Charlie Rose

vongleichent  04/05/2013 02:39 PM Report

Thanks for mentioning the middle class. Sooner or later there is only going to be the rich and poor. The middle will have disappeared. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

winter  03/26/2013 08:07 PM Report

Brooksly Born got railroaded. Everytime I see Summers face what crosses my mind is the scene before a congressional committee with Born on one side and Summers, Rubin and Greenspan on the other saying, "Don't worry, it'll be alright" ... three different economists and the same answer. The demand quotient in our economies equation has been siphoned out of working peoples incomes into bonuses at the top for decades; its in part the reason for all the newly minted millionaires and billionaires every year. The only people who'll refuse to understand that are the ones aspiring to join those ranks. "Work" is a work that should come with an explanation and quotes every time its used.

charliesheep  03/05/2013 08:11 PM Report

THOSE WHO DROVE -"STEERED" THE BUS OFF THE HIGHEST PEAK; GAZED AS; THE 5 "FAT CAT" BANKS HAD NOT, SUFFICIENT DEPOSITS;I.E. AND DID PARTAKE OF T.A.R.P. BUT, KEPT THAT MONEY,I.E. DIVIDED THE COMMISIONS!-NO ONE, BUT, FIVE JIVE STOOD TO GAIN HMMM! THEY ALWAYS HAVE THE "MYOPIC" VIEW OR -OMINISCIENT VIEW; FROM "THEIR" TERRACE- AND, DO FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS-I.E. SIPPING LOUIE CHRYSTAL- AND SMOKING CO-HIBAS-BOUGHT WITH COMMISSIONS, PAID BY THE FED!

NeilMacCallister  03/02/2013 11:06 AM Report

"What a fine romance"!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFrz11K_i6k

anne4444  03/02/2013 05:43 AM Report

We do have system fault as indicated by Sony’s Founder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGcf_u3QCeg

People are the most valuable things on earth because of our immortal souls. We will be all God in the future if we evolve.

Helo  03/01/2013 06:23 AM Report

The wise man see thinks as they are

Understand the reason of the subject way and how they are as they are

In order to found a solution for the better.

( HURRICANE SANDY )

I am fully aware that I have already mentioned that I shall not write anything more that will be related to the Charlie Rose show but because of the reason that I heard an inner voice inside of me for around 8-10 days ago when I was in the emotional position of sleep and wake, the voice said the name of (Abraham) nice and clear within me and I heard it.

It would be weary unjust to Charlie Rose and his team that some secret would be kept in secrecy for eternally after-all the writings that I implemented was in the Charlie rose website and it was my heart that took me to this place and the believers who wished to believed did so as well but before I continue dose I wish to underline that this kind of saying do not make me into a prophet after-all a prophet must be weary good as a person where I am not for sure was I better person during the age of 20 to something like 27 because I could cry for the poverty of others the entire humanity and the pain that other suffers but instead of continuing to be that person without any what so ever egoism or greed I become a person that should not be included as a good person.

Anyhow before continuing I shall mentioned the reason way I become political activated you see Charlie as long as I remember I was in love in god I speak to him I loved him more then anything else more then even my own family and from the age of 14-15 until the age of 19 and 6-7 month I was a street fighter a person that was not a good person until the day arrived when I experienced ( out of body experienced ) when I was in the air I said in ( Persian ) ( GOD HELP ME ) and I went back to my body that day on I decided to change my life.

I went to an institution and wished to begin to educate my self.

When I was 20 years old 9/11 happened and that event made me to activate my self politically even thou I did not felt any greater association with Iran i begin to do so and I visit that country for the first time and celebrated my 21 year over there.

Let me now conclude my saying and jump over a lot in order to give my self the possibility to speak about hurricane Sandy.

The spirituality that I have experienced from the time of weary young age until today have been hard, pain full, confusion, convincing and for sure always lovely when I pray.

Before hurricane Sandy happened 2 month before that event I did know that a weather disaster will hit USA but not where in USA so my body went out of me for the second time but this time it was not like the first time because this time I was standing steel in front of my rum I turned back with my head and my body was laying in the bed and I turned my head up and put my arms in the air and I said in ( English ) =

( FATHER REVEAL YOUR SELF ) and when I said those words from the toe to my head a wave spread inside of me in 3 different times.

