Charlie Rose

M8L8E  08/13/2012 11:25 PM Report

Man, I love Charlie Rose, but I think he doesn't give due respect to the Minority Leader at certain points in this interview. Although I think he handled the question about the 20-20 investigation really well.

NeilMacCallister  04/12/2012 05:22 AM Report

John? ..John, Nancy, John, Nancy, Barack, John,... the government (.."WE" in your speech) will NEVER find "the money to employ all". You know right now, in fact, that "total employment" was NEVER the goal of a our Central-Planned Obamic state! ..the ONLY goal of Barack Obama is "total employment of Barack Obama!" .."and Josephina Biden", .."and Nancy Pelosi!!"

What? ..You YOURSELF want a job??? ..Damn! ..Well, ..You'd better vote for Romney, ..and quick!!!

Gelles  04/11/2012 08:34 AM Report

The substance of the interview is "where can WE find the money to employ all of us looking for work".

Gelles  04/11/2012 08:33 AM Report

The substance of the interview is "where can find the money to employ all of us looking for work".

The form we seem to be arguing about has no meaning at all.

Pelosi and Rose know nothing about "where the money is".

Bernanke knows all. And he won't run with his own answer.

I'm pissed at everything. The richest nation in the history of Earth stands here naked and claims there is no money for teachers, firemen, and cops.

..... It (the USA) denies that, as in WW II, "a nation can afford in money anything it can PRODUCE in fact !"

Pardon me while I puke over the ignorance of Rose and Pelosi -- and the rest of you reading these comments.

Glick  04/09/2012 03:39 AM Report

Good for Nancy Pelosi, fending off the repeated attempts of Charlie Rose to interrupt her. She's not wordy or boring, so there was no excuse for him to try to shut her off, repeatedly. If I had the patience I would re-run this and count the number of times--something that Charlie should do.

NeilMacCallister  04/08/2012 06:42 AM Report

Do you see what you have constructed for America's future, Nancy?? ..just read the posts below!! ..and sing along with Timothy Leary, Jim Jones, and Barney Frank: "What? ..they have no bread?? ..Well, Let them smoke pot!!"

How much money do you take for "leading" us???

Richard_DeBiase  04/06/2012 07:16 PM Report

Dear topazgirl,

I hear you too. I think you are speaking for a lot of people; I wish our elected officials were listening to you.

I voted for Obama last time, but I'm not going to do that again because of his betrayal on marijuana policy. Next, I am trying former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (www.GaryJohnson2012.com); he may be the Libertarian Party candidate in November. Gov. Johnson says he is socially liberal, but economically conservative; so am I.

Good luck to you, and best regards.

topazgirl  04/06/2012 01:46 AM Report

Gelles..... Thanks for your acknowledgement... I thought no one was listening to me... <3<3

Gelles  04/05/2012 06:25 PM Report

Dear Topaz Girl ~

You very rightly say: "even I know that we (the American People and their legitimate government) can only afford what we can afford!"

All of us must make that rule make sense in the real world.

We know individuals with bank accounts, income and expenses, ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME as their government and its central bank and/or legal authorities.

Our government can blow up the planet in a millisecond if it decides it must -- and individuals cannot do that.

I'm not proposing such madness. I do propose we attempt to PRODUCE all that money must buy, -- and simultaneously protect all saved money from erosion over time, the same way we protect TIPS government issue bonds.

Just as we would not kill the whole human race, we must not turn you into a beggar just because we have bailed out Wall Street and not yet secured your wealth and income the way we could if we tried.

WW II type financing begins with lists of essential production. We contract with industry and every producer-supplier necessary to see that the goods and services are delivered -- as specified and on time.

We pay what we owe on the contracts. This provides money to keep full employment measures as high as possible. And we prove the truth: A self sufficient nation can afford all that it PRODUCES !

topazgirl  04/05/2012 04:06 AM Report

Richard:... Maybe a joint is in order, here!

topazgirl  04/05/2012 03:56 AM Report

...Oh, and while someone mentioned "mandates", I have been paying into Social Security "insurance" for over 40 years (out of each paycheck!), and can't even access it until I'm 62... God, I can't wait! ...I am, literally, counting the days....

topazgirl  04/05/2012 03:45 AM Report

Simpson/Bowles... YES, Yes, yes!

