Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-09/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
President Obama outlined a $447 billion jobs program before a joint session of Congress. The President’s address was followed by news of a specific, credible but unconfirmed terrorist threat tied to the tenth anniversary of 9/11. Texas Governor Rick Perry stirred controversy in his first GOP presidential debate Wednesday by calling Social Security a ponzi scheme. A panel of journalists joins Diane to discuss the week's domestic news stories.
Guests
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, and managing editor of PostPolitics.com.
Julie Hirschfeld Davis
congressional correspondent, Bloomberg News.
Major Garrett
congressional correspondent, National Journal.
Friday News Roundup Video
Why did Texas Governor Rick Perry get such a enthusiastic reaction when he mentioned the high number of executions in his state during the last GOP debate? He said it was because Americans recognize justice, but some were disturbed by the applause.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Marvin Wagner wrote:
"Man does not live by bread alone. Man lives in harmony with all man....Look it up."
Speaking of looking it up, the "man does not live by bread alone" quote does not finish the way you write it. The quote actually is, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God". (Matt 4:4). And you CAN look that up.
Your guest is wrong when he says the West coast was "untouched by 9/11" - many people were killed in the attacks on 9/11, some from the west coast area.
Who could think anyone in our country was untouched by 9/11? Even if you knew nobody who died that day, or any of the service men and women who have died from the actions taken by our leaders afterward, the Patriot Act has effected every one of us and will continue to do so until something is done to roll back the attack against our privacy that legislation (which none of the elected officials who voted for it ever read).
//
Did the caller from Ohio ask her "job creators" how many sales/$$ they will lose as post office workers join the fired teachers, police & firemen, etc. from the state & local governments?
That might be the more direct reason they're not hiring.
No increased ## of customers with $$ = no need to hire more workers.
More government workers fired = fewer consumers + more on UI, TANF, food stamps & less revenue to governments and businesses alike.
Don't blame the Post Office for not bringing home the bacon because they are
required under price controls and universal service to bring home the mail. And decontrols have allowed private firms to cherry pick a big share of their former business. When you consider how hard the sorters and carriers worked for their benefits it seems like fascists want to punish them just for being in a union. The truth is that the "greys" have been our Homeland Security for two centuries as they went carefully and observantly about their appointed rounds. If we'd use them we wouldn't need all the new scare agencies.
We looked for a higher level of integrity and empathy from them than any other service workers; they gave it and we were all proud. Despite jokes about laziness and shooters they have been excellent in the extreme in providing reliable communication. As you might observe from the intimidation and anonymity on this commentary the Internet will never rival the dependability of the hard copy delivered by hand. So we might as well agree that the USPS warrants funding and subsidies as highly or higher than our increasingly mercenary military, which fascists dare not cut.
Hey, "monte"...
The "fiddle playing" comments were about the subsequent caller's belief that Pakistan is "playing us like a fiddle" with the periodic arrest of a terror suspect or two.
Not that I expect any better from you...
donholl wrote:
Hey, "monte"...
"The "fiddle playing" comments were about the subsequent caller's belief that Pakistan is "playing us like a fiddle" with the periodic arrest of a terror suspect or two."
Your right, I stand corrected. Noisy in the shop to day.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
"Capitalism itself is closer to being a Ponzi Scheme than Social Security"
Yea Pancake:
And capitalism probably allowed you to be a "Trust Baby", living on the farm, and driving a $65,000 Prius that you have previously mentioned.
Life is good isn't it. Kick up those feet and talk about how bad it is for everyone else.
Got it.
democrat party vs. democratic party. I too choose to use democrat party because I choke on the dictionary definition, when I compare the definition of the political "democratic party" and the word democratic there is a big difference. I am pretty sure when this word was adopted as a political party label cynical motives were involved. To consider the use of the word "democrat" as in "democrat party" as an insult is baseless, dishonest and self serving.
Reflecting on the discussions around minute 24 in the broadcast. I'm embarrassed as an American. Are the panelists saying we are all totally spineless? What I heard was a complete exaggeration of the propensity to panic in the face of adversity. One journalist cited the "panic" that happened after the earthquake in DC. I was in it in downtown DC. After the first few moments of evacuation, everyone calmed down; there was no panic. Within 10-15 minutes we all knew we had a ~5.8 magnitude earthquake. In 30-60 minutes we were back at work. A camera crew for a major network captured my company milling about on the street. Life went on. The massive traffic jams that resulted were because the government shut itself down. (That was not panic, but an opportunity to leave work early.)
