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.
Wow...everybody's an "expert" on what socialism is...!
http://beyond-dollars-and-sense.blogspot.com/
mchaun wrote:
"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."
OK, great, then YOU can explain it to me instead of joker. Here are the facts.
We are 16T in debt.
We spend 1T more each year than we take in.
Outflows EXCEED Income.
The SSTF is in the process of turning upside down. The recession has sped up the process. When that happens the bonds will have to be redeemed. Now, I understand the meme that "the FG does not default on its obligations and will pay every obligation it has".
What I want to know from you is, with what? Where is the CASH going to come from? That's what nobody wants to answer. Governments can get money from three places; they can borrow, they can tax, or they can print money. If you have another source, you tell me, 'k?
So joker, pancake, mchaun, kathleen, any of you liberals who think SS is ok? Where is the money going to come from?
mchaun
"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.
....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."
1) The sad fact is that Democrats did most of the borrowing and spending of the TF surplus - so if you want to say that Democrats are "blood-suckers", so be it. It's why Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy went ballistic when Republicans suggested trimming back the money supply by letting the youngest workers put a small portion of their payroll taxes in government-selected mutual funds.
2) "crappy Stocks" is false, of course, and you know it. Remember these words; "small portion", "youngest workers", "safe investments (like S&P 500, e.g.)". By allowing younger workers to invest a small amount of their contributions in the stock market in safe ways, they could actually IMPROVE on the earnings they would get over their working lifetimes. Democrats would have none of it because it turned down the money spiggot.
Remedy to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs: Protectionism. I know, it used to be a dirty word.
ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"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."
OK, great, then YOU can explain it to me instead of joker. Here are the facts.
We are 16T in debt.
We spend 1T more each year than we take in.
Outflows EXCEED Income.
The SSTF is in the process of turning upside down. The recession has sped up the process. When that happens the bonds will have to be redeemed. Now, I understand the meme that "the FG does not default on its obligations and will pay every obligation it has".
What I want to know from you is, with what? Where is the CASH going to come from? That's what nobody wants to answer. Governments can get money from three places; they can borrow, they can tax, or they can print money. If you have another source, you tell me, 'k?
So joker, pancake, mchaun, kathleen, any of you liberals who think SS is ok? Where is the money going to come from?
December 7, 2012 - 3:02 pm"
Every day, people send in their mature Bonds to Treasury and every day, Treasury sends out Checks to those same people.
If the people want to spend that Check on something extravagant, that's allowed. If they want to spend that Check on another Government Debt Instrument, that's allowed too.
That's how that works eggie.
You seem to be unaware that the system is working. Working exactly as it has worked for a long, long time (except for an all too brief period when Democrats ran a surplus).
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
"Teddy 'Chappaquiddick' Kennedy" Wow!!!! Really reaching way, way down into your Alzheimers deranged cesspool for that one.
Your lies are bad enough.
Remember the bubble burst that shut up all of the Bloodsucking SS Privatizers (except for you who was too busy shagging Argentine Caballeros to notice)?
The 401k and Retirement Fund investors got their eyes rudely opened.
It may have been "a small amount of their contributions in the stock market", but it would have been enough to allow the Blood Suckers to reverse disintermediate into CASH!!! (Not Gold as you claimed which is not a Hedge against Deflation)
That was how the Bloodsuckers preserved their obscene wealth after the great Crash, by getting Shopgirls and Shoeshines to buy their Sh_t.
Nixon raised the SS Premiums to "Secure SS well into the 21th Century", then spent the money on getting our Boy's shot up in Nam (which he was responsible for lengthening by 4 years and 20,000 more American Dead when he illegally and treasonously scuttled the Peace Talks.
"let youngest workers put a small portion of their payroll taxes in government-selected mutual funds".!!!!
OMG!!! The Nanny, Socialist, Communist, Fascist Government will select "safe" investments for us poor Working Stiffs.
Well I gotta go, can't afford to spend any more time trying to teach a pig to fly.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
For the last 2 years the republican campaign has been
one of deliberate disingenuity and deception.
Their tactics have been the proven combination of
excessive information mixed with deliberate misinformation,
a tactic Nazi Germany used during their campaign, specifically
in combination with the newly invented mass media – radio.
We’re grown to accept the term “smaller government”,
as representing a key republican ideal, but this is really
part of the disinformation that they have hoisted on
the American public.
