Charlie Rose

jimbob54  07/24/2011 07:52 PM Report

I don't agree that Americans want more benefits than we're willing to pay for. It's more that some Americans want this benefit, and some Americans want that benefit, and gov'ts are unable to prioritize, so they just approve all requests.

The constitution was designed to prevent this kind of thing by balancing power to prevent excess, but then of course we stopped paying attention to the constitution a long time ago.

BENEZRAA  07/12/2011 10:20 PM Report

RAISING THE BARN, RAISING THE DEBT CEILING, AND OTHER AMERICAN TRADITIONS....

In more humble American times (and still today amongst the Amish, from whom we can learn much today) raising a barn was a one-day communal affair in which all would pitch in and perform the minor miracle of creating the edifice [at the center of the immediate livelihood of a neighbor] and by extension the livelihood of the community.

What a wondrous thing, if the rhetoric of "anti-communism" and the demagoguery against "totalitarianism" would go off hand in hand and take a holiday south of the border on an iceberg off the coast of Antarctica; not a long trip, just long enough for Congress to drink some strong coffee and work out the so-called 'debt crisis'.

There are those, who hate President Obama, whose program it is to force President Obama into a corner such that President Obama may be portrayded as a power-hungry dictator. These petit-tyrannical legislators may yet get what they pray for, although they may be surprised and even humbled by the Executive answer.

The Executive office of the Presidency is empowered to guarantee that the military legacy be paid, even at the cost of raising the debt ceiling.

Therefore, come August 3, if Congress has done nothing to rationally set brinksmanship and partisanship aside and to act on behalf of the nation that Congress has been elected to serve, then the President may guarantee the Welfare of the Nation (a Constitutional imperative) by ordering that payment obligations be made, except to the military, thus insuring that Social Security, Public Assistance, and other social and program obligations be paid; and the President may then unilaterally (by executive order) order increase to the national debt ceiling in order to guarantee payment of our military obligations.

This may be a creative extension of the Fourteenth Ammendment, which obligates the Executive to make good on all existing US public debt, be that debt domestic or foreign. While it may not be legally necessary to proceed in the way I have described, it may indeed be prudent to separate military obligations from domestic obligations and other obligations. As it has been argued that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment pertains directly to military legacy, it may be simplest to confine the political argument going forward to the realm of military obligations.

It may thus be possible for the Executive to pass through the political gauntlet by first paying out the non-military obligations and then by raising the debt ceiling to accommodate the military obligations. In this way the Executive may show strength in meeting the Welfare needs of the Nation as Constitutionally required, as well as all the other debt obligations including military obligations, as also Constitutionally required.

No sane politician would dare challenge the Executive, who fulfills his Presidential obligations, most especially that of paying all US Debt to the Military.

JohnGelles  07/10/2011 04:28 PM Report

I have to agree with Doodah that we the ordinary people are being savaged by the system, by the press and academics who are our critics of the system, by the government and its elected authorities who have failed since the housing bubble burst to be fair to workers, the middle class and those below middle class wealth and income who are often wage slaves and even victims of this nation's policies and politics.

The President's Chief of Staff, Dailey of Chicago, just now on Sunday, July 10 ABC Sunday News with Christine Amampur, used the frequently offered metaphor of SHARING THE PAIN of this jobless recession by "raising taxes on the wealthy" and "avoiding future deficits by avoiding necessary benefits for those who will need them then and need more now.

Well Dailey is one more part of the problem identified by Doodah and many of the rest of us. THERE WOULD BE NO PAIN if by using common sense we added jobs for all who need them, economic output to pay the real costs of all such jobs, and the systemic improvements to fiscal, monetary, tax and saving incentives policies that economic democracy demands.

IMO there would be no taxes on wealth or income itself. It would be presumed that the very rich used such wealth and income to finance ordinary essential business and not-for profit business and charity. They (the very rich and stinking rich) would pay no taxes EXCEPT anti-inflation taxes paid by everyone to reduce waste and increase necessary production to end poverty and pollution and prevent any further spread of tyranny.

We would need to close down all income and wealth tax operations and open up ways and means of financing the above productivity systems to be provided by government bureaus and contractors with as little waste and corruption as possible. Mostly such financing would pump debt-free money into the system of decentralized free enterprise the way we did to build America in the first place: in WWII the Truman Investigating Committee in the Senate tried to correct some of the worst corruption that had taken root despite many defenses against it. We would have similar problems today and tomorrow. But such corruption can be minimized. We have it today with corrupt crony casino capitalism pretending to be free enterprise. We will always have some of it. That does not excuse the wage-slave nature of too many American industries today.

[to be continued I hope by me and others -- and copied to

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11770#comment_81368

until we create a proper home for all these issues (or otherwise carry on -- on a fitting page that focuses on curing the present jobless recovery and assuming a leadership role to democratize business, labor and government as Abe Lincoln wanted and all those Union soldiers died for.

The Confederate soldiers died for a similar system of economic security -- but it was based on slavery for colored people and Lincoln's dream was of decent jobs and decent pay for colored, white and good people of every race and nation who obeyed the golden rule and had a little common sense.

doodah  07/10/2011 10:04 AM Report

...and your dirty rotten Reaper?!!

doodah  07/10/2011 10:01 AM Report

... 'CronyCapitalism' , 'SocialistElitism' , what the Hell is the difference?!??????????????????????????????????????

There is None!

Wake Up! Morons(Americans)!! Whose your Keeper?!!!

doodah  07/10/2011 08:32 AM Report

...David Brooks comment at the end "...CronyCapitalism...", was quite resonating

doodah  07/10/2011 08:22 AM Report

...we'd all be rich, bottling and selling our farts.

doodah  07/10/2011 08:20 AM Report

...boy, what if President Obama added these guys to his Cabinet, things would be . So . Much . Better; wouldn't they?. LOL

doodah  07/10/2011 08:06 AM Report

This is a round table of professional 'Establishment' bitches. Just like the political 'Establishment' has their TYPICAL talking points; republicans, 'less taxes, less government blah blah blah', democrats, 'more taxes, more gov. etc.. / both sides lying thru their teeth and ignoring the real problems and solutions.

