Friday News Roundup - Domestic
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2013-03-15/friday-news-roundup-domestic
Conservatives are meeting here in Washington for their annual political action conference, and on the agenda is the direction of the GOP. Both parties unveil competing blueprints for the federal budget this week. President Barack Obama meets on Capitol Hill with lawmakers to seek a budget deal, as his approval rating dips below 50 percent. Intelligence chiefs warn that cyberattacks, not terrorism, are the most dangerous threats facing the U.S. A bill banning assault weapons passes the Judiciary Committee but faces strong opposition in the full Senate. And the New York Supreme Court overturns Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s ban on big sodas. A panel of journalists joins guest host Susan Page to discuss the week's news.
Guests
Steve Inskeep
co-host of Morning Edition on NPR.
Glenn Thrush
senior White House Reporter for POLITICO.
Chris Cillizza
author of The Fix, a Washington Post politics blog, managing editor of PostPolitics.com and author of the book, "The Gospel According to The Fix."
Featured Video Clip
In an annual threat assessment to Congress this week, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said cyberattacks are the top security danger facing the United States. Cybersecurity vulnerabilities surpassed extreme acts of terrorism as the major threat for the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks. Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post said the reliance Americans have on computers and technology is "clearly being worked against us." "When something goes down in our home, in our workplace, it's somewhere close to paralysis in terms of the dependency we have," he added. Steve Inskeep, co-host of NPR's Morning Edition, pointed out that the odds of a "cyber-9/11" are quite low.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
As president Obama spoke directly to house Republicans today (3/14), they disrespectfully live-tweeted from the audience, commenting on his "Offensive Charm" and "rolling eyes" at his remarks. (Rep. Matt Salmon and John Flemming, respectively.)
I'm a pro-compromise moderate, but the fallacy of "both-sides" being equally at fault has never been more apparent.
NEW YORK, March 14 (Reuters) - "The U.S. war in Iraq has cost $1.7 trillion with an additional $490 billion in benefits owed to war veterans, expenses that could grow to more than $6 trillion over the next four decades counting interest, a study released on Thursday said".
____________________________________________
HOW CAN OBAMA STOP THE WASTEFUL SPENDING WITHOUT A TIME MACHINE,TO STOP THE LIES THAT PUT US THERE..???
How many more trillions for Afghanistan..?? We know the Bush Tax Cuts continue to add to the debt,already over $3 TRILLION.
This week it was reported that tax cuts will be given to oil and gas producers in the Dakota`s.To pay for this,they will take away milk from school children`s lunches...WHOOPEE
Remember,we are a Christian Nation..??
Blueneck BillyBob,
Maybe Pope Francis I will bail out the little kids
("...the least of my brothers"). Or maybe Shr Jyan Ping (?).
Dan Zaleznik wrote: "Offensive Charm"
The "charm offensive" is the ongoing Obama administration charade of theatrical and illusionary budgetary compromise with republicans. It's sole purpose is to convince the "low information voter" that Obama is doing his best to to help solve the deficit problem while he (Obama) behind the scenes torpedoes any proposed legislation with poison pill tax or spending increases or media demoniziation. Clearly most of the blame goes to the party that hasn't submitted a budget, required by law, for almost four years.
Until now
"Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Budget Committee, finally released a budget today. Year over year, in this proposed budget, federal spending jumps dramatically, 62% over ten years."
"pro-compromise moderate" does 31% sound better?
Topic: Banks Still Red Lining the Middle Class
Red lining was a practice by banks which prevented Blacks and other people with backgrounds connoting "economic instability" from getting bank loans. People who were red lined either did not get loans or mortgages or received them but at higher borrowing rates than those who were more "economically stable", i.e., whites.
The banks, big commercial or relatively smaller scale banks have expanded the red lining practice to include a large economic stratum, the middle and lower classes. Families with two income earners, who are saving to send their children to college, what had been considered a profile of stable economic risk, are denied loans for mortgages and their small businesses.
