Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-11-30/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Negotiations to avoid the "fiscal cliff" continue. A fight over U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice heats up. And President Obama lunches with former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The week’s top national stories: what happened and why.
Guests
David Leonhardt
Washington bureau chief for The New York Times.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Ari Shapiro
White House correspondent for NPR.
Friday News Roundup Video
President Barack Obama and former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney met for lunch Thursday at the White House. Ari Shapiro of NPR said the menu was one of the only known details of their meeting, which was closed to reporters. "I can't think of a story in my recent memory that had so much interest and so little information," Shapiro said. Wall Street Journal correspondent Laura Meckler said Obama hosted a similar meeting in 2008 when he dined with his Republican challenger, Sen. John McCain. David Leonhardt, Washington bureau chief for The New York Times, added that these sorts of bipartisan meetings are a good thing. "It's a sign of the way things should work in a democracy," Leonhardt said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Kathleen- So if they shoot down Susan he could appoint Michelle Robinson (Obama)? Maybe she's too progressive with her organic gardening and all.
Gee, where's "partisan politics" today? There should be near-universal frothing at the mouth at this point (about 50 minutes) into the broadcast.
Those in power are going to use all possible means to stay in power. The moneyed are calling the shots. They have the power. They will use all possible means to stay in power. We don't just have a huge standing military to protect us from foreign foes. It also serves to protect the moneyed classes in times of social unrest. The trend worldwide is to create a one-world economic and political system. The world's economic powers are pushing this agenda. It remains to be seen whether or not this system will come into being. But the trend is real, and I believe it can be achieved.
If it does happen, I really don't think most of the world's population will enjoy it. One could argue that the living will envy the dead.
Please stop your panel from calling SS an "entitlement" ... it is not an entitlement is is something that is owed to everyone who paid into it and is self sufficient to at least 2035.
Thank you.
Pancake Rankin wrote:
Several here have recommended 50/50 compromise, but the T-party fascists will only move right on their demands the more slack socially responsible politicians give. This parallels Weimar in the late 20s.
1. The T-Party is a movement so there is no central body to support someone, the "T-Party" candidates are saying they support the ideals of the movement
2. How is a belief in the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and personal responsiility: Definition of FASCISM(From www.merriam-webster.com)
often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Notice the line about exalting nation above the individual, sounds like the liberal mindset to me.
THANKS TO LAURA MECKLER for explaining clearly and concisely why the Social Security is not and should not be included under the deficit reduction scenarios currently being negotiated to avert the fiscal cliff.
" THX1138 wrote:
Ha, ha, ha, is this panel still drunk with joy on the Obama win?
Don't answer, it's obvious."
LOL! How about it, THX1138?
Journalism is a joke in America - they are all democrat party zealots - especially on NPR.
You cannot really gain any good information based on what guests like these opine - they are essentially democrat party operatives that have media day-jobs.
I listen to NPR to see what the pure liberal is fawning over in regards to the Obama administration - it is useful to instruct the young in the liberal media's biases by pointing the out the comments made by the guests.
On the one hand, I don't care if the country goes over the cliff or not. On the other hand, I think Obama is bluffing and I say bring it on - if things go badly afterwards, he is the left's president and even with the media carrying water for him, it could damage his "legacy".
@John McGee: I'm afraid you're operating from some misinformation here.
Members of Congress DO enjoy the very nice health plan all federal employees are part of. Like all employer plans, it requires that members pay monthly premiums, etc. And just like any other employer plan, when members of Congress leave the federal government, they also must leave the plan.
Secondly, there is no such thing as an "automatic" raise for members of Congress. They literally have to vote themselves such increases. (That they regularly do is shameful, but doesn't negate my point here.)
mnemecek wrote:
How is a belief in the Constitution, fiscal responsibility, and personal responsiility: Definition of FASCISM(From www.merriam-webster.com)
often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
And how is Obama a Socialist when I have to buy Health Insurance from a private company and these private companies must compete in the marketplace for my business? Had a single payer system been passed then there would be an argument.
MoreCommon Sense wrote:
Secondly, there is no such thing as an "automatic" raise for members of Congress. They literally have to vote themselves such increases. (That they regularly do is shameful, but doesn't negate my point here.)
The way the bills to provide raises for Congress are usually written in such a way that if you don't explicitly vote against it, you vote for it and there is no record that you voted yourself a raise. So while your statement that there is no such thing as an "automatic" raise is true to a point it really is about as close as you can get to "automatic"
Mike Sergeant wrote: "Had a single payer system been passed then there would be an argument"
That's the goal of the "unaffordable care act" WAKE UP!