I woke up from the emotion of sleep and awaken i didn’t felt good at all my body and I was weary weak and I felt sadness within my self and the same felling that once said to me to change my life when I was 19 years old told me to write those thinks that I wrote that was related to the prediction of the future events so I follow my heart and wrote those thinks and Hurricane Sandy come to New Yourk a weak later and the believers who wished to believe activated themselves and Obama won the election.

I watched the Oscars and understood that Argo received 7 Oscars the 7 Oscars in my mind had a religious meaning later I watched your show about Larry summers for sure did I knew that humans can be influenced by God and Satan before the searched that I made in wikipedia that begin with the name of divine that took me to the link that enlighten me about the book of genesis.

Any how this time will for sure be the last time that I will write any further writings of main and therefore I thank you Charlie and your team once again for the weary educated show that you have and for your existence.

StandupPhilosopher  02/28/2013 02:00 PM Report

In this interview, Summers stresses the importance of looking at revenue and spending holistically. Well, there's a recently published book, called "American Solvency" that provides a very specific non-partisan, long-term, sustainable solution to do just that. In short, it lays out a plan that completely changes the debates about government spending in a way that makes them more constructive and forces those in Washington to take a holistic view towards spending programs.

I think it’s a must read–especially for those in Capital Hill. But this is a book that MUST be read all the way through to the very end–especially since it is an issue that carries with it a great deal of partisan baggage. Being “liberally bent” (although, I would say that I’m just a human being who thinks critically about things and is always searching for the truth behind all the sound bites), my experience reading this book is that I felt it was an idea that favored fiscal conservatives, until I reached the very end of the book. It wasn’t until I got to the fifth and final Section of the Solvency Amendment that I was able to see it as truly non-partisan and fully appreciate all the positive long-term implications this Amendment has for changing toxic the culture of Washington surrounding fiscal issues.

The author of the book also has a blog called americansolvency.net or http://americansolvency.blogspot.com. Definitely worth checking out.

tabs  02/28/2013 11:32 AM Report

Point Of Clarification:

Mea Culpa. It was a typo. It should be "UNINFORMED." One was being sly enough to use Ms Maddows own in the little box saying in reference to a spokes person for the present administration.

Isn't it interesting that it is being reported this morning that the President is now refering to the Sequestration effects as having a "TUMBLE DOWN" effect, rather than the dire sky is falling rhetoric of last week? . In other words he is now "walking back" his previous comments. As one has said below, President Obama is/was like the boy who cried wolf, and as what happened to the boy who cried wolf, the President is losing credibility.

Gelles  02/28/2013 04:26 AM Report

When all is said and done, Charlie asked, are all of us on the side of America, as the global economy seems to be deciding which nations will survive this century ahead of others, in military and industrial power?

Are the Republicans patriots, morons, or traitors? We ask because we do not see them rooting for America, when there are short term profits to be made by beggaring the American worker and middle class.

Similar questions arise when we ask about the Democrats.

..... They do not directly ask for lower wages and incomes for Americans. But they also ignore Keynesian investment and monetary reform (on a trillions of dollars scale) that it will take if we ever want to return to WW II era systems to finance full employment for the purpose of winning a peace with the four freedoms (especially freedom from want) on our flag instead of plutocracy of a most shameful kind.

REMant, and his moronic reference to a "balanced budget", without specifying that a "full employment budget" and "full manufacturing economy" are the only paths to the four freedoms that we know of.

..... The anti-Keynesian ignorance of this contributor is so intense, he would see America totally defeated rather than repeat Keynesian monetary and fiscal policies that start with real objectives and do not trust to Says Law to insert monetized DEMAND in the system to guaranty that we SUPPLY ourselves with the PRODUCTION on which a democratic future depends.

..... Richard C Cook, in his book "We hold these truths :The Hope of Monetary Reform", along with reformers like Ellen Dibble, ask for a form of PRINT AND SPEND that REMant will not accept.

Almost everyone but ME (and often Martin Wolf) refuse to see the critical need for DEMAND in today's dilemmas.

Corruption that leads to the plutocracy we have created is half the problem. SAY's LAW (that leaves DEMAND that is insufficient to balance the monetary system of production on which the whole world depends,) is the other half.

Fortunately, Ben Bernanke is head of our Central Bank and not Larry Summers. But even he is not willing to ask for his President to pay for America's survival as a democracy after tongue lashing all these market fundamentalists and downright criminal bankers, corporations, lawmakers, judges and lawyers, like himself, who no more understand the rightful places of DEBT and EQUITY investments in the scheme of things than they understand the reason our society is on the brink of looking forward to an epic decline, from democracy to kleptocracy, from which recovery may be delayed for the foreseeable future.

