Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-08/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
Disappointing job figures from the Labor Department – the June unemployment rate rose to 9.2 percent. Meanwhile, thousands of Minnesota government employees filed for unemployment as the state shutdown continued. Federal budget negotiations inched forward: all eyes will be on the White House over the weekend. President Obama's Twitter town hall drew thousands of questions and comments. Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney raised $18 million. And the Casey Anthony decision raised doubts about the jury system.
Guests
John Dickerson
chief political correspondent for Slate.com and CBS political analyst and contributor. Author of "On Her Trail: My Mother, Nancy Dickerson, TV News' First Woman Star."
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Dan Lothian
White House correspondent, CNN.
Related Video
Lisa, who describes herself as a disabled adult child, discusses her difficulty in living on a government benefit of just under $1,000 per month. She says she feels that the struggles of disabled people are being lost in the latest debt ceiling debates in Congress:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am inclined to believe that the Republicans care more about making Obama look terrible than improving the economy. I think they are willing to sink the economy to win the White House and I think that the millionaire CEOs of low-or-no taxed companies will not hire as long as they can get even more tax cuts from their puppets in congress. There is no care about the common good among republicans - just more for the wealthy few.
Man! all we heard were supporters of big government on the show today including the commentators. If NPR is educating it's listeners better than other media sources why are the callers so dumb?
Mean Green:
I wonder why new business startups (those that are most responsible for new job creation) have been on steady decline since early 80’s??
Hmmm. Interesting.
Drew Kelly,decreased taxes do stimulate economic growth and increased tax revenue. The problem is there has always been in place a congress that wants to spend and spend and barrow and spend and borrow, did I mention spend?.
One commentator here speaks about all the things that social security now covers. That's the problem with all good intentioned government programs. They only grow in scope and cost and we have run out of money.
CharlieFox wrote:
"I am inclined to believe that the Republicans care more about making Obama look terrible than improving the economy. I think they are willing to sink the economy to win the White House and I think that the millionaire CEOs of low-or-no taxed companies will not hire as long as they can get even more tax cuts from their puppets in congress. There is no care about the common good among republicans - just more for the wealthy few."
That is an interesting point of view for a demogogue. I come to a "similar" conclusion with respect to making "Obama look terrible" but by a much different route. It's not about Republicans, it's about business. Businesses WILL NOT hire. Most business owners are strict captialists. They are content to tread water unitl November 2012. But the punch line is, Obama has no one to blame but himself. Here is a President that has burdedned business with healthcare costs, with regulation, and worst of all with the strong desire (though he hasn't been able to do it yet) to raise their taxes, and then berated them for their "corporate jets" while doing it. And he can't understand why they don't want to expand their businesses and hire? I thought he was supposed to be smart! The bottom line, is business captialists both great and small DO NOT TRUST him or his policies. They will wait until some one sits in the oval office that has the interests of American business at heart. Then, and only then, will jobs begin to be created.
monte wrote "The problem is there has always been in place a congress that wants to spend and spend and barrow and spend and borrow, did I mention spend?."
Yes. That is why anyone who advocates raising anyone's taxes as a means to reduce the debt is as much an enabler as your local crack dealer on the corner. Money is to the politician what crack is to the addict.
Why are economists and the public so surprised at the dismal job growth numbers when states have had to balance their budgets and have been forced to lay off workers. These are jobs too! No wonder we are in trouble
Monte wrote: “decreased taxes do stimulate economic growth and increased tax revenue.”
I don’t believe evidence bears that out- it didn’t seem to do much for W except perhaps slow job growth. I think Rupert has his hooks in you (you must be Fox and WSJ fan).
But you are entitled to your opinion.
Drew Kelly wrote:
" don’t believe evidence bears that out- "
Then I take it you were not around during the Reagan years. There were many other factors playing into the economic results of the Bush Presidency to simply say that supply-side "didn't seem to do much for W except perhaps slow job growth". Keysian economics is officially dead and the Obama "stimulus" put a stake in its heart. When you're reduced to counting "jobs saved", it's pretty pathetic.
