Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-12/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan debate in Kentucky. The presidential race tightens in swing states. And the Supreme Court hears arguments on affirmative action. Ron Elving of NPR, Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times and Naftali Bendavid of The Wall Street Journal join Diane for analysis of the week's top national news stories.
Guests
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg
Washington correspondent for The New York Times.
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Friday News Roundup Video
"Clearly, there was an attempt to learn the lessons of the last debate," Naftali Bendavid, national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, said. Our panel weighed in on last night's vice presidential debate.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Then Sen. Biden voted for the Afghanistan resolution on Sept. 14, 2001 which authorized “the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.”
And on Oct. 11, 2002, Biden voted for a resolution authorizing unilateral military action in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
Something to think about:
Many comments here suggest that some commenters seem to place a great deal of confidence in people they have never met, and most likely never will meet.
So it makes me wonder:
What percentage of these trusting individuals would pick-up totally unknown individuals hitchhiking along the interstate? It would seem that most of them would.
Now most of them would say that picking up hitchhikers is dangerous, for you never really know what one might do. And they would of course be correct; it is well known to sometimes be dangerous.
It must be that these people are brave only because they are on an anonymous comment board.
In the real world, they are something completely different.
I just wanted to say that I enjoyed these panelists more than any I can remember. I haven't been a religious listener lately, but I didn't recognize Sheryl and Ron's voices. I always like Naftali. Please keep them in the rotation. Thank you!
@ ecgberht
Where to start with your foolishness. Since you know what Romney said, please provide proof of what he said regarding Obama? Proof of an effort to establish a religion called Secularism....listen for yourself and refute or quit spinning:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/romney-obama-wants-to-establish-a-... (video below of his lie...blatant by the way...quote in context, liar)
Second video for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScqD4jpozpQ (please show us where what he apologized for is out of context, Mr. Fabricator....you two are perfect together)
I really don't expect you to man up and apologize for your out of context comment
How absurd a comment you made about taking something away. Romney is not PROPOSING TO TAKE AWAY FOOD STAMPS OR UNEMPLOYMENT. Put the spoon away. Unemployment will continue to exist and Romney has not proposed (although that could change tomorrow) taking that away. Same for food stamps. So, what are they "taking" away? I think you are missing a screw making such a comment.
Is that the same GE, run by Neutron Jack who complained about the BLS unemployment numbers. Is this the same GE, led by Jeff Immelt, who's parents are staunch Republicans and told him not to take the position (and before you try to say that is not true, watch the 60 Minutes interview). Plenty of companies pay no income tax......where is this flood of hiring you speak about. Here is a story for you showing 30 large corporations paid no income tax during the period 2008-2010. According to you, they should be flooding the country with new jobs (your words). Guess it was just a bunch of ....malarkey
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/03/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSTRE7A...
Seblack stated
"My absolute favorite Biden comeback:
“I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes words don’t come out of your mouth the right way,” Ryan said.
Biden laughed and retorted: “But I always say what I mean.”
And I add....as opposed to Mitt Romney.."
Would of been great if Ryan would of come back. Your right, like when last week you stated that "the middle class has gotten poorer the last 4 years".
Biden did say that.
"Where to start with your foolishness. "
"I think you are missing a screw making such a comment. "
"Guess it was just a bunch of ....malarkey"
Frist, your condecension and ad hominem is really off-putting. Someone who has facts on his side doesn't need it. You think it makes you look smart. It makes you look like you can't make a cogent argument - you know, kind of like Vice-President Biden.
What does Romney's statement about the President have to do with his statement about the 47%?! That is a CLASSIC strawman. Divert attention to something that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
As for his appearance on Hannity, he did not "apologize" for his statement, but he did explain his inelegance. If you heard him say "I'm sorry" that would be another example of "you're going to believe what you want to believe". In his surreptitiously recorded speech, he was talking about who would and would not vote for him. Look at both quotes in context. They are not incongruous. On the Hannity show, what he said was that he would be President of the 100% - all the people. Which is what a President should be - unlike someone we know.
"How absurd a comment you made about taking something away. Romney is not PROPOSING TO TAKE AWAY FOOD STAMPS OR UNEMPLOYMENT"
I suggest YOU learn to read and read for understanding. You've become fond of attributing things to me that I did not say. Go back and look at my previous post on the subject. Then consider the thought process of people who vote.
On the taxes thing, yes, there are many companies that pay no taxes - and many of them don't pay taxes because they have moved large portions of their businesses overseas. Do you think they did that for fun? Or because we have one of the highest tax rates in the world? In fact, the corporate tax law in this country is a mess. I asked you, do you know how much revenue is garnered from corporate taxes in this country? I don't think you do.
