90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Romney Economic Plan

With the GOP deficit clock ticking in the hall, we’ll go deep on Mitt Romney’s plan for the U.S. economy.

In this July 6, 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks about job numbers, at Bradley's Hardware in Wolfeboro, N.H. (AP)

In this July 6, 2012 file photo, Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks about job numbers, at Bradley’s Hardware in Wolfeboro, N.H. (AP)

Beyond everything – beyond immigration and abortion and marriage, beyond even health care, what Republicans at this convention really want to talk about is the economy.  They’ve got Mitt Romney, CEO, teed up to lead.  They’ve got millions out of work with votes to cast.  They’ve got a base in a fury over regulation. 

And they’ve got lots and lots of Americans sincerely worried about this country’s future prosperity.  Its economic viability.  Paul Ryan will talk about it tonight.  Mitt Romney will talk about it tomorrow.  We’ll do it now. 

This hour, On Point:  live from Tampa – Mitt Romney’s plans for the US economy.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Ben White, finance reporter at Politico.

John Taylor, economic adviser for Mitt Romney.

Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor.

From Tom’s Reading List

Bloomberg “In general, the best way to figure out a politician’s intentions is to read his platform. But Mitt Romney is no ordinary politician. His ideological positions are entirely flexible and his capacity for pandering enormous. His platform reflects what he thinks will help him get elected, not necessarily what he will do if elected.”

CNBC “When Mitt Romney declared during his unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in 1994 that the federal minimum wage should rise with inflation, a break with Republican doctrine, both Democrats and Republicans accused him of pandering to Massachusetts voters.”

The Economist “In theory, Mr Romney has a detailed 59-point economic plan. In practice, it ignores virtually all the difficult or interesting questions (indeed, “The Romney Programme for Economic Recovery, Growth and Jobs” is like “Fifty Shades of Grey” without the sex). Mr Romney began by saying that he wanted to bring down the deficit; now he stresses lower tax rates. Both are admirable aims, but they could well be contradictory: so which is his primary objective?”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Wm_James_from_Missouri

    In an article on May 4, 2012 entitled : “10 Billion Plus: Why World Population Projections Were Too Low” ;

    _ ( from : http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html )

    _ the Science Insider talks about United Nation projections of 10 billion people for the 21 century.

    _When you stop to consider the anemic economic growth rates of the global economy, I hope you will ask yourself why neither Presidential candidate or party has taken an aggressive position on the subject or put forth a plan to bring population numbers down to sustainable levels. Such large numbers can only increase downward pressure on global wages and push the world toward increased environmental ruin ! This is PROBLEM NUMBER ONE, period ! Sighting the failure of past Malthusian theory is not a rational rebuttal. When will hard fisted, deep pocketed men, stand up and start asking the hard questions?

    _ Secondly, why is there no discussion about the increasing power and future impact of technology ? Technologies are forming ( such as exascale computing, and AI systems such as SOAR, ACT-R,Nell or even wonder materials such as graphine) that will overthrow all know economic systems as we know them ! Why are so many powerful people ignorant or blind to this phenomena ?

    _ Lastly, although many problems sighted in my first paragraph , could be solved by amazing gains in technology, the current Republican party platform, in particular, has not demonstrated to me that it is cognizant of technological potentials and the need to democratize such technologies. Ever lower economic standards for the poor and middle class can only accelerate the current digital divide and also accelerate other technological divides.

  • Jasoturner

    You’re gonna “go deep” with Romney’s economic plan?  With what?  This guy is as tight lipped about his “economic plan” as he is about his religion or his work at Bain, aside from the obligatory bromides for his republican supporters.

    Good luck.  And good luck to us all.

    • Joseph_Wisconsin

       Exactly. So far all we know is that he wants to cut taxes for the corporations and the wealthy even further (if he really plans to implement Ryan’s plan here people like Romney would not be paying about 13% on incomes in the range of $100 million, more like 1%), and he will some how prevent this blowing the deficits through the roof by closing unidentified “loop holes.” He would like to eliminate all social programs, including SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and low income assistance. To avoid the Republicans getting routed in the election he for now says that cuts to the first two will only effect those under 55 years old. Other than that his plans and how those plans will benefit anyone but the 1-2% investor class is a total mystery.

      • TinaWrites

        And people age 55 and younger do NOT have enough time to save up for all the benefits and deductions they will lose unless they are as young as age 22 or so!!!  

        The Republicans just keep “on message”, covering up all the while that Trickle Down failed; Bush II got us into an unfunded war which started a huge portion of the deficit; the Reagan years were “good” because people were only just getting into using credit cards with abandon and did not yet know how costly that would be to themselves and to the economy.  The Republicans en masse and individually are lying about the $716 million or billion (forgive me:  I’m SO bad with remembering numbers:  their concepts I remember, their named figure, I forget) they say that President Obama cut from Medicare, when it was doubling up of costs that he eliminated.  They don’t want “business regulation” at a time when “fracking” is being practiced or pushed in more and more regions of the country.  

        In fact, I think that most of the Republican agenda is about getting people to think they are voting for “freedom, and freedom from regulation” specifically to get rid of the necessary regulation that we MUST have to protect our environment, including our Water Supply.  IF you think that the cost of fuel is high, wait until you have to pay more and more for whatever precious CLEAN WATER IS LEFT!!!!  Wake up America!  Stop being sold on “how Presidential someone looks or sounds!  Stop being sold on slogans about things like “Freedom” which even to our Founders did not mean what meaning we wishfully wish to assign to the word (slavery was knit INTO the Constitution!  Please, have some respect and remember that, even if it is mainly to save yourselves!!!).

        • TinaWrites

          And this one guest is trying to make it look like Credit Default Swaps and other forms of Financial Sheanigans had nothing to do with the Economic Problems???  They are so Shameless.  We can RECOGNIZE their Formula:  they give Republican-leaning people Phrases to Memorize (they are short, seemingly sensible, seemingly controlled in holding back the exasperation behind the thought!) that completely LIE about what is going on.  Watch it:  this new business of saying Monetary Policy, not Financial Gambling, was at fault will be a phrase you hear more and more; it will be a phrase that settles in there, as if it were true.  And most Americans, with NO schooling in Economics, and even LESS curiosity about it, will buy into it.  The Republicans know how to NOT ONLY LIE, but how to MAKE THEIR LIES STICK TO PHRASES THAT JOE THE PLUMBER WILL FEEL COMFORTABLE HAVING ROLL OFF HIS OWN TONGUE!!!  Soon, the lies are EVERYWHERE!

        • TinaWrites

          And when Romney DOES tell about his Economic Plan, he is going to tell about HE is going to “save Medicare”, and ONCE AGAIN he will LIE ABOUT THE $716 million/billion that the President took out to stop overlap costs (i.e., waste).  Even though I’m sure that Romney would BRAG about getting rid of “waste” in any business venture he is involved with, when it comes to the President, Romney is completely UNABLE TO EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF ‘GETTING RID OF WASTE’ AND OVERLAP….Do we really want to elect someone that disingenuous, that contemptuous, or that unable to understand basic concepts??

    • Steve__T

       Good luck is right, hes going to put the work back in welfare, when millions of people who have lost jobs and can’t find work? That’s just stupid and unrealistic.

      Oh wait, I get it, Welfare worker: You have not met the requirements of the work program, as a result we will have to suspend your claim. The welfare roles will drop and he can say, see what I did! I lowered welfare with putting people back to work.

      • StilllHere

        As opposed to now where there are no requirements, and generations of people do nothing but wait for their check! And this makes sense to you.

        • MrNutso

          Where would that be?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          “The discredited talking points are strong in this one.”

        • Steve__T

          Your still here and your still stupid. Stop thinking you can twist every thing to make it seem as if you actually said something that makes sense.

           ”generations of people do nothing but wait for their check”

           Do you know how long a generation is?

          And the requirements 2 months ago were just suspended not ended.

          STOP THE LIES

  • Jasoturner

    Love the “Putting Jobs First” sign.  This is the guy who wrote in the Times that GM should be allowed to go bankrupt, right?

    • Gregg Smith

      GM did go bankrupt and all indications are they are headed back. This is despite the bailout. 

      • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

        Profits slumped 69% to $1bn as the automaker struggled in
        Europe, but the decline was offset by continued strength in the US.

        Europe is contracting a 2nd time implementing some of the very policies that Romney wants to the US to follow while Republicans accuse Obama of wanting to make the US like European economies. Wa, wa, wa, wait a second there!!!!

        Who’s zooming who? Who’s not competent?

        • Gregg Smith

          GM went bankrupt.

          • rfra20

            And that was CLEARLY Obama’s fault!

          • Gregg Smith

            Not the first time but if they do file again, yes.

          • Vandermeer

             The Romney Plan is a secret… the etch a sketch economic recovery plan is in flux!

          • Gregg Smith

            Obama doesn’t even have a budget.

