Charlie Rose

JohnGelles  08/28/2011 07:08 AM Report

Neil~

I see our present generation of young soldiers laying down to die for the liberty you and I enjoy.

It's time to pay them a bundle at war and when they are veterans -- no longer soldiers.

Pay them enough and we will have enough demand to hire and pay all the people out of work because conservative thoughts fail to account for modern mass production.

NeilMacCallister  08/22/2011 09:12 PM Report

It is more than just "Tax Reform" that we need, John, ..we need to revive a thinking and responsible public.

We all see the theft, waste, and vote-bribing from our modern politicians, ..and the resultant current disarray of our nation and our individual livelihoods, ..but who cares about this, John????

What I see in so many voters' arguments, is a jubilation of 'misology' (..a "hatred of reason"). That is probably because a close viewing of our facts and situation would suggest acts of responsibility which too many voters do not want to make, ..for fear of losing some temporarily comforting government bribe-money.

It is sad if America lays down and dies this way, John.

JohnGelles  08/17/2011 07:23 AM Report

http://ustaxreform.us/me98

Link above ties recent related interviews together.

JohnGelles  08/16/2011 11:22 PM Report

Well Neill it is very easy to agree with all you wrote about fact and controversy.

I say IF we had Sam-in-Texas face to face we could reach agreement on the good ideas of conservative Republicans. Your list of future possible projects is excellent in my view.

I have suggested in the past that we here and now could invent a new form of collaborative wiki. It would be a far more efficient wiki I beleive that Wikipedia.

The key to my form of wiki ( two samples are at http://ustaxreform.us ) is separate pages NOT consensual pages.

We donot bother with seeking consent and compromise. Just the opposite, all we do is allow unlimited copying without attribution or copyright.

[to be contintued if necessary -- better if you guys continue at this point.]

NeilMacCallister  08/16/2011 07:25 PM Report

See what I mean, John??? ..Here it is again!!

SaminTexas can't allow the fact that the '07-'08 and the '09-'10 Congressional sessions were both Democratic majority Congresses!!

If we don't want to learn from our history, we ought to just pull off our rear-view mirror and throw it away!

And if we don't want to open our eyes to the road ahead, ..we might as well just pull that steering wheel off and throw it out the window!!

SaminTexas  08/16/2011 06:05 PM Report

It is a mistaken notion that Liberals and Progressives had a majority of both houses of Congress from 2006 until 2010. This is a false idea, considering that there are a number of so-called "blue dog Democrats" that, if their campaign ads are to be believed, are simply Republicans by another name.

Additionally, we should note, by contrast, that Republicans are almost all in lock-step at any given time. Whereas Republicans can peel off several of the Democratic Caucus members, namely the aforementioned Blue Dogs, at best, the Democrats get some consideration from one or two "moderate" Republicans (Olympia Snow or Susan Collins), and that's after going right of center.

NeilMacCallister  08/16/2011 03:28 PM Report

John, I admire your respect for 'purpose'. Some say that the ability to envision a purpose was the "step-up" which brought us to Homo sapiens.

But purpose suggests work. And work requires plans. And plans require established facts.

Without an agreement upon a few basic facts, ..we can get nowhere regarding purpose, ..and I suppose we then degenerate back to being just walking pieces of meat.

***

But our politicians and our media are so reluctant to allow (..even one little thing!) ..to be a "fact".

Remember 2008? ..when no one Charlie's show could describe where all the money was going???

No one can agree to how many people are unemployed, ..or if we are in a "recession" or a "recovery", ..or if tax-hikes create revenues or destroy revenues, ..or if the Earth is warming, ..or if the poor are helped more by government handouts or private sector jobs!

How is this nation's power grid? ..its water systems? ..its libraries??

Are we going to Mars? ..Who needs a high-speed Train??

Is anyone still working on nuclear fusion technology? ..or water desalinization?

What is the 'cost/benefit' ratio of the Federal Government? ..how much of the money that it takes in is used on infrastructure building and feeding the poor, and how much of it is used simply to pay itself wages???

Will America be alive in 2020? ..or will we be dead and buried by then???

JohnGelles  08/16/2011 09:19 AM Report

Neil asked,

..a "capitalism for the rest of us"?? ..Isn't that like trying to construct an "algebra for the rest of us"??

