Charlie Rose

Gelles  10/06/2012 11:56 PM Report

Romney sees the dollar deficit or shortfall in gov't revenue, compared to essential investment and spending, not as a deficit in both demand and supply of the needs of the poor and jobless, but as a fiscal deficit he thinks will be passed on to future generations of American taxpayers.

He is nuts on the facts. Our deficits are in jobs and production. Our deficit is in demand to allow profitable sale of new and old inventories.

If we were to have government finance new green energy systems -- even at costs that called for subsidized service to certain consumers -- it would be a win-win application.

Government bonds can always be Nothing can be passed from one generation to another without the younger generation voting for the result. People like the Concord Coalition fear we will turn our national debt into cash, under law, and ask the cash holders to buy what they want.

The coalition fears ordinary inflation will steal the bond-holders money. It won't. In the future what money will buy will be far more and better than in the past. Let the rich buy a new home and vacation. Or let them buy new bonds. We can pay cash for their old ones at redemption. And we can offer them new ones at very low interest -- like 1 or lower percent. That is not stealing. It is living up to their original contracts and investments.

Romney promises jobs and he ought to. Obama does not -- he says it takes time. If all else were equal, he should be defeated.

But all else is not equal. We need big business and big jobs for all our people. Romney does nto see that. He thinks only profitable sale of trivial output can make real money. He has no idea of what the future promises. And neither does Obama -- YET.

Perhaps Obama will forget the poison he was fed at the Univ of Chicago. Perhaps he will act for the American Dream the way he "passed" the AD Act by executive order. If he does he will deserve my vote.

No matter who wins in November, our job will be peace, Western values, and an end to poverty in December. The whold world lacks an enemy with any real power. The Western values are ready to prevail.

But North Korea, Iran and Islamic terrorists must be watched and stopped by commando raids (not war on their innocent peoples) that, after warnings, capture their leaders and bring them to trial for crimes against humanity -- if they have committed same.

TheLunaticOnTheGrass  10/06/2012 05:41 PM Report

@caucazhin - I wonder whether you even watched the video as Chris complimented Romney across the board for his debate performance. And, if you find it disturbing that government funding goes to PBS, I bet you stamp around, mad as the hell, whenever you hear about NASA's COLOSSAL budget. See what I did there? I used caps too but without coming across like a crotchety conspiracy theorist.

Screw tea baggers. Go science!

(first post)

caucazhin  10/05/2012 09:11 PM Report

Its amazing what a blubbering whimpering baby Chris Matthews is. He complains about not all the facts getting out in the debate and yet all he and the liberal media do for a living all day long is suppress the truth and skew the facts with their liberal bias.

Its very clear why TALK RADIO and the TEA PARTY exist and thats to quell your anti GOD ( who are rights given to us by, not BIG DADDY, MOMMY STATE government ) and anti gun attitudes( which the 1ST Amendment gives us the right to have not for hunting or necessarily protecting ourselves but to also to rise up against SECULAR SOCIALIST TYRANTS!!!)

So Chris go cry yourself a river and then fly a kite on someone elses dime because its disgusting to see you on PBS which my tax money pays for......MITT has the right idea

SharkswithfrikingLazers  10/05/2012 01:24 PM Report

Chris Matthews is very funny because of his over the top passion. I loved him on "The McLaughlin Group".

However his impotent rage is really cool on Colbert:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/419820/october-04-2012/chris-matthews--impoten t-rage

'Triumph of the Williard, pants crapping over at MSNBC, get your sour cream and bacon bits because Mr. Potato Head (Matthews) is steamed--and we see Stephen Colbert feast on his impotent rage. Romney goes on the offensive but loses the first round of fact checks. Romney won by pivoting.'

REMant  10/05/2012 11:42 AM Report

I don't think Matthews is right. Romney doesn't do well by himself. He doesn't make speeches. He needs something to push against. He'd probably have made the better trial lawyer.

I think the president was, as he, himself, said, out-of-practice, but I also think he expected to just trade the usual sound bites, and that's not what happened, in part I suppose because of the change in rules back to an actual debate-style format. That I see tho rankles a lot of his followers.

On top of that Romney came loaded for bear, talks twice as fast, and Lehrer demanded specifics. He wasn't asked how he made his money, how much he paid in taxes, whether Bain shipped jobs overseas, or how either this downturn or the Civil War started, etc, which left the president to plead he'd be the more likely to dispense to the public the largess they've grown to expect. But at least this resulted in a marked reduction in the number of his "aannnnds."

As was said yesterday he might have tried harder to tie his answers to a larger picture. But I have feeling he's bought into his narrative for so long he no longer sees that it isn't getting the job done, either physically or electorally.

Several folk have made the claim Romney changed tactics and positions yet again, but I didn't see it. He just didn't need to defend his work ethic, and stuck to rebutting the president's TV claims. The president's campaign strikes me as a largely defensive one to begin with.

Like Reagan, Romney plans to "grow" our way out of this mess, as indeed does the president, tho they differ on whether monetary or fiscal policy is supposed to do it, which is largely a distinction without a difference except in the route the money takes, and tho Romney evinces fewer flights of fancy about it, he undoubtedly has fewer concerns about externalities, either positive or negative.

But while Romney may have talked a lot about business, polling shows the public was most interested in the candidates' displays of empathy.

Despite a personal friendship with Bibi and a lot of huffing and puffing about it, I expect Romney to not act significantly different from the president re Iran if elected. It seems the Israelis are mainly interested in goading us into doing their dirty work for them, something they have a lot of practice at, incidentally.

BTW, the auto mfrs first asked for a bailout in September 2008, to which Bush had agreed before he left office, so it can't be said to be all Obama's doing.