Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
March 29, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Art of the Con

What Is Sex For?
I Am Brian Wilson

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Live Chat: Robert Scheer on Republicans’ New Image [UPDATE: Audio and Video added]

Posted on Jul 22, 2010

(Page 2)

10:57 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 18:57:32 GMT
Comment: Hello and welcome to our live Q&A. We’ll start soon.

11:01 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:01:20 GMT

 OK, Bob is just joining us.

11:01 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:01:34 GMT

 Hello everyone.

11:02 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:02:07 GMT

 Question from the Internet: How many years should people be able to draw unemployment before we start calling it welfare anyway?


Square, Site wide

11:03 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:03:41 GMT

 I suspect you intend a pejorative comment by that, but the reality is that these people are not unemployed by a fault of their own or a lack of desire to work. The government policies were created because they did what the bankers wanted. Until the mess gets straightened up, we won’t have this solved. The government has an obligation to the unemployed to provide a better solution. 

11:03 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:03:42 GMT

 JO ANN, Fair Haven, N.J.: “Thank you for Truthdig & for “Left Right & Center.’ ”

11:04 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:04:02 GMT

 Another Internet question: “Will the coming Obama Recession/Depression be worse than the Bush Recession?
Even VP Biden says that there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost. That’s not very optimistic.

Where’s the Hope?”

11:04 petermaercbs via twitter
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:04:11 GMT

 House (finally) gives final congressional passage to unemployment extension. Pres. Obama to sign it today.

11:07 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:07:19 GMT

 Well let’s be clear, it was not Obama that caused this recession. This recession—if we are to place blame—should be placed on the Reagan Republicans who kept demanding radical deregulation of the financial industry, and that was implemented by Bill Clinton, who collaborated with them and pushed the reversal [of the rules] that controlled the greed of the banking industry. Obama inherited the problem; it broke under Bush, his response was to throw money at Wall Street. Obama has tried to do a little bit better, but in the main he’s playing out of the same playbook that Bush had in the crisis. Unless the policies are reversed—that means worrying about foreclosures, people losing their homes—if we can’t bring back housing, we’re not going to have the turnaround we need for the work force. We have to bring back construction of the streets. Have to be more in tune with helping people buy homes, in the same aggressive way that was done to make Wall Street whole. If Obama does not do that, we’re in for a long haul. 

11:07 Comment From Guin in France
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:07:20 GMT
Comment: Hi Robert, big fan here—Do you think that the GOP, with this round of antics regarding unemployment benefits, will feel repercussions come the midterm elections?

11:09 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:09:41 GMT

 (To Guin) I do. I believe this was, as I said in my column, a branding issue. It revealed the Republican leadership to be heartless in the idea of holding up checks for 2.5 million families, who since the beginning of June could not get an unemployment check. The Republicans even admit this is a good way to spend money, but were using it as blackmail to get other cuts in the budget. For them to blackmail, reveal their true nature ... they never attempted to blackmail the banks, they didn’t tell Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley, “If you don’t help those in need we won’t give you money,” but when it came to helping people who needed it, they got really callous. 

11:09 Truthdig
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:09:45 GMT

 Question from Nat in Los Angeles:
I’ve heard in the past welfare and unemployment benefits referred to as measures created by the government to ameliorate and quiet the poor. It seems the logic behind this statement is that the more the government gives people for free, the less likely they’ll be to rock the boat by airing subversive opinions or even formulating them. What do you think about this?

11:13 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:13:35 GMT

 (To Nat) Well there’s no question that the enlightened government policies of unemployment insurance, retirement benefits and medical assistance were all concocted out of a desire to save the system. The system can’t depend upon corporate greed, it short-circuits, and we can’t count on the good will of leaders of multinational corporations to do the right thing, whether it concerns banking policies or drilling in the Gulf, or now, the banks not being able to make the kinds of deals to help people stay in their homes. So government intervention is necessary for the survival of corporate capitalism. That was the message from the New Deal. Roosevelt came from a wealthy family, and he saved capitalism from its worst tendencies. Unemployment insurance and welfare—which are not the same, I would point out—unemployment insurance is a program that is paid for out of productive activity. The whole idea of the program is that we put these funds in in good times to cushion the effects of bad times. It is not a giveaway, it’s a part of what makes the work cycle efficient. But yes, it’s necessary to sustaining stability in the society. 

11:13 Comment From radson
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:13:37 GMT
Comment: Hello Mr. Scheer: It can be safe to conclude that the corporations that abide by the Chicago Boys’ philosophy is now being practiced in America with impunity. The unemployment figures coupled with the reductions of social services is clearly evident along with this latest “fiasco” with regards to unemployment benefits and the reluctance to help the average citizens with what in reality are modest funds. My question is how far will the corporations actually go to totally reform the America that was once known, especially that America that was forged in a sense by the veterans of WWII?