They have a job to do, and that job is to not step on their bosses toes . So 'the press' is supposed to criticize the President, so here is a typical half-hearted fake attempt at throwing their 2 cents at him. and then they'll go collect their tidy paycheck, and go eat some wine and cheese at the kennedy center as the masses eat cake (stale cake), and sweat in the summer sun picking up their Garbage.

JohnGelles  07/10/2011 07:12 AM Report

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11770#comment_81368

Above is link to possible continuation on these issues.

JohnGelles  07/10/2011 06:47 AM Report

Thanks Ben.

This show's NYT conversation with four pundits was repeated in July. I will try to find a page on its date or near to it to add to these comments. They are already too long by far for easy following of its many significant issues. I hope I will not have to return to these 50 comments again. But perhaps I will to link to the second airing of the conversation.

BENEZRAA  06/29/2011 12:29 AM Report

A SIMPLE NUMBERING SYSTEM FOR EACH COMMENT: I SUGGEST AN IDEA FOR THE TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENT OF THIS 'COMMENT' SECTION.

One simple thing would be for Mr. Rose's 'Geeks In Charge' of the Comment format to provide a simple numbering system for each comment, so that it becomes possible to refer to a specific comment by number. I know that such a simple capability would cut down on the number of word I need to use to specify each comment I address. Most of us are capable of counting from one to a hundred and even higher! As my favorite cartoon character would say, "To Infinity -- and Beyond!" (Buzz Lightyear)

BENEZRAA  06/29/2011 12:12 AM Report

DEAR MR. GELLES:

I am deeply touched by three aspects of your most recent comments:

THE common thread to your writing, whether it focuses on the powers of the Presidency or on Economic Theory, is your underlying value of human beings, as is represented in your repeated demands and optimism for "economic democracy", which by your definition means closing the financial gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

THANK YOU for your compliment to me in the closing paragraph of the longer of your two most recent comments.

WHEN you write more from your heart and less from your 'left-brain', you write with a sensibility to poetry, which you show in the closing two paragraphs of the longer of the two comments below.

I am sure you know that I would not presume to suggest that you edit your "dreams" (as you stated) -- but, I do understand your meaning, which goes to something different than the intent of my specific words on making use of easily available technology to edit ones own writing in advance of publication and in the absence of outside editorial assistance.

No disrespect was intended, and I hope there was none taken. Taking your suggestion to me metaphorically, that I might consider editing my own "dreams", is there a specific "dream" I have expressed at any point in my writing, which you would recommend that I edit or improve on?

THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. GELLES, FOR YOUR COMPASSION, YOUR POETRY, AND YOUR DREAMS.

It is one thing to edit didactic writing and quite another to edit poetry.

Perhaps there is a 'border world' between poetic writing and "stream of consciousness" writing. Perhaps you may understand this Yiddish expression: DAS LEYBEN IZ NISHT MER VEE AH CHALOMB, ABER VEYK MICH NISHT OIF....

BENEZRAA  06/29/2011 12:12 AM Report

DEAR MR. GELLES:

I am deeply touched by three aspects of your most recent comments:

THE common thread to your writing, whether it focuses on the powers of the Presidency or on Economic Theory, is your underlying value of human beings, as is represented in your repeated demands and optimism for "economic democracy", which by your definition means closing the financial gap between the 'haves' and 'have-nots'.

THANK YOU for your compliment to me in the closing paragraph of the longer of your two most recent comments.

WHEN you write more from your heart and less from your 'left-brain', you write with a sensibility to poetry, which you show in the closing two paragraphs of the longer of the two comments below.

I am sure you know that I would not presume to suggest that you edit your "dreams" (as you stated) -- but, I do understand your meaning, which goes to something different than the intent of my specific words on making use of easily available technology to edit ones own writing in advance of publication and in the absence of outside editorial assistance.

No disrespect was intended, and I hope there was none taken. Taking your suggestion to me metaphorically, that I might consider editing my own "dreams", is there a specific "dream" I have expressed at any point in my writing, which you would recommend that I edit or improve on?

THANK YOU AGAIN, MR. GELLES, FOR YOUR COMPASSION, YOUR POETRY, AND YOUR DREAMS.

It is one thing to edit didactic writing and quite another to edit poetry.

Perhaps there is a 'border world' between poetic writing and "stream of consciousness" writing. Perhaps you may understand this Yiddish expression: DAS LEYBEN IZ NISHT MER VEE AH CHALOMB, ABER VEYK MICH NISHT OIF....

JohnGelles  06/28/2011 06:48 PM Report

If you insist, my idea of powers can be reduced to a sentence or two. The Presient has the power to go for AUSTERITY and leave the world worse than it is.

And he has the power to go for Keynesian FULL EMPLOYMENT (via jobs and micro-loans) -- and other Utopian objectives -- and make a difference.

The power that will prevail will closely follow his intellectual and rhetorical gifts.

JohnGelles  06/28/2011 06:37 PM Report

BENEZRAA 06/26/2011 04:24 AM, writes:

..... "What are your thoughts on the Powers of the Presidency?"

==================

Gelles replies:

1. These powers are a function of presidential will, public opinion, congressional reaction -- including refusing to finnce presidential priorities and impeachment if they have the votes and enough public support for the Army to back the Congress.

2. Presidents like Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, TR, FDR and RR had more power than usual because they were so popular at the time and they did not in fact abuse their power accordind to History's reading.

3. In today's circumstances, with the end of a uni-polar global power system in sight, Barack Obama has immense power he is obviously unwilling to display.

..... His desire for common sense reform of our political democracy to strengthen our public and industrial capital base; improve education, health care, public finance, private sector performance; raise the minimum and median standard of living; make homeland defense as effective as possible; etc., etc., (your best laundry list and his will eventually be congruent with his), would receive support of the Army if push ever came to shove. He has Lincoln's and Jefferson's common ideals that would win over sufficient support for our victory over indifference, ignorance, corruption and malfeasance.

.

But he lacks the talent to present solutions that would be popular if they were understood. And he lacks basic understanding of how to reach the common man to communicate enough common sense to brung economic democracy to life before it's too late.

He has the power to accomplish what Scandinavian nations are attempting: to rationalize economic support for a problem solving world as it reforms language, learning, law, money, logistical systems of supply and demand, and political systems for developing models to take advantage of human equalities and inequalities in the public interest.

