America Weighs in on Washington
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-01/america-weighs-washington
Congress held the nation in a state of anxiety for weeks as lawmakers battled over whether to raise the debt ceiling. Yesterday congressional leaders agreed to the outlines of a plan. It calls for cutting more than $2 trillion in federal spending over a decade. It would establish a new congressional committee on deficit reduction. And it would raise the debt ceiling in two steps. A vote on the measure is expected today, but uncertainty still surrounds its passage. Today Diane wants to hear your thoughts on what's going on in Washington. We'll have a brief update on the deal from NPR's Washington editor, then we'll open the phones.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The caller, Eric, reveals himself to be a Tea Bagger extremist even as he denies being one. To compare the passage of the Patient Protection Act to this mess, to embrace Ron Paul’s view that any increase in the debt ceiling is a “compromise”, is the most extreme view imaginable.
He forgets that the Democratic Party was overwhelmingly elected in 2008 on the promise of health care reform. What was the result? Obama received over 53% of the popular vote, and over 68% of the electoral vote. Democrats (together with Independent) had 60% of the Senate and almost 59% of the House. I’d call that a mandate to act on health care reform.
In contrast, what did the Republicans and Tea Baggers run on? A promise to create jobs. What was the result? Obama is still President. The Democrats are still the majority in the Senate. The Republicans hold 55% of the House. And the Tea Baggers, the so-called “freshmen” members of the House, constitute about 87 members, a mere 20%. I’d call that a mandate for what? Destroying the country unless they get their way?
Since when does 20% of one House of one branch of government get to dictate to the rest of us? That’s tyranny!
(And, of course, I see no job “creation”.)
As for the Tea Baggers’ version of “compromise”, here’s a “modest proposal” (a question really): Suppose we kidnap the children of every member of Congress, and threaten to kill them unless it raises the debt ceiling, eliminates their salaries and benefits, reverses both the Bush and Reagan tax cuts - would you call it a “compromise” if we agreed to forego the tax cuts? I don’t think so.
This “compromise” was achieved through extortion by the Tea Baggers, it should be utterly rejected!
Two points about the lunatic first Comment posted here (by monte, of course):
1) Notice he sent it yesterday before this program even aired. Nothing like an informed Comment relevant to the content of the show. But then, one never expects either relevance, informed commentary, or rationality from him!
2) He demonstrates what should properly be called mindless anti-Communism (as distinct from the intelligent version). Note that of his “ten points” only the last is even remotely in existence in this country, much less called for by either Democrats or Republicans. An old joke asks: “If Stalin were against the bubonic plague, would you be for it?” In monte’s case the answer is obviously yes! (I’m surprised he hasn’t denounced Churchill as a “commie”. After all, the guy allied himself with Stalin!)
By the way, monte, in this country free public education began in 1634, that’s over two centuries before The Communist Manifesto. Gee, you don’t think Marx got the idea from the “socialist” U.S.?
monte is a perfect example of a Tea Bagger. He has no idea what he’s talking about, but is arrogantly assured of his infallibility. Their actions are a case of “the blind” leading the rest of us into a ditch!
P.S. - Intelligent anti-Communism consists of first knowing the philosophy, understanding why it doesn’t work, and recognizing that just because it may embrace an idea doesn’t mean the idea itself is bad (vaccination against the plague, for example).
P.P.S. - Oh, and monte, care to quote to us the provisions of the U.S. Constitution you claim forbid “Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor. . . .”? (And while you're at it, please explain why these are bad ideas?)
The point is, it's naive to believe that a company will hire a new employee if they can make a profit on that hire. Big businesses require a lot more than that before they make the decision to hire.
Hey strudel,
Just so you know, I've started glancing through your posts for the word "Tea Bagger" and when I see it, I mark Flag as Offensive and move on. Hope others will do the same.
accountant wrote:
"The point is, it's naive to believe that a company will hire a new employee if they can make a profit on that hire. Big businesses require a lot more than that before they make the decision to hire."
OK, then, I think I had it about right. You think they're doing it "wrong" (whatever that means). You don't like how they run their businesses (completely within the law by the way). You can have that opinion if you like. So what?
Etaoin Shrdlu-
One other point. Many people confuse the oligarchy/dictatorships that were created in the name of communism but never operated or tried to operate as such.