11:17 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:17:43 GMT

 (To radson) I think that the multinational corporations are out of control. They are obsessed with short-term profits, they no longer have the sense of responsibility that even the old robber barons had, which was to preserve their legacy, to think of the long run. That attitude, which was true of the Rockefellers and Morgans, has been lost. We no longer have serious family control of these corporations; they are run by hotshots preoccupied with their bonuses, whipping up what they can. And even if they leave a disaster, as we’ve seen, they still make a fortune. So there’s no fundamental sense of responsibility to their communities, workers, stockholders, and that is why we need more extensive regulation now than ever. The problem is they have enormous results that they can use to prevent regulation. They spent 350M dollars to get the New Deal regulations reversed, this time around they have spent 650M dollars according to the NY Times to prevent meaningful financial regulation. The consequence is that we have a very weak bill the p resident has just signed which was weakened by the Wall Street lobbyists to a point where it will not prevent a future crisis.

11:17 Comment From Donna Fritz
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:17:45 GMT
Comment: To Bob’s comment about housing: My wife and I are utilizing a government-subsidized house purchasing program here in Long Beach, CA, where only 1% down is required. We’re meeting with a loan officer tomorrow. It looks like an outstanding opportunity for low-income people to purchase homes.

11:19 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:19:53 GMT

 (To Donna) That’s good news, and if you manage to get a reasonable loan, that’s a step in the right direction, but the statistics throughout the country are quite depressing. The mortgage modification program has affected less than 20% of the people in trouble, and I’m basing this on a Wall Street Journal survey 2 days ago ... the banks have been very slow to make modifications to keep people in their homes. The reason is that Congress did not pass legislation to empower the bankruptcy courts to force them to make reasonable accommodations, so it’s still up to the good will of the banks, and we know what that means. 

11:19 Comment From Jason
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:19:56 GMT
Comment: Is capitalism that good it should be saved? If capitalism is the problem, can we replace it with something else? Don’t get me wrong here, I’m all for helping people out who have been screwed by the system (Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, Social Security, etc), but isn’t [it] the system that is completely flawed? Can we move beyond doing what’s best for the economy, i.e. businesses, and towards doing what’s right for human beings and the environment we depend on to live?

11:23 meganchester_ via twitter
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:23:52 GMT

 Obama wants the tax cuts permanent for middle- & lower-income taxpayers. Republicans & Democrats both want something else

11:24 Robert Scheer
Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:24:35 GMT

 (To Jason) Well what has happening ever since Franklin Roosevelt was the modification of rural capitalism, of raw greed, of unfettered corporate power, to make the system more accommodating to the needs of people as well as ensuring its own survival. We could sit around and wish up design of a better system, but that’s not how human progress occurred. What has happened with the development of capitalism is that major battles have been won. For example, the ban of child labor, the right to form unions, the 8-hour workday, occupational and health safety. And I think two things have to happen. More standards have to be expanded throughout the world to places like China, India and Mexico, to ensure that working people around the world are extended full human rights, which includes not being economically exploited. So we have to pay attention to rights of workers around the world, and products produced through such exploitation should be denied to be imported. Secondly, we have to demand sufficient regulation of multinational corporations so that they are beholden to the citizens of the countries in which they operate, That’s the issue we’re facing with BP: Are they to be allowed to float above all nation state concerns? Or, when they operate offshore from the US, are they responsible to the citizens of the US? That’s the big issue. 



They Know Everything About You -- A new book by Truthdig Editor Robert Scheer. Order an autographed copy now!


Taboola Below Article
Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Quinty, July 27, 2010 at 10:59 am Link to this comment

Unfortunately there’s not much which is really new about the Republican Party’s
approach to politics. Go back far enough there was a time when Democrats
played the same game. Which doesn’t make any of it the less infuriating. For it
always appears to work.

So what is the great ploy? Obstruct, say “no,’ and insure a lack of success. Give
the other side nothing to brag about. Even if the solutions they offer are
“common sense,” obvious, and worth trying. And stand by your full faith in
unfettered Capitalism, deregulation, and tax cuts. You will have a base which will
always believe in this orthodoxy. And those who are uncertain (the middle?) may
give your side a try in the upcoming election because things are such a mess.
And you can promise to bring them out of the mess.

That is, unless they look at history. And see the mess was created by these
policies in the first place. But how sharp is the national memory? What you see is
what you see and when you look about things appear pretty bad. And the
Democrats haven’t gotten the country out of it. And we face scary deficits what
with all the “tax and spend.” Blame that. And don’t forget, when you support tax
cuts for the rich, claim all that untaxed money will actually benefit society by
creating jobs. And appeal to the sentiments of those voters who, had they any
money, would just love to hang on to their millions or billions through tax
breaks. Because, after all, a basic American tenet states you have a right to
what you yourself have earned, made, accomplished. That’s the American

No matter, though, if the country goes down. And what if we actually do become
a third world country with a tiny, walled upperclass, and millions of peasants
scrounging daly to make ends meet. Isn’t that the way it should be? The natural
fall out of hard work, persistence, an innate superiority?

Historically our country has moved in this direction a long time. Since the 19th
century. We have had some luck and some breaks. But we need more than luck,
don’t we? I do wish President Obama would become more forceful. And that the
Democrats would be more vociferous when decent legislation fails. Rather than
shrug their shoulders, say that’s politics, on to other things…...

Report this
Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right 3, Site wide - Exposure Dynamics
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide