Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-10/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The White House came under continued attack over the contraception mandate; banks agreed to a multi-billion dollar foreclosure settlement; the House of Representatives passed the Stock Act as the payroll tax debate stalled; Rick Santorum looked to build on his surprising victories in three Republican contests as uncertainty returned to the conservative race; President Obama reversed his position and embraced Super PACs; Proposition Eight was overturned in California; and the Pentagon announced it would ease restrictions on women in combat. Greg Ip of the Economist magazine, James Fallows of the Atlantic and Juan Williams of Fox News join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Greg Ip
U.S. economics editor, The Economist, and author of "The Little Book of Economics: How the Economy Works in the Real World."
James Fallows
national correspondent, "The Atlantic."
Juan Williams
political analyst, Fox News.
News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the Obama administration's decision to allow certain exemptions for religious employers from its new law requiring all employers to provide women access to contraceptives:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
It's difficult to understand how anyone can soberly argue that wealth focused in fewer and fewer hands is healthy for our country or will create jobs; UNLESS either one has ulterior motives, OR has fallen under the hypnosis espoused by right-wing media.
Will GOP be ultimately happy if all wealth is finally focused in one tiny group?
One King of kings and all will be well?
Why did we bother breaking away from our benevolent Masters in England if this is what Americans are now to believe?
Romney's and GOP's general business model would seem to indicate that "they" might prefer "downsize " our country, eliminate jobs, & keep revenue low and debt high; so that the "shareholders" at the top will flourish aplenty- to the detriment of everyone else.
But no need for concern- we all can depend on wise and benevolent charitable donations from those that have so distorted and rigged the American economic system.
Such is the way of supply-side economics and unrestrained capitalism.
Clint Eastwood was in the news this week, seems he was duped into making a political ad for Obama. Anyway, here is something I ran across, Clint in un-duped mode. By the way, another libertarian! damn I'm in good company these days.
"My father had a couple of kids at the beginning of the Depression. There was not much employment. Not much welfare. People barely got by. People were tougher then".
"I don't know if I can tell you exactly when the pussy generation started. Maybe when people started asking about the meaning of life."
"You can't stop everything from happening. But we've gotten to a point where we're certainly trying. If a car doesn't have four hundred air bags in it, then it's no good."
"I remember going to a huge waterfall on a glacier in Iceland. People were there on a rock-platform overlook to see it. They had their kids. There was a place that wasn't sealed off, but it had a cable that stopped anybody from going past a certain point. I said to myself, You know, in the States they'd have that hurricane-fenced off, because they're afraid somebody's gonna fall and some lawyer's going to appear. There, the mentality was like it was in America in the old days: If you fall, you're stupid."
Looking at America as a big business institution as GOP does, I can understand why GOP didn't wish to fund an expensive (to our debt) short-term stimulus program at start of Obama's term. America should have been "allowed to fail" by continuing the same stagnant GOP policy that had brought steady job loss for 12 straight months.
A 2nd Great Depression might have brought about the best in all of us and perhaps we might have put petty partisanship aside.
As it was we got 12 straight months of job growth.
Ever since the advent of Reagan's "voodoo economics", American economy has been consistently "bailed out" by the likes of China.
Let's see, Reagan tripled our national debt, Bush doubled it. In both instances the majority of this debt was accrued during times of relative economic prosperity, when one might have thought it might occur to our brilliant "leadership", to pay down our debt and the crippling interest payments on it.
But only Democratic administrations have had any success at balancing our budget and bringing down our debt.
So much for "conservatism".
Bring back another GOP administration- we haven't shot ourselves in the foot quite enough times yet to be completely crippled.
Can never have enough air bags and hurricane fences aye Drew.
Is that what you guys do now, lay out the bs so thick and deep that no one wants to touch it?
Go ahead, make my day!