One of the last callers (Mark) made the false claim that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts did wonders for the economy - the argument being that cutting taxes is the only way to go. (“We were in a recession . . . after 9/11. We got out of it so quick because Bush and the Congress cut taxes.”) Better check the facts. Bush’s first tax cuts were enacted in June of 2001 (before 9/11). Unemployment rose over the next two years. Reagan signed his tax cuts in August of 1981. In 17 months thereafter unemployment rose to a high of 10.8% (much worse than now, and the highest we’ve had since 1948). Yup, those tax cuts were pure “magic”!
(By the way, Reagan signed a tax increase in April of 1983 - which didn’t do any noticeable harm to the employment rate. In fact, that rate declined throughout the rest of his Administration. So much for tax increases always being “job killers”.)
P.S. - If anyone wants to claim things got better after those dates, please remember these are figures from Bush and Reagan’s first two and half years in office - exactly where Obama is now. If you want to compare their entire eight year terms, then you must first give Obama “four more years”.
Oh, and my sources include: The World Almanac for 2010 pages 17 and 492, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000).
Even David Stockman, the man who helped Reagan push “supply-side economics”, with its mantra that cutting taxes is always good, now admits that our current problems are the product of both Republican and Democratic Administrations:
“It's a crisis of politics, but also it's a crisis of 30 years worth of, you know, extend and pretend, sweeping the problem under the rug and believing that whenever it's convenient we just get out the national credit card and borrow some more money.”
- Debt Crisis Was Long In Coming, Ex-Reagan Aide Says http://www.npr.org/2011/07/30/138849221/debt-crisis-was-long-in-coming-e... (emphasis added)
Both Reagan and Bush charged the national credit card “to the max”, with Republicans cheering them on. It’s only bad when Democrats do it (you know, for silly things like rebuilding our infrastructure to keep bridges from collapsing, or making sure people don’t starve to death, instead of for important things like tax cuts for the wealthiest, illegal wars in Central America, or unneeded wars in Iraq).
He also states that “We are raising 14 percent of GDP in taxes, the lowest since 1948.” Clearly we are not being “taxed to death”.
Ciao!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote, "He forgets that the Democratic Party was overwhelmingly elected in 2008 on the promise of health care reform. What was the result? Obama received over 53% of the popular vote, and over 68% of the electoral vote. Democrats (together with Independent) had 60% of the Senate and almost 59% of the House. I’d call that a mandate to act on health care reform".
This is ridiculous, Obama was elected because he was perceived to be the exact opposite of Bush, very few examined his agenda or voting record. Others voted for him to make a fashion statement about racial tolerance, end of story. Same goes for the houses of Congress, anything other than sitting republicans were seen as an improvement. The only mandate that could be taken from 2008 election would be if you screw up big time your out!
As far as public schools, as a whole they scrape by with barely acceptable results at three times the cost of private schools. I did not say public schools were unconstitutional? Although we do need a constitutional amendment or laws to get unions out of public service jobs.
ecgberht on August 1, 2011@ 1:58 pm wrote: : Hey strudel, Just so you know, I've started glancing through your posts for the word "Tea Bagger" and when I see it, I mark Flag as Offensive and move on. Hope others will do the same."
Dear eggbert:
Spoken like a true member of that group, the only way you can "win" an argument is by suppressing other points of view. Fortunately, I won't descend to your tactics.
To the final caller:
Ike proved you wrong in the 50s! - He still holds the record for highest consistent government revenues!
fyi
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?year=1950_2010&view=...
"the only way you can "win" an argument is by suppressing other points of view."
"Tea Bagger" is not a "point of view". It's an offensive sexual term and you know it. And don't give me your lame explanation for that, "Republi-Con" or any of the other subtle insults you throw at people with whom you disagree. It's pathetic.
monte, like beating your head against the wall? That's what trying to argue with Etaoin Strdlu. He is also really not an honest broker. A dishonest broker only gives you half the story. For example, he says that "Reagan raised taxes" (true), but "forgets" to mention that Reagan was a NET tax cutter. He talks about spending under Reagan and Bush, but "forgets" things like this little statistic:
Average spending per day under Bush - 1.6B
Average spending per day under Obama - 4.3B
'nuff said.
monte on August 1, 2011 @ 2:49 pm wrote: “This is ridiculous, Obama was elected because he was perceived to be the exact opposite of Bush. . . .”
Partly true, but (as usual) irrelevant. President’s get elected for a variety of reasons. (Obama also got elected because the alternative, McCain, proved himself a dismal choice.) But the caller I was responding to claimed the Tea Baggers won the last election on the promise to do what they’re doing now, so I contrasted their actual “win” (about 87 new seats) based on what the Republicans promised (jobs), with the Democratic win in 2008. The Democrats won “big”, and kept their promise on health care reform (whether or not you like how they did it). The Tea Baggers won “small”, and haven’t kept any promise - except the unspoken promise to blow everything up.
