Charlie Rose

chawlybygolly  01/22/2012 09:16 AM Report

After all the media(gay) DRAMA and their fart dust settles. It all comes down to, WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA! AT THE TIME!!!

So

All the professional politicians, fakers, game players, and amateur ideologues(genuine Idiots), will live to see to Stink Up another day.

chawlybygolly  01/22/2012 07:57 AM Report

The 'Das Newt' operated like a German U boat (exactly as I proposed when the so-called "pundits" wrote him off after his "expert advisers" quit him to 'Advise' Rich Perry, like as if a gay cowboy country western star had any chance. 'Expert Pundits'.?. More like 'Overpaid Buffoons'. Over- Analyzing Politics is a Fools Sport (the operative word in, analyze, being 'Anal') or ( 'being anal') Sarcastic Punky Nerdlings and they're gay little luncheons (where they spank each other with their napkins).

The 'Das Newt', still trying to sink that arrogant merchant ship, seemingly coated in Reagan Teflon, 'The Ole Mittster'. Eventually the 'Das Newt' will run out of torpedoes, but will be quite proud of the damage he has done; And relieved, that he won't get picked on for the next 5 years like some kind of Nixon resurrection-sacricial lamb.

ShalomFreedman  01/22/2012 12:51 AM Report

I am commenting here after the results of the South Carolina primary are in. Contrary to everything Al Hunt and Martin Dowd have said all along, to the effect that Mitt Romney has the nomination sewed up, and Newt Gingrich is a kind of loser- buffoon, Gingrich knocked Romney out in South Carolina. Punditry is it seems by this example and so many others a not very precise profession. The errors here are egregious considering the kind of conservative base that exists in South Carolina. To his credit only Mark Halperin gave a chance to Gingrich in South Carolina and for the nomination.

Now I wait to hear the up and coming wisdom from the pundits on the next round.

Gelles  01/19/2012 06:58 AM Report

[To repeat a thought and add comment on Iranian Ambassador and Feinstein who were interviewed on TV while this interview was on the video above:)

" A newer system of money-based full employment overcomes the paradox of thrift and austerity.

" It creates money wherever it is needed to add real wealth by employing humans and machines to produce the things we need.

" Profit is measured in logistical units of needs satisfactions.

===============

The Iranian Ambassador was the consummate diplomat. He told like it must be told to merit your position.

If Iran adhered to his promises and Russia really is a friend to mankind, an attempt to bomb Iran's nuclear war potential may be unnecessary. These two IF's are not in the ball park. But something else may suggest inaction not bombing.

Feinstein admitted he would like to add politics to his beat. I wish he would.

Gelles  01/19/2012 06:34 AM Report

I just watched the video of the Show, recorded above, and before it the Show for 18 Jan with the Iranian Ambassador and John Feinstein. It's 3 o'clock in the morning -- tomorrow is Thursday -- courts are washed, there's no tennis at 7:30 am.

Someone will be president next year: Obama or a conservative Republican. Neither will have promised the radical economic reform that guaranteed full employment and vast economic growth to fix America and stabilize global rivalries in favor or prolonged peace and development. The end of poverty and war is not in sight.

Romney did promise a return to American practice away from European welfare state-ism. In place of guaranteed economic rights and entitlements, as defined by FDR's Second Bill of Rights, which FDR offered on 11 January 1944 as a means to prevent totalitarian tyrannies and world wars, Romney wanted some form of casino capitalism based on financial risk being added to inherent risks to life on earth. Romney is an idiot in this respect. He also is no diplomat when he mentions China or considers Chimerica at the moment.

This leaves Obama, Santorum, and Gingrich as possible presidents who might be better than Romney, and a Romney who might come to life and do more for America than he ever did for himself. Optimism is free. I prefer it to the opposite. I see a magic bullet in the concept of "the paradox of austerity and thrift fully understood and overcome":

..... " THE  PARADOX  OF  AUSTERITY  AND  THRIFT

IT  CONFOUNDS  MICRO-  BUT  CREATES  MACRO-  ECONOMICS

" After all is said and done, one man's output at work is, roughly speaking, another man's input to his standard of living. And vice-versa.

" In a perfect world we would produce for sale (in the so-called "market") what others buy; and we would buy what other's sell. Our output would pay for our input.

" And they would not be exactly equal to other people's "numbers". Some people would put more in and want to take more out -- to reward and encourage higher "numbers", that meant a better living standard for some, over a period of time.

" This describes an era before "money" was invented.

" Money changed all this (so called barter.) Money meant that, by agreement, work was not exchanged for work. Work was priced in money -- and then priced things were exchanged in a market system at market prices.

" It became easy to create and store money to motivate more people to produce more things for sale that might be kept in inventories of stored things.

" This new system this new system of money welcomed unemployment and all the problems that have followed.

" A newer system of money-based full employment overcomes the paradox of thrift and austerity. It creates money wherever it is needed add real wealth by employing humans and machines to produce the things we need. Profit is measured in logistical units of needs satisfactions.