4. It can be argued that the above enumeration of powers is unrealistic: were it true Ameerica would be the arsenal and workshop of economic democracy -- and not as much less as it so often is.

The President and perhaps a majority of esser figures may believe that only the grass roots can generate the change we need. I say nonaense. The grass roots did not defeat George III -- Washington did. They did not buy Louisiana, free the slaves, build the Panama Canal, defeat totalitarianism, visit the moon or anything else where those roots are composed of opposing notions. Only Presidents can make a difference and only when the time is right. The time is right -- right now. The next president has virtually unlimited power to perform miracles.

BENEZRAA says re-read and correct your dreams. I ask you to to do it for me with your dreams. In the end, if they overlap anywhere at all, we can address the problem of editing. At this moment in the INFORMATION REVOLUTION, AI editors are in their infancy. Soon they will be standard. The producers of this software can take my dreams and use them to practice their art.

It would be nice if several of us combined to perfect our approach to the CR Show. BENEZRAA's counsel would have a home to take root and the Second Bill of Rights and a wholesale approach to QE and Functional Finance would be advanced by myself to pay for it.

BENEZRAA  06/26/2011 04:24 AM Report

TO JOHN AND NEIL -- The humorous exchanges between the two of you are quite enjoyable.

Neil, I am sure it is not lost on you, that you called John on the same thing I called you on -- freedom of speech.

John, I second your request [quoted by Neil] for reinstatement of written transcripts. It can be quite frustrating, wanting to be sure of who may have said what, and having no transcripts available with which to verify statements. One does not always have time to sit through multiple repetitions of an hour long broadcast in order to catch a choice word or quote.

And John, as far as the incompatibility of your "stream of consciousness" style of writing is concerned, do yourself a huge favor and go online to a site such as Geeks.com or PowerMax.com or even E-bay.com and buy a refurbished Mac with at least OS 10.4 or better in order to more easily compose your responses in the Mac's "Text Edit" function; then just click and drag the text into this Comment

box.

Take as much time as you need to google "used mac" and explore the options.

I'll be glad to tutor you how to use the Mac. Mac OS 10.4 can be found in refurbished Macs for as little as $220.00. More recent 10.5 and 10.6 Mac systems will likely have greater OS longevity, but, they will cost more. That said, as you are prone to many rants and typos, and as Windows systems don't have the easy Text Edit application that Macs do, I think you will be happier, if you put your hands on a Mac, which will easily allow you to compose, edit, and then click and drag the finished text right into this little comment box.

With a Mac it is easy to go go back and forth between this little Comment box and Text Edit by having the two applications' windows open simultaneously.

If I do compose directly into the Comment box, I take a moment to highlight the text of my writing, then I click and drag the text into the Text Edit window. This way I often detect typos to fix and changes to make.

Sometimes I compose in Text Edit first, then I click and drag the text into this little box. Either way, I almost always read my "final" right here in this little box, scrolling up and down, so that I may find and eliminate most errors. If it works for me, it can work for you. In the best of all possible worlds, we'd have skilled human editors working with us as we write and rewrite. Even so...

You may catch typos you have made, such as "... for 'tush' incentives to work" [meaning 'such' incentives]. (see your first Comment below, closing sentence in item #4).

That said, actual "tush" incentives got a big boost here in NYS this weekend, as the Governor just signed the new Gay Marriage Law into effect.

Also John, I must say I have begun to look forward to REMant's comments, which are relevant and pointed, whether or not I share particular opinions with him on particular subjects. I appreciate that he sets a thoughtful starting bar to the Comments.

Neil and John, in addition to what you already have spoken to, what are your thoughts on the Powers of the Presidency?

By the way, I respect you both, your comments are always thoughtful and considered, and I always look forward to reading more from you.

BENEZRAA  06/26/2011 01:56 AM Report

AGAIN, THANK YOU, NEIL ...

We are on the same wavelength in principle and in fact with regard to many things, especially with regard t o the esteem in which we hold the Constitution, and the sense that the Nation may have hell to pay for the consequences of many present trends.

Regarding several of the matters of fact you addressed, I would like to add to your comments about the Healthcare Legislation process, the ignominious exit of General MacChrystal, and the "royal" presidencies of both Bush and Obama.

RE: HEALTHCARE

The process was a most disgusting bit of political "sausage making". In context to the polarity of our country, as is apparent in the brinksmanship and propagandistic rhetoric of our dominant political parties, we may be likely to see more such sausage making, not less.

At the moment the greatest determinative argumentation with respect to the Healthcare Legislation may take place before the Supreme Court, where the question before the Court will be whether or not the Federal Government has the power to require an individual citizen (and therefore all citizens) to purchase healthcare. A decision on this matter may determine whether or not Congress will need to re-draft the Legislation.

As an economic and public health issue, much of the Legislation does make sense, and as long as the private sector is guaranteed to have the entire nation as a market pool across which premium costs may be distributed, and as long as the government may play the role of regulator according to strict regulation and enforcement, then in principle the nation has much to gain.

RE: MACCHRYSTAL

General MacChrystal's mistake was not the opinions that he held, but, that he gave voice to them in the media fashion that he did. One of two things is true: either he did so intentionally, or he did so carelessly. If he did so carelessly, then what else might he have let go to the media carelessly? Military commanders are not permitted such gaffes. He had to know this the moment the words were out of his mouth. If he did so intentionally -- perhaps for a valid reason or set of reasons -- then he had to know that he would likely be required to fall on his sword. Such apparent blatant public disrespect of key American political leadership -- leadership chosen by the President -- could not be tolerated. And so General MacChrystal resigned.

RE: THE "ROYAL" PRESIDENCY

In war as Commander in Chief the presidency wields great power.

A CLOSING COMMENT

Don't forget that Congress is in charge of the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

The President may wield the bully pullpit by virtue of veto power and therefore deal making authority. But, this may be a good thing more often than a bad thing.

Remember, Republican President Bush walked into the White House at a time of budget surplus, then ran up the public debt, when he had a Republican Congress; Democrat President Obama continued to run up the debt under a Democrat Congress.