The excuse is banks can't take on this risk. Baloney! Show me the economic model that considers this large swath of Americans a risk, and I'll show you the same model that couldn't tell the difference between Junk Bonds and AAA Bonds.
The Attorney General or the IG of the FDIC should launch an investigation to see how risk is being defined and to see who disproportionately benefits from this current practice of Red Lining.
The banks said that the likes of AIG and Lehman and Stearns were not risks, but now are saying that the backbone of our economic development, Main Street, is a risk?
If that's not discrimination, what is?
With the old Red Lining against Blacks, the Banks experienced profits when they were forced to deal with Blacks and other groups who were illegally and unfairly Red Lined. Likewise, they'll experience profits when dealing with the large strata of the middle and lower classes who develop small businesses and help build communities. It appears the banks have to be forced, again to figure out how to run their business and recreate the profits they experienced when they were in the business of helping build America and its communities.
Statman2 wrote: "Red lining was a practice by banks which prevented Blacks and other people with backgrounds connoting "economic instability" from getting bank loans. People who were red lined either did not get loans or mortgages or received them but at higher borrowing rates than those who were more "economically stable", i.e., whites."
Are you suggesting that people who have bad credit, i.e. that can't and won't pay their bills should be given loans. Should the federal government once again force banks to make bad loans?
"According to the study, almost half of all African Americans have bad credit records - a rate nearly twice that of whites."
"The study found that whites earning less than $25,000 had better credit records as a group than African Americans earning between $65,000 and $75,000. Overall, 48 percent of blacks and 27 percent of whites had bad credit ratings, as defined by Freddie Mac in this study."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990921&slug=2...
How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0
Statman2 wrote:
"Red lining was a practice by banks which prevented Blacks and other people with backgrounds connoting "economic instability" from getting bank loans. People who were red lined either did not get loans or mortgages or received them but at higher borrowing rates than those who were more "economically stable", i.e., whites."
OK, now wait a minute. I thought banks were money-grubbing profit whores. Especially the big banks. So if they are money-grubbing profit whores, why would they care what color a person's skin is?
In fact, banks operate from economic self-interest and in the interest of their stock-holders. Period.
The mortgage bubble did not occur because banks "couldn't tell the difference between Junk Bonds and AAA Bonds". It occurred because of the repeal of Glass-Steagall which allowed banks to co-mingle deposits with investment banking, a move pushed by Republicans and signed into law by President Clinton, combined with the Democrats' idea that everyone should own a home and everyone was a good credit risk.
@ Dan Zaleznik:
https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=442376592507280
I'm rolling my eyes too when I hear the POTUS feign any offers of compromise or solving the root of the problem.
Regarding Rob Portman's announcement that he now supports gay marriage, I hope the media will press every anti-gay marriage politician to respond to Portman's statement that he's "a dad who loves his son a lot and wants him to have the same opportunities that his brother and sister would have — to have a relationship like Jane and I have had for over 26 years.” Would they deny their own child the same opportunities to have a loving, committed, protected, and cherished relationship as they themselves always enjoyed?
I'm also curious whether having an openly gay son was a significant factor in keeping Portman from being Mitt Romney's pick for VP.
Yes, individual GOP reps were re-elected, but the budget proposal was rejected in a national election.
Fiscal "conservatives" are waiting for John McCain to die and Lindsey Graham to lose in a primary election.
@climatewiz
Absolutely BRILLIANT vid. Have already forwarded it to friends.
Thanks!
I would love to see us stop talking about "gun control" and rebrand it as "gun responsibility." By changing the rubric, we can change the tenor and focus of the conversation: from control - outside forces infringing upon individual liberty, which will never sway any gun owner's heart - to responsibility - acknowledging that gun owners and supporters have power over their own lives, while at the same time making the outcome of irresponsibly used weapons THEIR responsibility.
Hey, Statman2! By sheer chance, I happened to discover that "mczarnol" posted the exact same comment word for word about redlining on November 30th of 2011.
Other commenters may wish to continue this argument by copying comments from the link below:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-30/holding-wall-street-account...