On the Oct. 4, 2012 PBS NewsHour, an economist stated that corporations are sitting on TWO trillion dollars in cash. Quite frankly, I cannot believe that both Obama and Biden have been completely silent about these scandalous, irresponsible corporate actions that have so undermined the economic recovery. Every time that the poor economy comes up, Obama, Biden and others should look squarely into the camera and state emphatically: "Everyone who is looking for a job should ask himself or herself, 'Why are corporations sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash--part of which is Federal bailout money?'" Biden also failed to point out the utter absurdity of comparing Romney's proposed 20% reduction in the tax rate, when the marginal rate for multimillionaires is 15%, to the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts when the highest marginal tax rate was 70% or higher. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Recovery_Tax_Act_of_1981#Summary_o... under Reagan's 1981 tax cut, the "top rate dropped from 70% to 50%."
Diane,
I was very disappointed with the partisan commentary, especially on the Romney Tax Cut. You and your guests know the facts:
- Passing good legislation involves consensus input from your party as well as across the aisle. Ignoring the Dems for a moment, Romney still needs to 'horse trade' with the GOP. Furthermore, I can't believe your pundits suggested Romney should just pass it with his majority (if it exists). That strategy was an unmitigated disaster for Obama.
NET - a real plan can't exist until that horse trading is done.
- Your pundits also know that behind every loophole is a special interest group. Putting a 'target' on any of them this early will give them ample time to lobby, lobby, and lobby some more, so their loophone remains.
The only legitimate questions now are:
1) Do loopholes exist that can balance out the tax cuts? (with some growth)
2) Will the tax cuts be contingent upon corresponding cuts to loopholes? (no money, no honey)
If both are yes, then you must let the process work, and stop the false indignation that you don't have specific details!
Gary, Your analogy is a fail. Hitchhiking was commonplace from before the depression until the 80's, when a few sensational cases put the kebosh on the practice. In truth, we made the practice illegal due to exaggerate fears fanned by media.
The practice still exits, but has shifted to 'hitching' through bulletin boards or websites instead of the side of road. We now call it ridesharing/ carpooling.
Diane,
I expect paid journalists and pundits to do their homework before speaking. Contrary to your derision for the Romney/ Ryan plan, some amateur sleuthing readily discovered significant support, by experts, for their economic plan:
Economists for Romney
6 Nobel laureates in Economics
Over 650 Economists from Universities and Public institutions
These 'subject matter experts' clarified why they support Romney's plan over Obama AND all signed their names, including University affiliation.
I will gladly again become a broadcast level contributor to NPR and your program, when you start to show some journalistic integrity.
@ johnandere
If you want to be Johnnie Come Lately, at least read the previous comments in the thread to get some context. My argument was more than cogent in response to ecgberht. Had you read what he posted, he claimed people on unemployment and food stamps would continue to vote for President Obama, rather than someone they presumed was trying to take it away from them. I merely pointed out how patently absurd the argument was, because you can't possibly make enough off those two programs to live a happy and successful life and that would not be an incentive to vote for the President. Now, to your comments:
Go back and listen to the video. Since you seem to be a bit challenged, jump right to the 46 second mark of the second one.......your man says it was wrong and he cares about the 100%. I know that may not make you happy, but it contradicts what he said during the 47% speech., in his own words. I guess saying it was wrong is not apologizing? Scary, what passes for education.
Please don't attempt to lecture me on taxes, as I studied accounting undergrad. There are many ways to get your corporate taxes down to zero and it does not require moving operations overseas. What is annoying about you jumping into this thread, without looking at the prior posts, is you would have seen why the issue was brought up in the first place. People complain about individuals who pay no federal income tax, but don't say boo about these large profitable corporations who pay no federal taxes. Typical hypocrisy. Hope that helps
Domenico wrote:
"Biden and others should look squarely into the camera and state emphatically: "Everyone who is looking for a job should ask himself or herself, 'Why are corporations sitting on more than $1 trillion in cash--part of which is Federal bailout money?'"
Uhhh ... actually they should look in the mirror, not the camera. That is where the answer lies.
1dondraper wrote:
"If you want to be Johnnie Come Lately, at least read the previous comments in the thread to get some context....Had you read what he posted...."
You are new to this board so you do not know that sometimes posters post under multiple IDs because for some reason, which not even the DRS webmaster can explain, the DRS mb software blocks IDs from certain IP addresses. I like to say that "ecgberht" is my "brother from another mother", so you can assume that what he says I say, and what he believes I believe.
