Charlie Rose

NeilMacCallister  04/12/2011 04:45 PM Report

I don't want to "change the world", John, ..at my core, I'm a biologist, and all I want to do is stay alive. Most "changes" (mutations) are detrimental to an organism, and the organism dies.

But there are times when a four-footed animal rises up on two legs and exclaims upward to the skies.

Our political species did that in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution.

This morning I picked up a baby mockingbird that had fallen out of its nest. Its legs were spindly, and it could not yet fly. I put it back up into the tree, to protect it from politicians (..neighborhood cats).

I hope America, and that young bird, lives to maturity.

JohnGelles  04/09/2011 12:37 PM Report

Dear Neil,

Let me say, amen, to your castigation of congress and the budget process.

I add that the CR show (CRS) and its comments system is a place for us to vent our feelings and talk out loud to ouselves. BUT IT IS MORE THAN THAT.

Since the CRS is probably the best place for intelligent TV fare, presented with respect for its audience, etc., etc., it ought to be a place where ideas can be found to CHANGE THE WORLD.

How would we improve the comments system toward that end?

1. We would NOT ask the CRS to do more than they will do on their own.

2. So, intelligent people like, you and I, would add the functions we need, like continuity of focused thought, to the show as it is. We would link our comments to our own sites (or the sites of some of us) where our thoughts would not die out immediately -- as each show pushes new thought to the front of the line.

If we close our messages with a copy of their CRS address --e.g.,

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11596#comment_79069

which is the address in the box at the top of my screen as I write, we would make it easy to go from our separate site long term discussion by many interested intelligent people hell bent on CHANGING THE WORLD.

Of course we would also need the address of the site that continues the discussion UNDER OUR OWN MANAGEMENT, e.g.,

http://ustaxreform.us/ctw.htm

ctw (change the world) would be a list of what we were changing -- linked to discussions of each item. Like I would list our discussion so far, as "full employment budget". You might have a different topical name. But by artful linking we would be collaboraing before we ever arrive at agreement on goals and systems to achieve them.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11596#comment_79069

http://www.ustaxreform.us/ctw.htm

NeilMacCallister  04/08/2011 10:14 PM Report

John, you ask "Where is the nonsense" that I see?

The 535 members of the 111th Congress must each cost the taxpayer a minimum of $200,000/yr. In total then, we paid them over a $100 million dollars!

Add to that the $800 million dollars for the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office.

Their main duty is to provide the United States a yearly budget.

So, we paid those government employees over $900 million dollars to provide us that budget.

We gave them a whole year to produce it!!!!

And they didn't produce that budget!

(..This has happened SO MANY TIMES!!!!)

They argue that they are not to blame. They blame it on the public who looks over their shoulder, ..and they blame it on anyone they have to sit down next to at the discussion table.

Charlie Rangel laughed at all the current public concern, saying just yesterday, "Oh, the budget is not such an important thing anyway. All it is, is a guideline".

Those Congress-people are now six-months overdue with their work product, ..they laugh at that, ..and the government now has to shut down because it has no money to spend.

..and those Congress-people are arguing that they still want to get paid their continuing salaries!!!!!

That is MORE than just "nonsense" John, ..that is blatant theft!

JohnGelles  04/08/2011 12:00 AM Report

Forgot to link to editable copies of comments below:

http://ustaxreform.us/crs-comments.htm

JohnGelles  04/07/2011 11:56 PM Report

1. Removing the cap on wages subject to SS tax makes good sense -- if we want some progressive taxation to address radical inequality in our culture. Means testing benefits would be taken care of as an issue -- by removal of the cap.

2. The whole matter of public support for retirement not fully supported by private sector institutions would be better handled by a negative income tax on all people not earning certain standard incomes in the public interest. The positive income tax is a drag. A negative income tax could be made simple and self-executing. It would assure adequate aggregate demand all the time.

3. Corporate taxes are also a drag on production and free enterprise. In their place, government fees that do not lower our necessary green growth would be sufficient as replacement for all taxes.

