Competing Plans For The Federal Budget
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-12/competing-plans-federal-budget
Since 1921, the White House has been required to submit a budget. But this year marks the first time that Congress, not the president, will begin the budget process. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan offers his party’s budget today. His plan cuts overall spending by nearly five trillion dollars and transforms Medicare and Medicaid. The Ryan budget would also repeal the new health care law. Senator Patty Murray will offer a Senate Democratic version tomorrow, which is expected to call for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, and more spending on education and infrastructure. Diane and guests discuss competing visions for the federal budget.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, Brookings Institution. Author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Vin Weber
co-chairman, Mercury/Clark & Weinstock, a consulting firm; former member of Congress representing Minnesota's 2nd district (1981-93).
Chris Frates
national correspondent, National Journal
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am white and I understand the codewords. You know I am talking about white people.
ecgberht2
If you stand with the racists, how I am to tell the difference. If the Republicans would disassociate with racists, they would win a lot of us white folks back.
That dear last is nonsense. Mother Rehm always has at least two Republicans per Democrat. Sometimes she disguises it by having a Wall Street Journal reporter, sometimes like today at the top of the show she forgets to mention that Vin Webber was a pretty far right Republican Congresscritter.
How about a show with someone like Duncan Black, Dionne and Norm whatshisname from the AEI? That would be fun
RussellAlbert wrote:
"ecgberht2
If you stand with the racists, how I am to tell the difference. If the Republicans would disassociate with racists, they would win a lot of us white folks back."
Sorry, Russell, does not sell, and a real weak point in debate. Republicans could denouce racism IN THEIR PLATFORM, it wouldn't matter. Liberals like you would still throw the accusation at anyone who opposed Obama. It's BS.
You stand with gay people ... with eco-terrorists ... with the Chavez America-haters ... with the 9/11 truthers? Does that make you any of the above? You better not stand with the LGBT community, Russell, or everyone will think you're one of them. You better start denouncing the liberal terrorists and American haters or everyone will think you're one of them ... and as fast as you do we will find other groups for you to denounce. See how that works?
The fact is, you bring the "racist" accusation because you don't have anything else. It's easy and doesn't take a lot of thought. Nice going!
Denounce racism in the platform..PROBABLY.. But in practice the OLD,PALE,AND STALE Republicans are masters at bigotry.
One Senator voted NO,against the Violence Against Women`s Act. But that didn`t stop his on camera lying.
The Republican Platform..?? Read the 1956 Republican platform.Read the part on Job Creation,and union support,and wage support,and`quality of life ideals...ALL GONE,NOTHING LEFT.NO HEART,NO SOUL, ONLY THEIR INDEBTEDNESS TO THE FAT CAT "JOB CREATOR`S CHECKBOOKS.
KKK,Skin Heads,T-Party,Sovereign Citizens,are each more crazy than the other.Once the extremist Fringe of the Republican Party,NOW are the Republican Party
The soft bigotry of the democrat party is obvious to see. The unwitting Judas goats like Russel and Clifford who refuse to see the destruction their party has inflicted on racial minorities is truly something to behold. They destroy lives in the name of a empathy and compassion and are too ignorant to know it or too dishonest to admit it.
Blueneck wrote KKK
The KKK were democrats. The democrats were murdering black people then and their murdering them now. There is just no denying that democrat policies are responsible for the deaths of thousands if not millions of black people.
The Democrats' Missing History .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121856786326834083.html
F or W:
In the NAME only of empathy and compassion. Remember, it was the Southern Democrats that were slave holders. It was Republican votes that carried every piece of race-related legislation despite the votes of the Southern Democrats, right up to and including the Civil Rights Act. The Republicans have always stood for freedom of self-determination against the Democrat dependency culture. This is old news as I have talked about it many times here.
What has never gone away is the Democrat slave/plantation mentality. The difference is, instead of just having black people for slaves they want to enslave as many as possible to government; blacks, hispanics, whites, asians, it doesn't matter.
The Party of Lincoln in 1860 was the Liberal Party.The Conservative Southern Party of 1860 was called Confederates.
Once upon a time (1776) Conservatives remained loyal to the King and were called Tory`s...
Blueneck wrote: "The Party of Lincoln in 1860 was the Liberal Party"
Only a fool would compare "classic" liberalism to what 2013 progressive democrats are up to. Modern "progressivism" is the opposite of classic liberalism, it is indeed regressive in every sense of the word. Collective rights vs individual rights, this is totally contrary to the classic liberal philosophies of the founding fathers. Collective rights are the purview of a king, individual rights are assumed at birth, unencumbered by the chains that another man may wish to impose on another.