Answer yes. There are about as many algebras as capitalisms -- say a score or more. I cannnot name them for you. But each has a different purpose. Purpose is the key to everything we do. You can infer that nature has no purpse or that God does have a purpose. Proof is not possible. But our brains allow for purpose and I say IT IS WHAT REALLY COUNTS.

My purpose is made explicit in my comments. What is Neil's?

JohnGelles  08/16/2011 09:13 AM Report

The capitalism THEY have chosen has sold us out for a crack at Asian markets.

JohnGelles  08/16/2011 09:08 AM Report

Neil~

Thanks for taking an interest in opinions I have expressed.

I like the difference between Krugman and Rogoff. Krugman sees Keynes and the deficit in demand as sources of thought to solve the jobs problem. Rogoff sees a conventional adjustment of debt to the realities of performance as the way to go -- even if it takes years to recover national performance that will bring America back to better levels of employment and middle class economic security.

You, on the other hand, are focused on politics -- not our monetary system of production. Politrics is important -- but making a living comes ahead of all else when making a living is in doubt.

We had Quakers and geniuses like Franklin and Jefferson in 1789. But we did not have the computer power to replace a billion clerks and cashiers with the wit of Alexander Hamilton. I'm into Hamilton. Were he alive we would have the contstitution we need today -- not one made for an agricultural economy just starting on mechanical monsters the size of Texas. Consider our power grid; communications infrastructure; means of transportation; energy usage; etc., etc.

The issue is not Quakerism. It is industrial organization to feed 7 billion people and avoid WW III.

Our constitution is remarkably enduring. It is a Keynesian document that empowers us to coin money and make war. But it saw the enemy as domestic tyranny. In fact, the enemy is domestic ignorance.

The capitalism THEY have chosen has sold us out ro a crack at Asian markets. Capitalism for the rest of US cannot be reclaimed by ignorant parties who want a weak central government and strong stupid rhetoric from people without a decent education.

You know doubt count yourself a patriot. What do you propose that will achieve middle class protection, the highest minimum standard of living on earth, continued military superiority, and leadership in the struggle for human rights and humanitarian goals?

What would you like to see as the world's reserve currency other than the dollar? Or is that not an issue on your mind? I mean for the next 50 years.

NeilMacCallister  08/15/2011 07:05 PM Report

John? ..a "capitalism for the rest of us"?? ..Isn't that like trying to construct an "algebra for the rest of us"??

Algebra, and capitalism, are what they are! ..It is either algebra, or capitalism, ..or it isn't!

I guess you have a personal difficulty just admitting that capitalism is more stable and fair than socialism. Just like you have a problem with Barack Obama because he does not advance your arguments as much as you would like, ..and yet you still want to vote for him above anyone else!

That WSJ writer was correct!! ..America has now been paralyzed by an epidemic of cognitive dissonance!

We had hoped to be "A nation of laws, not men"! ..but then we elect our leaders based on who screen-tests the best at the auditions, ..or who went to that university we all think is cool!

We have almost entirely disowned the real "progress" of our guiding Constitution (with EXACTLY that type of FDR "re-write" you continue to preach!) ..and have regressed 300 years back into being literal "quakers"! (..unstable, and unsustainable!!)

We need to climb back upon that firm foundation called our Constitution, and get back to work stabilizing our future for the sake of our children!

JohnGelles  08/15/2011 01:18 PM Report

This conversation is about presidential leadership in speeding up recovery of jobs and wealth -- before an angry America goes into the streets looking for trouble.

It is also about the future of democracy and economic democracy after globalized capitalism outlasted socialism -- in competing for political success in Europe and Asia.

It is also about ending poverty and Islamic fascism -- two factors that pose a threat to progress in coming decades. Poverty will yield to production if money is applied to its causes. Islamic fascism will yield to some of the impulses behind the Arab Spring. But it may also persist long enough to bring on nuclear war. Perhaps not a nuclear winter -- with everyone dead in a year. But terrorists may be able to kill thousands and create enough fear for freedom to be constrained by homeland security in action.

Our President has thus far been a failure in job creation and middle class economic security protection. He was elected by a gaggle of voting interests that has fallen apart for his lack of planning and leadership.

Excuses abound. But the only reason to vote for him again will be that no political force opposing him makes any sense. They are all unable to mobilize support for reforms that make sense and would implement a democratic agenda that included the Secoond Bill of Rights and a production system to pay for it in real wealth for ordinary people.

I am trying on my website to describe "a capitalism for the rest of us." The capitalism we have is for no one -- not even for the birds. The very "successful", like Murdoch, will soil their own shorts because "competition" drives common sense and common decency out of bounds.

