Charlie Rose

winter  03/20/2010 01:12 AM Report

Yes Mr. Armey has discovered how to parlay organized crime into institutionalized crime. Freedom is for him nothing but the first line of defense for how his gangsters do business. The reaching around long arm of influence rigging the game succeeds in holding working people hostage to slave wages with the old excuse that business is being imposed on. Just pay attention to some quarterly reports and you'll discover where the disparity in income distribution trickled to. Theres more redistribution of wealth in the private sector and before any of it ever gets to the public. Armey isn't the kind of guy you sit down with and have a discusion with you have to have a yelling match with a predator or he'll just keep eating your lunch.

Robin_Hood  03/11/2010 02:08 AM Report

I watch the show regularly and enjoy it. Charlie is rather a chameleon in that he becomes the perfect host for his guest--as if he were completely immersed in whatever they do. On this show though he had a terrible time. Charlie's powers of empathy failed him. He could just not put himself close enough in thought to Armey to understand what he was saying. There were a lot of probing questions he could have asked to get Armey to explain himself, but Charlie did not see the path forward. He could only remark on the superficial shockingness of what he was hearing and ended up trivializing it. A lost opportunity. If one cannot understand what a person thinks and why (even if you disagree with them), one cannot meaningfully support, refute or comment (nor really be sure they are right or wrong).

CarbonFoil  03/10/2010 01:47 PM Report

@tnevgolfer: Here's a quote from Pentabulous, referring to the term 'tea-bagger':

"It's a disgustingly obscene term that is bandied about by the likes of MSNBC correspondents. I hope those in the Tea Party movement will never resort to such low-life language and tactics."

Low-life language and tactics? How about 'Obama's Plan: White Slavery'? How about the 'death panels' nonsense? 'SHOW US THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!' signs? Crocodile tears over 'low-life language and tactics' just aren't persuasive in this case.

I'm sure Dick Armey is pleased that you've come to the defense of corporations. Keep up the good work! Their war against working people in this country (wages decrease while productivity increases; widening gap between rich and poor) couldn't be done without the help of willing dupes. Or 'sycophants', to use the politically correct term.

And might I suggest in turn that you visit a farm or a slaughterhouse and talk to the people who pick your lettuce and package your meat? The vast majority speak Spanish, so I hope you're fluent. You could ask about their work or their families but instead you could just watch them work all day and ask yourself if you're prepared to do the same work for the same pay, all while living with the threat of jail or deportation. You might even conclude that the anti-immigrant sentiment stoked at the Tea Parties is yet another divide-and-conquer tactic of the elites.

doodahdaze  03/10/2010 07:04 AM Report

What's this?. Another catfight between a republican and democrat?. Aww. .. Ladies please.

The check is in the mail.

Yours Truly,

Your FRIENDLY BANKER ON WALL STREET :)

tnevgolfer  03/09/2010 11:13 PM Report

CarbonFoil: Why must the Tea Partier Pentalobus agree with your opinions, in order for you to treat him with respect? You probably don't like it when someone uses insulting language against gay people, do you? If your point is to criticize the Tea Party movement, you've only succeeded in embarrassing yourself and nullifying your arguments.

And about those arguments, you really don't make a case supporting anything, do you? It's all conjecture and conspiracy "dupes, crusade, laughing to the bank," etc.)

Perhaps you should take a break from the computer? Go cold turkey on the Huffington Post? Instead, take a trip to Washington DC. Or West Point, NY. Or a Boeing plant.

Go talk to real people who live and work in our great, if imperfect, institutions. And if you still find yourself unable to respect the vast majority of this country (who work for corporations, identify with christianity, and believe in the rule of law applying to everyone including immigrants), then perhaps for your own mental health you should live in another country.

CarbonFoil  03/09/2010 03:33 PM Report

@Pentalobus: Yes, I referred to 'tebaggers' and will continue to do so. Until I see the Tea Parties make common cause with ALL working people--not just the white, anti-immigrant Christian types--they deserve to be mocked. Don't they see they're being played for fools? Dick Armey is laughing all the way to the bank with the dupes he's recruited for his pro-corporate crusade. Where's the teabagger critique of military spending? Nowhere to be found, and yet it's one of the most wasteful, dubious sectors of the economy.