          • Vandermeer

             http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview

          • Gregg Smith

            It’s a useless unsignedpiece of paper not an operating budget

        • StilllHere

          A.  Profits slumped 69%, doesn’t sound like US “strength” is offsetting anything.  Zoom that.

          B.  Europe is dying due to its dependence on government debt which is coming at higher and higher prices because the market knows their wonton spending is unsustainable.  It’s only a matter of time before US gov bond buyers decide the same here and then austerity will be the only option.  Save you pennies now!  That’s competence.

      • J__o__h__n

        Last night Marketplace said that they were looking to increase capacity.  What is your source that they are heading to bankruptcy?

        • Gregg Smith

          It was in Forbes a couple of weeks ago.

      • Mike_Card

        And Obama is to blame?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       According the TARP report from the Treas. dept.(March 26, 2012) here is the breakdown of the Auto bailout:
      Total bailout: $79.69 B
      Written off: $7.37 B
      Repaid: $35.18 B
      OUTSTANDING: $37.14 B

      Also, GM stock is currently $25B under water with no prospects of short term revival.

      • Jasoturner

        My point is not about the effectiveness of the bailout, or lack thereof.  My point is that the LAST THING Romney seemed to be worried about was helping workers keep their jobs.  He was worried about the best financial solution to GM’s problems.  Just read that NYT headline and tell me “Putting Jobs First” was priority one on his mind.  It simply wasn’t.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Did you know Romney did NOT write the NYT headline?  The NYT editorial staff wrote the headline.

          • Mike_Card

            Did you know Romney wrote and signed the editorial, and has never suggested otherwise?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          The normal process of bankruptcy is to make the company healthy and viable concern for the long term.  This is in the best interest of both the company and the surviving workers.  This did not happen with the Obama restructuring.  They only partially fixed the structural issues with GM.  Only time will tell if GM will be able to overcome this handicap.

          btw – was the Obama ‘auto team’ putting ‘jobs first’ when they forced the closing of private dealerships that resulted in the loss of thousands of jobs?

  • responseTwo

    All of the items behind him are most likely made in China and the amazing thing is he never talks about this. Currently, the companies that off-shore workers/assets are allowed to write off the expenses in their taxes. Recently there was a bill in the Senate to get rid of this break and give tax incentives to keep the jobs here. It got voted down.

    Corporations have American workers train Chinese and Mexican workers to do their jobs and then they (American workers) get laid off. Any of these politicians in these multi-million dollar conventions do anything about it? Do they even know what it’s like to be forced to do this?

    This guy and all the other big-money cats who run this country are the real problem. The only way it will get better is to keep redistributing wealth until the country/people revolt.

  • StilllHere

    Let’s compare the economic plan of a guy who advanced in a world of style over substance, a world of quotas and assistance to those based on their skin color; a plan that has been in place for 4 years and which has consisted of increased government spending, increased government regulation and sustained high unemployment and high underemployment; with the plan of a guy who rose in a rough and tumble meritocracy where there are no handouts based on your race, where you are only as good as your most recent and real quantifiable results.

    • jimino

      Do you actually have something of substance to say about the topic?  Can you name one “loophole” that Romney-Ryan’s so-called plan proposes need be closed? 

      Whatever Obama had planned was thwarted by partisan opposition and his failure to fight that ignorance and deceit.  What we got instead was Bush II 2.0.  And you are correct in stating that has not (and will not) work.

      • StilllHere

        So Obama was not ready to govern and we have paid a tremendous price for his on-the-job training and failure to lead, yet you want to do it all over again.  Insane!

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          An anonymous hold has been placed on your comment and it will not be debated until 60% vote in favor of it.

    • anamaria23

      I suppose you really believe that there is no “affirmative action” among the white elite?  Doors are opened from here to eternity for those born well.
      Barack Obama could tell us more than we would ever want to know about the  unlikely, difficult trek from the arms of a teen-age mother to the first black POTUS.
      “No handouts based on race” ? You have  to be kidding.
      Your whole post indicates  a limited world view.
      YOu really believe that John McCain would have turned the shambles  that Bush left  around by now?

      • Gregg Smith

        Affirmative action is judging by the color of one’s skin. It’s racist.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          For all the legacies who just get by on gentleman’s Cs and pointing to the building their granddaddy paid for, your leaving out a lot of racism.

          • Gregg Smith

            Has no one’s black grandaddy ever owned a building or had a legacy. That’s quite a racist viewpoint you have.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            I say “leaving out a lot” and you hear “nobody ever has”.

            I can’t dumb down the words for you any further. I’d quote you numbers, but your math comprehension is no great shakes either.

          • Gregg Smith

            Okie Dokey.

        • jefe68

          Man you are one twisted sob.

          • Gregg Smith

            Affirmative action cannot possibly work if you do not know the color of skin. Content of character is not weighed. Deny it.

    • BHA_in_Vermont

      You don’t need “handouts” if you are smart enough to choose rich ancestors.

      Where would Romney be now if he grew up poor in a bad neighborhood instead of rich and privileged? Don’t know but I bet he would “look” a lot different. Harvard? Maybe, but unlikely. Mega rich? Not likely.

      • notafeminista

        I’m wondering if you think your noble poor in bad neighborhoods are incapable or unwilling to make decisions.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          You project wonder a lot of inane crap, don’t you? Is there some comprehension issue you need diagnosed?

          • jefe68

             I noticed this as well.
            It’s either bad diversion tactic or this person does have a comprehension problem

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Even Donald Trump and Bill Gates have said in public the leg-up one has in belonging to the Lucky Sperm Club.

        And there’s a wealth of real studies on economic mobility in this country. Hint: It’s changed in the last 40 years. The best predictor of a rich adult is a well-off childhood.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      Someone want to define “business cycle” to this person as well as “rough and tumble”?

      Mitt Romney was born with the keys to the executive washroom in his nappy. He was bred to be the CEO. He got into Bain with the guarantee that if it went belly-up he personally could get his old job back.

      When’s the last time someone told Mitt Romney, CEO “no”?

      He was born sliding into home thinking he’d hit for the cycle. Next to Romney, George W. (Couldn’t Find Oil in Texas) Bush was a self-made man.

      • StilllHere

        Spoken by a complete failure who blames others for his sorry, pathetic plight.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Projecting or making an ass out of you and you?

          Please, tell me more about my plight, you Hack.

        • Steve__T

           Speaking of Failures go look in a mirror. You’ll find a pathetic sorry ass.

    • Mike_Card

      There we go:  a Harvard MBA and a trust fund.  Worked out so damned well the last time we tried that recipe.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Mitt Romney in a hardware store, wearing a pair of blue jeans.  I would suggest adding a flannel shirt, an axe, and a large blue ox.

    This photo perfectly encapsulates the absurdity of American politics in general and candidate Romney specifically.  We (and he) are baloney filled posers.

    His next photo op should show him in a karate outfit in a dojo, to show that he is ready to fight for the American people.

    As far as his SPECIFIC economic plan?  Best I can tell is he will release the  great American potential by freeing the job creators even further from their tax burdens and regulation.  He will right our debts through growth and reduction and elimination of expensive entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security.

    Sounds like a winner.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    This guy is drunk: he wants to use the very same economic road map that navigated this economy into the ditch and broke the front axle. Less regulation – Hello, deregulation created the banking mess on Wall Street. Less taxes on the wealthy to free up capital – Snap out of it, there are trillions in capital sitting on the side lines, we don’t need more, looking for a home in the Cayman Islands.

    Here’s one I really  love that keeps getting floated by Republicans – revamp the tax system. We’ll cut taxes and get more revenue out of it… Really? The money has to come out of someone’s pockets, if not the 1% then it will be coming out of our middle class pockets.

    I’m tired of mincing words, this is lunacy.

    I’m believing the billionaires Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer. They argue that they should be paying more taxes. That will strengthen America and a strong America is in their best interests more so than them as individual personally acquiring more wealth. We, the 99%, are the Job creators. Every time we buy a car, every time we go out to eat, every time we consume something we create work!!! Without demand, there is no investment!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
    http://www.businessinsider.com/nick-hanauer-ted-presentation-about-why-rich-people-arent-job-creators-2012-5?op=1

    • hennorama

      The “trickle-down” or “supply side” economic theory is truly nonsense. (And the term “trickle-down” brings to mind the apt old joke “Don’t pee on my leg and then tell me it’s raining!”)

      Here’s how it’s supposed to work: cut taxes and regulations which will make it easier for people to produce (“supply”) services and goods.  The resulting economic growth and increased profits will increase overall tax revenue at lower rates.  The “job creators” will rise up en masse and hire people left and right.

      This is pretty widely discounted as silliness and bunk.  Bush II tried, and we all know how well that worked out.

      Anyone who has owned a business knows this stuff is nonsense.  The “job creator” is supposed to think “Wow!  My taxes are lower now, so I’m going to hire someone today who I didn’t need and couldn’t profit from yesterday!”

      • William

         Trickle up economics has not worked in the EU or under Obama. Both have spent trillions of dollars and have little to show for it.

