Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-22/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The U. S. receives a warning about its credit rating. President Obama takes his deficit plan on the road. And more bad news for air traffic controllers after a near mishap with the First Lady’s plane. A panel of journalists joins Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Clarence Page
syndicated columnist for the Chicago Tribune.
Susan Davis
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Byron York
chief political correspondent, Washington Examiner.
News Roundup Video
A caller who works as an air traffic controller explains his opinion that President Ronald Reagan's policies contributed to the recent problems with air traffic controllers falling asleep:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Need clarification:
ecgberht wrote:
hainc wrote:
"Class warfare is when the government, for no good reason, assaults the earnings of those who work in order to fund income redistribution programs benefiting those who don't. The attack is on income and the weapon is taxes; the justification ideology."
As pithy and succinct a summary of what has happened in this country since the 30's as I have ever seen. I assure you, hainc, I will steal it at some point! Nice going.
When hainc and ecgberht talk about "those who don't work" benefitting from the obvious and raging class warfare going on in this country, are they talking about the fat-cats, Wall Street criminals, and corporate tax dodgers who make income by not working but instead leeching off the wages of the real working people and middle class of this nation?
Roosevelt wrote: "York is ... a right-wing extremist."
Definition:
"Right-wing extremist" - anyone whom someone on the left disagrees with.
"Compromise" - when you do what the left asks you to, aka, "you are entitled to my opinion".
"War of Choice" - any war in which President Bush had the US play a part
"Humane Action" - any war started by Clinton or Obama
"Abortion" - what the right tried to do to SS and Medicare
"Choice" - what the left allows women to do to the unborn
Notice the phony argument Mr. York engages in (even assuming it's correct). No one is proposing taxing anyone at 100%! So what's the point? Are we supposed to reject any tax increase, because we can't tax our way to a balanced budget? In other words, isn't this just the old conservative "game of perfection" - unless a liberal proposal is faultless it shouldn't be tried at all?
Funny, how you never see them make that argument with their own proposals. For example, when it was pointed out that the cuts made this year were all to minor things, and that you can't balance the budget without touching the military, Social Security, and Medicare, the response was: 'well we have to start somewhere, and every little bit counts'.
Well, increased taxes on the wealthiest may not be the only solution (and no one claims it is), but we have to start somewhere, and every little bit counts!
Remember, the key concept should be shared sacrifice: for every dollar cut from social programs, raise a dollar in taxes. It won't be pleasant but it can work!
Roosevelt wrote:
"Need clarification ... they talking about the fat-cats, Wall Street criminals, and corporate tax dodgers who make income by not working "
If they have done something against the law, they should be prosecuted and put in jail. What is your point?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"every dollar cut from social programs, raise a dollar in taxes."
Carries the assumption, "all spending good". Have you ever even entertained the idea of what life could be like if the Federal government were much smaller than it is?
hainc on April 22, 2011 @ 7:41 am wrote: “Election season has begun.”
Have you been living on another planet? Election season began November 3rd 2010! Even Mr. York admits the Ryan proposal (and other such plans) isn’t a serious prospect for this year. No, it’s a campaign proposal for the 2012 elections. (Or don’t you think the GOP will run on it?).
And speaking of breaking promises - remember the promise that the “new” GOP would focus on creating jobs, and ignore social issues. Funny how most of the cuts, and most of what they're talking about, are social issues: abortion, gay rights, union busting, etc.!
And then there’s the current “front runner” (the “Don”). Please explain how lying about Obama not being American isn’t just campaign blather? (And, again, it has nothing to do with creating jobs.) Of course, since answering this question requires taking Trump seriously, please feel free to ignore it since he’s really not a serious candidate.
P.S. - And again, what the heck does "hainc" stand for?
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 12:38 pm wrote: “Carries the assumption, ‘all spending good’. Have you ever even entertained the idea of what life could be like if the Federal government were much smaller than it is?”
PART ONE
The only assumptions here are yours, and there are two of them: 1) Budget cuts are always good, 2) Taxes are always bad.
I didn’t say any part of the budget is sacrosanct. For example: I was delighted when a combination of Tea Party members and Democrats killed that redundant jet engine that would have been built in Boehner’s district. There’s an example of wasteful government spending we could do without, and note: it was military spending - something you rarely hear the GOP talk about cutting at all (and remember, it took Democratic votes to cut it).
But, does that mean we should eliminate the entire military budget? Of course not! (Though that’s certainly one way to make the Federal government “much smaller than it is”.)
