Charlie Rose

Pentalobus  03/02/2010 07:01 PM Report

Warren Buffet has been a sort of guru for Barack Obama. He thinks health care should start over with bipartisan agreement and

From Link: ..."come up with new legislation that deals with the "cost, cost, cost," that he calls a "tapeworm eating at American competitiveness."

In comments made during a lengthy CNBC appearance Monday where he talked about the economy and financial markets, he criticized the Democratic legislation as not doing enough to slow the cost increases that are making health care an ever larger share of the U.S. economy and making American companies less competitive globally.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/03/warren_buffet_health_care_bill.html

spcostanzo  02/28/2010 10:14 PM Report

Interesting that in this ongoing health care debate one party has been called the party of no. In reality, both parties have earned this moniker. If you tax union health benefits, if you don't payoff the senators, if you seek malpractice tort reform - all of a sudden the democrats stop believing that health care is really such an important piece of legislation after all. Instead of getting tough with the opposing party - Obama should take first put some fear into the party that he is supposed to be leading.

doodahdaze  02/28/2010 01:20 PM Report

Kathleen Sebelius, sounds very intelligent, and most importantly, competent through experience and as such, is practical and REASONABLE!

There's nothing wrong with some transparency for the consumer, especially if it's already inherently rigged against the consumer and society as a whole.

doodahdaze  02/28/2010 12:24 PM Report

If the Conservatives can get the Republicans to drop their perverse incentive of 'corporate welfare' (the BIG hypocrisy in their argument)(and probably one of their biggest cash crops) , perhaps the rich would have to be motivated to work again (it's not like they don't take care of themselves already with their ridiculous sums of 'severance pay'). And then what argument would the bum lobbys have for all kinds of welfare?. Then maybe, things'll start to trickle down again (the way nature intended).

"Kill the lobbyists that fuck with nature!", should be the new slogan of Conservatives.

doodahdaze  02/27/2010 05:42 PM Report

Pretty much the 'health care' debate is over, but what will be done (or not done, as some proponents would prefer worded) has not been etched in stone yet. Maybe a few stuff floating around the periphery, but the real meat in the abyss will be left undone. Still, yet, the debate was 'healthy', as the system prevails, once again.

The big question, will the system fail the economy.?. More talk on regulating the Financial Industry, Glass-Stiegel, "too big to fail", perverse incentives, moral hazard, etc..

There is a lobby, no doubt, that would prefer to own everybody, even to the demise of America. They must be stopped, but the politicians have been tip-toeing around the issue. It almost seems like they're trying to divert attention away from the issue.

esantoro  02/27/2010 05:17 PM Report

Two questions I'd like this and any panel to answer:

1. What is this country becoming ethnically/demographically and why?

2. Do we currently have leadership that is willing to create and lead a reasonably well functioning society that includes the answer to #1.

These two questions are the elephant in the room that few wish to address, yet all real answers are tied to these two very simple questions.

America needs to finally look itself in the mirror and see itself for what it is. All the obfuscation, obstruction, and misinformation currently taking place is a direct result of America's inability for honest self-reflection. The rest will be an easy slide into Hell. It's crunch time for this country that shows all the signs of lacking real moral fortitude and courage when it really counts and not just for global PR stunts.

Pentalobus  02/27/2010 04:07 PM Report

Also about Paul Ryan's breakdown of the spending for Obamacare: Did you notice how Obama was looking daggers at Ryan the whole time Ryan was giving his talk? And did you notice that Obama didn't say anything at all to rebut what Ryan had said?

There are those who think Obamacare will break the bank, or could. Bankrupt the country. Among those is the recent Charlie Rose guest, the head of the Chamber of Commerce.

Investor's Daily has this to say about what Ryan said at the health care summit:

Rebuttals to Ryan? We're Still Waiting

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522446

Pentalobus  02/27/2010 01:01 PM Report

These panels of Charlie Rose are so weighted to those on the left. Think of it: 60% of the American people do not want this Obama health care plan and yet on Charlie Rose the discussion involves five people who are in favor of it and one who is not, Bill Frist. That's how it always goes. Where are Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Byron York, Michael Barone, or Rich Lowry in

Charlie Rose discussions? These are the voices who speak for me, and dare I say, for the 60% of Americans who do not wwant this health care plan. Where the heck is the balance? At least the conservative wasn't his usual guest, the democrat masquerading as a conservative, David Brooks of the NY Times, who has sounded more and more half-baked since Obama came on the scene.