Liberalism today remains exactly the same as a century ago. In 1860 the fight was to free slaves.The fight today is equal rights for ALL,including women,gays,African Americans.In 1860 Liberals had to create the Underground Railroad.In 1960 Liberals had to get equal education,and equal voting rights,especially in the South.Southern Democrats had to choose.Democrats like Gov George Wallace had to choose either their political party,or their bigotry.He chose BIGOTRY and hate.The South went Conservative.The South remains Conservative,bigoted,racist,and backward.They remain last in every category,from education to opportunity...
WHEN IN DOUBT,JUST CHECK WHO IS CLINGING TO THEIR GUNS AND THEIR RELIGION...
THE PROBLEM IS NOT LIBERALISM,THE PROBLEM IS LIBERALS AREN`T PROUD ENOUGH OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
Liberals tried to get the ERA for women in the 70`s.Conservatives said unnecessary . .30 years later we`re still fighting for women`s rights.The Lili Ledbetter Act,Obama first legislation is an xample..Conservatives still believe women should be their own private punching bags.Only 1 Republican voted NO the first time VAWA was presented. Last week dozens of Republicans said loudly and clearly,,WOMEN YOU ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS..We will shove a shaming probe up you vagina,if we choose..They will NOT concede the your body,your rights,your choice..
ecgberht2,
Sorry. Not so simplistic analyzing that period or market basics. Primarily it was a sudden lack of demand that brought down the auto makers - W's housing/banking/investment debacle killed the economy. Ordinary folks found their homes were flipped underwater - could no longer afford to buy big items like cars. (Note: foreign auto makers also experienced downturns too.) Consumers, not labor rates, drive the economy - I would have thought a market devotee would acknowledge that.
Re: "...we paid auto-workers $60/hour for $40 worth of work..." I doubt YOU paid anybody any wages at all; also doubt you even know a union worker personally. IF you mean automakers' MANAGEMENT paid improper wages, blame management, not government or unions. Unions negotiated successfully - again it's that "free" market stuff that conservatives choose to only see one side. Workers offer "products" (labor) to "customers" (business) and negotiate price - I must deduce you disagree with the concept of contracts, or buying and selling. Funny how TWO-way bargaining gets blind-sided by conservatives. You also forgot (intentionally perhaps) all the offshoring that the automakers did to merely reduce labor costs rather than re-designing or improving engineering or quality- e.g. sending production to the maquiladoras, closing US plants. CEOs/boards MISmanaged from way back - dropped the ball in quality, model concepts; remember the long period when US management failed to respond by building good fuel efficient cars. I suspect you believe "the unions" design the car models. I have yet to meet a union car engineer.
To boot, GMAC et al had big problems in lending activities - having zip to do with actual car making/labor rates; GMAC was a major mortgage lender besides car loans + money market funds for employees, retirees, and families.
The real world is never as easy to explain as you present.
"Liberalism today remains exactly the same as a century ago"
Yeah, and that was the beginning of the Progressive movement under Wilson and then FDR, easily the most damaging philosophical view this country has ever seen.
But revisionist liberals are trying to claim Lincoln (next it will be Reagan!) and both are probably spinning in their graves. The Party of Lincoln prior to the rise of the Republican party was the Whig Party - the Conservatives who opposed Andrew Jackson. But even at that, clifford, do not confuse the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson with the Progressive Democratic party of today. They are not the same. I really believe that the liberal progressive movement is a thing of evil. Its purpose is to rob people of their self-worth and their dignity and enslave them to the elites of government - just as the plantation masters - the Southern Democrats did in the 19th century.
cc,
Much sound and fury signifying nothing. Most of this is OT non sequitur, so I'll just deal with a few things.
"Primarily it was a sudden lack of demand that brought down the auto makers ... foreign auto makers also experienced downturns too"
Lesson 1: Answer the following - How many of them went bk?
The difference IS and WAS the labor rates reflecting benefits.
"we paid auto-workers $60/hour for $40 worth of work..." I doubt YOU paid anybody any wages at all; "
Lesson 2: The "author's 'we'". Read about it here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We#The_author.27s_.22we.22
This is a collective noun and in context, "For years we paid auto-workers $60/hour for $40 worth of work", meaning employers in this country as opposed to employers overseas, the subject being the relative labor rates being employed and the fact that they are leveling. The subject was not whether I personally ever employed auto workers.
