Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-24/friday-news-roundup-domestic
President Obama unveiled a proposal to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%; Republican presidential candidates debated in Mesa, Arizona; and dozens of state attorneys general wrote to Google about concerns over its new privacy policies. Eleanor Clift of Newsweek, Ron Elving of NPR and Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Eleanor Clift
contributing editor for Newsweek/The Daily Beast.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Jennifer Rubin
"Right Turn" blogger for the Washington Post.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The New York Times: February 17, 2012 "The New Normal". Here is an issue that can be laid at the feet of the democrats. A product of the progressive left comes home and demands a response. Out of wedlock births promoted with policy decisions through law have changed perceptions of personal responsibility to the point were the very prosperity of the country and future of it are sacrificed for unabashed depravity. The great society programs of the 60's and the sick minded push to enact them has flowered into lost generations of depraved mindsets of self destruction. The numbers are in, children from single parents are at a disadvantage that almost guarantees failure, poor students with little or no respect for education and personal responsibility, most single parent households are destined for poverty and require tax payer assistance. We speak of shared responsibility in 2012 and everyone doing their part in the name of fairness but we have an entire class, 50% that expect to be carried by someone else. How many times do the rest of us have to sit back and allow the lefts good intention's destroy the country. Just another example of how president Obama has used an issue to pit one class against another. He speaks of Jesus,noble causes and shared sacrifice, but in reality demands more from the already generous and nothing from the self serving dregs he lures votes from with "free" government candy. Our president is nothing more than the lord of the flies.
NYT " It used to be called illegitimacy. Now it is the new normal. After steadily rising for five decades, the share of children born to unmarried women has crossed a threshold: more than half of births to American women under 30 occur outside marriage."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/18/us/for-women-under-30-most-births-occu...
Come on, you call this a balanced discussion panel? We got three liberals including the host and a caricature of a republican. If this were a car it would have three tires pulling to the left the right front tire blows because it has ten nails in it, it wouldn't be a surprise when it veers off to the left and crashes into a mountain of liberal #@.
For me the top story is as usual the undermining of the Obama administration. This week radical Christians burned Korans to antagonize Afghans and Muslims,causing more American dead. Each time they excuse these acts as mistakes. There is no mistake when right wing radio extremists tell military chaplains to disregard military orders of superiors,and follow the dictates of Catholic Bishops.Something has to give. Each week a different ring of the T-Party 3 ring circus,with American troops now dying,caught in the cross hairs.
Patsy Nomore wrote:
"This week radical Christians burned Korans to antagonize Afghans and Muslims"
Excuse me, are you saying our troops are "radical Christians"? No matter what you think of this war our guys are serving our country honorably. Blanket statements of hate have no place in civil discussion. " to antagonize" do you have any evidence to back this up? If your post is not offensive I don't know what is.
THX 1138, Can't say as I agree with you there.
Since the 70's, the boomer generation provided greater productivity than any other generation in American history- Too bad the lion's share of the profit of their production went to a few % at the top.
From 1960 through 2008, every Republican president has increased the debt/GDP ratio and every Democratic President has decreased it.
Why do you reckon that is?
If you like borrowing from China, Vote GOP.
More jobs were created under Clinton Admin than under admins of Reagan, Bush Sr., and W combined.
AND GOP and their prez nominees are promoting more of the same policies that have done so much damage to our nation.
In reference to a famous inaugural speech, I think those of great wealth have "thought not what they could do for their country, but what their country can do for them"-
for far too long.
Too bad for Santorum.
I had hoped his star would not burn out quite so soon.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"THX 1138, Can't say as I agree with you there.
Since the 70's, the boomer generation provided greater productivity than any other generation in American history- Too bad the lion's share of the profit of their production went to a few % at the top."
And that has what to do with out of wedlock births?
Before the subsidizing through welfare of unwed mothers, in the black community in the 60's about 20% were unwed in 2012 it's 73%. We all hear on a regular basis the staggering statistics of despair. No republican can touch the issue without being called a racist or worse. Democrats and even our first black president are absolutely silent on the issue. If the silence on the left over a problem they created does not qualify as irresponsible in the extreme what does. Disgusting!