" Hyper-inflation is attacked head-on. All the economic tools we invented between 1941 and 1944 will again be in play."

http://www.outputbasedmoney.info/.crs.htm

tabs  01/18/2012 05:00 PM Report

Ahh the hunt for the REAL Romney is on. While both FDR and Romney share the same Patrician background. The real difference is that FDR suffered from Polio (adversity) which brought forth his mortality and thus a humility and pathos. In other words he joined the rest of the human race and as such could relate to people.

Mr Nixon was a brilliant and talented man who always felt that because of his humble beginnings that he had to make up for the perceived advantages that his wealthier political opponents had (inferiority). He did this by playing the game of politics as rough or rougher than they did. For this he felt guilty and thus was always defensive about it. As such Mr Nixon aways tried to fit into the mold of what he thought he should be and never let himself shine for the brilliance that he had. Whereas his political opponents never gave playing rough a second thought as they just saw it as part of the rules of the game.

As an aside one should think about Nixon's feelings of guilt in terms of his moralistic Quaker upbringing. In a sense Nixon felt he was a fallen angel that had turned to the dark side of his nature as a necessity. To this end, Nixon should be remembered for not asking for a recount of the Illinois vote in the 1960 Presidential election, as everyone knew that voter fraud had occurred in Chicago. As he said he did this for "The good of the nation." Which was a setting aside of his personal interest and ambition.

In conclusion, unfortunately Nixon felt good guys finsih last, and that was the last thing in the world that he was going to do.

REMant  01/18/2012 11:52 AM Report

South Carolinians were in the forefront of both the Revolution and the Civil War. It is thus somewhat ironic they appear to be so completely hoodwinked by someone like Mitt Romney. They went overwhelmingly tho for FDR in 1932 and James Byrnes was a South Carolinian. But maybe they expect something different this time.

Republican elites, I think, are elites first, and republicans second. Being the nominee, however, is far from being elected, and I doubt it will be a foregone conclusion. The fact is that no one, thankfully, is quite as enthusiastic about Romney as he is, tho I regret to say I think a plurality believe he is less problematic than his rivals. As I said the other day, I think he represents a certain nostalgia that is mostly fanciful, but potentially dangerous, and I'd hope the electorate would spend a little less time looking at propaganda and put in a little more on due diligence.

Romney strikes me to have a case of simple stage fright. I'd say that was probably true of Nixon as well. Perhaps they share an inferiority complex. Nixon (like a lot of other American politicians) was ashamed of his father and attached to his mother, tho I am not at all certain that situation always redounds to the mother's credit. I have heard it remarked he gave brilliant presentations while at Bain. But it may say more about preparation. Adolf was always prepared. What happens tho when he isn't? We've seen a few examples of that already. I notice, too, that he strikes poses like FDR, and tries to make jokes like Reagan, which seem only to serve to heighten the sense of condescension and distance from ppl, tho I think he is similarly narcissitic.

He did, indeed, graduate from Harvard Law and B-school, but leaving aside the low opinion most professionals have of these two schools, he must be seen, in the parlance, as a "legacy." There was little short of moral turpitude that was going get him kicked out. Ppl rarely flunk out of grad school anyway and acceptance is tantamount to graduation. Thus employers usually discount high grad school grades.

Yesterday CBS showed Romney saying he makes most of his income from investments, but gets a little insignificant income from speaking, which, however, was reported to be $375,000 this yr.

William D. Cohan, a columnist for Bloomberg View, and a banker who dealt with Bain during the Romney era, wrote in an op-ed for the Post last week that the co made it's money by overbidding its private equity competitors in early rounds to eliminate competition, then in final negotiations forcing its prey to accept considerably less, raising the question of both Romney's integrity and trustworthiness. Cohan said in the end he avoided doing business with them.

And if you look at the firms Romney is holding up as examples of his job-creating abilities, they are first of all, all retailers. The only innovation was simple economies of scale like Walmart and Home Depot (to some Home Despot) and many a discount store. One can argue that it is only fair to combat producer power with consumer power, and that the margin on much of this is minimal, but there's no doubt that while it created jobs, it eliminated many more and put a lot of small, local firms out of business.

There's no doubt that it was hard in many places to get office supplies at a good price before Staples, Office Depot, etc came along. But except for cheap DIY furniture and computer accessories, I think the firm would be out of business today. If you want quality stuff, you still pay the same exorbitant "business" prices as before, supplied I believe from the same catalogs.

Before Sports Authority it was generally difficult to get a lot of sports equipment and it followed the Bobo fitness craze, now largely fizzled. Far fewer ppl run or play tennis than they did circa 1980, tho I suppose they still buy the logos. But it too put a lot of mom-and-pop's out of business.

Domino's found a niche as a nationwide fast food chain which unlike the hamburger places offered something both deliverable and acceptable for dinner. (Tho I am waiting for a comparable Chinese food operation.) But it was hardly the first pizza place, just the first not to offer a place to eat in, following the model of McDonald's.

I doubt then any more of a case can be made for Romney's business acumen than for Rick Perry's.