In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:
itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/11825
Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.
Close
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
vongleichent 02/27/2012 09:24 AM Report
hmm public awareness after having gone through OWS the people are having a real good understanding. That the rich are getting richer. The 1% in the country.
NeilMacCallister 08/10/2011 10:58 PM Report
Okay, winter, ...I promise to vote for Barack Obama in 2012 if he will announce:
"If you want me back in 2012, ..You have to pass those 'term limits' which America needs to survive!!!
"No more 30-year 'on-the-dole' legislators!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"No more 'Beg me, or I won't pass America's budget'!!"
***
No, winter, I want a man (..or woman) with the brains to say:
"You can't have me back in 2012 unless you pass a 'Balanced Budget Amendment' before voting day!!"
"You have my terms!"
***
Now THAT would be a leader!!
winter 08/08/2011 06:33 PM Report
I don't. So you're starting to see a little more clearly now that you recognize the corporate welfare. As far as voting, they all get seduced by lobbies. Even Obama has made concessions to big pharma. Doesn't matter who's in, you have to stop the cancer at its source ...thats corporate pimps not their whores. Its the career minded college kids who will eat your heart, fraternity boys.
Even entitlements get spent with them ...eventually. They thrive in this cutthroat competition. Some people don't care if we have a Civilization.
NeilMacCallister 08/08/2011 01:54 AM Report
winter??? ..do you read what you write???
.."We subsidize Exxon"
***
Why????? ..Why does our Congress do that????
Why do you vote for people who waste our money like that????
..Just askimg.
winter 08/07/2011 03:25 PM Report
People who watch other people work making more money than those they watch; like working people were their ant farm.
We subsidize Exxon even though they make billions profit per quarter yet somehow if we were to take away the subsidies they'd cause the price of gas to rise and blame it on that their subsidy was taken away yet not dip into the profit side of their books for prices remain stable. So that has to mean taxpayers susidies go straight to their profit. Of course they'd never confess to his line of reasoning and come up with their own obfuscatory way of rationalizing artificialy inflated gas prices. We really should just nationalize big oil and utilities and return profits to reducing costs to consumer aka taxpayers. You can call it socialism but I call it arresting the cabals.
basillubbock 08/07/2011 07:53 AM Report
Yes, Clinton's tax increase as part of the Budget Bill of 1993 along with increases in fees, etc and decreases in spending in selected programs set the stage for ultimately achieving a balanced budget. I would like to add that 0 Republicans voted for the bill. 0 in the House, and 0 in the Senate. Since the Senate was split 50/50, Al Gore as President of the Senate pro tem cast the deciding vote.
Putting that experience together with the debacle of the 2001-2009 period dominated by Republicans, they should not be allowed to deal with budget matters as they appear totally dogmatic in their political motivations and therefore, unqualified.
JohnGelles 08/06/2011 07:52 AM Report
"Capitalism gor the Rest of Us" is the name of my wiki-net you should read at
http://ustaxreform.us
It is about what to do now -- as discussed in comments here.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 08/06/2011 04:23 AM Report
For every dollar gasoline increases it is the equivalent of a tax increase on the American people of $150 billion. It is a bigger burden in the South because they make less and drive more.
Remember gas prices under Clinton?
winter 08/05/2011 11:46 AM Report
Rubin advocating another round of stimulus? Thats almost funny. How does it escape him that HIS advocacy of it makes it all the less likely to ever happen. Rubins just one of the Dons of organized crime evolving into institutionalized
crime. Imagine ...15% as the tax rate for billionaires, this isn't civilization, its Thunder Dome. And the idiots keep blaming the Black guy. The magician tells you ...don't look over there, look over here.
robdverity 08/04/2011 04:22 PM Report
The markets are crashing (>-500), thanks to TARP, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein et al and their predatory practices. It all started in 2008 with guys like Rubin subverting our democracy into a plutocracy - buying confiscatory legislation, a la repeal of Glass-Steagall etc, - for personal gain. Untaxed!
