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.
Marvin Wagner on December 7, 2012 @ 7:40 am wrote: “What's wrong with fullblown socialism? That is, “give according to talents, take according to needs.’ ”
First of all, the correct expression is: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Second, that’s a principle of Communism, not Socialism. (People have trouble understanding there’s a difference.)
Third, what’s wrong with it? Well, aside from the fact that it can’t work, and has never worked . . . .
(That doesn’t mean some ideas supported by Socialists, and even Communists, can’t be adapted to and work well within a basically Capitalist system. But pure Socialism or Communism, like the pure Laissez-Faire form of Capitalism, are bad ideas.)
By the way, Communist countries were, and are, some of the worst environmental offenders on the planet!
(Oh, and did you know the Land of Oz was Communist? I forget in which of the Oz books it’s stated, but under the system there all farm goods and other products are gathered into warehouses by the central government, and then distributed according to need.)
Eric Zehnder on December 7, 2012 @ 8:48 am wrote: “Etaoin Shrdlu wrote (paraphrasing)”
I know you were speaking in jest, but please don’t “paraphrase” what I write. I get enough of such distortions from my opponents!
Glad you appreciated the point I was making, but remember it’s also true for the Democratic Party. During the 19th Century it was mainly the conservative party. And even in the 20th in had a large conservative element. (Indeed, it still has some conservatives in it.)
The great change came during the Sixties and Seventies. (Though it started earlier.) That’s’ when many conservative Democrats (mostly segregationists) became Republican because of the Civil Rights Laws (with “Dixiecrat” Strom Thurmond leading the way). So, it’s important to remember there was a time when the Republicans were the liberals, and the Democrats weren’t.
Give each their proper due.
ecarter on December 7, 2012 @ 10:18 am wrote: "Define socialism, please."
It depends on who's doing it.
The classic definition of Socialism is a system where all property, all businesses, and all means of production and resources are held in common (not necessarily by the the government). Communism adds that government will control all this, and that the government in question will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat". Whereas Socialism allows for democratic/republican government.
Of course, for our Republi-Con friends any deviation from the "pure, perfect, sacred, and holy" marketplace, and the Laissez-Faire form of Capitalism, is "Socialism!".
As you correctly state, we are far from being socialist. In fact, most Europeans (and other nations within the British Commonwealth) consider the U.S. to be governed by an ultra-conservative party (Republican) and a center-right party (Democratic)! In their view we have no liberal or left-wing party at all.
In politics definitions can end up being relative to one's point of view. It shouldn't be true, but it often is.
Skipper on December 7, 2012 @ 10:47 am wrote: “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%!”
The answer in this case is simple: Christie isn’t insane!
The same can’t be said for Republi-Cons, many of whom now regard him as a traitor to the country! (They tend to have a hard time distinguishing between disagreement with party policies, and treason.)
THX1138 on December 7, 2012 @ 11:27 am wrote: “”Rehashing the entire history of the republican party or the democrat party for that matter misses the point and is irrelevant to my point.”
Translation: “I have no real response to make, so I’ll try to evade and avoid the whole thing.”
Sorry, THX, but you started this particular thread with your talk of what it means to be a republican. You then went on to blame the Bushes and Nixon for following “moderate democrat” policies. I just pointed out that much of the policies you and other Republi-Cons now champion (essentially the mindless form of Laissez-Faire) are of recent vintage. Indeed, they really deserve to be called an “infection” within the Republican Party.
Oh, there were always ideologues who espoused such views (in both parties, by the way). But only today have they come to dominate and control one Party. You forget: whatever “sins” both Bushes and Richard Nixon were guilty of (by your standards) the Republican Party of their day fully supported it! (I mean, I don’t recall any serious Republican primary challengers in 1992 or 2004.)
