Charlie Rose

Eggman62  05/02/2012 02:09 AM Report

Charlie Rose has gone softball. Might as well be CBS interview (ouch).

Coburn has little education and a poor understanding of economics--regardless of how your marrow flows. The only reason Coburn's words seem pleasing to some liberals is because they pat themselves on the back when his rhetoric is agreeable then tune out the rest.

For the good of the public (or republic), Charlie should have intellectually crucified this mutt, which was within his ability and certainly consistent with Charlie's celebrated style.

Instead, he chose to throw softballs. Too bad, Charlie. I thought you had a future in this.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/06/2011 05:48 PM Report

The Associated Press found another $90 billion over 10 years. So we are getting there Senator.

This $9 billion is the price tag taxpayers spend per year to secure the US-Mexico Border.

If we bring the immigrants in, register them, put them to work and have them pay their Medicare and Social Security taxes I think you will see another problem advance toward resolution--the necessary increase of funding of these two programs.

NOTE: The calculations for Social Security are VERY sensitive to population growth rather than increases in productivity. 3.3 workers per beneficiary (1975 to 2008) moving to only 2 workers per beneficiary after 2030! So we need these immigrants to pay these taxes.

Please read the Executive Summary of this report where you will see that illegal immigration will also fall with the registration (if history is any indicator): http://www.nfap.com/researchactivities/studies/Nov_study1.pdf

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/06/2011 03:37 AM Report

So Senator, I agree let's grab that $6 billion back for ethanol subsidies which are Grade A stupid.

Here is another $4 billion that is also Grade A stupid:

The 25 biggest hedge fund dealers who took $22 billion in pay last year. If just these 25 guys were taxed at the 35-percent rate, Congress would have an additional $4 billion this year to use for filling the deficit hole, rather than gleefully throwing sick seniors into it.

Since 1995, the total income of the 400 richest Americans has nearly quadrupled, yet the real tax rate they pay has been cut almost in half. America isn't broke – it's simply being gamed by super rich tax dodgers.

http://jimhightower.com/node/7487 (thank you blank)

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/18/159261/tax-disparity-chart/

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/150570

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/05/2011 02:03 AM Report

The Congressional Budget Office released its updated long-term budget forecast, and it projects that deficits will disappear entirely by the end of President Obama's second term (if he gets a second term) if Congress were to just sit on its hands and do nothing.

So just let the Bush (yes Bush is always with us) tax cuts expire.

Take a look:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/chart-of-the-day-if-congress-does-nothing-the-deficit-will -disappear.php?ref=fpb

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/05/2011 01:52 AM Report

Wow, I just heard a Republican say that the increased taxes he paid in 1986 or 1987--UNDER REAGAN--made him mad--BUT the stimulus to the country was TREMENDOUS!!!

And he is a SENATOR from Oklahoma too!

What an amazing interview!

SharkswithfrikingLazers  07/05/2011 01:42 AM Report

The Senator says, "When we have 20% of the people in 2008 paid (sic) 84% of the taxes in this country we have a problem with our tax code. We have too many not paying much tax. 49% of the family households in this country pay no tax."

So flatten the tax code Senator? Perhaps you mean flatten the distribution of wealth so that it is not so highly concentrated that it makes it look like nearly half the country are slackers and don't pay for the federal government?

First of all in the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010). http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

So Senator perhaps the 20% who paid the 84% is actually a move toward fairness?

JohnGelles  07/01/2011 12:57 AM Report

Dear tbo88 ~

Your post (06/30/2011 10:26 PM) ended with:

... if Washington needs to tax me more for a few years they get an ok from me.

.

Your attitude is great. Many share it -- such as Warren Buffet. If I believed our Congress NEEDS to collect taxes (or MORE taxes) from people who would prefer otherwise, I would be on your side of the aisle.

But I believe Congress NEEDS to lower all direct (income or other) taxes and SPEND its own money to promote vast and rapid economic growth in America.

What is Congress's money and what is yours and mine?

Congress's money is the potential power of all of America to produce what money can buy. That may be $20 trillion per year.

You and I need their money. They do not need our small change.

This is the heart of the problem: You and I produce what money can buy. Congress must create (produce) the money to buy it.

All our argument today is over this matter.

How can anyone prove who's right: the austerity boobs who think Congress is broke or over its head in debt?

