The Diane Rehm Show

Sorry for repeat.
“I give more credence in the Scripture as being kind of a timeless word of God to mankind, and I take it for what it is. And I don't think I give as much credence to my own mind, because I see myself as being very limited and very flawed, and lacking in knowledge, and wisdom and understanding. So, I just take the Bible for what it is, I guess, and recognize that I am not a scientist, not trained to be a scientist. I'm not a deep thinker on all of this. I wish I was.”

"If we allow businesses to be prosperous and accrue capital, they’ll be giving their employees more than they can even begin to imagine. But when we continue to tie cement blocks on businesses (like the minimum wage) and constrain them, they can actually do less than their employees."

"We’re $14 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t include the unfunded massive liabilities. That’s $107 trillion, and that’s for Social Security and Medicare and all the rest. You add up all those unfunded net liabilities, and all the traps that could go wrong we’re on the hook for, and what it means is what we have to do is a reorganization of all of that, Social Security and all....But basically what we have to do is wean everybody else off. And wean everybody off because we have to take those unfunded net liabilities off our bank sheet, we can’t do it. So we just have to be straight with people. So basically, whoever our nominee is, is going to have to have a Glenn Beck chalkboard and explain to everybody this is the way it is."

ecgberht wrote:
cicero wrote:
"If it isn't aspic it isn't Tom Gjelten. "
Whenever I hear statements like Gjelten's I just roll my eyes. The idea that NYT is in any way "less opinionated" than Fox is absolutely laughable and you state the case well, cicero. Gjelten perceives it that way because the opinion coming out of the front page of the NYT happens to agree with his.
I've cited studies here that show that empirical data on stories critical/supportive of certain candidates simply do not support his statement, and that people PERCEIVE Fox as more balanced as well.
But now for the ULTIMATE measure. What I'd really like to see is a study that polls exectutives, back office folks, and on-air talent at all the major news organizations and print media. Once the responses were aggregated, it would tell us everything we need to know. The poll would be taken on November 7th, 2012. This poll would have only one question, and that question would be, "Who'd ja vote for?", because when you clear away all the smoke and mirrors, that's where the rubber meets the road.
I would bet dollars to donuts that the numbers would show which organizations are truely "fair and balanced" and it would not be NPR and it would not be the NYT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

And Rehm didn't even attempt to disabuse Tommy about his inane observation. NPR is becoming, or has long been, MSNBC, using FOX News as their favorite piñata. This has to be a case of rampant jealousy of FNC's success.

Drew Kelly wrote:
RE: additional Bachmann quotes.
Disagreeing with someone's policy points of view does not make them a "head case".
"If we allow businesses to be prosperous and accrue capital, they’ll be giving their employees more than they can even begin to imagine. But when we continue to tie cement blocks on businesses (like the minimum wage) and constrain them, they can actually do less than their employees."
I thought the "like the minimum wage" insertion was interesting on this one, so I started looking for an orignal source of the quote. Couldn't find any reference other than left wing websites, so I have my doubts that it is true. Perhaps you can better source it? (Hint: Huffington Post does not qualify). She apparently talked about the minimum wage in that speech but did not refer to it as a "cement block". What people ACTUALLY say as opposed to what you would have LIKED them to have said so you can label them as a "head case" is important, Drew.

ECG:
Sorry Imissed your earlier quote concerning income inequality et al.

"She has also made some clearly racist remarks as well"
So you wouldn't mind directing us to those as well? I'd be curious to see what you deem as "racist".
"You’re not the only one who thinks she’s great."
I didn't say she was great. I said, I'm not even defending her. I just don't cotton to statements that "she's a head case" without substantiation. Drew, you can't just regurgitate what you read on HP or DK and expect everyone to believe it.
"By the way, do you have any thoughts concerning what history has shown concerning income inequality?"
Don't know what you think you are going to hear from me, but I will say that income inequality does and always will exist in a free society. That, by the way, is one thing that liberals will not accept. That is why they try to use the differences as a wedge to promote class warfare.

ECG:
In response to your concern about validity of Bachman’s quote, "If we allow businesses to be prosperous and accrue capital, they’ll be giving their employees more than they can even begin to imagine. But when we continue to tie cement blocks on businesses (like the minimum wage) and constrain them, they can actually do less than their employees.” it was made by her 1/26/05 testifying against a bill proposing to raise minimum wage in Minnesota, if that helps give it more context.

My comment about her being a “head case” is my opinion alone. I don’t claim to represent anyone else. If others agree great. If they don’t- great. Personally I think she represents a lot of the things wrong about the country. My opinion. Do your own research on as many biased or unbiased sites as you like. Respect my opinion or don’t- that’s up to you.

