David Gregory analyzes this morning's Meet The Press including comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding the end of the war in Iraq and the death of Moammar Kadhaffy.
Two major events overseas shifted the country's attention to foreign policy this week: the capture and killing of Libyan leader Moammar Kadhaffy, and President Obama's announcement that all US troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year.
When asked what effect these foreign policy accomplishments will have on the 2012 elections, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told me, "Americans are going to want to know that they have a steady, experienced, smart hand on the tiller of the ship of state, and there's no doubt that that's Barack Obama."
Also, this morning marked the sixth installment of our Meet The Candidates series with Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX). This week, the Congressman unveiled his economic plan that, in part, would abolish five government agencies. Paul says this can be done without hurting any Americans and, "if the role of government is the constitutional approach you can't keep spending like this."
Watch our entire broadcast on our website to see more of my conversations with Secretary Clinton and Congressman Paul. Plus, our political roundtable weighed in on the jobs bill and the 2012 election.
Also, you can watch my other Meet The Candidates interviews on our website. Here's last week's interview with Herman Cain.
We'll be back next week. If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press.
Leave a Comment:
Paul: ‘Taxation is theft’
99% of America: 'Business is predation and corruption of Democracy.'
Don't be fooled by the OWS demonstrators claiming to be the 99%. First, they aren't. Second, they're learning that their biggest talking points, more taxation and lionizing government unions, are losing propositions when they watch the government take them to jail.
Here is what I took David....Ron Paul deserves and demands the media's respect as evident by the way he dismantled your questions. Dr. Paul is honest and believes in what he says. RON PAUL 2012
Once again the media discounts anything Dr. Paul has to say. David, following up your interview with Ron Paul his name was not mentioned once by you or your panel. In the wrap up you didn't even mention that he was on your show. The Revolution will not be televised is for sure. Rise up Americans, I implore you. Listen to the only candidate that is the sound of reason. Ron Paul 2012.
Well Tyson, unfortunately, history, not just the media, also discounts anything Paul has to say, revenue to GDP tripled after the depression and near the end of WWII, not decreased as Paul says, so that could not be the reason the depression ended. Although it is true, that if you only look at the last year or so of the war, revenues then, were higher than they were afterwards, the fact still remains that they were still triple that of what they were during the depression years.
Meg, thank you for the economic lesson. What pulled us out of the depression was people going back to work. After WWII the countries of Europe were devastated and the U.S. had about 10 years where they had no competition. You may discount some of what he has to say, but what is the alternative out there? Are you trying to tell me that what we are doing now is working? Mitt Romney, Perry or even Cain are all part of the system that is broken. We need true change. None of the other Republican candidates are even talking about how to reduce our debt. Flat tax, 9-9-9 are great for soundbites, but that's all they are. Once they get elected those promises will never be kept. Ron Paul is the only candidate that I have seen that is consistent in his message and has a track record to prove it. Thank you for your comment. I'm still sticking with Dr. Paul in 2012.
Everyone of the candidates and President elects since Reagan has proposed "CHANGE," but Ron Paul is, thus far, the only candidate that has ever talked about real CHANGE. RON PAUL for Republican Presidential Candidate and President for 2012!!
Ron Paul sounded like a crazy man. If anything were up to him he would dismantle the entire government. He is the last person to get the (R) nomination much less the Presidency, that's a horrifying prospect. It's no wonder David Gregory didn't mention Paul during the round table discussion, he's not worth mentioning!
Still think he's crazy? A partial audit of the Fed showed the true cost of the bailout(including bailing out European banks) was 16 trillion dollars. You got that much laying around? The U.S. certainly does not! Oh, okay, we'll borrow it from China. Now, the war drums are beating for a conflict with Iran, who is chums with China. See how these foreign entanglements get messy as hell? Ron Paul is not crazy or dangerous-our current policies are the threat to this country. Ron Paul is the only sane candidate on the stage!
Good Morning David!
Thanks for your Great Work...truly appreciate the objectivity and the depth of your Journalism.
If I May: Mitt Romney is a Smart Man. Most of us realize that. But no one in the Press or in his Opposition have said who/what the Governor really is. He gives all the appearances of an "empty suit". He has the warmth of a mannequin, and even less sincerety. The word that I believe best describes him is Saccahrin (Sweet, yet artificial). Weak Leadership, pure and simple.
The Economy - Jack Welch got it right. Excellent Companies can and should, with really not much risk, find ways to start hiring and producing. Why? If we build it, People will buy...If they have a decent Job. We are an Economy of Goods and Services. The more that get purchased the higher the Tax revenue, the higher $$ Profits for the Companies that took the risk (ala Henry Ford).