..... or the Keynesian geniuses who know Congress is rich if they establish a full employment high wage / high production / high tech monetary system of SUPPLY -- to match the demand they create to manage prosperity as adults with honor -- NOT CROOKS WITH AN EYE FOR SHORT TERM PROFIT AND LONG TERM "DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT PEOPLE OR ANYTHING ELSE".

tbo88  06/30/2011 10:26 PM Report

I really do appreciate Senator Tom Coburn's comments and information he provided on what needs to be done in the next 30 days for us to avoid this debt crisis. I appreciate more his SERVICE for us going to Washington from Oklahoma to contribute his knowledge of what needs to be done for the American people. What concerns me most about our politicians is that this has been mentioned for the last 25 years from others, way too many differences between the 2 parties. I don't understand how politically divided we are and how it is really tearing us apart out our very fiber. Before, it was our families were being torn apart, now it is our political views. Those on the left are going way left, while others on the right are going to the far right, i.e. The Tea Party. It psychologically isn't good down the road. Kicking another can down the road. How many more cans do we have left? Again, though, Senator Coburn was very informative and forthright in the current facts of our situation. July will not be a fun month, but this must get done and if Washington needs to tax me more for a few years they get an ok from me.

JohnGelles  06/30/2011 02:04 AM Report

Some say from 1942 until 1945 we were united as one person -- and what we did then we canot do without a war to the death to unite us once again. Nonsense. We kept our eye on our objectives. We were far from perfect. We had one-billionth or less of the computational power and expertise we have today. If our problem is production with a minimum of pollution and risk of ecological error, much of its solution depends on computation.

JohnGelles  06/30/2011 01:54 AM Report

We are supposed to be fixing the acute problems facing people who are out of work or homeless or cannot pay money for their current essential needs.

In addition, we are supposed to fix government's problems that can be fixed -- with more (or less) money.

Senator Coburn (also a medical doctor) talks as though he understood money, its absence, and monetary systems of production. He does not.

Does anyone? No.

So are we at the end of our tether? No.

We can look at our problems as problems of production and supply of material and emotional needs. Supply the needs and make a note of what is still missing after we've done our best. Then supply what's missing -- and repeat this process over and over again.

In doing all the above, modify money and its systems of production until we can prove we know what we're doing.

Look to what we did from 1942 to 1945 for a clue of what to do today.

Close down the IRS and open a national economioc security agency to provide data and systems that do not fail to meet their objectives.

Mantis  06/29/2011 08:07 PM Report

I like this guy. If he can talk like this, why can't the rest of congress do so? Surely it cannot simply be cowardice?

tabs  06/29/2011 07:59 PM Report

So the SS taxes that are generated are put into the GA. From which funds are drawn to pay the interest and principle of the US Treasuries that are in the SS Trust Fund. In the coming decades fewer workers are going to be in the work force to support with their SS taxes the GA which funds the Treasuries in the SS Trust. So a greater and greater portion of the cost of SS will have to be borne by general tax revenues. Further the estimated cost with interest of that 4T USD of Treasury debt held by the SS administration is going to be some 15T USD over the next few decades? Thus no matter how one wants to obfusticate, SS is a debt that is going to have to be paid.

waltk13  06/29/2011 07:07 PM Report

"The SS fix of the late 90's during the Clinton administration was to place $4T USD of US Treasuries into the SS Trust fund. Therefore the SS Trust fund is funded by the debt of the USA."

Actually what that means is that the SS Trust Fund holds the debt of the U.S., like China, Japan or any other investor in U.S. Treasury bonds or notes, not drives it. Yes, these Treasury instruments were placed into the SS Fund to replace the funds multiple U.S. Congress had been, in essence, embezzling for the previous 20+ years. But the fact that the Treasury now needs to pay the SS Trust fund interest payments on its holdings is not due to any deficit or failure of the fund itself or the payroll taxes that support it. That's like blaming the victim and not the burglar. The most immediate danger to the funds is using "temporary" cuts or suspensions of the payroll tax as tax incentives and thereby actually decreasing the current revenues for these funds. That's why the trustees had to changed the solvency date of Medicare from 2029 to 2024 earlier this year. A strict Hands-Off policy for these funds and their revenue sources is an essential first step to any plan to increase their viability.

Changing SS and Medicare does not change the policies and practices, including "borrowing" from the trust funds that have created our debt crisis. Making their necessary changes a focal point in the debate over our current debt just obscures the real problems and policies that got us to where we are.

Let's remember that even after the $4T of Treasuries was placed into the SS Trust Fund the 1998 – 2001 federal budgets all had surpluses and budget deficits did not begin again until the 2002 budget. Examining, without distraction, the period of 2002 to present is essential to understanding why we got to where we are and what policies and practices have led us here.

tabs  06/29/2011 06:11 PM Report

The SS fix of the late 90's during the Clinton administration was to place $4T USD of US Treasuries into the SS Trust fund. Therefore the SS Trust fund is funded by the debt of the USA. In other words according to ex Senator Jim Bunning of KY "There isn't a dime in the SS Trust fund, it is broke." Further Jim Gross of PIMCO on CNBC recently said that the debt of the US totals apx $100 T USD if the unfunded or accounts payable liabilities of SS and Medicare are included. Now where did this debt come from? It was stated and thus alluded to by Senator Coburn that those funds were "stolen" over a number of decades (since 1968 and LBJ) by the administrations of both Parties as not only a way to fund and hide deficit spending but as a means kicking the can of fiscal responsibility down the road. The difference now is that since that watershed moment in September of 2008 everytime our political leadership trys and kick the can it bounces back and hits them on the head in a Catch 22 situation.

waltk13  06/29/2011 05:29 PM Report

The Medicare fund is solvent until 2024; the Social Security fund can pay full benefits thru 2036 and three-quarters the promised benefit thru 2085. Neither one of these programs is responsible for a single penny of our current deficit or debt, neither program will add to the deficit or debt for more than a decade.