  • madnomad554

    14 million jobs lost during the recession…70% of those were construction industry related, about 9.8 million. Economists say unemployment will stay high until the housing industry rebounds. But it is obvious that millions of Americans simply bought or built too much house to begin with, this is in part the reason for so many foreclosures. If you don’t build a new house, most of these jobs aren’t coming back and Romney or Obama can’t put all these people back to work.

    Simple supply and demand is at play.

    However I find it interesting that politicians and economists and media types, will report that Americans save only about 3% of their income, yet it is said we need to spend more to grow the economy. Make up your mind Washington…save, spend, save, spend!!!

    Lastly, this tax return debate happens every election with some candidate. Congress should mandate that at least 3 years of returns be revealed. Oh I’m sorry, silly me, but isn’t 44% of Congress millionaires?

       

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Bingo!… Millionaires protecting their tax cuts despite the fact that 66% of Republican voters want to raise taxes on their congressmen and senators.

      And if corporations keep outsourcing jobs and wages fall, what will happen to housing prices? Raw row!!!

  • Shag_Wevera

    Neither candidate’s economic plan will greatly change the course of our economy.  Outsourcing, right to work states, the death of unions, underemployment, and low wages ARE OUR FUTURE!

    C’mon people!  These are politicians, not magicians!

    • Steve__T

      Well you’ve got to agree that they can make money magically disappear!

    • Mike_Card

      Even though you’re correct, they’d like us to think otherwise.

      In truth, politicians are the ones who are skilled at gathering money and distributing it among those who sustain them in office.  Politicians have no skills that enable them to reduce the size of the pie and yet keep their offices.

  • OnpointListener

    Please distinquish between ordinary “capital gains” and
    the “carried interest” income.

    The “carried-interest” loophole, allows income received by hedge fund managers FOR SERVICES RENDERED to be characterized as capital
    gains and therefore taxed at the 15% rate, no matter how high the income of the
    managers.

    This is sheer insanity and it represents the worst of
    our system which is now almost totally controlled by special
    interests.

    Capital gains should be taxed at a lower and
    fixed rate (like 15%) because the money invested in capital has already been
    taxed. The lower rate encourages investments by ordinary citizens who hope to
    retire someday. “Carried interest” income is not capital
    gains.

    From thinkprogress.org: “closing this loophole would raise
    more than $4 billion per year just from the 25 richest hedge fund
    managers”

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       I’ve never heard an economic argument for not closing that loophole.  I would expect it to be closed under Romney/Ryan.  I think it was under Simpson/Bowles too.

      • OnpointListener

        From Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetnovack/2012/08/24/romneys-taxes-its-the-carried-interest-stupid/

        “So what’s Romney’s position on the taxation of
        carried interest? As Fortunenotes
        here,
        during the last presidential campaign, Romney opposed ending the carried
        interest break. This time around, he has yet to say.”

        Ryans budget proposal says it will close loopholes but
        does not identify any…. although there have been hints at Americans losing
        their deduction on mortgage interest.

  • http://freeourfreemarkets.org/ Steve Banicki

    How can Mitt Romney be the protector of free markets when he will be indebted to the cronies who are destroying free markets?

    On July 19, 2012 the Financial Times reported Paul Ryan saying,

    “Both political parties have fallen victim to “partnership” with large and well-connected companies, especially in energy, housing, finance and healthcare. Republicans have been guilty of confusing our pro-market principles with pro-entrenched business policies…. A growing coalition of reformers … reject this pernicious crony capitalism. Our solutions promote an opportunity society, one that is rooted in the US commitment to free enterprise.”

    Based on the source of their campaign funds, how is the Republican ticket going to say no to those filling their coffers?
    http://www.freeourfreemarkets.org/2012/08/romney-guarding-free-markets.html#more

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      One thing is clear about Romney is he isn’t in it for the money.   You might disagree with his plans but he can’t be bought.

      • Steve__T

         NO, HE’S ALREADY PAID FOR.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    So how do I listen to this hour, instead of the rerun that gets played on the WBUR stream?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Was the second hour rerun yesterday only on the WBUR stream?  I was listening on the internet and didn’t think to check the radio.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Yup, all week, the second hour’s been a retread.  I’m listening in Arkansas.

        • Mike_Card

          I listen on the internet, as well.  Tom does one hour early, then something from the archive for his 2nd hour.  Note the time at the top of this page:  7 PM EDT.

          • MrNutso

            I see that.  That’s a shame, since I was hoping to get fired up now.

          • Mike_Card

            It just goes to show you:  if it’s not one thing, it’s another.

        • MrNutso

          Try listening through iTunes. Also try Tunein.com.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Today is a retread at 11am on the radio too.
          I’ll have to check back on itunes or this evening.

  • Vandermeer

    Here’s the Romney stated plan (who knows what he would actually do if he had to come up with something that Congress would pass). And just think of what his cabinet will look like.
    All big corporate players!

    1. Deregulate business (and that means the big banks too that already are dangerously still free to use investor monies to continue to play risky schemes.

    2. Drill baby drill… what there is no such thing as climate change… let’s invest in fossil fuels and keep oil and natural gas giants happy… we need to thank them for all their pac monies)

    3. Keep taxes low (especially on the multi-millionaires who are also our PAC friends) but we’ll say we’re helping small business.

    So that’s it folks. And Mitt has been very open about his priorities. Oh and cuts to government agencies that we don’t need… no problems.. good bye EPA, good bye, good bye DoE,

     Maybe he could send off a lot of the government’s bureaucratic work “offshore” to help cut government spending. IRS goes to India or China processing centers. Run the government just like he ran Bain. Cut the fat, downsize workers, offshore work… sounds like the plan will be great for the bottom line but really lousy for the People.

  • TomK_in_Boston

    There are no common sense reasons for their economic agenda! The only logical conclusion is: Romney Ryan “RR” plan = class warfare.

    1. With tax rates at the top near the low since 1929, and AT an all-time low for the financial con artists who claim everything at the 15% rate, WHY talk about more tax cuts? When they’re already so low and you claim to be hysterical about the deficit, tax cuts should NOT be front and center – unless you have another agenda.

    2. With medicare functioning superbly and keeping cost increases below those of private insurance, WHY turn it into a Groupon and dump seniors onto the more-expensive private insurance market? It makes no sense – unless you have another agenda.

    They talk about tough choices, but have never mentioned a single one for the oligarchs. They howl about the debt and deficit, but their tax cuts and military spending are so extreme that they cannot do anything about it. 

    I can only conclude that their real economic agenda is to redistribute even more wealth to the romney types and continue the transformation of our once-great middle class society into a 3′rd world oligarchy.

    • OnPointComments

      Is it possible to “redistribute” by allowing people to keep more of the money they earn?  Redistribute implies taking from one and giving to another.  Perhaps you mean “failure to redistribute” in accordance with the liberal agenda. 
      Courtesy of Walter Williams’ column this morning:  Let’s see whether the rich are paying their “fair” share.  According to IRS 2007 data, the richest 1 percent of Americans earned 22 percent of national personal income but paid 40 percent of all personal income taxes. The top 5 percent earned 37 percent and paid 61 percent of personal income tax. The top 10 percent earned 48 percent and paid 71 percent of all personal income taxes. The bottom 50 percent earned 12 percent of personal income but paid just 3 percent of income tax revenues.  What standard of fairness dictates that the top 10 percent of income earners pay 71 percent of the federal income tax burden while 47 percent of Americans pay absolutely nothing?

      • TomK_in_Boston

        Have you noticed the 3′rd world level inequality in the USA? The share of income of the top 1% was briefly over 23% just before the Bush crash, just as it was before the 1929 crash. Inequality is a great indicator of trouble coming. Considering that we had broad middle class prosperity in the 50s and 60s with nothing like this level of inequality, yes, redistribution has been the theme since the 80s.

        Top tax rates are near the low point since 1929 and for the financial manipulators who can claim the 15% rate I think the rate is lowest since 1929. The estate tax has been cut also. No, I don’t think people like romney or, on a far lower scale, me, are paying our fair share. 

        The reason so many people don’t pay much tax is that they have been crushed by voodoo economics and don’t have much income to tax. As more wealth and income are redistributed to the top, I’m sure I’ll constantly hear about how the elite are paying all the tax. Sorry, I’m more interested in the tax rates.

        • notafeminista

          Okay, explain the Earned Income Tax Credit.  That’s just free money on top of whatever deductions a tax payer is eligible for.  How is that not voodoo economics?

          Since you claim to not paying your fair share, why don’t you just overpay your taxes? Send in a check?

          • TomK_in_Boston

            Silly talking points. We need a system that funds the USA, not voluntary contributions. Do you guys always have to say “write a check”?

            Keep it simple. Romney paid 13.x%. Are you gonna play chicken little about the deficit and then say that’s fine?

            The RR gang pontificates about “hard choices” when they are about to stick it to the middle class. Do you know why they never suggest “hard choices” for the romney types? Why don’t they ever suggest that the oligarchs go from ultra-low tax rates to just low tax rates. I mean, we need to make hard choices, right?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            You really have this idea lodged inextricably in your brain that every left-winger on this board is a parasite mooching off the government.

