Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-12-14/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Fiscal cliff negotiations appear stuck in neutral. The Fed ties interest rates to jobless numbers. And the Michigan governor signs a “right to work” law. Diane and a panel of guests discuss the week's top domestic stories.
Guests
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Ron Elving
senior Washington editor for NPR.
Karen Tumulty
national political reporter at The Washington Post.
Friday News Roundup Video
After Michigan passed an anti-union measure Thursday amid protests and criticism, the panel looked at what right-to-work laws actually mean and what's next for the nation's organized labor movement.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
The Last Moderate wrote: "THX is childish to an unfortunate extreme, so I'll give you a half-correct rating on that)."
So it's beneath your dignity to reply to me but not about me.
There is a name for that, can you think of what that is?
I think you are upset because I win all the arguments.
Eventually every state will be RTW. Unions, in particular public employee unions are a sham. Used to extract political payment for liberal politicians. IF 1/2 of union dollars went to conservative politicians then the process might work. Alas, it's corrupt and has been for decades. If paying dues is not forced it will bankrupt the unions. Now talk about fairness; public employee unions are bankrupting city, county, state, federal budgets. IT's time for a little return the favor. Diane's readers should take heed; when WI voted for their RTW status; 68% ( and rising) of employees who could opt out, did. Furthermore, as time passes employees are finding out they could negotiate themselves as effectively WITHOUT THE UNION. Indeed; MOST if not ALL employers are MORE willing to negotiate with the employee than the union. Finally, most employers are willing to give the employees extra benefit because they did opt out. Unions know that; that's why they FORCE members to have to pay.
It just occurred to me that I had been discussing Michigan's RTW law without mentioning the fact that I'm a Michigander. It doesn't really matter, but it should be out there.
The Last Moderate wrote: "You are correct in the entirety of your comment, except that this only demonstrates bias on the part of the single employee who wrote the caption.
LOL
Diane's agenda is not liberal; her subject matter for the most part is current, thought-provoking issues. Diane, however, is overtly liberal. Her questions and comment are clearly progressive. I don't believe she hides this fact; indeed, for her its a badge worn proudly.
"Smoot wrote:
Ferdnam wrote:
" The fact that party politics have replaced intellectual discourse on matters of policy seems to me to be a particularly dangerous trend. Wouldn't it tend to make this country ungovernable?"
I fervently hope so. As a matter of fact, I want to see the states refusing to enforce federal law - let the feds enforce it themselves, if they want to.
Refuse them everything - use of facilities, and all other forms of cooperation.
10th amendment, baby, lets live it. Welcome to your second term, Obama."
Party politics would bring paralysis to state governments as well... I assume... So, you'd get anarchy... I am not so sure that this would be a welcome development...
If there was not an "agenda" maybe you can explain all the negative Romney analysis before the election and the almost complete lack of analysis of Obama's four year record, almost no campaign rhetoric analysis and a black out of the accompanying Obama administration scandals before the election.
Extreme bias in any media form pushes an agenda forward.
That's it until later.
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote:
"THX/ecgberht"
Positively RESENT the broad-brush here ...
"And you're right...I DID say that Republicans are the party of "less government" and "less intrusion."
...but only when it comes to matters of economic equality (i.e., the anti-union law). In matter of social policy, Republicans are quick to want to leverage the power of government to tell others who can live or die (regulating abortion and end-of-life self-determinations), who can marry whom, and falling in line with others who want their tax dollars to fund stem cell research. I think some of you are failing to conviently ignore THAT little policy inconsistency. You're not for government regulating markets and creating economic equality, but you're all for government regulating personal lives."
And here.
Part deux.
Let's break down your "matters of social policy", shall we?
"Republicans are quick to want to leverage the power of government to tell others who can live or die (regulating abortion and end-of-life self-determinations)"
I believe in right to die as long as compus mentus is present.
