Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-09-30/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The House approved a four-day stopgap spending bill, deferring a vote on a longer-term measure to next week. The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the new health care law’s key provision -- the insurance mandate -- raising the possibility of a decision during the height of the 2012 presidential campaign this summer. On wednesday, a federal judge upheld most of Alabama’s far-reaching immigration law. And a federal program to help homeowners avoid foreclosure ended short of it’s goals. A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page for the domestic hour of the Friday News Roundup.
Guests
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Matthew Cooper
editor, National Journal Daily.
Jackie Calmes
national correspondent, The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
roland wrote:
"Teece and ecgberht, come on. Don't you think that at the core left and right both care about their fellow man? They just have different ideas on how to do it. Left wing thinks it's better to pool the money, right wing thinks it's better everybody decides for themselves. Each has pros and cons."
You miss the conservative reason for opposition completely. It is ILLEGAL for the federal government to be involved in these social engineering schemes and everything they touch gets worse and it is driving us into bankruptcy.
Here are some questions that should be asked of every Republican or Libertarian in the U.S.: In view of the fact that taxes, as a percentage of GDP, are at their lowest level since 1950, and considering the fact that the wealthiest 2% are increasing their ownership of the U.S.A. at an unprecedented rate, just when WILL it be a good idea to increase taxes on the wealthy? Do we wait until they own 60% of America (some economists claim this is already the case) or perhaps we should wait until they own 75%? Perhaps 90% is a reasonable goal? I am assuming that even Republicans will shy away from the wealthiest Americans owning the entire country, but I am not entirely sure about that.
Lake Arrowhead Guy, you oversimplify the tax codes and their actual costs to tax payers, that being said we want to see REAL cuts in government spending not curving projected government spending growth at some future date that never comes. We want to see real spending cuts across the board NOW, then we can talk about tax increases.
This is why compromise is not an option, we have been lied to about spending cuts for decades.
Lake Arrowhead Guy wrote:
"just when WILL it be a good idea to increase taxes on the wealthy?"
LAG, I'll answer that when you answer the following: The top 5% of taxpayers pay approximately 60% of Federal Taxes. How much is enough? Should they pay 75%? Perhaps 90% is a reasonable goal? I am assuming that even Democrats will shy away from the top 5% paying 100% of the tax bill, but I am not entirely sure about that.
When the media decides Ron Paul can't win and doesn't deserve to be covered they are narrowing the debate - the issues that are being discussed. What other candidate is seriously suggesting we discontinue our Federal Reserve banking system? What other candidate is seriously suggesting we change our military strategy? What candidate is calling for us to stop sending drones over Pakistan?
The belittling of the Wall Sreet protesters by the reporter of the Wall Street Journal was a little startling (well it's not really big enough?) - I had just listened to two New York university professors be interviewed on Wall Street (Democracy Now) as they supported the protest and thought it was possibly the beginnings of a historical movement.
caroline24 wrote:
"I had just listened to two New York university professors be interviewed on Wall Street (Democracy Now) as they supported the protest and thought it was possibly the beginnings of a historical movement."
Yeah. I'm sure they said the same thing about the Tea Party too.
"MarcusTullius wrote:
"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that."
Democrat Governor Bev Perdue of NC speaking at rotary club event in Cary, NC.
"In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."
Peter Orszag, the former budget director of the White House, September 14, 2011
Does sub host Page, or the panel, believe either Perdue or Orszag were joking when they made these inane, but deadly serious, comments?
September 29, 2011 - 1:01 pm"
"monte wrote:
Marcus, just the kind of comments that no one should be surprised to hear coming from democrats. The people are just too dumb to know whats good for them but we the elite ruling class do. They might have been half serious but we know that's how they really feel.
September 29, 2011 - 2:16 pm"
You poor, pathetic, paranoiac boobs!!! Why in G_d's Name would the Democrats want to freeze the solid Republican majority in the House and worthless Democrat majority in the Senate for 2 more years when there is a good chance we will clean House in 2012???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"ecgberht wrote:
....
ecgberht
Chairman
Racist Tea-Partiers for Herman Cain
September 30, 2011 - 10:40 am"
Yeah, ain't you the same Racist Cockchafers who crossed over to nominate a hopeless Black Man in the Democrat Primary in South Carolina???
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
In Teece's first comment he/she mentions NPR, job training, heating subsidies and grants to improve (I guess public) schools. I am not a constitutional scholar so I am just guessing that if those things were outlawed in the constitution they would not be here right now. You can call them 'social engineering schemes' like some kind of evil conspiracy, but some people are actually grateful for them. And 'everything they touch gets worse', I can counter that with 'everything they privatize gets worse', this is useless.
mchaun fantasized:
"You poor, pathetic, paranoiac boobs!!! Why in G_d's Name would the Democrats want to freeze the solid Republican majority in the House and worthless Democrat majority in the Senate for 2 more years when there is a good chance we will clean House in 2012???"