Adding to what some of you have said, I grow very tired of politicians espousing their personal convictions and beliefs as if they pass as valid arguments. Where is the evidence politicians? Show me in numbers, not anecdotal examples of how lowering taxes for the wealthy benefits the economy of today. We as citizens need to hold our politician's feet to the fire by demanding that they provide evidence (the factual kind not the "it's what the founding fathers would have wanted" kind) for their policy making. Let the politician or political party that wields the best proof win the day, not the person burping up the most emotionally stirring rhetoric.
ECGbert
I sorta think job growth is important. Job growth under W is worst on record for over 50 years and that when economy was on a tear. How is that?
When referring to Reagan are you referring to the policies that seemed to stimulate the worst recession since depression (at the time) or to the times when taxes were raised 5 times later in his tenure. Reagan did actually have some intelligent not -totally partisan members in his cabinet (unlike W), but he has a mixed record (I know all of you with spit-shined full-sized Reagan busts on your mantle will disagree and are going to jump on me for saying as much). He encountered some success, but unfortunately his biggest legacy that GOP is clinging to may be ridiculous notions (until lately) of Borrow and Spend (and still prevalent) that we can “feed the rich” and all will be peachy. Paying down debt requires revenue. Decreasing revenue does not increase it.
Go back to your Wall Street Journal and disappear into your fantasy land.
"Linda Roberts wrote:
Yes! Stop fretting that others are making more money. DO something useful. I think that it has been forgotten that what money one earns belongs to the earner, not the government.
July 8, 2011 - 10:46 am
Linda Roberts wrote:
They - the government - has promised to spend less if more is given, but that hasn't happened. The budgets in every dept. are increased every year. Neither party has behaved honestly - and it is OUR money!
July 8, 2011 - 10:57 am"
Listen Dummy, you don't own anything!! The Money you "Earn", the land your home is built on, the trees, the lakes, rivers and oceans, even your Children, EVERYTHING belongs to the Sovereign!!!
If there was no Government, all you drones would be hiding in caves to save yourselves from the Proles who are smarter, tougher, hungrier and meaner than you Right-wing Pansies.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
It's too bad that your panel have never worked in a retail job. If they had, they'd know that there's no reason to hire people if there's no consumer demand for your goods/services.
The state & city layoffs not only decrease consumer spending, but they have added costs to the city & state budgets. There's increased demand for UI, food stamps, TANF [welfare], Medicare & Medicaid.
It doesn't matter how much tax expenditures go to "encourage investment" if there are no consumers with $$$ to spend. No matter how much investment goes into a new product or service if there's no one to buy it.
It's too bad that your panel, including the woman from the WSJ, didn't bother to read recent studies posted on HuffPost & other sites showing that tax expenditures do NOT = jobs.
The GOP Supreme Soviet Command Economy continues to destroy our economy as it did the Soviet, only qucker, since Reagan.
ecgberht wrote:
Drew Kelly wrote:
" don’t believe evidence bears that out- "
Then I take it you were not around during the Reagan years.
I recall reading that Reagan raised taxes during the 1980s - the tax rate was higher and the USA was not in multiple expensive wars. There are many variables that make up the economic situation - important to make comparisons while keeping all variables in mind as leaving any out will draw a biased conclusion.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"When referring to Reagan are you referring ... to the times when taxes were raised 5 times later in his tenure".
Hey Drew, thanks for HALF the story. Reagan was a NET tax cutter; taxes were lower when he left than when he started, but tax revenues were greatly increased. That's what the left doesn't get.
"Decreasing revenue does not increase it".
I will spell it out as simply as I can for you. Listen carefully, and when you read about tax and spend on HP or DK, remember these words ... cutting taxes stimulates growth, increases taxable income, and results in NET REVENUE GAINS to the government. That is what Reagan understood (and PROVED with his policies) that the left will never get. Their only mantra is, "Increase revenues, must increase taxes. Increase revenues, must increase taxes" as though it's some sort of zero-sum game. And remember, Reagan was always trying to keep up with a heavily Democrat House (where the spending bills come from) and used his tax increases to beef up defense and bring about a peace dividend that lasted more than a decade.