Republicans only turned their backs on Bush the Second after they lost complete control of Congress in the 2006 elections, and only after 2008 did Bush the Second become “He who shall not be named”. That, of course, was political opportunism, not principle.
ecgberht on December 7, 2012 @ 12:24 pm wrote: “ ‘How much of that does today’s G.O.P. support? Answer: almost none!’ Really? What is your evidence for that?”
You know, when dealing with partisan ideologues like you I am often reminded of the “Argument Clinic” sketch from Monty Python. One person simply automatically says no to whatever the other says. Which, of course, is not a true argument.
My evidence? Care to go back to the Republican Primaries and Debates and find me one candidate who spoke favorably about the Federal Income Tax, who favored a strong national government, who opposed the very ideas of “States’ Rights” or secession? (All positions taken by Lincoln and the “Radical Republicans”)? I recall none. (However, I do recall various Republican politicians talking favorably about secession - including Rick Perry and the Governor of Virginia.)
What about “trust busting”: strong government control over corporations and businesses - including breaking them up into smaller entities? Teddy Roosevelt championed it (and opposed “malefactors of great wealth”. Name me any Republican official or politician of national stature you’ve heard say anything remotely like that! (I trust I don’t even have to bother with environmentalism.)
Big government public works projects? Like Hoover Dam or the Interstate Highway System? Please. We have bridges collapsing and Republicans grumble about spending on infrastructure!
And I repeat what I wrote before: how many Republicans do you think would support sending Federal troops to force a State to obey a Federal court’s order? Cripes, they’re still whining about the “Obamacare” decision.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
No, I don’t “assume that Republicans are all cut from the same cloth.” (Though you and the other Republi-Cons posting here make that equally false assumption about Democrats.) But the leaders of what I prefer to call the Republi-Con Party all do seem to be poured from the same mold. And why not, as I also observed the G.O.P. spent much of the 2010 and 2012 elections ridding itself of “moderates”. (Indeed, Senator Jim DeMint boasted of his role in that.) Of course, the results weren’t quite what they wanted. (Senators Reid and McCaskill, among others, were very grateful.)
But go ahead, live in denial. As I said before, the results may be the complete destruction of the Republi-Con Party. “A consummation devoutly to be wished.”
P.S. - But spare me your empty rhetoric about “self-reliance” (versus faith-based initiatives), “small government” (vaginal probes anyone?), “equality of opportunity” (as long as you’ve got the connections, or can pay for it), and “self-determination” (unless you’re poor, female, gay, Black, Latino, Hispanic, or non-fundamentalist, conservative, Christian). I’ll find that nonsense more believable the day the social conservatives are separated from the economic conservatives. Right now, it’s just hypocrisy of delusional proportions!
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"You know, when dealing with partisan ideologues "
You know, I often wonder why it is that angry liberal progressives like you, mchaun, and others can't offer a single post without personal attacks and insults? Perhaps it is because you have no real point to make? Others much more hard left seem to have no trouble with it and can engage in spirited discussion with those opposed to their positions without same. Perhaps because they are secure in their beliefs and don't have the apparent self-esteem issues you two do. Oh well.
A lot to pick apart in your post but I'll just pick some low-hanging fruit ...
"Care to go back to the Republican Primaries and Debates and find me one candidate...blah, blah, blah"
Care to go back to any FOUNDERS and the Constitution? That's what we rely on. By the way, Lincoln opposing the idea of "states rights" is a stretch. You know and I know that slavery was a very special case and the country was in a very vulnerable position then - subject to take over by foreign interests. Still think that's the case today? Pick up a history book.
"What about “trust busting”: strong government control over corporations and businesses - including breaking them up into smaller entities? "
How about George Will - as conservative as you get - recommending breaking up the big banks ... just yesterday!
"Big government public works projects? ..."
This is an easy one. Billions were set aside in the stimulus for "shovel-ready" jobs. A year or two later the President was LAUGHING about jobs "not being so shovel-ready after all"! This is a case of fool me once ....
