Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-22/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
A panel of journalists joins Diane to talk about the week's top stories: President Obama praised a bi-partisan deficit plan from the Senate's "Gang of Six," while House Republicans passed its own debt reduction bill, and debt ceiling negotiations continued to stall; the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau opened this week without Elizabeth Warren, and NewsCorp struggled to contain the fallout from its phone-hacking scandal.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent, The New York Times.
Reid Wilson
editor-in-chief of National Journal Hotline.
Friday News Roundup Video
Diane asks the panelists who in Washington they think is truly thinking of the best interests of Americans amid the bitter debt ceiling and deficit debates of the past few months:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The rate per day that our country adds on to the national dept. Hope and change is hard at work I see.
Clinton 547 million a day, Bush 1.6 billion a day, Obama 4.1 billion a day
Grover Norquist has power over the Republican party that is unparalleled in history. He wants a government small enough to drown in a bathtub. Actually, I know where such a paradise exists today! And I'll buy Grover a one way ticket so he can go see the nirvana he seeks. Where is this no tax, small government slice of heaven? How about Somalia?
Last Friday I heard Obama speech live where he wants to elimanate Tax Credits for Corporative Jet buyers and oil companies.
This man has no understanding how many workers it takes to make private jets. I have been to some of these manufacturing plants and it takes many skilled worker to build these private planes, it is not the Wright Brothers plane.
Does Obama realize that not every hole drilled in an oil area is productive? That it takes much investment in equipment and crews working to look for oil. How about the small driller and oil company, elimanating these loop holes will result in lost jobs and tax revenues from the employees hired by these small companies?
But then this is a guy who has never run a for profit business or understands how it works. It takes experience and he does not have it,
I get a kick out of Monte and MeanGreen. They're ALWAYS in here spewing their fear-driven, angry rhetoric. Long on anger, short on solutions, and totally lacking context. It's like being in a room where the adults are trying to have a constructive conversation and the teenagers keep butting in with their limited world view and unlimited attitude. We get your point ... Obama sucks, government sucks, business is good. Now stop whining, go to your room, and come back when you have something constructive to say!
$4T in spending cuts over 10-years is not going to be enough when annual deficits are approaching $2T. We need bigger spending cuts and better priorities. We need to let people keep more of the money they earn so they can spend it in the most efficient way for them. We don't need government playing the middle man, confiscating more of their hard earned dollars and spending it in ways that benefit politicians politically.
.
Please discuss ALEC - the AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL -the members-only gatherings through which corporations are meeting with state lawmakers to write the bills they want passed, recently exposed by the Center for Media and Democracy.
I'm afraid this extremely important documentation of the inhumane laws being passed on the state level, and the money and power behind them, is being missed amidst the NewsCorp and debt ceiling talk. The public needs to know their legislators are "drinking the Kool-Aid".
P.S. It's worth noting that in Terry Gross's interview with ALEC's National Chairman, Noble Ellington, his first example of how the public is represented at these meetings was AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM, Grover Norquist's group. There he is again.
dremillard wrote:
I get a kick out of Monte and MeanGreen. They're ALWAYS in here spewing their fear-driven, angry rhetoric. Long on anger, short on solutions ...
I read your post 3 times. I didn't see one single hint at anything that looked like a solution. Pot, meet kettle ...
hainc wrote:
"$4T in spending cuts over 10-years is not going to be enough when annual deficits are approaching $2T. We need bigger spending cuts and better priorities. We need to let people keep more of the money they earn so they can spend it in the most efficient way for them. We don't need government playing the middle man, confiscating more of their hard earned dollars and spending it in ways that benefit politicians politically".
Well stated, hainc. We already have a very progressive tax system. The Federal Government has enough money to do its constitutional duty, what it doesn't have is enough money to prop up our social programs. Those programs give money to individual citizens in one way or another. So when you raise taxes to support those programs, what you are talking about is simple wealth redistribution, nothing more. That's not fair. It's what they do in ... sorry to say it ... socialist countries. That's just a fact.
My bottom line is this; the Federal Government has enough money.
It's all a question of how it is spent. Our biggest problem is the FG's fingers in places where they don't belong. Every time they stick another finger in, it costs money. Tax rates SHOULD be low. More money in peoples' pockets spurs economic growth. That's just a fact. And don't tell me then that business taxes should be raised. Businesses don't pay taxes, people do. When businesses get hit with taxes they either move over seas or raise prices. They do not pay the taxes themselves. Doesn't sound right maybe, but that's reality.
Ah yes, when you can't refute - use insults and name-calling! Tried and true tactic of the typical liberal know-it-all. We get it, you're just simply smarter than those that don't share your opinion, right?
In Canada the banks are highly regulated and they went through this last crisis as well as any country in the world. I find the republicans very irresponsible by continuing calling for deregulation. And not wanting a consumer protection agency should tell all Americans that the GOP doesn't really care about working families.
Why can't Eliz. Warren stay until they confirm Cordray (or someone else)? Might give them the impetus to confirm someone.