As for the rest of your drivel, I will dismiss it with one statement from my post of 3/12 2:01 pm. "unions drove those higher benefits, and, management let them."
Does that sound like I'm a "company man" to you, cc? Which leads us to ...
Lesson 3: Argue from complete information, not first impressions, and never, ever from anger.
Lesson 4: Keep your arguments impersonal and stick to FACTS not CONJECTURE. "I doubt YOU paid anybody", "also doubt you even know a union worker personally", "I must deduce you disagree", "You also forgot (intentionally perhaps) ","I suspect you believe". Get it? Yet?
Blueneck :THE PROBLEM IS NOT LIBERALISM,THE PROBLEM IS LIBERALS AREN`T PROUD ENOUGH OF THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
Are you proud of this?
The broken family
High crime rates in inner cities.
High murder rates in inner cities
High incarceration rates of minorities
Poor education outcomes because of the union strangle hold on public schools.
Bankrupt cities and states
Etc Etc.
All you have is garbage about non existent income disparities for woman and vaginal probes.
They work less, put less time in on the job so they get less pay. If you don't like that woman bare children, take it up with whatever god you believe in.
As for the "probes", this is something that is not happening. There was confusion when this first came up about the methods used to determine the stages of pregnancy, once it was discovered a probe would be needed, it was a dead issue and relegated to the stupidity of a few law makers. It never happened and never will.
You are an opportunist Clifford, something akin to a sewer dweller. You scoop up every bit of scum you can find and make a false issue of it. You only have lies and distortion on your side. You are filled with blind rage and hate, you have become everything you despise.
203cc wrote: "You also forgot (intentionally perhaps) all the offshoring that the automakers did to merely reduce labor costs rather than re-designing or improving engineering or quality- e.g. sending production to the maquiladoras, closing US plants"
I remember very well when the first Japanese cars hit the American market and who bought them, for the most part liberals. Once the cat was out of the bag that many Americans did not care where the products were made, but were only were concerned with the price, that changed everything. The Japanese did not offer high quality cars, they offered cheap cars at first that would rust in half in a few years.
It is the American people who decided to offshore jobs and no on else. Corporations responded in the only way they could to stay in business.
I still like this. The only time a union loving liberal will be found in a Detroit built car, will be in a hearse on the way to the cemetery.
Finally had a little time this morning to get into the Consumer Reports car issue for 2013.
Number of American cars in the top 10? Zero.
Ecgberht2,
So, considering your own disdain for American made cars, along with your post that the only way a liberal would ride in a Detroit made car would be in a hearse, you have acknowledged that liberals make purchases based on quality.......must be a backhanded compliment in there someplace.
Actually the first waves of popular offshore cars were VWs and Mercedes from Deutchland and Fiats fom Italy.....and even earlier Renaults and Peugeots from France.......not to mention MGs and Triumphs and Jaguars from Britain. And don't forget those BMWs either. And, gee, isn't there some meager acknowledgement about the quality of the Ferrari brand, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce (there is a factory within 10 miles)? While it is true that scads of cheap Japanese cars got popular after the oil embargos, Americans of every political stripe have bought foreign cars for many decades.
Again, it was automakers' MISmanagement and the bad economy that spelled the erstwhile near demise of American auto industry.......NOT some bogus "union lovers" or government conspiracy.
203cc wrote:"along with your post that the only way a liberal would ride in a Detroit made car would be in a hearse, you have acknowledged that liberals make purchases based on quality.......must be a backhanded compliment in there someplace."
You are confusing me with Ecgberht2
I remember quite well the pseudo intellectualism associated with the perceived quaintness of owning American cars as far back as the seventies. This for the most part is a liberal invention.
203cc wrote "Actually the first waves of popular offshore cars were VWs and Mercedes from Deutchland and Fiats fom Italy.....and even earlier Renaults and Peugeots from France.. British cars"
Except for the VW's also bought by libs, these other cars were "niche" markets and never represented a threat to American car makers and are irrelevant to my point.
203cc wrote:
"So, considering your own disdain for American made cars, "
Besides F or W's pointing out your mixing up of his posts and mine, even reading your posts, much less responding, has become a profound waste of my time.