You can quote all you want from Obama's leftist past, but the man DID become president. Think about that for a minute. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, PHARMA, and all the other gargantuan corporate interests gave him huge sums of campaign money. There's no way he became 'politically viable' unless he were vetted by those powers-that-be. How can anyone seriously think Obama's a strident leftist? The man's escalated the war in Afghanistan, promised to take the public option off the table in health care reform (despite his belief in single-payer until recently), and pledged billions to the colossal failure of the nuclear power industry. The presence of Rubin and Summers in his administration is enough to indicate he's no threat to big business. He's yet another neoliberal, which is as far left as he goes. If you consider that 'extreme leftism,' then you might as well call him a fascist or a communist. Which many teabaggers do, because to them, the terms have no specific meaning.

doodahdaze  03/09/2010 07:21 AM Report

If Romney sticks his head in the sand about THIS, and just relies on the typical conservative 'philosophically-correct' spew, the republican political elite will like it. But HE, will lose the election. I guarantee it. Trust me, I know these things.

doodahdaze  03/09/2010 07:10 AM Report

A snake dressed as a democrat can be seen a mile away. A snake dressed as a republican, they're the ones that'll sneak up on ya and BITE you. Just as Phil Gramm did. He's a dirty bastard; he really is. His 'doings', is what really caused this fraud on Capitalism. Actually, he was played like a puppet by the 'Banking Lobby'. .. It's a long story.

doodahdaze  03/09/2010 06:35 AM Report

Also, when the republicans behave as hypocrites, it sinks the country further into a hole, even if it does help their short term political 'status', just because of the frustration out there. And most people can only isolate the problems to differentiate them; most people can't connect the dots, and see how everything is tied together. It's very evident in the press. To quote Bagguhbich, "Where are all the Woodwards and Bernsteins?".

There are none. So what we get is demagoguery, which breeds hypocrisy and results as pissing in each others milk. When the world ups the stakes, it'll be nuclear weapons; and so fitting it will be.

doodahdaze  03/08/2010 04:22 PM Report

Phil Gramm should be fed to the sharks. He has done more harm to America, then Obama's 'grandiose visions' could ever do. Some of you tea party people need to properly prioritize the problems; for god's sakes. If the boat has a leak, JUST scooping the water out and whining about it without plugging the hole is not going to do much good.

That's my take on most of the teaparty festivities.

EPatrickMosman  03/08/2010 01:59 PM Report

The bill that ultimately repealed the Glass-Stiegel Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[12] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[13] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

EPatrickMosman  03/08/2010 01:45 PM Report

Search the internet for "obama constitution negative liberties" if you want to know what Obama thinks about the US constitution which he has sworn to uphold and protect.

A few examples:

2001 obama chicago public interview wbez.fm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

"If you don’t have time to listen, here is a transcript:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Negative Liberties and Obama Newspeak By Bruce Walker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/negative_liberties_and_obama_n.html

Obama rips U.S. Constitution Faults Supreme Court for not mandating 'redistribution of wealth'

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=79225

By negative

Obama's denigrating the US Constitution shows a complete rejection of the stated purpose of government which is by the people, for the people, not the an all powerful body dictating to the people.

Pentalobus  03/08/2010 01:15 PM Report

Let me try the link one more time since the other doesn't work. If there's a problem, the article is at The Washington Examiner, by Glenn Reynolds, and the title is "Consent of the governed - and the lack thereof."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Consent-of-the-governed---and-th e-lack-thereof-86628027.html

Pentalobus  03/08/2010 01:06 PM Report

I'd like to post this article by Glenn Reynolds who is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and who has the blog Instapundit. His fear, my fear, and the fear of the Tea Partiers is that we are losing this country. As he says, "...when a great nation dies, it's tragic."

