Charlie Rose

tonytrupp  02/09/2009 10:37 PM Report

I like listening to David Brooks, since he represents the often little heard voice of moderate conservatives, but I feel that he was pretty one sided in this interview. Much of what he said was true, in that Obama's using this to push the agenda that got him elected (spending in infrastructure, healthcare, education), but he didn't really call the republican's out for just doing their same old tricks. They're calling everything the democrats invest in as pork (even though there's an unprecedented no earmarks in this bill), pushing only taxcuts (even though that doesn't help those out of work), etc. But I guess Brooks is known as being the token conservative within the NYT, so I guess he has to preach more of a conservative gospel. I lost some of my respect for him in this interview though... but mainly because I'm really looking forward to seeing a lot of what's in this bill (like heavy investment in green energy).

SolarUpNote  02/09/2009 10:23 PM Report

That was great discussion. Things are becoming much clearer now. For good or bad, I feel more comfortable hearing an honest account of what's going on with the stimulus bill.

I wish all television journalism was this honest and informative.

REMant  02/09/2009 09:51 PM Report

Nice discussion, repeated several times subsequently over the weekend, but not as well here. I read that polls say public support for this bill has declined considerably in the past 3 wks. I am, of course, not a believer in stimulus, whether proposed by Feldstein - who suggested spending it on the military - or Krugman, and I wouldn't want it if it means inflation, even if I were, but I am willing to consider stuff that is being called stimulus, such as basic relief programs, some tax cuts, R&D, etc. What Republicans and Democrats will agree on, is precisely what I won't: a large barrel of pork. Clyburn said on this program they weren't going to listen to him, and it appears they haven't.

As I am writing this tho Obama is saying he believes this spending will "break the cycle of job loss," which does not necessarily mean he believes in a stimulus multiplier and may mean he thinks govt support will give us time to make the productive changes we do need. Since we have to provide relief anyway, I can support it on that basis. However, he is drawing on Japan without understanding that China, et al have played a large part in the difficulty of their recovery. And he doesn't half the time really understand the nature of this as a credit crisis, and talks about lost demand, or lost credit, as if they could simply be manufactured, and blaming it on sub-prime mortgages. Manufacturing credit instead of stuff will simply give us inflation. He is channelling Summers to the effect that "stimulus" will stabilize the situation, and then the admin will address our fundamental weaknesses. But he has surrounded himself with Keynesians, who are also all ideological Democrats, not unlike the Bushies. He says tho that they must be right, because the latter were wrong, and that the American ppl have shown their agreement. Earlier today in Elkhart he was talking about trickle-down economics. I recall a Wall St economist saying in 2001 that she hoped ppl would invest the money from tax cuts and low interest rates at that time. Well, they did; they bought houses, and stuff made in China. Unfortunately the houses produced nothing of long-term value and the stuff bought from China served only to boost an inflation that has led to present deflation. You can argue that that stabilized that situation, but I wouldn't. The only reason we have deflation today is because our economic productivity could not support the value of our currency. It dropped and it took the prices of things denominated in it, with it. The only solution is either to live with the situation, if, indeed, we can, or improve that productivity and the value of the money by paying off our debts.

IRISH  02/09/2009 05:58 PM Report

The stimulus package very accurately posed by Brooks has too much of the long-term initiatives to the detriment of the short-term quick and temporary and timely. However, the groundwork of the present economy was a Bush II legacy in all its dimensions and there is no human being capable of performing the clean-up without its attendant ups and downs over the next two years. Best interview on mainstream media of the stimulus without being laden in economic details and short enough for the Joe Plumbers of society.

fccm  02/09/2009 02:49 PM Report

“DAVID BROOKS: Good to be with you again, Charlie.

CHARLIE ROSE: Your president -- I`m not the first person to ask you this.”

“Your president”? Charlie Rose implies he has a different president.

Mr. Rose needs to fully disclose what passport or passports he carries.

laurainmontreal  02/09/2009 08:29 AM Report

The description for this segment is incorrect, not his first week in office.

ShalomFreedman  02/09/2009 03:59 AM Report

Brooks is an astute and slyly humorous commentator. He like many of us had hoped that Obama would have an easy path to bipartisan action to address the Crisis. He apparently has not had such a path, and will not get one. Brooks does his homework, and it was interesting to learn that he had polled a large number of Economists, a significant one- third of which believe the Stimulus is a mistake. I also appreciate Brooks being honest in reporting how great the Uncertainty is about this whole economic crisis, with no one sure how it will be gotten out of. The notion and hope that President Obama will have his most difficult time in his first year when learning the ropes, is also an interesting one. Two points emerged which are troublesome. One, the system of gathering up all the experts may be a bit overdone by the President. Second, the President has not yet found the way to scare people into doing what he wants. He may be too good, too rational, a guy for the job.

In any case once again the 'Charlie Rose' show provides another informative and intelligent discussion.

tartufe  02/09/2009 12:08 AM Report

Double speak from other O conversation.

Obama's in the process of failing (or disappointing me anyway) on two major points. [The ME a potential third, but it's so intractable he can't be blamed.] 1. Bank bailouts, and 2. Afghanistan-Pakistan (A-P).

1. Bank bailouts. If as claimed the bank mess will require trillions (plural) to avoid losing trillions, why bother? Isn't it a wash? And the perpetrators would be chastened perhaps enough to avoid the moral hazard of a repetition down the road. In fact they and their venal political partners should have to answer in courts of equity of some kind. Shouldn't Paulson and Barney Frank et al (Robert Rubin of Citi and their co-conspirators) answer for breaking the world? Retribution would send the right message world-wide that our system is not that easily corrupted without a price.

The price in taxes on our progeny and us and inflation from a debauched, debased printing press currency will destroy us into a banana republic status. All for immediate gratification - the gluttony that got us here.

2. A-P. Anti-Americanism is an idea not geography, and (unfortunately) migratable. Indeed, Yemen is a more likely geographic site for anti-American terrorist plotting than either Afghanistan or Pakistan. Throw in N. Korea, Iran. Should we try to convert all terrorist threats into a ground war? Solely for the M-I profiteers?

Our arrogant disregard for civilian “collaterals” (charming euphemism) is recruiting more al Qaeda than we’re removing.

Gates et al become a M-I oligarchy foil for the any-conflict-will-do profiteers. Ask Raytheon and their special envoy to Obama and Congress. We sustain em, not end them.

Alas, any culture that tolerates the disdain for humanity as exemplified by our two controlling oligarches, M-I complex and Finance, doubtless will descend to an awaiting and deserved place.

Lastly, technology is transferable. How would a drone-fired missile play in Peoria? Would our "acceptable" collateral damage ratio still prevail?

Obama's on a too lofty pinnacle. His "four-year splat" at the bottom will end our (my?) audacity of hope.