With words you say, "not all Republicans are the same", but then you lump them all in one lump! Conservatives recognize a place for govt including infrastructure. But let me ask you a question ... do you think the Federal Government is "right-sized" today? (I remind you, we spend 1T more per year than we take in and are 16T in debt).
ecgberht on December 10, 2012 @ 9:55 am wrote: “You know, I often wonder why it is that angry liberal progressives like you, mchaun, and others can't offer a single post without personal attacks and insults?”
Pot, meet kettle.
I see no need to replay the “greatest hits” of your personal attacks and insults. Suffice to say my accusation that you are a partisan ideologue (which is a statement of fact, not an attack) is born out by almost everything you write - and I’m hardly the only one who sees that.
But allow me to correct one of the misimpressions you labor under. I’m hardly “angry”, amused is more like it. Don’t confuse my delight in vigorous debate for personal animosity. I don’t know enough about you to be “personal”. On the other hand, your childish tactics (such as “strudel”) deserve to be noted as such. Sorry if that damages your precious self-esteem.
Meanwhile, if you had a valid point to make you wouldn’t engage in such transparent sophistry as your Comment demonstrates (yet again). We were debating what the present Republicans were saying, doing, and “stood for” (a phrase I hesitate to use where Mr. Etch-A-Sketch is concerned). What the Founders stood for is another subject entirely.
And I love how you keep blathering about the Constitution, while revealing your almost complete ignorance of it. If you really knew the history of that document, its origins and terms (which I’ve discussed more fully countless times, and won’t repeat here), you’d know that creating a strong Federal government was one of its essential purposes. (Read The Federalist Papers.)
You’d also know that “strong” doesn’t mean “all powerful” (which seems to be what conservatives think that word means).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for Lincoln and “States’ Rights”. I’m afraid that his opposition to that doctrine didn’t just extend to the “very special case” of Slavery. (Though that was the cause in who’s name the South invoked that concept.) He also opposed it in connection with the proximate cause of the Civil War: Secession! And which party today has prominent members raising that idea once more (calling it a “State’s Right” as “Old Dixie” did)? Hint: not the Democratic Party.
Of course, Lincoln (and the Republicans of his time) greatly expanded the reach and power of the Federal government both before, during, and (especially) after the War. It didn’t end with Slavery (abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment), but continued with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments - the former of which gave the U.S. government great power to protect people against abuse of their rights by the State governments, including the power to enforce against the States the liberties of the Bill of Rights, plus Due Process and Equal Protection (that last being a concept new to the Constitution).
Oh, and let’s not forget that Lincoln gave us the first national income tax, and the Republicans gave the South the pleasure of Reconstruction.
I don’t need a lecture on history from someone (you) who is so obviously ignorant of it!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
And sorry, charley, but last I checked George Will wasn’t a candidate for President. That’s whom we’re discussing - remember. So kindly point me to where any of the Republican candidates consistently advocated vigorous government regulation of corporations, including enforcement of the Anti-Trust laws. I must have blinked and missed it. (Except for Romney’s brief flirtation with the idea, during the first presidential debate. But he soon recovered, and went back to his “evil government regulation” theme.) In contrast, Teddy Roosevelt was a tireless warrior against big business, and railed against “malefactors of great wealth”. Funny, I can’t recall Bachman, Cain, Gingrich, Paul, Perry, Romney, or Santorum saying anything remotely like that!
And last I checked the President isn’t a Republican, so what he allegedly said (or actually never said) really has no relevance. But your transparent attempt to avoid the issue fails. If there was a single Republican who supported even the idea of new public works projects (like Ike’s Interstate Highway System), you should have cited him/her. You didn’t, because you can’t. They’re quite happy to let that same System collapse (as some of its bridges already are) rather than spend money to repair and maintain them. (Which, by the way, is where some of those “shovel-ready” billions actually went.)