Sometimes, when the Executive is of one party and the two Houses of Congress are split between the other two parties, there is more opportunity for balance in the governmental process.

JohnGelles  06/25/2011 05:13 AM Report

This ends three parts of a message to all that the four NYT columnists and their host never got to the heart of the matter they were discussing. Without sufficient demand in a system with sufficient resources and moxie to produce almost all needs, there is no possibility for capitalism to make sense for our time.

Socialism, as we know it, is worse.

China is worse too -- because it is crony socialism or some sort of bastard mix of many copied systems.

Northern Europe, with Denmark, Finland, and much from France, Scandanavia and the English speaking world, are best at present -- but not for long if they chose austerity over Keynes and Lerner's FUNCTIONAL FINANCE. FF MEANS NO DIRECT TAXES AND A 50-50 SPLIT BETWEEN DEBT-BASED MONEY AND DEBT-FREE FIAT MONEY.

DEBT MEANS DEBT THAT IS RAPIDLY TURNED INTO EQUITY WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE.

JohnGelles  06/25/2011 05:02 AM Report

The only error I found in message started 6-25-2011 is "their" which on item 3 was mispelled:

..... He knows LAWS can never really predict THEIR full consequences.

It's now 1:49 am. My better half is with me in the dining room. She could not sleep with me out here trying to kill off PONZI -- but establish BERNANKE QUANTITATIVE EASING as legitimate.

REMant, the guy who hogs first place as often as he can, uses the word PRODUCTIVITY to call for money-money when he fears QE-money will fail to produce enough new output to avoid hyper-inflation. He is right to express his fear. He is WRONG to not notice that capitalism without the equivalent of QE-money cannot work!!!!!!!

Neil, -- I hope YOU and I can educate REM in time to save our Ship of State.

Remember, I do not propose ponz-money that fails to create the hard work of man, machine and beast that will add to economic output exactly what money-money must for IT TO WORK.

Money-money in many nations does not work because it can only work when the "monetary system of production" (Keynes' words), is effective on account of REAL RESOURCES, SKILLS, SYSTEMS AND PERFORMANCE UN-HINDERED BY WAR, DISASTER, CORRUPTION AND BAD LUCK.

JohnGelles  06/25/2011 04:40 AM Report

Neil Mac Callister and Fellow Fans of Charlie Rose ~

1. Fans of CR does not imply agreement with ALL his political, economic or cultural tastes. It does mean we are, in a sense, his guests. And we are also his bread and butter. Kill us all - and he dies too -- when his ratings approach too close to zero. We are his guests because we were there when his ratings were measured.

2. I like Neil's thought that LEADERSHIP on the American SHIP OF STATE is more than a Nazi-style "one land, one people, one LEADER (Hitler-style)". It is LEADERSHIP and EVIDENCED MAJORITY SUPPORT, CONSENT, etc., by citizens with enforceable civil RIGHTS.

3. The honesty of elections that create our LEADERS and our LAWMAKERS is critical. And Neil both knows and respects this fact. He knows elections can never be perfect. He knows LAWS can never really predict tier full consequences. Laws are therefore attempts to establish systems that will result in something close to the dreams and visions of the voters who installed their LAWMAKERS.

4. This message (in many parts) is aimed at understanding the nature of "MONEY" and "PONZI SCHEMES" -- which are so very much alike. Their only difference is that MONEY tracks economic output you can eat, wear, use and consume, to keep the wolf from the foor and your body from the grave. PONZI SCHEMES track only MORE MONEY (which never produces such output -- but can be found inside a mattress, lending bank or printing press for a time; during that time it can have the strange effect of creating real output by stimulating real work and processes just as though it were real money).

..... This real effect of ponzi-money is what makes all explanations of differences between it and money-money so difficult.

[continued in next gelles-posting]

[as I've said before, this CR Show's software makes shorter messages far safer to use than longer ones]

NeilMacCallister  06/24/2011 11:48 PM Report

You're a good neighbor, John, ..and I respect your well-written thoughts, and your ultimate vote. But I do shiver when I hear you say "..BETTER LEADERSHIP at the top". For I strongly believe that it is YOU, your VOTE, ..Yours, Mine, and OURS, ..which is our leadership.

I do respect the personal votes of the gentlemen at this table, ..but the truth is that they have loudly pounded the drums for Barack Obama ever since Mr. Obama was ushered out onto that Democrat Party stage by Ted Kennedy.

Has this table accepted any other viewpoint from the breadth of American opinions?

I remind you that back in 2008, this table did declare before our nation, that "Anyone not voting for Barack Obama is a racist" (Aug25-26)

That kind of attack on democracy, ..that kind of hatred for liberty, ..is NOT "Leadership".

We VOTERS are the leaders, ..and we always get what we vote for!

Let's not trade those votes for a short-stack of ACORN pancakes, or a promise that, "I can take the struggle out of life for you!"

And let's not just GIVE OUR VOTE AWAY into the whims of the people sitting at this table, or any other!

It is OUR vote, ..and WE are responsible for keeping it's value!

Until our next work-day then, ..Happy Friday, John!

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 09:37 PM Report

Friedman mwntions a THIRD PARTY. China like one not two parties. Many nations have far more than 3 parties. Almost all the sentences in this great 1 hour conversation wanted BETTER LEADERSHIP at the top.

This suggests to me two parties, as we have, with a coalition cabinet, as we had in WW II. In that cabinet I hope we have Petraeus -- and as President and Vice President I hope we have people who will lead us to peace, prosperity, and obedience to the Golden Rule whose luck at killing killers and pirates is as good as Barack Obama's.

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 09:24 PM Report

One of Brooks' sentences asked for more pain for our society -- based on the theory that Buffet, Gates, Brooks and Gelles ought to pay higher taxes. What crap.

Gelles ought to volunteer to fight at the front with a "Walrus" team of senile operators who disarm the IED's and keep the youngsters back for really skillful fighting.

Buffet's taxes are not real money. Real money is what the FED could inject into the economy to take the lead in global transformation of sun, wind, wave, and ambient air cooled nuclear systems that use spent nuclear waste more than once to safely produce electricity and hydrogen stored fuel. Real money results when everyone is allowed to work full time and no one has to SELL anything but good ideas. Products that don't sell themselves are not needed in the first place.