Which makes "What is annoying about you jumping into this thread, without looking at the prior posts" so, ... well ... annoying, as well as patently absurd, since I not only "looked at the prior posts", I wrote them.
Got it?
Which all goes to the point that for a newbie to a mb you are awfully snippy.
"If you want to be Johnnie Come Lately"
"Since you seem to be a bit challenged"
"Scary, what passes for education."
As I said, "Your condecension and ad hominem is really off-putting. Someone who has facts on his side doesn't need it. You think it makes you look smart. It makes you look like you can't make a cogent argument". A word to the wise, don.
Instead of dwelling on your interpretation of what was said, ("he claimed people on unemployment and food stamps would continue to vote for President Obama, rather than someone they presumed was trying to take it away from them") how about just putting the quotes out there? "Obviously these people would rather have jobs, or have better jobs. But when one candidate promises you bread and paints the other as taking it away, whom would you vote for?" and "When the government, particularly the current Administration is the one putting bread in your mouth, you're going to think twice before you vote them out of office. "
See the difference?
You also still do not grasp the difference between being President of 100 % of the people and what percentage of those people will actually vote for you.
Part deux.
"Please don't attempt to lecture me on taxes, as I studied accounting undergrad."
In addition to the Strawman argument, you also seem to be a fan of "argumentum ad verecundiam" - Argument from Authority - you should look it up. You see, whether either of us "studied accounting" (I did in grad school) has no bearing on whether what you say is correct or not. Got it? But that you think companies don't move overseas to avoid taxes tells me everthing I know about how you "studied accounting undergrad". I've asked you twice ... do you know how much revenue is generated by corporate taxes?
I've had about a belly full of you, don, so I will give you the last word. I've had some really spirited, respectful discussions with liberal progressives such as yourself - some very hard lefties. But they know how to make an argument without being condesending and without personal attacks. I have a lot of respect for those folks ... so far, zero for you. Like a petulent child I will give you the last word. If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear, does it make a sound?
So, did Mitt Romney say he was wrong? Still tap dancing without answering a simple question. Time honored trick when you know you were wrong in your earlier comment? It is a pretty simple question?
partisan politics on October 12, 2012 @ 11:45 pm wrote: "Mr. Sardonicus"
I liked that movie too, as well as the Wiseguy variation on it. But I fail to see the relevance.
ecgberht on October 12, 2012 @ 3:52 pm wrote: “What was lacking was the oversight to effectively enforce it. That is a FAILURE of government, not a lack of it.”
I see your capacity to state the obvious, while missing the point, continues unabated. Along with your penchant for taking part of what I write out-of-context, and ignoring the rest.
In this case, you deliberately ignored the very next paragraph of my Comment, where I stated: “People are dying because of a failure to regulate. . . . ”
News Flash! There are two ways in which there can be a failure to regulate: 1) Failing to create the regulations in the first place, and 2) Failing to enforce them. So we are both talking about the exact same thing!
The difference? I use it to demonstrate what’s wrong with Republican ideology: the demonization of government. You use it to engage in more of the same.
The point remains: if Republicans had their way there would be no regulation at all! So, instead of talking about a “failure of government”, we’d be talking about a deliberate decision to let lethal medications spread throughout the “pure, perfect, sacred, and holy” marketplace.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"partisan politics on October 12, 2012 @ 11:45 pm wrote: "Mr. Sardonicus"
I liked that movie too, as well as the Wiseguy variation on it. But I fail to see the relevance."
You're joking right? do a google image search and see if it makes you think of the VP debate.
http://idothings.info/i-watched-mr-sardonicus-so-you-dont-have-to/
ecgberht on October 12, 2012 @ 4:05 pm wrote: “You're going to believe what you want to believe.”
No, that describes you.
First, as usual, you miss (or deliberately attempt to evade and avoid) the point 1dondraper was making: Romney’s proven track record of hypocrisy and political opportunism, of saying at any given moment what he thinks will advance his ambition. If claiming to out-Kennedy Ted Kennedy could win him the Senate race, he’s the biggest liberal imaginable. If out-Gingriching the “Newt” will win the Republican nomination, then he becomes super conservative. Proving, of course, that he’s really just Mr. Etch-A-Sketch.
But let’s turn to that infamous 47% remark, which he’s now busy trying to disown. (Doesn’t that bother you in the least?) It happens to be completely wrong from every possible angle.
