|
|
|
|
|
First thoughts: Bush vs. Obama, by proxy
“Meet the Press” turns into Bush vs. Obama, by proxy… Question for Republicans: Where’s the beef?... Examining the GOP’s checks-and-balances argument… What to watch for this week… Obama, at 10:30 am ET, to slam Senate Republicans for blocking the unemployment-benefit extension… NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviews Hillary… McCain and Hayworth squared off in two debates over the weekend… Obama to stump for Giannoulias on Aug. 5… And Alvin Greene makes his first campaign appearance.
From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** Bush vs. Obama, by proxy: Watching yesterday’s forum on “Meet the Press” -- featuring NRCC Chair Pete Sessions, NRSC Chair John Cornyn, DCCC Chair Chris Van Hollen and DSCC Chair Bob Menendez -- it appeared to be a Bush vs. Obama debate by proxy. Republicans blasted the Obama administration’s policies. “I think the public sees this as a long-term debt issue of big government, more spending,” Sessions said. Added Cornyn: “If there's one area where this administration has failed miserably, it's been in creating an environment where job creators will make those investments and create jobs and grow the economy.” On the other hand, here was Van Hollen: “During the whole eight years of the Bush administration, we actually lost over 600,000 private sector jobs…” And Menendez: “It's not just talking about President Bush; it's the policies that they espouse that are in essence Bush's policies. Those led us to a 72% percent increase in the debt from $5.7 trillion to $9.8 trillion when Bush left.”
*** Where’s the beef? But the biggest news that was made on “Meet” may have been what WASN’T said instead of what WAS. Over the course of several minutes, both Sessions and Cornyn were unable or unwilling to discuss what Republicans would specifically do on the deficit, etc., if they take back control of Congress. Sessions said that the GOP would: 1) ensure that the government live within its means, and 2) read the actual legislation. But when NBC’s David Gregory demanded specifics and details of painful choices Republicans were willing to make, Sessions didn’t offer a single one.
*** The GOP is waiting on Obama’s commission? When Gregory asked the same question to Cornyn -- what painful choices would you make to balance the budget? -- the senator replied, “Well, the president has a debt commission that reports December the 1st, and I think we'd all like to see what they come back with.” Gregory followed up with this: “But wait a minute, conservatives need a Democratic president's debt commission to figure out what it is they want to cut?” (Not only that, but as it turns out, many Republicans and several Democrats -- though Cornyn wasn’t one of them -- voted against Congress creating a similar task force on the debt/deficit. Obama then was forced to create the current commission via an executive order.) One of the critiques many are making of the GOP is that, unlike in ’94, the party isn't offering new ideas or fresh faces if they take back control of Congress.
*** The checks-and-balances argument: But do they need to? Perhaps the strongest argument the GOP made on “Meet” was this: Republicans in control of Congress will be a check and balance on the Obama White House. “I think what people are looking for … are checks and balances,” Cornyn said. “They've had single party government, and it's scaring the living daylights out of them.” As it turns out, our NBC/WSJ poll from May showed a whopping 62% preferring different parties controlling the White House and Congress. And as National Journal’s Ron Brownstein noted in his Friday column, that preference has played out over the last 40 years. “Since 1968, neither party has simultaneously controlled the White House and Congress for more than four consecutive years.” The "check" argument is most powerful with indie voters, who personally may have a favorable opinion of the president but have been disappointed in his policies. The "check" allows Republicans to make the pitch to a voter who isn't ready to give up on Obama's presidency but wants to send him a message.
*** What to watch for this week: It might be the middle of the summer, but this week is still packed with plenty of political activity. Tomorrow is primary day in Georgia, where there are competitive Dem and GOP primaries for governor. Tuesday also brings us the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court nomination, as well as the swearing of new West Virginia Sen. Carte Goodwin (D). On Wednesday, Obama will sign into law the financial reform legislation that the Senate passed last week. And later this week, the liberal blogosphere confab, Netroots Nation, gets underway in Las Vegas.