"An active public option will have far-reaching consequences, eventually as far-reaching as wiping out private health insurance. It will happen in two steps.
The first step has to do with pricing. The individual-mandate tax that the Supreme Court has now declared constitutional is technically supposed to only pay for the premiums that buy an insurance plan. But the ACA also comes with a system of subsidies for insurance purchases. These subsidies are supposed to help low-to-middle income families buy health insurance by reducing or eliminating market pricing of health plan premiums. It would be an easy matter to design the public option so that it gets a maximum of subsidy-supported enrollment: the smaller out-of-pocket cost people have to cough up for their health insurance premium every month, the more inclined they will be to buy that plan. As enrollment grows, the public option will nibble away at enrollment in private plans and slowly but steadily grow to become “the” health plan for the bulk of Americans.
The second step is to convert the public option into a single plan for all Americans. Again, this is done through the income tax we have hitherto known as the individual mandate. Today the ACA does not strictly regulate what tax rate you should pay for your health insurance: you shop around and find the plan and premium you like, of course within parameters dictated by the ACA. With the mandate defined as a tax and a public option active, it is easy to take the next step and streamline the tax as a defined percentage, much like Social Security or Medicare. That streamlining would define your health insurance premium as a percentage of your income. In President Clinton’s Health Security Act the health insurance tax was capped at 7.4 percent of personal income"
Word is that she is dropping out of the process. On her own accord..
False Equivalency
I’m sorry, but the guest who tried to compare the filibuster controversy of today with the “nuclear option” of the Bush the Second Era couldn’t be more wrong. The differences are stark.
1) During the Clinton Administration, the Republicans used the filibuster (and the secret hold) to block (or try to block) almost every judge he nominated. The result? Far fewer judges got through than under Reagan or Bush the First.
2) As a result, Bush the Second had far more judicial vacancies to fill. But instead of constantly trying to block them, as the Republicans did, the Democrats blocked just seventeen! The Republican response? To threaten use of a doubtful maneuver and have the Vice President declare the filibuster unconstitutional. Imagine that! Because they couldn’t get their way 100% of the time, the Republicans were willing to “blow up” the Senate, and declare illegal a practice going back to the start of this nation. (And one which arguably is constitutional.) The Democrats caved, and allowed Bush 10 of those 17 (having allowed all the rest he nominated).
3) But now, having abused the filibuster by requiring 60 votes to do almost anything, the Republicans scream blood murder lest the Democrats use the proper procedure to merely change the filibuster (not eliminate it), returning it to the “traditional” form, where you actually have to talk.
Sorry, but it’s not equivalent at all.
As an Arizonan, I’m pleased our idiot Governor has decided not to set up the Insurance Exchange. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust her to do it properly, and suspect she’d try to sabotage it.
But it was amusing watching her struggle between her mindless “States’ Rights” ideology (which should favor State control over this), with her mindless partisanship (which won out in the end). Her decision to “spit in President’s eye” is the best thing that could happen to this State.
-First off - Susan Rice shot herself down by overtly and blatantly following party lines to protect the potus campaign rhetoric instead of stating the truth. You lie to the American people you lose their trust and you get what comes with that distrust...
-second - concerning tax cuts / spending.... this is a negotiation between 2 parties. So far I've seen both sides state their cases and propose solutions. Why then, when the repubs resist any compromise are they called "obstructionists" but when POTUS refuses to compromise he is noted by the left media as "standing his ground"??? It takes 2 to tango people...
I’d love to know where the last caller got his data about Democratic unwillingness to provide spending cuts in exchange for tax cuts. According to pages 63 and 439 of The World Almanac of 2012, during the Reagan years spending (Outlays) rose by the highest amount from 1981 - 1985, when the Republicans controlled the Senate, and rose the least from 1987 - 1988, when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress.
Sounds to me, as one guest observed, there’s plenty of blame to go around!
(Oh, and spending rose the least during the Clinton years, including the years when the Democrats controlled the Congress.)
climatewiz1 on November 30, 2012 @ 1:13 pm wrote: “Susan Rice shot herself down by overtly and blatantly following party lines to protect the potus campaign rhetoric instead of stating the truth.”
The only lie I hear is the one you just repeated. The evidence is uncontroverted that Rice merely reported what she had been told, and that she, personally, had no contrary information. Maybe she was lied to (by our intelligence agencies, allegedly to protect sources), but that doesn’t make her a liar.