I have no problem cutting waste from the government. I have no problem cutting social programs, provided there is shared sacrifice (a concept you ignore). The wealthiest don't need Medicare or Social Security - so every dollar saved by cutting those programs should be met with increased taxes on the wealthiest (since they suffer no real sacrifice through such cuts).
But all I hear from the GOP is “cut, cut, cut”. When they’re willing to include “tax, tax, tax”, then we can start seriously working on the problem, and not just use the deficit as an excuse to push an ideological agenda (which is all the GOP has done so far). And that, of course, was the point of my criticism of York’s comment.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
P.S. - Ever notice how conservatives seem to think “smaller government, limited government” only applies to economics? Big government interference with people’s private lives, violations of the Constitution’s guarantees of First, Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendment rights (among others), never seems to concern them. Why didn’t they denounce as tyranny Bush’s declarations that he could ignore any law he wished, and then defended him when it was revealed he had actually done so (and that he did it in secret)!?
Oh, as for proposals to investigate the increase in gas prices - I agree that's just political blather. Ever notice how these proposals always surface every time the price rises (usually in the Summer), and then . . . .
Pay no attention. The price will go down again (though never as low as before), and we'll all get use to it - just like a frog in a slowly heated pot.
NancyH on April 22, 2011 @ 10:01 am wrote: “. . . and both sides agree to fund 10 to 12 pilot state programs.”
Actually, much of what you describe is already part of the health care law. For example, there are provisions that allow just such pilot programs. The States can submit proposals and apply for waivers from the general plan. (Of course, there are some minimum standards that must be met. For example, the “pilot project” must provide at least as much coverage as the Federal plan - but it can do so in different ways.)
Of course, the GOP isn’t talking about this, much less trying to make use of it. Much better to have phony campaign issues about “killing grandma”, “death panels”, and how Obama wants to destroy Medicare by cutting costs.*
* Oops, sorry, they can’t really use that one anymore.
tl75225 on April 22, 2011 @ 10:18 am wrote: “. . . that sideshow/ploy to strengthen the U.S.'s oil empire going on in Libya.”
R-I-G-H-T. The fact that Ghaddaffi is a murderous dictator who is busy murdering civilians in order to stop a spontaneous uprising has nothing to do with it. It’s all about oil. (Couldn’t we just support Ghaddaffi in exchange for cheap oil? It would cost us less, end the fight sooner, and probably lower our gas prices.)
And what about how doing nothing would make our expressed concern for freedom and democracy worldwide nothing but hypocrisy? Or maybe we should only support such uprisings where there’s no oil?
P.S. - And shouldn't you make this argument in the foreign affairs news hour? Not here.
"The only assumptions here are yours,"
Who said, "every dollar cut from social programs, raise a dollar in taxes. "
Hey, I'm not a mathematician, but to me, that does not shrink the size of government!
"every dollar saved by cutting those programs should be met with increased taxes on the wealthiest "
So, let me get this straight; they get to contribute all their working lives like everybody else, but when they reach retirement age, not only do they not get their contributuions (with interest), they get taxed even MORE?! Hey, sounds fair to me!
What you ARE recognizing, whether you realize it or not, is that SS and Medicare are NOT self-sustaining which they were supposed to always be. A good part of the reason for that is, FICA receipts have been RAIDED for spending and replaced with IOUs.
By the way, on the "ideological agenda" bull crap, you still don't get the fact that these were nothing but red-herrings, thrown in so they could be negotiated out?! It's a common tactic in negotiation. As a lawyer, I would have thought you'd know about it.
"Ever notice how conservatives seem to think “smaller government, limited government” only applies to economics?"
So... I finally got you to tell me ONE thing you think I believe. Too bad you're wrong (big surprise). This conservative is all for a smaller, less intrusive government at every level.
Try again.
Etaoin Shrdlu said
"The fact that Ghaddaffi is a murderous dictator who is busy murdering civilians in order to stop a spontaneous uprising has nothing to do with it. "
I think I remember you saying the same about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, right? Hey at least you're consistent! Right?
hainc on April 22, 2011 @ 10:35 am wrote: “Hi Diane, Please have a discussion without pandering to the crazies on the left.”
Assuming you are referring to the question about Reagan and the air traffic controllers (try to be more specific with your comments, please) - did it ever occur to you that maybe she asked her question precisely to hear York’s response?
