Charlie Rose

gschnabl  05/05/2010 01:51 PM Report

hey mister rose. i'm wondering what mr emmanual meant when he said you were a member of the [obama] family.

are you just another sock puppet acommplis media type? you are a good interviewer but, come off as very biased when doing a political interview. is your show supposed to be a "news" show or is it an opinion show. if it is the latter then you should be up front about it. at least mr limbaugh clearly states what his opinion is like it or not.

tkanks for your time.

irfrank  04/24/2010 09:14 AM Report

Wow, DavLev. It is amazing how your views are colored by your politics. Degree in economics? Hmmmmm....

Comparing this guy to Sarah Palin is like George to Lenny in 'Of Mice and Men'. Both Hamas and Israel are wrong in the mideast. Violence begets violence. I don't have the space to analyze that situation.

Not accomplished anything? Let's see, TARP did prevent the failure of at least two huge banks that would have failed. What would the fallout have been? Also, TARP began with the previous admin. along with the economic collapse. GM has paid back their loan, and are actually changing to try to become profitable; after the handwriting on the wall has been there for 30 years. Health Care is charity for 31 million Americans? What charity? Where is your compassionate conservatism? Not allowing insurance companies to deny insurance because of previous conditions? Providing insurance for college age people when jobs are so hard to find? Do you really propose that the status quo in health care was ok?

You expect Obama to fix Iran, N. Korea, Syria, Afghanistan in his first 2 years? Oh, and don't forget who got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. The second being justified, the first not. And finally, yes, we are making progress in Afghanistan. Did you notice the plot to bomb the NYC subway that was foiled? Did you notice the leaders that initiated that plot are dead? How do you suggest we "Get Tough" with Iran? A third war?

You have to really stretch to view things as you have. Your advanced education hasn't had much effect on your critical thinking skills.

Oh, I graduated from a major university too, in business, econ and engineering.

abcd0102  04/24/2010 04:35 AM Report

I agree with you,I like <a href=http://www.innikeshox.com><b>nike shox r4</b></a>, you would ask me why.More and more people choose <a href=http://www.innikeshox.com><b>nike shox shoes</b></a>.If you want to buy the cheap nike shox?I recommend you go to online store, there have a lot of <a href=http://www.innikeshox.com><b>shox shoes sale</b></a>|<a href=http://www.innikeshox.com><b>nike shox sale</b></a>|<a href=http://www.innikeshox.com><b>nike shox</b></a>|<a href=http://www.innikeshox.com/shox-nz-shoes-c-296.html><b>shox nz</b></a>|<a href=http://www.innikeshox.com/shox-turb-shoes-c-317.html><b>shox turbo</b></a>|<a href=http://www.innikeshox.com/shox-monster-shoes-c-294.html><b>shox monster</b></a>.

DavLev  04/21/2010 09:48 PM Report

Frankly, even though I graduated with a degree in economics from a major university, I could not understand what Rahm was talking about? He gave a few examples of the health care success to date, with one insurance company. Of course, most adults at about 26 do not have chronic diseases or other major health problems.

His responses to Charlie's questions about Iran and Israel were vague at best. I sometimes wonder if Sarah Palin would have scolded Israel's P.M., our only real sincere ally anywhere. If Rahm had suggested his boss were to get tough with the Palestinians (and Hamas in particular), and give Iran a deadline to put up or...face the consequences, with or without the UN's approval (most world actions did not go through the UN for final resolution), I would have applauded.

So far, Rahm and the current administration has not accomplished anything signifant, including giving charity to 31m Americans for health care. The TARP and stimulus

are complete failures, labor is stymied, we are still at 20% unemployed and underemployed, foreclosures continue at a rapid pace, Iran, No. Korea, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq are messes, to put it mildly, with no end of their conflicts in site.

None of Obama's promises have materialized, no matter how they (Rahm) spin it.

Or as the defense minister of Israel said on Mr. Rose's TV show years ago, in the pudding is the proof.

Oh I forgot, we might sign some sort of treaty with Columbia. That would be an accomplishement, despite Nancy Pelosis reservations.

as far as Wall Street, the Democrats had the Congress while this was brewing, but there is much blame to go around

Rahm said he is interested in becoming mayor of Chicago.

Perhaps he should retire to Miami Beach instead and explain

his bosses actions lately.

ShalomFreedman  04/21/2010 02:34 AM Report

On the domestic front it seems to me clear that the Obama Administration is about to have another major success. Every major economist I have heard believes that financial regulation legislation is in order, certainly in regard to the Derivatives Market. Whether the President gets Republicans or not this is going to be a success for the Administration.

