News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-07-29/news-roundup-hour-1
A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page for analysis of the week's top national news stories: The U.S. House of Representatives did not vote on a two-step plan by House Speaker John Boehner Thursday that would have raised the debt ceiling and cut spending, while Senate majority leader Harry Reid predicted the Senate wouldn't pass the bill and President Obama said he would veto it. Congress is facing an Aug. 2 deadline to avoid a first-ever default on U.S. obligations. The debt ceiling stalemate threatened to stall an already struggling U.S. economy, which grew just 1.3% in the second quarter; and GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry rose to second in a new Gallup Poll.
Guests
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter, The Washington Post.
David Leonhardt
incoming Washington bureau chief, The New York Times.
Jeanne Cummings
deputy government editor, Bloomberg News.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Hainc wrote: “Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the rich guy. Free lunch served. So easy and feels so good”
“All taxes bad”- so easy and feels so good.
Unfortunately this statement has the same disconnection with reality as previous “deficit doesn’t matter” policies of previous administration;
especially if you have any desire to confront nation’s debt issues.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Intent of my slavery and suffrage remark earlier was only that just as constitution did not make reference to those departments you listed, it also did not address slavery or suffrage."
And the intent of pointing you to article 5 was to show you how the Constitution may be ammended! So the fact that the original document did not address slavery or suffrage is completely irrelevant. These elements were corrected by the ammendment process. The Constitution was made to be HARD TO CHANGE. It was also made a touchstone for law at the Federal Level. You're right, the Constitution did not mention these departments - or ANY department, and it doesn't to this day. Certain departments were formed to satisfy the need of Congress to fulfil its duties under Article 1, Section 8. These are, for example, the mint, the post office, the office of patents, DOD, and the like. I'm still waiting for you to show me, however, under the Constitution, how you justify:
Department of Education
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of HHS
Department of HUD
Let's see. On Tuesday, TDRS folks couldn't wait to connect The Norwegian Kipper mass murderer to the Tea Party, when there is no connection, and describe him as a Christian, which he isn't. But when Susan Paige mentions the arrest of Pfc. Naser Abdo at Ft. Hood for planning an attack similar to his fellow Muslim, Major Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people, there is no mention by anyone on the show of him being a Muslim.
"Pfc. Naser Abdo, a 21-year-old soldier who was granted conscientious objector status this year after he said his Muslim beliefs prevented him from fighting, was arrested Wednesday. Agents found firearms and “items that could be identified as bomb-making components, including gunpowder,” in his motel room, according to FBI spokesman Erik Vasys."
ECG
Appreciate your efforts to help enlighten me as to the workings of our constitution and will make an effort to explore this pursuit further and in the directions you suggest. Need now reenter the real world.
Later.
Looks like someone is putting up the same posts everyday, not only are you wrong it's quite boring.
Monte:
The truth is not always that exciting.
You want Faux "News" infotainment and distortions., Fox is only a click away 24/7
Low orbit ion cannons ready...
A n L correct. IT does burn purtty.
Moral turpitude and fears of where the wealthy can hide-er- save their money and enjoy IT.
Poor babies running out of countries to exploit.
And that is just our politicians.
New politicians- just like the olde politicians.
FIRE !
(We may miss the Missus- even thou she helped get my friend killed).
Proceed with evil plan of sticking IT to the commies- er- Chinese capitalists. (Sorry China- we might pay you pennies on 'your' dollars). Of course there will be acceptable collateral damages- only poor Americans so not any meaningful cost. Will make country richer in long run.
Should just delete and save you the trouble...
Why does stating the obvious that resistance to Obama is based on his color NOT his politics? Too controversial to air or discuss?
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
"Why does stating the obvious that resistance to Obama is based on his color NOT his politics"
It is true that being black and coming from Chicago can certainly shape a person into an unlikable political figure. I suppose there could be room for both, total disgust with his politics and dislike for his racial identity. You could also say that racial identity shapes a persons politics in a certain direction, in the case of most black people that is obviously the case. When black voters vote for a candidate because of skin color like in 2008 you definitely see racism at work. You need to remove your head from your buttocks.
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
"Why does stating the obvious that resistance to Obama is based on his color NOT his politics? Too controversial to air or discuss?"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Are you really Sheila Jackson Lee? She made the same benighted statement. The comment isn't too controversial to air or discuss, but those embracing this notion are SOS, i.e. stuck on stupid.
To "Drew Kelly",
Your efforts to engage with and enlighten some of the regular conservative posters here are admirable - but futile.
In the dull-witted, nuance-free worldview of too many in the current US "right wing", anyone less conservative than George Will might as well be a Bolshevik, ready to surrender their property and savings to the government so they can live in a farming collective.
A reactionary zealot like Grover Norquist is viewed through their skewed filter as merely a "mainstream" conservative.
The "law of diminishing returns" is pure fantasy for them; if a billionaire wants a 200-foot yacht (or two), that mere desire makes it as essential a right/need of their existence as a car for me - or a bus ride for someone who can't afford a vehicle. Any notion of tax system that denies, or even delays, the acquistion of the wealthiest 5%'s "wish lists" of extraneous desires - even to address critical needs of our society at large - is heresy.
Many of them also worship "The Framers" as if they were prescient "supermen", whose 18th-century, agrarian perspective of a sparsely-populated land gave them sufficient foresight to provide all the rules we need for living in a 21st-century, post-industrial nation of 300 million.