4. 5In actual operation, government spending of sovereign money into circulation coupked with high pricate savings rates and modern income and price policies and inflation protection of all money stocks and flows would be better than the crazy taxes and accounting in use today.

5. What does Neil include as nonsense? The whole system in effect today denies the nature of work, money, engineering, logistics, and freedom, in a grand cultural effort to protect human economic rights from wage slavery and human beings from war and tyranny. Where is our full employment budgeting? Where are our systems to wage assymetrical war against fanatical agents of evil? Where are senior men on point in battle that cannot be avoided -- whose death at age past 50 will not shame a nation as much as killing our youth because their parents are so stupid?

NeilMacCallister  04/07/2011 06:42 PM Report

You're right Shrdlu42, Rep. Ryan's proposal is not bold enough: He did not remove the Social Security rate cap, nor apply a means-test to its payments.

But Rep. Ryan does not "reward the rich". His proposal reduces our world-high business tax rate to encourage home-job growth, but it then removes the kind of "tax breaks" that apparently just allowed General Electric to earn $5.1 billion in U.S. profits, ..and yet pay no income tax!

I agree with you, ..let's put an end to the nonsense.

Shrdlu42  04/07/2011 04:22 PM Report

I couldn't believe the guests from New York Magazine or (predictably) from the Wall Street Journal. There is nothing "bold" or "brave" or even serious about Paul Ryan's "immodest proposal". It's nothing but pure, warmed-over, Republi-Con ideology.

Where is the shared sacrifice? I see no budget cuts for the "sacrosanct" military - which is as much a cause of deficits as any other. I see no proposals to raise taxes, to the contrary taxes are to be cut even further for the wealthiest and for corporations - still pursuing the failed policy of "voodoo economics" which has been responsible for so much of the deficit for the last 30 years! No, only the poor and the middle-class must sacrifice.

I sometimes think the only way to put an end to this nonsense is to let the Republi-Cons get their way. And when they cause the Second Great Depression (the way such policies caused the first) Americans will realize they've sold their birthright for a mess of porridge. THEN will come the Deluge!

This isn't a budget proposal for the 21st Century. It should be left where it came from - in the 19th!

JohnGelles  04/07/2011 12:48 PM Report

[Extended version]

Is the USA right to curtail desirable/necessary spending to protect itself from collapse of the dollar at home and rejection of its sovereign credit abroad?

Is Obama right to fear the political effect of demanding from Congress radical rejection of policy based on the notion that government is incapable of leading a nation that welcomes multi-national corporations?

Rhetorical questions for Keynesian thinkers on political economy to answer with a resounding "NO".

If the whole world wanted to switch to the euro as the reserve currency in their central banks or wanted the UN to establish the uno as an even safer bet, would it stop the USA from remaining the arsenal of democracy and the master of its fate?

We have legitimate fear of nuclear arsenals and related forthcoming weapons of mass destruction. This can only be met with military power to prevent their use against us. Diplomacy can be added to that power. But that power comes first and all else second.

Out power is based on government spending not investments by multi-nationals in soft drinks, soft porn, gambling, and production of trinkets, beer and phone call movies on demand.

So what is the matter with Obama and our other leaders of opinion?

They have not studied WW II and how to promote knowledge that "a nation can financially afford all it can produce by way of necessities -- especially the necessities of war and defense against tyrannies over the human mind."

Production is a function of logistics not Wall Street shenanigans. We must focus of defense, science, technology, innovation, freedom of thought and investment, freedom of speech and belief, freedom from want and fear.

Production is then priced in an environment that features price and wage controls if necessary, rationing if necessary, cost accounting, full employment, intense training as necessary, and education from cradle to grave free of current charge to all who will learn, etc.

Above all, law must be reformed to be based on equity, simplification, and results -- all three features of which are of equal in importance.

