DOWNLOADS: (374)

PLAYS: (3511)

Embed

President Obama's second term hasn't started yet, but that didn't stop Stephen Colbert from already proclaiming it a disaster and bemoaning the the lack of diversity with some of his recent nominations to fill retirements in his cabinet. Never mind that over 40 percent of the President's appointees have been women.

As Karoli already noted here, all of this carping over the need for "more women in the cabinet" that Colbert was mocking in this segment has just been concern trolling on the media's part. Colbert was much too kind to MSNBC here, who deserved to be ripped for Scarborough's chauvinistic crap, and for having one segment after another for days on end about this stupid nonsense, that no one else besides the Villagers in the media gives a hoot about.

I'm a lot more concerned about their policies than I am whether they are men or women or what race. Unfortunately we're not going to get any liberal nominees for any of these positions no matter what race or sex they are. It does give the beltway talking heads something to wring their hands about though.

DOWNLOADS: (133)

PLAYS: (821)

Embed

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm really tired of the negotiations on this so-called "fiscal cliff" and whether those tax cuts are going to expire for the wealthiest among us must always be framed the way David Gregory did here, which is that no proposal is Serious unless it causes some pain for the working class. Of course that pain is something which David Gregory and his ilk will never feel themselves.

He also did his best carrying water for Republicans during this interview with Sec. Tim Geithner and pretended that the administration hasn't put forth any specific details about their proposals, which as was already noted here, is just not true.

If Gregory wants to know what's "fair," how about a reminder that those tax cuts were temporary because that's the only way Republicans could get them passed using budget reconciliation. They weren't concerned about blowing a hole in the budget back then and now that they've starved the beast, they want to go after our social safety nets, and David Gregory is always more than willing to help them along.

Rough transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (179)

PLAYS: (1174)

Embed

David Brooks is not happy about the way the negotiations over the so-called "fiscal cliff" have been going so far and expressed some of that discontent on this Friday's PBS Newshour. Brooks apparently has President Obama mixed up with House Speaker John Boehner when it comes to who has been "thumping" their chest during these negotiations.

He also accused President Obama of over-reading his mandate and attempted to link what's going on now to George W. Bush going out there and pushing his extremely unpopular views on privatizing Social Security, which Brooks called "reform" (a.k.a. privatizing) during this segment on PBS. Brooks now claims that it was a mistake for Bush to have done that back in 2004.

I looked around for any columns by Brooks after Bush made his statement that he had a mandate and didn't have any luck finding any. If any of our readers happen to come across commenting on the "mandate" remarks by Bush, I'd love to see what he was saying back then compared to now and if he's done a 180 on whether he thought actually thought Bush was wrong at the time, as he's saying he believes now.

I hate to bread it do David Brooks, but raising taxes on the wealthy is very popular with Americans. President Obama does actually have a mandate to do something about the income disparity in America, unlike Bush, where the more he talked about his plans for Social Security, and how wrong Al Gore was about the "lock box," and how the trust fund was nothing but a bunch of worthless I.O.U.s that those like him that borrowed against for wars and tax cuts should never have to pay back, the less popular his ideas became.

And I don't recall Bush campaigning on privatizing Social Security. So Brooks' analogy here is completely ridiculous, but that's about what I'd expect from someone who has spent his entire career trying to make Republican policies palatable to those they can con into voting against their own economic interests.

Here's more from Driftglass, who also flagged this segment and who thought as little of Brooks' remarks as I did:

Only in the precious, punch-drunk imagination of the Apostate Conservative is actually learning from your previous confrontations with vicious, reckless assholes considered an insulting affront to magnanimity.

Only measured by the dissolute sensibilities of the Apostate Conservative is opening negotiations by saying that you intend to do what you were just re-elected a stick in the eye.

Go read the rest for more on David Brooks' fellow Republican turd polisher, Andrew Sullivan's similar remarks.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (117)

PLAYS: (471)

Embed

Sen. Orrin Hatch continued the whining we've seen from Republicans over the fact that President Obama didn't immediately cave on these so-called "fiscal cliff" negotiations in this week's Republican weekly address. It seems someone needs to explain to the Senator what the definition of "bait and switch" is.

Sen. Hatch: Obama fiscal proposal 'classic bait and switch':

The top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee accused President Obama of pulling a "bait and switch" this week with the administration's proposed deal to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff."

"What [Obama] proposed this week was a classic bait and switch on the American people—a tax increase double the size of what he campaigned on, billions of dollars in new stimulus spending and an unlimited, unchecked authority to borrow from the Chinese," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said in Saturday's weekly GOP address.

"Maybe I missed it but I don’t recall him asking for any of that during the presidential campaign. These ideas are so radical that they have already been rejected on a bipartisan basis by Congress."

On Thursday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was dispatched to Capitol Hill to share Obama's plan with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) The deal included $1.6 trillion in tax hikes, $50 billion in economic stimulus spending and $400 billion in spending cuts. Republicans have demanded more severe spending cuts - including entitlement reform - to begin a discussion on raising taxes. Read on...