Glenn Harlan Reynolds: Consent of the governed - and the lack thereof

But now things are looking a bit dicey. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll , only 21 percent of American voters believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. On the other hand, Rasmussen notes, a full 63 percent of the "political class" believe that the government enjoys the consent of the governed.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Sunday_Reflections/Consent-of-the-governed---and-th e-lack-thereof-86628027.html#ixzz0hhglBiJY

Pentalobus  03/08/2010 12:17 PM Report

My, my, my! Aren't you all up in arms, so to speak! Now you know how others of us feel hearing the daily reports about the shenanigans of this Obama administration.

Armey's conservativism is way further than I want to go in that direction, as a lifelong Democrat who has in more recent years found my way to the Republican party... in response to the far leftist ideas I see floating about with the Democrats. However, I fit more with the Independents and will change that on my voter registration. So there's a lot of what Dick Armey says that I don't agree with. But his statement that Obama wants to alarmingly increase the power of federal government and redistribute wealth is one that many of us agree with. Have you all looked at the Rasmussen polls to see how the general public feels about every single one of the Obama initiatives? The people are overwhelmingly against them! In many cases, by 60% against. I'm not alone.

So I consider myself a Tea Party person. I notice how a poster below refers to us as "tea-baggers." It's a disgustingly obscene term that is bandied about by the likes of MSNBC correspondents. I hope those in the Tea Party movement will never resort to such low-life language and tactics.

By the way, I don't remember Charlie Rose's mentioning the Tea Party movement before which by now is a tremendously powerful political movement in this country. The time has finally come that he can't ignore it any more.

I don't think I've ever seen Charlie Rose in such a meltdown as when Armey was discussing the attitudes and beliefs of Obama and the major players in his administration, the people who are denigrating America's legacy and positive contributions to the world and trying to replace that with their own unpleasant take on this country. One sure doesn't get the feeling that this administration is whole-heartedly FOR this country. Far from it. That is one thing that Armey said that I agree with 100% as do undoubtedly most of the Tea Party movement people. Charlie was just about apopletic when Armey implied that, nearly incoherently spitting words out in an extended, raving rant. Charlie wasn't allowing Armey to get a word in by way of an answer. He was virtually demanding a retraction from Armey, saying Armey was engaging in name-calling. He, of course, got no such thing from Armey because, as Armey stated, in effect, he wasn't name-calling, he was just giving a description of what he's seeing before his eyes. I think most of the American people see it his way; they get it too. Look how the elections are going now. Look how Scott Brown won "Kennedy's seat" (or rather, as Brown puts it "the people's seat")in Massachussetts, of all places! I hope the Tea Party keeps its momentum up. I won't be giving up. Never.

doodahdaze  03/08/2010 06:52 AM Report

LOL! One-man Dick-Army. That's a good one winter! LOL

I guess his parents wanted him to be 'the bad-cop'. LOL

But I think you're wrong about the 'regulations'. Wasn't Glass-Stiegel (most of the banking regulations put in place to prevent another Great Depression thrown in the trash by Phil Graham and his band of gypsys right around the year 2000, just as they started to play around with derivatives and the democrats started pushing that bogus community homeowner bullshit on Fannie Mae and then they weaseled out of it with those them thar 'credit default swaps'. Basically there were NO regulations to regulate. And the ratings agency debacle was really just a symptom of the bigger problem. Again, the shit hit the fan because the most important regulations were 'DISMANTLED'. .. Talk about "incentives".

winter  03/07/2010 02:38 PM Report

DICK ARMEY? What a name. If you were making a film about an economy that tanked because of an army of over confident arch villians the main character couldn't be named more aptly. Reagan probably saw the name first and before knowing anything about him told his aides he wanted that guy on his team in whatever capacity. Seriously though,government regulation isn't the problem, its the lack of its enforcement. So the alternative isn't "oh well, government can't regulate so lets just give up on regulating altogether and let the market sort it all out". Nice try with that reasoning slick. That just reeks of false alternative. If the intention of what government regulation is meant to do, keep leverage prudent wasn't bastardized by big money and influence some of the meltdowns inertias might have been slowed. I give you the ratings agencies. Consider their role and how they just rubber stamped that bogus paper along to the greatest fool ...taxpayers and probably China. They do operate on an incentive basis don't they; so much for that idea.

doodahdaze  03/07/2010 10:27 AM Report

jeffreyemerson,

Charlie Rose should have as many people with different opinions as possible on his show. Only having people with the same opinion would be more 'dangerous and disingenuous'; and pretty dam boring to boot.

