Charlie Rose

davidcaruso1  12/11/2012 04:35 PM Report

To follow obama and his crazy socialst left wing agenda is just madness. He is destroying or beautiful country. <a href="http://boca-raton-cpa.com">Boca Raton CPA</a>

jason  08/03/2011 05:51 PM Report

Sanger continues his ideology centric spin.

three examples.

1. U.S. should not do spending cut because china tries to fill the void where U.S. leaves off. hello!!!! does he know the sugar daddy has run out of sugar?

2. china's false claim that the U.S. economic model is total failure, china's is better. false claim? you mean our borrow, print and spend? "too big to fail" model? to be superior to china's?

3. Obama misunderstood in Arab countries? does Sanger know Obama's approval rating in Arab countries are worse than Bush 2?

this guy talks a calm talk but the content is crazy.

JohnGelles  08/03/2011 01:33 AM Report

1. Shalom Freedman writes: "Clearly the U.S. does need to concentrate on getting its own house in order. But if it does that so exclusively as to leave the world to go on on its own , it will spur global [DECENT DEMOCRATIC] political decline."

2. Getting our house in order, IMO, must mean making our own system more not less user-friendly, hospitable, and generous. We do not need to invite profit and loss accounting to replace the golden rule and the ten commandments. If anything, we need to understand debt and limit its use to the good effects it is designed for. Where debt is not in fact easy to repay, shares of stock (or in the enterprise) are called for.

We do not want order more than fairness, we do not want to forbid great art in haste or mistake error for order. For example, our desire for speed in travel costs us millions of lives. We allow speed that is not necessary, but appears to fit some sort of order, to disorder countless individual and family lives for no compelling reason at all.

We also do not want order more than redundant systems to defend human rights at home from attack by foreign or domestic enemies. We need to understand diplomacy and the military arts and sciences as never before in history. There have never been weapons like technology has delivered. They make it absolutely necessary that we spare no expense in these matters as we have done in the past to our great regret.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/02/2011 01:16 PM Report

The White House FACT SHEET:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet-victory-bipartisan-compromise-economy-american-people

Democracy can be quite, quite messy. That is why in war time we have a "Commander-in-Chief".

This "sausage making" was hard to watch and way to distracting.

ShalomFreedman  08/02/2011 12:03 PM Report

The idea that China could ever possibly replace the U.S. as world- leader is one which should horrify anybody who cares about individual liberty and freedom. China is a totalitarian collective dictatorship that fears the freedom of its own people. Its great economic surge may continue for some time or may as many predict be soon curtailed by demographic factors, and by other internal problems, but it cannot rightly be the political model for anyone.

The real concern is less with the increasing power of China than with the declining power of the United States. The declining power of the United States means democratic forces everywhere will receive less or no support. It means U.S. allies will be more isolated. It means that state- outlaws like Iran will be able to pursue their ambitions for nuclear domination without great interference. It means most likely a worse world everywhere.

My own sense is that the United States has in the past ten years , chosen its targets unwisely. It has fought in the wrong places and wasted resources on impossible goals. I am thinking here primarily of Afghanistan, but there is a lot to be said in this regard about Iraq also.

Clearly the U.S. does need to concentrate on getting its own house in order. But if it does that so exclusively as to leave the world to go on on its own , it will spur global political decline.

REMant  08/02/2011 10:45 AM Report

The problem as Sanger says is that while the borrowing limit was increased, it doesn't mean we will be able to get the money as cheaply as we have in the past. And it is entirely possible there may yet be a run on the dollar if we do not follow this up meaningfully. Just bringing all of this out into the open has probably given many second thoughts about the its soundness.

I would not, however, play this up as a matter of the US vs China, because I assure you, China is not in all that strong a position. A trillion dollar loss may not be enough shake them, but they have debts of their own.

I do not feel Obama's foreign policy was ever all that different from the previous admin, just perhaps a little less conservative and a little more compassionate, but no different in psychology. Liberals in other countries may have liked it, but I doubt anyone else.

Stimulus spending doesn't work in these depressions, simply because it continues what brought the economy down in its first place, which basically is that such overspending ends up thru leveraging and malinvestment (like real estate) cutting so far into the real return on investments that businesses are forced to draw back and liquidation and unemployment ensue. This is exactly what happened in the late 1920's and again in 1937. The inflation masks the underlying weakness. It is also what the government is facing now. We can't pay our liabilities, because we aren't getting the tax returns. It is by no means certain that simply letting the Bush tax cuts expire will help the situation.