Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-18/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Facebook begins trading this morning in one of history’s largest initial public offerings. President Obama meets with congressional leaders to seek common ground on the looming debt ceiling battle. The FBI launches a criminal investigation into the $3 billion trading loss at J.P. Morgan Chase. The House of Representatives approves the Violence Against Women Act. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney raises $40 million in one month, nearly matching President Obama. And minorities surpass whites in U.S. births for the first time. Michael Scherer of TIME magazine, Laura Meckler of The Wall Street Journal and John Harwood of CNBC and The New York Times join guest host Tom Gjelten for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Michael Scherer
White House correspondent, Time magazine.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
John Harwood
chief Washington correspondent for CNBC; reporter, The New York Times.
Related Video
The panelists discuss Facebook's initial public offering, which started trading Friday at 11 a.m. CNBC correspondent John Harwood said the offering was four times as large as Google's when it went public eight years ago. He said it was priced aggressively at $38 per share. TIME magazine correspondent Michael Scherer said Facebook is unique compared to other Internet companies because it can sell targeted audience information to its advertisers.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:44 pm wrote: “Third planet from the sun.”
But clearly not the sun planet Earth orbits.
;-)
“Do you rely on the DR Show for factual information?”
- Of course not. But you apparently don’t bother with factual information at all!
(See the following responses.)
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"There, I think all of that demonstrates how little “fact based” your politics is."
Right! care to explain again how "general welfare" in the constitution means welfare checks again?
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:44 pm wrote: “How have all those Republican appointed justices done in overturning Roe V Wade?”
Case in point (for your lack of information). Those “Republican appointed justices” have gone far in undercutting Roe, and a majority of them have indicated either outright contempt for or willingness to overturn that decision. But that only makes a minority of the Supreme Court. Let either Justices Kennedy or Ginzburg leave (the two mostly likely ones to go next) and the balance of the court could be tipped either way. Replace one of them with another Alito, Roberts, Scalia or Thomas (such as with Bork, Romney’s “advisor” on such matters) and it’s goodbye Roe. (A fact social conservatives are well aware of, and which is the main reason they oppose the President’s re-election.)
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:44 pm wrote: “POTUS Obama opposes civil rights for gays.”
Really? That’s why he ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, why he refuses to defend DOMA, why he supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), and has spoken in favor of gay marriage.
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:44 pm wrote: “POTUS Obama's position on gay marriage was the same as Romney's.”
Really? I don’t recall Obama ever supporting a Federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage throughout the nation. Romney does (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/05/12/romney-to-urge-grads-to-honor...). Obama supports civil unions too, Romney wants to ban those also. (http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/01/governor-romney-faced-challen...), although he has truly flip-flopped on that (he first opposed them, then for tactical reasons briefly supported them, but then opposed them again). See, also: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0509/Romney-stays-fi... and http://www.npr.org/2012/05/11/152489094/the-nation-gay-marriage-caught-r....
And on other issues of gay civil rights, Romney opposed repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” at the time it happened. (http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2011/06/13/244431/five-gop-presidential-ca...) He has also opposed ENDA. (http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2006/12/gov-romney-opposes-enda/) Although some argue he’s flip-flopped on that one too. (http://race42012.com/2007/12/31/mitt-romney-flip-flop-or-slip-on-enda/)
So, not only does Mr. Etch-A-Sketch have very different views from the President on the subject of “civil rights for gays” (to the extent one can “suss” them out), he seems to have very different views from himself, from time-to-time!
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:44 pm wrote: “But Newsweek didn't . . . .”
Obsessed with stupid magazine covers are we? Thank heaven People didn’t rate Obama “sexiest man of the year”!
Remember: 1992 Ross Perot! Paraphrased: "That giant sucking sound is your job going to Mexico..." . Only poor people need jobs and only poor people pay taxes, eh? In TEA Party grassroots Amercika as in Grease birthplace of civilization -- can't get anymore especial than a big ol' smelting pot black?