Are you aware of the source for that figure? It’s a study conducted by the Tax Policy Center. But if you bother to actually read the study, Romney’s claims (and yours) fall apart.
That infamous 47% figure includes the 28.3% of households which, while paying no federal income tax (because their incomes are too low), do pay the payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That means they are hardly the people you describe as having “dependence on the government”. In fact, quite the opposite, they take “personal responsibility for their lives” by working and paying taxes towards their elderly years. And since they’re employed, they obviously don’t qualify for “UE” (I assume you mean unemployment insurance.) I also doubt they qualify for those unspecified “other metrics” you refer to but don’t state.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
By the way, many of these families pay no Federal income taxes because of the cuts that old “socialist” Bush the Second created, which that other “socialist”, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch, and the Republicans want to preserve! (What was that you said about dictatorships starting with “generous gifts from the public treasury”?)
Another 10.3% of households pay no federal income tax because they’re retired and elderly. Yeah, those “commie” old folks, who worked hard all their lives (many of them part of the “Greatest Generation” we owe our freedoms to). How dare they expect the government to keep its promise to feed their “dependence” by providing Social Security and Medicare! Obviously, they are all irresponsible freeloaders. It’s not like they paid for this their entire lives! (Oh, wait, they did.)
That leaves about 6.9% of households which are non-elderly, and have incomes less than $20,000 per year. Maybe those are the people you and Romney are thinking of? The one’s living “the life of Riley” on the pittance they have.
Of course, you’re both ignoring the other taxes, such as State and local taxes, that even these “fortunate bums” pay. Include them and you discover that most people (whatever their income level) pay approximately the same percentage of taxes as their percentage of the nation’s total income.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-j...
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
Oh, and one dirty little secret you might want to consider. It turns out that among those “moochers” receiving “generous gifts from the public treasury” are high income households who pay no income taxes due to “reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends”.
Source: www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1001547-Why-No-Income-Tax.pdf1dondraper
So, it turns out that Romney’s “kind of people” (the ones he was secretly addressing) are part of that 47%!
P.S. - By the way, I have a friend who does fit the slander you and Mr. Etch-A-Sketch engage in - sort of. She’s dependent on government aid (and on charity from the Mormon church, and friends, like me). She worked hard all her life, but came down with medical conditions that forced her early retirement before she could qualify for a pension. She’s on Section 8 for housing, Medicaid, food stamps - the whole bit. Exactly the kind of person who must belong to your 47%, and be a devoted Obama fan.
Did I mention she’s voting for Romney?
climatewiz1 on October 12, 2012 @ 5:09 pm wrote: “I see the problem... you are getting your info from Media Matters and Mother Jones.”
And you get yours from where? Faux News, the RNC, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch?
I provided two sources for my facts (which in turn provide additional sources), and you provided how many for yours? That’s right: none!
As for the list of companies “headed down the drain”, I’d love to see where you got that from, if only so I could check on the accuracy of your sources. (Meanwhile, excuse me if I’m skeptical.)
Oh, and by the way, it turns out another little “inaccuracy” Romney spewed, and you swallowed wholesale, is that $90 billion figure. Turns out it didn’t entirely go to “green energy firms” (successful or otherwise). Indeed, the total amount of “green energy” losses consist of “a sliver of a sliver of” that amount. Which is why PolitiFact rated Romney’s claims False.
Source: Mitt Romney says Barack Obama provided $90 billion in green energy 'breaks' in one year
johnandere on October 13, 2012 @ 3:08 pm wrote: "You've become fond of attributing things to me that I did not say."
Since those remarks were clearly addressed to ecgberht, and since you posted exactly one prior Comment to this story, I can only conclude that either you are having a severe identity crisis, or else you are eggie posting under a new name.
If the first is true, I suggest you see a good therapist.
If the latter, why?
P.S. - Just saw his later Comment, which answers all my questions. [posted at 7:53pm]
theo on October 13, 2012 @ 11:52 pm wrote: “. . . you must let the process work, and stop the false indignation that you don't have specific details!”
Translation: “I want my tax cuts, and I don’t give a damn about the facts.”
Speaking of which, assuming Romney wins, I wonder how much “horse trading” he’ll be able to do if the Democrats choose to emulate the Republicans, and become the new “party of NO!”? That’s a little fact “your side” keeps ignoring. But I have no doubt that if this happens, especially in the mis-use of the filibuster (like the Republicans have been doing), we’ll quickly hear Republican threats to “go nuclear”!