Spin as much as you want, monte, there’s no getting away from the fact that the Tea Baggers are acting like a gang of extortionists and tyrants.
“As far as public schools, as a whole they scrape by with barely acceptable results at three times the cost of private schools. I did not say public schools were unconstitutional?”
- Funny, when you consider the fact that the vast majority of my generation was educated in public schools. Either they must be doing a better job than you suppose, or . . . . Oh, and how about some proof for your assertions?
Fine, you don’t think public schools are unconstitutional. Since that’s from item 10 of your original list, and the rest of the items haven’t been adopted in this country. I guess that just leaves ending child factory labor as something you find “communist” and unconstitutional. Again, care to tell me which part of the Constitution does that?
While you’re at it, how about dealing with the totality of what I write, instead of (as usual) taking isolate portions out-of-context as a launching pad for further nonsense?
"As for insults (subtle or otherwise). Maybe the rest of us should “flag as offensive” every conservative who comes here and accuses Democrats of running a “ponzi scheme” (which is a crime you know), or who talks about people who need social programs as “parasites” (and other charming terms), or who keeps using the term “Democrat Party” instead of Democratic Party (the correct name), or . . . . "
No ... if I wanted to express the equivalent of "Tea Bagger", I'd use the term "f'ing Democrat Party". Get it?
"They tend to be the true Socialists and Communists - a distinction you are incapable of seeing, since you and other conservatives hurl those terms indiscriminately."
Really? Then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing to a SINGLE example where I have used those terms in any incorrect or accusatory fashion. Go ahead, plug into the Search box. It's easy. Show it ... or SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE. By the way, this isn't the first time you've made that accusation with NO FACTS ON YOUR SIDE.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. You're nothing more than a bloviator. You shoot your mouth off with NO FACTS to back you up, or with HALF TRUTHS, and DISTORTIONS offered as fact.
I don't know why I waste my time.
ecgberht on August 1, 2011@ 3:12 pm wrote: “He is also really not an honest broker.”
Okay, just one more.
We agree on one thing: telling a half-truth is dishonest, and you are the master of that tactic.
My point about Reagan and taxes was not to deny that he cut them. (I mentioned that too, or did you conveniently “forget”?) I was contrasting the “miracle” that ensued when he cut taxes (unemployment rose) with the “tragedy” that took place when he raised them (unemployment declined). And I did this responding to the caller (Mark’s ) simplistic claim that cutting taxes is what improves employment. (Economics is far more complex.) Taking things “out-of-context” is another dishonest tactic you continuously employ.
(For anyone interested in what I actually said, please re-read my entire Comment of August 1, 2011 @ 2:31 pm, particularly the part about how we should only compare Obama’s record for his two and a half years with Reagan and Bush’s records for their first 2.5 years, not their entire 8 years, since he’s only served 2.5 years. Another thing “eggie” forgot to mention.)
As for spending, I simply quoted and commented on what David Stockman said. Deficit spending has been going on for 30 years. It went on under both Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. (Except for those surpluses in 1998 through 2001. In fact, before then the last time we had a surplus was 1969. Oh, and those deficits started to go down in 1993.)
The point, of course, was that the tax cut philosophy of “voodoo economics” played a big part in our deficit problems. Our current deficits, and the policies that produced them, didn’t “spring into being” on January 20, 2009! You got a problem with that “whole truth”, eggie? Take it up with Stockman, and history.
(And The World Almanac for 2010, page 63.)
Now, I really, really must be going.
Ciao!
"As for spending, I simply quoted and commented on what David Stockman said. Deficit spending has been going on for 30 years. It went on under both Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. "
But not under Obama, Mr. "half truth"? You know, the one who TREBLED the Bush rate?
"Economics is far more complex."
So, economics is complex, except under Reagan? That there was a direct result of his tax policy immediately reflected in employment numbers and it, of course, had NOTHING to do with what Carter left him?!
Buy a clue, strudel. Major changes in tax policy can take a decade to show themselves - you know, like the Reagan tax cuts did for the Clinton administration ... oh, and a little thing called "the Internet" that everyone on the left "forgets" to mention ... oh, and another little thing like a "Republican Congress" for the first time in 55 years.