ALL snobs are hypocrites. That's what the fortune cookie says today.

Thanks to Charlie Rose, now I know where Dick Armey stands (more like, doesn't stand) on the economy. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, it just means he made a lot of BANKER friends (and I mean BANKER FRIENDS) when he was in Congress. Just like Dodd and Barney Fag. :)

doodahdaze  03/07/2010 10:07 AM Report

'FROM THE WORKERS TO THE BANKERS.'

Eventually the BLOODSUCKERS will only have their own blood to suck. ... Isn't that how the vampires WANT it?.

How about mosquitoes? Can they think that far ahead?.

jeffreyemerson  03/07/2010 09:47 AM Report

Dick Armey is the most disingenous man being splashed across our media today. He is a real danger to people making informed decisions that pertain to their lives and the future of their children. At first I was shocked to see him on your show. To give this manipulative man any air time does irreparable harm to the American public's ability to make fair choices on vital issues. I was glad to see you question him a little on his misinformation. Perhaps, if you had to give him air time, an hour would have been better to display Armey's constant lying and intentional manipulation of the lesser informed Americans who flock to his devisive hate speech every time he opens Judas mouth.

EyesOnYou  03/07/2010 01:29 AM Report

Dick Armey, is a racist buffoon with a diploma. This is the man who advocated ethnic cleansing of Palestinians on Hardball back in 2002.

Redistribution of Wealth? Sure. We redistributed wealth FROM THE WORKERS TO THE BANKERS.

The slime belongs on FAUX News, not on PBS!

Terence  03/06/2010 08:10 PM Report

It is typical of Charlie to think better than to fully engage and perhaps humiliate any high profile market idealogue such as Armey..."Interest rates too low for too long" is a very odd conservative excuse for the housing bubble, Dick.

Market determinism and self interest remains the national religion--yet why do conservatives place so much faith in supply demand theory?

tnevgolfer  03/06/2010 06:17 PM Report

Watching this interview was a bittersweet experience. On one hand it was disappointing because it revealed Charlie's inability to remain dispassionate when confronted by opposing beliefs. At a few points, he sounded like a partisan, not a journalist.

For example, why did Charlie seem to want an apology rather than an explanation from Armey on his CPAC assessments of Obama? Dick Armey wasn't making personal attacks on Obama's integrity. He was assessing Obama's COMPETENCY like any other Reagan conservative would. But instead of diving deeper into the arguments, Charlie ran down a list of ostensibly outlandish quotes --like a Barbara Walters interview, and tried to play gotcha. No apologies came. And that part of the interview was a bomb.

What would have worked better for the viewers, both liberal and conservative-minded, is a deeper exploration of the rationale behind the policies. If the thinking is faulty, expose it. Present rationale or data that defeats it. And let the viewers decide.

But Charlie’s furious hand wringing also revealed what was so great about the interview: Charlie had the COURAGE to give a real Reaganite Conservative an opportunity to make his case against Obama’s policies. Not a Bush Republican. Not a pushover conservative. Not a double-talker.

And throughout the interview, Charlie was always a gentleman and respectful. Just like his guest.

So, I can put up with Charlie’s liberal bias. I can put up with the regular appearances of Clintonites and NY intelligentsia on the show. Ultimately, Charlie gives voice to more outstanding guests than anyone else on TV.

doodahdaze  03/06/2010 10:10 AM Report

Watching this interview again, in all fairness to Dick Armey; in philosophy, I agree with much that he says. Not the personal dislike of Obama that he obviously has. But with his character assessment of bureaucrats, and big government in general. But, regarding the matter of regulation, as it relates to providing.? maintaining.? a "stable currency" (a role of government, I think I heard him say); after what happened ('the Crisis') (and obviously he 'says' he was taken aback by it; and he studied it as an economist and what not). So he doesn't think that needs to be regulated? The market, according to his theory, would do a better job of that, especially with the Fed and Treasury on the bankers side.