            It’d be insulting, except it seems to be more about you than them. We’re approaching the point that people don’t take your accusations about their finances and parasitic moocheristic cheating personally anymore.

          • hennorama

            The EITC has been around since 1975, and has been expanded under several administrations, both Republican and Democratic.  It generally benefits low income working families with children, and is widely viewed as the most successful anti-poverty program in the US.

            It is based on EARNED income (wages or self-employment) and therefore provides significant incentive for people to work rather than be on other social assistance programs.

            Calling it “free money” seems a bit perjorative.  Do you think the EITC is a bad thing?

            Many credits in the tax code are refundable, including the Adoption Credit, Additional Child Tax Credit, American Opportunity Credit and First Time Homebuyers Tax Credit.

            Do these “free money” credits meet with your approval?

      • jimino

        The top 1% has close to 40% of the assets owned by Americans.  Their share of taxes should be thought of as similar to insurance premiums protecting what they have.  Those with a lot at stake pay high premiums.  Those without don’t. So I would say they are way under taxed.   Isn’t that how a business would be run?

        The progressive federal income tax has been a counterweight to all of the regressive taxes imposed on everyone:  payroll, sales, gas, property.

      • hennorama

        Progressive taxation began in the US all the way back in 1862, so it’s a pretty well-established and accepted policy.

        Income taxes are not the only Federal taxes people pay.  In fact, they are less than 1/2 of all Federal revenue.  Payroll taxes comprise more than 1/3 of all Federal revenue.  Taking this into account, using the same 2007 figures cited, 78% of US households paid income and/or payroll taxes.

        Not exactly “absolutely nothing.”

        Also keep in mind that many US households that paid no income taxes consist of young or old people – those who are either just entering the workforce or who have worked all their lives and paid taxes all along.  Are these people being treated unfairly, and do you think they should pay more?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “With the GOP deficit clock ticking in the hall…”?

    A clock which only ticks up the GOP’s share of the deficit? For some reason I don’t think they want the rest of America to realize how much of the debt is their responsbility.

    (And I won’t bore anyone again with the numerous charts on the subject.)

  • notafeminista

    So, wholly anecdotal story:  An elderly acquaintance who is a stroke patient recently needed what amounted to a exam testing her ability to swallow.   Procedured involved a radiologist, and speech therapist, the room in the hospital and the machine to complete said test.  Time committed, approximately 30 minutes.  Total bill, approximately $4800.  Total covered by Medicare and supplemental insurance, approximately $200.

    Healthcare professionals not being compensated anywhere near their normal level of compensation and the facility/staff expected to write off the difference.  This is before the $716 billion about to leave Medicare in the form of a reduction in negotiated fees. 

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JXZLGNIUVYWTJAVM4DX247YF3I John Giles

      $4800 for that?!  Isn’t overpriced healthcare part of the problem?

      • notafeminista

        Well gosh, you have two specialists and the machine and the room in the hospital.   What do you think it’s worth?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1421666010 Wilbur Blount

      nonsense, that bill might have well of said $6000 or $10,000.  This is not the cost of providing that service it is simply the “market price” that the hospital set.  The actual cost was much less.  The $716B is a reduction in the future INCREASES in negotiated fees, not a reduction in the fees themselves.  It is a cost control measure to hold down the explosive increases in cost. 

      • notafeminista

        Well it is the market price, and generally no one sets prices the market can’t bear.  That’s why people comparison shop, so they can get the best bang for their buck.  It’s not as though the fees charged don’t pay for anything.  The fees charged go back into the operation of whatever.  (In this case the hospital.)

        FDR and Nixon and NYC all tried some form of price or wage controls, and all with spectacular failure.  What’s going to be different this time?

        • Mike_Card

          It isn’t even a market price; health care providers charge what they can get, almost always unrelated to their incurred costs in providing the service.  In that respect, they’re like the rest of the business world.

          Health care has never reconciled to the monopsonystic market, which they would be forced to do if there were a single payer system.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Oh, cool.  I’ll be listening this evening.  If Romney at midnight the day he takes office, as he promises, puts tariffs of 20% on Chinese goods (which will pass Congress bipartisanly, Roach says) — because of China’s currency meddling (the BBC was carrying on about this campaign promise this morning), and then the Chinese reciprocate with 20% tariffs on our exports to them, and unemployment goes up to 10% due to the crimp in our style, not to mention what it does to our capacity to borrow from China to finance our debt — just for example.  
    How about that?  Stephen Roach, Yale School of Management, was talking to the BBC World News radio about that this morning.  OMG.

  • Markus6

    Romney won’t be able to give specifics on what he’s going to cut back on because if he does he won’t get elected. Obama’s been busy for a while giving out goodies to people who might vote for him. Romney can’t do that yet as he’s not president, so the next best thing is to at least avoid saying who’s going to pay for this 11 trillion debt.

    • Don_B1

      Romney has been out-doing Obama in every way on his promises to cut taxes, to the extent that, since he has taken capital gains and dividends taxation off the table, they cannot be paid for by any combination of “loophole” or deduction elimination that does not add at least an average of over $2,000 in taxes for the middle class. That means that if you are fortunate enough to be in the upper middle class, you will probably get hit by at least double that.

      Look up Romney’s interview with Mark Halperin of Time to see that even Romney recognizes the immense hit the economy will take if the country goes over the “fiscal cliff” in January, but he “hopes” the markets will give him a month or two to get his act together. A man of the markets should know better; the markets NEVER give quarter. Romney stated that the fiscal cliff would cost the economy at least a 5% drop in GDP. Now that is “only” about half of the drop suffered in the financial crisis of 2008, but then the economy, weak as it was, was stronger then than now. This will ensure we suffer another Great Depression level depression.

      The first thing we need is to get people back to work; but the Republicans think people are not working only because they don’t want to. Does it make sense that some 8 million people woke up in the fall of 2008 and just decided that they would stop working? That is what Republicans have been trying to sell for the last three years. Which is why the demonizing of unemployment extensions, food stamps and welfare: Obama is supposedly just giving the lazy (black) people undeserved money. That is why this campaign falsely claiming that Obama “took the work out of Welfare” is so devious (and working); people do not think about how plausible a claim is before they accept it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1421666010 Wilbur Blount

    Um, why isn’t this program on the air right now?  I’m listening to a program about the chittlin’ circuit…

    • MrNutso

      On at 7:00 p.m.

  • Chris Wood

    This is all very nice, but I’m disappointed that On Point hasn’t done something to cover the history of the space race, the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs, and the actual moon landings of Apollo 11, 12, and 14-17 in the wake of Neil Armstrong’s death.

    This was arguably the most significant human achievement of the 20th century, and perhaps all of recorded history, but it seems to have become just a footnote in the media, just as the public lost interest 40 years ago.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Bob Reich?

    Dr. Reich is a likeable and affable fellow but he doesn’t do well in these economic debates.  He usually offers social justice platitudes without much substance  to back it up.

    Here is my question for Dr. Reich.  We’ve had $5.3T in stimulus spending over the past 3.5 years, yet the U-6 unemployment rate is hovering around 15% and this doesn’t include those discouraged workers who have left the workforce.

    Yes, deficit spending is a classic form of stimulus.  However, we’ve had no budget over the last 3.5 years to direct that spending.

    Finally, here is my question.  Where are the jobs?  Should we have run up even more deficit spending beyond the $5.3T or was that spending simply misdirected?

    I hope I’m wrong and Dr. Reich offers up some substance.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

      $5.3T in stimulus spending

      You have a strange grasp on math. Go back to RedState or FoxNation or wherever you pass as a MiddleSensbileModerate.

    • MrNutso

      Where does the $5.3T come from.  Are you just totaling the Federal deficit since Obama has been President?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Every economist will tell you that deficit spending is the most common method of government stimulus.

        • MrNutso

          But the deficits are not from stimulus spending.  2 wars, and unfunded medicare part D is not a stimulus.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes, they are a stimulus and they are also a small part of the deficit.

            Remember, WWII was the largest stimulus ever.  The Obama stimulus is the second largest.

        • Mike_Card

          That isn’t an answer to the question.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             The direct answer is YES.

            I guess deficit spending isn’t stimulus if it just wasted.  That is my point. With no budget the spending is directed to where it is most effective  future job creation.

            We didn’t even get Hoover Dam II with the $5.3T.  Instead, we got Solyndra.

    • hennorama

      Conflating cumulative deficits with stimulus spending is misleading at best.  If deficit spending was automatically stimulative, then 7 straight years of Bush II deficits should be consider “stimulus spending.”

      Stimulus spending is also not automatically associated with increased employment.

      For example, an enormous amount of recent deficit spending was/is a result of increased mandated spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  Spending for these programs has increased for a variety of reasons, some as a result of the economic collapse that started near the end of the Bush II era, and some as a result of demographics.  More workers hit Social Security and Medicare eligibility age.  Many more older unemployed workers opt for early Social Security benefits; more people apply for Medicaid since they are out of work or their income dropped, etc.