As for abortion, I think science should trump ideology. Let's start with the practice of late-term or "partial birth" abortions. Science shows us that many of these infants are perfectly capabile of living outside the womb. So other than a strict "life of the mother" exception, I see little scientific reason not to protect the lives of these innocents - other than the ideology of the pro-abortion ... oops, sorry, pro-choice crew.
"who can marry whom"
Check out my posts in the last couple of weeks on gay rights. If you think you can defend that statement, then bring it.
"falling in line with others who want their tax dollars to fund stem cell research."
I'm not in favor of FG-funded stem-cell research, but not for the reasons you think. I'm not in favor of ANY government research. It's not the FG's job. If you think it is, find it in Article I, Section 8 and let me know, 'k?
Your charges are unfounded and you make the mistake that most only the left make - all Republicans/conservatives think alike. It's not true.
Do you mean to equate "clearly progressive" with being liberal? Can't someone with conservative viewpoints also be "clearly progressive"?
Givemeabreak wrote:
"Can't someone with conservative viewpoints also be "clearly progressive"?"
I can answer that. No. Conservative principles which involve small government are diametrically opposed to "progressive" principles of big government control.
givemeabreak wrote.
Do you mean to equate "clearly progressive" with being liberal? Can't someone with conservative viewpoints also be "clearly progressive"?
Conservative and progressive are contradictory ideas, I think. But I suppose there are those that consider themselves moderates, who can hold core beliefs from both sides.
As far as political partiy affiliation, though, I would argue that one party has always considered itself more conservative; although the parties have switched allegiances on occasion.
"Can't someone with conservative viewpoints also be "clearly progressive"?"
I have met "religious" conservatives that espouse the message of "I am my brothers keeper" in political terms. Personally I have found this belief to be eerily similar to liberal philosophies and troubling just the same. Could it it be described as conservative progressivism, I do not see why not.
Although most of the mediaand pundits seem to have bought the story, I don't believe at all that Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew because of the Benghazi. I believe that if it was just that, Amb. Rice would have taken the fight to the Republicans. I think the real reason lies in the fact that the stories about the war in DRCongo, which started out in Foreign Policy Magazine and other specialized Press, got picked up by the NY Times. To quote Forbes, "The only regret I have about the withdrawal of Ambassador Rice’s bid is that she may escape questioning about her handling of M23, which likely would have come up at some point in a confirmation hearing. Would she have conceded that her policy was insensitive to the moral implications of U.S. diplomats once again blocking reports of massacres and diluting U.N. condemnations of those massacres? Or would she have insisted that fine-tuned diplomatic requirements had trumped the moral issues?" (http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/12/14/the-real-re...)
THX wrote:
“I have met ‘religious’ conservatives that espouse the message of "I am my brothers keeper" in political terms.”
It’s called compassion.
And this may come as a surprise but I believe you don’t necessarily have to be “clearly Progressive” “ to be capable of compassion towards your fellow Americans-
-But it “clearly” helps.
"Conservative and progressive are contradictory ideas,..."
If these ideas are indeed contradictory, the Republican party is doomed. And, it's not because of core beliefs; it is because of the labeling.
What we've done with this labeling, or pigeon-holing, is to imply that most people are either a Democrat/liberal/progressive or a Republican/conservative/regressive. Who wants to be tagged as "regressive" instead of "progressive"?
I don't believe conservative ideas and progressive ideas are contradictory but I do believe the Democrats have done a tremendous job of promoting the perception that they are. By assuming the cloak of being liberal/progressive and casting their opponents as conservative/regressive, Democrats have greatly expanded their political appeal - appeal based simply on labeling.
I believe strongly that if can have conservative principles and also have progressive ideas.
ecgberht
...and there's that detailed hair-splitting I was talking about. You know as well as anyone here that most Republicans have tried to legislate marriage by defining what the traditional family is (or do I have to mention the a Republican sponsored (Defense Of Marriage Act, both the federal act and those clones at the state level?). Additionally, many of your kind want to see abortion outlawed--even in cases of rape and/or incest. What does "science" have to do with your political party's stance? Most of you Republicans are creatures of "faith" anyway...NOW all of a sudden, you conviently interject "science" into the argument. Talks about "oops..."