Sugarland 08/04/2011 03:35 AM Report
Comment Rose 2 AUG 2011 Rubin
The displeasures expressed here in the comments toward Mr Rubin (and Wall Street in general) were fomented when the TARP was passed. The bad feelings have not faded but have increased because even to this day the big banks are heavily subsidized by the FED. These banks do not increase lending but are creating a bubble by speculating in commodities (Prices of oil above 75 $/bbl are due to speculation) and indulging in other speculative trading. This does not go unnoticed by a population facing a decade of austerity.
There is no evidence that in two years the economy will be able to tolerate either a large decrease in government spending or an increase in taxes. Either or both would cause significant contraction. Rubin’s idea to have another round of stimulus is politically improbable but would possibly just provide another round of speculation by Wall Street.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 08/04/2011 03:19 AM Report
"Look, I'm very much in favor of tax cuts, but not with borrowed money. And the problem that we've gotten into in recent years is spending programs with borrowed money, tax cuts with borrowed money, and at the end of the day that proves disastrous. And my view is I don't think we can play subtle policy here." Alan Greenspan
President Obama and Robert Rubin support returning the top tax rate (on those making more than $250,000) to 39.6% (where it was when Bill Clinton was President.) George W. Bush lowered it to 35%. It’s important to note that many, many more jobs were created during Clinton’s 8 years (22.7 million) vs. Bush’s (1.1 million.)
The evidence is overwhelming: Lower taxes on the rich obviously do not lead to more job creation.
So I agree it is a "Red Herring" to call something an increase when you have to borrow the money to afford it and it doesn't even do what it was promised to do.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 08/04/2011 03:03 AM Report
Obamacare to the Republicans--and Affordable Healthcare to the rest of us--is not only revenue neutral but will reduce the deficit.
"CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. About $124 billion of that savings stems from provisions dealing with health care and federal revenues; the other $19 billion results from the education provisions."
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/health.cfm
So healthcare is the 2012 election issue says Paul Ryan. Perhaps that is just another Republican smoke screen?
dant 08/03/2011 10:22 PM Report
What a joke. Mister humility is so sure of himself and pleased with his $5,000.00 suite and his unremarkable pro forma answers to Mr. Rose's questions. His answers are pedantic and so cool like his blue tie. This man should be wearing a pinstripes of a different type at the very least and sharing a cell with Mr. Raines, Mr. Frank, and the former executive suite inhabitants at Fannie and Fredie. How nice he cites Peter Orsag, failed economist/OMB of Obama. Get-a-Rope!
doodah 08/03/2011 06:16 PM Report
...Mitch McConnell is Still an Insufferable Bleep. To wish the Worst on his less fortunate electorate and the rest of struggling Americans just so 'the other party' will Fail to recover the Economy, to get people back up, and Hopeful again, is Absolute Treason, and Contempt of America; And if I was the benevolent dictator of this Grand Land I would have him in front of a firing squad and Shot at sunrise.
doodah 08/03/2011 06:07 PM Report
Robert Rubin wants his old job back (replace Geitner). .. Hell, why not? .He possibly could get Obama re-elected . I think he could.
If it happens, I know I'll be doing better; And that's all I care about. Arguing over ideologies is for fools with nothing to lose.
tabs 08/03/2011 05:08 PM Report
Either one is part of the solution or one is part of the problem. In Mr Rubins case he is part of the problem, as the last time he was interviewed by Mr Rose he stated that he did not see the RE Bubble collapsing. For someone who has attained the heights of power this is an amazing statement considering that every Roofer, Drywall Man, Electrician and Plumber working in construction were all wondering when the euphoria would end.
What we see in Mr Rubin is a continuation of in the Box thinking that has passed for the "conventional wisdom" of the era. Mr Rubins thinking is what got us into this mess and it is his thinking that continues to compound the problems.
"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 3/17/11 from an e-mail to Mr Rose.