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:47 pm wrote: “Have you heard any objections from The White House about the cover?”
Oh, so now it’s a candidate's, or President’s, job to monitor and respond to every dumb thing the media does? I don’t think Obama or Romney would even have time to sleep if they had to do that!
The cover is silly and stupid. Get over it!
enlighten me on how the constitution relates to automobile licenses and cell phone use. ie: if you operate a motor vehicle and talk on a cell phone and rear-end me is that a states right thing for YOU or me. But in some countries we all drive wrecked automobiles WFO at 100 MPH, eh
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 1:53 pm wrote: “Could you link to these reports?”
http://www.gilmermirror.com/view/full_story/18631199/article-Voter-ID-La...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/08/93-year-old-woman-suing-pennsylvan...
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/05/marriage-certificate-required...
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20111204/WDH06/112040373/Voter-...
And that was just after a quick, part of one page, Yahoo research. Unlike you, I’ve been listening to many news sources over the past year, so I know about this.
I note you make no response to my point about making it easier for people to get these ID’s, so things like this won’t happen. I wonder why?
(Oh, and by the way, I think for the rest of today I may not respond to what you write unless you provide links to back it up.)
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm wrote: “Because Cairn wrongly assumed that the electoral college favored Romney he is expressing a ‘view counter to his partisan interest?’ Really? Cairn could move to California and end his worries about the power of his liberal vote.”
Clearly the problem is I’m trying to have an honest and intelligent debate with someone who can’t read.
Cairn made no such assumption. The only one claiming the Electoral College “favored” a candidate is you!
I repeat: Cairn complained that because of the system only a small number of states really matter in the election. He offered his state (Texas) as one example. Of course, since it’s a “red” state, all you can see is partisanship.
But since the issue is how the system makes “safe” states irrelevant, it wouldn’t matter if he moved to “blue” California. His individual vote still wouldn’t really count, even if he voted for a third-party candidate.
All you “see” is that he talked about voting for Obama (or not), and you assume partisan motives. (Probably because they’re the only motives you have.)
Arkus Duntov on May 18, 2012 @ 3:09 pm wrote: “Right! care to explain again how ‘general welfare’ in the constitution means welfare checks again?”
I believe what you’ve just done is referred to as “a non-denial, denial”, or “moving the goal post”, or my personal favorite “evasion and avoidance”. You don’t actually respond to the points I made demonstrating how little your political views are based on fact. Neither do you provide any facts to support what you write. You just raise another, irrelevant, topic.
However, I’ll play along.
Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1 gives Congress the power to “tax and spend” in order “to pay the public debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States”. It has long been recognized that this provision (along with others in the Constitution) support social welfare programs, such as Social Security. See, United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 56 S.Ct. 312, 80 L.Ed. 477 (1936), Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937), and Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937).
I know you don’t like this, but “dems da facts”.
RobertLongView on May 18, 2012 @ 3:16 pm wrote: “enlighten me on how the constitution relates to automobile licenses and cell phone use. ie: if you operate a motor vehicle and talk on a cell phone and rear-end me is that a states right thing for YOU or me.”
Once again I must express the wish that you’d at least try to write a coherent sentence. It would make responding so much easier.
The Constitution grants power to the Federal government that was delegated from the original 13 States. That was always part of the constitutional scheme, and is made explicit by the Tenth Amendment. Those powers not delegated remained with the States, unless forbidden by other parts of the Constitution (such as the Bill of Rights, for example).
Thus, the States have a much broader reservoir of power than the Federal government. They can legislate almost any way they wish for the health, safety, or welfare of their populations. They don’t have to specify that they are exercising a taxing power, a spending power, a power to regulate commerce, or any other “laundry list” of powers. They just have to show that their laws are “reasonably related” to a legitimate State interest (such as promoting health, safety, or welfare). This is literally known as the “Police Power”.
The Federal government’s power is more limited. It must find someplace in the Constitution where the power is granted. (Although, contrary to what Republi-Cons assert, it need not be expressly or specifically granted.)