Lawmaking and constitutional law must be modernized and the money power that has corrupted it must be kept a appropriate distance from it.

http://ustaxreform.us/crs040711-2

JohnGelles  04/07/2011 12:17 PM Report

Is the USA right to curtail desirable/necessary spending to protect itself from collapse of the dollar at home and rejection of its sovereign credit abroad?

Is Obama right to fear the political effect of demanding from Congress radical rejection of policy based on the notion that government is incapable of leading a nation that welcomes multi-national corporations?

Rhetorical questions for Keynesian thinkers on political economy to offer a resounding "NO".

If the whole world wanted to switch to the euro as the reserve currency in their central banks or wanted the UN to establish the uno as an even safer bet, would it stop the USA from remaining the arsenal of democracy and the master of its fate?

We have legitimate fear of nuclear arsenals and related forthcoming weapons of mass destruction. This can only be met with military power to prevent their use against us. Diplomacy can be added to that power. But that power comes first and all else second.

Out power is based on govenment spending not investments by multi-nationals in soft drinks, sof porn, gambling, and production of trinkets, beer and phone call movies on demand.

So what is th matter with Obama and our other leaders of opinion?

They have not studied WW II and how to promote knowledge that "a nation can financially afford all it can produce by way of necessities -- especially the necessities of war and defense aganst tyrannies over the human mind.

JohnGelles  04/07/2011 08:01 AM Report

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11596#comment_79069

is copied/editied to

http://ustaxreform.us/crs040711.htm

JohnGelles  04/07/2011 06:47 AM Report

An outstanding program that is worth playing more than once on the marvelous player the CR show employs.

Mac, D-verity, Cc, Tabs, and REM are all on the same side. Their economics is NOT focused on DEFICIT IN DEMAND. They all have faith the laissez-faire operations would supply full employment DEMAND (FED) if it were only given the chance.

The fact that it can never be tested to their satisfaction escapes their arguments.

Governments exist to operate. They defend nations from wars and trade wars. They respond to the money power if their commercial powers are advance and entrenched. They respond to local hatreds if their politics is the hands of evil dictators or cliques. They respond to national dreams if they are free enough to have them and their politics follows a GREAT LEADER.

In no instance do they worship laissez-faire or libertarian wonder over how much anarchy is effective in human affairs.

The simple truth is that we presently enjoy a monetary system of production and revolutionary systems supply. This means that inadequate aggregate demand is the normal problem to be solved. It can be solved with money PROVIDED supply keeps up with demand -- remembering that it was demand that failed to keep up with supply when debt financing for profit created a price bubble that had to burst.

The aforementioned commentators here do not have faith in Obama's ability to master Keynesian or anti-Keynesian choices; and they have less fear of Obama's luck then they might.

I have hope in Obama's luck -- because his luck is America's luck for the present.

Few in America call for Ben Bernanke to finance far more than bank and related rescues without which we would be in depression. Few are on my side, and call for Quantitative Easing t finance the Obama agenda for safe ample energy, research and development, infrastructure, education, affordable health care systems, war fighting, and social justice, etc.

Using QE opens the door for a debt free, tax free, economy where sun, wind, wave, tide and geothermal sources of energy usher in the replacement of carbon with hydrogen as the way we run our local manufacturing and trnsportation activities.

What you commentators refues to do is ask yourselves how anyone can be short of money when real shortages can only occur when you are short of the THINGS money can buy.

To SUPPLY these THINGS you must have adequate EMPLOYMENT -- and superlative manufacturing and related systems that turn work into products you need. Automation and robotics are better than people for hard dangerous work. They make the difference between having too small a supply to protect the value of money and having that SUPPLY to support retired baby-boomers and employed high wage workers.

REM, in particular, sees FASCISM behind all political effort to rationalize supply and demand. He saw Germany and Russia fail to prevent the worst sort of tyrannies in their pursuit of materialism. What he does not see is American exceptionalism in defeating slavery, monarchical-autocracy, fascism, racism, communism and ignorance when it had to.

We are at a critical point in history. We need a leader with Keynesian insights to protect demand, Lincolnian insight to protect our values that protect human rights, and Obama's luck that allows him to serve in interesting times.

NeilMacCallister  04/06/2011 07:45 PM Report

Representative Paul Ryan's budget proposal, the "Roadmap for America", will FINALLY provide the outcome promised us by then candidate Barack Obama: That the public's health care program will be "the same as that enjoyed by myself, and the other employees of America's Congress."

Paul Ryan is working hard to fulfill these promises (.."hope, and prosperity") which candidate Obama made to our citizens (..and many others) prior to his election.

If we do allow Rep. Ryan to save this country, ..President Obama may even get re-elected!!

"Go Paul Ryan!!!!"

robdverity  04/06/2011 05:34 PM Report

Obama has failed on two main points, both adopted leftovers of Bushisms: continued warmongering (3 wars and counting), and sleeping with the financial community (no arrests or indictments). The bailed out institutions are responsible for the nationwide housing slump and consequent double dip recession (into depression?). Confidence destroyed.

Obama should be toasted politically; but with a third choice as Republicans (Bushisms) started it all.

charlizecourriers  04/06/2011 04:26 PM Report

This is another sideshow to the main event. Soon the question will be asked: why can't you put your tax increases on the table, dear leader of the Democrats?

tabs  04/06/2011 04:02 PM Report

Sun, 02/27/2011 - 17:40 — tabs

Obama and History

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama so wants to be a trans formative President who will be in the pantheon of Greats. To that end one can say poor poor pitiful Obama, his role in history is not going to be looked upon kindly to say the least. There are a number of reasons for this. Obama has a view of himself as being pragmatic socially conscience person. He truly believes in social justice. Maybe in another time he could have made the Tricks necessary to pull it all off. But Obama never saw the reality of the situation confronting the US at the end of 2008. He never saw that the structural economic problems of the US had finally caught up with the US, rather his thinking was that this was a more or less a greater garden variety of financial crisis that could be solved in the usual manner. In other words he saw the symptom of being a bubble bursting in the economy but never saw that the bubble was caused by a structural malaise.

Obama grasp of economics was wanting and slanted left to say the least. He believed the conventional wisdom of the day, which is the Keynesian axiom of stimulative spending in an economic downturn. Rather if he truly had sagacity, vision and courage he would have reigned his own Party's profligate ways in and kept any stimulus spending on a targeted and narrow path. Why would such a course have worked, because when a crisis of being over leveraged hits one does not add fuel to the fire by becoming even more over leveraged. That is not to say the bailouts were not necessary, one can look at them as being a necessary evil as the probable alternative was far worse if it had come to pass. This lessor course of action would have preserved the good will of the world towards Americans credit reputation and have left money in the bank to weather any further crisis.

Further as we move on down the road it is not what you say but what you do that counts. Even after Obama and his Party took their "shellacking" in the midterm elections he only talks of moving to the center while all his actions remain to the left. Thus it can be said an old dog can not learn new tricks. But more importantly Obama still does not see the dire straights that the deficit and debt has put the US into. With his budget proposal he still prefers to play political games with the budget rather than set aside those partisan concerns for the good of the country. Thus Obama plays games while Washington burns. This again shows that is grasp of economics is wanting and leaves the world thinking this guy doesn't get it. So much for the worse for the US, as it leaves the only pillar of confidence in the US as being in the Republican House. This is liable to come to a bad end and that is where history will be most critical of the Obama Presidency.

On the world stage TR said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Obama does quite the opposite in speaking loudly and carrying a small stick. It has come to pass that from Iran, N Korea, Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, China and now Libya that Obama is a barking dog that has no bite and thus can be assuaged by nodding heads while they go and do what they are want to do. Obama is also held hostage by his technocratic foreign policy bureaucracy for better or for worse. For he lacks the courage to step out of the mold and rather listens to their sage advice as if it were the gospel from on high. This is not his only problem he is also slow to come to conclusions as to the course the US should take when events in the world take place. Evidence Iran it took him a full week to make a conclusive determination and by then the moment had passed. Obama as the supreme intellect and has no innate intuitive sense or grasp of what needs to be done in a situation where moments count. Obama needs time to ponder and intellectualize.