I am a DIE-HARD Democrat, but even I know that we can only afford what we can afford! I am willing to take a "hit" if we can get a grip on our economy, and our future as a relevant player in the world... I do not have health care because I CANNOT afford it! And my job does not provide it affordably...I pray I don't get sick... Not fun, but whatever! The fact that we are not willing to listen to the reality of what these two "bipartisan" men have to say about the situation we are in, as a Nation, is ludicrous! We are so caught up in the Democrat/Republican debate, that we can't see the forest for the trees... I want my Country to work for the American people... I am willing to do "whatever" it takes... Just because I tend to be socially liberal, that doesn't mean I am stupid or unrealistic... I have a checking account... I see the reality of my personal financial situation! What makes these politicians (on BOTH sides!) think I am swayed by all this B.S. rhetoric? ...Nancy Pelosi is not the anti-Christ! What she says makes sense... So does John Boehner, when he can get his head out of his Republican a$$... And Ron Paul is sounding better and better to me, every day!

Who is speaking for me? For us? ...the ones living here in REALITY? Neither the Tea Party nor Occupy have hit the right notes...

I am leaving here to listen to some Grateful Dead, and try to figure out how I am going to pay my electric bill this month!!!!!

BENEZRAA  04/04/2012 11:38 PM Report

IS THERE SUCH A THING, AS LEGISLATION THAT IS "TOO BIG TO FAIL"?

Pundits and politicians seem to be chomping at the bit, forcing themselves to avoid saying that the AHCA (Affordable Health Care Act) is either "too big to fail" or potentially "so big we'd better kill it". Sound familiar, eh?

Now the question is out there as well, that since the precedent for mandatory individual weapons purchases dates back to the days of George Washington, that indeed the Fed Gov't has precedent to mandate certain types of specific individual commerce.

Constitutionally, this does makes sense, as there are parallel obligations under the Constitution for the Fed Gov't to legislate for the security and welfare of the nation.

Of course there is the perennial debate as to what may constitute the security and the welfare of the nation. Some say "guns and no butter", others say "butter and no guns", and still others say "guns and butter".

With respect solely to the AHCA: this was most certainly one of the ugliest bit of sausage-making ever to stuff it's way through the sausage-skin hallways of Congress, and Congress may be suitably proud. As the fat sizzles, the ordinary among us hope and pray that the proverbial baby does not get thrown out with the proverbial bath-water (of which there is, alas, way too much).

Speaking of "fat" - did you hear the one about the insane whaling captain, who was obsessed with seeing how much whale blubber from one particular whale that he could get to dance on the head of a pin....

Gelles  04/04/2012 03:02 PM Report

The theme of "cooperation and/or competition" permeates all aspects of living on earth. The non-living have no problem. All others, especially those not made of stone, are aware of anarchy and chaos and know they are not an answer.

Over-regulated and severely constrained living conditions are, in the opposite direction, just as undesirable.

In my current condition I play tennis when I can. I have changed its rules, to ignore all lines and bounces, to create a game which seeks the longest rallies and hardest hits the contestants can manage. It may not be tennis. But it ain't broccoli either. You plays it if you like it. If not you use other rules.

Science is what is certain -- until it, too, is forced to deal with uncertainty. The science and art of dealing with uncertainty is what we learn from experience. Experience is, as they say, the great teacher. And no teacher can do better than pass on to his pupils more than he received when he was in their place.

Yet there will be those like Shakespeare who are born to be immortal. Remember, however, he never knew that at the time.

..... In case immortality is your intention, accept that it is or may be true for you. Die happy. I'll not challenge the fact. I'll die happy, myself, knowing money replaces debt -- if we know how -- and I knew how ahead of you, maybe.

Gelles  04/04/2012 02:29 PM Report

beyond which there is no greater imperative.