      Safety net spending on unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. also expanded greatly as unemployment increased and incomes dropped.

      Topping it all off, the economic collapse resulted in Federal tax revenues dropping nearly 17% in 2009, and in 2011 they were still nearly 9% lower than in 2008, the last year of Bush II.

      Clearly this is all Pres. Obama’s and Robert Reich’s fault, right?

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Will this show be live at 7pm or is it pre-recorded?

  • http://twitter.com/twas4kids Twas4kids

    On March 8th. 2012 The Surgeon General released a 905 page report on the status of smoking and youth – smoking being the number one preventable cost to our healthcare system what is Romney pledging to do to deal with the crisis of youth smoking.
    Rates of decline have stalled at best and prevention dollars are drying up. The WHO claims that one billion people will die in this
    century from the use of tobacco which is 10 x the number that died in the past century. What is Romney prepared to do to get a handle on this the gateway drug of all drugs.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Does Obama still smoke?

      Maybe Mr. Obama can be a anti-smoking spokesman during his retirement.

  • Ellen Dibble

    No matter what the Romney plan is, can he pass it?  Who will be in the Senate, who in the House?  Even Obama can create a budget, but getting it passed?  That takes someone like Johnson or Tip O’Neill, I guess.  So it doesn’t matter a lot to me that Romney’s plan, to the extent we know it, doesn’t add up at all.  It’s all a toss-up.

    By the way, the usual place to link to “listen live” at the top of this page is not showing. You can get there, but it’s not so obvious.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “He wants to reduce spending but he hasn’t said how he’s going to do that.”

    He doesn’t have to. As a Republican, our mainstream press has granted him the Birthrighteous quality of FiscallyResponsible. It’s irrevocable and attached to him as securely as Harry Potter’s lightning-bolt birthmark.

  • MrNutso

    Lying.  Only 4 months did Obama have a bullet proof senate assuming all democratic senators voted for his initiatives.

  • MrNutso

    You don’t have to do anything to create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years.

  • MrNutso

    Come on Tom, asking him to prove it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Ah, here we go “The first two years President Obama had a full-ride majority”. (Ask NormLoserCOleman.) “The Bowles-Simpson Commission”. (Which was stacked with Beltway Inbreds and still didn’t approved a report.) “Excessive regulations are one of the two-three biggest things keeping us held back.” (Too stupid to comment on.)

    Why ask this guy for numbers after a fantasy like that?

    “Incredible spending binge”.

    Why ask this guy for details too?

    Tom, this hour is loaded for Public Radio Fail.

  • Ellen Dibble

    John Taylor says policy uncertainty is making the rebound from the recession so slow.  That I suppose is true about the buckets of money that is “sitting on the sidelines,” waiting to see what happens in November, and what happens at the cliff in January.  Lots of people with resources can afford to wait to find out that answer.
         However, the “financial” recession, as Ashbrook defines it, did not only affect the wealthy.  It affected people who found themselves without jobs, with homes under water, with debt that they had expected to pay off, and they are losing benefits and income, taking extra jobs, looking at deteriorating social fabric.  Of course that takes longer.  There is not a lot of “give” in this planning.
    I’m thinking the delegates in Tampa are probably the more well-heeled among us, and not exactly representative.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    You know what’s also down in this recovery? Government employment!

    Every
    Republican president since after Hoover has spent more in the public
    sector during a recession. But what’s good enough for Nixon, Reagan, et al, is too effective for a gobstopping GOP congress to let a Democratic president to do.

    “Keeping millions out of work to put one man out of a job.”

    • MrNutso

      I think I read that if public sector employment was where it was at 4 years ago, the unemployment rate would be 6%.

  • Yar

    Ask John Taylor why not say Romney plans to make taxes more regressive, instead of just saying broadening the base.  Anyway you look at it the the working poor will get a raw deal.

  • MrNutso

    Where are all the jobs and budget surpluses from 21 years of republican tax cutting.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Across the board and not just from the top.”

    There’s just something strange about comparing the effect of the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich and the $300 “steroids shot” the riffraff like me got. It’s like comparing loaves and crumbs.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I don’t remember when Reagan took over that there was something like a three-year over-supply of housing that was part of a balloon.  Just for starters.

  • MrNutso

    So Taylor, why haven’t you Republicans worked with the Presidents to create more jobs.  Oops, I forgot, the number one priority is to make Obama a one term President.

    • harverdphd

       Works for me.

  • Ellen Dibble

    Is the issue about where to exactly shift tax burden, or how to shift the entitlements to accommodate demographic realities?  Will Romney actually tell us?  Will he tell us how the economy works, if Obama doesn’t know?  I doubt it.

    • MrNutso

      He doesn’t know how the economy works he only knows how the plutacracy/kleptocracy works.

  • Mike_Card

    Who in hell in John Taylor and where did you find him?  Under the steps?  He’s an idiot!

    • MrNutso

      He uses a very calm demeanor to act like nobody but himself knows how things work.

      • Mike_Card

        Thanks for that; I sort of suspected as much.

    • harverdphd

      But he’s on the show and you’re not.

      • Mike_Card

        A more expensive flack.  What show are you on, btw?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Most of the proposed tax increases would be on small businesses.” says John Taylor. That is a lie.

    The GOP is on another of their patented “Poster Child Fail” to find the next Joe The Plumber who will be “ruined” by this and they’ve come up with…what again? Absolutely nothing that stands up to five seconds of scrutiny.

    This guy’s feces flinging is so much that even Tom has to call him on it.

  • Ellen Dibble

    So if they take away the mortgage interest deduction, the health insurance deduction, that will mean a huge increase on taxes, proportion-wise, for the average person earning about $45,000.  One doesn’t want to say that though.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Not necessarily.  Remember they have both standard deduction and phase ins to play with.

      I’ve heard both Romney and Ryan state their general principle is to remove the deductions for high earners.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Well, I hope he is specific.  I use the standard deduction, and a few things it doesn’t affect:  
        One:  the FICA tax, 13.9 percent, I think, on top of everything; however, you can use half of that as a deduction for the purposes of figuring what the standard deduction applies to.
        Two:  the health insurance deduction, again, coming before you take the standard deduction.  That’s huge.
        Three:  – I think that’s as much as I can offer. By the way, I think Obamacare removes that health insurance deduction, but I’m into Medicare, so my health insurance gap insurance is no longer such a huge factor. On the other hand, I think I need to hire an accountant.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           The health insurance tax inequities are criminal.  I don’t know all the details but people who get insurance through their employees have a much better deal than those who buy it in the open market (but aren’t incorporated).

          I know Romney and Ryan have both talked about fixing this inequity.  I think Simpson Bowles fixed this too.

          • Ellen Dibble

            I think there is so much for-profit money sloshing around in the system that this inequity will not be fixed for a long, long time.  I liked the caller’s piece who said that very thing, that medical care should be like a utility, not designed to be for profit.  We used to have medical research centered under government auspices, like the internet, I mean, the defense research, and somehow this is getting centered on Wall Street.  Everybody has a body; more of us have bodies than have electricity and plumbing.  So.  We haven’t got much choice.

    • MrNutso

      Without those deductions my federal taxes would go up 10%,

  • TinaWrites

    I’ve said it before:  most middle class people cannot afford to have the mortgage interest rate deduction taken away from them!  They qualified for mortgages based on their overall financial picture, which includes this deduction being something they can count on (not that it is actually part of the mortgage calculation at closing time; but it is a major consideration!!).  The deduction never should have been allowed for the wealthy on their SECOND homes, and that allowance helped turn coastal waterfront property away from being owned by fishermen and people in that industry and toward second overpriced, pretentious, view-blocking waterfront mansions!  

    If this deduction is lost, even more people will be trying to sell houses that they cannot sell.  The rich politicians are so clueless!  IF the mortgage interest rate deduction is unfair to renters, find some other way to make it fair:  this will just add to more foreclosures!  Have the wealthy already invested in real estate ventures that are just waiting to buy up foreclosed properties to turn them into expensive rentals, or tear downs for some other kind of speculation????  

    • MrNutso

      The mortgage deduction was one of the main reasons we bought a house.  In addition to the mortgage I could also deducted my state and local income taxes.

    • OnPointComments

      That’s one problem with discussing tax reform:  everyone wants to keep the loopholes from which they benefit, and get rid of the ones that only effect others.

      • TinaWrites

        But the mortgage interest deduction is a bedrock concept, AND not really a “loophole” which tend to be “tricky”, and sometimes only known about because of advice from a tax adviser.   

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Yep. It’s something that a great many ordinary Americans use, understand, and have planned around.

          When you hear Beltway Inbred sorts talk about getting rid of it, you know you’re in a hermetically sealed room with people who simply don’t get out enough.

          Was this kind of talk even on the radar 20 years ago?

    • Mike_Card

      Well, you know.  It’s only a loophole if it’s available to those who really need it.  Otherwise, it’s just a strategic tax-planning element.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Ask John Taylor why most every media outlet is no longer giving Romney the “gentleman’s C” pass on his welfare ad lies.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       LOL.  Media outlets are carrying Obama’s water.  There is also gambling in Casablanca.

