Elizabeth Warren's speech: a condemnation against Obama

Fixed that for her.

OK.  I'll buy that.  We should change our current government.  Starting with the currently elected officials at all levels and of all parties.  Let's start with Obama...

I'd buy that, if his replacement wasn't going to do exactly the same thing. Maybe we could start by removing the parties from Washington.

I'm all for that.

Oooohh Powerman Burn again.  You're on a roll this week Powerman...

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waiters and waitresses.

It just blows my mind how Obama can claim any high ground what so ever on the Wall Street issue when he filled half of his cabinet with them when he got in office.

The US president is pretty much powerless in domestic policy. He has too much power in foreign policy. Why Americans continue to blame problems caused by congress/senate (all of them) entitlement on the executive branch is a mystery to me. Unless you think he can manipulate real estate markets or the economies of Europe.

Now if he declared war and blew a trillion+ dollars of your money I could see the rage...

Because that new entitlement care program was actually named after him. Yes the Legislature makes the bill, but he signs it... and when he campaigns and pushes for it for 3 years... well, there you go. We are currently still in one war, with others on the horizons... yet the Executive has spent all his efforts on domestic issues. I think that is probably why most put some blame on his shoulders.

Bush gave a blank check to congress for 8 years because he needed the votes for his war. While Bush might have been "powerless in domestic policy".... he sure did a he!! of a lot of damage to the domestic homefront.

To start with, Clinton said last night it was all the Republicans fault. My take on that inference is that Clinton thinks the Dems can fix all of those problems.

I think maybe the Republicans dug a deep hole and the Dems are continuing to dig.  How about we get someone who will start filling holes instead?

The position of President is a leadership position.  Just as the CEO of a company does not really do any of the "work" nor does the President.  However he lays out a plan for the work to be done and has the final say (sign or veto) in what does get done.  "The buck stops here".

Obama has no plan.  He has no leadership skills.  He's clueless as to what to do to get the economy back on track.  He couldn't even get things passed with a Dem controlled Congress.

I'm not giving Congress a pass here, but you also cannot let the President off the hook so easily.

(I know we've done this a million times already)

Romney has no plan either. He has gone so far out of his way to avoid any details because he knows there is nothing he can say that will help. We are not going to have a robust economy for quite a few years, regardless of who wins. 

However, Romney has executive experience. He would at least know what needs to be done to get things working. I'm not a fan of Clinton's policies but at least he knew how to lead and getting parties talking and working together.

Everything is at a standstill now because Obama only knows how to legislate, not lead.

I'm in Massachusetts, and cannot understand how anybody could look at EW and think she is someone worth voting for in November. Her entire campaign is a one message screech demogauging business, and little else. The quotes below sound like they were taken off any number of campaign ads she runs here on TV. There are plenty of folks in this state willing to check any box with a "D" next to it, so she has a built in base, but its mind boggling to think folks take her seriously. Her complaints about a student loan 'crisis' is laughable when considering she makes $400,000 a year teach 2 classes at Harvard Law School.

I'm convinced nearly every Toyota Prius sold in this state comes with an option to have a "Warren for Senate" sticker applied at time of purchase.

What I find most ridiculous is the whole "System is rigged" comments. Not  only the worst kind of fear mongering, but a complete falsehood. The guy she is running against, current US Senator Scott Brown, is exactly the kind of pick yourself up and overcome your upbringing to be a success story the Dems would love to showcase.

BTW -- Senator Brown is a very active triathlete, and has done nearly 200 races. He blew by me on the run at the Cohasset sprint tri this past June. I told him as he went by that I'd still vote for him, even though he was making me look like I was standing still

Really?  So because he worked as an executive in the private sector he suddenly knows what needs to be done in government?  Sorry, I don't buy that at all.  The same argument was made regarding George W Bush.  I'm not sure that worked out as planned. 

He's also raising a billion dollars for his campaign. You know what that means? He owes a lot of people a lot of favors, none of which are meant to help improve our country.

Yup.  Read President Washington's farewell address.  He warned about the abuses of political parties...and that was in like 1796. (Not exactly sure about the date)

That was my point - the US system is not really like a CEO->company. A CEO can fire idiots, direct, make changes, subcontract - basically do what needs to be done. Our Prime Minister (if in a majority gov) has that sort of power (which is not always good either). US has that power with the military though. Oh and the power to appoint court justices is probably the greatest power he wields, if timing is good.

In the US for domestic stuff, committees in the house basically do what they want, add whatever they want to various bills, and assuming they put enough fluff into them to also get the senate to agree, the President just has the option to pass or kill it. Yah sounds powerful but not really. He can stamp his feet and pass nothing for 4 years, or he can suck it up and pass things because they are "good enough". Give him a red pen and let him strike pieces of it then he'd be the CEO/bossman but he can't do that.

How much different (aside from the Medicare stuff) would things be if McCain/Palin had won? You'd probably be at war with Iran but besides that - do you think your house would be worth more? Mutual/Financial markets better? Greece not in the crapper?

So yah, blaming him for non-war/non-military stuff is like blaming the news anchor for giving crappy news. I still don't understand it. Blaming him for housing? The auto sector? Really?

Well in that case then we should not blame the Captain of the Concordia for running aground. He just approved the order, but it was not his hand on the wheel.

Obama gets the blame, because he is the one yacking the loudest on who to blame for the whole mess in the first place... Bush. It was Bush's spending that Obama ran against for two years. Bush's tax cuts that he railed against for two years, Bush's deregulation that he whined about for two years. Then he did it for two more once in office. The Leader of this great country laid the whole problem on the shoulders of the last POTUS... but now he gets a pass because that is not how it really works... WOW, talk about convenient.

So now that we are in this problem of a crashing economy because the last guy spent too much and brought in too little... then when Obama campaigns against pork barrel spending... then passes the stimulus give away, then passes a omnibus bill with $30 billion of pork... and he says he will do better next time but that really needed to pass... then that is not his fault. And when he passes tax cuts in the stimulus, and he approves the extension of the Bush tax cuts.... then he has no power and it is not his fault. Then when he goes on and on about how everything he will do will be budget neutral... and he pushes for new spending, and cuts nothing, and he signs his name to it... ya, he has no power, and he is completely free from fault.

I just hope that you are correcting Obama's campaign. I mean Obama saved the auto industry, but we know he has no power over that. And he claims he made housing affordable and kept people in their homes... but we know he has no power over that and the credit goes to the Congress. Hopefully you can get with his people so they can stop taking all the credit for all the stuff he has no power over.

Unions...

I usually avoid the political stuff, but will jump in with just these two points:

1.  Oil companies "sucking down billions in profits."  According to this site, Exxon makes about 2 cents per gallon profit on finished products (after they extract, refine and transport the stuff).  Average local, state and federal taxes is about 48 cents per gallon.  So who exactly is making obscene amounts of money off of oil?

2.  If the system is so "rigged" to favor those who have wealth and power, how on earth did people like Elizabeth Warren, Julian Castro, Joe Biden, Michelle Obama and Barack Obama (not to mention Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Paul Ryan) manage to rise from modest beginnings to positions of wealth and prominence?  These are exactly the kind of people who "don't have a chance" if they "play by the rules" in the Obama/Warren conception of America.