Gelles  04/04/2012 02:28 PM Report

I am a great fan of C.P. Snow and of his book "The Masters". He is a bridge between science and art -- certainly with his wife Pamela Hansford Johnson, they knew both worlds and the water under the bridge between them.

Art and science combine to tell us all we really know of what to do and how and why to do it. They combine to prescribe the Golden Rule -- beyond which there is no dreaterimperative.

The first comment on this interview is as usual snide and sick. It offers:

They [who escaped the Holocaust and their clan who left Europe before them], [best represented by Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer], have managed to cause an inordinate amount of trouble in their adopted homelands.

The author of the unbracketed sentiments is living proof of the idiocy of the semi-informed and rottenly educated.

Richard_DeBiase  04/04/2012 02:21 PM Report

The Democrats are not friends of anyone who loves marijuana. I was sorry to receive the following e-mail yesterday.

----------------------------------------------------------

Hey,

On Monday, April 2, my school -- Oaksterdam University in Oakland -- was raided by the DEA, IRS, and US Marshals. Oaksterdam provides training to the medical cannabis industry, and is fully compliant with state and local law.

President Obama promised at the beginning of his administration to respect state medical marijuana laws. He has broken this promise time and time again -- and the consequences have been devastating.

This was a senseless act of intimidation. But I've been an activist far too long to become intimidated -- and with the majority of Americans and common sense on our side, I know this is a fight we can win.

With our government trillions in debt, why is our government using taxpayer dollars to come after me, Oaksterdam, and the thousands of patients who need medical marijuana just to get through the day?

Tell President Obama and the DEA: Enough is enough. Keep your campaign promise, and stop the raids on the medical cannabis industry!

Thanks for your support,

Richard Lee

tabs  04/04/2012 11:41 AM Report

On election night in 2002, Nancy Pelosi said upon taking the Minority Whip position in the House, "I am here to counteract the radical policies of President Bush." Thus in ones first Post on this topic one is slyly throwing her own words back in her face. One works with well thought out purpose in mind, which is not always on the visceral level of consciousness.

Gelles  04/04/2012 06:32 AM Report

If both candidates for president in November agree that America and its trading partners cannot employ output-based money (with which to pay down debt denominated in a lesser currency,) then the world is doomed to honor war and the persistence of poverty on the richest planet of which we know.

I, for one, in that case, will leave this planet to live on its only moon. There I will have the money to pay the wages to do the work that produces the means to enjoy everyday life.

If you would join me, ask now for a ticket -- I'll send it. Together we'll watch the election hoping one or both of these men will see the light in time for us to return to their side. Yes we will have the return ticket too. It's the only kind they sell.

Gelles  04/03/2012 09:52 PM Report

The following is the beginning of a tool to win tomorrow:

.

WIKI-POLICY: A COLLABORATION SYSTEM AND CONSENSUS BUILDER

Wiki-policy entries are brief -- but not of a standard size. They are always born and always remain in the PUBLIC DOMAIN -- and they may be freely copied without attribution of any sort. They may be restated without limitation -- they are as free for others to copy as any word in a dictionary. How then, can they go viral?

Wiki-policies are intended to create their own acceptance as standards of a certain sort. None is ever final, nor do any become dogma. The doctrine they supply is based on actual use by people of their own free will.

Gelles  04/03/2012 09:38 PM Report

Some, maybe most, of my post below is reflected in www.ustaxreform.us

That site also has www.ustaxreform.us/.crs.htm -- which is an index to interviews here.

Most of the stuff we write here is immediately considered to be VENTING. If we want a more lasting effect for our efforts, we need to reform our venting until it has some persistence.

Gelles  04/03/2012 09:29 PM Report

Let us cut to the chase -- (a) What does our nation need? (b)_Who has a clue about it? (c)_What shall we do in November?

..... (a) We need to create a demand-driven path to full employment, a re-invigorated middle class, and success in achieving clean energy independence; student friendly effective education from cradle to grave (to be number one in science, technology, engineering and math -- acronym STEM); and modernized infrastructure and military capabilities that lead all nations and prove we remain a great power -- the last best hope and example for all others.