I don't have a bust of Reagan, but I'd rather be polishing that than what was being polished through the 90s.
mchaun wrote:
"EVERYTHING belongs to the Sovereign!!!"
Don't know if you are joking or not.
If not, your citizenship should be revoked.
Brett Greisen wrote:
"tax expenditures do NOT = jobs"
That's why the "stimulus" didn't work. Duh.
Drew Kelly wrote:
Monte wrote: “decreased taxes do stimulate economic growth and increased tax revenue.”
I don’t believe evidence bears that out- ...
But you are entitled to your opinion.
July 8, 2011 - 12:29 pm
Drew Kelly wrote:
ECGbert
I sorta think job growth is important. Job growth under W is worst on record for over 50 years and that when economy was on a tear. How is that?
When referring to Reagan are you referring to the policies that seemed to stimulate the worst recession since depression (at the time) or to the times when taxes were raised 5 times later in his tenure. Reagan did actually have some intelligent not -totally partisan members in his cabinet (unlike W), but he has a mixed record (I know all of you with spit-shined full-sized Reagan busts on your mantle will disagree and are going to jump on me for saying as much). He encountered some success, but unfortunately his biggest legacy that GOP is clinging to may be ridiculous notions (until lately) of Borrow and Spend (and still prevalent) that we can “feed the rich” and all will be peachy. Paying down debt requires revenue. Decreasing revenue does not increase it.
Go back to your Wall Street Journal and disappear into your fantasy land.
July 8, 2011 - 1:57 pm
I'm with you Drew, 110 Percent.
I would just add one more thing. The Pigs suceeded in killing the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs.
The Reagan / Bush Tax cuts and loss of competition in many businesses, left the dumb Bustards awash in money, with too much capital chasing too few investment opportunities.
During the Digital Bubble, "Please take my money".
During the great refinancing Boom, "please let me refinance your Mortgage at a lower rate, and take some extra cash please".
The Real Estate Boom, "Yadda, Yadda, finance some Condos, flip and make a bundle".
And so forth, until the bottom fell out.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Why did the panel "neglect" to mention that Grover Norquist buys GOP cooperation with campaign $$$$ through various think-tanks, PACs, Super PACs & other Citizens United super groups????
Worried about sources or their bosses????
OK Drew, your saying cutting taxes does not increase job growth! So if you tax a business at higher and higher levels it makes no difference?
Tax costs will always be past on to the consumer in the form of higher costs on goods and services, right? So if things are more expensive and more people cannot afford them or afford less of them, your saying this will not effect jobs? I do not need statistics and the twisted records of previous presidents to understand this basic lesson of common sense that higher taxes equals less economic activity and therefore less jobs.
ecgberht wrote:
Brett Greisen wrote:
"tax expenditures do NOT = jobs"
That's why the "stimulus" didn't work. Duh.
Thanks for confirming what I said which is that the so-callee "stimuli" were not stimuli.
DUH.
last post should have read "so called" stimuli
"ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"EVERYTHING belongs to the Sovereign!!!"
Don't know if you are joking or not.
If not, your citizenship should be revoked.
July 8, 2011 - 2:44 pm "
I suppose if they wanted to revoke my citizenship, they could, since they own that too.
Ever heard of "Sovereign Immunity"? "Eminent Domain", Common Law???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Ecgberht
I can agree that cutting taxes on small businesses and new business start-ups can have a positive effect on jobs and revenue. I can not understand how people of intelligence can believe that revenue cuts on wealthy corps and individuals already sitting on unprecedented reserves will stimulate anything but caviar sales (or corps we are providing subsidies to). Yeah stimulate small business not the Mega ones- not the ones, that in case you didn’t notice were responsible for a recent humungous collapse in our economy. These corps have no ethics. For you to believe such a thing, leads me to question your motives.
But saying as much I don’t mean to insinuate that my mind is completely closed. Too many “talk past each other” already in our country. But I have not encountered information as yet (and I’ve done my share of research), that leads me to believe other than what I have stated above.