Although the fact that the top 1% of wage earners make nearly 25% of the money is obscene, it really wouldn't matter if the Economy was running as it did during Presdient Clinton's Administration. I would argue that most Americans have little arguement with Companies making as much Profit as they can, as long as it is done Legally, Morally, Ethically, and "Patriotically" (for lack of a better word). Having said that, all companies (Large and Small - Public and Private) should most certainly pay a fair share of taxes. Excellent Companies (none I can think of) have ever gone broke paying taxes.
The Same applies to the Very Wealthy - I really don't care how much they make, if it's earned under the same provisions listed above. They should also, however, pay their "fair" share of Taxes. "With Great Wealth and Privilege" comes even greater responsibility.
I've lived a good life, and have made a decent living. I'm 64 years old and un-employed (by sheer coincidence and bad luck). That's only interesting because I'm very highly qualified in my chosen career, and it's been very difficult to even get interviewed by Companies, let alone be on a "Short List" to be hired. This time in my life my be the single most humbling and humilating period of time I've ever been through. When I read and hear the stories of the "qualified" and working hard to get re-employed folks that I see and hear all the time, I truly understand their frustration and heartache. That's more than I likely should have said (publically), but if you or any of the Staff would like to hear or see more, then please contact me.
Thanks again for your very high quality work. You are carrying on the great Tradition of Timmy Russert very very well!
Best regards,
B
You have got to be kidding. The panel consists of a millionaire industrialist, a right wing columnist, a Wall Street investment banker, and Andrea Mitchell. Come on. Where is the balance?
Good Morning David!
Thanks for your Great Work...truly appreciate the objectivity and the depth of your Journalism.
If I May: Mitt Romney is a Smart Man. Most of us realize that. But no one in the Press or in his Opposition have said who/what the Governor really is. He gives all the appearances of an "empty suit". He has the warmth of a mannequin, and even less sincerety. The word that I believe best describes him is Saccahrin (Sweet, yet artificial). Weak Leadership, pure and simple.
The Economy - Jack Welch got it right. Excellent Companies can and should, with really not much risk, find ways to start hiring and producing. Why? If we build it, People will buy...If they have a decent Job. We are an Economy of Goods and Services. The more that get purchased the higher the Tax revenue, the higher $$ Profits for the Companies that took the risk (ala Henry Ford).
Although the fact that the top 1% of wage earners make nearly 25% of the money is obscene, it really wouldn't matter if the Economy was running as it did during Presdient Clinton's Administration. I would argue that most Americans have little arguement with Companies making as much Profit as they can, as long as it is done Legally, Morally, Ethically, and "Patriotically" (for lack of a better word). Having said that, all companies (Large and Small - Public and Private) should most certainly pay a fair share of taxes. Excellent Companies (none I can think of) have ever gone broke paying taxes.
The Same applies to the Very Wealthy - I really don't care how much they make, if it's earned under the same provisions listed above. They should also, however, pay their "fair" share of Taxes. "With Great Wealth and Privilege" comes even greater responsibility.
I've lived a good life, and have made a decent living. I'm 64 years old and un-employed (by sheer coincidence and bad luck). That's only interesting because I'm very highly qualified in my chosen career, and it's been very difficult to even get interviewed by Companies, let alone be on a "Short List" to be hired. This time in my life my be the single most humbling and humilating period of time I've ever been through. When I read and hear the stories of the "qualified" and working hard to get re-employed folks that I see and hear all the time, I truly understand their frustration and heartache. That's more than I likely should have said (publically), but if you or any of the Staff would like to hear or see more, then please contact me.
Thanks again for your very high quality work. You are carrying on the great Tradition of Timmy Russert very very well!
Best regards,
B
David, I am glad that you are giving the Republican candidates equal time to make the case for our votes. Also happy that it exposes the lack of real intellectual thought or understanding of the state of our nation and this world. Ron Paul was a perfect example of this today. I agree with him that we cannot keep spending as we have, but there are much better ways to cut equal amounts of waste.
Show us someone else who has a real plan, any plan.
"...the lack of real intellectual thought or understanding of the state of our nation and this world." Ron Paul just showed us the only real understanding. But if you think the economy is hunky-dory, Europe's meltdown won't affect us, constant wars are normal, and tyranny is an acceptable status quo, by all means vote the status quo.
A great job by Ron Paul, despite your curve balls, he hit a home run with his answers. He is the only candidate with an understanding of our problems and answers to the problems. Despite the blackout of the media, his movement is growing. He represents the American people, not the corporate empires that control y'all!
Did Ron Paul ROCK or WHAT? This was many people's first look at Ron Paul, and he leveled with us, answered every question directly, without hesitation, and backed up his points with simple truth. Mr. Gregory, you need to bone up on our economic meltdown and depression. From ANY perspective, left or right, the government-backed housing promises had a great deal to do with it, and NO, government has not "always" been involved. Democrats and Republicans, EXPOSED as an EVIL one-party monopoly. Go, President Paul!