We all know about the "solutions" coming out of the house, the Ryan plan and now the "cut, cap and balance" bill. Why is the later not being discussed on this show today, it passed the house this past Tuesday for pete sake! These are real solutions to major problems. If burring your head in your butt is the adult thing to do then I would rather be a child.
I've been hoping all along that on the debt ceiling issue, the Republicans' big donors would lay down the law and let them know that funding would dry up if they didn't increase the ceiling. But I'm concerned about one thing that came up recently. How many people have credit default swaps based on the U.S. defaulting on the debt? We know Eric Cantor does, but who else?
To understand how we got to this point, please google "starve the beast." This "crisis" is what the Republicans have been working toward since the Reagan era, when the debt was tripled in 8 years. It explains why George Bush was so terrified of the surpluses that were created under Clinton, and why he presided over a doubling of the debt. They believe that it's the only way to convince the public to scuttle Social Security and Medicare.
I often wonder why shows like this, Meet the Press, Fox News and others bother with the Republican/conservative side when they could just get a tape recording of any one of them and play the tape when it's that side's turn to respond. The anwers are all the same, never apply to the question asked, etc.
I reiterate a previous commentor's suggestion that this panel must discuss ALEC and the corrupting influence it has on the destruction of all programs supporting the common good. I am disapointed at this soft, superficial discussion.
Also, Michelle Bachman's religion is not the issue with "liberals". The inacurate comment by the NYT commentor that states that "liberals" are afraid of her christianity is FALSE. As a liberal and a practicing Catholic, I find her policies that target the poor, support only the rich, genuinely anti-christian. Where does she get her money for such high profile publicity?
I have heard that her religion also considers the Catholic Pope the anti-christ. Please expand this discussion.
Why don't we just have term limits for all political offices. This would free them all up to hopefullly apply common sense and do the right thing.
Robin Shoulders wrote:
"In Canada the banks are highly regulated and they went through this last crisis as well as any country in the world. I find the republicans very irresponsible by continuing calling for deregulation."
That's not true in respect to the fact that Canadian banks are no more heavily regulated than U.S. banks, they're just regulated differently. What saved Canada is their banking is based on the "big bank" model - they have just a few very big banks. The U.S. has a few big banks too, but we also have many small banks too and that's where the risk was 3 years ago.
This difference allowed the Canadian financial system to survive the recent unpleasantness much better. Here's a good article on the subject:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/columns/jim-gallagher/article_c5fa534f-...
Oh ... and the fact that they aren't in debt up to their eyeballs.
Why do people like Mr./Ms. ecgberht insist that cuts must be made from social programs. If we pulled our national defense back within our borders like virtually ever other nation in the world and cut back on relatively useless defense items like the next generation fighter jets that can be replaced by drones costing a fraction , we could cut the defense budget by $300 billion or so. Why should we pay for Europe's defense against the Russians who are not much of a threat instead of paying the medical bills of our own citizens?
Why shouldn't there be a $2 trillion tax increase over the next ten years to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars?
"I get a kick out of Monte and MeanGreen."
Yeah, I see their name, and just skip over their messages because it's always the same old thing. People shouldn't even respond because you're not supposed to feed the trolls.
Ecgberht: Yes, the fools of conservatism rear their ugly heads each day. And the one thing they will never understand is: They are wrong.
Conservatism is a toxic theory of failure and turns to rust everything it touches, to the detriment of all.
accountant wrote:
"Why do people like Mr./Ms. ecgberht insist that cuts must be made from social programs."
Becaue "social programs" are not the Federal Government's job. "Social programs" are simply a way to redistribute wealth through the tax system. There is no Constitutional provision for the FG to distribute money to any individual citizen.
"If we pulled our national defense back within our borders like virtually ever other nation in the world and cut back on relatively useless defense items like the next generation fighter jets that can be replaced by drones costing a fraction , we could cut the defense budget by $300 billion or so. Why should we pay for Europe's defense against the Russians who are not much of a threat"
I agree completely. There is a lot of waste in Defense. It should be scrutinized and it never is. But the savings should be returned to the taxpayers, not redistributed to other people.
"instead of paying the medical bills of our own citizens?"
Because "paying the medical bills of our own citizens" is not the Federal Government's job either.
"Why shouldn't there be a $2 trillion tax increase over the next ten years to pay for the Iraq and Afghan wars"?
Because that would be approximately twice the actual cost. By comparison, WWII in today's dollars cost about 3.5T. Perhaps we should have skipped that one too.
cyclebear wrote:
"Ecgberht: Yes, the fools of conservatism rear their ugly heads each day. And the one thing they will never understand is: They are wrong. Conservatism is a toxic theory of failure and turns to rust everything it touches, to the detriment of all".
Was there a point in there or just invective against conservatives like myself.
I can as easily say, the fools of liberalism rear their ugly heads each day. And the one thing they will never understand is: They are wrong. Liberalism (aka progressivism) is a toxic theory of failure and turns to rust everything it touches, to the detriment of all.