*** Battling over unemployment benefits: Today, however, President Obama will call on Republicans to stop blocking legislation extending unemployment benefits when he delivers a statement from the White House at 10:30 am ET. “The President will tell the stories of Americans in need of the extension and he will have strong words for Republicans who have previously supported unemployment extensions under Republican presidents, but refuse to offer relief to middle class families today,” an administration official emails First Read. “And he will point out that they are calling for hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans while telling working families that we can’t afford to help them when they need it most.” Republicans respond that they’re opposing the measure because it will add to the deficit. “Democrats have refused over and over again to extend additional unemployment insurance in a way that won't add to an already unsustainable national debt,” says Mitch McConnell’s top spokesman.
*** Goodwin’s longer-than-expected stay? The Senate vote on extending the unemployment benefits is supposed to occur right after West Virginia’s Goodwin is sworn in on Tuesday. (And we know the outcome of the vote. After the swearing-in, Democrats will have their 60 votes; the two Maine Republicans have pledged to vote with 58 other Democrats; Nebraska's Ben Nelson is expected to vote with the majority of Republicans on this vote.) Yet it appears that Goodwin might be a senator longer than folks expect. Politico writes, “Legislation to schedule a special election to fill the vacant seat of the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) hit a major roadblock Sunday evening when West Virginia lawmakers adjourned without passing the bill. The failure to pass the bill in a special legislative session left in question when and how the state would schedule what is expected to be a late August special primary and November special general election for the seat.”
*** Hillary on Pakistan: NBC’s Andrea Mitchell interviewed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been in Pakistan. In the interview, Clinton acknowledged frustration with Pakistan's efforts against Al Qaeda, saying elements in Pakistan's government know where Osama bin Laden is -- and could get him if they wanted to. “I think there is a bit of a debate going within certain elements of the Pakistani government… Our argument is very simple: ‘Look, you’ve got to take on every non-government armed force within your country, because even though you think they won’t bother you today, there’s no guarantee. It’s like keeping a poisonous snake in your back yard.”
*** The McCain-Hayworth debate(s): Turning to 2010 news, John McCain and J.D. Hayworth debated on Friday and Saturday. Here’s the New York Times’ write-up on the Friday night debate: “Mr. McCain was first out of the box, immediately criticizing Mr. Hayworth, a former congressman, for his 2007 infomercial in which he hawked seminars teaching people how they could get federal grant money for free.” The Times adds that Hayworth “taunted” McCain “with statements like ‘You’re not a statesman anymore, you’re a simply a political shape shifter,’ (in reference to Mr. McCain’s position on immigration) and ‘shame on you’ (in reference to Mr. McCain’s attack ads against him). Mr. McCain largely deflected the attacks with a smile, once countering, ‘there you go again’ and later ‘there he goes again.’”
*** McCain vs. … Obama? Politico notes, though, that many of McCain’s attacks were aimed not at Hayworth but at President Obama. “When Hayworth attacked him for supporting the 2008 bank bailout, McCain blasted the Obama administration for ‘committing generational theft.’ When he was accused of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, McCain repeatedly blamed Obama for failing to secure the border. On Afghanistan, the Arizona senator called Obama an ‘uncertain trumpet.’”
And you will also see the Congressman From My state M. pence, 3 in line. He also could not answer the question on Hardball today.
Is the Rep. holding up unemployment benefits, over the Rich keeping there taxes.
This just show how lost the Republican are and they don't care about "the little people".
This kinda settles a few lies here, or uninformed.
And Gone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is one person from the the sites comment section:
US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired
Ron,
Nice post. The republicans are still not responding with ideas, just talking points and some of them make little sense. I tried to watch MTP but got discouraged with the lack of answers.