Thus in conclusion the sooner that Obama is shuffled off to the back pages of history the better for the US. Hopefully Obama like Carter before him will have a more useful life after he leaves the WH. The dire warning is that if Obama should perchance win another term in the WH it will not be long before a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the US is sent by the world in the form of a financial crisis over Sovereign Debt.

.

tabs  04/06/2011 03:32 PM Report

Thu, 03/17/2011 - 13:06 — tabs

Now we will briefly turn to the Arc of History. One should really think in terms that the fall of 2008 was an inflection point, and being the end of an era of American hegemony. Everything that has happened since that date has been a transition to the beginning of a new era. In any transition period there is chaos as new forces try to fill in power vacuums. A true Black Swan event was the earthquake in Japan and the ramifications thereof. It is quite mind boggling that the best and brightest don't see this. This myopia can be laid at the feet that the leadership is so consumed with day to day events that they lose sight of or fail to look at the long view of history.

Perhaps history could be viewed as a mighty river flowing to the sea. Events up stream have determined and or limit current thinking and decision making. What one can not know is what sand bar bar or turn the river is going to take next. But what can be seen is where the momentum and course of events past and present is directing us. If one can view this as a process one can see that the course the US is on is not a very bright one.

One should look to the last great inflection point or turning point in history which was 1945 and the beginning of the era of American hegemony in the world. From there one should look at how one event was layered upon another event to see how we have arrived at the current state of affairs. Then one can answer the question of which direction the momentum of history is pushing us. In other words if one makes a series of bad decisions not only will your options be limited or narrowed but the conventional wisdom of the day will likely dictate that you continue to make bad decisions.

.

tabs  04/06/2011 03:02 PM Report

For over 40 years the USA has lived for today by spending tommorows money today. Today there are no more tommorows money to spend. The issue of the budget is no longer a political issue but one of survival. The question is will the leadership see this reality? Or will they continue to conduct business as usual until they can't borrow, print or tax another dime?

REMant  04/06/2011 12:08 PM Report

I think the president must be feeling giddy over Libya and his ability to picture himself once again as the savior of mankind. What the GOP has to remember is that the issues now are the same as last November and not let the Dems get away with portraying the issue (as they always do) as being against, instead of for, the little guy. Transfer payments from the rich to the poor is no budget, and it's all the more ludicrous when it creates the wealth disparity in the first place. The Republicans have to keep pressure on the govt worker and teachers unions, on spending for unnecessary wars and weapons, entitlement boondoggles and deceptive economic reports, as well as, on the Fed and Obama's support for it. The Dems will try to make the turmoil in the Middle East into a plus, when it is a gigantic minus, being not so much fall out from the collapse of Communism, but of the deficit spending that funded the Cold War, and the follow-on wars against Muslim fundamentalism. Heralding the Bush agenda now will only lose the independent voters the GOP picked up from those opposed to such adventures. The enemy is the enthusiasm that drives progressivism in all its forms, and the profligacy behind it. They can't just limit themselves to symptoms, but have to reveal its fascist face. If demons are to be found anywhere, it's certainly there. The only program the Dems have is to soak the wealthy, but there's nowhere near enough money in that to fund a program like theirs even if it were productive, which it isn't. It isn't even a question of the role of govt. It is a question of being able to afford ANYTHING, public or private. The real problem here is with the Fed's ability to continue to fund such deficits by depreciating the dollar. Bernanke cries he won't be able to borrow if this goes forward, which I think about says it all. He is kidding himself as much as Bernie Madoff if he thinks the country can "recover" by reflating and then cutting back. Besides food and commodity prices are already rising. If these evangelists were confronted with this secenario in a Middle East or African country, they would, I hope, call it for what it is.