On the foreign affairs front the President seems to have adopted a policy of pressuring friends, and promoting empty and often rejected 'dialogue' with adversaries. Rahm Emanuel's depiction of the 'successes' of the Administration show a focus more on public relations than on reality. China and Russia are not as he suggests playing any positive role in regard to Iran. The sanctions idea is feckless anyway. The idea that there is real success in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan seems a bit premature to say the least. Once the U.S. pulls out of Iraq neighbor Iran will be there even more than it is now. The shameful one- sided pressure of the Administration on Israel makes it seem as if the United States is simply bullying a friend because this is the only leverage it has in the Middle East.

bergeler  04/20/2010 09:38 PM Report

Emanuel repeated in lenght what we heard so many times before but avoided to really address the issues touched on in the questions.

REMant  04/20/2010 05:56 PM Report

There are two points to be made about financial reform: 1. that institutions be allowed to fail when they deserve to fail regardless of any other consideration; and, 2. that controlling credit is really the only thing necessary to insure that they don't fail. People differ about this because they differ about the causes of the financial collapse: 1. some think that it doesn't reflect anything basically wrong with the economy and our trade relations and is merely the result of some ghost in the machinery; while, 2. another group believes there must have been something wrong and that the collapse should be viewed as part of a restorative process.

I posted the following on the Moyers blog Friday in response to two people arguing the admin's position:

"These gentlemen are entirely two-faced. They are Keynesians as much as the monetarists - a breed which includes most of Wall St - but they wish to get rid of the free market aspect it is joined to. The monetarist mistake is in presuming the market will regulate itself in in an environment of unregulated credit. They should rather get rid of Keynes and keep the free market ideology. It was Keynes who rang the death knell for the gold standard and resurrected the free-wheeling mercantilism that it had supplanted. Keynesians are not only opposed to sound money, they are FOR government control of credit, which is precisely the position being taken by the administration. They say that they are all for regulation, but what they want to regulate is not the cause of the problem, i.e., the credit, but the use of it. This makes as much sense as saying we want to rein in debt, but not until after we "stimulate" the economy. This has been the position of those desiring a central banking system since Hamilton. However, it isn't the derivatives, collusion like Goldman Sachs's, the revolving door, etc., that is the problem, it is the fact that banks are allowed to create money virtually at will. The Constitution says only the Federal govt is allowed "To coin Money, regulate the value thereof,..." Only the Congress may "borrow money on the credit of the United States" creating of "bills of credit," not the states, nor may the latter use anything other than gold or silver as legal tender. But we use only such bills of credit as money today. The power to create money in this way ensures the development of a "Ponzi" or more properly, a pyramid scheme, which when it gets out of hand deflates and collapses. Indeed financial institutions should be allowed to fail, but they would rarely, if ever, be able to get into that position were it not for a banking system that allows lending of money it doesn't have in the first place. The other issue that impacts on this situation is that the trade imbalances we have with so much of the developing world. These must have a a deflationary effect, but that effect is rendered potentially catastrophic only because we create credit, private and public, to take advantage of the cheaper costs there."

If the Wash Post is indicative, it seems the admin is now attempting to once again paint the GOP as just ogres and naysayers, if not bigots, when it is clearly the admin who has, and continues to support the banks. I don't see how the they can wriggle out of this, but they did it on health care, so perhaps they can again.

The problem ppl see with the healthcare bill is primarily that it doesn't reach its stated object. It is ludicrous to argue that ppl are upset about it merely because they are no longer riding as high as they were 2-3 years ago, altho, yes, the amount it will likely cost has been brought home. In addition, there are many things which states like Massachusetts can constitutionally do, from which the Federal govt is prohibited by the US Constitution.

The major challenge for this country is that the middle and lower classes are priced out of nearly all markets, and they are because they are no longer making the things which would afford them the income with which to buy them. This is due as I said above to the lower living standards of industrializing countries overseas, but only persists, and creates problems, because our central bank attempts by credit creation to support prices, which otherwise would and should drop. In the end this benefits only the wealthy, in addition to creating the asset bubbles we have just experienced. After setting and stoking the conflagration, that the Fed should then put on their fire hats and pour more incendiaries on it is totally beyond belief.

Regarding foreign policy it seems to me this admin is paying more attention these days to traditional Democratic voting blocs than it is to the interest of the nation as a whole.