Meanwhile, I refuse to buy a “pig in a polk”.
theo on October 14, 2012 @ 4:46 am wrote: “These 'subject matter experts' clarified why they support Romney's plan over Obama AND all signed their names, including University affiliation.”
They certainly did, and the “clarification” was that they are all ideologues who endorse the theory of “voodoo economics” (which gave us such wonderful deficits under Reagan and both Bush the First and Second). Forgive me if I’m unimpressed.
On the other hand, I tend to be skeptical of economists in general.
johnandere on October 14, 2012 @ 5:09 pm wrote: “You are new to this board so you do not know that sometimes posters post under multiple IDs because for some reason, . . . .”
True enough. I’ve been a victim of this myself.
But might I suggest that when this happens, instead of choosing a completely different identity, you use a variation of your first one? For example, when it happens to me I substitute “Etaoin Shrdlu2”, thus making it clear (I hope) that’s it’s still “me”.
By the way, while I don’t like ad hominem remarks, your complaint is a case of the pot and the kettle. Anyone who isn’t “new to this board” knows this.
partisan politics on
October 14, 2012 @ 7:12 pm wrote: "You're joking right? do a google image search and see if it makes you think of the VP debate."
Your explanation isn't one.
Though I do notice a certain resemblance to pictures of Ryan I've seen! Given your political views, though, I doubt that's what you had in mind.
@ Etaoin Shrdlu: You wrote: "And you get yours from where? Faux News, the RNC, Mr. Etch-A-Sketch? I provided two sources for my facts (which in turn provide additional sources), and you provided how many for yours? That’s right: none!"
Etaoin: If your sources are Media Matters and Mother Jones then... are you not guilty of doing what you accuse me of....using biased sources?
Here are the sources I quoted from. You are free to fact check them for yourself. As you can see, they are all in government websites that are free to all for public access.
1- The list of those who received stimulus money is located on Energy.Gov ...that's right...on the department of Energy website. The amounts of the grants, tax breaks or direct stimulus money they received is listed by company / green energy category.
2- Google any of the names of the failed green energy firms that I listed in my previous post and and you will find the date (and court) that they filed for bankruptcy on/in. You can also go to public records for the state in which the company was incorporated and see for yourself their filing date and, if you dig deep enough you will find their creditors (those they still owe money to... Look...I don't like seeing companies fail. I guest lecture on critical thinking at several college campuses. Business ethics is a subset of my lectures. I am also not so naive as to think that we don't need alternative sources of energy. However; I also know what a waste it is to throw cash at a problem without seeing results and without controls. The best and most advanced gains we have made in technology in past centuries have not come from simply throwing cash at them (or at corporations). The smart ideas came from PEOPLE who were driven either by an inquiring mind, or by need, to find the solutions. You can't buy that. To use a word the greenies are fond of...it's "organic" dude...
climatewiz1, on October 15, 2012 @ 5:06 pm wrote: “are you not guilty of doing what you accuse me of....using biased sources?”
I often wonder why it is partisan ideologues have such trouble comprehending simple English composition.
The only thing I “accused” you of was failing to provide any sources for your claims. I merely inquired whether those sources might be the mirror image of the sources you condemned me for employing. In short, sir, the hypocrisy is yours. It’s okay for you to use such sources but not for others to use their mirror-image. (That’s assuming, of course, that the two sets of sources are equally “unfair and unbalanced”.)
As for the sources you did provide, thank you. That still leaves the issue of whether your use of said sources was correct, along with the conclusions you drew and the opinion you expressed. It seems a tad late to worry about that now. Perhaps if you’d provided your sources earlier.
(I must note, however, that you made no reply to my point that not all of the 90 billion you originally spoke of went to “green energy” companies, and that the amount lost was “a sliver of a sliver” of the 90.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
We do agree on one thing, though: just throwing money at a problem doesn’t necessarily solve anything. On the other hand, don’t be so quick to adopt the “great man” theory of history. For every one of those PEOPLE who were successes in technological development there were plenty of failures (at whom investors had also thrown money). If you’re so knowledgeable about business, surely you know that.
And you also should know that much of those successes were due, in whole or part, to a great deal of government help. Study the history of the railroads. (Diane Rehm did a show about a while back.) Almost none of the great railroads of the world would even have existed without massive government help.
Then there’s the effect of government spending on such projects as Hoover Dam, the Tennessee Valley Authority, and the Interstate Highway systems. And surely you know the key role government spending played in the development of the aeronautics, computer, and health care industries.
P.S. - I’m not a “greenie”, and I don’t share their worship of the word “organic”, dude. Bubonic plague is organic, but I’d rather not get it.