So, States can regulate use of cars and cell phones in order to protect our health, safety, or welfare. This includes making laws that say if you’re injured by my driving while on the phone, you can sue me for compensation. That is your right, granted by the exercise of the State’s right.
Got it?
Ciao.
they are looking into for the $2+ Billion loss at JPMorgan now. But it is not a loss, it is now a part of the Wall Street 1% Rich Folk's Hedge Bet and it is sitting on the side lines waiting to inflate the next bubble. Why? Because they Can-Can. Any one that tells you that Income Inequality DOES NOT matter in our Economy is voting for Romney in November. You can bet on that!
So actually the "High Sherrif" is The Man, eh. As in "Yo in a heap o trouble boah?" Yeah i got it now. How many degress you got to go with all that common sense? All elegance aside, It won't hunt down heah, i'm tellin' u.... . it seems if the little old lady gets to Vote in Nov she will vote Democratic... . no amount of legalese will stop that fact... .
hosta la vista baby, i be back, u can bet on that... . arrive derchi
Within a week JPMorgan shareholders reaffirmed this Las Vegas High Roller as both CEO & Chairman. Why?
In this case the Invisible Hand of The Man played his cards AFTER the Shareholders had voted their poxies -- talk about slick... . Probably has a "tax-free" Trust Fund to roll his Bonuses into, you can bet.
These people don't build up American its all about greed.
Vote on the Volker Rule NOW Congress and end this TOO BIG to Fail Moral Hazard.
mnemecek says "JPMorgan lost Corporate funds not client funds......No money was lost from the people banking with them."
Must be that they keep two sets of books, isolated from each other at all times. Just like the last administration ran the Iraq war off the books. There must be something in the conservative mentality that makes it prone to mishandling other people's money
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote
"And that was just after a quick, part of one page, Yahoo research. Unlike you, I’ve been listening to many news sources over the past year, so I know about this."
-----------------------------------------------
You have "listened" but did you even read your own sources?
"After Cooper was denied a photo ID Monday, Kilpatrick contacted Hamilton County's Administrator of Elections Charlotte Mullis-Morgan, who recommended that Cooper vote with an absentee ballot rather than having to stand in line with her walker again at the state center."
"Absentee ballots don't require photo ID, and the new state law was crafted to allow that exception. A U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a similar Indiana statute cited the absentee ballot exception as one of the reasons the Indiana law didn't infringe on constitutional voting rights"
"The General Assembly passed the photo ID law earlier this year, with lawmakers saying it was needed to prevent voter fraud. The legislature allocated $438,000 to provide free photo IDs for registered voters who don't have a qualified ID."
The link to the John W. Whitehead, "Voter ID Laws Silencing the American People" is not a study, but an ACLU rant. Whitehead is a professional paranoid. No wonder he is against government issued ID. He refers to the Utah Data Center (UDC) as "the last link in the chain of the electronic concentration camp that surrounds us will be complete, and privacy, as we have known it, will be extinct."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/utah-data-center_b_138003...
Where are the complaints from Republican nonagenarian voters in these states? Did they only issue birth certificates to Republican babies?
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"I know you don’t like this, but “dems da facts”."
Liberal activist supreme court decisions does not mean it's constitutional. Roe v Wade ring a bell. It's made up law and dems da facts. Anyway you wrote many times that "general welfare' validated federal government social welfare programs, it does not, I believe what you’ve just done is referred to as “a non-denial, denial”, or “moving the goal post”, or my personal favorite “evasion and avoidance". By the way it has not gone unnoticed that you cannot come up with one "political fantasies" on my part. Your just making things up as you go along showing us who here is the true ideologue.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"But since the issue is how the system makes “safe” states irrelevant, it wouldn’t matter if he moved to “blue” California. His individual vote still wouldn’t really count, even if he voted for a third-party candidate."
