Charlie Rose

CarolJ  11/06/2010 10:44 PM Report

Ecaran, you are right on the money.

ecaran  11/06/2010 01:58 PM Report

There are plenty of program cuts that should satisfy Democrats, Republicans and Independent BUT our elected officials need to act like grown-ups not oppositional children. There is plenty of waste in Defense spending, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and the Republicans should be in charge of Defense spending and the Democrats in the entitlement programs. The tax cuts for the top 1% should expire and that money used to fund infrastructure projects, science and education. The top 1% benefitted greatly from the Bush Tax Cuts with zero job creation as promised by the Republicans.

Chris Matthews is correct about the need to repair our infrastructure. We have higways and bridges in disrepair and a high speed train line between large cities is greatly needed. When my son attended a small college in Ohio, the only way to get him home was via Greyhound Bus or plane because there was NO passenger trains out of Columbus, Ohio. Can you imagine that happening in any other developed nation? No. Our water systems and sewer treatment system are in need of repair and in many older urban areas the water pipes are made of lead. This is a public health issue. We could decrease our reliance on oil and gas by continuing to provide tax credits for insulation of our home; solar and wind technology installation; green window and doors.

President Obama has an opportunity to be a visionary for our country. There is no one in the Republican party (from what I've seen) who has any other proposals but cutting taxes by cutting non-defense spending.

One last thing....why should we borrow money to give tax breaks to the wealthy? Their wealth has increased almost 300% over the last ten years with zero job creation. Isn't it time that we stop borrowing to give the rich more money?

come2gether  11/05/2010 02:38 PM Report

i agree with the point matthews was pushing for in the last minute of the interview. he was saying that the two parties need to come together (under an umbrella) to do what is best for the country in the long term (cutting spending, increasing revenue) even though it will be unpopular.

Joe24  11/05/2010 02:03 PM Report

Amen to taking a break from David Brooks. I'm starting to think he's stalking me through my TV.

CarolJ  11/04/2010 07:53 PM Report

Bonacker, how often do you watch Charlie Rose. Hardly a week goes by that David Brooks is not a guest. He has quite

of few of these people.

REMant  11/04/2010 12:38 PM Report

I agreed this time with most of what Brooks said. The president seems a bit out of touch with reality, like his predecessor, which is not good. I don't think the GOP will be able to do anything about the health care bill, and I think they ought know it. If they try too hard in order to destroy Obama's re-election they will be playing right into his hands, because it will come directly at the expense of what the public deems the more important issue, cooperating on the economy.

Tea party and monetarists alike want to reduce Federal spending. Ike built schools and highways in response to deficiencies exposed in WWII not to stimulate the economy. It hardly needed that then, tho they spurred productivity. Rail could improve efficiency if it could be sold, but that sounds like the booster theory of economic growth, and if not, it will be deemed socialism. While I think enthusiasm useful, there has to be something more concrete in it than that. Hitler built highways, too. As I said yesterday and a few times recently abandoning attempts to reflate will help bring budgets into line a lot. Alas that wisdom is lost on Uncle Ben's crew.

I'm afraid that we have jumped from the Keynesian frying pan into the monetarist conflagration. The Fed's move will increase asset and commodity prices without stimulating productivity, and thus either have no effect or increase cost-cutting. This was the situation in 2007, and it remains. Recessions are caused when unsustainable prices are deflated by productivity increases. If this is not accepted, and an attempt is made to reflate prices by creating more credit, it increases asset prices, increasing rather than decreasing unemployment. The theory behind monetarism like this is that of the Phillips curve. But rather than credit increasing employment, we have known at least since the 1970's that it increases stagflation. When the history of this period is written, I feel sure that Bernanke will be the goat and the president blamed for re-appointing him, as well as Yellen, but I have to shake my head at the entire bunch of them, even the lone hold-out, who doesn't seem to understand what is going on either.

bonacker  11/04/2010 11:52 AM Report

OH NO NOT DAVID BROOKS AGAIN!

I tune in to political discussions on Charlie Rose, because he tends to get the best panelists who often aren't seen elsewhere, and it's the one plce where I can reasonably expect NOT to find David Brooks popping up, Zelig-like.

But there he was on Charlie Rose even after having just been on Jim Lehrer and who knows how many other shows. It's quite astonishing. Is he *that* brilliant or incisive that a panel without him is not complete? Not for my money. It's not like he's Christopher Hitchens or Maureen Dowd.

The pool of talking heads from which all these shows draw is too small anyway, and the overexposure of Brooks is particularly tedious and inscrutable.