It is a fair issue to speculate on (perhaps more than speculation as one caller showed). And York provided a fair answer. (Though he later conceded he doesn’t know the answer to why this problem with sleeping controllers exists - a rare bit of humility from any member of the “punditocracy”).
Not every question asked, or statement made, is a matter of either partisanship or ideology. Sometimes a question is just a question: an attempt to gain further information, or to discuss issues and ideas.
(I’ve noticed that you, ecgberht, cicero, meangreen, et. al., seem to have a problem understanding that.)
ecgberht on April 22, 2011@ 1:35 pm wrote: “ ‘The fact that Ghaddaffi is a murderous dictator who is busy murdering civilians in order to stop a spontaneous uprising has nothing to do with it.’ I think I remember you saying the same about Saddam Hussein and Iraq, right?”
Remind me again: in 2003 (when we invaded Iraq) was there a “spontaneous uprising” going on?
No, there wasn’t - a key difference you ignore. Plus, Bush’s official reason for invading was supposedly to defend us from further attacks like 9/11 (“mushroom clouds” anyone?). In short, sir, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Next time you want to imply I’m a hypocrite, try not to be so selective in your facts.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: “Who said, ‘every dollar cut from social programs, raise a dollar in taxes.” Hey, I'm not a mathematician, but to me, that does not shrink the size of government!”
The admission that you can’t do math may well be the first 100% accurate statement you’ve ever made (at least since we started debating one another). Let me put it to you “in dollars and cents”.
Suppose this is the current budget (simplified for illustrative purposes, of course):
Revenue (taxes) = $100
Spending (social programs) = $200
Deficit = $100
Now suppose we deal with that deficit through shared sacrifice (dollar for dollar):
Revenue (taxes) = $150
Spending (social programs): $150
Deficit = ZERO!
Oh, look what just happened, I balanced the budget, and shrank the size of the government, without gutting the social programs!
And remember, although I mentioned a dollar for dollar approach, that’s not the only way to have shared sacrifice (if I remember correctly, Obama proposed something like $1 in tax increases for every $2 in cuts). We don’t have to do this to the exact cent. It’s the concept I’m arguing for, the details can be worked out later. But right now the fight is between a GOP which only wants tax cuts (and seems to want it only in social programs), and any other far more rational plan!
With ideas like Ryan’s as “the only way to go”, it’s no wonder Standard & Poor’s issued their warning. (Of course, as it’s been pointed out earlier in the week, the S & P’s track record in making assessments isn’t exactly reliable. They were the guys giving those “junk bond” derivatives and Lehman Brothers a clean bill of health - until after everything collapsed).
Ecgbert wrote
"Roosevelt wrote:
'Need clarification ... they talking about the fat-cats, Wall Street criminals, and corporate tax dodgers who make income by not working '
If they have done something against the law, they should be prosecuted and put in jail. What is your point?"
Don’t mean to speak for Roosevelt but…
One point might be that if regulation (i.e. laws) and oversight, and penalties for white collar crime are too lax and are not enforced, then “activities” such as possibly bankrupting the economy such as nearly occurred during recent financial crisis, may be repeated- to the benefit of a few and to the detriment of most Americans.
With all due respect sir, at times you seem to be advocate a society where the top 1% have it all and the rest eat cake, somewhat like France before their revolution.
Have a good wekend
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: “So, let me get this straight; they get to contribute all their working lives like everybody else, but when they reach retirement age, not only do they not get their contributuions (with interest), they get taxed even MORE?! Hey, sounds fair to me!”
PART ONE
Remember what Mr. York pointed out at the end of the show, something I’ve been pointing out for weeks: that Social Security funds (the FICA payroll tax) were put in the general revenue, that is used for other purposes (including disguising how big the deficit really was)?
Remember that a big cause of those deficits has been the GOP’s tax cutting fixations (starting with Reagan), and the utter failure of “voodoo economics”?
Remember that the FICA tax has a dollar cap, after which no further taxes are imposed (I think it’s currently at $106,000)? Which means that people making more than that actually pay less of their income in FICA than people earning less than that. (Millionaires, of course, pay a fraction of their income in FICA, not the full 15%.)
Remember that FICA, and I believe the Medicare/Medicare taxes too, are payroll taxes, meaning they only tax earned income? People who get the majority of their income from investments (inherited perhaps?) pay nothing!
So, to recap, the GOP cut taxes in ways that mostly benefited the wealthiest, and “paid” for it by stealing the money paid by everyone else*, and now want to cut the benefits most of those people will need to survive in order to avoid raising taxes on the wealthiest who don’t need those benefits. Yeah, talk to me about “fairness”!