Drew Kelly wrote:
"From 1960 through 2008, every Republican president has increased the debt/GDP ratio and every Democratic President has decreased it.
Why do you reckon that is?
If you like borrowing from China, Vote GOP.
More jobs were created under Clinton Admin than under admins of Reagan, Bush Sr., and W combined."
Sorry Drew, coincidence does not imply causality. I can say that because, and pay attention here, Presidents DO NOT SPEND. Congress does.
What you have to look at is who was in charge of Congress during those times. That changes the picture completely. And yes, that includes the first six Bush II years when Republicans were in charge. Their spending was profligate and they paid a heavy price at the ballot box for it.
Sorry, Clinton does not get the credit for your little jobs statistic. Gingrich does. Without him, we would have had "Hillary Care", which everyone admits would have been a job KILLER.
I will be following the board today, but I will NOT BE LISTENING TO THE SHOW.
That is because Diane has Eleanor Clift on. I have still not forgotten, nor forgiven, her ridicule of President Reagan for his Alzheimer's disease. It was an insult and afront to the friends and families of Alzheimer's patients everywhere. I have written the show many times about this, in the hopes that they would not have such a callous, insensitive, and downright mean person as a panelist. Clift's visits have been fewer, but she needs to go away.
Gas prices are lower than last May but moving up. When would they affect the economy?
How does one comment a day ahead of time?
Why did the Commonwealth of Virginia follow Newt Gingrinch dragging sex into the political discussion? Why now?
Who is going to maintain our infrastructure?
Is my polisci teacher Steve Rosen safely out of the news?
Not sure it was Eleanor or Jennifer who just protected the MSM by saying you can't blame the media for the coverage of the debates and what the candidates say,
Oh come on the MSM especially MSNBC have been pounding on Mitt Romney for weeks. Focusing on things like Romney's dog on top of his car during a family trip. Oy vey. Rachel Maddow hammered away on this one. Chris Matthews pounds on Romney every evening aud nauseum. No difference between Limbaugh and the far right pounding on President Obama. You can watch MSNBC from 5 until 10 and hear the same things repeated with a tiny twist about Romney, Santorum etc...while they basically ignore Ron Paul. Yes the MSM outlets have clear agendas. And that agenda is not committed to informing the public. Is it wrong to expect more in depth coverage of national and international news out of our MSM outlets? I guess so
Once Former Governor Mitt Romney gets by the radical right in the Republican party do your guest think he will be able to pivot and move back to his mostly sane, moderate history? I am a Dem and I think if he gets through these radicals he will be a serious contender against President Obama next fall.
Jennifer Rubin is a not a liberal especially on international issues. She is so pro Israel she can barely see straight. She is incapable of being factual about Iran, the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
Good insight, kathleen. The left knows that Romney is eminently more electible than Santorum. The one they fear is the one they pound the hardest.
Santorum just doesn't have that je ne sais quoi that you need to be elected President. Whenever the two of them face each other on the debate stage, it always puts me in mind of Romney, the CEO, talking to Santorum, one of his VPs. You can just tell who is in charge.
"THX 1138, interesting line of thought.
Don't know where your info comes from. If I remember correctly, the 'subsidizing through welfare of unwed mothers', was at its highest in the 60's. 'Been lots of reforms. If you're going to mention percentages or numbers of 'unwed mothers', why not mention combined, national figures or, at least, All 'subgroups'. (besides, we may need you to direct us to 'the black community'. It's not available on google maps.)
In spite of what you've heard/think. Democrat and Republican administrations have BOTH had to address social problems and poverty. 'Not sure I see your solution. If there are 'staggering statistics of despair', the 'they' that created them includes us all. (Please, before we delve back into generalities, if You have the solution, express it ...)