About 2/3 of the way down the page is where it starts.
There were 20 kids in Sandy Hook who spent their whole lives around guns. Especially the very last part.
Diane Feinstein in the debate with Ted Cruz essentially stated that the Constitutionality of legislation is not a consideration in passing new laws, that it is the supreme courts job to figure it out after the fact. Clearly this shows that Feinstein is not in the least bit concerned with her sworn oath of upholding the Constitution, she would rather put the people and the courts in constant upheaval for political gain.
When I hear someone say that "law abiding citizens should be able to have assault weapons" I think, yeah, they are law abiding citizens, untill they walk into a theatre or an elementary school, or a college, etc., and start shooting their legally owned gun.
"Hey, Statman2! By sheer chance, I happened to discover that "mczarnol" posted the exact same comment word for word about redlining on November 30th of 2011"
We beat the same dirt out of the same rugs over and over and over again.
Regarding the pace at which public opinion regarding same sex marriage has changed, I think you should not ignore the very important effect of television programming on this issue. I believe the positive portrayal of gay couples in shows such as "Desperate Housewives", and especially now on "Modern Family", has had a profound influence on our culture, similar to the way casting a black president on the show "24" allowed us as a nation to visualize and be comfortable with the idea of a black president.
Please read the Constitution.Please read the WELL REGULATED part. Please read the 14th Amendment. Where anyone swearing allegiance to the United States and it`s Constitution,and then to disavow that oath and swear allegiance to a new entity,( Grover Norquist) means they forfeit their citizenship. If they then take action against the government,insurrection,like bringing down or closing the government,is insurrection and treasonous,and punishable by death.
The 5 knuckleheads on the SCOTUS continue to damage the Constitution. They limit free speech. They gave their blessing to illegal searches. They`ve given Corporations Miranda rights,while denying human beings.
Heathermcleanparis wrote: "When I hear someone say that "law abiding citizens should be able to have assault weapons"
First off citizens cannot buy over the counter "assault weapons"assault weapons are fully automatic firearms. "Assault weapons" as used to describe what Americans are buying is a purely political term. The goal is to ban semi autos by dishonestly describing them as something they are not. The assault weapons ban as put forward by democrats is simply a way to get a foot in the door for a sweeping rifle and handgun ban coupled to a gun registration scheme..
Open Sewer wrote:"Please read the Constitution.Please read the WELL REGULATED part"
Yes, please read it and understand what it means.
The same dirt from the same rug.
Not a word about the coming of dictatorship to Detroit, Through Democratic neglect of local and state issues, the Republicans dominate the state and overturn the will of the voters with forty percent of the vote.
freedom or welfare wrote: "assault weapons are fully automatic firearms."
You state that as a fact. But as far as I can tell, you aren't basing it on anything in particular. In former decades, when guns were a lot more popular, it was regarded as a good thing, or a good selling point, to call a semiautomatic an "assault weapon" in advertisements in gun magazines or whatnot. That's where the usage came from.
Perhaps down the road you'll find yourself complaining about "democrats" (by the way, with the small "d" the term doesn't have anything to do with any political party, it just means they like democracy) using a term like "right-to-work" for laws that ban union shops?
Jean wrote:
"Not a word about the coming of dictatorship to Detroit, Through Democratic neglect of local and state issues, the Republicans dominate the state and overturn the will of the voters with forty percent of the vote."
Yeah, well, we Michiganians (I HATE the word "Michigander!" I hate it I hate it I HATE IT! HONK HONK!) have to get used to the country ignoring us most of the time. We haven't hit the top of the headlines since "right-to-work," just a few months ago. :/ (Somebody better post a comment in reply saying that we're all Michiganah anyway.)
On the other hand! You're factually upside-down. Simply put, Kevyn Orr's a Democrat.
. . . Doesn't mean he doesn't bring dictatorship to Detroit, though. Every new EFM is bad news for a democratic society.