In other words, sharing the burdens that support government and democracy is necessary -- but those burdens are really no more than doing a good job in a more rational setting.

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 09:11 PM Report

Neil ~

Your prayer to CR expressing much of what I've said is well expressed by you and well deserved by me.

But the issue is IMO what to do with the CR Show's BEST PEROFMANCE YET. The KEY WORDS list is far too short and not categorized. We do not need just a TRANSCRIPT. WE NEED A COMPLETE SHORT BOOK MADE UP OF EVERY SENTNECE IN THE TRANSCRIPT WHICH CAN SERVE AS A HEADING FOR GOGENT ANALYSIS OF ITS IMPLICATIONS. THIS WILL BE, IN MY OPINION A BOOK WITH AT LEAST HALF OF THESE SENTENCES HEADING UP A PAGE OR MORE OF ADDED THOUGHTFUL PROSE.

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 09:01 PM Report

HOLD THE PRESSES! ALMOST ALL THESE COMMENTS ON THIS CR SHOW ARE MEAN AND IMPOVERISHED -- COMPARED WITH ALL THE SENTENCES FROM ALL FOUR COLUMNISTS WE HEARD FOR THE HOUR. I WITHDRAW ALL I PREVIOUSLY WROTE THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH KC IRWIN'S COMMENT COPIED HERE BELOW:

kcirwin 06/22/2011 04:04 PM

..... "What an enlightening discussion! this is the 1st time I felt I needed to express my appreciation of a discussion. So great! Thanks to Charlie and his panel."

I hope to restart my comments to reflect what KC IRWIN has said so well.

This will not be easy. The sentences from these four are pregnant with sound questions on policy and prediction America and all its friends and rivals will face from now until our next election and from now until America as the center pole holding up our global side-show's tent is removed by other powers or collapses without replacement.

NeilMacCallister  06/24/2011 08:44 PM Report

John Gelles:

"Oh please Mr. Rose, ..I pray you may grant me a written word, ..a TRANSCRIPT, ..so that I may be SURE of your verbal directions!"

"..and, please, ..I implore you to someday grant me a post-submittal 'do-over' indulgence, ..so that I may no longer have to be forever held to the statements I have made in my stream-of-consciousness writings!"

"..And most of all, Mr. Rose, ..please do SOMETHING to stop all those opinions which invade our close-knit SANCTUARY here, ..all those opinions which do not deserve the recognition of YOUR opinions, ..or mine."

"In this I pray."

***

(Sorry, John, ..but you asked for it.)

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 08:03 PM Report

The first 9 minutes of this conversation contains the scope of its interest. We need a transcript of this scope to bring things comments inside the scope and away from ideas that have no relevance to anything at all.

NeilMacCallister  06/24/2011 04:53 PM Report

Ben, ..I do not say "Charlie Rose is unconstitutional", but I do worry about the cloistered viewpoint so strongly seated here. I worry about the People, the Presidency, and America's future.

Harold Bloom recently wrote that George W. Bush undertook "the Imperial Presidency", ..and I suppose I am contending that Barack H. Obama is undertaking "the Pontifical Presidency".

***

Consider it:

He ran using only the heavenly-hued phrases such as "Hope, Dreams, Charity, and Change", ..He told us he could "Bend the Arc of History", .."If you vote for me, it will be done!"

When he sought to bring "Healthy Care to All", ..he believed that his voicing of a simple "So be it" to Congress was alone sufficient to manifest such a mountain of medical machinery.

When a valorous and victorious Army General was found to have not immediately punished off-hand quips from his staff regarding the warfare knowledge of the President's cardinal associate, Joe Biden, that general was publicly excommunicated upon the word of the President.

Our President still believes he possesses a never-emptying fruit-basket of American Dollars, ..his, by some divine-right, to use for "the spreading of good cheer" among the voters.

***

Why do I care??????

I believe our Constitution advises us to keep a Separation of Church and State. Today, all the media-broadcasted protesters scream, "..Separation of Church and State!" But they protest only in the direction of keeping Church FROM State, ..never in the direction of keeping the State from BECOMING our Church! I think that is a serious imbalance!

***

Americans want neither a King as our leader of government, ..nor a Prophet. All we want is an equally applied rule of democratically elected law.

And when our job is over, we will answer for what we have done.

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 04:53 PM Report

The 4 NYT columnists talk to C. Rose -- and we here at home listen in to therio ideas, notions and nonsense, hoping to RECEIVE some ANSWERS ?

..... OR MAYBE not! Are we hoping instead to broadcast some ANSWERS -- and to OUR favorite questions -- NOT THE REAL QUESTIONS OF THE DAY.

The conversation is labeled as follows:

"New York Times columnists David Brooks, Thomas L. Friedman, David Leonhardt & Roger Cohen discuss (1) the Obama administration's WITHDRAWAL of troops in Afghanistan, (2) DOMESTIC issues and (3) the challenges for the President in the 2012 election."

.

I have listened to the show 3 times. I believe it contains some wisdom from DAVID BROOKS, some baloney from TOM FRIEDMAN, and some stuff from the other two I did not yet get:

..... DEBT from ROGER COHEN ? I see debt as something to be re-organized when it cannot be paid. The problem is not debt. The problem is the aftermath of the reorganization.

..... This leaves DAVID LEONHARDT. He wants LEADERSHIP more than mere mild opinion. I agree. We do need leadership from the President -- and he has been short changing us on that at home where jobs are missing and unpaid mortgages are fare too numerous.

.

I suggest we step back from all the detail we heard to the REAL SITUATION at hand:

a. Inequality is at an all time high. Global poverty is at an all time low. This should be better news than IF BOTH were atall time highs. The answer I believe is to zero out poverty; and to exempt from taxes all inequality that translates into INVESTMENTS and PHILANTHROPY by the RICH that serves the PUBLIC INTEREST as well as it could if there were no inequality asscoiated with it.

b. The threat of nuclear attack by terrorists is at an all time high -- because there are so many suicide bombers and so muxh dirty waste from which to make dirty bombs and even tiny ordinance with nuclear explosives inside.

