But the problem is all of this talk about a "clean energy future" presumes that, sooner or later, we'll be right back to essentially the same economic model that is presently collapsing and manifestly unworkable, i.e., factories churning out ever more useless widgets for a debt-based consumer economy.

Please elaborate, I don't see how you reached that conclusion.

In particular, I don't see how producing energy more cleanly is dependent on continued waste of energy or other resources. Why can't we just produce what we really need and be clean(er) about it?

... is find out who would be holding the remaining preferred shares after this deal is done. Then you'll know who is still first in line to pick the bones if Citigroup collapses, and that will probably be the people who are pulling the strings behind the scenes.

If they can't save CITI we are really in deep water because rebuilding a frachise like that will take years, ...

Why would we want to rebuild a franchise like Citigroup?

Uncle Sucker is on the hook because Citigroup is "too big to fail". Why the hell would we want to create another "too big to fail"? We'd just end up on the hook again when Wall Street's next "financial innovation" explodes in our faces.

What I don't understand is why we need huge mega-banks that apparently qualify for automatic government assistance every time they screw up. Why can't a bunch of smaller banks provide the same services?

I'll pass on the litmus test. I don't claim to have any special bank savvy.

... the democrat candidates for president were rated "most liberal" twice in a row. I suspect these ratings not really intended to inform, but rather are artifacts of someone's agenda.

... the grift that just keeps on giving.

Are the lawyers special? Why wouldn't Blago screw them, too?

... it's time to kiss Limbaugh's butt. The good news it that it's an easy target.

Has anybody noticed what went on at CPAC?

The hardcore "conservatives" spent 8 years cheering for Bush, supporting his policies, and defending him from every criticism. Heck, they even went so far as to suggest that anyone who questioned Bush was a traitor.

Now that it's obvious that the country is in a horrific mess, the conservatives suddenly start saying it's the Republicans' fault. And Rush, who cheered for everything the Republicans did and egged them on with great vigor, is now trying to step away from the mess that he helped to create and pretend it was everyone else's fault.

Maybe he should consider Seppuku, but that's only for people who have a sense of honor.

At 9:55 AM EST this morning, the Steele story was one of the top three stories on Google News, with links to 920 articles.

I don't think it's possible for large numbers of people to all make money by doing the same thing.

... it IS possible for a few people to make money by persuading a large number of other people to all do the same thing.

Here's how it works: Everything that has gone wrong since Obama decided to run for president is Obama's fault. Everything that went wrong before that is either Clinton's fault or Carter's fault.

A major fight on another issue will distract from those efforts.

That sword cuts both ways. It would distract the Republicans too, and it might also give them something they could use to save some face with their base if they vote for Obama's economic plans.

Energizing their base might not be such a great idea, but giving them a chance to save face might help a lot. Sun Tzu advised generals never to put enemies in situations where fighting to the death was the only reasonable choice.

... the work of lobbyists. I wonder how much they're paying?

Does reversing DADT mean that gays could openly serve in the military, or does it mean removing a policy that allowed them to serve?

Rush Limbaugh might have a fatal heart attack, which could increase the risk of a Republican comeback.

Principal reductions - these are poison - the bank loaned out 300,000 dollars - why should they get back anything less than what they loaned out, plus a reasonable interest rate?

The financial industry willingly and knowingly created the housing bubble. They enjoyed immense profits while it was inflating, but now that it has collapsed they want the buyers to take the entire hit of decreasing home prices.

If we protect the lenders' positions and stick the buyers with the entire cost of home price declines, the lenders will have every reason to start another bubble the next time circumstances permit. I think lenders need to suffer some of the pain of home price declines to discourage them from starting future bubbles.

The banks did not "willingly and knowingly" create any bubble. Greed is blind. The banks did not plan to do anything; they simply failed to plan.

If the banks were as foolish as the borrowers, then why do they deserve to have their positions protected while the borrowers suffer the entire brunt of the home price collapse?

There is also the more practical matter of keeping borrowers from simply walking away from underwater loans: The banks will take a hit anyway because they can't recover their principle at current home prices, and they'll also have the problem of protecting and caring for the unoccupied homes. Putting more homes on the market will drive prices down even more, which will just make the problem even worse.

IMO, banks stand to lose even more if they demand complete recovery of their investments.

Then maybe Rush Limbaugh is right, and they should all go out and commit seppuku.