It sounds to me that, when it comes to the economy, Dick Armey is a bit of a hypocrite; either that, or he's blowing smoke out both holes. And 'as an economist'(major?.) he doesn't know shit. But as a 'politician and a hypocrite' he's just gonna keep tootin his horn because it looks better than sticking his thumb up his ass. Like his buddy, Phil Graham (that's who he should feel sorry for).

Why does it look like our only options are, trust the bankers or trust a bigger government. And all these 'philosophys' for and against either or end up leading to more bullshit and screwing the real people who want to get things done?

Why do the LEECHES of society rule? Are there more of them than the 'doers'? What has this country become?

JoBobenhouseSmith  03/06/2010 01:20 AM Report

Charlie,

It was a pure delight to watch you call out Mr. Armey. In all these years I never thought that was something I'd see on your Show, of all places. You were wonderful! However, You and Robin Williams is still my favorite. giggle. .

tuckercook  03/05/2010 09:26 PM Report

A video produced in 1975 of Mr. Armey appears on the site entitled, "Russell Kirk, man of letters." Having viewed that video previously, I recalled what Mr. Armey said then. In follow up to last night's show, I revisited that site, noting that that video was introduced by the following:

"Dick Armey makes the case that in order to accept freedom you’ll have to understand that 'some will take a course other than your own.' Russell Kirk understood this and viewed the climate as one in which moral behavior is at the core of our decisions. . ."

Knowing what Mr. Armey said last night, to the contrary, I felt I had to respond. So, I forwarded the link of Mr. Armey's interview on the "Charlie Rose Show" to info@kirkcenter.org, associated with "The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Reform," found using the URL of http://kirkcenter.wordpress.com/video-recordings/dick-armey/.

This is my report to the Kirk Center:

First, I found Garry Wills and I could not read his books fast enough. In that search, I found "The Conservative Mind" the outcome of which is that I will read and reread Dr. Kirks works the rest of my life. In the interim, I am still working on Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica with the help of Josef Piefer's works, which opened my mind to the wisdom of the Middle Ages as Dr. Kirk has to the 18th, 19th and first half of the 20th century in ways my formal education tragically neglected. Nothing now would make me happier, [having reached the age of 60-years old] than to learn Latin. This preamble, however, is not why I am writing you.

It is March 5, 2010, and Dick Armey appeared on the "Charlie Rose Show" last night. Having viewed that video, which runs a half hour and Mr. Armey's shorter clip from 1975 [on your site] you have to conclude the man lives a good life. If aging slowly is an indicator of the maintenance of fine health, a sound mind and a good heart, he appears to have aged very little over the past thirty-five years.

Unhappily, the experience of increasingly partisan politics over the past third century seems to have severely warped his line of reasoning, because he has lost his lucidity. I had a headache by the end of Mr. Armey's interview with the inquisitive Charlie Rose. Too many times, I simply could not link one of his proposition to the next, which Mr. Armey propounded.

Given the pedantry he so fervently espoused, I would like to have an open debate as to whether or not "The Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Reform" should remove the Armey video from its WordPress Blog site, because what he said in his interview with Charlie Rose ought not be sanctioned, by those who reverently adhere to the prudential legacy of Russell Kirk.

Respecting free speech is one thing, but when Mr. Armey belies the precepts of Dr. Kirk and his own teachings, as he expressed oh five minutes into his 1975 video, when he righteously declared, "Loving freedom implies a willingness to dare to accept differences in another person." Well, what Mr. Armey so rigorously propounds in 2010 is manifestly incongruent with the sentiments of Dr. Kirk and the cultural center that maintains in his memory.

Here are some excerpt from the transcript of last night's show:

DICK ARMEY: My argument would be it isn’t the degree of the quantity of the regulation. It’s the correctness of the manner.

CHARLIE ROSE: So good regulations are OK, bad regulations are not.

DICK ARMEY: Good regulations are necessary. But the supreme regulator is the market. And of course the problem is people of government would rather have themselves with the hands on the lever and in control. Oftentimes control freaks is what they are. . .

