Re-read what I posted.  It is the truth.  I backed it up.

Malodery's post is bull shit liberal democrat talking point lies.

Here are 10 things the Oumbler should have done differently:

(published in Aug. 2011)

1. Not subcontracted out the details of the 2009  stimulus to interest-group-addled Congressional  Democrats.  Instead, he could have drawn up his own plan  that relied more on large, quick payroll tax cuts rather than the ”shovel  ready” infrastructure projects that, as Obama later admitted, weren’t  shovel ready and (in the case of home-weatherization efforts) were delayed most of the year while bureaucrats  figured out how to apply union-backed “prevailing wage” regulations. And why do  we think aid to state and local governments–a stimulus centerpiece–had such  a big Keynesian “multiplier”? Didn’t many states use the money to pay down  their debts rather than retain workers?

2. Sold his health care reform as a  valuable benefit for voters that would give them security  (they’d be covered) and freedom (they could leave  their jobs without losing insurance) rather than as an eat-your-peas  plan that would not only “bend the cost curve” by denying  treatments but somehow actually reduce the deficit–a sales pitch  that assured Obamacare would be unpopular and vulnerable long after Dems  rammed it through Congress. At the time, New Yorker‘s Ryan Lizza said that  Obama had “staked his presidency” on Budget Director Peter Orszag’s notion  that “health care reform is deficit reduction.” It was a stupid bet. He  lost it.

3. Made the UAW take a pay cut. Whoever else is to blame,  the UAW’s demands for pay and work rules clearly contributed to the  need for a taxpayer-subsidized auto bailout.  To make sure that future  unions were deterred from driving their industries into bankruptcy, Obama  demanded cuts in basic pay of … exactly zero. UAW workers gave up their Easter  holiday but didn’t suffer any reduction in  their $28/hour base wage. Wouldn’t a lot of taxpayers like $28 hour jobs? Even  $24 an hour jobs?

4. Pivoted! In 2010, after the health care bill passed,  Obama was going to “pivot” to jobs but wasn’t able to do that when … yeah, I  don’t remember what prevented him from doing it either. What’s that FDR quote  Alter likes to trot out, about “bold, persistent experimentation”?  That is  not the attitude the Obama White House gives off when it comes to  jobs. Maybe the Weitzman profit-sharing plan isn’t the answer. Maybe a use-it-or-lose-it credit card won’t  work. Maybe a neo-WPA paying minimum wages wouldn’t attract unemployed  middle class workers–though it could be tried in one or two states. But Obama’s  attitude has been: “I tried A. I proposed B. So I propose B again. And again.  And again.”

5. Not pursued a zombie agenda of “card check” and “comprehensive immigration reform”–two  misguided pieces of legislation that Obama must have known had no  chance of passage but that he had to pretend to care about to keep key  Democratic constituencies on board. What was the harm? The harm was  that these issues a) sucked up space in the liberal  media, b) made Obama look feckless at best,  delusional at worst, when they went nowhere; c) made him  look even weaker because it was clear he was willing to suffer consequence  (b) in order to keep big Democratic constituencies (labor, Latinos) on  board.

Ads  by Google

6. Dispelled legitimate fears of “corporatism“–that is,  fears that he was creating a more Putin-style economy in which big  businesses depend on the government for favors (and are  granted semi-permanent status if they go along with the program).  I  don’t think Obama is a corporatist, but he hasn’t done a lot to puncture  the accusations. What did electric carmaker Tesla have to promise to get its Dept. of Energy subsidies?   Why raid GOP-donor Gibson’s guitars and not Martin  guitars?  We don’t know. At this point, you have to think the  president kind of likes the ambiguity–the vague,  implicit macho threat that if you want to play ball in this economy,  you’re better off on Team Obama. That’s a good way to guarantee Team Obama will  be gone in 2013.

7. Stolen some populist Tea Party thunder by going vigorously after Wall Street.  Even  Alter says Obama “neglected to use his leverage over the banks and  failed to connect well with an angry public.”  (Alter was also the first to  get Obama’s admission of “shovel-ready” ignorance. How many does it take,  Jon?)

8. Not appointed pro-union innovators to NLRB who try to  hamstring our biggest remaining industrial exporter by  preventing it from opening a non-union factory in South Carolina–and  then not had his spokesman say there’s nothing the  president can do about it because, hey, the NLRB is “independent.”

9. Faced with Republican demands for leaner government, embraced  them! Instead of letting GOPs make him the champion of bigger  government and higher taxes, Obama could have said he thought higher taxes are  probably inevitable but that he wasn’t going to raise them or cut a penny from  benefits until he was sure all the fat has been wrung out of  Washington. Become Dr. Cut-the-Bloat! Instead of letting his  top management official advertise for a new $80,000-a-year ”deputy  speechwriter,” tell him to lead a government-wide diet of the sort  private companies conduct all the time. Publicize and promote the agency  heads who cut their staffs and lower their budget requests  instead of those who protect their turf. Have some “RIFs”–actual layoffs of  redundant bureaucrats. The goal would not just be to reduce the deficit  but to shrink the government to a level that’s … how do they put it … sustainable. This would be the greatest gift Obama could give to  liberalism, and it would leave the Republicans gasping for air, speechless,  Don’t they teach “co-optation” in Alinsky School? Given the choice between a  triangulator and someone who acts like a triangulator, people  will vote for the real triangulator every time.

10. Defend the core of Medicare, a popular universal program  that works and (according to Orszag) is cutting costs, rather  than proposing to  shrink Medicare by raising the  eligibility age from 65 to 67.  It seems like only yesterday Democrats were trying to lower the Medicare eligibility age to 55–a political winner. Now the  party has to defend a standard bearer who wants to raise taxes but who has no  sympathy for the most valuable things those taxes pay for. (Screw  granny for “green jobs”!).

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/28/top-10-things-obama-should-have-done-differently/#ixzz1uqwyrpqk

JPMorgan Loss Likely to Damage Obama

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/JPMorgan-Dodd-Frank-loss/2012/05/14/id/438966

What JPMorgan $2B Loss Means

http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/what-jpmorgan-2b-loss-means/

nice job

Just an observation of the problem, not a political statement.

Now maybe they can get the honest reform passed that oibama swore a commitment to.