* Yes, I know, the Democrats are guilty of this too. I’m not claiming they’ve been angels, just that “shared sacrifice” is a better idea than the GOP’s.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Oh, and remember the key word is “sacrifice”. I somehow doubt a person making a million a year, or with fifty million in assets, will miss Social Security the same way a person who needs it to live will. Basically your argument boils down to that old sarcastic saying: “The law, with wonderful equality, prohibits both rich and poor from sleeping under bridges”. (Do I have to explain that one to you?)
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: “What you ARE recognizing, whether you realize it or not, is that SS and Medicare are NOT self-sustaining which they were supposed to always be. A good part of the reason for that is, FICA receipts have been RAIDED for spending and replaced with IOUs.”
Oh, wait, you do recognize that the social program funds were raided for other purposes. And yet you still made that fallacious argument. My, my.
By the way, while it may be true that people claimed Social Security was supposed to be self-sustaining, I’m not sure the same claim was made about Medicare and other social programs (there are other programs you know). Certainly in the real world it was long recognized that the benefits paid out “today” were coming from the current tax revenues (though that might be partly due to the “raiding”).
A bigger problem with Social Security is that it was created when our life-spans were shorter. That meant fewer people would actually live to collect, and those that did would collect for fewer years than we now do. That’s one of the reasons the Simpson-Bolls plan includes raising the retirement age (something I can accept).
Again, sir, shared sacrifice. I’m willing to postpone “getting mine”, and can accept “getting less”, provided those who need less (because of their wealth) agree to pay more. Let’s put it in extreme terms: the GOP would like to end Social Security and Medicare. Fine, just increase taxes on the wealthiest back to what they were in the 1950’s!
(No, that’s not a serious proposal.)
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: “By the way, on the "ideological agenda" bull crap, you still don't get the fact that these were nothing but red-herrings, thrown in so they could be negotiated out?! It's a common tactic in negotiation. As a lawyer, I would have thought you'd know about it.”
I know all about that indeed, which is why I find it funny that you guys all condemn the Democrats for putting up any counter proposal. The difference is: I don’t see a whole lot of compromise coming from “your side”. (Indeed, isn’t “compromise” a dirty word to the “true believers”? In case you forgot, Boehner was only able to get this year’s budget passed because Democrats in the House voted for it to replace Republican defectors.)
And “bull crap” certainly defines the GOP’s ideology. Again, sir, where is your willingness to compromise. I’ve proposed (in outline form, of course) a way of balancing the budget that includes both cuts and taxes. All I hear from you is “cut, cut, cut”. You know what happens in a negotiation when one party acts like that? The other party leaves!
Again, as I said weeks ago, this is a giant “game of chicken” with the GOP threatening unemployment benefits (December), then government shut down (April), and now destruction of the U.S.’s credit rating (when the debt ceiling isn’t raised) unless they get their way. That’s not “negotiation”, that’s extortion!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Was there a “spontaneous uprising” going on? No, there wasn’t - a key difference you ignore. "
Really? Hey, why don't we ask the Shi'a and Kurds?
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/news/2003/ajan/27_saddam.html
"Next time you want to imply I’m a hypocrite"
I don't have to imply it. I'm stating it straight out.
Roosevelt wrote:
"Please Diane, if you are going to have someone like Byron York on the air, please have a forceful proponent of reality (I suppose that is currently termed "liberalism") on the show to effectively counter his nonsense."
That is the sort of monnbat liberalism that forced the resignations of NPR CEO Vivian Schiller and executive Ellen Weiss. Apparently, the three liberals to one conservative advantage on the DR Show is not sufficiently tilted for your tastes.
"Revenue (taxes) = $150
Spending (social programs): $150
Deficit = ZERO!"
Magic!
How about
Revenue (taxes) = $150
Spending (social programs): $150
Economic Growth = ZERO!
Now, how about
Revenue (taxes) = $100
Spending (social programs): $100
Deficit = ZERO!
Economic Growth > ZERO!
That one works for me. The problem is, as I have demonstrated in previous threads is, you can't raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Period.
"With all due respect sir, at times you seem to be advocate a society where the top 1% have it all and the rest eat cake, somewhat like France before their revolution. "
Absolutely false, Drew. I advocate a society where people are rewarded for their labor and the government does not confiscate it to give to someone else. It worked for the first 150 years in this country. It can work again.
ecgberht on April 22, 2011 @ 1:31 pm wrote: " ‘Ever notice how conservatives seem to think ‘smaller government, limited government’ only applies to economics?’ So... I finally got you to tell me ONE thing you think I believe. Too bad you're wrong (big surprise). This conservative is all for a smaller, less intrusive government at every level.”