And why are the Republi-Cons so busy attacking her instead of investigating what went wrong (again!) with the C.I.A., and the rest of the “intelligence community”? Gee, it couldn’t be that they’re more interested in partisan politics!
@ Etaoin: oh contraire mon frere concerning Rice... I'll give you the premise that she "merely reported what she had been told" but, like the POTUS and so many others, she held on to that line for some time (days, weeks) even AFTER she knew the truth. Sins of commission, sins of ommission.
- Also agree with you as to Repubs investigating what went wrong. The tendancy seems to be that each time they try prying the rock up to see what's under it someone new comes to sit on the rock. As for additional smoke and mirrors detracting from the issue... we won't mention a certain general and friends.
Political shenanigans over and over on both sides of the aisle. Different day, same problems, no solutions.
To Pancake Rankin writing on November 30, 2012@ 10:12 am:
and
To mnemecek writing on November 30, 2012 @ 11:03 am:
Thanks to both of you for further demonstrating that between the far left and the far right there’s not a dime’s worth of difference. You are mirror images of each other, and for the same reason: ideology (and partisanship), not fact or reason, is what you rely on and all you offer.
Pancake - I have no love for the Tea Baggers, but merely because they favor opposite economic policies doesn’t make them fascists. (A term the “left” throws around as loosely as the “right” does “Socialist!”.) Oh, and the Nazis (slightly different from the Fascists of Italy) came after the Weimar Republic. They had no power during it. (Remember the failed “beer hall putsch”?)
mnemececk - Funny, history recalls it was the “liberal mindset” in America that was busy opposing fascism “back in the day”. The “conservative mindset” was either busy avoiding the issue (through isolationism) or were cheering fascists on (Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, for example).
Obviously, even with a dictionary, there are people who can’t understand English!
" Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
As an Arizonan, I’m pleased our idiot Governor has decided not to set up the Insurance Exchange. Frankly, I wouldn’t trust her to do it properly, and suspect she’d try to sabotage it.
But it was amusing watching her struggle between her mindless “States’ Rights” ideology (which should favor State control over this), with her mindless partisanship (which won out in the end). Her decision to “spit in President’s eye” is the best thing that could happen to this State."
Every governor should be giving Obama the bird on setting up the exchanges. There is no upside in getting involved in the process - it's the democrat's wet-dream, let them own it.
As to state's rights, this is something being imposed, this is no state's right here. So the correct response is to make them do all the work. Any smart governor should be able to see this.
I'd like to see Governor Brewer quit cooperating with Obama on other matters as well - she could direct the AG and the police to quite enforcing certain federal laws.
Obama has shown the way and opened the door, the governors ought to demonstrate that Obama is not the only one to pick and choose what laws mean something.
climatewiz1 on November 30, 2012 @ 1:31 pm wrote: “I'll give you the premise that she ‘merely reported what she had been told’ but. . . . she held on to that line for some time (days, weeks) even AFTER she knew the truth.”
Excuse me, sir, but that’s not what you originally said, and it’s certainly not what the Republicans are saying. And there’s no “premise” involved. The evidence is clear: Rice reported only what she had been told. There’s no evidence of when she “knew” any different. (And by the time other evidence became public, she had stopped speaking, or was merely discussing what she had originally said, not adhering to it.
As for the speculation about why she was given that incorrect information: it’s just that, mere speculation! I want to know the answers to why the C.I.A. (etc.) got things so wrong (again!)
But I’m glad you agree there should be a full and honest investigation (in stead of the witch hunt we seem to be enduring, to score partisan points). It’s hardly an original observation that something appears to be fundamentally wrong with our “intelligence community”. Whether it’s the Vietnam War, the non-existent WMD’s of Saddam Hussein, the infamous “cakewalk” that wasn’t, or now this, I’m almost tempted to say we should balance the budget by eliminating all funding for these agencies! They certainly don’t seem able to do their jobs.
(Though I did say “almost”.)
And why be coy about General Petraeus? Except that it proves, again, how unreliable Faux New is. Remember, they were the ones who floated the ridiculous “theory” that the scandal broke to keep him from testifying. A “prophecy” almost as good as their prediction that Romney would win with 300 Electoral votes.
Oopsie!
Smoot on November 30, 2012 @ 1:42 pm wrote: “As to state's rights, this is something being imposed, this is no state's right here.”
Obviously, you have no concept of what States’ Rights means, or what the Health Care Act provides. The very fact that Governors can refuse to set up the Exchanges proves they are not “being imposed” on the States (which is what States’ Rights is concerned with: keeping power and choices with the States).
