food by, and save some money, and eat good food that's good for us, without guilt.  And share it with family and friends and donate some to the local food pantry.

Not. Gonna. Happen.

What I see happening is that Obama campaign people are trying to off load Obama's responsibility for decision making onto Geithner, a handy and someone obviously involved with Big Banksters and Wall Streeters.

It's a campaign gambit. If it looks like they can get away with scapegoating Geithner for Obama's own alignment with Wall Street, they'll toss him under the bus.

Lots of folks have been complaining for a while that the White House had no message on jobs.  Well, now they do: "Think small."

The WH informed the Senate they have proposed too many jobs:

The Obama administration on Tuesday night might have thrown a wrench into Senate Democratic plans to pass what they see as a jobs bill -- by implying the bill spends too much money.

In a Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said it supports the broad goals of the bill.

"However, the bill would authorize spending levels higher than those requested by the president's Budget, and the administration believes that the need for smart investments that help America win the future must be balanced with the need to control spending and reduce the deficit," the administration said.  (My emphasis)

From The Hill.

Again, Aravosis makes the mistake of implying Geithner is somehow controlling Obama. When, probably, Obama chose Geithner because he knew he would not offend Wall Streeters who funding Obama's primary run for the presidency.  They knew their candidate, and that candidate is giving them what they want.

Obama does not work for us; he works for the Uberwealthy, corporations, banksters, Wall Streeters.

As I said to CST in another thread, these may not be acts specifically designed to destroy - or undermine - Social Security, but if they have that effect, the intent doesn't matter.

What's insane to me is that even if you took the possible effects on Social Security out of the equation, another tax cut - one that would allow employers to keep more money - isn't going to do what needs to be done to get the economy moving up again.  How many times does it have to be shown that tax cuts don't create jobs before they stop doing it?

Never, I guess; I'm convinced that as long as Obama and Geithner can keep the markets happy, they will continue to ignore the multiple elephants in the room: jobs and the housing market.

I would be very cautious about putting too much weight on Mr Johnson's analysis. For instance, in the article you link to he rightly takes Geithner to task for basically trying to blame the crisis on Britain, and yet he totally fails to mention that the crisis was caused by the bursting of the US housing bubble, which is the most obvious rejoinder to Geithner's nonsense.