Too little competition and we vegetate. Too much and we commit crime as matter of habit.

The 20th Century, with Hitler and Stalin, set a record for evil leadership likely never to be surpassed. This 21st remains connected to 20th in terms FDR understood: his bill of economic rights recognized the potential for ruining the character and habits of ordinary people by wrecking the system by which they earn a living.

Join me (or not) on your site linked to mine at

http://ustaxreform.us

Its political position is somewhere in between the President and his former ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman. Its economic attachment is very close to Krugman and Bernanke. Money and high techology are the best two things we have going in the war agaist poverty and the war against war. Each (money and HT) looks to the future more than to the past. Or, at least each better do that. These are the "interesting times" in which reform takes place. They demand the leadership I find missing -- even AWOL -- the crime I believe the commander in chief is guilty of, along with Charlie Rose. They don't beieve in miracles. But that's the job they wanted.

doodah  08/15/2011 08:43 AM Report

The Tea Party and Republicans are Totally dedicated to the BIG Corporate Wall Street 'Financial-Services' parasitical ideology of creating wealth. They have absolutely No Respect for hard work, honest work, and Americans in general. If the working-class supporters of the Tea Party Knew the Truth behind their motives, they would take them by the hair and burn them in effigy.

JohnGelles  08/14/2011 11:25 PM Report

On his own show, Fareed Zakaria on Aug 14 (CNN GPS) invited Paul Krugman and Ken Rogoff to debate the real choices we have -- between (1) rapid recovery using Keynesian-Krugman WW II tools to mobilize for peace (as we did for war) and (2) slow Rogoff work-off of unprecedented debt by conservative tools that see debt as fundamental and people as expendable.

Krugman represents WWII type thinking that puts debt and deficit on back burners -- as massive government buying of all our mixed economy can produce -- is thrown at the "enemy" (in war or peace -- in peace we are our own worst enemy --) and everyone is needed to supply all our real needs.

Krugman introduced a thought experiment: if aliens were invading, we would find the money to fight. The President would lead us to victory and pay off the debt, if any, that we did not write down to zero. If the aliens won the war, we would see our money and wealth decline unless we were burned to a cinder. Assuming the aliens were frinedly, they might offer a Marshall Plan -- and we would be on the recovery road.

Rogoff did not accept the thought experiment. He said it was Orson Wells all over again.

All three, Krugman, Zakaria and Rogoff, and Charlie Rose (if he had been there), stayed mostly clear ot Bernanke and QE (quantitative easing) -- Krugman not really clear, but not clutching Bernanke as his life-saver.

I would have preferred a different thought experiment. We should imagine Chi-merica as a Wal-Mart on steroids. We should imagine they teamed up with Bernanke to make sure

that the trillions of greenbacks we spent on clean energy independence, ending homelessness, hunger and joblessness, etc., were matched by inflation-protected savings for a short time while the econom ramped up to fill all shelves with things that money buys -- as those put to work began to spend the greenbacks they earned for producing all we needed recover as quickly as we did in 1942. We had zero unemployment in less than a year.

In other words -- most of you here object to the Keynesian notion of lots of money being there for the working.

But you do not object to the Keynesian notion that there is lots of supply to be had for the working -- especially with the tools of mass production.

We know today, after Nixon, that money is a system of accounting not a pot of gold.

We know that the system we need is called cost accounting -- not profit and loss accounting.

We know it always works in war.

We know it always works in peace if we have leaders who know it.

We know Obama must learn it -- or he will not be re-elected.

UNLESS Obama defeats a Republican who is so bad we are afraid to dump Obama -- in spite of his lack of knowledge and leadership.

Let us hope Obama wakes up immediately. People are suffering needlessly because he choses to remain clueless. Krugman has told him the truth. Rogoff is just another Herbert Hoover.

doodah  08/14/2011 08:07 PM Report

I'm afraid 'Buddy Roemer' already tried that route, Miss Ellen (accepting no more than $100 contributions from each individual, including CEOs), . PBS won't even help him out for that. He's nonexistent to the media (because his priority is attack corruption, their bosses) , so it goes.

