Dan Rather's outrageous comments on coasttocoastam

[James DiEugenio]

That's true Pat, but recall where Rather was in life before the JFK assassination and where he went after.

[Ron Ecker]

One possibility is that by 1963 Dan Rather was already nuts. Remember the "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" episode?

[Brian Schmidt]

NAFTA is a good thing? No, NAFTA is just one part of a huge program that David Rockefeller made his lifelong ambition. Namely globalization, a one world economy. One in which corporations could pay the absolute lowest prices for labor, which means hiring abroad, thereby controlling those economies, as the USA economy is hollowed out and the USA standard of living is lowered. While the middle class disappears and unions are smashed, The best book about this is Winner Take All Politics, a book I reviewed for Bob Parry. (BTW, I would not trust Wikipedia on an issue like that, just like I would not trust them on the sixties assassinations.) That globalization agenda was coupled with the erosion of the graduated income tax, and mass business deregulation.

Jim,

My dad was a union leader at Geneva Steel Plant in Orem, Utah. When I went to buy my first car, he cautioned me to buy American. For if I didn't, I would be putting an American laborer out of work. My response to him was that if I didn't buy a Japanese car, I'd be putting a Japanese laborer out of work.

What's the difference??

When jobs are shipped overseas, it lowers the standard of living of Americans. But is raises the standard of living in countries where the poverty is much worse. I'd say that overall, that's a pretty good exchange.

Of course, its the corporations and wealthy investors who really make out. Redistribution of wealth through taxation is the answer for that.

(BTW, this is an example of why people say I'm far to the left.)

P.S. I don't buy that incarcerating more people (usually men) lowers the poverty rate. When a person is incarcerated, he is unable to work and provide for his family. And that raises the poverty rate.

For some reason you choose to believe just the negative opinions written about the Clintons. (Please don't say that I choose to believe just the positive opinions. All I have done here is present hard, indisputable facts.)

Sandy, I agree with much of what you have said and no doubt Clinton was a pragmatic deal maker and accomplished some good things. But I think you're missing the broader argument that Clinton was very much a corporatist and embodied the DLC, or "Third Way" that very actively promoted the deregulation of the financial sector and free trade. His reputation as an economic whiz kid remains largely untainted because he lucked out, timing wise. He was riding the wave of the internet era and housing bubble, which contributed to the economic successes of the 90's. But his repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and signing of NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China resulted in the financial crisis and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs and lower American workers' wages.

The economy did grow at a healthy pace during Clinton's tenure, but in terms of historical perspective, it wasn't all that outstanding.

And look at the growing trade imbalances since these "free" trade agreements. Sure, they do raise the standard of living of foreign workers to an extent, but as Ross Perot warned of NAFTA, the Mexican workers will still be producing goods in slave-like conditions.

[Brian Schmidt]

[James DiEugenio]

One possibility is that by 1963 Dan Rather was already nuts. Remember the "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" episode?

Actually Ron, that really did happen, If I recall, they caught the guy later.

[Tom Neal]

One possibility is that by 1963 Dan Rather was already nuts. Remember the "What's the frequency, Kenneth?" episode?

Actually Ron, that really did happen, If I recall, they caught the guy later.

A doorman was a witness to the attack on Rather, so there should never have been any doubt that the attack happened. I expected this to be one of those bizarre incidents that would never be explained, but:

http://lubbockonline.com/news/013097/dan.htm

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/kenneth_what_is_the_frequency_ac_dc_dan_rather

Tom

[Tom Neal]

That's true Pat, but recall where Rather was in life before the JFK assassination and where he went after.

A tragedy for most of us, but a lucky break for Dan Rather. Much like 911 for Bush. The surge of patriotism allowed him to do what he wanted to do. He was a hero. For a while, anyway...

[Ron Ecker]

Okay, I'll give Rather a pass for beaming hostile messages (apparently using the alias Kenneth) to Mr. Tager.

But didn't Rather tell another lie about Dallas besides his Z film description? As I recall, he claimed he was under or near the triple overpass right after the shooting, when all the photographic evidence shows there was no one there who could possibly be Dan Rather.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Ron Ecker

[Brian Schmidt]

Okay, I'll give Rather a pass for beaming hostile messages (apparently using the alias Kenneth) to Mr. Tager.

But didn't Rather tell another lie about Dallas besides his Z film description? As I recall, he claimed he was under or near the triple overpass right after the shooting when all the photographic evidence shows there was no one there who could possibly be Dan Rather.