Max83  02/28/2013 12:55 AM Report

Yes Neil I work for a government for and by the people, not for and by corporations and greedy billionaires.

You know when you called me Marx83 a while back that was funny and clever, but calling me ''Maxhole'' is not classy or clever at all.

I am losing respect for you. Why are you even here and commenting when you are not contributing anything productive and creative but are only calling people names and throwing around insults.

If you don't like liberals, progressives or social democrats like myself that hang out and comment here on the Charlie Rose Show, why don't you just stay away and go on one of the Tea Party or Republican Party ''American Patriot'' messaging boards and have a jolly good time there with your buddies. That will be a win win situation for everybody. It will be more peaceful, productive and civilized here and you will be able to keep your blood pressure down and hopefully live a longer and happier life because you don't have to read my comments anymore that seem to make your blood boil and make you want to go ballistic.

Barack Hussein Obama II is not the enemy of the people, but I think you will never realize this or admit to that, because you do not want to. You should read the Neocons' World Net Daily publication instead of this comment section and I am sure you will find much common ground with those guys. I am sure they would welcome you and your disdain for President Obama and anything and anybody remotely progressive with open arms.

These are the real enemies of the people. They are the reason why wages are falling and the real Main Street economy is shattered:

''The Libertarian Billionaire Agenda''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jymMb6t1LSc

'' Published on Feb 26, 2013

Thom Hartmann says Libertarians love to privatize the commons in order to make a buck.''

and

''Caller: Billionaires Aren't Running the Libertarian Party!''

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJHsTe2j-Y4

'' Published on Feb 27, 2013

A Libertarian calls to set Thom straight on billionaires and the Libertarian Party.''

NeilMacCallister  02/27/2013 10:23 PM Report

"You can't handle the truth", ..Maxhole, ..you refuse to even LOOK at it lying in the open graves all around you!

Barack Obama missed his national budget by 6 TRILLION DOLLARS in only four years!!!

American wages have dropped every year he has been in office!!!

United States economic growth has died a little more every singly year that this charlatan has been in office!!!

Where is that wealth Barack was supposed to share??? ..has he hid in ALL in his Hawian beach chalet???

My kids and I are TIRED of getting poorer every day under this golfer's "management"!!!

***

Max??? ..you must work for the government, right???

Max83  02/27/2013 06:55 PM Report

I have not had much love for Larry Summers, especially because of his role in the deregulation of the banking/financial sector, but I have to agree with most of what he says in this conversation.

Especially when he brought up the role of the media and how they indirectly support and encourage black-mailing behavior by the Republican Party due to practicing ''false equivalency'' in their reporting and especially in their interviewing.

Yes, the current members of the Republican Party are the villains in this drama.

''False equivalence''

False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none.

Wikipedia Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence

Great article from James Fallows in the Atlantic on the topic from Feb 26 2013:

''False Equivalence: The Master Class''

Article Link: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/02/false-equivalence-the-master-class/273505/

''Reminder about the concept: The essence of the false-equivalence mindset is the reflexive assumption that "reality" is halfway between whatever two contending sides assert. Maybe that reflects early immersion in the Goldilocks saga. ("This one is too big. That one is too small. This one is just right!") Maybe it's a holdover from the age of Walter Cronkite. Perhaps it's the D.C. worthy-person's mantra, familiar from conferences and talk shows, that "partisans on both sides" are the main threat to progress. Whatever. We see it all around us now.''

As Chris Hedges has said many times over the years: ''There is a big difference between News and Truth.''

tabs  02/27/2013 04:48 PM Report

NCP2:

Here we have Obama crying wolf that sky is going to fall if the very Sequestration that he helped create and signed off on gets implemented. It is so obvious that whatever negative effects that Sequestration causes, President Obama will blame on the Republicans as he had offered a reasonable and balanced approach that included a new revenue stream to the Treasury by closing "loopholes." Even the Dean of the media establishment, Bob "The man who brought Nixon down" Woodward has apparently had an epiphany when he writes that, "It is Obama who is moving the goal posts on Sequestration."

At one time it was the "spin' that was made to match the facts. Today and since the summer of 2012 the Obama administration has entered into a new reality of the facts being made to match the "spin." In this obverse Alice in Wonderland world that the Liberal Democrats have created everything that the Obama administration does has the infallibility of being reasonable and balanced while everything that goes wrong gets blamed upon Republican intransigence.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  02/27/2013 04:33 PM Report

In the 2010 documentary Inside Job, Summers is presented as one of the key figures behind the late-2000s financial crisis. Charles Ferguson points out the economist's role in what he characterizes as the deregulation of many domains of the financial sector.[76]

So Charlie, are we still listening to this guy?