..... this requires we declare the end of privacy and discover all potential nuclear suicide bombs before they can be used.

c. For humanity to succeed in preventing disaster (b) above will require cooperation and rationality from the top nuclear armed nations. Such cooperation should be our goal. This is not a return to MAD that worked with the USA and USSR. It is something new. It demands exposure of all secret suicide plans that could involve very hig numbers of innocent victims. I think if we exposed such threats and prevented such acts we would also discover opportunities to solve othe problems of lesser impact as a bonus.

BENEZRAA  06/24/2011 11:28 AM Report

THANK YOU, NEIL MACCALISTER

As stated, you point out the negative fact of the way that anti-religion is vehemently proselytized. There should be nothing wrong with a class valedictorian speaking about his devotion to God and good living, as long as it is not performed in a way to market one especial faith, nor as a tacit representation of one especial faith with the implied endorsement of the school, if it is a public school and not a parochial school.

Though religion in our public schools was not even a subject of discussion in this particular broadcast, it is absoluteley true that for many Americans, President Obama is not regarded as a purveyor of "faith, hope, and charity." If anything, for many Americans President Obama is anathema to these values.

Even so, your expression that " 'Friar Brooks and Company' were here ALLOWED [capitalization mine] to come on Charlie Rose..." is disturbing. I do hope this was meant to be exclamatory, not to actually suggest that Mr. Rose discourage or even curtail freedom of speech.

You do inspire an idea, however, which you may like: that, similar to other series' of special broadcasts, Charlie Rose should consider devoting a special series of broadcasts to Religion, especially as regards the values of Faith, Hope, and Charity.

Let's hope that Mr. Rose or his staff read read these comments and make use of worthy ideas!

ShalomFreedman  06/24/2011 09:17 AM Report

Tom Friedman mocks Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not making a real effort or offer for peace. This is wholly unfair. Gaza ruling 'Hamas' is an anti-Semitic organization which calls not only for the murder of Israelis but Jews everywhere. How do you make 'peace' with that.

What offends is beside Tom Friedman's pomposity and pretentiousness is his total lack of respect for a leader who has real responsibility for the security and well- being of his nation and people. Tom Friedman can fire off fifty statements a week which prove to be totally empty and is not responsible. His partner in arrogant ignorance in this discussion Roger Cohen is famous for being a supporter of the Ayatollah's regime in Iran. Even here he talks about 'dialoguing' with them when they have proved to be absolutely dishonest in all they have done.

Again it is not only Tom Friedman and Roger Cohen's mistakes and errors in judgment which define them but their absolute arrogance and disrespect for others. Netanyahu has a lifetime of service not only for Israel and the Jewish people but against Terror and for democratic freedom. To caricature in a false way such a person is truly inappropriate and immoral conduct.

NeilMacCallister  06/24/2011 04:47 AM Report

John, I'm sorry to interrupt your re-envisioning the strength of the old Mutually-Assured-Destruction policy, ..but don't you think that Mr. Brooks' picture above is just a bit too perfect a re-manifest of Friar Tuck?

Why is Charlie Rose (and our current omni-powerful government) doing this???

***

Yesterday I heard that some 4.0 high school valedictorian was told that he would not be allowed to say, in his Honor's graduation speech, that he believed his devotion to God and good-living was helping him to succeed!

But then I heard that "Friar Brooks and Company" were here allowed to come on Charlie Rose and re-produce (..for the 70th time!!!) his claims that Barack Obama is here to supply ALL the world with "faith, hope, and charity"!!

***

It makes me wonder:

If God, and religion, are so "triple-barred" from EVER getting ANYWHERE NEAR a government activity, thought, or house,..

...why then do we let the New York Times, Charlie Rose, and Barney Frank so continue to INSIST that our government has the right to take over EVERY LAST INCH of our Houses of Worships' fulfilling the religious concepts of "faith, hope, and charity" within our society??

Why do we EXPELL religion from government so viciously, ..yet IMPELL government into our society's areas of religious undertakings???

To tell you the truth, ..I would REALLY rather get my bowl of free oatmeal from a poor honest pastor, than some glad-handing multi-millionaire politician!!!

Why do we Americans let this intellectual and spiritual offense continue????

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 12:45 AM Report

On the issues of war and peace, and the Arab Spring and its future, there is a movement gaining strength to reduce war and trust more to peace and diplomacy.

Gates and Obama seem to want to risk such yielding to public sentiment.

Petraeus is more careful. He would go slow and buy more cooperation from the warlords who can match the Taliban and other fighters who give no qarter. I'm with Petraeus. Don't leave until it looks like we will not be sorry for leaving too fast with to few armies on our side left to keep the worst guys in the fight down and soon out.

Although I think our money and supply and demand problems are fixable, our military and diplomatic challenge is immense: how do we appeal to Europe, Russia, China, Japan and India to come together in rational assembly to avoid all world wars possible at the moment? What is the principle to be applied to prevent nuclear war? Can we find a formula for war prevention that will unite all the great nuclear powers now while it is still possible?

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 12:24 AM Report

CORRECTION Among my errors is one in item 4.

"[ less than ] full employment (and full eononomic security)"

the [ less than ] should be omited.

JohnGelles  06/24/2011 12:16 AM Report

BenEzraa ~

Technical point: I want to see visual diagrams and teaching tools to supplement text that contains our plans and proposed laws. I believe all that text is like the speech that could not complete the Tower Babel: it is so internally self-contradictory that it leads nowhere. After genius is applied to create stochastic and logical trees and networks (to chart whatever cause and effect we are hoping for) we would have a reasoned idea of what are choices may be. SO EXPERTS LIKE, THOSE PUNDITS WE LISTENED TO (AND THEIR EXPERT AUTHORS WHOM THE PUNDITS READ,)would all need to have diagrams added to text to allow prescriptions to be cleaned up and made to be testable if used.

..... in this regard, we know how much we revere the LAW. Yet the LAW makes use of precedent that is not part of a reliable system for prediction. We would be better of with a system that asked wise men to make the rules they thought would work rather than treating cases as nearly the same as statutes.

..... And statutes longer than a single page ought to be null and void without, in rare instances, full justification for longer ones -- but with none so long that a lawmaker voting for a statute would be excused from a valid test on its content.