Frankly, it's getting downright tedious hearing and seeing tirades about what is or isn't "Constitutional", especially including tirades about politicians who seem (to whatever observer comments) either ignore or quote the "founding fathers' vision" of what that means. EVERYbody wants to be a Constitutional expert, regardless of training or background. OUR Constitution is a written document that holds precepts from many years of history and opinion. For someone to declare that it is or even should be a collection of rigid specifics is, in itself, a mere opinion........greatly subject to debate and interpretation. We have been told that SCOTUS is the political mechanism, along with the hierarchy of more local courts, by which interpretation is decided.......for a span of the collective lifetimes of a set of appointed justices, keeping in mind that those human beings themselves are subject to changes in age, bias, and level of understanding, not to mention subject to persuasion and emotion and evolution of knowledge.
IF there is somebody on SCOTUS who has hung around since the 1770s, maybe that would provide a more specific view of 18th century thinking. But there is no such person. That being said, Enough Already!
The Last ? wrote:"You state that as a fact. But as far as I can tell, you aren't basing it on anything in particular"
Fact, the democrats constantly refer to these weapons as military grade firearms, weapons of war on our streets. They are not weapons of war and are not used by our military or any other military around the world. They are not used in any wars and are not capable of fully automatic fire. You cannot honestly debate the use of the term "assault weapons" as an innocent description of what Americans are buying without acknowledging the political motive behind it. Paint a semi automatic rifle black and the democrats will tell you it is an assault rifle.
203cc wrote:
"Frankly, it's getting downright tedious hearing and seeing tirades about what is or isn't "Constitutional", especially including tirades about politicians who seem (to whatever observer comments) either ignore or quote the "founding fathers' vision" of what that means. EVERYbody wants to be a Constitutional expert, regardless of training or background. OUR Constitution is a written document that holds precepts from many years of history and opinion. For someone to declare that it is or even should be a collection of rigid specifics is, in itself, a mere opinion........greatly subject to debate and interpretation. We have been told that SCOTUS is the political mechanism, along with the hierarchy of more local courts, by which interpretation is decided.......for a span of the collective lifetimes of a set of appointed justices, keeping in mind that those human beings themselves are subject to changes in age, bias, and level of understanding, not to mention subject to persuasion and emotion and evolution of knowledge.
IF there is somebody on SCOTUS who has hung around since the 1770s, maybe that would provide a more specific view of 18th century thinking. But there is no such person. That being said, Enough Already!"
Amen!
LM wrote:
"using a term like "right-to-work" for laws that ban union shops"
That statement is not accurate, LM.
Right-to-work laws do not "ban union shops", they simply say that workers have a right to work at a company that has a union without joining it.
On the other hand, euphemisms are rife today, for example, "homosexual" has become "gay", "spending" has become "investment". "Illegal alien" has become "undocumented immigrant". "Apartment" has become a racist term. Quite fascinating to watch, actually. The underlying facts don't change, only the branding does.
" ecgberht2 wrote:
@climatewiz
Absolutely BRILLIANT vid. Have already forwarded it to friends.
Thanks!"
I too find the video to be right on... when one considers the situation of a couple or a family... It is interesting to note that the options suggested include generating additional revenue by changing jobs, or taking a second job. Indeed, one must control ones expenditures... And one must generate income...
And this can be a painful and difficult balancing act.
The first task in that balancing act is budget and debt analysis. Where does the debt come from? Why is the budget out of balance?
When it comes to the US national debt and budgetary deficit, there are at least a couple of issues that stand out: the first issue is directly related to two wars of choice; the second is directly related to a foreign trade policy driven by the ideology of free trade and by the unshakable belief in a very dangerous myth.
That myth has two components: liberal capitalism equates democracy; free trade fosters liberty and democracy. Neither of these components have any validity. They simply serve to justify the off-shoring policies of global corporations...
This explains in part the debacle of western economies such as France, or Britain, or Italy, or Spain, etc., and the high unemployment levels in these countries... These countries, like the US, live above their means because they believed, ridiculously enough, that they can continue to consume "stuff" without producing anything themselves to exchange for what they import...
We all have to grow up...