In the London from 1984-1993, when I lived there, there were countless terrorist threats and a number of actual attacks. I lived not far from some. The media did not hype up "panic." In fact, I learned how stalwart the Brits were in the face of adversity. My advice to current and future panelists: please get a grip and stop this relentless escalation of fear. Are you saying we're all a bunch of cowards?
Frankly, that is not what I see.
Turning the tables, putting the cart before the horse, co-opting issues, rewriting history, staying the course, and pleas to end all partisan bickering so we can move the Country further to the right; these are the time-honored conservative spin tactics that have been going on at least since Ronald Reagan. Now, according to both Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. This isn’t the first time that legitimate Democratic criticisms have been redirected to confuse an issue and distort reality, or vilify government in general. Bush declared that we were at war with “Islamic fascists” (after being accused of being one himself); union labor activists are accused of waging “class war” on America (in response the actual class war waged on America by its financial elite); Tea Party Republicans insist that Barack Obama is a “socialist” (when they know perfectly well that he’s just another corporatist; albeit a socially liberal one). Note how media emphasis has shifted in just the last few years (and I don’t mean to the left): Our “credit crisis” is now a “debt crisis”; the “sub-prime mortgage crisis” became a “reckless borrowing crisis,” and our “jobs crisis” is in the process of morphing into an “unemployable and low-skilled worker crisis,” complete with new measures designed to motivate, penalize, and . . . what? Force people into for-profit re-education camps to feed the next investment bubble? I perceive this to be the hidden substance of the new “socialist” compromise legislation.
The charge that S.S. is a Ponzi scheme is too bizarre to debate, but I will say that it is the height of audacity for the financial industry’s cohorts in Congress to deliver a taxpayer bailout for an international, shadow banking system (did somebody say, Ponzi Scheme?), and then turn right around and blame “government” (S.S.) and basic entitlement programs for our debt problems. With Republicans, there seems to be no regard for either ideological or historical consistency (note Reagan’s claim that “government is the problem” back in the 80’s; then, in the wake of ’08, the claim became “government failed to regulate”; that is, lack of government was the problem). Never mind the fallacious reasoning, to neo-cons, government is always the problem, as are liberals, progressives, social democrats, and anyone who isn’t a member of the John Birch Society. The public sector can create jobs—good jobs, union jobs, as it did under FDR, and this would spur hiring in the private sector, but I seriously doubt that it will be allowed to in this environment, be it Republicrat or Demubplican. Look at the health care bill: it is promising to serve the financial industries very well (at the expense of businesses, workers, and consumers), yet will not control costs, is surely retarding job growth, is a primary cause behind a host of other problems (sustaining unions, for one), and should never have been passed without a public option. I want to be fair, here. Remain suspicious. As an example of how Democratic stimulus plan proposals can also fail to deliver because the business model has not changed, see below:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/09/09/pm-solyndras-b...
Hello all, I would position myself as a pragmatic libertarian if such a thing exists. I would suggest the following course of action.
-do NOT lower the SS tax rate on employees, we must fund this system in the short term, I believe the correct answer is to do the following: lower the employer cap to $50K and raise the employee cap to $300K or something in the range permanently. This would cause employers to make a calculated decision saying that hiring a new entry/midlevel hire is relatively cheaper than making a new high level hire. From there privatize the incoming generation of SS into US Bonds. Basically take their contributions and buy US bonds then you have aligned Congress and the voters interest somewhat and can avoid the "ponzi scheme" Perry rails about. The new contributors have real investments, the only cavet is that SS makes the investments at market, no special deals (yes idealistic, but better than the current system where the fact of the matter is the young pay the old)
Second, ENERGY POLICY, something, anything, if you cut taxes for the middle and lower class 3% and the cost of fuel goes up 20% nothing good will happen.
gbloper stated:
" Bush declared that we were at war with “Islamic fascists” (after being accused of being one himself); "
Mr. gbloper:
As a reminder, one of the first things that Bush did in his first press conference right after bombing was to state "Muslins are peacefull and good people". He knew about the possibility that retributions would be taking place against US Muslims.