      Everyone who wrote the welfare reform law says that the HSS ruling has the potential to gut the work requirement.  Newt schooled CNN on the facts last night.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        You are delusional. It’s a good thing you’re not persuading anyone.

        And Mitt Romney has yet to have a worse week of coverage in the mainstream press this year than President Obama. Back when Mitt was the wallflower nobody in the GOP wanted to dance with, he was still getting better narratives and less lies told about him than Obama.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Wrong.  A media watch dog group released a study back in March measuring 6 months of news coverage and Romney had 78% negative stories about him in the MSM and Obama only had 48% negative.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Who to believe, the Pew people or you?

            Tough choice. Tough, tough choice.

          • Duras

            You do realize that objective reality is neither fair nor balanced?

            It should never be even, especially in today’s political system where two parties have two very different arguments and ideas; one of those political parties are going to be closer to what is happening in reality.

            This is why liberals like myself say: look at what other countries are doing, look at what America once did.  The problem is is that conservatives like to argue in a vacuum instead of looking at similiar conditions in history and in the world.  Because compared to the rest of the world, America is doing well.  Not as well as Germany, Brazil, Nordic Countries, South Korea, but well. 

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Here is an example of Bush over regulation: SarBox.

    SarBox is well intentioned but a drag on productivity.

    Repeal SarBox ASAP.
     

    • Mike_Card

      Tell that to the CPAs and lawyers.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

         Yup and we can employ ditch diggers and ditch fillers and eventually get to full employment.

        • Mike_Card

          That was Dubya’s approach.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

          Those useless water mains, bridges, highways.

          Enjoy yer fekkin jetpack and that little machine that recycles urine into drinking water.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Strange response.  Are you following the conversation?

      • OnPointComments

        CPAs and lawyers know best that Sarbanes-Oxley is “feel good” legislation that accomplishes nothing.

  • MrNutso

    Name one regulation preventing the creation of jobs.

    • OnPointComments

      Obamacare.  If the cost of hiring someone is higher, fewer people can be hired.

      • Mike_Card

        That demonstrates a profound ignorance of economics, even Mieses or Hayek.  Go to the back of the class.

        • OnPointComments

          Your contention is that cost doesn’t enter into the thought process when deciding whether to hire someone?

          • Mike_Card

            Double entry accounting.  Think about it.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Didn’t you say you were a CPA?

            If so, I think this is an unfair fight!

          • Mike_Card

            Thank you, but I’m no bully.

          • OnPointComments

            Your response makes no sense.  The double entry accounting process would be the same when hiring someone making $40,000 or making $400,000, but the business decision would be totally different.

          • Mike_Card

            Revenue exceeding cost makes no sense?  Go to the back of the class.

          • OnPointComments

            Are you being deliberately obtuse?  Do you really think that the cost of an employee to a business doesn’t matter?  Obamacare raises that cost.

          • Mike_Card

            You don’t even do arithmetic.

        • OnPointComments

          The Mike_Card School of Business Economics:  business costs don’t matter.  Whether the cost to hire an employee is $25,000 a year or $35,000 a year doesn’t matter because cost doesn’t matter.  Mandatory health insurance under Obamacare?  Sure, why not, cost doesn’t matter.  If you have 50 employees, and hiring that 51st employee will cause Obamacare to kick in and the business will have to provide health insurance for its employees, it doesn’t matter because that is an additional cost and costs don’t matter.  And if the business doesn’t provide insurance?  $42,000 in new annual taxes, but that doesn’t matter because it’s a business cost and business costs don’t matter.
           
          If Mike_Card is an accountant, I bet he works for the government.

      • Duras

        In business, there is a set supply for the average demand.  When demand increases, an employer needs to hire more employees to produce enough supply to cover the demand.  Business 101.  No body expands without there being demand out there.  You can have more capital than anyone else, but you ain’t going to hire if everybody is too poor to buy your product. There are employers right now who buy their employees, low level employees health insurance. Granted they are few, but if they can buy insurance for the employees at today’s rates, surely all these CEOs and executives and business owners taking home a top earner income can a pay for the reduced rates that Obamacare forces, and they can pay take a pay cut for their employees.

        • OnPointComments

          While there is some truth in your comment for some businesses, it is naïve in other respects.  For most small businesses, the owners don’t take home a “top earner income.”  Most small business owners face a daily challenge to keep costs in line and remain competitive.  When sales are increasing, small business owners have to choose the optimum moment to hire an additional employee, realizing that the business will have to absorb the cost of the employee until sales increase enough to cover the salary and produce a profit.  And it isn’t as simple as raising prices; competition dictates what the market price is.  For a small business with 50 employees, the cost of Obamacare can be substantial when that 51st employee is hired.  The most likely place that the Obamacare cost will be recouped is from employee salaries.

          • Duras

            You do know there are waviers for struggling businesses and small businesses with less than certain number of employees (I don’t remember the exact number).  And from a macro prospective, businesses wouldn’t have to raise prices: corporate profit to average wage ratio is at the same level as right before the Great Depression, CEO to average income ratio is around 385:1, so there is plenty of capital to sustain nationalized healthcare. 

            Of course, competition influences market prices and so does demand.  (Not to mention, there is a bit of an illusion of choice with all the mergers over the last 30 years or so.)  Your argument is unconvincing for a couple of reasons: (1) there are hardship waivers in Obamacare, (2) I’m pretty sure every G20 nation besides the U.S. has national healthcare yet the U.S. has the most wealth per capita (except Canada I suppose) but we can’t afford healthcare, and (3) for small businesses, the owner’s take home pay check will be smaller…now I grant you that this could be tough for a small business owner taking home, say, $50K, yes that will put a business out but then again he or she probably has a bad business anyway.  (I have no sympathy for terrible business owners who just don’t know how to run things yet complain about the democrats).

            And like I said earlier, I have seen small businesses pay (out of their own goodwill) healthcare for their employees at today’s rates.  I have even seen one small business, not only give their employees healthcare but pays doctors every now and then to set up a tent and give their customers free physicals and tests.

            Do you think businesses are looking at today’s insurance rates or have they actually read the bill and looked at the rates that Obamacare imposes on them?  There was an article on NPR about a woman of Fox News (I guess) who said she doesn’t know how Obamacare will effect her business and then she turned around and talked about how Obamacare will affect her business, saying that she will have to lay off employees.  You know what I’m saying?

    • Ellen Dibble

      Simple answer:  Medicare for all — not covering everything (see this week’s Newsweek, for $10,000, you can live another 3 months, etc., etc.), but covering the basics that we supply anyway (out of the ER).  Then you buy gap (which is what Medicare people do anyway).

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       EPA is closing coal plants — lost jobs.

      Keystone is blocked — lost jobs.

      SarBox — results in lost jobs.

      • MrNutso

        Coal production has increased since Obama became president.  Also, there is a glut of natural gas the is reducing domestic demand for coal.

        How many permanent jobs will keystone bring?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

        Think of all the jobs lost to not cleaning up after that crapshoot of a pipeline.

        And please tell us more about the MythicalJobYear.

  • Ellen Dibble

    What policy is “off”?  What’s the alternative?

  • Peggyu

    According to a Bloomberg government analysis in the past 25 years with a democratic presiden 42 million jobs were created. In the same 25 year perion with a republican president in office only 24 million jobs were created.
    Who are the job creaters?

    • harverdphd

       Hopefully people who read their posts and can spell.

      • Peggyu

        typos have nothing to do with spelling

  • Yar

    Tom, did you say Will Mitt Romney make it mourning in America again? or did you mean morning?
    Mourning I can believe, with weeping and gnashing of teeth.

  • Mike_Card

    But WHO is John Taylor?  Other than Willard’s advisor?  Is he a lawyer?  An Academic?  A lobbyist?  Who is this shadowy voice?  Dick Cheney?  Give us a freaking answer!!

    • MrNutso

      An economist.  His blog is Economics One.

      • Mike_Card

        Thanks.  I’m not going to get pissy, but NPR interviewed one of the Ron Paul tin-hats this afternoon who described Paul as an economist; and Reagan was self-described as an economist, not to mention the idiot Mo Brooks that Tom had on his show a few weeks ago.  I think “economist” is just one of those terms that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

        • DrewInGeorgia

          Mo Brooks…*shudder*
          I don’t think I’ll ever be ever to erase that hour of radio from my brain. And yes, on this occasion I wish I could do just that.

  • PoliticsWatcher

    Romney’s plan is simple.  Give more tax breaks to the rich, cut services to the poor.  Don’t bother actually doing anything about the economy (it doesn’t matter to him, he’s doing fine) or the deficit (it’s somebody else’s problem).

    You think I’m kidding?  Provide some facts to the contrary.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Romney has stated over and over his plan keeps the tax burden on top earners the same as it is now.

      The top 10% earners pay 70% of the federal income taxes so under Romney they still will pay 70%.