-----------------------------------
That sure is the contrived issue. Mrs. Cairn could enter the polls after him and vote for Romney which would negate Mr. Cairn's vote.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Oh, so now it’s a candidate's, or President’s, job to monitor and respond to every dumb thing the media does? I don’t think Obama or Romney would even have time to sleep if they had to do that!"
--------------------------------
What makes you think POTUS Obama considers the Newsweek cover "dumb?" As far as Obama's White House taking time to respond to things they do not like in the media, see
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/white-houses-fox-news-boy_n_331...
"The attempt to shut Fox News out was the latest move in the administration's ongoing battle against the cable news channel, which several senior administration officials have claimed is not a legitimate news organization."
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 7:09 pm wrote: “You have ‘listened’ but did you even read your own sources?”
PART ONE
Yes, I did. The fact that “work arounds” are being made to deal with the problems the voter ID laws created doesn’t change the fact that the problems exist. As those stories show, and as I have said far too many times, those laws have made it harder for registered, legal voters to vote.
If you want a fuller analysis of the problems, continue researching it. After all, I said this was merely the product of a quick search. You wanted some links that showed problems, I provided them. I’m not going to produce an in-depth report on this webpage.
(At least, you’ve almost stopped denying problems exist.)
Meanwhile, since you simply dismiss out of hand the Whitehead article, I trust you won’t mind if everyone on “the other side” of the political spectrum does the same to any links to Faux News or Squawk Radio. (Or, you could do what I usually do: disregard the conclusory utterances which constitute mere opinion, and focus only on the facts or reasoning used in support of the opinion. Of course, that requires critical thinking.)
“Where are the complaints from Republican nonagenarian voters in these states? Did they only issue birth certificates to Republican babies?”
- And, of course, it’s all merely a partisan issue for you. I don’t see any indication that the problems reported exclusively affect Democratic voters. This may come as a shock, but there are poor people, elderly people, handicapped people and (since some of the reports mention or involve them) Black people, who actually do vote for Republicans. The laws may or may not disproportionately affect Democrats, but that doesn't mean Republicans aren't affected.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Of course, partisanship is involved, since it is the Republi-Cons who are pushing these things. But I’m not concerned about partisan advantage, just equal access to the ballot for all qualified voters. Something I’d think any “patriotic” American, who “supports” the Constitution, would be concerned about too.
P.S. - Interesting, though, that photo ID’s weren’t required for voting in the Iowa Republican caucus! (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/28/photo-id-not-required-to-vote-in-r...)
P.P.S. - Hey, how about some links to “prove” voter fraud is the huge menace you seem to think it is? Remember, though, no links to ranting by conservative “professional paranoids”.
P.P.P.S. - As for that Whitehead report you provided the link to (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/utah-data-center_b_138003...), I'll admit his language was hyperbolic, but no more so than Palin's non-existent "death panels", Bush's non-existent WMD's or mushroom clouds, or the insistence by Republi-Cons that any government regulation, any deviation, from Laissez-Faire economics constitutes Socialism! or Communism! And at least he backed up his hyperbole with facts.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Those “Republican appointed justices” have gone far in undercutting Roe, and a majority of them have indicated either outright contempt for or willingness to overturn that decision."
--------------------------------
We already know that logic, geopolitics, and history are not your strong suit. Five of the seven SCOTUS'' who voted for Roe V Wade were appointed by Republican Presidents. There is no way a temporary occupant of The White House could been sure their SCOTUS nominee would vote as a conservative. What else you got?
Arkus Duntov on May 18, 2012 @ 7:53 pm wrote: “Liberal activist supreme court decisions does not mean it's constitutional.”
Fine as long as you admit that conservative activist supreme court decisions (Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Bush v. Gore, D.C. v. Heller, Citizens United, and any decision striking down the health care law or upholding SB1070) aren’t necessarily constitutional either.
Here’s the way the system works. When the Supreme Court makes a constitutional decision that’s the law. You may not agree with it. I may not agree with it. But until it’s overruled, or until the Constitution is changed, it’s the law.