Yup, he was in a press van on the outer edge of the plaza, if not a block away.

It's interesting how big-name journalists like Brian Williams get caught lying so often. Maybe it's cause they get caught up in big stories and feel attached to them and feel the need to embellish their place in history.

[Ken Rheberg]

Okay, I'll give Rather a pass for beaming hostile messages (apparently using the alias Kenneth) to Mr. Tager.

But didn't Rather tell another lie about Dallas besides his Z film description? As I recall, he claimed he was under or near the triple overpass right after the shooting when all the photographic evidence shows there was no one there who could possibly be Dan Rather.

Yup, he was in a press van on the outer edge of the plaza, if not a block away.

It's interesting how big-name journalists like Brian Williams get caught lying so often. Maybe it's cause they get caught up in big stories and feel attached to them and feel the need to embellish their place in history.

Thanks, Ron, for bringing up Dan Rather's whereabouts on the day of the assassination.

For those who seriously want to get to the bottom of what really took place in Dealey Plaza, it's absolutely critical to go back, once again, to that very day. To Dan Rather. To CBS. And to KRLD.

That much needed, necessary hard evidence Gary Mack often called out for has actually been waiting right there, for all of you, for over fifty-two years.

That includes Jim DiEugenio who just doesn't understand what this is all about.

And, Brian, your Dan Rather story is incorrect, sorry to say.

Ken

[James DiEugenio]

Ok Ken:

Go ahead and tell us what this is really all about.

[Michael Walton]

For those who seriously want to get to the bottom of what really took place in Dealey Plaza, it's absolutely critical to go back, once again, to that very day. To Dan Rather. To CBS. And to KRLD. That much needed, necessary hard evidence Gary Mack often called out for has actually been waiting right there, for all of you, for over fifty-two years.

The popcorn's popped. Candy bars are at the ready. Freshly brewed iced tea with a lemon wedge awaits my first cooling sip. The lights are dimmed.

Now, Ken, tell me what it's all about. I'm absolutely dying to know.

[Tom Neal]

Yes Ken, do tell so I can stop wasting my time gathering facts that you already have.

Tom

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, I agree with much of what you have said and no doubt Clinton was a pragmatic deal maker and accomplished some good things. But I think you're missing the broader argument that Clinton was very much a corporatist and embodied the DLC, or "Third Way" that very actively promoted the deregulation of the financial sector and free trade.

Brian, I'm glad you responded and mentioned the "Third Way." Because I was unaware of that term and now that I've read a little bit about it, I've discovered that it represents my way of thinking.

Capitalism is a great producer of wealth. The government should provide an environment favorable to businesses so they can do just that. In return, businesses should give a percentage of their profits to the people according to their needs. In other words, some of their income should be redistributed. Corporatist Democrats like the Clintons want to do this by increasing taxes on high-income earners and distributing the revenues to low-income earners in the form of refundable tax credits.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is a real example of income redistribution. The EITC adds thousands of dollars to low-income earners' incomes every year. (Unfortunately, that's only the case for those with children. That needs to be changed.)

His reputation as an economic whiz kid remains largely untainted because he lucked out, timing wise.

Yeah, says you. And says the Republicans. I suppose Obama too lucked out in averting a second great depression, and in the steadily dropping unemployment rate.

No Brian, I think it was Obama's stimulus policies that did the trick. And I think it was Clinton's policies in his case.

Your comment sounds like sour grapes to me.

He was riding the wave of the internet era ....

He signed the bill that created the internet. You think he deserves no credit for that? For the economic boom it created?

....and housing bubble, ....

Um... the housing bubble occurred after Clinton's term.

....which contributed to the economic successes of the 90's. But his repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and signing of NAFTA and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China resulted in the financial crisis....

Oh come on. You're gonna pin the blame for the financial crisis on the three things Clinton did that you don't like? Give me a break. Repealing Glass-Steagall might have been a mistake that worsened the financial crisis, but maybe not. It is still being debated! (See this.) (The fact that it hasn't been re-instated should tell you something.) Regardless, there is plenty of blame to go around for the financial crisis, and I've heard them all. Well, numerous ones. The causes are broad and extremely complex. Read the Wikipedia article on the financial crisis and you'll see what I mean.

....and the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs and lower American workers' wages.

The economy did grow at a healthy pace during Clinton's tenure, but in terms of historical perspective, it wasn't all that outstanding.