You're off your meds again, buddy.
I'm going to save this one. Then I'm going to remind the board of it on November 7th 2012 so everyone can see once again what an idiot you are.
roland wrote:
"I am not a constitutional scholar "
roland,
Then I suggest you read Article 1, Section 8. It enumerates a limited list of the responsibilities of Congress. It says what Congress CAN do, not what it CAN'T do. You will not find any of those items listed in there. The items that the Federal Government CAN'T do are mostly spelled out in the first 10 Ammendments (the Bill of Rights).
Some of the things that Teece lists may be perfectly fine to do ... at the state level. They are not the purview of the FG however. That's the problem most Constitutional Conservatives have with the FG as it stands today.
"Jim Wells wrote:
Wall Street coverage
caller, (paraphrase) The media has not covered the Wall Street protests.
response, We are doing it now.. giggle snicker.
September 30, 2011 - 11:36 am"
What did you expect?? These are the Right-Wing Dog Cr_p who removed the word "Torture" from their Lexicon to avoid embarrassing the Bushes and their Gang.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Janeane Garofalo, Keith Olbermann's favorite political scientist, said in 2008, Michael Steele, being a Republican, is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome. According to Garofalo, and KO, all blacks must think exactly the same, i.e. follow the liberal ideology, or they are self-loathing.
Now the tattooed harpy is at it again.
"Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same. People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"
Janeane Garofalo, Spetember 28, 2011, Countdown with Keith Olbermann
MarcusTullius wrote:
"Now the tattooed harpy is at it again."
Janeane Garofalo is entitled to free SPEECH because she is an American. Why anyone (like Olbermann) would give her a VOICE I have no clue.
I don't pay much attention to what she says. She's an idiot.
However, I still think she was hilarious in Seinfeld ("The Invitations" episode).
ecgberht, there are a lot of things the government does that are not mentioned in the constitution and I am not sure that necessarily makes them illegal. The environmental protection agency protects what some perceive as a 'right' to have clean water and air. Its existence can be discussed, but most people would not want to do away with it anyhow.
roland,
The Founders created a Constitutuion that limits the powers of the FG for a reason.
roland wrote:
"Its existence can be discussed, but most people would not want to do away with it anyhow."
roland,
That is equivalent to saying, "the government can do whatever it wants as long as it seems like a good idea at the time."
hainc wrote:
"I'm sorry but have you seen these protestors. They are a motley lot; lots of tatoos, piercings, facial hair, dreadlocks. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but these are a disaffected crew already. Their slogans are extremely anarchist and deconstructionist, and I don't think we should be paying much attention to them"
Kind of like rent a mob and can be prevalent in places like San Francisco.
As to the election cycle and states moving up their primary dates, I'm really sick of all this campaigning the politicians do these days and have an alternate suggestion (okay pipe dream!). Have them donate one dollar for every dollar they use to campaign with to a general fund. The fund will be used for feeding and clothing the poor, creating new jobs, helping our disabled veterans, covering some of the debt, alternative energy, cleaning up the environment ... whatever!! Taking part of the money they'd otherwise spend on getting elected and putting it to something for the public good would ensure at least that money would be put to good use.
"meanconser wrote:
hainc wrote:
"I'm sorry but have you seen these protestors. They are a motley lot; lots of tatoos, piercings, facial hair, dreadlocks. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but these are a disaffected crew already. Their slogans are extremely anarchist and deconstructionist, and I don't think we should be paying much attention to them"
Kind of like rent a mob and can be prevalent in places like San Francisco.
September 30, 2011 - 6:28 pm"
As usual, you Right Wing Boobs are full of it.
The Protesters looked like ordinary people dressed for Summer in NYC, just like those that protested the countless G-nn, IMF, etc, etc Conferences where the World's Jewish and other Right Wing Finance Ministers, Bankers and Economists worked out this Whore's Nightmare we will be suffering through for the next 25 Years.
Protesters beaten down by slime bag Kelly's Thugs and all the other Big City Chiefs with their Anarchist and off-duty cop infiltrators and provocateurs.
Kelly is personally responsible for ending a Half Century of peaceful Liberal Protest in this Country. Nice work, you Jarhead prick.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
ecgberht wrote:;
"Janeane Garofalo is entitled to free SPEECH because she is an American. Why anyone (like Olbermann) would give her a VOICE I have no clue.I don't pay much attention to what she says. She's an idiot."
----------------------------------------------
Who is depriving her the 1st Amendment? She has a right to make a fool of herself at every and all opportunities As Americans, we have the right to ridicule her for her benighted comments.
K.O. loves having this stroonze on his show because she attracts his core audience.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
ecgberht wrote:;
However, I still think she was hilarious in Seinfeld ("The Invitations" episode).
------------------------------------------------
You do realize she was relying on a script, yes? The women is not adept at doing her own material.