Why was there no discussion of the excellent breakdown of the actual costs of Obamacare presented by Paul Ryan? The Obama numbers are so far off. There was all that double counting of money, for instance, money that would shore up Medicare would be used also on something else. In real life we know that $10.00 can't be spent twice. You spent it, so you spent it. And, by the way, how convenient for the Obama administration that the Congressional Budget Office wasn't provided enough information to do a projection of Obamacare costs. Is it, say, possible they don't want people to know the true answer? I am so sick of the constant deceptions of this administration.

At the beginning of the Charlie Rose show, bits of the summit debate were shown. The mainstream media is always manipulating the news in Obama's favor, and often just as deceptively as the Obama administration does. I could weep for this country. Literally. So the Charlie Rose show in a clip had the president superciliously chastising John McCain, saying the campaign, the election, is over, John. But what was omitted was what John McCain had said that prompted this rude response from Obama. McCain had said to Obama, why didn't you broadcast the health care negotiations on C-Span as you promised during your campaign, (you know, the sunshine idea and all) and why was this instead cobbled together in secret back room discussions. The Charlie Rose clip omitted what McCain said to Obama that prompted Obama's "the campaign is over" reply. In fact, the sequencing of the clip made it appear that Obama was responding to something else entirely that McCain said. I hope this was something that just slipped by the Charlie Rose people and wasn't initentionally perpetrated by them. Well, what was it?

I used to be a Democrat, for most of my life, which, in fact, by now has been a long one. Those days are forever over. Now, I'm spending time and the modest amount of money I can afford as a retiree supporting Republican candidates. I'm on a mission.

doodahdaze  02/27/2010 12:51 PM Report

I am noting good points by Frist, on President Obama, he IS trying. And he gets out there with the people, even if one doesn't agree with his policys and beliefs. He is putting a positive light on the office of the Presidency. The best light on it since Reagen. Only Reagen did it mostly through his eloquent speeches and turning the economy around and winning the endless cold war. And he didn't do it in his first year.

I'm still giving Obama a chance. But does he need the assistance of a Republican Congress? That is psychotic over regulation in the Financial Industry, and takes money from the fraudulent banking industry to reinforce their dementia. .. Maybe vote Democrat out of spite.?. :)

Even though the Democrats won't improve anything; so what?. Not until the Republicans REALLY address the problems (separate themselves from the pack of monopoly loving ass kissers ) then the hell with them, since their saying the hell to everybody else; unless you're rich. And the rich has been looking pretty lazy lately.

REMant  02/26/2010 07:30 PM Report

I was only able to watch a few minutes of the "summit" yesterday. Many good points made here as far as I can see. Obama doesn't have the legislative clout a president like LBJ had, nor will a president ever again unless for a totally partisan issue, except in those areas like monetary and foreign policy where the Congress has abandoned it. That is only made worse by the increasing openness of the process. And he didn't really change his tune, expecting, as I understand it, to show by this exercise that the GOP were just incompetent curmudgeons, a tactic taken up in this morning's Wash Post by Klein and Pearlstein, who called them callous. While the Dems are content like all social democrats with monarchy as long as they get a cut, the GOP stick up for entrepreneurship, but with little sense of mutuality. This difference is also demonstrated in their feeling about tort reform. But surely we are not going to have either affordable health care or stop suing each other every 5 mins until we straighten out the economy, itself. We have to tackle the sense of entitlement, on the one hand, and sharp trading, on the other. The bills now in Congress do neither, and their cost exceeds their benefits. The ONLY way we can do this is by leveling the economic playing field, and the only way to do that is to deal with the moral issues. If someone asked me what is the biggest factor in the history of the US in the past century or two, I would have to say the passing of a sense of virtue, considered both as virtuosity and as fairness. Perhaps the GOP are only recently taking this issue up, but the Dems, except for Evan Bayh, it seems to me, have yet to demonstrate much understanding of it at all.