PART ONE
Sorry, ecgberht, but as I’ve proven many times I’m quite capable of using your name when I want to refer to you personally. And as I’ve just demonstrated, I’m equally capable of using the correct pro-noun. I guess you “overlooked” the last sentence of that paragraph where I asked “Why didn’t they denounce . . . .” Get it? I was speaking about conservatives in general (particularly the GOP in Congress, as the rest of that Comment makes perfectly clear), not about you in particular.
Try again.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
But how about giving examples of exactly what you mean by “smaller, less intrusive government at every level”? For example: does that mean you favor a woman’s right to chose abortion (and if so, to what extent)? What about gay marriage, or elimination of anti-gay discrimination. What about allowing people to make end of life decisions for their loved ones without turning it into a political circus (the Terri Schiavo disaster)? What about “no religious test for public office” (Article 6, Section 3 of the Constitution)? Or no establishment of religion, no warrantless searches and seizures, no self-incrimination, right to counsel, no cruel and unusual punishment, due process, or equal protection of the law?
How about telling us whether you agree with Bush’s signing statements, wherein he declared he could ignore any law he didn’t like. And how about his actually doing this by ordering secret warrantless wiretaps (violating both FISA and the Fourth Amendment). I won’t ask you to prove you protested back then, but are you willing to at least condemn this now?
Just a quick reminder that Warren Buffett remarked that there is class warfare going on, and he said it was the rich against the rest of the population -- and the rich have won.
There's a reason there has been a massive transfer of wealth upward from the middle classes to the top 1-2% of the population. David Cay Johnston explains it well -- please have him on to explain it so perhaps you will not be so upset and astonished that there is, indeed has been for a long time, class warfare going on. Kevin Phillips wrote about it, as have Barlett and Steele. (I keep wondering why we don't hear their voices during this new round of class warfare....)
The wealthy and powerful do not give up anything if they can help it. Ever since they declared that FDR was a traitor to his class, they had been working to change the tax structure in this nation. While Ronald Reagan is the one remembered as doing the most for them, both Democrats and Republicans have assisted the wealthy to game the tax system to benefit their few, but powerful, selves.
Now, they not have most of the wealth, and politicians of both parties know that's where the money is, they now have the Citizens United decision from the Supreme Five. They now can use their businesses as unlimited piggy banks to wage further...here goes, so prepare yourself, please...class warfare against the rest of us.
hainc on April 22, 2011 @ 11:23 am wrote: “Class warfare is when the government, for no good reason, assaults the earnings of those who work in order to fund income redistribution programs benefiting those who don't. The attack is on income and the weapon is taxes; the justification ideology.”
No “class warfare” is when the government adopts policies that benefit one part of society at the expense of the other, especially when the part benefited really needs no assistance.
For example: why do we need corporations at all? Can’t businessmen make money without engaging in such “collectivist” behavior?
And why give such “persons” (the corporations) the unlimited ability to fund campaigns and campaign ads. If “money equals speech” isn’t unlimited funding the equivalent of screaming? (And I always thought the First Amendment allows reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech - as long as they are “content neutral”.)
And since corporations are “artificial” persons (that exist only by virtue of the law), can’t the same law which creates them put limitations on what they can do?
And what about raiding the funding for social programs to pay for tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthiest, and who don’t need those programs anyway.
Oh, and since when is helping people stay alive “no good reason”? (And on what basis do you assume the people being helped don’t work?)
Sorry, ecgberht (April 22, 2011 @ 12:10 pm), hainc was neither “pithy” nor “succinct”. Mindlessly ideological? I’ll concede he was that!
Diane and another misinformed caller blame POTUS Reagan for air traffic controllers falling asleep today? The mind boggles.
Back in 1981, PATCO's members defied federal law. When first hired, all PATCO members took an oath not to strike. After a couple of weeks, the American flying public never missed those 11,359 air traffic controllers (permanently banned from public services) who Reagan fired when they refused to show up at their jobs after 48 hours
Of course in 1993. POTUSl Clinton signed an executive order nullifying the ban on public jobs for the former air traffic controllers. What would Diane say if those who are falling asleep on the job are the former controllers that Reagan fired.