Ellen_Dibble  08/14/2011 07:47 PM Report

I heard it costs $30 to vote in the Iowa straw poll. So it's not surprising Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul drew at the top. To me, at least. I think what used to be called the "dead-enders," by Rumsfeld et al, referring to those who could not be bribed or persuaded, I believe, are a growing portion of the electorate right here in the USA. So they are probably no more likely to vote even if it is totally free. But it does seem that real vision is going to have to come from the people, not the politicians. To think of accepting leadership from the likes of some of these candidates, at least as presented, is like entering a very bad-hair-day. Anyone with any good as-yet-unhatched ideas, please write to your congresspeople today, concisely and pragmatically.

doodah  08/14/2011 07:42 PM Report

I'm not the Delusional one here. So continue more babble about how everything's OK with the republicans; especially now that they're calling for a 'Repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act'. They Must be getting Paid (Bribed) pretty damn good to try that one.

NeilMacCallister  08/14/2011 06:28 PM Report

You still can't say it, doodah. You can't ALLOW it.

You choke-back your own freedom.

doodah  08/14/2011 05:41 PM Report

... and Unfortunately, it won't be for 'Tim Pawlenty'. doesn't that make you glad? Is That what you wanted for America, Sassy Michelle and Senile Grandpa Ron chasing off the only Normal guy in the Republican Party. No wonder your so congenial .

Ha ha hah aha haha haha haha hah

doodah  08/14/2011 05:31 PM Report

Neil, you make as much sense as Michelle Bachman. Now Neil down and bend over, the Tea Party wants to cast their vote.

NeilMacCallister  08/14/2011 04:51 PM Report

Yes, Irish!! ..Oceans churn!! ..Storms blow!!

And it's much harder to find progress, when sails are left to flap unsecured!

***

It was a simple question, doodah, ..Who would allow more jobs back quicker? ..Herman Cain or Barack Obama?

Three postings, ..over six hours, ..and you couldn't find the lips to say it!

So you sat and spun, ..like a maple seed on the wind, ..a "wing-nut"!

***

Ah! ..the American story!

"For Moby Dick, the huge white sperm whale: who is old, hoary, monstrous, and swims alone; who is unspeakably terrible in his wrath, having so often been attacked; and snow white.

"He is warm-blooded, a mammal. And hunted, hunted down."

(D. H. Lawrence)

***

If our Pequod goes down again, ..who was our Ahab??

IRISH  08/14/2011 02:16 PM Report

From the Far North and at 40,000 feet perspective on America, the State of the Union is such that the great internal contradictions of the political, economic, cultural and social spheres demonstrate that America is adrift with no safe harbour.

doodah  08/14/2011 12:17 PM Report

I'm starting to notice some Evil Banking Lobby Influence in the Republican rhetoric, "repeal of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act", which, as I understand it, is a watered down 21st century version of the Glass-Steagall regulations. The republicans are using it as the latest excuse (besides President Obama "raising taxes") for the dead economy.

When will enough be enough for the Punks running Wall Street?! And subsequently, Everybody else.

Small Business WAKE UP!!! Wall Street is NOT your friend!!!! Their idea of 'Risk Management' is to pull the rug out from under your feet. THEY JUST DID IT!!! NOT BUT JUST 2-3 YEARS AGO. Now Michelle Bachman wants to help them do it again.

doodah  08/14/2011 09:51 AM Report

"(Extending the Bush tax cuts is) rank demagoguery. We should call it for what it is. If these people were all put into a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn't come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion. So, to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, should be ashamed of themselves."- David Stockman, Retired Reaganomic 'Prodigy' Republican TruthTeller

You can believe no professional republican politician or amateur brainwashed wingnut is going to be making any speeches like that. .. Maybe as the car is falling off the cliff, they Might concede a little.

doodah  08/14/2011 06:17 AM Report

Good Morning Neil.

Ah, "Who lowers the unemployment rate quicker? ..and deeper?". "Barack Obama, or Herman Cain?".

Who? (the operative word) No "who" is going to change anything; Only PACIFY some crazy, redundant 'us against them' wingnut ideology (within the loony mind).

Reinstating the Glass-Steagall financial regulations that the banking lobby paid the politicians to eliminate so they could credit default swap the economy into oblivion; and to pay themselves handsomely to do that. Would do more to restore confidence than any damn politician or mentally satisfied wingnut.

Either one works for me, because it don't make no difference. If Bachman is elected, what is she gonna do? Throw eggs at Obama at the Pep-Rally like a good little cheerleader?. Or Ron Paul, gonna put us on the gold standard and eliminate the military and SAVE America (from itself... and the rest that unpredictable world).