Anyway, one way to help avoid unwed mothers is to stop trying to return to the 50's, 60's, and 70's with obstructions to accessing birth control. Of course, that won't help with those unwed women who Choose to have children without the benefit of legally ordained spouse. I guess we could take away their rights, though.
Re the discussion of the singing ability of President Obama......I think he's pretty good! Furthermore, the fact that he's a cool (not cold!), non-reactive kind of guy makes me feel confident of his judgment. I don't worry about the 3 a.m. call where Barach Obama
is concerned.
johnandere wrote:
Drew Kelly wrote:
"From 1960 through 2008, every Republican president has increased the debt/GDP ratio and every Democratic President has decreased it.
Why do you reckon that is?
If you like borrowing from China, Vote GOP.
More jobs were created under Clinton Admin than under admins of Reagan, Bush Sr., and W combined."
Sorry Drew, coincidence does not imply causality. I can say that because, and pay attention here, Presidents DO NOT SPEND. Congress does.
What you have to look at is who was in charge of Congress during those times. That changes the picture completely. And yes, that includes the first six Bush II years when Republicans were in charge. Their spending was profligate and they paid a heavy price at the ballot box for it.
Sorry, Clinton does not get the credit for your little jobs statistic. Gingrich does. Without him, we would have had "Hillary Care", which everyone admits would have been a job KILLER.
So folks, according to johnandere, it doesn't make any difference to the economics of the country which party is in charge of the White House. Hmmmm -- if that's the case, why are the Rich Repubs fighting so hard to make their guy the one? Don't you just love the silly right-wingers ... ;)
We could have more discussion of principle
All governments seem to pursue policies that involve initiating force or violence against peaceful people.
There could be more discussion about what circumstances justify use of force, with a particular emphasis on initiation of force.
The kind of damage and suffering and the deaths caused by Syrian military attacks on citizens of Syria is similar to the kind of damage, suffering and deaths caused by my own government's military actions in several foreign nations.
A basic moral precept says that it is wrong for one person to initiate violence against another person. Because we do not have such a right to initiate force as individuals, we cannot legitimately delegate that right or authority to government.
...
There is a way to build a sustainable and just civilization. It involves sharing natural wealth equally. Pollution fees, with proceeds going to all people, would be an example of a policy that embodies this sharing in the political and economic structures. Fees on taking natural resources, with proceeds going to all people, would embody a respect of PUBLIC property rights in society. Public or commons property rights, like other human rights, are a kind of natural law which must be respected.
A basic moral precept says that we all have an equal right to enjoy natural opportunities. Related to this right is the right to share in deciding overall limits to rates of pollution and rates of taking of natural resources. There is a related shared duty to create systems of governance that result in actual limits that are in accord with, that are consistent with, the will of the people. We have to start talking about basic moral precepts if we are to carry out our most fundamental political responsibilities.
How to make the big problems much smaller
JE Sully wrote:
"In spite of what you've heard/think. Democrat and Republican administrations have BOTH had to address social problems and poverty. 'Not sure I see your solution. If there are 'staggering statistics of despair', the 'they' that created them includes us all. (Please, before we delve back into generalities, if You have the solution, express it ...)"
The solution, simple, stop subsidizing irresponsible behavior, force families to stick together for survival. We are not all to blame, LBJ's great society programs are at the heart of it. I managed rental property for years, the amount of programs to subsidize bad behavior are numerous. Staggering statistics, "if there are" staggering statistics, are you joking! I don't have the time or patience to educate everyone on every fact of life, I must assume some level of knowledge on the part of the reader and if the reader decides to reply I would also expect they know what their talking about, you fail on both accounts. Why don't you at least read the link and do a little checking on the subject matter before offering a knee jerk response to something you know nothing about.
It is interesting and revealing how the discussion has changed from the 2008 campaign. The hot topic then was the surge in Iraq and the damage it was doing to McCain's campaign.
Fast forward to 2012, Obama's surge in Afghanistan has led to record American deaths in the war, and the discussion is about Obama's singing ability.