      • MrNutso

        That can only be accomplished by raising rates on all other tax payers.  There are not enough deductions for high earners to offset the reduction in rates.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          That is not factually correct.  The WSJ did an analysis debunking the assumptions from the TPC.

      • Duras

        He said that but the fact checkers showed that the top is indeed getting a tax break and we will lose revenue.  Also, the tops tax burden will always continue to go up no matter what the rates are because burden is a percentage of expeditures paid for.  The top pays for a huge percentage of expeditures today because they have most of the national wealth.  If the rest of the country had a bigger percentage of national wealth, then and only then will top income earner tax burden decrease.

  • Ellen Dibble

    I do tend to think the Republicans are as predatory as they think they can get away with, on the grounds that don’t we want the rich to be rich?  The plantation is beautiful, don’t you think?  (Apologies to Joe Biden.)

    • Mike_Card

      Ellen, I don’t dislike your posts.  But I wish you would spend a bit more time organizing what you want us to hear.  An awful lot of what you write is really puzzling.  With all due respect, Mike.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Thank you, Mike.  I like to think that other people will figure out for themselves what to think.  I certainly hope so, because I’m quite aware of the limitations of my own perspective.  I call it “stirring the pot,” and I know that Americans are taught in school to gather all the data and then craft a solution.  Too bad.  Most of life, you don’t have all the data, and it seems to me in a democracy we function as a collective brain, pooling our insights, to come up with the best solutions.  If we don’t post unless we have that kind of Grade A “answer,” then we lose a lot.  I hope to hear from others who post knowing full well that our perspectives are limited.  Sorry.

        • Mike_Card

          In that case, I’ll go over it again.  With less varnish.

          First, I’m pretty sure that I’ve had more life experience than you; maybe that’s unimportant, but from what you’ve posted, I gather that it’s not.

          You seem to have some important things to say to this community of conversants, but you also have a tendency to sound as if you are suffering from brain drain.  Please do some self-editing before you hit “Post.”

        • Gregg Smith

          I scan through a lot of comments but I always make sure to read yours. It’s worthwhile. I can’t say I don’t usually disagree but it’s honest debate so I usually don’t reply. I don’t want to fight. Keep stirring the pot.

          • TinaWrites

            I always read yours, too — well, as far as I get in my reading lately!  With over 500 postings sometimes  lately, I don’t get to all the postings ever, anymore.  But, isn’t even that great for the show and for, as you say, “stirring the pot”!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    Gridlock? Useless buzzword. Whenever I hear people say “People worry about gridlock” it rings just like “People worry about partisanship.”

    When the mainstream press says “gridlock” I can see the thought bubbles above their collective head saying “if only the Democrats stopped fighting and being so mean”.

    We can’t get the press to acknowledge the most obstructionist Congress in history, and that that results in bad policy outcomes.

  • Ellen Dibble

    The glory days of Reagan:  Weren’t the banks pretty well regulated then?  Weren’t the corporate raiders pretty low on the radar then?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       The repeal of the the 1936 Glass-Steagall act in 1999 was a huge mistake.  This created the environment for ‘too big to fail’.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Can they re-instate that?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Sure.  It was only 30 pages.  They just have to vote and then have the President sign it.

          However, there will be a consequence.  The big banks WILL have to break up.

          I don’t see anyone (at least in DC) pushing this.

          • Duras

            Jon Huntsman said he would do it.  And some Washington insiders have said that Obama wants to break them up and add the 2 or 3 laws in Glass-Steagal that Wall Street would hate. Obviously, Obama has to keep his mouth shut because god knows what the republican propaganda machine would do. And if they did the necessary thing and break up the banks, government might have to run stimulus for the investment banks for a year or two.  Are you okay with that?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

             Obama had a Dem congress for his first 2 years and claimed he was working on Wall Street reform with Dodd-Frank but he did NOTHING.

            But he did tell Vlad he would be more ‘flexible’ when he never had to face the voters again.

          • Duras

            Granted, but I think Dodd-Frank is a product of a political reality.  I think Obama was trying to regulate Wall Street and get their money for the next election.  That is why Obama let Wall Street lawyers help write the bill (that’s why it is so long). 
             
            He should have done what FDR did, but there was a different political reality back then.  But, now that Wall Street doesn’t like him anyway (and I have no clue as to why), he should have copied and pasted Glass-Steagall and made it the law of the land.  And yes, I think he should have done what was right at the time.  I do give him slight latitude due to the political reality he faced.
             
            I’m pretty sure, however, that he wants Glass-Steagall type regulations.  And I think it is crucial to break up the banks because we have a student loan bubble, people are getting poorer, inequality is growing more, and Wall Street is making bets on that same population’s money.  You can see how this would be a problem. To me, it is worth the stimulus that will be needed for the investment banks when they are broken from community banking.  But even if Obama gets the house and the senate, what would be the political backlash?  Democrats are notorious for not having the fortitude to do the right thing.  I have little faith, personally. 
             
            But this is also why our country was better when republicans were scared of liberals (from FDR to 1980), instead of the other way around, like it is now.

             
             

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Dodd-Frank is another “Thanks for making it half-assed, GOP!” law.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

            Not two years. Ask LoserNormColeman.

          • TinaWrites

            IF the President gets a second term, and IF he has enough Congressional Democrats for the numbers alone, do you think he’d push for it?  That might be the ONE campaign question I’d ask him if we were face to face.  

  • MrNutso

    Romney is a puppet.  If he wins and Republicans gain the Senate, they will do anything they want and to the hell with the Democrats.

    • harverdphd

       That’s the point…you’re not so nuts after all.

    • StilllHere

      Obama is a puppet.  When he won and Democrats got the Congress, they did what they wanted and to hell with Republicans and the country.  Then in 2010, the country said no thanks and voted Dems out of power in the House.  But Obama and Democrats still tried to do what they wanted, the hell with Republicans.

  • Ellen Dibble

    It sounds as though there will be no movement in Congress until there are enough Republicans to override an Obama veto, or until Romney is elected.  I doubt the Democrats will hold up the country until another Democrat administration comes along.  
        It isn’t so that the Obama administration’s maneuvers (coupled with Bush’s just preceding) didn’t do any good.  Does this man remember the fiasco, globally, nationally, personally, that was looming?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/JXSANCUDPIKQSPID5KT2U4XK5Y TF

    “Paul Ryan is the wonk on Capitol Hill” (Tom)

    “I highly doubt that Ryan will get ‘wonky’ in his speech.” (guest, Ben White? I missed that)

    A wonk is someone who know what they’re talking about. Please stop calling Paul Ryan a policy wonk.

    • MrNutso

      Ryan is the Flim Flam Man.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

       Even his Dem colleagues respect Ryan for his knowledge of budget issues.

      • Ellen Dibble

        I think it’s a matter of not seeing the forest for the trees.  He’s the go-to guy on budget specifics, but the vision doesn’t have the visceral connection of how it could play out, which could be calamitous.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

           Have you read his budget?  It has been painted as ‘extreme’ yet it still grows government — just at a slower rate.  We still don’t get spending to 20% of GDP (the historic max) for many years.  The only way to speed things up is to somehow increase economic growth.

          It isn’t much different than Simpson-Bowles.

          The controversial piece has always been his Medicare reform.  However, he tempered it to include Clinton ideas (from Alice Rivlin) with liberal Oregon Senator Ron Wyden by making the premium support piece optional.

           

          • Mike_Card

            You think that a growing population requires less governent?

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet and am reading newest first so please forgive me if this has already been pointed out.

      Regarding Ben White:

      Ben White Recent Stories

      1 Obama’s Europe fixation

      8/25/12 8:34 AM EDT

      2 Obama’s 4 economic letdowns

      8/3/12 2:09 PM EDT

      3 Zombie economy threatens Obama

      7/6/12 12:35 PM EDT

      4 Jobs report looms for Obama

      7/6/12 4:36 AM EDT

      5 Greece no end to Obama Europe woe

      6/18/12 4:39 AM EDT

      6 W.H.’s continental calculations

      6/8/12 5:46 PM EDT

      7 Obama’s good news-bad news economy

      5/31/12 9:39 PM EDT

      8 Obama’s Dimon in the rough

      5/15/12 4:48 AM EDT

      9 Obama’s Wall Street problem

      5/14/12 4:37 AM EDT

      10 Europe’s future could shape Obama’s
      5/7/12 7:23 PM EDT

      The following is quoted from the 8/25 Obama’s Europe Fixation article: “Friends and current and former aides agree: Obama talks about Europe. A lot. He meets constantly with economic aides. He regularly quizzes Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner about progress battling the crisis. He dials up European leaders. He sounds out Wall Street executives. He attends many wonky meetings and often makes them wonkier.”

      What brilliant and insightful journalism. Wonkier, indeed.

  • harverdphd

     You sound like Cory

  • TinaWrites

    WHY did it take me SO LONG to figure out just what KIND OF BULLIES the REPUBLICAN LEADERS really are???  It took a while, but I finally figured it out!!

    The Republican Leaders are none other than EDDY HASKELL of Leave It To Beaver fame!  