Or, if you are referring to the Health Law being “imposed” on the nation, well, that’s true for every piece of legislation passed by Congress. When the Constitution was being drafted, and adopted, there was debate on the granting of Federal power directly over individuals. (Under the old Articles of Confederation there was no such power.) The Founders decided that absence of such power was a major flaw in the old system. (See, The Federalist Papers, number 15.) So, the short answer is: been there, done that.
As for the rest of your nonsense, why don’t you just try seceding. It worked so well the last time.
(Oh, and when it comes to picking and choosing which laws to follow, you have confused the President with Bush the Second. He’s the one who kept issuing “signing statements” declaring he didn’t have to follow the law, and actually tried to do so in secret!)
Well, then maybe the financial sector will return the favor we did them back in 2008.
It's really too bad there isn't a "Flag as Stupid" option here.
"Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"how unreliable Faux New is. "
No one cares, besides the hard left, whether or not Fox is reliable. Ever watch Soledad "urban liberal chick" O'Brien?
CNN is loaded with liberal zealots, to say nothing of MSNBC.
Anything coming out of either of those two must be verified elsewhere, just as with the NYT.
What is important, is that however over the top Fox News may be at times, they are finger in the eye of the democrats, and that is all that is necessary to justify their existence.
@ Etaoin: Sorry but I'm not willing to poke my head in the sand on this one. C'mon barrister put your legal beagle "admissable evidence" and "discovery" aside and use the smell test. You have to agree there is a terrible stench from the whole lot of them. An honest investigation is called for, but alas, will never happen. Too many teflon suits in the mix. No need to lecture me on Vietnam either... 2 tours was too many and yes I saw Mr. Johnson and Mr. Westmorland in all their "glory".
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: a lot of long-winded baloney, which is why the left will eventually fail.
Your overly long attempt to correct my comment is a matter of semantics - you must be one of those verbose, over-paid public union teachers. We'll get to them, too, eventually, and get costs in line with what they are worth.
No matter. I have no desire to secede. I want to be here when the left gets all it has coming. This health care thing is really looking like it could blow up, and let's hope it does.
Your president choom is the one picking and choosing the the laws he wants to enforce at this time, President Bush is no longer president, if you haven't noticed.
You kind of remind me of Gore, as long-winded and preachy as you come across. Not a terrible thing, just sayin'.
"kathleen wrote:
Totally abandoned Elizabeth Warren being at the head of the organization that she created. Obama was a coward. But on Rice he is sticking like glue. What gives when there are far more qualified individuals available for the job. Makes one question Obama's allegiances. Warren was the best possible candidate for the job that Obama and abandoned her. Susan Rice is not the most qualified and he is clearly pushing for her...hard
November 30, 2012 - 10:52 am"
Warren was PreElection, Eh?
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
I haven't checked recently, but the IRS website used to say there was as much as $130 billion of Medicare fraud each year.
Even if we could fix only half this fraud, it would go a long way toward meeting the overall budget goals.
"THX1138 wrote:
Clifford wrote: "This whole economic crisis was created by the T-party/Republicans last year"
The following and the $16,000,000,000,000.00 federal debt were caused last year by the T-party? Gee how did I miss that!
The reason you missed it, is possibly because he didn't say it, MS killer of Straw Men.
"The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues is $200 trillion, nearly thirteen times the debt as stated by the U.S. Treasury."
What a curious notion!!!
Putting a value on "net present value of future federal revenues" and "net present value of federal government liabilities"!!!
"Notice that these figures, too, are incomplete, since they omit the unfunded liabilities of state and local governments, which are estimated to be around $38 trillion."
November 30, 2012 - 10:11 am"
And State and local future revenues??
Do MS THX1138's specious arguments and Straw Men remind anybody of the DRShow Trogdolytes that have been kind of scarce around the Blog of late?
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
In regard to the healthcare exchanges, I disagree with the guest who believes most states will sign up to do this. Much of the early opposition may have been partisan, but I believe many governors are now looking at this pragmatically and concluding it is too difficult and expensive for their states to do...especially considering the timeline and the fact that some critical federal guidance hasn't even been written yet.
Personally, I'm in favor of a national healthcare system if it meets the criteria of convenient access, quality care, choice of providers, and affordable cost.
mchaun wrote: "Do MS THX1138's specious arguments and Straw Men remind anybody of the DRShow Trogdolytes that have been kind of scarce around the Blog of late?"
I guess the "This whole economic crisis" has nothing to do with the debt, deficit and long term liabilities.
I guess I am out of my league with you geniuses, or maybe your just full of s--t!