"For anyone interested in what I actually said, please re-read my entire Comment of August 1, 2011 @ 2:31 pm, "
I'd rather stick needles in my eyes than read that thing again.
ecgberht on August 1, 2011 @ 3:54 pm wrote: “Then you shouldn't have any trouble pointing to a SINGLE example where I have used those terms in any incorrect or accusatory fashion.”
Everytime I try to get out, you pull me back in. Let’s have some fun.
On August 1, 2011 @ 3:54 pm, eggie wrote: “Actually, Hitler was a statist - as are progressive liberals.”
My deepest apologies. You didn’t compare liberals to “commies”, you compared us to Nazis!
On August 1, 2011 @ 9:45 am, eggie wrote: “The Ponzi scheme is the tool of the progressive in government - . . . . Perhaps that's where FDR got the idea for Social Security - the biggest Ponzi scheme of all in this country.”
Oops, apology revoked. I believe using that term was another “offensive tactic” I rejected.
And, of course, your attempt to link Hitler’s campaign of genocide with “progressives” is the ultimate in slander. Read Mein Kampf. Hitler’s desire to exterminate Jews had nothing to do with social programs (what you slander as “ponzi schemes”).
(By the way, what’s your view about such “statist” policies as banning abortion, banning contraception, banning gays from public service?)
As for monte, he began today’s Comments by essentially accusing Obama and the Democrats of following The Communist Manifesto. I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t accuse the Republicans of that.
Speaking of having no facts to back up Comments: I’ve provided plenty of facts (and sources too), which you ignore. Where are your facts and sources? Most of what you’ve written today has just been ideological ranting and pure opinion, with little in the way of “facts” (or even relevant facts), and no sources provided that I can see.
Although to be fair, something you rarely are, much of what you wrote was in reply to statements from “the other side” that were little better (myself excepted, of course).
;-)
Good-bye, for now.
$2.4 T is only a good start at spending cuts!
"Let’s have some fun."
Yeah. Let's.
"My deepest apologies. You didn’t compare liberals to “commies”, you compared us to Nazis!"
Patently false. What I said was, "Actually, Hitler was a statist - as are progressive liberals." I know you're not big on logical argument, but the one you have made is called "non-sequitur" (litterally, "does not follow"). e.g. Grady Howard said, "Tea Party is like the Nazi Party", ecgberht said, "Hitler was a Statist, as are liberal progressives". strudel conclusion? ecgberht called liberals Nazis"! Brilliant!
strudel said, "eggie wrote: “The Ponzi scheme is the tool of the progressive in government - . . . . Perhaps that's where FDR got the idea for Social Security - the biggest Ponzi scheme of all in this country.”
Patently false - and completely dishonest, because it guts the middle of the statement - which is the important part. Here's what I actually said, and I'll let others be the judge:
"The Ponzi scheme is the tool of the progressive in government - keep taking from the haves to prop up your failing schemes. Perhaps that's where FDR got the idea for Social Security - the biggest Ponzi scheme of all in this country." And by the way, yes, that's exactly what Hitler did, starting with confiscating wealth from the Jews, then moving on to Austria, Poland, et. al.
"As for monte, he began today’s Comments by essentially accusing Obama and the Democrats of following The Communist Manifesto."
Now, what you said was "They tend to be the true Socialists and Communists - a distinction you are incapable of seeing, since you and other conservatives hurl those terms indiscriminately."
I'll ask you again, Show me where I've said that (not monte, ME) ... or SHUT YOUR PIE HOLE. By the way, this isn't the first time you've made that accusation with NO FACTS ON YOUR SIDE.
"I’ve provided plenty of facts "
If you consider David Stockman's opinion to be fact, I can't help you. What you've provided is your opinion of the conclusions to be drawn from what Reagan did on taxes, and you call those facts!
There HAVE been marches organized. The millions more march on August 13. The march for jobs on August 27 by the National Action Network. If u truly want to march, find out what is going on. Don't say why r there no marches 2day when u do not investigate what surrounds u.
"PeteG2 wrote:
Warren Buffett paid 11% total taxes including federal, state, local, and corporate taxes on his $8billion investment gain in a recent year. He agrees it's unfair that his secretary pays a tax rate twice as high.
I would like to debunk the argument that we need to continue special favored tax rates for the wealthy investor class in order to put money hands of so-called "job creators" to boost the economy and create jobs.