As Think Progress noted, Hatch's claim that President Obama did not ask for any of the items they proposed is just not true:

Obama’s proposal — which includes $1.6 trillion in increased taxes on the rich over the next decade, $400 billion in savings in Medicare and other social programs, $50 billion in stimulus spending to begin next year, and an end to current debt ceiling rules — is not new or radical: it reflects the very same same policies Obama advanced for years and promoted extensively on the campaign trail.

For instance, Obama’s FY 2013 budget — released in February 2012 — raised “an additional $1.7 trillion in revenue” and proposed $360 billion in savings from entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. (Comparatively, Simpson-Bowles called for $2.7 trillion revenue over 10 years, more than what Obama requested). Obama advocated for additional stimulative spending throughout the campaign, calling for a path “forward” that will “continue investing in education and infrastructure.”

Republicans are feigning shock that Obama is proposing to implement the very same policies that Americans voted for in November, as they seek to define his second term agenda and bolster their own negotiating position. Meanwhile, they have yet to offer their own detailed proposal to avert the cliff.

And as they noted in their update to the post, much of what President Obama proposed this week appeared in his 20-page plan, released in October. If there's any party that hasn't negotiated in good faith for years now, it's the Republicans.

DOWNLOADS: (143)

PLAYS: (947)

Embed

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says he was "flabbergasted" when President Barack Obama opened debt talks by offering the same public positions that he campaigned on.

According to details circulated by Republican aides last week, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's offer included $1.6 trillion in taxes, $400 billion in entitlement spending cuts and $200 billion in new stimulus of payroll tax cuts and efforts to encourage homeowners to refinance. The White House also asked Republicans to raise the debt limit as part of a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

"I was just flabbergasted," Boehner told Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday. "I looked at him and said, 'You can't be serious.' I've just never seen anything like it."

The Speaker insisted that Obama's first offer was a "non-serious proposal" because it included new stimulus measures.

"They wanted to extend unemployment benefits, they wanted a new stimulus program for infrastructure, they wanted to extend some other tax breaks," the Ohio Republican said. "And all of this new stimulus spending would literally be more than the spending cuts that he was willing to put on the table."

Boehner later added that a "balanced approach" would not include an increase in tax rates for the middle class.

DOWNLOADS: (203)

PLAYS: (985)

Embed

MSNBC host Joe Scarborough on Friday recommended that Republicans "walk out" of talks completely because President Barack Obama's first budget offer was "loaded with Democratic priorities," citing an imperfect memory of the way President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) harmoniously "worked together" to reach a deal in 1995.

On Thursday, Republicans aides circulated what they said was the first White House budget offer. It reportedly included $1.6 trillion in taxes, $400 billion in entitlement spending cuts and $200 billion in new stimulus of payroll tax cuts and an efforts to encourage homeowners to refinance. The White House also wants a debt limit increase as part of the deal to avoid the crisis that ended with U.S. credit being downgraded in 2011.

On MSNBC Friday morning, Scarborough said that he would have laughed out loud if he had been in the room when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was making the offer.

"I would have said, 'We're all busy people, this is a critical time, if you're going to come over here and insult us and intentionally try to provoke us, you can do that but I'm going back to work now,'" Scarborough explained. "And I'd walk out."

"Was it necessary for the president to be so proactive with something even The New York Times said was -- quote -- 'loaded with Democratic priorities' and really gave Republicans nothing?" the conservative MSNBC host wondered. "I think they were awfully reckless yesterday with this first offer."

"Look at the other side that they're dealing with," co-host Mika Brzezinski pointed out. "Look at who they're dealing with, many of the same people as the last four years. So, what would you do if you knew who you were up against? Would you come out there with something that was incredibly giving from the get-go?"

"My response to [House Speaker] John Boehner would be very simple, just stop talking to them," Scarborough opined. "Don't talk to them until they make a serious offer... I've got to say that I'm really stunned by what happened yesterday."

"I can tell you, it's not a hard ask, it's a partnership," he added. "And actually as much as Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich loathed each other at times, they worked together to deal with Republicans like myself on balancing the budget on the first time in a generation, balancing it four years for for the first time since the 1920s, paying down the national debt. And you know what? Newt Gingrich always had to fight us on his right flank and he and Bill Clinton sat in the White House and strategized."

In fact, the budget negotiations between Clinton and Gingrich were no where near as smooth and cordial as Scarborough remembers. After Clinton passed his 1993 budget (and tax increases) with no Republicans votes, Gingrich led a 1993 effort to impeach the 42nd president of the United States in the House of Representatives. Clinton later was forced to shut down government for a total of 28 days in 1995 and 1996 over drastic cuts to spending on Medicare, education, public health and the environment. In the end, the parties did work together to create four consecutive balanced budgets for the first time since the 1920s. Forcing the government shutdown, however, marked the beginning of the end of Gingrich's career as Speaker.

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein noted on Thursday that the first White House budget proposal was a signal that President Barack Obama would no longer begin negotiations by conceding to Republican demands as he had done so many times during his first term.

"Previously, Obama’s pattern had been to offer plans that roughly tracked where he thought the compromise should end up," Klein wrote. "Perhaps the key lesson the White House took from the last couple of years is this: Don’t negotiate with yourself. If Republicans want to cut Medicare, let them propose the cuts. If they want to raise revenue through tax reform, let them identify the deductions. If they want deeper cuts in discretionary spending, let them settle on a number. And, above all, if they don’t like the White House’s preferred policies, let them propose their own."

"The GOP is right: This isn’t a serious proposal. But it’s not evidence that Obama isn’t serious. He’s very serious about not negotiating with himself, and his opening bid proves it."

DOWNLOADS: (516)

PLAYS: (1830)

Embed

From this Monday night's The Young Turks on Current TV, Crooks and Liars managing editor Tina Dupuy, Turk's regular Ben Mankiewicz and Color of Change's Rashad Robinson discuss whether the Obama administration is finally going to crack down on the banks and whether we see newly appointed RMBS co-chair Eric Schneiderman or Treasury Secretary win out that battle.

Tina and Ben were hopeful we might finally see something finally be done. Robinson reminded the viewers that without pressure from progressive groups, we might not have finally seen President Obama finally make some moves towards some accountability. And Cenk wasn't so optimistic after the stalling and lack of accountability we've seen so far.

For more on that, here's Taibbi's take over at Rolling Stone -- A Victory for the Public on Foreclosures?.

Dave Dayen has more on whether we might see Schneiderman and this working group accomplish anything -- Schneiderman’s RMBS Working Group: Resources, Jurisdiction and Will.

And from C&L here's more on the pressure that's been put on the Obama administration to act from Mike Lux -- Word of the Day: Accountability and from Ken Quinnell -- AFL-CIO's Trumka Joins Chorus Calling for Investigation of Banks.

Next topic for the panel was the recent article at Politico -- Death of bipartisanship has killed the Washington deal. As they all noted, Republicans gave up on bipartisanship a long time ago and progressives haven't had too many real victories in quite some time given how far our politicians on all sides of the aisle have moved to the extreme right.

And one final note, C&L has been in talks with Current TV about Tina doing some correspondent work for them this election season and possibly covering CPAC next week. If you'd like to get a chance to see more of Tina on Current, send them a note and let them know how you feel.

You can contact them at feedback@current.com
or @current on Twitter.

Thanks everyone and we'll keep you posted!

From Democracy Now -- Former Financial Regulator William Black: Occupy Wall Street a Counter to White-Collar Fraud:

Broadcasting on the road from Kansas City, Missouri, we’re joined by William Black, a white-collar criminologist, former financial regulator, and author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One." Black teaches economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City and recently took part in Occupy Kansas City. "If you look [at the Occupy protests], not just nationwide, but worldwide, you will see some pretty consistent themes developing," Black says.

"Those themes include: we have to deal with the systemically dangerous institutions, the 20 biggest banks that the administration is saying are ticking time bombs, that as soon as one of them fails, we go back into a global crisis. We should fix that. There’s no reason to have institutions that large. That’s a theme. That accountability is a theme, that we should put these felons in prison... That we should get jobs now, and that we should deal with the foreclosure crisis. So those are four very common themes that you can see in virtually any of these protest sites... I think, over time, you won’t necessarily have some grand written agenda, but you’ll have, as I say, increasing consensus. And it’s a very broad consensus."

Full transcript at the link above.

DOWNLOADS: (493)

PLAYS: (1031)

Embed

After the decision by Standard and Poor's to downgrade the United States credit rating to AA+, it appears all of the conservatives are now after Tim Geithner's scalp for saying that the United States was not in danger of having this happen. So who did Mike Huckabee think President Obama should nominate to replace him if he goes on this Saturday's Fox & Friends? Donald Trump.

Not to defend Tim Geithner in any way, shape or form because I'm no fan of his to put it mildly, but Donald Trump Mike? This is the same guy that had to file for bankruptcy four times. And he's also the same guy who said this -- Trump to GOP: Force U.S. default to make sure Obama isn't re-elected.

And that doesn't even take into account that he's suggesting that President Obama would want to nominate someone who's a birther for anything.

DOWNLOADS: (448)

PLAYS: (2462)

Embed

DOWNLOADS: (206)

PLAYS: (1527)

Embed

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said Sunday that time was running out to get a deal in place to raise the debt ceiling before a possible U.S. default on Aug. 2.

"The two key things are we take default off the table, the threat of default off the table through the election and we put in place a framework of tough reforms that forces Congress to act relatively soon," Geithner told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

The Treasury secretary pointed out that President Barack Obama will veto a short term deal because it "makes no sense."

"We started the process seven months ago," he said. "We are running out of runway. I never thought they would take it this close to the edge and let politics get in the way of demonstrating we will pay our bills on time. It has taken us six [or] seven months. The idea that we're going to spend another seven months lifting the cloud of default from the American economy, it seems irresponsible approach. It would be bad for the economy. We don't think that makes sense."