And no, I don’t lump all Republicans together. I have consistently referred to the leaders of the Party. (As I did in my prior Comment yet again.) But of course, you ignore whatever doesn’t fit your thesis.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
But, finally, we get to a semblance of a “real” issue, though it’s one that has nothing to do with what we are discussing. What is the “right size” of the Federal government today? The answer, however, is not to be found in the simplistic rhetoric Republican candidates used on the campaign trail, nor in the rhetoric and ideology you spew.
In some areas, I agree the government (both State and Federal) is “too big”. I believe it has no business controlling what women do with their bodies - certainly not when it consists of imposing a religious doctrine. I also don’t believe the government should employ warrantless wiretaps, in violation of both the Fourth Amendment and FISA. (Remember which President did that, in secret, and which Party actively championed it?)
I also think much of our military spending is wasteful, and unnecessary. (A lot of it is due to “earmarks” designed to “feather” a Congressmember’s district. Of course, both parties are guilty of that one - and not just with respect to military spending.)
As for the “bailouts” (begun under Bush the Second, remember?): they are a perfect example of how complex issues can’t be addressed by empty slogans about “small government”. I don’t like them, but I recognized the necessity for them.
(By the way, so far much of the money lent is being paid back with interest - a net gain for us. But it’s too soon to judge the entire TARP program, and related matters.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FIVE
That being said, I didn’t want what happened: a blank check given to those corporations with their hands out. I especially didn’t like that the money came without strings, so that much of it ended up as bonuses for the corporate "geniuses" who helped cause the mess.
Instead, I favored the view that any corporation “too big to fail” was therefore too big to exist. I wanted a form of structured “trust busting” woven into the whole bailout program, so that the companies in question would never again be “too big to fail”. Of course, that didn’t happen, but (to return to the topic we’re actually discussing) none of the Republican Presidential wannabees so much as suggested they favored such an idea. Nope, they simply recited their devotion to the “pure, perfect, sacred and holy” free market - forgetting it was just such devotion that helped cause the mess in the first place!
This entire discussion began with THX1138’s assertion of what it means to be a Republican, and his insistence that Bush the Second (and Nixon) somehow strayed from “timeless” principles the Party has now returned to. For all your evasion and avoidance, all your sophistry, all your apparent (or feigned) ignorance of history, the fact remains that much of what today’s Republican Party stands for (as demonstrated by its leaders, candidates, campaign slogans, and Platform) are actually contrary to what Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower stood for (among others). And all your “spin” can’t change that fact.
I skimmed this rhetorical garbage and there's not much to comment on, but a representative sample can be found here:
"Pot, meet kettle.
I see no need to replay the “greatest hits” of your personal attacks and insults."
Read: I couldn't find any.
"Suffice to say my accusation that you are a partisan ideologue (which is a statement of fact, not an attack) is born out by almost everything you write - and I’m hardly the only one who sees that".
Your framing me as a "partisan ideologue" is a matter of OPINION, not fact which tells me categorically that you do not know the difference between the two. You say it's "born [sic] out by almost everything you write" but offer not one single example. And "I'm hardly the only one who sees that", yet the FACT that your view is OPINION, lies in the FACT that others on the board would say that, "no, ecgberht is NOT a partisan ideologue. Further, I can DEMONSTRATE that in the FACT that I have praised and criticized both Democrats and Republicans on this board. That negates the POSSIBILITY that I am a "partisan ideologue". Get it? You just disagree with my views. That does not make me a "partisan ideologue".
As for your founders, constitution, blah, blah, blah, you don't know HALF what you think you know. Much like samcot, you use the "I know something you don't know" ploy but can never substantiate it.
With respect to the Constitution and its intent, I ask simple questions here that the simple seem unable to answer. For example, Why does Article I, Section 8 enumerate the powers of Congress? It certainly isn't because "creating a strong Federal government was one of its essential purposes". If that were the case, Article I, Section 8 would contain only one provision; "Congress shall do anything it wants". It's a simple question. Why can't I find any big-government progressive that can answer it?