The decisions I cited to have been in place for decades, and were based on older precedents and the writings of the Founders. (Try reading them sometime.) They are well grounded. The same can’t be said for your “opinions”.
“By the way it has not gone unnoticed that you cannot come up with one ‘political fantasies’ on my part. Your just making things up as you go along showing us who here is the true ideologue.”
- Actually, I’ve done so many times, but you are so deep in denial that you refuse to see it. And quoting my words about evasion and avoidance is cute, but only proves my point. I respond in full, and at great length, to what you write. You merely reply with “cheapshots” devoid of either fact or reason, but filled with conclusory utterances. I’ll trust people to consider that in “passing judgment”.
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 7:58 pm wrote: “That sure is the contrived issue. Mrs. Cairn could enter the polls after him and vote for Romney which would negate Mr. Cairn's vote.”
Talk about contrived! (And irrelevant.)
The point he made (again) was that it didn’t matter who he voted for; in a safe “red” state the Republican would win the electoral votes of that state, in a safe “blue” State the Democrat would.
So, if the entire Cairn family (Dad, mom, and their 15 adult children, assuming such people exist) all voted for Obama in Texas, Romney would still win. Or, if they all voted for Romney in California, Obama would still win.
It’s really not that hard to grasp. (Except for partisan ideologues.)
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 8:09 pm wrote: “What makes you think POTUS Obama considers the Newsweek cover “dumb?’ ” As far as Obama's White House taking time to respond to things they do not like in the media . . . .”
Sigh, you really can’t comprehend standard English, can you? I should ask for your “papers please”?
I don’t know, nor did I claim to know, what the President thinks of the Newsweek cover (or even if he saw it*). You apparently claim to have such knowledge. (Did you see into his soul, perhaps?)
I’m the one who considers that cover dumb, and so it is.
And I didn't claim the White House (or any politician) never pays attention to, or responds to, the media, only that it’s not their job to monitor the media and respond every time it makes a dumb statement. What’s next? Romney has to critique “paid movie reviews” by obscure cinema critics! (You know, the kind that appear in movie ads with microscopic source names so you can’t learn where the fulsome praise came from.) Or perhaps both men should devote their first debate exclusively to Time’s breast feeding cover?
You may obsess over Newsweek’s cover, but the adults in this country don’t.
* - At least as of last Monday we can state Obama hadn’t seen it. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-newsweek-cover-declares-obama...)
MarcusTullius on May 18, 2012 @ 8:26 pm wrote: Five of the seven SCOTUS'' who voted for Roe V Wade were appointed by Republican Presidents.”
Oh, good grief! Now you’re just being dishonest.
We were discussing what Romney would do as President. (You asked how his religious views impact Federal law, remember?) I explained what impact he could have by his appointments to the current Supreme Court. Guess what? NONE of the Justices who voted in Roe (either for or against) are even alive anymore, much less on the Court. So thanks for raising a complete red herring.
But four of the present “Republican appointed Justices” (your term, not mine) have demonstrated a willingness to weaken Roe (by doing so), and/or have openly stated their desire to overturn it. Care to guess what kind of Justice Romney would want to appoint? (Hint: not pro-Roe.)
And excuse me if I don’t care to rely on the “lucky chance” he might goof and appoint a pro-Roe Justice by mistake. He’s not running on a promise to goof, but to end abortion.
(If I were you, I’d be more concerned that Mr. Etch-A-Sketch might change his stand once in office, and deliberately appoint a pro-Roe Justice. Not likely to happen, but that’s not my problem, and certainly no reason for me to vote for him.)
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"It’s really not that hard to grasp. (Except for partisan ideologues.)"
----------------------------
Would those "partisan ideologue" folks be the same ones who say things like "Mr. Etch-A-Sketch," "Republi-Cons" and "teabaggers." The only difference between you and lib shills David Corn/Katrina Van Den Heuval/Eleanor Clift is that they have actually appeared on The DR Show.