Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-07/friday-news-roundup-domestic
The U. S. economy created 146,000 jobs last month. That pushed the unemployment rate down to 7.7 percent, a four-year low. With just a few weeks before the fiscal cliff deadline, President Barack Obama is sticking with his demand that tax rates rise for the wealthiest Americans. ea party favorite, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, said he’s resigning the Senate to head up a conservative think tank. Former President George W. Bush calls for a “benevolent spirit” in the debate over immigration. And the legacy of jazz pianist Dave Brubeck. Shawna Thomas of NBC, Naftali Bendavid of The Wall Street Journal and Lori Montgomery of The Washington Post join Diane to talk about the week’s top national stories, what happened and why.
Guests
Naftali Bendavid
national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal.
Shawna Thomas
White House producer for NBC News.
Lori Montgomery
financial reporter, "The Washington Post"
Friday News Roundup Video
Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, announced his resignation from the Senate on Thursday. The panel discussed the implications of his resignation on the ongoing fiscal cliff negotiations and how it affects the tea party movement. Naftali Bendavid, national correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, said DeMint no longer fits comfortably in Congress because the climate there is moving more toward compromise. Shawna Thomas, White House producer at NBC News, said the tea party lost influence as a result of the 2012 national elections.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Well, there he is, the guy that almost single handedly destroyed the conservative movement and what it means to be a republican. Compassionate conservatism or what should be rightly called republican progressivism is why the democrats have turned into full blown socialists. Republicans like both Bushes and Richard Nixon were obviously moderate democrats in their politics and because of that it opened the door for the entire democrat party to move further left. W's opinions on immigration are irrelevant when it is now known for sure that the Hispanic vote was bought by the democrat party welfare/nanny state. The republicans will not benefit in any meaningful way with the adoption of open boarder amnesty legislation. So go back to the ranch George, thanks but no thanks.
Source Foreign Policy Journal
"Kuala Lumpur — It’s official; George W Bush is a war criminal.
In what is the first ever conviction of its kind anywhere in the world, the former US President and seven key members of his administration were yesterday (Fri) found guilty of war crimes.
Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their legal advisers Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, William Haynes, Jay Bybee and John Yoo were tried in absentia in Malaysia".
Ya gotta laugh at Republicans. After W. broke every government agency possible,he left office with the "Great Bush Recession" as a legacy. It`s no wonder many of these 'Chuckleheads' said during the 2008 election,I`m not a Republican,I`m a Conservative.Then came the identity crisis,I`m not a Conservative,I`m a T-Party er?
How`s that for taking responsibility for your actions, more ALIAS`S? Now to prove their new policy of being responsible loyal American citizens, they demand to SECEDE from the Union????? But first they want to drive the economy over the FISCAL CLIFF.......Who needs these folks? Where is this petition to sign,getting them to go.I`ll help em !!!
Topic: Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith's text is the treatise on free enterprise. The greater the demand, the greater the supply, which in turn drives down the cost per item produced. So, what happened with Medicare's purchasing power when buying drugs? This large pool of purchasing power should be able to buy large supplies of medications , thus decreasing the price per item. Doesn't happen. Instead, the nation is poorer because Medicare's large purchasing power is prohibited from driving down costs, despite the large supply of pharmaceuticals it purchases. The laws of supply and demand are warped and the nation is poorer for it. Further, as Adam Smith noted, nations are necessary to keep the market forces in check.
Social Security – When it passed, people lived a little past 65. Well, people live longer, so the costs go up. Should people put more into the system by increasing the ceiling of income taxed to cover the increased costs? Common business sense? Is the country poorer by not getting more resources into the system to make up for longer life spans? Instead, make people work till 67, why? Haven't heard enough about people not having up-to-date technology skills. So, you want them to be at increased risk for unemployment and be without health care? Question: Does increasing the income ceiling or increasing the retirement age make the system and nation (and its citizens) richer or poorer? Guess.
Social Responsibility- During WWII, the Queen Mother insisted that she be subject to food and clothing rations as all other Englishman and women. The Nazi U-boats circled the British Isle and the Luftwaffe bombed London, but the Queen was one with the people. It's good McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor weren't around to give the Queen Mother their sense of social responsibility.
Economic forces plus social responsibility; a good combination for a wealthy and healthy nation.
THX1138 on December 6, 2012 @ 2:19 pm wrote: “. . . what it means to be a republican.”
A Republican when?
In the 1860’s (especially during the administration of the first Republican President: Lincoln), it meant opposing slavery, opposing secession, opposing “States’ Rights”, and favoring a strong Federal government. Oh, and it also meant supporting a Federal income tax!
During the 1900’s, under Teddy Roosevelt, it meant favoring conservation (the early form of environmentalism), opposing big business (“malefactors of great wealth”), and supporting a strong Federal government.