NeilMacCallister  08/14/2011 02:19 AM Report

Don't you want to answer that question, doodah?? .. .. Why not???

If you want to free our ever enlarging 'unemployed America' from begging for bread into eternity, ..then have the decency to speak the truth that you know!!

Why would you not???

NeilMacCallister  08/13/2011 09:26 PM Report

Who lowers the unemployment rate quicker? ..and deeper?

Barack Obama, or Herman Cain?

doodah  08/13/2011 08:15 PM Report

Michelle Bachman and Ron Paul together get about 2/3 of the Straw Vote convention. The Biggest Nuts of the bunch. Republicans are really losing it. Wow. No wonder Obama took a vacation, he has Nothing to worry about (so Henry Louis Gates relax). No Way America will vote for a Michelle Bachman, whose husband looks like Barbara Bush. Not gonna happen. Even if he wears a dress.

NeilMacCallister  08/13/2011 07:07 PM Report

Hah! ..Slim thinks he, and Black Americans, "operate in the same environment as the President".

When was the last time YOU were handed a $4 trillion dollar credit card by a bunch of white men in Congress, Slim??

When was the last time YOU were sold a small mansion at half-price? ..or were served a free lobster dinner by 6 satin-jacketed waiters on a golf course in Rio de Janeiro?

And our President's lovely daughters will never be found anywhere NEAR the over-priced but still failing public schools the rest of us see our children seated into!

***

And Susan hates the "income disparity" which has grown in the same 40 years which also gave us no-fault divorce, abortion-on-demand (for one of the sexes), 'no test' grade promotions in our schools, "medical" marijuana, a vast increase of "pay-not-to-play" social welfare stipends, and a policeman who fines me 50 dollars if I leave my trashcan out at the curb too long.

Where is all the money going???

How about into the pockets of those government workers chosen by their government-employed friends for an additional seat upon that board which draws above-average pay for sitting at a desk bearing a name-plate which says that they are the ones providing us our "good lives".

In my county, we have two assistant district attorneys who the other employees watched punch each other in the face the for the right to advance to the lead District Attorney position being vacated by a retirement.

We need a leader who can "dream" us OUT of this stinking mess!!!

***

I still like H. Cain (to allow jobs to stand up unafraid!) and M. Bachmann (to untangle our America-choking tax rat-nest!)

jlhs  08/13/2011 04:10 PM Report

Thought I was going mad listening to both extreme political wings criticize Obama, while believing he was doing well considering the circumstances. Terrific program Charlie, thank you for providing a platform where the middle can be heard.

Slim  08/13/2011 02:41 PM Report

Here we go again, another critique from white never never land. Never a black face or opinion, even or maybe, especially on "THE" Black President. In honkey nirvanna, black thought and opinion don't exist let alone matter, and America's racism doesn't effect Republican strategies fielded against this President; the rise of the tea party, southern and border state political and racial retrenchment along the lines laid out in the old Republican southern strategies, and White America's swallowing of old discredited Republican policies and the new, "big lie" of fiscal responsibility. The White Press continues to promote the interests and perogatives of their masters and the larger societies fear and distrust of the "other". Black Americans are still solidly behind this President, recognizing the environment he and they operate in, and bear witness, in disbelief, to the legacy fear and racism are now writing in this country.

charlizecourriers  08/13/2011 01:16 PM Report

Another "burp baby Obama" program. Nobody can seem to do it. Is the problem the drastically underfunded Obamacare Program. Or the mother of all budget busters! This is the reason and the issue that the 'can must be kicked down the road' so that the election campaign can be undisturbed by reality.

susanfromoakland  08/13/2011 12:56 PM Report

I watched this program yesterday. Fareed Zakari and Jonathan Chiat like to portray progressives as naive dreamers who are uncomfortable with power and get in their own way. I emphatically disagree.. It is the bold and often unpopular progressive vision throughout our history, whether fully realized or not, that has been responsible for the greatest transformation in our country--transformation that was forged through courage and, yes, compromise as well--but compromise within a context of a compelling vision. A few overarching examples, each of which contain many smaller battles fought along the way are: civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, workers rights, and more. Drew Westen is being criticized by Zakaria and Chait because Westen wants our president to create a vision (or as he calls it, a narrative) and take more of a stand for what is truly needed today. And to give another overarching example for our time is the vast and still growing income inequality, the shrinking middle class and increase of working and non-working poor over the past 40 years. Drew Westen is bold enough to say our president is not providing our country with a much-needed narrative to address the real problems we face. And he is correct. If liberals are those who dare to dream and are uncomfortable with ill-gotten and undeserved power (through financial instruments of mass destruction, Citizens United and lobbying dollars) then I say we need a lot more of these "dreamers" and fewer self-limiting pragmatists and inopportune deal makers. AND we need a leader who is not afraid to talk about the growing income disparity and its causes to help shape the narrative and direction of our country using compelling facts and stories rather than simply focusing on compromise for its own sake–which is weak and ineffective in the face of what our true priorities are at this time. Kudos to Mr. Westen for his courage! I hope it becomes contagious.