Their mission really isn’t about smaller government, its
about protecting the 1%, where they have allied themselves
with the financial faction. They are about big money and
those who already possess it. This is their fundamental platform.
Romney was perfect proof of it.
Unfortunately, the unspecting have been conscripted by this
campaign. These unsuspecting are the same ones that say
they want smaller government but don't want to give up any
government services that they depend or or enjoy.
mchaun wrote:
"Every day, people send in their mature Bonds to Treasury and every day, Treasury sends out Checks to those same people.
If the people want to spend that Check on something extravagant, that's allowed. If they want to spend that Check on another Government Debt Instrument, that's allowed too."
Thank you for the non-answer answer. You have described the process of redeeming a bond. That's not what I asked you. You described the experience of the retiree standing at the teller's window at the "First Bank of the FG". He receives his money. What you don't describe is what the guy on the other side of the counter is doing. He's getting the cash from somewhere. Where? Your answer doesn't address the question, so I will repeat the question and perhaps someone else can answer since you apparently cannot.
We have at least 45T in unfunded liability, 2+T in debt in the SSTF, and we are taking in less than we spend to the tune of 1T per year.
What I want to know is, where is the CASH going to come from to pay our liabilities? That's what nobody wants to answer. Governments can get money from three places; they can borrow, they can tax, or they can print money. If you have another source, please tell me. So far, you have not.
So joker, pancake, mchaun, kathleen, any of you liberals who think SS is ok? Where is the money going to come from?
Jeeze, your poor, poor dementia addled brain.
Here's an example you might be able to grasp.
The Retiree is standing at the Tellers Window of the Fly by Night Retirement Fund wishing to withdraw one Share to cover his December Living expenses.
The Fund invests in Government Securities, so the Teller goes to the vault, takes out one share equivalent in Govt Bonds, tells the Govt to redeem them and hands the money to the Retiree.
Get it??????
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
THX wrote:
"Republicans like both Bushes and Richard Nixon were obviously moderate democrats in their politics.."
In the words of Shakespeare- Surely you jest.
Agree wholeheartredly with Etaoin's "what it means to be Republican comment.
Lincoln, theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower would be Democrats in today's politics.
Conservatives lean towards staying the same (look in dictionarY).
Progressives lean towards progress.
Lincoln, Theodore, Eisenhower were for change and were against the forces of corporate greed.
The revolutionary founding fathers were for change- does anyone out there honestly think they were conservative?
Conservatives have stood for slavery, English rule, suppressing women's and worker's rights. Last 40 years, no Republican administration has stood for fiscal conservatism.
That's quite a record to stand on.
"Lincoln, theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower would be Democrats in today's politics"
Most democrats through the 90's wouldn't be "Democrats in today's politics"
THX wrote
"Most democrats through the 90's wouldn't be "Democrats in today's politics".
?? Not quite following you.
Democrat presidential candidates up through Clinton ran as centrists to win the presidency, Obama ran much further left than any of his predecessors. Obama's politics of division and big government are unprecedented. Clinton's quote "the era of big government is over" shows just how far left the country and in particular the democrats have come.
Drew Kelly
"Conservatives have stood for slavery, English rule, suppressing women's and worker's rights. Last 40 years, no Republican administration has stood for fiscal conservatism"
What flavor of koolaid are you drinking Drew. Ever heard of Ronald Reagan who stood for Fiscal Conservatism?
The far left believes it's own lies, they are emboldened by the election and reelection of a real socialist. Not much in the way of words can bring them back down to earth. The debt wall is the only solution to this current madness.
mchaun wrote:
"Jeeze, your poor, poor dementia addled brain.
Here's an example you might be able to grasp.
The Retiree is standing at the Tellers Window of the Fly by Night Retirement Fund wishing to withdraw one Share to cover his December Living expenses.
The Fund invests in Government Securities, so the Teller goes to the vault, takes out one share equivalent in Govt Bonds, tells the Govt to redeem them and hands the money to the Retiree.
Get it??????"
Oh I got it alright. You're long on insults, but short on answers. When I asked you, "where does the CASH come from", a more succinct answer would have been "I don't know".
You have now added another layer to the process; the retirement fund manager, but you still haven't answered the question. The weak link in your scenario is this; "tells the Govt to redeem them". Where does the government get the CASH, mchuan? It's the same question I asked before, and it's a simple question.
Your "logic" reminds me of this old cartoon:
http://www.evaluationtoolkit.org/illustrations/4/original/miracle_cartoo...