During the 1950’s, under Eisenhower, it meant supporting Federal expenditures on one of the biggest public works projects of all time (the Interstate Highway System), supporting the Supreme Court and its desegregation orders, using Federal troops to crush disobedience by Arkansas (and the claim of a “State’s Right” to segregate), and warning against a “military-industrial” complex.
How much of that does today’s G.O.P. support? Answer: almost none! (I’m assuming they’re not pro-slavery - yet.)
The fact is the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it no longer deserves to be called “the Party of Lincoln”. It has been possessed by the demonic spirit of “movement conservatism”, and should be called the Republi-Con Party.
But go on mindlessly parroting the empty rhetoric about a “nanny state”, etc. It will help insure the 21st Century sees the end of the Republican Party!
Thankx THX, for your response. What's wrong with fullblown socialism? That is, "give according to talents, take according to needs." Earth resources and humanity's needs are not infinite or entirely life supporting. The Dust Bowl and melting ice caps should spark some doubt in your brain. Man is committing slow suicide with mountain top removal and forest harvesting, etc. Consequently man will be judged and held responsible. Man will have created a supreme being to dispense justice. Which side are you on? Weigh-in!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote (paraphrasing):
"Excuse me, THX1138? Your face called. It's done with soccer practice and needs you to come -pick it up-!"
Seriously though, thank you for that. The Republicans keep forgetting that they have changed greatly from decade to decade. The current Republican Party Platform owes nothing to past Presidents or even the founding fathers.
You could make the argument that certain conservative ideals haven't changed but what the Republican Party of 2012 is calling for and trying to do owes little to traditional conservative ideals.
I'm guessing that people STILL think the Kenyan-born Fifth-Column "socialist" who's out to "destroy the country" has somehow doctored the new unemployment numbers?
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/
Define socialism, please. Does the government own the health care system? Does the government own the energy businesses? Does the government own the banks? Does the government own the farms, manufacturing industries, the shipping industries? Does the government employ only public employees to provide government funded programs? No. Over the last thirty years, the government has outsourced many of it's taxpayer projects including social services as well as military. Give me a break. We are far, far away from a socialist state. If you want to see a 'socialist' state (which is not truly a socialist state) go visit Sweden.
A smaller and smaller number of wealthy US and non-US citizens are controlling politicians and making public policy.
I wish somebody would point out that we have a "progressive" tax system. If taxes are raised on income over $250K, it means that everyone (including millionaires) will still have tax cuts on any income below that amount. The taxes go up ONLY on income above the first $250K.
Also, Social Security is not an entitlement - it is an earned benefit.
I hope they discuss Mitch McConnell's self- filibuster. Amazing.
It reminds me of Jim Carey's conversation with himself as the Grinch "Shout-up" "No you shout up!" "I'm and idiot" "You're an idiot"
Diane should confirm with her guests the fact that only about 7% of the debt is owed to foreign entities like China. The vast majority of it is owed to Social Security as a rsult of borrowing against the Social Security Trust Fund. Pay back what it's owed and the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent again.
It is difficult for me to understand how prominent Republicans on the one hand oppose big government, but, on the other hand, turn to government in times of crisis. For example, Governor Christie just this week requested FEMA cover the Hurricane Sandy damage tab 100%!
It is deception of the first order to make people think we have to push out the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age because we live longer. When you look at the longevity of people in other countries, you will see that all the developed countries, which all have national health care, have a longevity of several years more than we do, BECAUSE they have all put into place programs that provide health care for ALL AGES, not just the older people.
Here in this country it has been shown that people who had good access to health care through insurance in the years before 65 cost Medicare much less after they turn 65. Aside from being a very cruel, mean thing to do to people to raise the age to 67 which would cause much suffering, it would not solve any of our fiscal problems. It would create many new problems. Those people would be trying to get on Medicaid, and this at a time when some states are refusing to implement the Medicaid program offered to them by the federal government. This will be disastrous to state budgets.
People are having trouble finding jobs below the age of 65, so they sure aren't going to find them over 65. And many employers are providing health insurance, if they do at all, that is much inferior to what they used to offer. The people in this age group will suffer greatly because of the stubbornness of the Republicans in Congress.
We will not solve these problems until we break down and implement a single-payer health system.
I see by the responses we are going small, OK. Just because the country has not gone completely "socialist" yet does not diminish the fact that the current democrat party wants it and pushes in that direction every chance it gets. The federal government is going to crash the economy, it's just a matter of time. It is going to crash because of failed social welfare policies that are mostly the brain child of the democrat party over the years. True, republicans have done little if anything to try and role them back, in fact they only added to them.