When Bush took office the Debt was 5.73 Trillion dollars, when he left it was 10.7 Trillion and he left the American people with two unfunded wars another trillion, unfunded tax cuts where over 50% of the benefits went to 5% of the people (those in the top 2 Tax Brackets). The republicans continue to fail to tell the people that part of the deficit our President Obama is facing is a direct result of the Bush Administration and will continue to suck dollars out of our pockets. CBO places just the portion of the tax cuts to the rich at 658 Billion. They do not want to pass the unemployment bill at 35 Billion that will put $ 1.65 into the economy for every $ 1.00 in benefits because they say it is not paid for. Put in one dollar get a dollar and a half back?? Out of the other side of their mouth they want to keep the tax cuts for the rich which is also unfunded at 20X the cost. They claim that tax cuts INCREASE Revenues, although there is absolutely NO evidence that claim is true. The party of Drill Baby Drill, became the party of no and the latest morph into the party of Repeal Baby Repeal. President Obama has done more in 18 months than any other president has done since 1965 but this is not getting to the public. Jobs are not their but how can our President create jobs when the Republicans stop him at every step of the way???? How can we create jobs when Big Business continues to ship them over seas. How can you create jobs when Big Business sits on trillions of dollars in cash, same for the banks who still are not lending money to Small Business even though that was to be part of their Bail-Out. The Chamber of Commerce is also part of this problem as well.
*
19 votes
#1.1 - Mon Jul 19, 2010 9:47 AM EDT
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/07/19/4706078-first-thoughts-bush-vs-obama-by-proxy
gone
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rawhide,
I have been out for awhile, but I saw your post and the post you quoted. There are some items I would discuss, but the one that is most striking is that relating to tax cut benefits going to the wealthy. I offer this link http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-36.pdf to a very brief and informative two page document. You will see that those whose income place them in the top 5% of taxpayers pay approximately 54% of all taxes collected by the government. While it is true to say that 50% of the benefits of the tax cuts go to the top 5% of taxpayers, the fact behind that assertion is that they pay 54% of the taxes collected by the government...where else are the tax cuts going to go? The bottom 50% of taxpayers pay approximately 3.5% of the taxes collected by the government. Should they recieve 50% of the benefits of tax cuts? They are already paying next to nothing, and truth be told, the last figures I saw had 48% of taxpayers paying no taxes (many of them recieving refundable tax credits e.g. free money for nothing). I believe the money from reduced taxes should go to those people paying taxes. Anything else is a simple redistribution of wealth, and if you are in favor of the government taking one man's property and giving it to another man the government deems more deserving, my arguments above will mean not a thing to you.
You have to dig down to the fact behind the statistics. Twain was very wise in his oft quoted saying "Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable."
dandy
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money” ~Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dandydon
Hay, well first thing you need to do is report on something that was not during the President Bush, we all know that a lot of no-truth and misleading statement were made and are still being made by the right!
As fare as spreading the wealth? You want to spread the greed, let the rich get richer is what you are saying? Maybe we should have a King and Royal family?
Tell Me what is fair, not the top 5% is really the top 2%, that have all the monies and now we see they scammed America. And why would anyone praise the rich, just what do you get out of it?
Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.
Leonardo da Vinci
and gone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rawhide,
What do you care what they make? If you want to book what they book, go out and earn it. Most of those peopole work their asses off to get where they are. Sometimes it is dumb luck, and sometimes it is inherited, but the overwhelming majority of millionaire's in America are self made. Billionaires too. Look at Bill Gates. The guy has more money than God, and he got it by working his ass off. Is that the extent of your thinking here? This guy has a lot, this guy has a little, lets just take from the guy with a lot and give it to the guy with a little? That is weak, and class envy is an ugly paradigm to foist on others.
dandy
“The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money” ~Margaret Thatcher (paraphrased)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that the arguments over our economy tend to use figureheads who represent the two major viewpoints on economic philosophy. Bush is used to represent the free market (conservative) view and Obama the socialist (liberal) view. Here is fact #1:
Bush was not a economic conservative!!