Brian, this chart doesn't mean what you think it does. Yes, it does indicate that GDP growth rate has dropped since the 1960s. But that's a good thing, not bad. An ideal GDP growth rate is considered by economists to be about 2.5%. If it's much higher than that, it leads to inflation, and inflation is an economy killer. The high GDP growth rates of the 1960s and 1970s led to the high inflation levels of the 1970s and 1980s. And to the stagflation of the 1980s.

If you want to show me charts that are meaningful, show me unemployment rates and real income levels by year. Those are the only numbers we need to know. Because they tell us 1) if people can find jobs and 2) what their income is.

If you look at this chart, you will see that people's income -- for every quintile -- was the greatest ever at the end of Clinton's term. I've already shown the unemployment rate chart. At the end of Clinton's term, unemployment was the lowest it had been since 1969.

It's hard to argue with these numbers, I know. But please don't use the "he got lucky" cop-out that Republicans have used against Democratic presidents since the '80s.

And look at the growing trade imbalances since these "free" trade agreements. Sure, they do raise the standard of living of foreign workers to an extent, but as Ross Perot warned of NAFTA, the Mexican workers will still be producing goods in slave-like conditions.

If Mexican's weren't helped by the jobs that have been sent there, they wouldn't take the jobs.

Of course the jobs benefit them.

Still, as I suggested before, more legislation is required to redistribute income and wealth from those who have benefited the most from the removal of trade barriers. That is what the DLC and Third Way call for.

BTW, notice that the NAFTA trade deficit is on the decrease and almost back to 1985 levels.

Yes, Americans have lost manufacturing jobs. No matter what politicians say, that is going to be the effect of free trade... manufacturing will go to countries with the lowest wages. Even so, the fact remains that American workers are still able to get jobs. And their real incomes have dropped only slightly.

As a "Third Wayer," my preferred solution to bringing low incomes up is to redistribute even more of the high-earners' incomes. Because even though the alternative to that -- reinstating trade barriers -- will raise wages, it will also increase the cost of goods.

Regardless of all that, I do see the point of you protectionists. And so does famed economist Paul Krugman. Years ago he wrote:

"As I said, I’m not a protectionist. For the sake of the world as a whole, I hope that we respond to the trouble with trade not by shutting trade down, but by doing things like strengthening the social safety net. But those who are worried about trade have a point, and deserve some respect."

Edited May 27, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Brian Schmidt]

Sandy, I think you're mistaking me for some kind of right-winger--I'm not. And I agree, more of less, with your opening economic philosophy. I'm not pinning all the blame of the financial crisis and economic malaise on Clinton. Bush and the Republican agenda, in my view, was a much larger contributor to it than Clinton, and he does, as you note, deserve credit for the economic gains resulting from the internet. I'm also with you that Obama averted a major economic catastrophe, but the stimulus actually wasn't large enough (not Obama's fault).

Here's where I would disagree with you: The housing bubble's seeds were indeed planted in the 90's and Glass-Steagall's repeal was a major reason for the financial crisis. The reason Glass-Steagall hasn't been reinstated is due to Republican obstructionism and the banking industry lining the pockets of enough Democrats, so it's funny to hear Hillary praise Dodd-Frank, which doesn't even work, while she's taking money from Wall Street and talking about how we don't need Glass-Steagall.

As far as GDP growth, I work as an economist, so I do get it. And I would never say lower GDP growth is a good thing. Can we duplicate the huge growth rates in the early post-war period? Probably not. That growth was on the back of a huge baby boomer population, a new middle class, new infrastructure, etc. etc. Economists are still trying to understand the "new normal" low economic growth and perhaps that's an attribute of a matured economy. I have a few guesses and they involve growing inequality and supply-side economics but that's another subject. I also wouldn't characterize inflation as detrimental as you make it sound. Any liberal like yourself would take high inflation over high unemployment. The stagflation of the 80's was used by Reaganites to justify abandoning Keynesian economics and create neo-classic models that have done serious damage to the economy ever since.

As far as trade, I just disagree with you. Newer data is making many economists rethink their understanding of the implications of free trade and its effect on domestic workers. I'm not against any kind of trade, but I believe it's in a country's workers' best interest to produce most of the goods that economy consumers. Hell, even read Adam Smith and he would agree. Free trade has decimated rural communities and led to lower workers' wages across many industries--not just manufacturing. The reason trade deficits with Mexico have eased is because there is less incentive to move there because American manufacturing wages are so much lower. A manufacturing job used to support a middle class family of four. Those days are gone and a large reason is free trade.

Edited May 25, 2016 by Brian Schmidt