I don’t know, we may look at the same information and view it differently- in which case perhaps one or both of us is beyond hope.
Wow - what a sterile show! I know DR likes there to be a certain level of decorum during these panels, but only having correspondents on is very lame. These folks - by the nature of their positions - need to stick to reporting on issues and try to avoid being opinionated; while one on a panel may serve a useful purpose, the other members should be "opinion" types like David Corn and George Will.
It's aggravating to hear panelists refer to provocative - sometimes outlandish - positions on issues as "interesting"....
Monte:
See response to ECG.
I’m just saying you need revenue to pay down debt. It’s so easy to preach to the hoards, “all taxes bad”. That’s fine- until the day bill comes due.
I’m a little disappointed our country didn’t look ahead a little sooner. We all knew baby boomers were going to retire one day, didn’t we? It seems like Clinton administration at least made some efforts (and I’m not saying all his policies were perfect). I’m also a little disappointed that all the $’s that were paid into entitlements during working careers seem somehow to have worked their way into the hands of the extraordinarily wealthy (who seem, at least as far as the research I’ve done shows- do little to stimulate the real economy).
If you feel that makes me a comi-socialist- so be it.
"Steve Smith wrote:
Does anyone on the panel have thoughts on why President Obama has moved so close to Republican positions? Is it because he feels he has no room to maneuver or does he truly believe what he is saying? I came across a comment today that compared Obama's treatment of liberal Democrats to Reagan's courting of Christian conservatives. They both wanted the support during elections but afterwards only gave lip service to their concerns. We all know politics is a tough game, but when leaders so clearly depart from the principles of those who voted them into office, it only increases the cynicism among the electorate and actually contributes to the radicalization of our polity.
July 8, 2011 - 9:43 am"
The President is a Liberal to the core, but the threats, from the WSJ, the Federal Judge up to his traitor Kiester in the coverups of several bombings, the unofficial Marine Corps Blogs, the Israeli Jew Media, the Bush/NRA gun Militia, the whole Kabal, against the President and his Family have convinced the President to stave of the Lee Oswald, Jack Ruby assassins until 2012 when he can lose the Election and go back to Chicago in one piece.
Either Roosevelt, or either Kennedy, thundering down from the Mountain against the Rats, that have brought us to this sorry pass, would electrify the Populace, but alas, the Media have and continue to deny President Obama any meaningful platform, instead smothering the people with blizzards of moronic blather that goes challenged.
INCLUDING THIS PROGRAM AND NPR IN GENERAL!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Too many “talk past each other” already in our country. "
How about on this board?! I have no idea where the "sovereign" guy is coming from!
"I don’t know, we may look at the same information and view it differently"
Probably so. I am a big small-government guy (not an oximoron). It's just the way I'm wired, based on my reading of the Constitutuion and the study of our history. So I'm not in favor of taxes on small business, or big business for that matter, because if you have a government that sticks to its Constitutuional duties, it won't take as much money to run it. We should all contribute, yes. But think about where the INCENTIVE is and how incentive will drive action. This is what our lawmakers so often miss (see housing bubble - cheap loans put people in homes they could not afford with the mistaken view that everyone should be incentivized to own a home). Another example, "Stimulate small business, not the Mega ones" says, "incentivize business to grow, but not to grow too much". "Increase capital gains taxes" (I know this wasn't yours, but I've seen it advocated) and you expect people to want to invest?! Why would they? I should invest more to pay more taxes?
Make EVERYONE a stake holder in their government - no matter how small that stake is. 50% (roughly) pay NO taxes. They have no stake. This was the reason that in the early days of our country, only land owners could vote. They were the ones that had a stake. And no, I'm not recommending that, I'm just pointing out the principle.
mchaun ... you forgot your meds again, man!
For monte:
Government revenues do NOT increase long-term with lower tax rates:
REF:
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=...
Note that the highest consistent revenue was post-war Eisenhower era when marginal tax rate was in the 90% range. Note, too, that the US population was far lower, CEO salaries were 40-70x lower, but employment was basically steady, with only brief, shallow depressons.