This week we have been witness to the fact that the Republican Party is in the midst of serious melt down. A recent mid-January survey showed that 58% of Republicans want more choices for the presidential nomination. They see the current crop as sub-par and would prefer to see somebody else altogether. The fact that Romney can’t get any traction or interest above 30% and that every week, or month yet another candidate bobs to the top and takes the wind out of his sails proves that the GOP is in serious trouble with the conservative base….the “bitter clingers”. Only 37% are satisfied with the current field of choices. You might wonder what the party establishment is thinking if they cannot motivate the base in stronger support or greater enthusiasm. None of the current candidates are seen as thorough conservatives, and none are really very dynamic speakers. So we have now passed firmly into the election year of 2012 without a clear front runner who is enthusiastically supported in the party. Personally I have heard a lot of Republicans looking pessimistically at the future and fearing an Obama re-election by a margin of 2 to 1. That tells you something about how uninspired the base is with the current crop of candidates. The Republicans know that they are going to lose. And Gallup is reporting that conservatives have begun to accept that Romney is the probably nominee, that should tell you how bad it has gotten on the right.
Personally, I maintain that they (the Republican Party) are purposely throwing this election because they want to maintain another four years of Obama for political gain. And everything seems to support that, right down to having the Koch’s pledging 100 million dollars to defeat Obama. It will be money well spent on insuring that the exact opposite will occur. Especially in an economy like we have at present where the rich are maligned as they should be. How else could their stupid action be explained?
monte wrote:
"Clint Eastwood, another libertarian! damn I'm in good company these days."
----------------------------------------------------
As far as claiming Clint as a fellow libertarian because he once said he was in a 1997 Playboy interview and said in 2004, "I like the libertarian view, which is to leave everyone alone.," he is actually a political chameleon. As a registered Republican, he has supported both Democrats and Republicans for political office. He has not endorsed RP for POTUS. If he were actually a libertarian, he would have voted for Paul in 1988 instead of Reagan, and again in 2008 instead of McCain.
Another lame stream media liberal hypocrit alert:
"Governor of Arizona with her finger in the President's face. You don't see that often, or maybe ever..." NBC anchor Brian Williams
Brian Williams Points Finger At President Bush In 2006 Interview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JYzGUrCceY
MarcusTullius wrote:
"If he were actually a libertarian, he would have voted for Paul in 1988 instead of Reagan"
1988??. Reagan wasn't running for anything in 88.
Look man, no one is pure, I have been a libertarian before I knew what it was and my votes have been all over the place. Clint's philosophy seems clearly libertarian and that's good enough for me.
With the 1986 "firearms owners protection act" That stuck a knife in the heart of NFA firearm ownership for the public, I always choke when I hear what a great conservative Reagan was. Bush one and his import ban on military style rifles was just ahead for 1989. Yea great conservatives, I don't even know what conservative means when republicans claim the mantra, they are big government progressives.
monte wrote:
"Look man, no one is pure, I have been a libertarian before I knew what it was and my votes have been all over the place. Clint's philosophy seems clearly libertarian and that's good enough for me."
---------------------------------------
Clint isn't the libertarian candidate for POTUS. That would be RP. The guy you support. Clint doesn't share RP's whacky support for conspiracy theories, nor his views on 911 and the middle east. Clint's philosophy, "leave everyone alone," might make for a nice bumper sticker, but in reality, it is just another amorphous term that appeals to those who think lais•sez faire government has no destructive repercussions
-----------------------------------------
monte wrote:
"With the 1986 "firearms owners protection act" That stuck a knife in the heart of NFA firearm ownership for the public, I always choke when I hear what a great conservative Reagan was. Bush one and his import ban on military style rifles was just ahead for 1989. Yea great conservatives, I don't even know what conservative means when republicans claim the mantra, they are big government progressives.
----------------------------------------
What are you talking about? Class III ownership is still legal in 38 out of 50 states. The 1986 bill banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986. The ATF fee is still $200 as it was in 1934. Prices for transferable NFA firearms have increased mostly due to the internet rather than to the 1986 act.
MarcusTullius wrote:
"What are you talking about? Class III ownership is still legal in 38 out of 50 states. The 1986 bill banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986. The ATF fee is still $200 as it was in 1934. Prices for transferable NFA firearms have increased mostly due to the internet rather than to the 1986 act."
Truly I expect better from you. The supply has been frozen since 86 and the number of transferables has only gone down. You know supply and demand. Ask anyone in the hobby, they despise this law. Most transferables are in the 15 to 30k range because NO more can be made, not because of the Internet. The NFA hobby is in decline as a direct result of the 86 law. It appears you will sell your soul to prove me wrong!