..... (b) Our military has all the clues -- our Congress is clueless on every score. Debt-based money and market mythology have failed us. We need output-based money and economic systems aimed at achievable purposes. "Abundance" is within reach; and logistical science that proves this point is needed in place of casino capitalism.

..... (c) We must vote for reform aimed at securing global peace and plenty -- by protecting human rights, especially freedom of religion, speech and thought, and freedom from corruption, fear and loathing. This probably means supporting and voting for more Democrats than Republicans.

One of our most pressing problems is this matter of debt, money and deficits. If we try to raise taxes or reduce subsidies to the very rich -- they will fight very hard to STOP us. They will win. But they should win -- we do not need THEIR money.

If, however, we promise all users of American money that we will make it inflation-proof. This will be an easy promise to keep. With good systems and fair rules, we can keep hyper-mass production of necessities high enough to prevent inflation in their price.

If we promise only that, high priced luxuries will act to police the price of necessities. High priced capital assets will do the same.

We must close the IRS. We must open the ESA (economic security agency) to make sure there are not cuts in defense to protect human rights from tyrannical forces similar to those we had to overcome from 1940 until 2000.

Some of you believe corporations and capitalist fundamentalism can do better than We, the American People, determined to bring our Constitution's PREAMBLE back to life. You are dead swrong.

You were dead wrong in our Civil War when Lincoln saved liberty from extinction. We are faced today by one percent with more political power than they can handle. We must return political power to the intellectual heirs of Abraham Lincoln. It won't be easy. But it will be possible.

tabs  04/03/2012 09:06 PM Report

The Obama Presidency will long be remembered for its self serving grandiosity whose hallmark achievement was incompetence.

tabs  04/03/2012 08:51 PM Report

The definition of insanity is electing Nancy Pelosi over and over again. Thank God the Republicans hold the House, there has to be somebody to counteract the radical policies of Nancy, Harry and Barrack.

John_W  04/03/2012 03:04 PM Report

I was not surprised to hear Rose repeat another conservative Big Lie, when Pelosi responded to Rose's statemeet that the public has a very low opinion of Congress, to which Ms. Pelosi pointed out that there has been egregious obstructionism in the Congress and it's no wonder people are angry at the body.

Charles chimed in with the oft repeated refrain of BS that the Democrats had the majority in Congress in the first two years of the Obama administration. Should I believe Rose really thinks this is true - since he's purports to be in the news/information business.

In fact, during Obama's first two years, while the Dems held a majority of the seats in the House, in the Senate (Where filibusters occur, Charlie) they NEVER HAD 60 VOTES NEEDED TO BREAK A FILIBUSTER. Nowadays, the Republicans uses what's called the threat of filibuster - which really is the same thing. It takes 60 votes to pass a cloture motion (a motion to stop discussion of a bill and take a vote to see if it can pass). It's the same thing as the old style philibuster, but this is something nobody in Corporate media, like Charlie Rose, ever brings to the attention of the viewing public. They only go so far as to say: "The Democrats accuse the Republicans of obstructionism." without ever mentioning that the facts entirley back up the Democrats accusations.

In the first two years of Obama's Presidency, the 111th Congress, there were 139 motions for cloture filed (all but one filed by Democrats). To put this is perspective in past years motions for cloture were fairly rare events. It was only during the Clinton administration that the Republicans started the 'drag-to-a-halt' approach to achieve their anti-legislative agenda.

Charlie, you might want to read Peter Beinart's excellent article on this program of 'legislative sabotage' by the Republicans in Time magazine (Feb 18, 2010) entitled "Why Washington is Tied Up in Knots" at

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1966451-1,00.html

allow me to quote Mr. Beinart:

"In 2009, Senate Republicans filibustered a stunning 80% of major legislation, even more than during the Clinton years. GOP leader Mitch McConnell led a filibuster of a deficit-reduction commission that he himself had demanded. The Obama White House spent months trying to lure the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, Chuck Grassley, into supporting a deal on health care reform and gave his staff a major role in crafting the bill. But GOP officials back home began threatening to run a primary challenger against the Iowa Senator. By late summer, Grassley wasn't just inching away from reform; he was implying that Obamacare would euthanize Grandma.