MarieIsenburg  08/13/2011 12:28 PM Report

To be a Republican may mean that business interests come first, but it hasn't always meant that the individual carries no weight. This administration doesn't represent me not because I am liberal, or because of stylistic differences. I believe its approach is fundamentally weak and has no capacity to move the country in any direction. However unlikely, if a Republican can show him/herself to be able to make significant progress on any issue that I believe is vital to this country, I will consider voting for him or her. There is so much to do that doing something may be the only alternative to doing nothing. That is where I am willing to compromise. The bottom line is that I will still probably have to vote for this administration, and they are counting on it. Either way, we are in trouble. I heard it both from a young man and an older woman this week, that they are afraid that though they are trying to do things right, there's not much for them to look forward to. And my liberal bleeding heart hurts for them.

doodah  08/13/2011 04:54 AM Report

TelltheTruth, does that mean he'll start smoking crack and pimpin' ? ..and jive talkin? and walkin. 'Honky this, Honky that'. spittin watermelon seeds at deh Press. Switchblades , basketballs, and afrosheen? ..stolen watches

mikelanza  08/13/2011 02:45 AM Report

Jeez, three commentators who thought the stimulus package was too small debate how Obama's doing. In other words, they're all trying to figure out how he can best advance a liberal political agenda.

Rather than the liberal policy interest, I'd rather hear about the national interest. These guys have no clue why so many Americans are concerned about deficits and the size of government. They act as though the fiscal crises in European governments aren't happening, that there's no limits to Keynesianism's ability to solve all economic problems.

They're living in a quaint, obsolete fantasy world. This is drivel, Charlie.

TelltheTruth  08/13/2011 01:00 AM Report

Obama has resisted the temptation to become the angry black president.

That may not be the case in a second term.

TelltheTruth  08/13/2011 12:15 AM Report

Obama held the line. He said, "If you don't agree to increase revenue on wealthy Americans I will not agree to entitlement cuts. And that's precisely what happened."

- Jonathan Chait, New Republic

What utter nonsense. The revenues HAVE NOT been increased. And certainly not on the wealthiest Americans.

What has been suggested is that the supercommittee will do that.

But anyone who believes that the supercommittee will agree to increased revenues on the wealthiest Americans is daydreaming.

The Tea Party caucus has drawn the line in the sand. And contrary to this LIE that Chait states, Obama has not yet crossed it and it won't be crossed by the supercommittee.

So while Chait talks about the inaccuracies in Drew Westen's article, he utters a bigger inaccuracy of his own.

I'll get to Fareed in a moment.

TelltheTruth  08/13/2011 12:15 AM Report

Obama held the line. He said, "If you don't agree to increase revenue on wealthy Americans I will not agree to entitlement cuts. And that's precisely what happened."

- Jonathan Chait, New Republic

What utter nonsense. The revenues HAVE NOT been increased. And certainly not on the wealthiest Americans.

What has been suggested is that the supercommittee will do that.

But anyone who believes that the supercommittee will agree to increased revenues on the wealthiest Americans is daydreaming.

The Tea Party caucus has drawn the line in the sand. And contrary to this LIE that Chait states, Obama has not yet crossed it and it won't be crossed by the supercommittee.

So while Chait talks about the inaccuracies in Drew Westen's article, he utters a bigger inaccuracy of his own.

I'll get to Fareed in a moment.

TelltheTruth  08/13/2011 12:15 AM Report

Obama held the line. He said, "If you don't agree to increase revenue on wealthy Americans I will not agree to entitlement cuts. And that's precisely what happened."

- Jonathan Chait, New Republic

What utter nonsense. The revenues HAVE NOT been increased. And certainly not on the wealthiest Americans.

What has been suggested is that the supercommittee will do that.

But anyone who believes that the supercommittee will agree to increased revenues on the wealthiest Americans is daydreaming.

The Tea Party caucus has drawn the line in the sand. And contrary to this LIE that Chait states, Obama has not yet crossed it and it won't be crossed by the supercommittee.

So while Chait talks about the inaccuracies in Drew Westen's article, he utters a bigger inaccuracy of his own.

I'll get to Fareed in a moment.

Ellen_Dibble  08/12/2011 08:24 PM Report

John, Zakaria's comment about "academics who have never held office" seemed targeting other panelist/s to me, too, and Charlie Rose clarified, saying that the two Zakaria was referring to were Barack Obama (as to how more could have been done) and himself Fareed Zakaria -- to which Zakaria agreed. Whiplash quickness for both. And at the tag end of the show, when Charlie said that he had to close the conversation, Weston requested one more word -- and got it, and it wasn't censored out. He said that he now realizes it's time to run for dogcatcher, to boost his credibility (however he phrased it), and with all three panelists on the screen, it seemed a perfect congenial moment, the right tone on each face.

By the way, I heard Obama saying the other day that "You" (we the people) have "chosen" a two-party system, and so we have what we chose. I am wondering if he means we "chose" this in 1787, or when exactly. I actually think we have more or less one party, the party of those financed by secret and deep pockets, and they run two candidates, who appear different, who "play" the electorate differently, but are both masks/faces of the same power structure. "Take me to your leader"? "Take me to your financiers."

John_W  08/12/2011 05:54 PM Report

It seems to me the show was mostly Zakaria holding forth with the proposition that Weston doesn't know is *ss from a hole in the ground and that there is NO WAY an approach suggested by Weston would have produced better results. At one point, Zakaria even stoops to a rather web-blogger like sarcasm saying (not exact quote) that: "I alway 'amused' to hear academics who have never held office saying how much more could have been done."... to denigrate Weston's position.

The way I see it, Weston has just pointed out the Obama has ruled out any, let's say, more committed, approach for more aggressive objectives (e.g. an appropriately sized stimulus) as not feasible - without even trying it, first.

Seems to me Zakaria is making the more sweeping proposition in asserting, there is NO WAY Weston's referred to approach would have produced better results. Really? no way, huh? Now who's opining with such confidence?

politicallysavvy  08/12/2011 02:43 PM Report

After reading Westen's piece in the New York Times, I was nodding my head vigorously in agreement. However, after watching this 3-person interview I have a better understanding of some of the unique roadbloacks the President is facing. I concede it is easy for me to throw punches from the comfort of my chair when I, like the 3 guests, haven't run for dog catcher. Like comment writer "MarieIsenburg" I too am a fiscally conservative liberal, but unlike MarieIsenburg I could never, never vote for any of the Republican contenders who are battling it out for the nomination. I may be disenchanted with some of Obams's actions, but I am not suicidal enough to put the reins of government back in the hands of the GOP.

JohnGelles  08/12/2011 01:32 PM Report

Obama's LEADERSHIP: The CAPACITY to pay our bills !

Drew's criticism is the same as mine:

..... ..... "Let's bail out the banks. But let's recover the means to employ all who have lost their jobs, and to rescue the home owners and ordinary people whose retirement 401's have been radically under valued."

Such recovery and rescue, especially of jobs, is well within the CAPACITY of America (and every affected nation). It is NOT within their current MONEY-power.

Drew in the NY Sunday Times, Johnathan in the New Republic, Fareed in Time Magazine and GPS on CNN, and Charlie over Bloomberg and PBS, all echo ACCEPTANCE of MONEY as it was defined for the New Deal -- and its ultimate failure to invoke Keynesian tools, before WW II more fully defined their effectiveness.

The key to Keynesian MONEY is CAPACITY to PRODUCE quality economic output to support the economic DEMAND on which SUPPLIER PROFIT depends.

Such capacity cannot be merely soft theory or rhetoric. It must be Henry Kaiser-like profound talent to deliver the necessary goods.

Exactly how much currency and deposits can we profitably inject into a capitalist economy via debt-free systems like

quantitative easing, Morrison's Keynes without debt, Douglas' social credit, Lincoln's green-backs, Benjamin Franklin's money, etc.?

How much? As much as we have unused CAPACITY of capital, labor, automated and robotic potentials -- all combined -- to outproduce the scarcity that inhibits achievement of a GREEN heaven on earth.