Ellen_Dibble  02/27/2013 03:59 PM Report

Tabs, "It is only when people are uniformed that they can be lied to"? And you re-posted that, probably by mistake, without correcting that typo? Only the "uninformed," or are you making a much more sly point. The "law and order" party, with hierarchical discipline, seems to bow-and-scrape, in uniform uniformity, inflexibly. So.

Summers says that it is the left that keeps caving more and more, or tilting more and more, but as I recall, the New Year's Deal about the cliff actually succeeded in pulling in a LOT more taxes, both from the upper tier, over a million in income annually or something like that, AND boosting the Social Security (FICA) tax to where it was before the Obama administration lowered it. Maybe I'm confused, but I think the Republicans were the ones to bend there. They probably didn't want any of those taxes imposed, especially on those earning under $115,000, because that money would be most likely to go right back into the economy, which the Republicans want private money to go into. Instead, that money goes to the government -- although, to be fair, it's going back into Social Security, and if we don't want that trust fund depleted, such that COLA's have to be crimped, we should be putting the amount into it that the original design called for. But those two taxes are Republican concessions, concessions BY the Republicans. Right? The tug of war, as time goes by, is favoring the Right in what manner? I heard Summers say that, insisting on it, and I actually don't know why.

tabs  02/27/2013 03:38 PM Report

The question is, would anyone believe or trust a man whose voice sounds so stressed that it sounds like it is wired shut? If one notes the only time during the interview that Mr Summers voice relaxed was when he mentioned his years in the Clinton administration, but within a few sentences of talking about the Obama administration his voice became more and more stressed again. Isn't it aweful for a man to sound so stressed while fulfilling his assigned talking points?

Further Mr Summers told an untruth when he claimed that Bernanke said, "That 1.5% of economic growth would be shaved off the US economic growth if Sequestration were allowed to happen." When in fact Mr Bernanke said, "That 1.5% of economic growth would be shaved from economic growth by the drag on the US economy that the DEBT causes and by Sequestration; of which 6/10% of a percent of that 1.5% would be shaved by Sequestration." So to paraphrase the little saying that appeared on the MSNBC Rachel Maddox show, "It is only when people are uniformed that they can be lied to."

Finally Mr Rose why are we listening to a man who was a causative agent of the malaise that we are now suffering from? Does one think that a causality of a problem can offer a solution to the problem that he helped create? With this one Mr Rose the stink of Mr Summers is wearing off on your credibility.

tabs  02/27/2013 03:38 PM Report

The question is, would anyone believe or trust a man whose voice sounds so stressed that it sounds like it is wired shut? If one notes the only time during the interview that Mr Summers voice relaxed was when he mentioned his years in the Clinton administration, but within a few sentences of talking about the Obama administration his voice became more and more stressed again. Isn't it aweful for a man to sound so stressed while fulfilling his assigned talking points?

Further Mr Summers told an untruth when he claimed that Bernanke said, "That 1.5% of economic growth would be shaved off the US economic growth if Sequestration were allowed to happen." When in fact Mr Bernanke said, "That 1.5% of economic growth would be shaved from economic growth by the drag on the US economy that the DEBT causes and by Sequestration; of which 6/10% of a percent of that 1.5% would be shaved by Sequestration." So to paraphrase the little saying that appeared on the MSNBC Rachel Maddox show, "It is only when people are uniformed that they can be lied to."

Finally Mr Rose why are we listening to a man who was a causative agent of the malaise that we are now suffering from? Does one think that a causality of a problem can offer a solution to the problem that he helped create? With this one Mr Rose the stink of Mr Summers is wearing off on your credibility.