Are the Americans dying from Obama's surge in Afghanistan less dead than those who died in the Iraqi surge?
kathleen wrote:
"Jennifer Rubin is a not a liberal especially on international issues. She is so pro Israel she can barely see straight. She is incapable of being factual about Iran, the Israeli Palestinian conflict."
The democrat party is in the pocket of the Israel lobby AIPAC make no mistake. Jennifer Rubin is the medias idea of a sensible conservative and that speaks volumes. You seem to be under the impression democrats are less for war making, nothing I offered you before on the subject has stuck. All the major wars of the twentieth century had democrats at the helm.
Mike Larson wrote:
"So folks, according to johnandere, it doesn't make any difference to the economics of the country which party is in charge of the White House. Hmmmm -- if that's the case, why are the Rich Repubs fighting so hard to make their guy the one? Don't you just love the silly right-wingers ... ;)"
Nonsense, of course. It makes a great deal of difference - but it's only a part of the story. The President sets the agenda, or at least tries to, but Congress does not automatically do his bidding. Mike, perhaps you should have paid a little better attention in civics. Gingrich came into the speakership with a very strong public mandate to honor the "Contract with America" in the first 100 days. After the drubbing he took in the off-year elections of '94, Clinton had to go along - or face defeat in '96. In that case, parties were not aligned, but essentially, Republicans were in charge. (Do you think the '90s would have looked the same with a Democratic Congress?! No thinking person would believe that.) In 2008, following the loss of Congress by Republicans in 2006, parties were aligned, and you got porkulus and ACA as a result - in those circumstances it's relatively easy for Presidents to set their agenda and get things done. Unfortunately for Obama, the public rejected his agenda in 2010, thanks, in no small part to the Tea Party. The alignment of the parties turned out to be a detriment for Bush in his first 6 years. So Republicans have a great deal of interest in who is in the White House.
Johnandere,
In a response to me on 02/17, you asserted that requiring Catholic-run entities to provide birth control in their employee health plans is akin to passing a law requiring Jews to eat pork and asked: "How's that for 'standing up to scrutiny'?" Well, it failed to do so - requiring Jews to EAT pork would be akin to forcing Catholics to USE birth control (can you fathom a law to either effect ever being introduced - much less passed? If they were somehow passed - how would they ever be enforced?). We both admit these are absurd examples, but consider this...
To the best of my knowledge, persons on public aid can use EBT cards to buy/consume pork, and school lunch programs can serve pork items. While anyone can refrain from purchasing and eating those items, I can't imagine legislatures or courts ever bowing to possible demands from Jewish/Muslim individuals or religious institutions to exempt them from taxes supporting those programs, disallow pork products as eligible items, or eliminate the programs altogether - because that aspect runs contrary to their beliefs.
The only distinction I acknowledge is that Catholic-run public institutions are being required to offer legal medical services they object to within the context of providing health insurance, as opposed to a direct government-funded service they contribute to with taxes. More akin to this situation, Jehovah's Witnesses have no EC-based standing to demand legislation prohibiting blood transfusions at large, nor should any public institutions they run be allowed to exempt coverage from employees' health insurance.
The "bottom line" is that the EC does not entitle religious groups to exemption from civil laws/regulations they assert run counter to their beliefs - or give them standing to demand prevention of such laws’ enactment - especially when they elect to participate in aspects of society that are not purely religious in nature.
donholl,
No analogy is going to be perfect - unless it's the exact example, which accomplishes nothing. The argument that these religious organizations must obey civil laws in EVERY INSTANCE does not wash.
We have in this country, for lack of a better term, a "hierarchy" of law. A condo regulation is trumped by local law. Local law is trumped by county law. County law is trumped by state law. State law is trumped by Federal Law (see Amendment 10), and Federal Law as enacted by Congress and signed by the President (or Presidential fiat as in this case) is trumped by the Constitution. The Constitution, the Supreme law of the land, represented here in the Bill of Rights, says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That trumps the President's attempt to force by law religious institutions to distribute or pay for bc. It violates the "free exercise" clause. Does that mean that a Catholic University can violate local building codes or not pay its sewer bill? No. But those things do not impinge on the "free exercise" clause or violate the basic tenets of their religious practice. The Obama fiat does. See the difference?