All of the above is called "money-crankism". The President is afraid to join Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and Richard Nixon, who were willing to save America -- with money approved by Keynes.

Obama prefers the company of Herber Hoover and all our current crop of economists, politicians and talk show hosts and guests, who are digging our grave with all the enthusiasm their ignorance affords.

Charlie Rose is the most guilty of all. If he asked his staff to bring to America voices from the debt-free money crowd in America, UK, and Canada, -- especially Mathew Forstater who understands functional finance and can be found at the Univ. of Missouri Kansas City and Bard Univ. Levy Institute.

It is true that the whole debt-free money crowd are dis-united. And it is also true that stimulus spending and borrowing, as discussed on Charlie Rose Shows, is equivalent to functional finance combined with quantitative easing -- as Obama and Bernanke have been doing.

So let me end with a huge thank-you and apology to Charlie for trying -- and a huge punch in the nose for failing.

He has given Herbert Hoover his due.

Where is his embrace of FDR's Second Bill of Rights -- financed by Keynes Without Debt (by Morrison) -- that he can read with the help of Google or at

http://ustaxreform.us/kwod.htm

MarieIsenburg  08/12/2011 12:28 PM Report

Imagine you or I or a criminal getting away with saying, "I didn't have a choice."

I will likely choose with great regret to vote for the administration that doesn't represent me. I will vote for someone who I am convinced is hurting this country but who may do less short-term damage than his opponent. For the record, I am a fiscally conservative liberal. A position that is possible but not even considered in the national debate.

REMant  08/12/2011 11:39 AM Report

I've seen some of these stories and chuckled, in part because of what they reveal about their authors' discomfiture, but mainly because I think they're plain wrong on one major point: the president obviously sees getting re-elected more important than fighting another Stalingrad. In that he follows more in the footsteps of Washington, if not Lincoln. In the Depression FDR did the same thing, and he had the Congress in his pocket for much of it, tho I'm not sure but he thought that, in true Tammany fashion, synonymous with the good of the country.

Where Republicans seem as reasonable as elephants are usually credited with being, the Dems are forever mulish and petulant, deeply envious and truly hate those they think do not love them. They feel printing money and not paying bills is perfectly fine - after all the aristocrats did it, didn't they? Generosity without strings is unimaginable, physical force, perfectly horrendous. Most of history and much of the rest of the world, however, does not agree with them. Personally I don't think there's anything that can be done about it, at least that is acceptable to civilized society. But if they want a dictator like FDR almost became, they had better be prepared for the possibility. That the man can't go anywhere without a cordon of police and an armored vehicle argues we haven't much of a democracy, much less a republic.

Roosevelt, BTW, was popular in 1935 and 1936 when the economy was feeding off the inflation generated by going off the gold standard and deficit spending, and after the absurd NRA had been struck down. That ended abruptly in 1937 with the mkt crash and the court-packing plan. In no way was this due to govt austerity, and even at its peak there was 12% unemployment. More like forced business austerity. FDR was never popular, nor even close to his Progressive predecessor, with the business community, which did everything Hoover asked to keep employment up, nor with many other segments of society, including a number of radicals and a substantial portion of the South.

Americans are particularly adept at myth-making. They've done the same with JFK and Reagan. I would read first-hand accounts of the Depression by Lionel Robbins, Benjamin Anderson and John Flynn, all of which are available at mises.org.

The most sensible thing LBJ did was to decline to run in 1968, when it was clear he had been repudiated. It was probably his finest moment, and I don't expect to see anything as honorable from a Democrat ever again. The root cause of the riots we are seeing now is just the same as in 1968 - the deceptive prosperity and rising expectations resulting from the Kennedy-Johnson economic program. Nothing to do with free speech, the draft, race relations, etc, really, just plain inflation. (See for instance http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C900466%2C00.html)

The reason we don't have jobs in America is because we had a $53 billion trade deficit in June alone, only half of which with China, and this is no one's fault but our own, made possible by printing and borrowing money. The only person who thinks otherwise is the man printing the money, and even he hesitates to do anymore of it, other, of course than stockholders and financial houses which benefit from inflation. The avg worker certainly doesn't.

There is no way a larger "stimulus" would have done anything but create a bigger problem than we have now, no matter how it was passed. And I feel relatively certain we will never see anything like agreement out of the Dems appointed to the debt commission.

In sum I thought much of what was said here was disingenuous.