And Obama is just Bush on steroids!!
The issue is that our country is drowning in debt. We spent almost a trillion dollars on a stimulus bill that has done virtually nothing to create jobs in the private sector. The party in charge of our country is using the economy as an excuse for social engineering instead of fixing the problem. Obama's budget expenditures are $1.3 trillion more than income. Run your household finances like that for a while and see where it gets you financially.
As for Meet the Depress, I have this observation. The party in charge has to defend its policies. The party out of power lets the other party hang itself. That's how this works for both sides. The Dems offered no solutions in 2006 when they took control, they just let the country's anti-Bush fervor roll them into power. It's the smart thing to do. The Repubs are going to follow the same strategy.
I agree with one thing Rawhide said: "Obama has done more in 18 months than any other President ever has." While I know this is a generalization, I think Lincoln and FDR did more their first 18 months as the prez, the issue is that Obama has done the wrong thing for 18 months and now the American people are realizing they have elected an aristocrat with old, outdated beliefs that don't work. Even European leaders are telling him all this spending won't work. He will say whatever he thinks the public wants to hear in order to get his policies enacted. He promised us 250,000 jobs a month and that unemployment would not go above 8% if we let him spend a trillion dollars, remember? Healthcare will be budget neutral and cheaper, remember? After healthcare gets passed, we start finding out from CBO that it is not budget neutral and will be more expensive.
My opinion, the Dems need to defend their new policies. They aren't. They've been told not to talk about healthcare or the stimulus or cap and trade during the election campaigns this year. Why? Because those are loser arguments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dandy
Glad you are back. I don't have a problem of the top 2% not 5%, that the congress will repeal the tax on them. Your number are fine, but, you fail to point out that even with the repeal of the 10yr tax break to the top 2%, they will still have more monies then the rest of the US together, you brought up Bill Gates, who is now giving to charities to help out the poor. And they also new this day will come, It was for only 10yrs then a look see again. We see it was a wast of time and monies, and you seem shocked! "laffs"
You do understand that in this country we also believe in being fare!
let me show you what you are all upset about, or what I am very upset about. "geed"
CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions
Report: Top execs make more than average when payrolls cut
1.
Video
Report details CEO pay, layoffs
Advertisement | ad info
Image: Mark Hurd
Paul Sakuma / AP
In 2009, former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Mark Hurd slashed 6,400 jobs and his compensation amounted to $24.2 million that year.
By Roland Jones
msnbc.com
updated 2 hours 18 minutes ago
* Share
* Print
* Font:
* +
* -
When Hewlett-Packard’s Chief Executive Mark Hurd resigned last month he received something few regular workers see when they quit their jobs under a cloud: A massive payout.
Turns out Hurd is far from the only top executive to be rewarded with a rich package despite a management performance that could be considered less than optimal — especially by rank-and-file workers.
A new report concludes that chief executives of the 50 firms that have laid off the most workers since the onset of the economic crisis in 2008 took home 42 percent more pay in 2009 than their peers at other large U.S. companies.
Loading stock quotes…
Index Last Change
HPQ 39.04 +0.59
+1.53%
JNJ 58.28 +1.26
+2.21%
AXP 40.94 +1.07
+2.68%
Quotes delayed 15+ min.
The report, from the Institute of Policy Studies, found that the 50 layoff leaders received $12 million on average in 2009, compared with an average compensation of $8.5 million for chief executives of companies in Standard & Poor's 500. Each of the 50 companies examined in the report laid off at least 3,000 workers between November 2008 and April 2010.
“Our findings illustrate the great unfairness of the Great Recession,” said Sarah Anderson, lead author of the study, “CEO Pay and the Great Recession,” the latest in a series of annual “Executive Excess” reports published by the institute, a progressive think tank. “CEOs are squeezing workers to boost short-term profits and fatten their own paychecks.”