The tax cuts for the wealthy started under President Reagan in 1982 have certainly worked for the wealthy. The fraction of the nation's wealth held by the richest 1% has increased from 22% to 40%, equaling the highest wealth disparity in our history. Despite all that money in the hands of the so-called "job creators" our GDP growth has dropped by one-third, comparing the 30 years before and after Reagan. Unemployment stands at greater than 9%. How much more do we need to give the so-called "job creators" before we realize they are simply pocketing it"
Peter:
Then answer this . How was it that Reagan created 15 million jobs? Government does not create jobs. It should promote an environment to create jobs.
I question your other stats. Under Bush II, the largest amount of homeownership took place. Perhaps we should not have let people that cannot afford a house mortgage have a house.
"Shinji wrote:
I hear young people talk down about social security all the time and it drives me nuts. They say "I've paying for my social security and I better get it". But they are missing the whole point! Its not "your" social security yet. Its not a savings fund. Its for the older lady down the block who can't pay her bills. Its called community! We live in a community and have to watch out for one another."
It is interesting what your definition and/or beliefs in community is. It use to be that people would take care of people in need. It was not only individuals, but churches, and non profits that would all pitch in. Now we expect the government (tax payers) to be the answer for everything.
But young people are right, they will not see what they put in SS. All politician caused when they started to borrow off the SS Trust in 1966. What did all those social programs get us? It has cause more government dependency.
jndhabs wrote:
The goal of the republicans was to make Obama a one term president,not improve the economy or the US, this is based on race. Any opposition to Obama is a way to diminish the black man in office.
All of the terms like debt reduction, cap and trade, and the like, are just code words for racism."
Your living in the past jndhabs. Did you hear the way John Conyers spoke about the Obama today or what the Black Causus said about Obama?
But then it is o'kay for one black guy or black group to talk bad about Obama.
But have one white guy or a group of white guys, then it is racist.
Brother, you believe in a double standard.
1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rent to public purpose.
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (1868), and various zoning, school & property taxes. Also the Bureau of Land Management.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Misapplication of the 16th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1913, The Social Security Act of 1936.; Joint House Resolution 192 of 1933; and various State "income" taxes. We call it "paying your fair share".
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
We call it Federal & State estate Tax (1916); or reformed Probate Laws, and limited inheritance via arbitrary inheritance tax statutes.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We call in government seizures, tax liens, Public "law" 99-570 (1986);
Executive order 11490, sections 1205, 2002 which gives private land to the Department of Urban Development; the imprisonment of "terrorists" and those who speak out or write against the "government" (1997 Crime/Terrorist Bill); or the IRS confiscation of property without due process.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
We call it the Federal Reserve which is a credit/debt system nationally organized by the Federal Reserve act of 1913. All local banks are members of the Fed system, and are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the State.
We call it the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Department of Transportation (DOT) mandated through the ICC act of 1887, the Commissions Act of 1934, The Interstate Commerce Commission established in 1938, The Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Communications Commission, and Executive orders 11490, 10999, as well as State mandated driver's licenses and Department of Transportation regulations.
7. Extention of factories and instruments of production owned by the State, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
We call it corporate capacity, The Desert Entry Act and The Department of Agriculture. As well as the Department of Commerce and Labor, Department of Interior, the Evironmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Mines, National Park Service, and the IRS control of business through corporate regulations.
8. Equal liablity of all to labor. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
We call it the Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor. The National debt and inflation caused by the communal bank has caused the need for a two "income" family. Woman in the workplace since the 1920's, the 19th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, assorted Socialist Unions, affirmative action, the Fedral Public Works Program and of course Executive order 11000.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
We call it the Planning Reorganization act of 1949 , zoning (Title 17 1910-1990) and Super Corporate Farms, as well as Executive orders 11647, 11731 (ten regions) and Public "law" 89-136.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.
People are being taxed to support what we call 'public' schools, which train the young to work for the communal debt system. We also call it the Department of Education, the NEA and Outcome Based "Education" .
Diane, I too keep wondering why we aren't marching in the streets. I'm really afraid that we are immobilized by our skepticm that it would do any good. This is so completely disheartening to me. The only think I could think of last night as I heard about the lack of ANY revenues included in the bill, was that this must not be my country anymore. Truly depressed, Karen
Semi-Anonymous wrote:
"Used to be rich enough to vote Republican. Never be fooled again. After 32 years of never missing voting(even OCONUS) might miss next election. Would not know where homeless can vote anyway and in jail there is probably a law against it"
So Semi:
You mentioned that you used to be rich? What happen? Did you make some bad choices, causes there's been many people in your situation. Divorce, drugs, booze,etc.
You cannot blame Republicans for choice you have made if that is your situation.