Who said Clint is a candidate? I don't know what Clint thinks about Ron Paul but if his views on the Korean war are any indicator, well then. I will look into this but I am pretty secure in what to expect from Clint on the Global War on Terror.
monte wrote:
"Truly I expect better from you. The supply has been frozen since 86 and the number of transferables has only gone down."
-----------------------------------------
The suply was frozen since 1986, but if you look at prices from 1986 to 1998, prices did not increae dramtically. I am an NFA purchaser. NFA items have become much more popular in the last 25 years than the previous 50 years. The internet attracted speculator buyers who figuered NFA firearms were the new investment. Even the C&R NFA firearms, specifically Colt TSMGs, which the 1986 act did not effect, stayed around $10K+ until post 2000 when they went to $20K+. Not to mention the NRA couldn't care less about NFA items.
Demand has certainly not exceeded supply. There are NFA items for sale at all times on the net. If you live in an NFA state, you are free to purchase NFA items with CLEO sign off and $200 tax fee. The 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee affordable prices for NFA weapons.
--------------------------------------------------
monte wrote:
"Who said Clint is a candidate? I don't know what Clint thinks about Ron Paul but if his views on the Korean war are any indicator, well then.."
-------------------------------
You said Clint shares your political ideology. Yet, you are a RP supporter. I you were to do down the list of RP beliefs, Clint would hardly echo RP's weltanschauung.
While Clint was in the Army SS during the Korean War, he never went overseas. Clint surely favored Reagan's Grenada invasion as demonstrated in his flick "Heartbreak Ridge." RP says that the U.S. should have stayed out of WWII even after Pearl Harbor and when Germany declared war on the U.S. Are you telling me you, and Clint, share this view as well? That is the view of liberals such as Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. Perhaps this is why Paul has such staunch liberal supporters such as Phil Donahue.
OK, I get it, hurray for unconstitutional gun laws when enacted by republicans. After the 1988 comment you should have just let it go. I have no room for neo-conservatism or far left liberalism, there is basically no difference. You really got me and I am humbled, I know when I'm outmatched intellectually. Good luck to you Sir.
monte wrote:
"OK, I get it, hurray for unconstitutional gun laws when enacted by republicans. After the 1988 comment you should have just let it go. I have no room for neo-conservatism or far left liberalism, there is basically no difference. You really got me and I am humbled, I know when I'm outmatched intellectually. Good luck to you Sir."
-------------------------------
What's with the colic? The 1988 comment? Yes, Clint supported Reagan in 1980 and 84, and he supported Bush 41 in 88. What he didn't do is vote for RP in 1988 (who did?) when Paul was satisfied running as a libertarian instead of a libertarian using the GOP as a front.
Considering your candidate RP champions far more far left liberal positions than conservative positions, you not only have room, but a spare wing reserved for such ideology. You actually call Reagan a "neo-conservative?" Who uses the term "neo-conservatism" other than liberals?
I think what we have here is an interesting case study of ideologues in action. Personally I never look for friends when I know there aren't any, I know even good friends can be axe murdered victims by the end of the month if I'm forced to live with them, or at least I will be glad when their gone. I gotta guy so bent with hatred for Ron Paul that he cannot resist to attack me a guy he probably finds a lot of agreement with for supporting Ron Paul. Ignoring his own contradictory statements of historical events, overlooking policies that are against his claimed interest that lay only a few inches away, to make a point that makes no sense. The two others spout the same GOP conspiracy theories day after day, thinking the promised land is only the next government punishment or regulation away. In the end no minds are changed here or probably anywhere else so who cares? I do this for myself.
Does anyone believe the "a billion dollar foreclosure settlement" is anything more than a shakedown of banks. I hear all the screaming wheres my bail out, but I have not seen any evidence of wide spread trampled rights. The people who were foreclosed upon were grossly over due on payments and now there they sit with their hands out for compensation for technical wrong doings that in reality forced them to live up to their mutually agreed upon contracts for mortgage loans. The real joke is the sympathizers, you, you will pay for it. There will be increased bank fees and more restrictions for the qualified, enjoy the victory you have already lost and don't know it.
monte
So only the stupid dolphins get caught in the 20 mile wide net?