It's obnoxious that a few commentors can't limit themselves to less than 10 posts and feel like they have to attack every writer voicing an opinion about the show.
Health care, the Dream Act, media coverage, Solyndra, lack of Democratic counterpunching—so many issues; so little difference in perspectives or policy measures. It amazes me that we’re so far to the right in this country, privatized health care with a mandate for profiteering looks left. As a would-be Social Democrat—a party foreign to the U.S. political landscape but moderate-left in any other country—I really hope the Supreme Court rules the health care mandate unconstitutional. Call it what you will, what it really is is a Republican scheme hatched by nit-wit Romney out of Massachusetts. The argument, put forward by supporters, that premiums are going through the roof so we have to rip everyone off to make it fair is not only ridiculous, it’s Republican strategy 101: divide and rule. Not one word by anyone about the sort of public health care system common to most countries, paid for within a progressive income tax structure. Likewise with the immigration issue. Is the Dream Act as progressive as it gets in America? Neo-cons must be laughing all the way to the bank in getting Democrats to do their bidding for them on humanitarian grounds when it comes to immigration policy. In spite of all the grandstanding to the contrary (with exceptions like Rick Perry), when it comes right down to it, Republicans favor business, not labor; and more immigrants—legal or illegal—means cheaper, more docile labor, more consumers without a voice, and less of an investment burden all around. (How to exploit them without losing their vote or taxing our social services—it’s a quandary for both parties, isn’t it?) This is a labor issue without a proponent anywhere.
As for Solyndra—missing the point again. It isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue; it’s a get-business-out-of-government-and-government-into-business issue, via industrial policies at least. Opening up the Treasury doors to private industry is no answer to the takeover of government by finance and private industry, for any party. We need major structural changes, and no one person, president or not, can be expected to do that alone. This tactic by businesses (banking, most recently, with regard to Dodd-Frank) of blackmailing governments into adopting a pro-business stand by repealing all regulations that protect workers, consumers, investors, and the environment has to be answered in kind, and ultimately will be on practical rather than ideological grounds—not only in this country, but around the world. There is no other way, except, perhaps, the Zimbabwe model. It’s like this: Your laissez-faire capitalist experiment has failed—utterly. Now, we either do things in a way that protects and invests in our country’s people via restructured debt and a regulatory system that puts people before stockholders and profit, or we nationalize you wholesale. To wit (this one’s for you eggburt): Banking, health care, energy, education, transportation, employment development, telecommunications, infrastructure, and any other industry we feel is a potential monopoly, represents a compromise of the public interest by the private ownership of production, or is critical to the needs of people and the day-to-day operations of our economy.
Huan:
On a lightner note do you remember that song from the early 70's. "Sign, Sign, everywhere but signs, long hair freaky people need not apply"?
gbloper wrote:
As for Solyndra—missing the point again. It isn’t a Democrat vs. Republican issue; it’s a get-business-out-of-government-and-government-into-business issue, via industrial policies at least. Opening up the Treasury doors to private industry is no answer to the takeover of government by finance and private industry, for any party. We need major structural changes, and no one person, president or not, can be expected to do that alone. This tactic by businesses (banking, most recently, with regard to Dodd-Frank) of blackmailing governments into adopting a pro-business stand by repealing all regulations that protect workers, consumers, investors, and the environment has to be answered in kind, and ultimately will be on practical rather than ideological grounds—not only in this country, but around the world. There is no other way, except, perhaps, the Zimbabwe model. It’s like this: Your laissez-faire capitalist experiment has failed—utterly. Now, we either do things in a way that protects and invests in our country’s people via restructured debt and a regulatory system that puts people before stockholders and profit, or we nationalize you wholesale. To wit (this one’s for you eggburt): Banking, health care, energy, education, transportation, employment development, telecommunications, infrastructure, and any other industry we feel is a potential monopoly, represents a compromise of the public interest by the private ownership of production, or is critical to the needs of people and the day-to-day operations of our economy.
Still waiting for your answer on how Public Industry would be created and run. Did you favor how Lenin took over industry after the Czar was disposed of?
MarcusTullius wrote:
"Who is depriving her the 1st Amendment?"
Marcus, I never said you said she did not have such a right. (Can anybody follow that?!) I was just contrasting the idea of SPEECH and VOICE. Very different concepts. Just because somebody has free speech rights does not mean they have to be given a voice. That, in fact, is one of the goals of the Fairness Doctrine - to give VOICE (a platform) to every nut job out there.
"You do realize she was relying on a script, yes? The women is not adept at doing her own material"
Hey, we're on the same side here. Of course that was scripted. I would say she's not much off the cuff, but not because she's not adept at doing her own material. I remember her standup from years ago and it was pretty funny. No. There's a phenomenon that affects some (not all) liberal comedians. They became haters. They become mean, bitter, and just plain angry. That's what happened to Bill Maher. Now it's happened to her too. Not funny anymore. Just spiteful toward anyone who disagrees with them. It's a shame.