I'd be for Federal preemption of state health insurance regulations sufficient to allow insurance companies to compete nationally and break up local monopolies. I'd be for ending the tax benefit for employer provided insurance, and for ending "group" coverage that makes small business and individuals unable to buy reasonably priced health care. I'd be for simplified insurance regulations designed to allow new entrants access to the market.

I could go on, but I bet everyone tuned out after the word "compete".

And the favoritism is an outgrowth of a longtime Wall Street preference and bias toward the fixed income securities markets, at the expense of equity.

I've learned something in the past year: bondholders have better lobbyists than stockholders.

But at least single payer has a rationale. There is no justificationwhatsoever for the current "reform", other than the continuing efforts of the administration to pay off their political backers in the unions and finance industry.

I disagree that Krugman is any more reliable a source than Romney on the stimulus. They are equally hostage to their respective partisan agendas, and have an equal disrespect for the actual situation, not that either of them bother to investigate it.

The stimulus may have done some good, but no one has, to date, done any respectable study on what the actual cetaris paribus effects have been on the economy.

Debt and interest are good things! People couldn't (as you note) start businesses, or in somecases, get educations or cars or houses, without them. People need to be as responsible with debt as they are with, say, cars. The difference is that the government restricts how you use your car, but not how much debt you can take on. This is because with your car, you can hurt other people, while overindulging in debt just hurts yourself (so it isn't any of the government's business).

People still need to be responsible. And they're not, because they're people. I just don't see why any of this is cause for a morality play.

I find it amusing and sad that our own business leaders are not similarly respected by the denizens here at TPM.

The point, beetlejuice, is not that Democrats are terrorists, but that well intentioned Democrats may well do more harm than malintentioned terrorists.

My point was not that joining the military of another country is a good thing. My point was that joining the military of another country is joining the military of another country, and the O.P.'s statement about how great it was to join the Canadian military in the 40's vs. the IDF now was a distinction without a difference.

Nah, that would be too hard.

"President Obama's decision to withdraw his demand for the cessation of illegal settlement on the West Bank, in the face of the intransigence of Israel's Benyamin Netanyahu, has left him exposed, vulnerable and weak - and has almost certainly cost him, and the Democratic Party, a second term in office."

No one here cares about Israel anyway. Certainly the 2012 elections will not turn on anything that happens in Israel (or doesn't). American Presidents have failed to make any progress in the Middle east for 60 years, and if anyone, only Carter paid a price for it.

"It has also scuppered any chance whatsoever of peace in the Middle East within the next decade, and that is very grave news for both the region and the world."

Wasn't counting on that anyway. And while it may be grave news for the region, it is mostly irrelevant to the rest of the world.

"One can only speculate on the extraordinary hold the pro-Israel lobbies, such as AIPAC, have on the present administration in the White House although we know that two of his lieutenants, Rahm Emanuel his chief of staff and his top advisor, David Axelrod, are loyal AIPAC supporters."

One need not speculate if it is known that the Presidents close advisors are staunchly Pro-Israel.

"It is, of course, common knowledge that Obama owes his election to president, almost entirely to the machinations of a pro-Israel cabal in Chicago - reputedly, within the legal and banking fraternities in that windy city."

Nonsense. This is neither common knowledge, nor true. It is tinfoil hat material, pure and simple.

"Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult not to take away the impression that the Israeli government is controlling US foreign policy, not only in regard to Israel itself, but also in regard to Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey and to some extent, also Afghanistan and Turkmenistan. That alleged sphere of influence, astonishingly extends from the Mediterranean eastwards, all the way to northern India and China."

Hyperbole. The United States is more strongly influenced by the Chinese government than the Israeli one.

"In view of President Obama's capitulation to the right-wing, Netanyahu government, it would appear that it is now up to the European Union to exert pressure upon the Israeli government to conform to and comply with international law and agreed conventions on human rights. Israel enjoys substantial bilateral trade with the EU, that accounts for nearly one third of its GDP. That is the stick that the EU can bring to bear on the recalcitrant Israeli state."

Good luck with that. The EU is a nonentity.

"Unfortunately, the EU has no similar stick to persuade the Obama administration to act like a world-power, rather than being subservient to a state less than one fiftieth of its size that is, in reality, kept afloat entirely by American aid."

I agree. We should cut off the aid. We won't, but we should. Israel has no strategic importance nor does it serve any national interest of the United States.

You don't like Coke? Don't drink it. The company's money is just as good as anyone else's for funding potentially important research.

Actually, the situation during the "arsenal of democracy" period referenced by the O.P. isn't that different from our relationship with Israel. Indeed, our 60-year alliance with Israel has been more reliable than any relationship we had with the European powers in the 40's.

That's because you're on the left.