ECG:
So you feel it is coincidental 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”.
You’ve a right to your opinion.

You say that “little thing called internet” bolstered Clinton's favorable “stats”. Hard to deny “dat”.

Do you deny “ little thing called” housing/financial/credit bubble bolstered Bush’s economy.

Funny thing though- during W’s bubble we had the worst employment growth in 50+ years.
And unlike Clinton, under W, debt and deficit exploded.

Funny thing, “Dat”.

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.

cyclebear:

If you are so annoyed by conservatives, why don't you go back to Europe where you lived for 17 years?

Drew Kelly wrote:
"You’ve a right to your opinion"
Non sequitur is not "my opinion". It is a logical fallacy. Logical argument has a very strict construct. In the case of non sequitur, "coincidence does not imply causality". Here is a good discussion of non sequitur:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
I would say that the Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle would apply in this case.
By the way, I don't even accept that your premise with respect to tax rates and the economy is true. I've given you two counter examples.
There is no question that the housing/financial/credit bubble affected the Bush economy, first positively, then very negatively when it burst. Emplyment growth during the Bush years suffered because manufacturers were fleeing the country in droves.
You are absolutely correct about "debt and deficit". The Republican Congress under Gingrich did a fabulous job constraining Clinton. The Republican leadership under Bush completely failed the country. They got punished in 2006 and rightly so.

As far as a constructive suggestion goes. Well, we missed a huge opportunity in ’08. Instead of pumping taxpayer dollars into private industry, we would have been perfectly justified in nationalizing those seeking assistance, and redirecting their focus from profit to public interest. Re-hire all of G.M’s staff, for instance, re-tool production to manufacture hybrid’s and deliver them to consumers at cost, or below, if necessary. Adjust costs according to increasing demand (and there surely would be), and use the profit (revenue) to pay down the national debt. Even when delivered at or below cost, we would be 1) challenging the private automotive industry to retool and compete (at their own expense!), 2) reducing our dependency on foreign oil, or any oil, for that matter, 3) addressing the issue of climate change, 4) reducing the cost of gas to consumers (both materially, and by reducing the incidence of speculation in the market), and 5) reducing the potential for WW3, which will surely be waged on account of economic concerns, as wars, ultimately, always are. We don’t need any more public/private ventures designed to enrichen investors at taxpayers’ and consumers’ expense; we need ones that light a fire under private industry’s ass, and serve the best interests of people as wage-earners and consumers. Looks like it’s going to take national default and a lot more history to get there, though. The myth that capitalism and private industry is always superior to public industry has to be shattered; either can retard growth for different reasons. We need both, and the checks and balances entrenched in an economy that comes from both, which would ultimately render regulation redundant.

gbloper wrote:
"As far as a constructive suggestion goes. Well, we missed a huge opportunity in ’08"
So you're down with Maxine Waters then? Whatever business we don't like, we'll just nationalize them - take them from their owners?
"The myth that capitalism and private industry is always superior to public industry has to be shattered"
YOU'RE A COMMUNIST, gbloper! That's what communists do!!! Totalitarian governments FAIL, gbloper. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM! They crush innovation and incentive. And please, don't drag up China. Twenty years from now, remember that you read this from me ... China is at its peak. It is successful because the standard of living for billions of Chinese is below the poverty line compared to the U.S. and because China steals ideas and industry from the rest of the world. Once that well runs dry, what happens next?
Unbelievable that people walk around that have that little knowledge of history. Oh wait ... it's because our NATIONALIZED education system STINKS!!!

(Continued, Mr. ecberht): Communism has no monopoly on totalitarianism. In fact, it’s right-wingers and business leaders who are salivating over the Chinese model with its 9%+ growth rates, but that’s beside the point. China is a about as far from the communist ideal as it gets. It’s simply one-party rule with a name; that’s all. Your characterization of China’s “have and have not” economy is warranted, I believe, and we don’t hear enough about that (a bit over-stated; there are only 1.3 billion people in China). That’s unregulated capitalism you’re looking at; not communism. Totalitarian state capitalism is a better description of the Chinese economy. There are other issues to consider besides growth, like quality of life, for instance. Politicians and political parties change or sell out, regardless of name or ideological base. I just look at what works, and weigh proposals and arguments on their own merits, rather than any preconceived notions. There is a lot of arguing at cross purposes in these debates. I said in my opening that government is the problem to the extent that, . . etc. Either/or is much too simple, and allows for the sort of divide and rule politics that allows crony capitalist criminals to continue with their plundering of the Treasury. We already have a good example of what works in the Scandinavian economies, and they aren’t considered radical by any standards, other than American, perhaps.