You're talking about yourself as an individual. I'm talking about Republicans on the whole..."broad paint-brush" notwithstanding. It is what it is...most Republicans want "hands off" economic policy, but want to control social policy. The party adherents who don't (such as you say you are) are few and far between. And pretend as you might, you might want to paint yourself the exception, but as a general rule, the observation is accurate. Your personal views wouldnt make it to the party's platform, even on the last day of mankind. Look at your party's platform and check out whether what I said is true...please stop the pretense. Just admit that Republicans are contradictory...many want to use government to control social policy, but keep it off of economic policy...except as it related to Democrats and union power.
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote:" I'm talking about Republicans on the whole..."broad paint-brush" notwithstanding. It is what it is...most Republicans want "hands off" economic policy, but want to control social policy. The party adherents who don't (such as you say you are) are few and far between"
Romney's support from evangelical conservatives was about 26%, this is where control of social policy primarily comes from on the right. As far as the democratic party, for the most part control of social policy comes from all quarters in varying degrees but not much of a difference. Democrats are much more fixated through policies and political correctness in controlling personal lives. Their constant attacks on the Constitution and their obvious opinion that it is a quaint outdated document proves it.
Drew Kelly wrote: "I believe you don’t necessarily have to be “clearly Progressive” “ to be capable of compassion towards your fellow Americans-"
LBJ was a progressive in the extreme. Great society programs have all but destroyed the family unit in certain precincts and greatly damaged it in others. It has done arguably nothing to get people out of poverty and on their feet.
We are now going to embark on yet another argument about gun violence and what to do about it. I believe it is the break down of the family that is the primary driver of the terrible violence we are seeing. I also believe it is the loose morals of the left that has helped create a delay in the maturation of the people. The sense that the individual was not to long ago, expected to support themselves on their own at around age 20, which also coincided with sexual maturity around the same age. Now sexual maturity arrives at approximately age 15, intellectual maturity at age 30. Obviously this is a disaster as evidenced by government dependence statistics.
@Beyond
There are some rational folks with liberal views on this board, you are not one of them. Your statements are completely incoherent. It seems that anyone who disagrees with you is "hair-splitting". That's a tactic I've not seen before. Nice going!
"Additionally, many of your kind want to see abortion outlawed--even in cases of rape and/or incest. What does "science" have to do with your political party's stance?"
I've already shown you why a scientific view of late-term abortion must give one pause as to advocating for unfettered abortion. Suggest you go back and re-read. I didn't comment on abortion at any other time.
"Our kind"? What exactly is "our kind"?! I don't know about THX, but I've already demonstrated in the previous post where my views depart from those that you ascribe to "The Republican Party".
You say, "You're talking about yourself as an individual. I'm talking about Republicans on the whole..."broad paint-brush" notwithstanding."
So, you just made your post, on the whole, irrelevant. All I can do something about is what I believe. All you can do something about is what you believe. I can't control the Republican platform. Republicans are NOT all the same, yet you want to insist that they are by maintaining that all Republicans adhere to the Republican Platform. Do you maintain that all Democrats adhere to the Democratic Platform? I wouldn't if I were you.
Part deux.
"The party adherents who don't (such as you say you are) are few and far between. And pretend as you might, you might want to paint yourself the exception, but as a general rule, the observation is accurate."
Such as I SAY I am? Are you saying I'm lying? If I were you, I would read my posts - there are plenty on this board - and bring evidence before you make that kind of accusation. I've shown you line by line how my views depart. THAT is evidence. I don't see you bringing anything but your bias.
