Charlie Rose

JohnGelles  07/27/2011 06:28 PM Report

do NOT match planned prosperity, peace and good fortune.

Sorry I'm watching "King Richard and the Crusaders" whil my fingers are missing the mark.

JohnGelles  07/27/2011 06:26 PM Report

do match planned prosperity, peace and good fortune.

JohnGelles  07/27/2011 06:24 PM Report

"It appears president and party are no more interested in cutting welfare spending than their [Republican] opposite numbers are paying for it.

".... The question is why and it of course hearkens back to old Keynesian-mercantilist arguments that the cause of economic difficulty is always hoarding, mainly by the rich, and any reduction in worker income will send the economy into a tailspinm refusing thereby to recognize inflation, trade imbalances, productivity problems, or even the idea of equilibrium." -- so says REMant

In fact mercantilism is a low wage, high owner-profit system of colonial rule over second class conquered people.

Keynesianism is a high wage, high profit monetary system of production intended to replace colonialism and communism with fully funded free enterprise capitalism that protects human political and economic rights from enemies, ignorance, natural and man-made disasters, and otherwise is self-critical when results do match planned prosperity, peace and good fortune.

REMant is perhaps an Austrian School true believer -- or just a confused writer who has read much and understands nothing worthwhile to a nation that would love its common people of whom God and nature have so far made so many.

REMant  07/25/2011 11:12 AM Report

This discussion seemed pretty biased. It is clear from Boehner's communique on this subject, and from the news reports Friday morning that he and the president had re-engaged in their suspended talks unknown to most of their colleagues. Boehner also wrote not that he was abandoning talks, but talks with the president, and would now talk to the Senate, and presumably that involved the latter proposal. He said the president had "moved the goal posts" demanding $400 billion additional in taxes increases in return for further entitlement cuts, presumably to save face with voters and party, who had been furious Thursday that there were no more tax increases. The Republicans had in fact already agreed to $800 billion in added revenue to be achieved from tax code overhaul. It appears president and party are no more interested in cutting welfare spending than their opposite numbers are paying for it. The question is why and it of course hearkens back to old Keynesian-mercantilist arguments that the cause of economic difficulty is always hoarding, mainly by the rich, and any reduction in worker income will send the economy into a tailspinm refusing thereby to recognize inflation, trade imbalances, productivity problems, or even the idea of equilibrium. The Post reported that there was in addition a disagreement over the penalty for not cutting as promised, with the president desiring to put off any "trigger" longer, Boehner then countering in return for that it should eliminate the healthcare mandate. Obviously, the speaker felt the president was trying improve his political position, likening it to negotiating with a bowl of Jell-O. And I do, too, especially after Obama's primetime pout. I had noticed for some time the president and his cheerleading squad attempting to couch this as a confrontation not between Democrats and Republicans, but the Republicans and he, and this was clear in his remarks, which suggested he would now seek to postpone resolution of the issue until after the election, so that "the people" can decide. Earlier in the day he had in fact been at the U of Maryland drumming up support for tax hikes. The Senate Dems had abandoned the McConnell-Reid hoping the House would agree to the larger measure, because Republicans have demanded any increase in the debt be matched by spending cuts. I regret to say that given our system of govt it would perhaps make more sense if legislators confronted each other rather than working through surrogates, as haphazard and combative as that is certain to be. The president, however, imoeriously demanded Congressional leaders come back to the White House, and his press sec'y began making dire predictions about market response, to which Boehner alluded when he remarked that the day TARP passed the Dow dropped 800 points.

On Saturday Boehner told his colleagues he expected an agreement by the end of the weekend, and the Post reported Sunday that the plan is to cut $1 trillion and authorize the same amount in additional borrowing, which is supposed to get the govt through the end of the year. Congress will then begin cutting another $3 trillion, involving tax code and entitlement changes. The Dems still want to postpone that until after the election. But by then it will have been two years since they were elected to do this. If the our constitution cannot be more responsive then perhaps we need to switch to a parliamentary one. Sunday, however passed with no agreement.