"gbloper wrote:
The charge that S.S. is a Ponzi scheme is too bizarre to debate, but I will say that it is the height of audacity for the financial industry’s cohorts in Congress to deliver a taxpayer bailout for an international, shadow banking system (did somebody say, Ponzi Scheme?), and then turn right around and blame “government” (S.S.) and basic entitlement programs for our debt problems"
Mr gbloper:
For your information, S.S was fine until Johnson started to borrow from it to pay for the Vietman War and the Great Society. We would of been just fine today if at that time, "THE TRUST" would have been left alone. We perhaps would not have the current entitlement problems. Your so call "Public Industry" which created job is what 45 billion in the red by the end of this year. With fewer private sector jobs the SS deficit will continue to grow.
By the way it was Reagan who increased the SS tax in the 80's.
Mr gblper continued by stating:
"The public sector can create jobs—good jobs, union jobs, as itb did under FDR, and this would spur hiring in the private sector"
What jobs? Even FDR's Secretary of Treasury in 1938 stated," that all that spending did not do anything for the economy." What saved FDR's butt was WWII. And even then you could not buy anything because of rationing.
Thank you Diane for always keeping your show a valuable source of information and thought—and specifically for not letting people turn your call-in section into their own childish name-calling routine.
When people go out of their way to call the Democratic party "the Democrat party"... well, it's just sad.
I mean, someone actually took time out of their day, called in, talked to your screener, probably waited on hold for a few minutes—and for what?
Just so that they could sprinkle in their little "aren't I clever" bon mot?
When really, all it does is call into question the point the caller is trying to make.
The same goes for people who use the made up name "ObamaCare" instead of "Healthcare Reform". It reminds me of siblings in the back seat of the station wagon putting their finger in each others faces and yelling "I'm not touching you!".
Thanks again Diane—I love your show!
See, but here's the thing monte, there is no such thing as the "Democrat party";
the name is the "Democratic party".
It's pretty simple; so simple in fact, that people have been pronouncing it correctly for the better part of 200 years now!
Now you can SAY it wrong if you like,
but unfortunately that doesn't keep you from actually BEING wrong.
Honestly, do whatever you want...
Instead of "buttermilk pancakes" maybe you want to call your breakfast "dancing kittens"... because, I don't know, you don't like the sound of the former, or for some reason you "choke on the dictionary definition"—but then don't go and feign being shocked (shocked!) when people point out that you're using the wrong words.
You know how when your 3-year-old niece calls spaghetti "pas-getti" and it's so adorable? Well, when a middle-aged person calls into a radio show to do it, it's tiresome and annoying. All the more so when you realize that they are doing it just to antagonize the listeners.
This is the Diane Rehm show, a valuable and trusted resource.
Let's all agree not use made-up words as dog-whistle insults.
Does American life have to be rough and tumble, with 90% of people barely making it as wage slaves before sadistic commentators are satisfied? I have shared pertinent personal facts which is a risk under present circumstances, and now I'm ridiculed, and maybe threatened, for being comfortable. You have no way of knowing how my income is disposed, and I have not recounted how I labor each week. You don't know what I do or how many I employ or assist.
Your argument then is that it is OK for a male business conservative to receive unearned income but not a female lesbian political progressive. It sounds pretty discriminatory within your free market fantasy ideal that you target certain fortunate people with your envy and others with your admiring approval. So what you are saying is that your tongue is out for some boots and that you plan a "krystal nichte" for other scapegoats.
When school started back I expected some the juveniles would disappear from DRShow commentary, but now I see it is the underclass bullies at work trying to please and impress their bosses, who will always have what they never will have. It is funny how these bullies squirm against a backward economic system they argue to make worse, and how they must endorse every injustice and cruel crudity to receive their meager loser's wage. I have worked side by side with the barely literate indigent here and overseas, and I admired many of them for their acceptance of reality and their willingness to start fresh each day. It is only among brainwashed fascists that you find this baby tantrum attitude. Oh, and both my plug-in Priuses and my 1999 F350 dumptruck are running fine, and all those in my care are eating well and avoiding cable TV.
If you're so damn dissatisfied with yourselves make some changes and quit blaming me. I'm doing all I can.