It's unfortunate and misleading that one of today's News Roundup guests described the origins of the tea party as the little guy's response to big government. The tea party is a racist movement that exploded with the election of President Obama in 2008. How seamlessly that history was recast without a rebuttal or request for clarification from Ms. Rehm. The tea party is funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers, who used these folks as a smokescreen.
Will it take historians of the next century to finally address the racial motivations of the tea party and of Republican obstruction at every front?
abarnett wrote: " tea party is a racist movement that exploded with the election of President Obama in 2008 The tea party is funded by the billionaire Koch Brothers, who used these folks as a smokescreen"
I did not know they allow Internet access in padded cells, how do you type with a straight jacket on, with your nose?
socialism noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
System of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control; also, the political movements aimed at putting that system into practice.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "But go on mindlessly parroting the empty rhetoric about a “nanny state”, etc. It will help insure the 21st Century sees the end of the Republican Party!"
Maybe it should.
I am obviously putting forth my opinion as to the current state we find ourselves in, in contemporary terms. Rehashing the entire history of the republican party or the democrat party for that matter misses the point and is irrelevant to my point.
There really needs to be a "Treason Tax" on ALL businesses that cut American jobs and send ANY work across our borders. Let's say that at $1M/year, or more, companies may perhaps think twice about off-shoring. Even though there is an expectation to participate in the new international market, we have the right and obligation to protect our citizenry since charity begins at home.
Losing our competitive advantage, notably IC (Intellectual Capital) / IP (Intellectual Property), that China, for example, require us to disclose, or theft of which is even an accepted part of the culture, is anathema to our economic and political interests. The BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) care not one iota for us, therefore, turnabout is fair play. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Business people (a guy by the name of Net Money [Mitt Romney] comes to mind) who cut sacred American jobs:
Where and whenever possible, I buy American. I want to buy tools "Made in U.S.A.," not in China. There IS a difference in quality and the pride workers take in creating wares.
You get what you pay for, at best.
Price and Cost (TCO = Total Cost of Ownership) are different words for a very good reason.
Cheap is Expensive.
American creativity and ingenuity are our hallmark, and through our melting pot population and pride as Americans, have, and hopefully will continue to be, the world leaders in hard and soft wares. Failure to do so will be our demise.
For shame.
@THX1138 - You are looking in the wrong place.
Socialism (economics):
An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels.
This doesn't describe the United States in almost any way. Additionally, this is why people oppose privatization. The government's motive for providing education, for example, is to teach kids. A privatized school system's motive is to make money by way of teaching kids.
As soon as you start introducing profit making into the equation things get sketchy. Introduce worldwide distribution and a global economy and you have every reason to do things immorally as a CEO and amorally as a company.
Capitalism has a lot to offer. So do socialist ideals.
CONCISE
: marked by brevity of expression or statement : free from all elaboration and superfluous detail
Yes I do see socialism and the correlation to the democrat party in both yours and mine found definitions, they are the same.
I think it also worth pointing out that there can be many slightly different paths to the achieve the same outcome. Through our existing tax system socialism can be achieved without direct government ownership of private property.
I think you have a problem with the word "socialism" not it's meaning.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"How much of that does today’s G.O.P. support? Answer: almost none! "
Really? What is your evidence for that? What policies do the Republican party espouse that supports what you say? Your assumptions are faulty. You assume that Republicans are all cut from the same cloth. They aren't. The views of individual Republicans vary. The stance of the party remains the same.
"The fact is the Republican Party has moved so far to the right that it no longer deserves to be called “the Party of Lincoln”. "
No. It hasn't. The Republican ideals of self-reliance, small government, equality of opportunity, and self-determination is as solid as it ever was. There are outliers to be sure - some hard right, some LEFT, like TR and GWB to name two.
Marvin Wagner wrote:
"What's wrong with fullblown socialism? That is, "give according to talents, take according to needs." Earth resources and humanity's needs are not infinite or entirely life supporting. The Dust Bowl and melting ice caps should spark some doubt in your brain. Man is committing slow suicide with mountain top removal and forest harvesting, etc. Consequently man will be judged and held responsible. Man will have created a supreme being to dispense justice. Which side are you on? Weigh-in!"
I hope this was tongue-in-cheek. On the off chance that it wasn't, "what's wrong with fullblown socialism?".
1) It's failed every time it's been tried.
2) It robs people of their God-given rights and freedoms
Other than that, not a thing.
12/12/12 ....Was this the last weekly roundup show?
Is worrying about all this T-party/Republican craziness just wasting our last days?
Wow. When I saw Bush's photo, I had to do a double take....first, he's alive (I love how Republicans tried to run away from him and his former administration during the election season). Second, 8 years of his nonsense and gaffes was enough. I don't need to be reminded of him or anything he weighs in on today. He is as irrelevant as a used tea-bag. Now, he is trying to save the Republican party? Please. Just, please.