Engage with these binary-thinking dogmatists to your content, but you may as well try having a rational discussion with the tribal elders of a remote Afghan village regarding a woman's right to self-determination.
Is the debt impasse hurting America's image? Absolutely yes. It looks like a symptom of a declining superpower. And a very public demonstration of nonexceptionalism of very very ordinary politicians. Why would any other polity want to follow the US model?
DrewKelly wrote:
"You want Faux "News" infotainment and distortions., "
So you're back, DrewKelly. Great. Will you answer my question now?
"Your efforts to engage with and enlighten some of the regular conservative posters here are admirable - but futile"
Ah... fresh meat! Ok, Mr. Liberal, let's go. I'll skip all the ad hominem (90% of your post) and get right to the nub.
"Many of them also worship "The Framers" as if they were prescient "supermen", whose 18th-century, agrarian perspective of a sparsely-populated land gave them sufficient foresight to provide all the rules we need for living in a 21st-century, post-industrial nation of 300 million."
Many progressives don't respect the framers. I get that. You don't like the Constitution? Fine. Try to change it. But it's the one we've got. The fact that Article 5 exists, says that even THE FRAMERS didn't think they had "sufficient foresight to provide all the rules we need for living in a 21st-century, post-industrial nation of 300 million", so your straw man argument is moot.
Now, given that, and since I'm a "binary thinker" and "dull witted", this one should be easy for you. Answer this simple question... (hint: it will require you to actually READ the document)
Under the Constitution, how do you justify:
Department of Education
Department of Agriculture
Department of Labor
Department of Energy
Department of HHS
Department of HUD
ecgberht, Between you Cicero and Meangreen it's always good to know we got a man on the job, no one here is going to get away with what passes for liberal intellectualism. Poor Drew is stuck in some sort of repeating time warp. I'll bet right now he is throwing darts at Ronnie.
This debt debate isn’t just a showdown between Republicans and Democrats; this is a showdown between Wall Street (Republicans’ primary base) and democracies the world over. Notice how Standard and Poor’s has issued their hypocritical warning about it (after distributing triple-A-rated garbage around the world), along with Bank of America and Wells Fargo, etc., with their joint letter to Washington warning of the serious consequences if it doesn’t get its house in order. It’s important, you see, for all blame to rest with “government,” and with governments in general, so that banks and the financial industries can maintain their image of “the fiscally responsible option” to governments. God help them when the public at large begins to learn that it’s the shadow banking system, with its $600 trillion global derivatives market, and its proponents’ mantra of deregulation and privatization that are, in fact, to blame. They would never be able to financially rationalize this astronomical number on the backs of Social Security recipients if that were the case. Better to demonize “entitlement programs” and occupy people’s interest with the $14 trillion PUBLIC debt, knowing that default is inevitable anyway, and that they and their crony capitalist cohorts in Congress might be deservedly blamed for it.
In this way, our debt priorities may be established by . . . what did Jeanne Cummings say in this broadcast? Treasury? Timothy Geithner? That’s the first time I’ve heard that. I don’t think so. We’ll immediately fire him and replace him with Elliot Spitzer. Here’s the plan, in the event of default: equities traders and all private and institutional investors will be the FIRST to go. We’ll put a moratorium on the interest paid on the national debt (with special status for those investors who continue to buy bonds); S.S. and Medicare, as separate trusts, will continute to be paid, but ALL private pension funds, IRAs and 401ks (buried in synthetic CDOs) will immediately cease to pay out or have value; ALL defense spending will immediately end (including procurement), ALL congressional salaries and benefits will be cut in half, with personal assets frozen to satisfy our “debt crisis” obligations (including all former members of Congress). Furthermore, the Federal Reserve will cease to be a private institution, and its priorities redefined to serve the people of the United States of America, rather private investors and world markets. The major oil companies will be half-nationalized, using the Canadian model in the creation of Petro-Canada in the 70’s (which has since been privatized, but it’s the thought, threat, and power to do so that counts). This should be publicly announced today, before the default date.
Drew stated
"Where were the conservatives during W years - we had a booming economy and still they chose not to balance budget and to explode debt and deficit. Where was the outrage then? Where was the fiscal responsibility when W raised debt ceiling 7 times and Ronnie 17 times?"
Hold on Drew.
You made previous posts that during W years it was the worse economy. Remember when you mentioned a few weeks ago that Clinton had created 22 million jobs.
So what is it Drew? Was W's time in office a period of a booming economy or not?
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
"Kill newspapers, 'filter' internet, eliminate post office- almost there. Curious that the 'constitutionists' want to eliminate the postal service and 'return' to the Constitution"
Don't know what the "constiutionists" are saying. But when you are looking at a 7 biillion dollar deficit in the Postal Service Budget, I would think something would need to be done to stop the bleeding.
mmc wrote:
"1. reverse bush era tax cuts"
Why reverse tax cut for the middle class? I am far from rich and I got more under Bush's era plan then under Clinton. I will probably have to give all back and alot more due to Obama.
monte wrote:
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
"Why does stating the obvious that resistance to Obama is based on his color NOT his politics"
It is true that being black and coming from Chicago can certainly shape a person into an unlikable political figure. I suppose there could be room for both, total disgust with his politics and dislike for his racial identity. You could also say that racial identity shapes a persons politics in a certain direction, in the case of most black people that is obviously the case. When black voters vote for a candidate because of skin color like in 2008 you definitely see racism at work. You need to remove your head from your buttocks
Monte:
Great Post, I could not of said it any better.
Why are Democrats the party of "no," unwilling to negotiate?