My disdain for American made cars? Where. Point to it. Chapter and verse. When I call you out on this stuff you never answer. How about stepping up this time? Where did I express "disdain for American made cars", cc?
Oh, I just thought of this - to put an exclamation point on your ridiculous statement about my "disdain for American made cars" ...
Number of vehicles owned by ecgberht: 3
Number of American-made vehicles owned by ecgberht: 3
ecgberht2,
- "Finally had a little time this morning to get into the Consumer Reports car issue for 2013. Number of American cars in the top 10? Zero."
- IF that somehow indicates a superiority of US cars in YOUR opinion/that of the media, it hardly jives with your having 3 of them instead of those non-American makes. Another of your notes indicated (paraphrasing) ANYbody with imagination could have predicted the downfall of US autos. Either you obfuscated or were lacking in what you defined. (I omit chapter and verse - should be reserved for lofty writ, not rant.)
One US car ended up in the top 10 for 2012; in truth, most autos I purchased over the last 50 years have been US cars, mostly GM, mostly from loyalty - my state is deeply rooted in US automaking; in fact, deeply rooted in origins of automaking; liberal old mois has purchased exactly two non-US autos in that span, most recently a Honda CR-V, top small SUV for 2013.
- Sorry for confusing you with F W, but you two so often support each other it was an error of specifics for sure, but not spirit.
- "inflated rates in this country must stagnate so that the rest of the world can catch up" - Truly a matter of opinion and speculation rather than based on reality. Labor rates are negotiated and decided locally, not globally. IF you are saying local management botched the bargaining with unions, so be it - as they say in Russia "tough mitsky". NO evidence that non-us labor could not have increased their own demands, not settling for low wages; you won't acknowledge that because you do not really believe in free negotiating.
- "Does that sound like I'm a "company man" to you, cc?"
- ABSOLUTELY !! Your comments always side with management.
- Your frequent objections to so many other posters' comments and your frequent assaults on personalities and stances makes you fair game for criticism ...... you DO make emotional response of your own.
Here we go again. And then I give up.
"your frequent assaults on personalities "
Still waiting for you to name one.
"Sorry for confusing you with F W, but you two so often support each other it was an error of specifics for sure, but not spirit."
So, if I confuse your posts with clifford, or mchaun, or kathleen, that's ok with you since you agree on so many things?
When you screw up, better to say, oops and move on, instead of trying to justify your screw up. It just calls more attention to your screw up, cc.
Now, this is truly embarassing ... as well as totally dishonest ...
"Another of your notes indicated (paraphrasing) ANYbody with imagination could have predicted the downfall of US autos. Either you obfuscated or were lacking in what you defined. (I omit chapter and verse - should be reserved for lofty writ, not rant.)"
You do not quote me because you don't dare. It will screw up your little vapid points. So now you just make up things that you say I said?! Sorry, cc, you've lost.
Once again,
"YOUR opinion/that of the media"
"IF you are saying "
"you won't acknowledge that"
"Your comments always side with management"
"Your frequent objections "
"your frequent assaults "
"you DO make emotional "
Why don't you see if you can make ONE POST without the words "you" or "your", cc? It would improve the content of your posts 1000%.
"freedom or welfare wrote:
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote: "Too bad the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller doesn’t agree"
That is a pity! I hear on almost a daily basis about supreme court corruption and right wing lunacy in it's rulings by the left, when someone on the right has a problem with a ruling, their labeled as extremists. Progressivism has taken hold just about everywhere, maybe even in the dark recesses of Scolia's brain.
March 15, 2013 - 4:18 pm"
That above is FOW's response to a carefully reasoned argument on an important legal question.
And another--
"freedom or welfare wrote:
Etaoin Shrdlu, personally I find everything you write to be more than a little suspect. A couple weeks ago you tried to pass off a severely out of context Madison quote about "welfare" and here you are spinning another web of deceit. Admittedly you make it frustratingly hard to sift through all the manure and there's a lot of it, to find your deceptions, but whats the point when you know you're distorting. Why don't you just admit that your interest in the Constitution in these debates is purely for divisive reasons and you only agree with it's intent out of convenience or more accurately coincidence.
I just wanted to say that, we like having you around, spin on.
March 15, 2013 - 2:19 pm"
A "a severely out of context Madison quote" for Chrissakes, that's the eggie Gang's stock in trade!!!
I believe one could boil down a Billion Terabytes of this blather and not find a single rational and/or provable thought.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com