By October, the process had dragged on for the better part of a year, and the public mood had grown bitter. According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, the percentage of Americans who said Obama had done a "very good" job of "achieving his goals" was less than half the level of January 2009, and significantly fewer people believed he was successfully "changing business as usual in Washington."

"With these acts of legislative sabotage, Republicans tapped into a deep truth about the American people: they hate political squabbling, and they take out their anger on whoever is in charge."

You should read this article Charlie. You will learn something which you apparently don't know - if your ignorance is not feigned.

rosefann  04/03/2012 02:57 PM Report

I'm a true Charlie Rose enthusiast, and usually appreciate his interviews. I'm disappointed that he let Nancy Pelosi skate on so many of his questions. It was amazing the number of times he asked a direct question, and she'd answer another "question" of her own, with expressions like "I will say this" or some such evasive move.

And REMant: You forgot to blame the Democrats for either Kentucky's win or Kansas's loss. One or the other, it's their fault, right?

REMant  04/03/2012 01:14 PM Report

Charlie can't have thought very much of Ms Pelosi putting her opposite the NCAA men's basketball finals. Maybe some women watched. I'm sure he didn't. But you can read all of this in the Washington Post any day of the week. Or see it on Bill Moyers or Thom Hartmann. Some comments, nevertheless:

Obamacare not only cannot be defended under either the commerce or the welfare clauses of the Constitution, but it also makes insurance companies into quasi-gvernmental agencies like Fannie and Freddie, which will unquestionably push up the price of health care just as those did real estate. Nor can judicial review be considered judicial activism. And, of course, the rise in health care prices, has to do with the rise in everything else not produced by mass production - our monetary and fiscal policies - which is made quite obvious by comparing their prices in, say, Washington and Indianapolis. Nevertheless, the president seems determined to try to extort a favorable decision by making it a campaign issue as Roosevelt did in 1935.

The consensus of opinion is that the "grand bargain" failed because Ms Pelosi's party failed to follow ITS leader, forcing him to constantly shift position.

We have crumbling infrastructure because Democrats thought housing purchases more important; because they thought the military budget and Middle East wars more important; because they thought college credentials more important; because they thought welfare more important; because they thought whatever K Street was selling more important; etc, etc.

But we still don't have educational excellence, because Democrats have pandered to teachers, not due to any shortage of funding, except as state revenues have diminished over decades of poor economic performance. WWII may have taught some in government and business that we needed a better educated populace, but it taught the majority that it was imperative to secure mkts for agriculture and supplies of raw materials like oil, tin and rubber, which America needed or had run out of, and so it went after the British Empire to get them. And, like the British Empire, it then discovered it might not have to work at all.

We have the disparity of wealth and income we do, because of decades of fiscal and monetary irresponsibility, which has denigrated labor, diminished productivity and encouraged greed and envy, for which Democrats (and former Democrats) are to blame, and which can be no better illustrated than by such liberal think-tank platitudes that we really don't have a problem as long as welfare and other transfers make up the difference. We used to hear that from the folks at Brookings during the Johnson administration.

And it has been a commonplace for at least half a century that increasing taxes for a few "fat cats" will in no way make up for the subsidies given to the middle-class. Fair or not, this is demagoguery.

This country is NOT a democracy. The word is nowhere mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, nor in the Constitution, and I feel relatively certain nowhere in any convention or newspaper of the period, except in a derogatory fashion. And it has been authoritatively shown that Democrats established political campaigning, and all the rest, beginning in the first decade of our history.

It would be okay with me if a party said let's defend constitutional government, or if it said, let us have no fundamental law and institutions, and trust only the people. However, what we find is a constant quarrel about between two groups, the few and the many, about which should benefit from the corruption of government and/or people, because that's precisely what most legislation is. This is what the Founders in 1787 attempted to avoid, and if it is torn asunder, then we undoubtedly will have a democracy, or a dictatorship, which I doubt Ms Pelosi or Sen Reid will like one bit.