Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-03/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney opened up a 20-point lead over Newt Gingrich in the upcoming Nevada caucus; the Obama Administration unveiled a new homeowner refinancing plan; and Senate Democrats formally introduced a "Buffett Bill" that would tax millionaires at a minimum rate of 30 percent. Naftali Bendavid of the Wall Street Journal, Jackie Calmes of The New York Times and syndicated columnist Steve Roberts join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Jackie Calmes
national correspondent, The New York Times.
Steve Roberts
syndicated columnist and journalism professor at George Washington University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
OK OKtoni, This is a liberal show with emphasis on liberal perspectives through the use of unbalanced panel discussions. This show benefits from tax payer funding and claims that there is no bias so the whole premise is a lie, the show does not represent all view points fairly. This show absolutely needs a loyal group of dissenters. Claims of wanting "thoughtful posts" on issues end when there is political disagreement. I know many believe (true believers) that NPR attracts a more educated and sophisticated audience but this is far from the truth. I find the same shallow democrat party talking points here and called in to the broadcast as anywhere. There is a frustration dealing with the same baseless claims and beliefs posted and called in over and over and to challenge these directly to many appear to be over the top responses or attacks. Just admit you cannot stand to be disagreed with.
I am going to try a new way of contributing because this is getting old.
See ya later
Monte
Frankly, I am infuriated by the continual, and apparently intentional, mis-characterization of the "Fast and Furious" operation (and the ongoing investigation) as described on Friday's show.
Virtually all coverage that I have heard on NPR (and it's affiliated programs) keep parroting the administration's political-narrative that the operation was merely a "botched" law-enforcement investigation into "illegal gun-trafficking into Mexico" ...merely the result of "incompetence". And, that the Federal-investigation of the "operation", itself, is mostly politically motivated. Or, that this particular "operation" was similar to earlier investigations by other administrations. This is a complete sham.
The fact is that there never was any actual method for "tracking" the firearms that were intentionally, and illegally, sent into the hands of Mexican criminals by "F&F". Nor, was there ever any apparent intention of actually "investigating" anything. This is why whistle-blowers brought this to the publics' attention, in the first place.
Most of those currently trying to sort-out this scandal and who are dealing with the obvious, and massive, cover-up of lies, stonewalling, and improper sealing of records (by the Justice Dept., Eric Holder, and the Whitehouse) feel that the only real purpose of "F&F" was exactly what it did accomplish... getting American guns into the hands of Mexican criminals, for manipulative political purposes. However, this overwhelmingly well-supported position, has been completely ignored by those who are, ever more desperately, trying to defend this administration's actions.
"Fast and Furious" may well prove to be as big a scandal as "Watergate". It indicates exactly how devious this administration's attempts to manipulate the public, undermine the Constitution, and promulgate its own lies... truly are.
Frankly, in my opinion, impartial, and ethical journalists shouldn't be collaborating in such a lie.
I keep hearing about "irresponsible homeowners" who shouldn't be provided government assistance to refinance their underwater mortages. I have to question this characterization. Those most qlaringly irresponsible are most likely already in forclosure or have already lost their homes. Only borrowers who have good credit and who are current on their payments will qualify for assistance. Seems to me these folks are very responsible as they could have just walked away as some have. Instead they are struggling along paying way above the going rate. I refinanced my mortage this past summer without any difficulty at all because i have good credit and mostly because i have been in my house long enough to have a bit of equity despite the drop in home values. The financial services segment of our economy was responsible for driving our economy off a cliff and our government bailed them out. I think the argument that underwater homeowners who are still hanging in there making payments at interest rates that one could argue were artificially inflated by the same financial services industry that caused the problem are not deserving of a little help is pretty hard to swallow.
I'm hearing a lot about this forclosure bailout program, but not a peep on how to apply for it. Since only five banks are named in the settlement, are only clients of those banks eligible for the program?
I get that a lot. I lost my job in 2007, entered graduate school in 2008, and kept my mortgage current throughout. My mistake was trying to be proactive and applying to the Making Homes Affordable remodification program in 2009. The process took eight months, not three, and at the end I was disqualified and the bank said all the reduced payments they told me to make were not acceptable (they were called "partial"), and they raced into forclosure. I bought modestly, insisted on a fixed rate note, and all was well until I tried to take over control of the mortgage. Now I have lost my home, and been forced to file bankruptcy to protect myself. The bank screwed me - I did everything they asked me to do, and they refused to work with me.