Beyond The Poli... wrote:
"I'm guessing that people STILL think the Kenyan-born Fifth-Column "socialist" who's out to "destroy the country" has somehow doctored the new unemployment numbers?"
No. Actually the pre-election numbers. We won't know about these numbers until they get revised downward next month. Revision is where it's at.
From the LA Times.
"Manufacturing, however, shed 7,000 jobs last month, and the construction sector cut payrolls by 20,000, despite the recovering housing market and an increase in homebuilding.
Although the latest jobs report was on the whole upbeat given the expectations, the government revised downward the job-growth numbers for September and October by a total of 49,000. Since the beginning of the year, job growth has averaged 151,000 a month, similar to last year's pace. That's good enough to keep up with population growth and then some, but not nearly strong enough to bring down the unemployment rate quickly.
The jobless rate in November was the lowest since December 2008, when the figure was 7.3%. The drop last month, however, came as the labor force shrank, meaning that it wasn't so much job growth that pulled down the unemployment rate as it was the fact there were fewer people in the labor market."
For the 150K jobs added, twice as many people quit looking for work, which is what dropped the U3 rate. Btw, the U6 rate is still nearly 15%. Why, if enough people drop out of the work force, I'll bet we can get that U3 rate down to 0!
Jokr8790 wrote:
"Diane should confirm with her guests the fact that only about 7% of the debt is owed to foreign entities like China. The vast majority of it is owed to Social Security as a rsult of borrowing against the Social Security Trust Fund. Pay back what it's owed and the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent again."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Simple, right joker? "Pay back what it's owed and the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent again". That's your solution. OK, joker. 2+T is currently owed to SSTF (NOT "the vast majority"). Check the latest Trustees report. This should be an easy question for someone like you ... where's that money going to come from? Don't talk to me about debt or TF bonds. You can't pay retirees with those. You have to pay them in CASH. Where's that going to come from, joker? How about the TRILLIONS in unfunded liability (46T in 2009) to the baby boomers yet to collect a dime that will be in retirement for 20 or more years as the labor force supporting them shrinks. Where's the money, the cash, the do-re-mi, the jack, going to come from, joker? I await your brilliant answer!
Oh, and by the way, your 7% figure is patently FALSE. Currently, about 5.1T of 16T is owed to foreign entities. That's about THIRTY%, not SEVEN. China owns 10% by itself.
http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt...
"foxy wrote:
It is deception of the first order to make people think we have to push out the Medicare and Social Security eligibility age because we live longer. When you look at the longevity of people in other countries, you will see that all the developed countries, which all have national health care, have a longevity of several years more than we do, BECAUSE they have all put into place programs that provide health care for ALL AGES, not just the older people.
...
December 7, 2012 - 10:48 am"
It's worse than that. The SS System is solvent for at least 20-30 Years, but the Bloodsuckers don't want to redeem the Bonds they gave us when they borrowed the Surpluses.
The reason they want to-
1) Raise the retirement age.
2) Increase Premiums.
3) Decrease Benefits by-
a) Decreasing Benefits by Fiat.
b) Decreasing Benefits by ReIndexing for Inflation, in addition to-
I) The already Gross understatement of the CPI/COLA engineered by Ms. Smirky "Let em eat cake" Stephen Moore's Bosses, Reagan/Gingrich.
, is in order to increase the Surpluses even more so they can borrow that and not pay that back either.
They are pi_sed because the Democrats wouldn't let them use SS premiums to unload their crappy Stocks on the Public before the real bottom really falls out.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Hi Neighbor,
I was wondering who resided next door. All I could see when you arrived was a pointy white hood.
"ecgberht wrote:
Jokr8790 wrote:
"Diane should confirm with her guests the fact that only about 7% of the debt is owed to foreign entities like China. The vast majority of it is owed to Social Security as a rsult of borrowing against the Social Security Trust Fund. Pay back what it's owed and the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent again."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Simple, right joker? "Pay back what it's owed and the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent again". That's your solution. OK, joker. 2+T is currently owed. Check the latest Trustees report. This should be an easy question for someone like you ... where's that money going to come from? Don't talk to me about debt or TF bonds. You can't pay retirees with those. You have to pay them in CASH. Where's that going to come from, joker? How about the TRILLIONS in unfunded liability to the baby boomers yet to collect a dime that will be in retirement for 20 or more years as the labor force supporting them shrinks. Where's the money, the cash, the do-re-mi, the jack, going to come from, joker? I await your brilliant answer!
December 7, 2012 - 2:31 pm"
They will redeem the Bonds with real Money, JUST LIKE THEY REDEEM EVERY OTHER KIND OF GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION!!!
As usual, you don't have any idea of what you are talking about.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com