MORE IMPORTANTLY:

1. The thrust of this GREAT TV FARE is, IMO, --

..... a. Is Obama the best we are likely to see campaigining for 2012 -- or should he be running for the Senate because he is no LEADER?

..... b. Is America still the best LEADER of the free world -- even of the nuclear armed world?

2. In answer to these questions, David Brooks gave opinions I agreed with most of the time.

3. BenEzraa offers questions on my opinions that make great sense to me. He wonders if we would be better off if most of us knew substantial misfortune and none of us were protected in adult life as out Mothers would have wanted (if they behaved like we think all mothers who are risk averse do).

..... To answer this question on the results of economic security and full employmnet at fair wages all the time, I answer that in retirement I see no noticeable damage from good pensions. Their beneficiaries seem to be unharmed by good fortune. I have read that many lottery winners tell a different story.

4. In all events, the horrors of the 20th Century seem to have been caused by the absence of prosperity after WW I. FDR thought so. He had the Second Bill of Rights presented to the nation on January 11, 1944, on the assumption that less than full employment (and full eononomic security) were the main bulwarks that might keep tyrants powerless to destroy freedom for ordinary people. That is, anyway, my view.

5. Although many people oppose good fortune for others, all I've ever known wanted the best for themselves.

..... Ok, there were some people we call sick who enjoyed masochistic habits -- some needed pain to feel satisfied.

..... But the few I've known like that were so rare I have always thought they were the exception that proved the rule -- that what we want if very much the same as what others want -- all the best there is in any candy store. ..... ..... Like dark chocolate over nuts nuts and raisins.

6. Tonight Eric Canter wanted NO TAXES -- he wanted only less spending -- to -- reduce future deficits.

..... All the TV pundits tonight said he was wrong. They said we needed taxes reduce the deficit as government spent more money to prevent more recession/depression.

..... I say he was right about NO TAXES. But he was wrong NOT to ask for more QUANTITATIVE EASING. It reduces deficits IF IT GROWS THE ECONOMY.

..... The idea of monetizing economic output as it grows our wealth for use and sale, appeals to people IF the output is gold or something that does not lose value over time. The idea of doing the same for wealth to enrich the bottom half of society is not popular. Rich people fear that if the bottom half is enriched they will quit work. They are bewitched by this fear. Yet that bottom half might NOT quit work -- any sooner than the top half.

..... All may stay on the job to satisfy their love of MORE MONEY. Are we not all misers under the skin? I am. The more money I have, the more I want. Like Buffet and Gates I'm not afraid people will all want only what they have. After all, they all want MORE all the time IF they can get it. Why not try this theory out -- for as long as suppliers want to SUPPLY more -- and at lower cost as well.

The real reason ths nation does not try this modern system out is that we have insufficient data gathering to manage it well. We are afraid hyperinflation would get started we would not be prepared to keep supply up to demand an demand down to need.

7. Too bad David Brooks did not say this in the discussion. I think he was the wisest of the crew.

.....

IRISH  06/23/2011 11:00 PM Report

As a Canadian who keeps up with the domestic politics and economy of USA, politics as practised is totally dysfunctional and cannot fathom the loonies in both parties. Public policy is designed, developed and conducted for failure.

robdverity  06/23/2011 07:47 PM Report

An horrific aside: what of those that sacrifice (both lives and limbs) from here to the end (2014 or whenever)? For what? For a revised definition of success?

You have to be a callous sob to ask that of anyone. O qualifies. Immediate pullout's the only humane approach. There's more al Qaeda elsewhere (Yemen, Somalia et al). O needn't fear for lack of jingoistic opps.

BENEZRAA  06/23/2011 07:18 PM Report

ROBDVERITY:

Correction: It was not Friedman, who used the "S" word. Friedman used the "I" and "C" words. That said, I think the subject has been adequately attended to, and I accept your comment as the "last word", though I would not use the "S" word myself in this venue.

BENEZRAA  06/23/2011 07:11 PM Report

MR. GELLES:

Your comment is clear enough that experts should need no diagram of the conversation. I agree and feel much of what you said, especially your closing wish about "not being a tornado".

But, I am reminded of an old Bazooka Joe cartoon:Bazooka Joe and his buddy are walking home after school, and Joe's buddy asks, "How were the questions on the test?" And Bazooka Joe repliew, "The questions on the test were easy -- it was the answers that I had trouble with."

Is "full employment" an ideal goal or an achievable reality?

Does a society require full employment or a minimum of unemployment, uncertainty, discomfort, and even suffering in order to spark motivation, discovery, exploration, and innovation? If things are too easy, will a society decay and rot? Or, is there a motivational negative in too much suffering and unemployment, and a motivational positive in a limited level of motivational hunger (i.e. hunger pangs, rather than actual starvation)?

robdverity  06/23/2011 06:04 PM Report

Don't know if Friedman's comment of schmuck translated directly at Obama. But O is a schmuck. He's betrayed everything expected of him. He's a puppet of the MI complex and the financial scumbags that (both) helped tip our country into the toilet.

So Ben, Thomas is right in principle (even if not on - your - substance).

JohnGelles  06/23/2011 04:50 PM Report

ANNOTHER OUTSTANDING CONVERSATION -- WITH A HUGE SCOPE OF VITAL NEEDED REFORM

1. This CR Show needs to be diagrammed for presentation to expert specialists and generalists alike.

2. Its greatest fault is that it seeks to both predict and prescribe. Prescription is always based of prediction. But prediction is always a crap shoot. Not crap -- Thom Friedman --- but based on chance as well as circumstance.

3. My own two cents is that we need WWII-like confidence America CAN DO the impossbile: -- like producing atom bombs ahead of Germany and Russia -- at a time when theory was untested and details required gunius to take over at a rate higher than anyone had a right to expect.

4. The impossible today is to solve the internal contradiction within the business-financial model: money to shop with must keep up with supply. But, in that model, it doesn not. We are chronically short of monetized demand because we ask too much of payrolls to generate such shopping.

..... it is true that consumer credit helped to add to aggregate sretil shopping. But, interest on that credit ought to be limited bt traditional abhorence of usury.