DICK ARMEY: Yes, I believe that President Obama’s too big obsessions in life is government control and income redistribution. And I believe those two major objectives of the Obama presidency are shared by the majority of the Democrats in the House majority and in the Senate majority. These are big government folks that do not see the limits of big government.

CHARLIE ROSE: You’re at a speech in CPAC, you said, addressing President Obama directly, "You’re intellectually shallow. You’re a romantic. You’re self-indulgent. You have no ability. You’re the most incompetent president perhaps in our lifetime." Did you mean all that?

DICK ARMEY: Those are observations of what I believe to be factual observations.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Intellectually shallow"?

DICK ARMEY: Yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: "Self-indulgent"? "No ability"?

DICK ARMEY: Now wait a minute. You have the understand, the president of the United States is going to use all of the authority in his office to engage in billions and billions and hundreds of billions of dollars worth of economic policy should understand the fundamental rudiments of economics.

CHARLIE ROSE: What makes you think he doesn’t?

DICK ARMEY: It’s clear he doesn’t. He believes that the object of public policy should be redistributing income and managing the economy. I mean, there is no model in the history of the world that is such a totally proven failure as government management of the economy. . . .

DICK ARMEY: . . But we listen to the president. Whether he’s talking about healthcare, whether he’s talking about the automobile industry, whether he’s talking about financiers, nobody in the White House that I’ve observed has been more explicitly in using the explicit language of income redistribution. "These fat cats are going to have to give up their share."

Listen to his language.

But here’s the thing that he doesn’t grasp. Every price is somebody’s income. When you start redistributing income you start destroying the entire incentive structure by which we maintain higher degrees of productivity in a private sector economy where the rewards follow the effort.

And he doesn’t grasp the depths of the clear relationship between the distribution of income and the productivity and productive effort in the rationality and efficiency of the allocation of scarce resources.

CHARLIE ROSE: Listen to this, what you say. "Nearly every important office in Washington D.C. today is occupied -- nearly every important office in Washington is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike for our heritage, our freedom, our history, and our constitution." You cannot believe this.

DICK ARMEY: I do believe this.

CHARLIE ROSE: Every?

DICK ARMEY: Almost.

CHARLIE ROSE: Listen, "Nearly every important office is occupied by someone with an aggressive dislike for our heritage, our freedom, our history and our constitution."

DICK ARMEY: Absolutely, yes. I do. I do, I believe that. I wouldn’t have said it if I didn’t believe it to be true. It’s a harsh thing to say.

CHARLIE ROSE: It is a very harsh thing to say.

End of excepts

jonas  03/05/2010 09:09 PM Report

This guy makes some of the most outragous and dishonest comments ever and the most the MC can do is accuse him of being mean to obama and biden.

First, if opposing slavery, segregation, the displacement and murder of native americans, the refusal to allow women to own property, vote or be protected frrom spousal rape, not to mention wars of conquest and imperialism, is to be opposed to the great amerikan history of freedom, then so be it.

Why in the world didn't the MC challenge armey's economic claims about the market, etc? There is not one iota of evidence that an unregulated market will make the best decisions and/or result in the best and most efficent economic system. Nor is there any evidence that the so-called free market benefits anyone except a ever smaller number of capitalists. During the so-called largest expsanipon of the economy ever, during the 90's, the average real wage of working people went down and the gap between the rich and even the middle class got significantly larger.

But Rose is concerned that armey isn't nice to joe biden.

CarbonFoil  03/05/2010 08:28 PM Report

Good conversation; it's nice to see Charlie challenge some of Armey's contentious, extremist statements.

The problem with Armey & the teabaggers is their fetishization of the Constitution. Good luck undoing years of case law and regulatory framework to 'get back to the Constitution.' So-called 'strict constructionists' like Justice Scalia aren't honest about their positions anyway: see Bush v. Gore or the recent SEC decision for examples.

Warnings of class warfare and income redistribution are canards of the right wing. They presume that unequal income distribution is natural, good, and correct. God forbid we actually move toward income parity in this country, instead of the past thirty years of income inequality. Mr. Armey should know that American workers are, in fact, productive, even while their real wages, adjusted for inflation, have declined.