Well - he back up his comments with things that were not actually true. The gov did cut spending after WWII was over (this is understandable, the war was over and the economy had recovered due to the gov spending during the war that boosted private sector factories, steel production, retooling, etc.) but that is also when more revenue was actually taken "out" of the economy, revenue to GDP tripled after the war, so a huge amount of money was "taken out" of the private sector after the depression. So, Paul's argument does not make sense that the gov was "taking out" less. Actually it was three times as much and this continued for decades during the "boom years" which saw much higher taxes than today. In fact the debt to GDP was even higher than today 100% of GDP at the end of the war and the economy still "boomed" in the post war era and with the higher taxes and revenues, in fact we were able to greatly pay down the debt with the increased revenue - so what Paul says really makes no sense - it sounds good on the surface - but there is no "truth" in reality to how an economy really works.
Meg, you sound very bitter. We get your point, but really do you have in others?
Yet another right-wing roundtable on Sunday 10/23. None of the guests represent the real Democratic viewpoint, including Harold Ford who is a Republican-lite DINO. This has been going on long enough. I can live with the occasional right slanted roundtable if it's balanced by a left leaning one another week. But it's become the same story every week. MTP is a Fox News wannabe and I'm not going to watch any more.
Interesting - Ron Paul on Meet the Press today completely distorted history to try to justify his ideology - What facts do I have to support this claim? Historical data for one. Why would he do this? - because people have consistently pointed to real historical facts to show how his views are not only wrong, but are not supported by historical data about how an economy really works - for one thing, despite what Paul says here, revenues during the depression were very very small as a percentage of GDP about 1/3 as much as they were in the late 1940's 1950's and the 1960's. In addition, they were much higher during those boom years than they are today - so to say it was a decrease in taxes that got us out of the depression is SO ridiculous - revenues compared to the size of the economy tripled, revenue to GDP more than tripled near the end of WWII, to pay for the war and even after the war they were still triple that what they were during the depression - it was actually the spending in WWII, fueled by the war efforts to build planes and tanks that boosted the growth in the economy by boosting the growth in private sector (demand for steel, retooling etc) that got our economy humming along again. In addition, Paul keeps saying that tax money is somehow taken out of the economy by the government - well if that was true - why do republicans complain about all the government spending? The truth is that the government actually spends the tax dollars in the economy, and during depressions and recessions, the government boosts the economy by reinstating the flow of money that the private sector is not engaging in - Reagan greatly increased spending to GDP to get us out of the 1980's recession - unfortunately revenue to GDP greatly dropped due to the tax cuts - giving us that spike in deficit spending of hundreds of billions a year that added to our debt - this trend has just just kept on growing (except for a few years under Clinton) - The truth is that government spending is very effective to get us out of recessions and depressions - but since we racked up such a huge amount of debt in good economic times after Reagan with Bush, it makes it very difficult to engage in the policies that we needed to, during this recession, to get us back on track, because because so much debt had already accumulated and because we already had policies in place prior to the collapse that were leading to average yearly deficits of around 500 billion a year - the loss of revenue from the recession itself also contributes to about a third of our yearly deficit - If it is any consolation to anyone, our debt to GDP was also pretty horrendous after WWII - similar to today - but because we had restored our economy, it was not too hard to pay it down (because we had higher taxes, and more revenue - not less as Paul suggests) and this increase in revenue at the end of WWII and for decades afterwards, certainly did not hurt the economy.
I'm not quite 50 -- Please meet the only Statesman "my" generation has or will ever have...
I would gladly opt out of SS, even at my age -- and trust me if government promises were to be believed I would collect more than the average woman my age "at retirement." Gov't promises are no good -- anyone who would trust the US government more than 12 months from now is out of their mind (imho.)
Ron Paul 2012 - consider donating to his campaign RonPaul2102.com to keep the debate among the "ruling class" honest!
In addition, although we cut spending after WWII, spending to GDP still remained much, much higher after the war, than during the depression years prior to the war, so even that part of Paul's claim (that the gov was spending less post depression and that that somehow boosted us out of the depression) this is false, combine this with the fact that revenue to GDP tripled after the depression, and you have a problem with Paul's argument -
Meg you claim that Ron doesn't understand how an economy works yet he has predicted economic downturns with stunning accuracy. Most recently the 2008 housing bubble going all the way back to 1983. 1983 he predicted the downturn in 1987. "on October 16 1987 waves of sell orders plunged the DOW to a 180 point loss". In 2003 he said inflating the current bubble is going to have global repercussions, he even named fannie and freddy and the FED as being the major players. Everyone else was saying thats crazy all the way up to the end. You can hear for yourself if you look up Ron Paul was right (1983-2008) on youtube.
RON PAULLLLLLLLLLLL the father of freedom!theonly answer!!!