I'll never forget Lee Marvin and Clint in Paint Your Wagon where he sings about talking to the trees. Call him up, maybe he'll play "Misty" for you.
Not looking for pity race baiter.
Excellent: Two stormtroopers from the dark side acting out the play Teece has written, trying to overcome one another with gun escalation, threatened ax murder, celebrity worship and bank-person emancipation. And it's not like the Progressives are behind Obama either. The Super-PAC money will reveal our sham elections as what they truly are; rigged. Republicans are dissatisfied with the depleted K-mart shelves of candidates, and the Democrats are fed up with secrecy, war and wealthy class supremacy. No matter who gets the White House Oscar there's gonna be some blanket tugging in 2013 as 400 wealthy families increasingly hog all the covers.
It seems that all the objections to requiring the coverage of comprehensive birth control are about requiring an organization that teaches that birth control is wrong must pay. I wonder what does it cost to cover a set of women who have comprehensive birth control vs a set of women who have insurance that does not cover comprehensive birth control? Aren't unplanned pregnancies very expensive?
monte: Terrific description of 2012- a Pity Race.
"I'm gonna give my all... fer Pity Paul, Pity Paul, Pity Paul.
I'd even shoot my dawg... fer Pity Paul, Pity Paul, Pity Paul
Stand up against the wall... fer Pity Paul!"
Now if I could graft the foreign policy of the good doctor, and the economic insight of Michael Hudson onto clever operator Obama, I'd have something.
Let's make the Amiish provide air conditioned tractors to their illegal alien laborers. If it's the right thing to do. And you must understand that if it's the law, and Constitutional, we must do it. I'm not kidding! When the People are sovereign their power is nearly limitless.
As to the issue of contraception, the real question is, once again, whether the church is above the law of the land. The health care act has been built around insurance through the work place. So if a religious group engages in a business that hires people not of their religion, they must offer all health services. They have the freedom to teach their religion but if people make other choices, they should question the success of their teachings.
I felt hopeful hearing President OBama announce his Foreclosure Task Force. But why do your guest think it took President Obama and Attorney General Holder so long to move forward on holding the banks accountable for bringing this nation to the economic brink? What took them so long? Is it all about the elections?
As a former Catholic, I would like my former colleagues to answer and their hierarchy to answer the question raised by an ABC news report this AM, that insurance companies acknowledge it is cheaper to provide insurance coverage for contraceptive programs because they prevent unwanted pregnancies and their complications, including abortions, HOW can you claim it is a matter of religious freedom to prevent your non Catholic employees working in Catholic hospitals open to the PUBLIC from accessing birth control that 90% of Catholics use despite the Church teaching to the contrary?
Grady Lee Howard wrote:
"Excellent: Two stormtroopers from the dark side acting out the play Teece has written, trying to overcome one another with gun escalation, threatened ax murder, celebrity worship and bank-person emancipation. And it's not like the Progressives are behind Obama either."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If the fanatical liberals are not behind POTUS Obama is he planning on getting re-elected with the support of only his children? Why do liberals rely on a hackneyed Star Wars term as a euphemism for conservatives? Is that why they also eschew the term liberal for Progressive?
As far as celebrity worship, Hollywood overwhelmingly endorses liberal politicians. Even POTUS Obama wanted to claim Clint's Super Bowl commercial as an endorsement for his policies.
In Ohio these right wing Super Pacs are running strong,and have showed their hand. They have co-ordinated their efforts among themselves to buy specific time slots.From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to Karl Rove to the Koch Bros.Even on S/B 5 last November we saw twice as many Republican ads,while reporting only 1/4 the dollars .LOL
I PITY ANYONE WHO WATCHED TV.....
What about the situation I recently saw, where a Jahovah's Witness church purchased a publishing company to print their Watch Tower pamphlets. Would we allow them to restrict their employees from the use of blood transfusions?
I am a retired Catholic school teacher. I find all this fuss about contraception amazing. In the past 30 years, I don't believe I have known more than 2 catholic women who did not use birth control. Come on, in an overpopulated world who but a bunch of old, supposedly celebate men could possibly want no birth contnrol. Perhaps the church could provide free university for the children!!
So if it was against the Catholic church to help black or gays should they be able to kick them out? These people are nuts..