Ellen_Dibble  02/27/2013 02:46 PM Report

I would wish to hear another economist from the end of the Clinton administration on their idea of where they were directing national financial resources. Somehow that got translated under Bush II to the peace dividend post USSR was "your money," so you get it back, and on the other hand, you radically imbalance the budget as if you could fight two wars on a credit card, and more or less ignore the medical system's accelerating bleeding of the entire economy. What Were They Thinking when Glass-Steagall was repealed? Or was that an entirely Republican maneuver, or executed by lobbyists who played the Clinton administration like a harp. Robert Rubin, Tim Geithner, what do they think went wrong? There are probably many books on this. Did they underestimate capitalism's capacity to self-destruct? If I understand Summers, if I recall, he's saying the longer this drags out, kicking the can down the long, long road, the more things tilt toward the faction in the House that views government as the enemy; a Reagan throw-back. (What was Reagan's view of our banking system...) The less government does, the better, both for our freedom to compete and our freedom to keep "our own money." So Summers it seems is for striking a grand bargain sooner, apparently before the next congressional election, maybe as soon as Friday (?). He seems to present juggernaut against juggernaut, and the longer the standoff lasts, the more the Republicans push their agenda to the right, because, he says, the media keeps presenting the situation as Each Side must give a little. And he says each time it is the Democrats who have given a little, and the Republicans holding firm, intransigent. Hmm, a tug of war, where the Republicans, winning, could fall on their butts and go right over that proverbial cliff, and get voted out of office. Why? For winning, of course. Their approach may have a bloc in Congress capable of blocking, but as I understand it, that bloc is not really representative of the voting public. It's been gerrymandered to the extent it represents preselected districts, where primary voters create the semblance of an electorate which is unreal, that can create a warped "voice" on The Hill. It is surely complex politically, but the juggernaut approach is off-putting. It's the same as with Iran, where Iran says, we will deal, but only if there are no threats, and no pressure. Juggernaut being told off; if the P-5 plus one gets insistent, Iran won't come to the table. In Congress, unless the Republicans feel there is no threat/pressure (for closing tax loopholes, for instance), they will not come to the table. But just as Summers objects to the standoff, he somehow perpetrates it. A mom would call for "time-out," make a big T sign with two hands. Apparently this is a time to have toast and tea and crack jokes for a while.

regular_viewer  02/27/2013 01:44 PM Report

As noted on your website, it seems that Mr. Summers has quite the curriculum vitae. None of which appeared to serve him during your attempt to interview him last night. Each question was responded to with ram-rod diatribes and misdirects. Obviously he was not about ready to let you peel-the-onion on any response. Better to run over your polite attempts to interject by shear brute force until he exhausted every one of his thoughts and talking points without interruption.

Intransigent? Based on his demeanor in this interview, that’s likely the perfect adjective for his own style of negotiating...

Dasein  02/27/2013 01:27 PM Report

After the opening greetings Rose was able to immediately elict the Larry Summers personality that doomed his leadership at Harvard. How grating and unpleasant a sophist he becomes. I'm sure the big Rose Machine will have on the Other Side in the next few days!!! But perhaps we shouldn't hold our breaths. Republican sycophants don't seem to be invited to the Propaganda Broadcasing Ssystem. 'Screener' Rose knows...

REMant  02/27/2013 12:40 PM Report

There's no doubt we need to make some zero-based budget decisions, but generally we incrementally increase these budgets, and we can just as well incrementally decrease them, which might in fact help decrease them further, by simply reducing the inflation involved. I notice the "American Taxpayer Relief Act," which raised tax on earnings and capital gains of more than $450,000, also indexed the alternative minimum tax exemption. We aren't really talking about "tax and spend" anymore; we're talking about print and spend.

His and Bernanke's policies are responsible for the condition of the middle-class and for this depression, and the same policies are certainly not going to do anything to make either better. They have been making this same argument for four years. They seem to have forgotten we're even in a depression; small wonder heathcare expenditures have diminished.

Speaker Boehner was firm and right on the money. BTW, the Congress, too, was elected in the last election. (This is not yet a monarchy, even if they're working on it.) The problem is not that the GOP doesn't want a balanced budget; it's the certain knowledge that the president and his party don't. They're still in bailout and stimulus mode, no matter what they say about the "recession" being over. The Federal budget is bigger than ever. Inflation may have something to with that, but it's their inflation.

The folks in Washington have, indeed, cut expenditures as well as taxes, still they need to cut more of both, and it is clear the problem is the entitlement promises made based on optimistic projections over several decades - the result largely of the exploitation of emerging third world economies - tho I don't expect a Keynesian to ever admit that. No Keynesian (since maybe Keynes) has ever suggested a balanced budget. (And he didn't believe in saving.) I might mention in passing that Lincoln, himself, declared fiat money was wrong, but it didn't keep him from issuing it.

In sum the professor appears to me to give new meaning to the Renaissance theory of physiognomy. And don't ever get the idea this program is impartial or balanced, either.