The crux of the matter is right here, donholl:
Requiring an institution, that by writ proscribes the use of birth control to its membership, as a fundamental part of its religious practice, to distribute and/or pay for bc, violates the "free exercise" clause.
Now, could the Obama administration argue that religious institutions who refuse to serve up bc, forego their tax exemptions and any federal funding they receive? I guess they could. But good luck arguing religious blackmail in an election year!
But as I've said, the Court will decide when the lawsuits begin - assuming of course that SCOTUS does not strike down the individual mandate this summer. If (and I believe when) that happens the point will become moot, because ACA will be history.
Nice debating you.
Bottpms up;
Then you need to go back to fair and balanced at faux spwes. There are a number of your type who fear objective debate and will not venture onto Progressive radio/tv shows for fear of opening their mouths only to reveal their inability to deal with the content.
I don't see how someone can point the finger at democrats for failing morality when you have people like Newt who wave the marriage flag while acting dishonorably towards his wife (wives). Those who speak for freedom of choice are overshadowed by those who choose to live immoraly while fighting the rights of minorities to pursue their goal of intimacy and relationship under the law.
Diane,
It's so tragically discouraging to hear you and your guest talk about corporate taxes as if there were no broad context in which these taxes are levied and/or cut.
Only one small segment of Americans understood the implications when in 1971, America opted out of the Bretton Woods Agreement and its gold standard fixed exchange rate principles. However, our largest corporations and the 1% understood the historical paradigm shift this meant for American monetary and fiscal policy.
They knew that Nixon's actions automatically created a nation with a sovereign fiat currency backed, not by species, but by the good faith and credit of the National government.
They also knew that the government budget and trade account no longer had to be in balance and that Federal Income taxes were not needed as revenue for the government to spend.
They reveled in this fact and that a sovereign fiat currency nation (SFCN)could issue all the dollars it needed and would never be constrained by the absence of revenue.
However, elected officials failed to understand that critical distinction. What should have happened in 1972-1975 was a complete revision of tax policy. All tax policy would need to do is serve as a tool to manage aggregate demand/inflation, not raise revenue.
Between 1971 and 1975 corporations and the 1% successfully lobbied for and received tax cuts; rates fell from 75% to 36%. Rates for the 99% remained around 30%-37% from 1971-2012.
This is the critical question that you and others fail to discuss. The same is true for interest rate policy. The Treasury and the Fed do not combine forces to borrow from the private sector or foreign governments in order to spend. That's nonsense in a SFCN.
Sources:www.moslereconomics.com
"The Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy," by Prof Warren Mosler.
www.modernmoney.wordpress.com An excellent primer on modern monetary operations post 1971.
PotomacOracle wrote:
Bottpms up;"Then you need to go back to fair and balanced at faux spwes. There are a number of your type who fear objective debate and will not venture onto Progressive radio/tv shows for fear of opening their mouths only to reveal their inability to deal with the content"
Here's the rub, this show the host in particular insists there is no bias and they have too to maintain public financing. You say it yourself "progressive radio" I have a problem with the lie, lies seem to come to the lips of the left so easily. What goes on at Fox is a non issue, no public financing! I am here and listening aren't I, better for you to practice what you preach.
Potomac,
One of the best posts on monetary policy I've read in a long, long time. Thanks.
On taxes, though, you mis-state. The bottom tax rate is not 30%. That's just ridiculous. I believe the current marginal base rate is 10%, and at that, as you know, nearly half of the American public who are of age pay no Federal income tax.
bottomsup wrote:
" I am here and listening aren't I"
Of course the statement "There are a number of your type who fear objective debate and will not venture onto Progressive radio/tv shows for fear of opening their mouths only to reveal their inability to deal with the content" is patently ridiculous. There are a number of "our type" who give the progressive left a drubbing on these very pages on a near daily basis.