..... still that would not be enough reform. We need an ancilliary system to subsidize demand, a tiny bit like food stamps -- but made to be a standard government stipend of fiat money (neither taxed back nor borrowed ahead of time) to pay for the added costs of dependents living off a the earnings of a family provider (not their employer). Such stipends could make full employment federal budgets an expected reality. They could be a real safety net protecting every family from economic failure. They would reduce to zero all economic penalties to society that inequality delivers.

..... the supply of necessities would have to increase for tush stipends to work. This would be possible via mass production and daily improvement in production and avoidance of waste, fraud and abuse within the system.

5. The other issues of diplomacy, war, ideology, etc., that might remain, if our business model really sustained full employment and a very high minimum standard of living, will also have to be addressed. They are mainly issues that are best resolved by reform in education and in rewarding good conduct for its own sake the way reward excellence in performance. If we could all run as fast as the wind can blow, reward for NOT BEING A TORNADO ought to be very high in order for us to have more than one race every million years.

ShalomFreedman  06/23/2011 12:49 PM Report

This discussion makes sense when it relates to American domestic problems. The deficit, the unemployment, the budgetary problems of the U.S. , the need for innovation to deal with the Energy and Environmental situations are real issues. The sense of the panelists that President Obama is not leading a vision of how to move America in regard to these problems is clear.

As to the foreign policy part it seems to me that Tom Friedman, and Roger Cohen are living in fantasy land. The situation of Egypt is that of an economic basket case on the way to a radical Islamic regime. There is now a massive transfer of wealth out of Egypt. No foreign investment. Tremendous debt. Rising world food and commidity prices. This is all leading toward a radical Islamic Egypt. There is no sign of any real Democracy emerging anywhere in those areas supposedly involved in 'The Arab spring'.

What these commentators should be seeing is the threat of a nuclear Iran, the problem with a Pakistan which is not really an ally, the whole Energy dilemna in being dependent on Middle East regimes, the duplicity of China in the trade business, the failure of the Obama Administration to recognize its real problems and deal with them in the world.

bsingh1  06/23/2011 08:39 AM Report

It was very good program with NY Times journalists.

However, I woiuld like to see someone to put together a paper describing a solid recommendation for politicians to implement. I was more interested in our economic situation as it seems we are losing and we would be left out in the world.

blank  06/23/2011 02:37 AM Report

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pressroom/06132011

blank  06/23/2011 02:02 AM Report

http://www.distributedenergy.com/the-latest/nist-whitehouse-smartgrid.aspx

BENEZRAA  06/23/2011 12:12 AM Report

FORGIVENESS AND RETRACTION

Having said what I said, sincerely, but, not being in the limelight, such as David Brooks and Thomas Friedman, whose words and opinions are taken seriously by important decision makers every day, I retract the harshness of my words in favor of forgiveness, even of Thomas Friedman. When all is said and done, freedom of speech is such a high value that neither these men, their reputations, nor their fearlessness to speak should suffer. God forbid. It is said that a single word can kill. So, too, a single word can forgive. May The Holy One, Blessed Be He, protect all those, who practice and protect freedom of speech.

BENEZRAA  06/22/2011 11:49 PM Report

DEAR BOOKERTZ:

There was no misrepresentation on my part. Watch the program again several times, as I did. Brooks and Friedman let their hair down more than a little too freely, and I represented them fairly.

Brooks has quite a sense of humor that is sometimes dry, subtle, or oblique. In this case there was none of that. He spoke about Obama directly, and his ensuing quip giving his "definition of a shmuck..." may as well have have been a direct insult to President Obama.

Friedman's literal comment referred to the opinions of those he disagrees with about Israel and Obama as "crap". He may as well have called the persons themselves "crap", given the context that he directly labeled the "Israeli leadership" to be "inbred".

Have you read Friedman, or heard him speak on multiple occasions? Do you not hear the way he speaks to adults as though they were three-year-old children?

Do listen to the program again. Your sense of hurt may disappear and you may find the "negative reviews" to be more than fair and perhaps not as negative as you may initially have thought.

And there is a difference between Brooks and Friedman. Brooks is a gentleman, who is probably aware that his humor may get away from him once in a while, and who usually gives well researched, well reasoned support for his opinions. Gentleman that he is, he may well even defend his fellow NYT columnist Thomas Friedman.

Friedman on the other hand is just plane nasty, arrogant, condescending, and dishonest -- and I am being polite. For example Friedman stated with a straight face that the Tadjik tribesman from northern Afghanistan defeated the Taliban with the aid of "400 American advisers". He conveniently left out that the Tadjik battle victories, led by Coalition Special Forces, were able to do so only after the Taliban were softened up by American cruise missiles launched from naval vessels, as well as by heavy American aerial bombardment from strike bombers flown repeatedly from American soil, refueling in mid-flight in order to cover the distance to and from Afghanistan.

If there is a harsh tone to some of my words, especially as regards Thomas Friedman, it is not due to malice on my part, just disappointment. It is not unreasonable to expect the best -- not the worst -- from such esteemed commentators, as appear on the Charlie Rose Show.

In the case of Thomas Friedman I personally have reached my limit of tolerance. I myself am no leader of anything, but, I do not take kindly to the type of insults he proffers -- insults, which may be appropriate in private between drinking buddies over a few beers, but, which are never appropriate as public speech.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/22/2011 10:02 PM Report

We already have a third party: "No Vote". This party is by far the largest.

If we listen to this party then government might take a break and do something else.

Perhaps then we might have those 100,000 folks working in their garages creating something new and then you gentleman can focus on them.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/22/2011 09:51 PM Report

Four choices per Thomas: lose small, lose big, lose quick, lose slow.

It costs $1.2 million to keep one soldier in Afghanistan for a year. Now you add that up, and it comes to about $12 billion in savings through next year, and that's pretty significant. (with 10,000 removed)

Peace dividend? So instead of building schools and bridges in Kandahar how about a little something for Kansas City?

Hidden costs though: veterans health care and those costs may not peak for another 30-40 years.

Plus all the money spent in both Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed anyway, and any savings -- meager as they might be -- should be saved for deficit reduction.

So Thomas: lose long, lose big. Too late.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/06/22/pm-the-economics-of-the-afghanistan-troop-d rawdown/