ArmeyLies  03/05/2010 03:01 PM Report

I have no problem with Armey's profession of conservative viewpoints so long as they are accurate.

Time and time again, this he states something like, "If you don't sign up for Medicare, they take away your Social Security." This is a flat-out lie. An eligible person can sign up or refuse any parts of Medicare. There is a penalty, 10% per year you ducked out of paying Medicare Part B or D premiums, which is subtracted out of future Social Security payments for life for signing up late. That is different than "taking away your Social Security." It is a late enrollment penalty.

If Dick Armey resents Medicare so much, then let him resent paying into the system via FICA because he wants to invest it privately. At age 69 today, he is currently making a choice I wish he would be candid enough to share, of either paying Medicare premiums for Medicare enrollment or not. If he is not enrolled in Medicare, were his Social Security benefits taken away, or is he merely deferring receipt of the benefits?

Because Armey is earning money spewing lies, and if his health is good, he may be legally deferring collecting his Social Security benefits in order to collect a higher benefit later (or for his wife as a future widow). If he has group health insurance, he may also defer enrollment in Medicare without penalty.

For your average citizen, their health and/or health insurance status makes retiring on time, or only working part-time at age 65, more economic sense for them. People like Armey with ample current work and retiree health and pension benefits may make entirely different choices than your average citizen. I am betting Dick Armey is well off enough he can choose to eschew the receipt of any public benefits, including Social Security and Medicare. However, I am betting the average Tea Bagger repeating Armey's lie will not has as high an income or be as well insured for health to have Armey's choice.

REMant  03/05/2010 11:11 AM Report

I have to say that Armey sounds better to me now than when he was in office. Perhaps I wasn't listening, but I think he has changed his tune, if not entirely. The problem is that liberals (as opposed to Liberals) think rights are actually entitlements, a gift of the Federal government as if citizens were subjects, when they are in fact opposed to that, and designed to protect individuals from being considered subjects. The Constitution is clear on this in the 10th Amendment if no where else: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." So I would have to agree with him re heritage when I consider the number of liberals in this town and its environs. I think he will agree with me tho that if monetary policy is inadequately managed redistribution becomes necessary, but I'll aver that the former is the better way. The issue re fractional reserve is merely whether credit should be extended prior to production, or after, i.e., based on promises or on savings. Notes for the former are now used as money. But even if credit is kept within bounds this must tend toward inflation. The only problem with using savings as the basis instead of debt is building up the savings. This was accomplished by the use of metals historically, tho the US began by using debt and has never really kicked the habit. One can still lend, but the savings must be available first. It is perfectly okay not to have reserves in that situation, because anyone lending ought to know that his money would not be available for the period of the loan. We only consider reserves important where debt exceeds savings, and there is a danger of non-convertibility. The present system grew up because moneylenders and the govts they pretended to serve saw a chance to benefit from the public desire to invest and not hold metal. Thus the first thing to go in a crisis was convertibility, and now it has been permanently removed. The only ones not to benefit from a change to savings first would ironically be the banks, who will be reduced to just being brokers. This is why Adams and Jefferson could agree in Adams words: "banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even the wealth of the nation, than they can have done or ever will do good. They are like party spirit, the delusion of the many for the interest of the few." But banking suits the sensibility of liberals, who believe an economy operates by benevolence or patronization, not self-interest as Mandeville and Smith argued. It does not work by greed, either, and in any case benevolence is most often a form of the latter, which was Mandeville's point. That is why it is essential to maintain the discipline imposed by market relations and not undermine it by manufacturing credit. I do hope Armey is not among those who want to put Ronald's mug on a Federal Reserve note. Now, if you would interview Ron Paul...

doodahdaze  03/05/2010 08:46 AM Report

I know where he's coming from, but he still doesn't know where he's going. Once a politician, always a politician.

General Custer! Leading his charge! LOL Against those savage public libraries!

I really shouldn't laugh at mental illness.

Yes, I confess, I must be a Charlie Rose Robot. LMAO

hut-two! hut-two!