As I said, Governments can get money from three places; they can borrow, they can tax, or they can print it. So where is the government going to get the CASH to pay the Retirement fund, who pays the retiree, who lives in the house that Jack built? Hmmmm?
We are 16T in debt. We spend more than we take in to the tune of 1T per year. The FG owes retirees 2T+ in borrowed SS surpluses. For every beneficiary in 1940 there were 42 workers. Today, there are 2.8 and shrinking. In November 2012 alone, according to yesterday's UE report, more than 300K workers left the workforce. SS is not ok and to think so is to completely deny reality.
Someone else want to take a crack at this? Looks like mchaun is out of ideas. "As usual, he doesn't have any idea of what he is talking about." He can't answer the simplest of questions.
THX1138 wrote:
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.
gary k replied:
Which goes to show that the late George Wallace was correct when he stated "there's not a dime's worth of difference between Democrats and Republicans". Which means we can also go a little farther by stating "there's not a dimes worth of difference between Conservatives and Liberals".
All politicians, most likely, are in somebody's pocket. It's amazing that so many Americans haven't caught on to this obviously-fraudulent system that we have.
Strange that no one considers that most of the jobs created were probably seasonal jobs that will disappear on December 26. Having had some dealings with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there's no way I would accept their statistics as gospel truth.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"Lincoln, theodore Roosevelt, Eisenhower would be Democrats in today's politics."
Yes, I can just see Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower in the party of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Maxine Waters!
"Conservatives lean towards staying the same (look in dictionarY).
Progressives lean towards progress.
Lincoln, Theodore, Eisenhower were for change and were against the forces of corporate greed."
Originally, the FG government was small. So yes, in that respect, Conservatives lean towards staying the same. Progressives want BIG government. (You can look it up). The idea that Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower were for the kind of change progressives espouse is, of course, laughable.
"The revolutionary founding fathers were for change- does anyone out there honestly think they were conservative?"
Rhetoric. The revolutionary founding fathers were for change from autocratic rule from the crown to the freedom of self-determination. "Progressives" are for a return to that autocratic rule in the form of the Federal Government. The only "progress" in Progressivism is the progression from self-determination to slavery to the government.
"Conservatives have stood for slavery, English rule, suppressing women's and worker's rights".
Completely false, of course. The Republican party, the party of Conservatives, the party of the north, not only ENDED slavery, but passed the Civil Rights bill over the objections of Southern Democrats. Conservatives have always been for freedom and self-determination. Progressives? Not so much. Progressives are for the freedoms and rights that government allows. Conservatives are for the freedoms and rights that are God-given and inalienable.
Part deux.
"Last 40 years, no Republican administration has stood for fiscal conservatism."
Mostly false, but I would agree that the Bushes were not as conservative as I would have liked.
Your attempt to dishonestly usurp the good things about the Republican party does not surprise me, but there is one simple thing that cannot be disputed; the policies of Progressives and the tenets of God-given freedom, self-determination, and fiscal repsonsibility are diametrically opposed to one another. Always have been, always will be.
Mean Green wrote:
“DK wrote:Last 40 years, no Republican administration has stood for fiscal conservatism...Ever heard of Ronald Reagan...?”
Under Reagan the national debt tripled- is that the conservatism to which you refer?
If fiscal conservatism means starting a 30+ year trend to shift our nation’s wealth to those at the very top at the expense of the nation, his administration pulled that off well.
ECG wrote: “I can just see Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower in the party of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Maxine Waters!”
good for ya !- I’m glad you’re coming around to the facts!
“The idea that Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower were for the kind of change progressives espouse is, of course, laughable.”
Hmmm. Okay- so you’re position is that the conservative Lincoln supported a war against those pesky progressive slave holders in the South, correct? Think about what you’re saying- and then look up the words Progressive and Conservative in the dictionary.
The South has always been considered a Conservative stronghold although party affiliation has switched on occasion.
Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower all spoke out against the undue influence of corporate greed in America.
Is that a Conservative view? Which party today does this sentiment best represent?
Tax rate under Ike was 91%- is that a Conservative view? If so please get your Conservative buddies to support a higher tax rate, for upper incomes so we can reestablish fiscal sanity- soon!
Your arguments concerning “Conservative Republicans of the North” etc., I believe are ill-founded.
Conservatives have ALWAYS been more largely represented by the South.-that has never changed. Party affiliation has.