Those CEOs include HP’s Hurd, who slashed 6,400 jobs in 2009 — a year when his compensation amounted to $24.2 million.
Newsweek: When CEOs behave badly
Hurd made headlines last month when he suddenly resigned after an investigation into a sexual harassment claim against him found he had falsified expense reports related to meetings with a female contractor. Despite the findings, he walked away with a severance package that reportedly could be worth more than $40 million.
Story continues below More below
Sponsored links
Advertisement | ad info
Advertisement | ad info
The report also highlights Johnson & Johnson’s William Weldon, who took home $25.6 million — more than three times the average CEO compensation for big U.S. companies — even as the health care giant was slashing 9,000 jobs and facing a massive drug recall scandal.
Fred Hassan of drug pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough received a $33 million “golden parachute” when his firm merged with Merck in late 2009, the report said, even as Schering was laying off 16,000 workers. The report calculates that Hassan’s total compensation for 2009 of almost $50 million could have been used to cover the average cost of these workers’ jobless benefits for over 10 weeks.
1.
More must-see stories
1.
Image: Mike Choi
The pressures of life ‘underwater’
Many U.S. homeowners are struggling with the impact of lost home equity. Full story
2. Updated 5 minutes ago CEOs lay off thousands, rake in millions
3. Life Inc.: Home prices rebounding? Not exactly
4. Your Career: The 7 deadly sins of interviewing
Overall, the Institute for Policy Studies calculates that the $598 million total compensation awarded to the top 50 CEO layoff leaders was enough to provide average unemployment benefits to 37,759 workers for an entire year, or nearly one month of benefits for each of the 531,363 workers their companies laid off.
While the details of the report may seem shocking at first blush, it’s worth remembering that a public company’s chief executive has a fiduciary obligation to maximize value for the owners of a corporation — its shareholders.
“This report is not quite as cynical as it seems,” said Dr. Andrew Ward, associate dean at the College of Business at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pa.
“We often find CEOs are simply taking action in the face of an economic crisis to reduce expenses," he said. "The thinking is that, in the future the company’s productivity will increase (and) that it will ultimately perform more efficiently, and this usually garners a positive reaction on Wall Street.”
However, one worrying aspect of the report is the finding that five of the 50 top layoff leaders received taxpayer-funded bailouts. American Express, for example, gave CEO Kenneth Chenault $16.8 million in 2009, including a $5 million cash bonus. American Express has laid off 4,000 employees since receiving $3.4 billion in taxpayer bailout funds, the report said.
“Questions should be asked of the boards of these sorts of companies,” Ward said. “A company’s board has a great deal of responsibility for overseeing CEO compensation.”
Story: Shareholders file suit against HP over Hurd's exit
Even among their peers, the CEOs examined in the Institute of Policy Studies report were handsomely compensated. They received average increases of 7 percent in 2009 while chief executives in Standard & Poor's 500 companies saw their pay decline around 11 percent on average, according to the institute’s Anderson.
1.
Most popular
1. Updated 105 minutes ago Thousands in N.C. flee as hurricane warning issued
2. Michael Douglas reveals throat cancer at stage 4
3. Acid attacker: 'Hey pretty girl ... want to drink this?'
4. East Coast braces for Hurricane Earl
5. Douglas optimistic about beating cancer
6. Old school
“What’s clear here is that CEOs who slash thousands of jobs certainly aren’t tightening their belts,” she told CNBC in an interview. “And I would caution that while these layoffs might have boosted short-term profits in terms of cutting labor costs, such cutbacks can have long-term costs for a company in terms of lower morale and the costs associated with hiring workers down the road, so I find it a disturbing trend.”
The report also highlights the structure of company pay packages and unintended consequences of tying performance to stock price, said Ward.
In the past, many companies rewarded executives with stock options, which had little downside risk and gave corporate leaders a clear incentive to drive up a company’s stock price.