    All these speakers…for four years now, they’ve stood there (sometimes in high heels!), right on top of the President’s fingers, knowing the President has too much Dignity to yell, “Blame!”  Then they’ve showed their shining faces to the American public and suggested that he DID blame them, even when he just gave the American public the tools to work with to understand how the economy works and what the contributing factors were.  Still shining, they continue to act Blameless.  Way to go, Eddy Haskell!! 

  • Gregg Smith

    God bless Condi Rice.

    • StilllHere

      She did a great job, only a racist would disagree.

  • TinaWrites

    Even Romney “didn’t build it” (alone — which is what the President MEANT!)

    Here’s a LINK:

    From The New York Times:OP-ED COLUMNIST: The Secret Weapon: All of UsBehind every successful business stand the American taxpayers.http://nyti.ms/Rl73vp

  • TinaWrites

    I KNEW it!!  The Republican Leadership just LIED about the $716 billion (now I know it’s billion) that President Obama took from Medicare — the money he moved out of Medicare because it represented duplicate work.  It’s just that the Republicans didn’t wait until tomorrow night to have Romney do the lying; Ryan did it!  So silken a liar!

    And, I cannot believe that Mike Huckabee compared the President to a Third Grader!  

    If I weren’t WATCHING a travel show on TV while LISTENING to the RNC on the radio, one of those two machines would have a hole in it.  Wait!  Maybe they both would!  

    The swarmy disingenuousness of Ryan is more than I can take! He makes NO mention of George Bush running up the deficit and getting us into entanglements that were going to have to have more money thrown at them by the next administration.

    The Republicans ALREADY HAVE THEIR TAX CUT!  They just want to make sure it will be replaced anew.  IF THEY ARE SUCH GREAT JOB CREATORS, WHERE HAVE THEY BEEN THESE PAST FOUR YEARS?????  WHERE ARE THE JOBS, JOB CREATORS?

  • Paul Gloster

    The question that never seems to be asked is how would a Romney presidency be different or the same as the last Republican president? Don’t always go for the compare/contrast with a the current president.

  • DrewInGeorgia

    I’m just now getting to listen and am almost halfway in, where’s the voice of Robert Reich? Not that I expected to hear from him for the bulk of the discussion.

    Rational voices dissent, guess that’s why they’ve been increasingly squelched Media Wide. Hate to include my beloved OP and NPR but if the muzzle and leash fit…

  • DrewInGeorgia

    Just finished listening to Reich. So he’s allowed into the discussion halfway into the show, says as much as he can during the brief period he’s allotted, then is politely ushered out a few minutes later? And this Taylor clown is beyond ridiculous. Back to the future he proclaims! Reagan was Da Bomb’! What a joke. I wonder if this genius realizes that where we stand as a Nation today is a direct result of the snowball Saint Reagan sent rolling while he was in office? Wish I could say I was surprised.

    After forcing myself to watch the Condi-Ryan show earlier and listening to hour two of OP (which was about as informative as hour one) I think it’s time to call it a night.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=627873520 Elizabeth Rich

    Romney’s primary objective is to get elected. He will do or say or promise anything that he thinks appeals to whomever he is speaking to at the moment. He has no underpinning philosophy that he can stick to and stay with for his administration. That why he is so dangerous. He went with Paul Ryan as his VP choice because he thought it would get him elected without any regard for the fact that Ryan’s vision for America dispels any of Romney’s actions as Governor of MA.  Romney’s only real accomplishment was healthcare here in MA and yet he vows to repeal it at the Federal level. The same people that authored his plan here in MA authored the plan that he now calls Obama care. He bends with the wind and does not exemplify true leadership at all.  I live in MA and am an independent who is supporting Obama in 2012.

    • StilllHere

      Obama’s primary objective is to get elected. He will do or say or promise anything that he thinks appeals to whomever he is speaking to at the moment. He has no underpinning philosophy that he can stick to and stay with for his administration. That why he is so dangerous. He went with Joe Biden as his VP choice because he thought it would get him elected without any regard for the fact that Biden has no vision for America and dispels any of Obama’s actions as senator from IL. Obama’s only real accomplishment in the WH was healthcare and rammed it through Congress with backroom deals for Democrats. He bends with the wind and does not exemplify true leadership at all, the last 4 years testify to that clearly. I live in US and am an independent who is supporting Romney in 2012.

      • http://twitter.com/DoOp11 Do_Op27

        this is a very good point, it would be better if people accepted how many times Romney has flipped or changed (sometimes in the same day) what he says and to who. 

        This might be one of the most important issues, but if you are going to call Obama a panderer, then you can NOT vote Mitt

      • tellthetruth1022

        stillhere? what this lady siad is true. she lived mitt.and also urge you sir or mam to check the facts on mr paul ryan speech lastnight, you might be surprised.

        • StilllHere

          I lived thru Obama, barely, and nobody lies as much as he does.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_4H5AK25QCSTR3SQ3XP6AVRQJCQ Kai

            Sure would like to be informed about all these lies. It’s one thing for a politician to say what he/she would do in office when campaigning, and another when it’s realized that much of what was said can’t be done. This is true of all politicians from all parties for all times. Sorry to be so cynical, but I think it’s naive to take a politician at his/her word; their feet must always be held to the fire to get things done.

            The difference with Romney is that he hasn’t said he’s going to DO anything (noncommittal), and as he’s proven throughout his career, he’s so flexible that he’s willing to change his beliefs and actions to suit the needs of whoever is in front of him.

          • BarrySoetoro2

            Kai, Do I smell compromise. Unlike Obama, Romney will not bow to Reid & Pelosi. Rather as in Mass. he will have to reach across the the aisle. In another words, he must be flexible, and willing to change.    

        • DrewInGeorgia

          They wouldn’t be surprised, nor would they care.

    • BarrySoetoro2

      Elizabeth, I have to agree, and Obama is the same. 

  • http://twitter.com/DoOp11 Do_Op27

    I must really be missing something… When Obama was running in 2008 all we heard was he was a puppet for Rev. Wright, but now no one is allowed to ask a question about how Romney’s Mormonism will affect his policy…

    I have a feeling the GOP doesn’t know who Romney is and possibly is afraid of who he is

    • BarrySoetoro2

      Do_Op27, He is a politician, just like Obama. 

  • gslouch

    Ah,politics!  What the Republicans neglect to reveal is that Smilin Mitch Mcconnell stated from the beginning of president Obama’s term was that his main focus was to get the president out of office.  Not to help the American people by reaching across the aisle, but to remove the president from office.   What the Republicans neglect to reveal is that everytime the president introduced a bill that would create jobs, the republicans would defeat it instead of helping the jobless.  What the Republicans neglect to reveal is what they mean by smaller government includes,yes, privatizing social security.  Here we go again!  What the Republicans neglect to tell people about Obama care is that insurance companies will be unable to deny coverage to individuals with existing illness.   I’m not sure what the Republicans stand for, but it is not for improving the American peoples’ lives.  Vote with care in November!    

    • BarrySoetoro2

      gslouch, It sounds like you are a true slouch when it comes to doing your homework.  Your comment “ I’m not sure what the Republicans stand for, but it is not for improving the American peoples’ lives”.  It just another example of the bias at CH.

  • tagubajones

    This was a really dreadful episode — but what to expect when you pit John Taylor against Robert Reich? There has to be a better way to dig into difficult ideas; using the tired format of pro vs – con has become so predictable. He says/she says…

    Can’t you find someone knowledgeable but objective?

  • ExcellentNews

    You LITTLE people simply do not get it. Romney’s plan will provide a HUGE boost to the economy !!!! (the economy of Switzerland and Cayman Islands, that is… all the extra billions that job exporters get to keep will go there)

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 17, 2014
Ultra-Orthodox Jewish men burn leavened items in final preparation for the Passover holiday in the ultra-Orthodox Jewish town of Bnei Brak, near Tel Aviv, Israel, Monday, April 14, 2014. Jews are forbidden to eat leavened foodstuffs during the Passover holiday that celebrates the biblical story of the Israelites' escape from slavery and exodus from Egypt. (AP)

In the week of Passover and anti-Semitic gunfire, we look at the history of the Jews with acclaimed historian Simon Schama. Plus, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church today.

 
Apr 17, 2014
Students cheer and wave as President Barack Obama, not pictured, exits the podium after speaking at the University at Buffalo, in Buffalo, N.Y., Thursday, Aug. 22, 2013, beginning his two day bus tour speaking about college financial aid.  (AP)

The inside dope on college financial aid. The way it really works, who gets what, and how.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment
 
How Boston Is Getting Ready For the 2014 Boston Marathon
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

Boston Globe metro reporter Maria Cramer explains how the 2014 Boston Marathon will be different than races in the past.

More »
Comment
 
WBUR’s David Boeri: ‘There’s Still Much We Don’t Know’
Tuesday, Apr 15, 2014

WBUR’s senior reporter David Boeri details the ongoing investigation into the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing perpetrators.

More »
Comment