Perhaps if one were to see that ones policies are not working to alleviate a problem instead of doubling down on those policies one were to start thinking about working from the counter intuitive end of the string one might have more success. For it is insanity to keep on doing the same thing over and over again thinking that the results will be different this time.
cptprocess 08/03/2011 04:45 PM Report
It is shameful that you would have Robert Rubin on as a guest after the damage he caused this country. At least Bernie Madoff is in prison.
robdverity 08/03/2011 03:55 PM Report
Mr. Rubin should be across from Bernie Madoff, not CR. He and Sandy Weill, both from Citibank (one of the world's most egregious anathemas) were instrumental in buying the repeal of Glass-Steagall (separating commercial banking from brokerage activity) which among other things enabled the fleecing of America (and the world) thru the subprime meltdown. The all too clever derivatives and other leveraging flim-flams ultimately crow barred us over the edge. Below is a bit of Glass-Steagall origins:
Following the Great Crash of 1929, one of every five banks in America fails. Many people, especially politicians, see market speculation engaged in by banks during the 1920s as a cause of the crash.
In 1933, Senator Carter Glass (D-Va.) and Congressman Henry Steagall (D-Ala.) introduce the historic legislation that bears their name, seeking to limit the conflicts of interest created when commercial banks are permitted to underwrite stocks or bonds. In the early part of the century, individual investors were seriously hurt by banks whose overriding interest was promoting stocks of interest and benefit to the banks, rather than to individual investors. The new law bans commercial banks from underwriting securities, forcing banks to choose between being a simple lender or an underwriter (brokerage). The act also establishes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), insuring bank deposits, and strengthens the Federal Reserve's control over credit.
The Glass-Steagall Act passes after Ferdinand Pecora, a politically ambitious former New York City prosecutor, drums up popular support for stronger regulation by hauling bank officials in front of the Senate Banking and Currency Committee to answer for their role in the stock-market crash.
The abject misery the likes of Mr. Rubin et al has caused is unconscionable. The misery quotient alone measured in crimes against humanity is enuff for a Madoff incarceration longevity.
SharkswithfrikingLazers 08/03/2011 03:37 PM Report
Charlie--great guest idea. Too bad he was a bit cagey in his answers. Perhaps he is the figurehead and the real guy worked under him? He appears to literally be a "confidence" man especially with all his "tactical" and "strategic" decisions rather than an Occam's razor guy like Warrren Buffet.
REMant 08/03/2011 12:06 PM Report
While I'm all for a balanced budget, I could not figure out how or when Mr Rubin expects to achieve it. This is not 1993 and if there is to be additional spending we have to ask where the money is going to come from, which of course the Keynesians and monetarists never do. The mkts obviously thought very little of this deal in any case, tho I am not sure whether they thought it too much or too little. As I've said before Wall St's only uncertainty is over which game we are playing, the speculation game or the value game.
We have to liquidate the bad positions taken as a result of all that cheap money, which I'm sure neither Mr Rubin nor Wall St wants to do. We should do it in stages, to allow the economy to adapt, but we can't defer it and continue to attempt to inflate, or rather depreciate. That's what they did in the 1930's and the resulting crash in 1937 was worse than the one in 1929.
Likewise, the only viable healthcare reform will be one that reduces its prices, and brings them into line with the ability of ordinary ppl to pay. And I think he doesn't understand China's financial position one iota.
You really can't promote balanced budgets and at the same time the kind of leveraging that has been going on. Mr Rubin's involvement in things that helped bring about this crisis will cause many to question his motives regardless.
Regarding Dodd-Frank, you may be surprised to learn that a 100% fractional bank reserve formed part of FDR's economic advisors' program, altho it got lost among the colossally wrong-headed ideas put into effect to increase demand at the expense of investment, like the prohibition on retained earnings, promotion of unionization, and abandonment of the gold standard. The UK's Bank Charter Act of 1844 adopted after a similar crisis mandated 100% gold reserves for note issue, tho no stipulation was made for demand deposits, which were then relatively new. In the US at this time very small banks have no reserve requirements, the biggest banks only 10%, which it is argued, of course, allows for more flexibility in money management, in other words, for creating inflation.