Story continues below More below
Sponsored links
Advertisement | ad info
Advertisement | ad info
These days there is a movement toward rewarding corporate executives with “restricted” company stock instead that has more downside risk because it behaves like regular shares.
Employees generally may not sell restricted stock until a certain amount of time passes or a financial target has been met, and they may have to forfeit their shares if they leave a company before a certain period.
“So there’s less incentive for a company executive to engage in actions in the short term that simply boost a company’s stock price,” Ward said. “The executive’s incentives are more aligned with those of the long-term individual shareholder.”
© 2010 msnbc.com Reprints
Show more text
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/
Beyond a doubt truth bears the same relation to falsehood as light to darkness.
Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High-living CEO stole from Tyco, jury finds
Kozlowski, former finance chief face 30 years if appeals fail
1.
Video
CNBC
Kozlowski guilty
Advertisement | ad info
updated 6/17/2005 8:44:31 PM ET
* Share
* Print
* Font:
* +
* -
NEW YORK — In the wave of prosecutions against business executives that followed the boom of the late 1990s, L. Dennis Kozlowski came to be portrayed as the poster child for corporate excess.
The former Tyco CEO’s first trial last year was a parade of eye-popping largesse: an $18 million Manhattan apartment, a $6,000 shower curtain and an infamous $2 million party on the island of Sardinia in the Mediterranean.
Prosecutors said Kozlowski financed the lavish lifestyle with money he pillaged from Tyco — and on Friday, a jury convicted him and another executive of looting the company of $600 million.
Kozlowski and former Tyco finance chief Mark H. Swartz are the latest former executives to be convicted or to plead guilty in the government’s crackdown on white-collar crime, following Martha Stewart, WorldCom’s Bernard Ebbers and a host of others.
The convictions came after 11 days of jury deliberations — and more than a year after the pair’s first trial reached its bizarre conclusion.
That trial ended in a mistrial after a juror whose name was reported by some media outlets — some news organizations said she made an “OK” signal to the defense team — said she received threats.
For the second trial, state prosecutors pared back their emphasis on Kozlowski’s spending.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8261018/
yep they do need there taxes "not to be cut" I am starting to see you all's point save the Rich.
and gone
Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!
Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrangler
You are right the Dems have been the party of No, you have it! It was the Rep who wanted to see that all gods children have health care, it was the Rep, who want more regulation to keep the population safe. And it was them damn Dems who are holding up a bill that would help small business, and even block for a time of extending the unemployment benefits, and lets not for get S. S. the Dem want it to go on the stock market, so they can invest our retirement for us. Giving my monies to a stock broker may not be bad, they got richer didn't they?
and gone! brother!
Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!
Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food for thought:
Number of illegal immigrants in U.S. declining
Fewer jobs and tougher border enforcement are behind decrease, study says
Advertisement | ad info
By HOPE YEN
updated 9/1/2010 5:34:40 PM ET
WASHINGTON — The number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. has dropped for the first time in two decades — decreasing by 8 percent as the sour economy dried up jobs and increased enforcement made it harder to sneak across the border with Mexico, a new study finds.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38961638/ns/us_news-immigration_a_nation_divided/
Lobbyists Tie Brewer Administration To Private Prisons
New Questions Raised About Lobbyist Advice
POSTED: 10:03 pm MST August 31, 2010
UPDATED: 6:23 am MST September 1, 2010
PHOENIX, Ariz. -- Gov. Jan Brewer took center stage last Tuesday night after officially clenched the Republican nomination. Standing just behind her was a man most Arizonans would not recognize.
He’s Chuck Coughlin, Brewer’s campaign chairman, policy adviser and a lobbyist for the largest private prison company in the country. And he’s one of two people in the Brewer administration with ties to Corrections Corporation of America.
http://www.kpho.com/iteam/24834877/detail.html
and My girl.
http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_rachel_maddow_show/52/MSNBC/Wednesday_September_1_2010/288637/
there goes that damn greed thing again!
and gone!
|
|
|
|