Senator Coburn and others who want to add Medicare and Social Security to the debate over our current debt are merely putting up a smoke screen to try and misdirect the public from the PAST governmental actions that have caused our current deficit and debt; excessive and mismanaged spending, new programs with no new revenue to support them, repeated taxes cuts for the wealthiest of Americans, corporate tax loopholes allowing multi-billion dollar companies to pay no taxes at all, two wars one of which was certainly a war of choice and both off-budget until two years ago.

I also don't understand why Charlie did not ask Senator Coburn about his debt ceiling votes for George W. Bush, who inherited a record budget surplus and left a record budget deficit, and who raised the debt ceiling 7 times in 8 years.

Medicare and Social Securtiy certainly need to be changed in order to insure their continuation for future generations without, in the future, actually adding to the deficit and debt. But, that needs to be a separate discussion and not used as a distraction or misdirection from what has caused our current debt; the conduct of multiple Congresses and Admistrations that has brought us to this point.

tabs  06/29/2011 04:35 PM Report

Every word, sentence, idea, perception and eerily even the symbolism of Senator Colburn is not only agreed with but has been expressed in one way or another over the past 2.5 years by one to Mr Rose among others via e-mail and on a Blog of ones own. The only thing Senator Coburn left out was the ramifications on the Global economy and security if the US should go into a debt crisis.

However that said let us get to the deeper meaning of Senator Coburn's exposition of the current situation facing the US on the Charlie Rose Show. One has been of the notion since late 2008 that there would be a period of relative calm preceding the next crisis much like the calm of being in the eye of a hurricane. To that end the US economy has more or less recovered staggering from one worry to another with anemic growth. No one has been able to know when that period of relative calm would come to an end.

As of late one has noticed that more and more pundits, politicians and experts whether they be academics or financial wizards have been acknowledging that a crisis is not only a potential, nor just on the horizon but is virtually on the doorstep now. This reminds one of the fact that when the Titanic hit the iceberg very few at first were aware that the ship was sinking, but when the water got ankle deep it became obvious to virtually everyone that the ship was going down. What makes Senator Coburn's exposition so unique is this is the first time so high ranking a member in the political hierarchy of the US has not only acknowleged that a failure is imminent but the ramifications of that failure. Before this it has always been an exposition of the situation with a solution while skirting around the dire affects of such a failure. Thus all pretense is gone and we have been officially warned that the storm is imminent. So the question to be asked is what are the factors that could bring this about?

1. The EU has just avoided a contagion of the debt crisis in Greece by kicking the can down the road once again

2. The US debt ceiling is being reached without the political establishment acting responsibly.

3. QE2 is coming to an end and no one knows who is going to buying US debt and for what interest rate.

4. Various State budgets are coming due which need to be balanced in a sea of red ink.

This does portend that rough waters lie ahead, and that the US is just at the begining of them.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  06/29/2011 02:03 PM Report

Great interview Charlie! My college daughter popped her head out of the bathroom and said, "I like that guy (Tom Coburn)". I heard things that I have never heard before and will have to listen again on-line.

Perhaps since you took transcripts away from us, someone can find a way to capture the closed captioning during the broadcast and convert it to a transcript and post it on-line. Perhaps Google television will have this feature?

Also, with voice recognition software it might be possible to connect the software to the television and have a transcript made during the broadcast. Then post the transcript on line.

I would think the Library of Congress might have already done this but I can't find anything.

REMant  06/29/2011 11:17 AM Report

"Prosperity" in 1986 was a bubble that burst in Oct '87, which means it was spending without productive return. Supply-siders have a far different view of the Reagan presidency, and the Kennedy tax cuts, than classical economists. But I can't disagree with the rest. We need to pay our bills. We need a broader tax base to do it. A flatter tax can BTW be a a far better way to fairness than manipulations which distort investment. We need to put the social safety net on a sounder basis. I have many times written here we are killing our future. But I don't know that our leaders are cowards or arrogant so much as enthusiasts, not only in the Congress and admin, but also in the Fed. As I suggested the other day we might well take up that $2 trillion sitting on the sidelines to pay down the debt, as it is not doing any good. Keynesianism just doesn't work. Not the spending part or the inflation part. So I don't agree with his stimulus argument. The only way to evaluate any spending is by sustainability, and until someone shows me that replacing bridges produces a needed return, I'd say it doesn't matter how many ppl are employed doing it. Employment is all the multiplier concerns. The problem with command economies is never the commands, but the objectives.