Now, what did that prove? Your problem is, you hate Conservatism and you have no idea why, except that someone, at some point, told you to.
I, on the other hand, know what I believe and why I believe it.
Hainc and Ecgbert wrote: stuff related to their views of “Starving beast”, letting people keep more of their earnings so they can spend efficiently, etc.
Hey everbody’s got a right there views, and I‘m not responding just to stick a finger in their eye or something. I only suggest they consider the following facts:
History has shown that when wealthiest are taxed the least (like before Depression) and income disparity between wealthy and middle class is greatest (i.e. consumers can’t consume), is when economy tends to implode. And that when taxes on those at the top is greater, and income disparity between wealthy and middle class is not as great, economy has flourished and unemployment low.
And that when adequate regulations are in place that somewhat protect the consumer, America as a whole seems to fare some better.
Yet GOP position seems to be all about recreating all the same conditions that existed just before Great Depression. Maybe there’s no connection, but I believe there’s cause for concern.
If it’s indeed true as polls suggest that over 70% of Americans (including majority of Reps), believe the wealthy should shoulder a greater tax burden, why is it that NPR & media outlets seldom seem to see that this view is adequately represented (maybe say ½ the time might be about right?). (Although I thought DR did do a great job Wednesday).
Concerning Bachmann. I think she’s a complete headcase- all you have to do is go back and look back at some of her statements to confirm this.
To see the support she has received seems a bit frightening since she seems to want to lead us courageously into the 17th century.
Edith Bunker would be much more viable American President, because she seemed to possess a modest level of compassion.
-Just my opinion.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"History has shown that when wealthiest are taxed the least (like before Depression) and income disparity between wealthy and middle class is greatest (i.e. consumers can’t consume), is when economy tends to implode. "
That is the fallacy of "non sequitur", i.e. Does not follow. Coincidence does not imply causality. Read history. It was the policies of Woodrow Wilson that brought on the Great Depression, not low tax rates for the rich.
Liberals like to point to the 90's as one of the most prosperous periods in American history. True dat. Of course they also like to give Clinton all the credit and I won't get into the Republican Congress, Contract w/America and all that. But Tax rates were at their lowest in DECADES. A little thing called the Internet brought exponential growth in wealth. Top marginal tax rates in the 70's were some of the highest in history, yet Carter's economy was a disaster.
Coincidence does not imply causality and the statement "History has shown that when wealthiest are taxed the least and income disparity between wealthy and middle class is greatest, is when economy tends to implode. And that when taxes on those at the top is greater, and income disparity between wealthy and middle class is not as great, economy has flourished and unemployment low" is false. The facts just don't bear the statement out.
If it isn't aspic it isn't Tom Gjelten.
"Both the New York Times and NPR are less opinionated in their approach to news coverage than FOX generally." TG
What is Tommy talking about? FOX News has news reporters and news anchors and they have pundits as well. The New York Times has op-ed writers. Since Pinch Sulzberger has taken over the NYT, the difference between the front page and op-ed page has become blurred. Surely Tommy is being whimsical in this comment since he himself is a perfect example of a an NPR news correspondent giving...wait for it....his opinion.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Concerning Bachmann. I think she’s a complete headcase"
Care to pad that with some facts? You say, "look back at some of her statements", yet you don't quote any.
You say, "she seems to want to lead us courageously into the 17th century", but don't offer one single iota of support for that statement.
"Edith Bunker would be much more viable American President". Lovely. Edith Bunker was a fictional TV character.
I'm not even here to defend Bachmann to be truthful. I want somebody who can beat Obama. I don't think she can.
"Just my opinion". True dat. But it will carry a lot more weight if you bring some facts to the discussion. Otherwise, it's like my Granny always said, "Opinions are like a$$holes ... everybody's got one".
To Ecgbert:
"He may be flip-flopping now, but make no mistake about it; Mitt Romney has a history of successful healthcare reform, supporting women’s health through Planned Parenthood, and petting homeless puppies before tying pretty rainbow ribbons on their heads. That’s a track record of love and affection that he’ll have to deal with if he wants to win the nomination."
“There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass."
"Last Friday a couple from Hawaii…. brought me this beautiful, precious lei and I’m reminded that the one who created this lei also created our freedom.”
2009 speech in Boston, MA- "American teachers on average are no better than terrorists. They’re both out to destroy traditional American ideals."
To Ecgbert:
"He may be flip-flopping now, but make no mistake about it; Mitt Romney has a history of successful healthcare reform, supporting women’s health through Planned Parenthood, and petting homeless puppies before tying pretty rainbow ribbons on their heads. That’s a track record of love and affection that he’ll have to deal with if he wants to win the nomination."
“There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design."
“This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass."
"Last Friday a couple from Hawaii…. brought me this beautiful, precious lei and I’m reminded that the one who created this lei also created our freedom.”
2009 speech in Boston, MA- "American teachers on average are no better than terrorists. They’re both out to destroy traditional American ideals."