News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-10/news-roundup-hour-1
President Obama defends his tax-cut deal with Republicans. The Supreme Court steps into the debate over illegal immigration. And a remembrance of the life of Elizabeth Edwards. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
John Harwood
chief Washington correspondent for CNBC; reporter, "The New York Times;" coauthor with Jerry Seib of "Pennsylvania Avenue, Profiles in Backroom Power"
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
David Welna
congressional correspondent, NPR.
News Roundup Video
Diane and guests discuss Elizabeth Edwards' life and legacy:
Diane and guests discuss Congress's consideration of The Dream Act, an immigration reform bill, and the Supreme Court's hearing of a case centered on an Arizona immigration law affecting businesses:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
For interesting comment, affected persons' interviews and facts re Visa, Mastercard and Pay Pal issues:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c74kx/Newshour_08_12_2010_(2100GMT)/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c7r52/Newshour_09_12_2010_(2100_GMT)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c74kj/Europe_Today_08_12_2010/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00c7r4p/Europe_Today_09_12_2010
I have just read the transcript of Mr. Obama's interview on NPR. I still believe he has this WRONG. The Republicans have bullied him into continuing the wealthy tax cuts. His comments about "... people like myself who have been incredibly blessed and who have a lot more income and wealth can afford to pay more than we currently are paying. I strongly believe that..." ring hollow when he can't even stand up to the wealthy bullies RIGHT NOW. They need to accept their PATRIOTIC duty to pay their fair share. Why doesn’t he focus on making a sound bite about how the Republicans are increasing the national debt, forcing us to BORROW MONEY to give them tax breaks? Please, I don't want him to let us down on this.
So I did the rough calculations: The top 2% get 163 billion in income and estate tax cuts - works out to $37,000 per year for each average top 2% household. The bottom 98% get 600 billion in income tax cuts, social security tax cuts, and unemployment insurance - works out to $2600 per year for each average bottom 98% household. Put another way it's $266 per week for the average person in the top 2% and $19 per week for the rest of us.
I have not seen this simple analysis anywhere in the press. Why not?
Pete
http://fairsharetaxes.org
I think Morning Edition's Steve missed an opportunity to ask Obama just what is fair when it comes to paying taxes. The top-earning 5 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $159,619) paid far more than the bottom 95 percent in 2008. The top 5 percent earned 34.7 percent of the nation's adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes. Everybody thinks it's more fair if somebody else pays more, but that adds little to the fairness discussion.
If Obama and other "blessed" feel they don't pay enough taxes, nothing prevents them from writing a check on their own. This would free their tortured souls, and help the budget deficit.
Tax breaks for ethanol is another example of Obama putting politics ahead of science, in direct contrast to his repeated assertions.
Obama thinks two years ahead max.
I was surprised there was still a Peace Prize, I thought Obama brought us world peace last year.
One thing people forget about the President is that he consistently takes the "long view" rather than thinking short term. People that are decrying the tax compromise need to remember that compromise now may lead to greater results later - in a completely different way.
Once again the President has supported Republicans more than his supporters.
The very idea to give a tax cut for millionaires and billionaires at a time when people are losing there jobs and homes is lunacy.
The 2% cut in Social Security is a Republican idea and a Trojan horse to make it possible to use this a a wedge to make the argument for privatization of Social Security.
Should the whole tax package expire on January 1st there would be very little impact on the average taxpayer.
80% of the people are in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts die. So let them die and get the big earners help with the wars that they support.
Why has there been no focus on the very unprofessional remarks by our government officials revealed by Wikkileaks that has brought about so much embarrassment. What happened to "diplomacy". It is the embarrassment that is driving the anger and frustration with Wikkileaks. When I worked as as administrator of a local public school, we had a rule that we were to say nothing in an email, letter, or in writing that we would not want to see printed word-for-word on the front page of the local newspaper. That served us very well. It's a travesty that our diplomats can't be smarter and diplomatic!
Your guests said it all. Extending the tax cuts to the wealthy had the least impact on the economy, yet it is the only option that can get passed. The rich rule, plain and simple. It's not about doing what's best for the country.
The tax cut will affect the social security fund in the long run by reducing it by 2% for employees and 2% for employers. Republicans have been given a gift to take the hatchet to benefits and increase the retirement age since the fund will run out of money sooner. The gift to the rich would fund social security for the next 75 years according to Krugman.
It's incomprehensible that our leaders will EVER take steps necessary to reduce our deficit. Per the deficit commission. Costs must be reduced and revenue must be raised. This seems to be an impossible task.
Here's what no one is saying: the American Quality of Life will continue its slow, steady decline. There's nothing wrong being rich, but the gap between the rich and poor will continue to widen. The fabric of our society is permanently changing - for the worse. It seems hopeless.
During WW2 everyone gave up cars, appliances, food, meat...just about everything. Today, the rich, who can most afford it, don't want to give up anything. And you can bet that their kids are not fighting these wars as both of mine are...a daughter who has been in Kuwait and son-in-law who was in Afghanistan one month after 911.
What more proof does anyone need that Republicans don’t care about the vast majority of Americans or about reducing debt than shunning a tax plan because it did not protect their billionaire and corporate patrons?
Republicans turned away 700 billion dollars of deficit-shrinking revenue, revealing that currying favor with large corporations and billionaires is their number one priority and that their debt-reducing rhetoric is just noise. Instead of holding Republicans accountable for their deficit reducing demand, the President caved in, as usual.
Tax cuts for large corporations and billionaires don’t boost employment.
Imagine that as a business owner, you get a tax break. You would not increase payroll, just because it is economically easier to do so. Your ONLY reason to increase payroll is a growing demand for your business’s goods or services.
And what alone can make that demand grow? Increased spending on your company's product by those whose spending always increases when they have more money – the lower and middle classes.
But tax cuts for billionaires do NOT affect spending. For one thing, they’re few in number. And the wealthy buy what they want, when they want to buy it. That’s what makes being rich so wonderful, why the Democratic tax plan exposes the Republican position on tax cuts for what it is, and why President Obama’s latest concession to Republicans bathes his weakness with a most unflattering light.
.
Do you think Mr. Assange would want every letter, memo, and thought he has every had published for everyone to see? We need some privacy as individuals, companies, governments.