"are few and far between"
Really? Again, what is your evidence for that, Beyond? All I hear is preconceived notion and that notion is absurd. I would maintain that departures are the NORM in the party based on Republicans I know, not "few and far between". I maintain that anyone who is lockstep with the platform is the rare exception. If they weren't, every poll of admitted Republicans would be 100 to 0. Oddly, they're not. Do you think that liberals who depart from the letter of the Democratic Platform are the rare exception or the norm? Do you even know what you think?
Perhaps the fact that my views do not line up with the Republican Party is inconvenient for you. Perhaps I'm "hair splitting". Your observation is NOT accurate. In fact it's absurd.
You're going to believe what you want to believe, Beyond. But you're making yourself look like a fool.
I certainly do agree that republicans are more intellectually diverse as a whole than democrats. I also believe there is a much broader understanding of the facts and a stronger desire to learn the facts in republican circles compared to democratic circles. I am a libertarian who consistently votes republican because of the small government message.
I am curious which republicans you think D.R. voted for. I find her liberal bias nothing short of profound.
I tried to call in on this show, but was unable, in as far as the "right to work" law here in Michigan, let me first say I am NOT pro-union. I have been in three different unions during my work here in MI and none have been a positive experience. I think the bigger issue that is being overlooked here is the amendment in Michigans Consititution that allows them to add an expenditure to a bill and make a referendum nearly impossible. For our law makers to add that to a bill to virtually shove something down our throats is just plain wrong and dirty pool. I am quite certain both sides of the political machine have used this tool to "protect" their interests, but does that protect our the citizens of Michigans interests? Not being able to call a referendum on this bill and the new EM bill (btw) has me far more upset then the bill itself.
Now as far as our "fiscal Cliff" sigh.... out here in the real world, we all know we can not help others unless our own house is in order first, which means we need to be able to pay our own bills before we can go give money to help someone else. I have to wonder how much money could be brought back into the US if we stopped providing financial aid to other countries? Now I would still allow for aid for health, and natural disasters, but that would have to be the extent. When we as a nation have our own "house" in order then we can look outside our borders. They need to stop playing around with our programs while they continue to fund special interests. There are days I would like to just take them all by the collar and shake them and tell them "knock it off"...
As far as your comment regarding social programs, let me explain something to you.. part of the flaw in that program is booting people off the assistance before they are on their feet solidly. As soon as they start to earn a little bit, their assistance is cut drastically simply forcing them back down into the rut. Although education is promoted more now then previously, there is still very little encouragement for job training, and again, once they enter the work force before they can really even get on their feet they are cut off the programs. If the system allowed for help while the individual is learning a job skill, and allows them at least six months of working before cutting back or off their assistance, far less people would return to the welfare rolls. Trust me I speak from personal experience here. I did not ever "abuse" the help, and hated with every part of my being having to ask for help. As far as Medicare and social security, guess what we pay into that program as long as we earn a paycheck, so your darn tooting we are entitled to that program. I do agree that much of the violence we see today is due to the breakdown in families, when we took the ability of parents to discipline their children away, we have created a society of disfunctional families and kids who have no respect for anyone else or themselves. Everyone became so worried about child abuse that the pendulumn swung way to far to the other side. There is a difference between abuse and discipline, sigh.
401(k)s were supposed to make us all rich. Please. That is so ignorant.
In response to a callers suggestion that the country trim the budget by eliminating government pensions I have three comments.
1. Rounded off to the nearest hundredth of a percent, government pensions contribute zero to the budget deficient. For the most part these pensions are funded by the government employees themselves in the form of payroll deductions.
2. Do you really want the more experienced (older) government employees to be desperately looking for a way to fund their old age? THINK!!
3. Most importantly, I find this race to the bottom appalling. This is the point that drives me to comment at all. Instead of complaining about those who had the foresight to latch onto a government job (and a government pension), shouldn't we be lobbying for/fighting for/ demanding a livable retirement for ourselves. You people who want to destroy government pensions instead of joining the fight for pensions of our own; are like the grade school kid who, beaten up by a bully, goes to find the smallest kid in class and beats up on him. #$!&^%$#@#!! Get some backbone!