You can claim you are the party of Lincoln, TR, Ike- in name only.
“Conservatives are for the freedoms and rights that are God-given and inalienable.” Conservatives once believed that owning slaves was a god given right. They also suppressed Women’s rights. Matter of fact they have been on the wrong side of history on most occasions. IMO
THX- “Obama's politics of division and big government are unprecedented”.
I REALLY try to understand other’s positions.
Still believe the most divisive president this country has ever seen- certainly in my life was W.
After 911, he had a chance to unite this country & the world in ways that perhaps none of his predecessors EVER had the chance to.
Instead he chose the opposite course, to divide the country and the world in an unprecedented manner.
It’s hard for me to see how people don’t get that. I try- I really do.
As far as I can tell it has something to do with the fact that majority of Americans never read a book after high school or college-
So where do they get their info?- from less than reliable sources, as far as I can tell.
Welcome to the Misinformation Age.
ECG wrote: “The revolutionary founding fathers were for change from autocratic rule from the crown to the freedom of self-determination. ‘Progressives’ are for a return to that autocratic rule in the form of the Federal Government.”
GOP seems to be hellbent about turning America into Aristocracy- like we had under English rule … And like we had just before Great Depression.
Personally I don’t think this a wise course.
Drew Kelly wrote:
"ECG wrote: “I can just see Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower in the party of Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and Maxine Waters!”
good for ya !- I’m glad you’re coming around to the facts!"
It's called sarcasm, DK.
"Okay- so you’re position is that the conservative Lincoln supported a war against those pesky progressive slave holders in the South, correct?"
Strawman argument based in a fallacy.
The enslaving evil of Progressivism does not begin to appear until late in the 19th century, 30 years after the CW ended. Why just hold blacks as slaves when you can enslave everyone?!
"The South has always been considered a Conservative stronghold although party affiliation has switched on occasion."
Drew Kelly: Me only want a few things associated with Democrats. Me no want bad things associated with Democrats.
"Lincoln, TR, and Eisenhower all spoke out against the undue influence of corporate greed in America.
Is that a Conservative view? Which party today does this sentiment best represent?"
These are emotional statements not based in fact. But I'm sure they make you feel better.
"Tax rate under Ike was 91%- is that a Conservative view? If so please get your Conservative buddies to support a higher tax rate, for upper incomes so we can reestablish fiscal sanity- soon!"
First, YOU CAN'T REESTABLISH FISCAL SANITY by taxing the rich! There's not enough money. Get it?! You can only reestablish fiscal sanity by yanking people off the public tit - which Democrats will NEVER DO.
As for the tax rates under Eisenhower - a popular meme of the left which leaves out two facts. Those rates applied to people with incomes of 400K or better, which, in the 50s were a handful of people. Second, NOT ONE OF THEM PAID THAT RATE.
"GOP seems to be hellbent about turning America into Aristocracy- like we had under English rule … And like we had just before Great Depression."
False. GOP is hellbent on giving every citizen an opportunity and incentive to succeed.
Dems are hellbent on keeping them and their votes enslaved to government and the Democratic party and will not let them go. When you keep people enslaved to government, it is virtually impossible for them to actually progress.
Progressivism which for some reason you brag on, is evil. It does not work toward the progress of the people. It works toward the progress of the government. It is a cancer on our society that has been metastasising since FDR. It doesn't actually represent "progress" at all. In fact, it represents stagnation, where the citizenry is stuck in low-paying or no job at all, living at the behest of the TRUE ARISTOCRACY in Washington.
ECG:
I guess it's fair to say we disagree on a few things and it doesn't seem that's likely to change any time soon.
Just one thing though- you seem to contend that the (majority of) Southern States have not always voted "Conservative"?
Can you name a year, then, in American history, when majority of these states voted progressive?
"Can you name a year, then, in American history, when majority of these states voted progressive?"
Who knows? Not going to do the research though. There's no point. You have conflated Democrat, Republican, Conservative, and Progressive labels as it suits you. Lincoln is suddenly "Progressive" even though the Progressive movement wasn't begun until Lincoln was dead for at least 30 years. When Democrats were slave owners you don't want anything to do with them. But when they're "Progressives" then you love them. What I know is, whatever labels you use, Democrats were slave-holders and so are Progressives. Before the CW, the slaves were beholden to their masters. Today, the slaves are beholden to their Government and their liberal, Democratic overlords. Frankly, I don't see much difference.