Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Lawrence interviews Harry Reid
Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:30 PM EDT
Leave a Comment:
- 2012
- 2011
- 2010
Discuss this post
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
About The Last Word
The Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell airs at 10pm ET, Monday through Thursday on MSNBC. The show channels O'Donnell's extensive background in politics and entertainment.
I will like to give a suggestion in regards of cooling down the reactors. I left a massage yesterday I don’t know if the engineers received them. I explained that due to the extreme temperatures found inside the reactors water will not be the best option due towards its chemical compound and as well as for the extreme vapors in which it creates. A more intense infusion or cooling system needs to be applied for this type of occasion; Nitrogen, and lots, lots of it. 1. You need to drill or get access to more that two entry points into the reactor if possible. (this is so that you can cool the reactors in a more evenly manner to try and prevent accumulation or failure in one of the Nitrogen feed lines. 2. I’m not sure what the Nitrogen will do as far as a reaction; thoughts it might just freeze it instantly or it can blow due to the intense rapid cooling however if you can run a control run with a minimal amount of Nitrogen into the the Hot Reactors you should be able to tell whether this infusion of Nitrogen should do the job. Note dumping water by air I believe to be extremely dangerous or by spraying it with water by the use of water crowd control hoses. Infusion of pure nitrogen. You will need to have a truck with Nitrogen for each of the reactors : Note create multiple entry points into the reactor to cool evenly and not to create an Intense Energy Change Over or “energy extreme”,oa. You can email me for any additional advice at a.alberty@live.com or call 408-529-3555
I only able to send an email to Tokyo Electric Power Company which is the parent company of Fukushima power plant. I still haven't got a response. Is it possible for msnbc to pitch the idea to the engineers at Fukushiman power plant.
In your interview with Harry Reid, why didn't you ask them to cut the budget for wars?
You're WRONG, Lawrence. There is THIRD much nicer way to save Social Security
money. Just give my friends AMNESTY, and they will have 9 Good SS numbers
and gladly pay TRIILLIONS into Social Security instead of having to be paid
under the table. See my book, We Are Not The Enemy: We Come Only
With Our Dreams at Amazon.com Fran Reed GOOD SHOW !!!!
Laurence
I hate to go off topic but your commercials have been bothering me.
Your statement saying you blame the Tucson shooter for the first 10 rounds and the government for the rest really bothers me. It appears you are suggesting that is there was legislation prohibiting high capacity magazines it would have prevented the shooter from possessing the prohibited magazine and using it during the shooting. If the 31 year banned on handguns in Washington D.C. did anything it proved your assumption to be in error. The murder rate in Washington D.C. went up after the handgun band when into affect. Laws prohibiting handguns did not stop or ever reduce the number of murders. The only thing your propose legislation would do is stop law abiding citizens from the ability to own high capacity magazines. The criminals would still have them.
And just what do the "law abiding citizens" do with their high capacity magazine right now? Here's another example of Americans unwilling to look at what other nations do with guns. Our gun culture is nuts!!!
And, by the way, when do you think Obama's going to get around to taking your guns away as you screammed before his election?
fiishtil6
Law abiging citizens will do whatever they want with them. What business is that our yours?
I am sure Obama will get around to seizing our guns as soon as he finishes destroying our economy.
i find your badgering of harry reed on social secutity very hard to stomach and far afield from the reality of how social security and the general budget interact. you keep asking if general funds will be used to shore up ss in the unspecified future, something like 20 years ahead when the surplus from ss becomes a deficit. the backdrop, the 1000 lb gorilla in the room here is that for the last 20(?) years the surplus from ss (a considerable contribution) has been thrown into the general fund and used to balance the general budget when and such as it is ever balanced. now you, and republicans and especially tea partiers are using this supposed far-in-the-future ss deficit to bash and destroy social security, a program that not only is completely solvent but is and has been the saving grace to the federal budget. wow. maybe you should run your tripe past krugman, just sayin. hes the only head in the room.
You are correct that SS does not contribute to the deficit. SS is paid by the employee and employer and not the federal government. People who receive SS are not being given a handout like the conservatives are trying to portray SS. The government is merely a trustee for the SS funds.
Congress and the presidents have been using the SS surplus like a piggy bank by writing IOU's to the fund. Now, it is time for those IOU's to be paid and that is going to come out of the general budget. The so called unfunded liability for SS, like many government and private pension plans, are not related to the Baby Boomers retiring. The plans are in trouble because they were underfunded when the government or private entity failed to make the proper payments into the plan. The obligations were incurred before the economic crisis. Now the conservatives are trying to use the budget deficit to attack SS. They want to end SS because it is one of the last vestiges of FDR and because elimination of payroll tax would give business a windfall. There is no reason to trust business to provide proper retirement benefits. That is why SS was enacted.
The attempts to privatize SS are pernicious for similar reasons. The Wall Street bankers and stockbrokers are salivating at the thought of billions of dollars passing through their hands so they can take commissions. If SS were privatized, Wall Street would have billions of dollars of other people's money to play with and gamble. There is no reason to trust Wall Street because they brought the economy down with their practices. You need only to look at your current pension/401k plan to see the effects of Wall Street's gambling. Republicans, as usual, are doing the bidding of Wall Street.
SS has been successful for 75 years and there is no reason to make major changes in the system. Public opinion is strongly against any changes in SS. Medicare is also funded by employee and employer contributions. There will need to be changes in Medicare because of the growing use of medical care for seniors. Instead of fixing Medicare, Obama restructured the growing debt when the Dems passed the health care bill. Medicare will need to be revamped to fix the program. That will mean more contributions by the employees and employers. Premiums and copays will need to be increased to reduce the Medicare debt. However, these changes are only a part of the solution and will not completely fix the system. The changes would merely delay the solution to the health care system. Nationalization of the health care system is the only way we can get medical costs under control. But there is no stomach to do it in today's political climate. It will take a major crisis with Medicare to achieve what needs to be done.
When you said either raise taxes or cut benefits, you were misleading. You know very well that the government could remove the cap on income taxed by Social Security so that the very rich would pay SS taxes on all their income, as they do now for Medicare. Yes, this would be raising taxes on the very rich, but very different from what you were suggesting (a tax raise for all). Social Security has not contributed a dime toward the deficit. It has a huge surplus that the government keeps raiding.
Here again, the ignorance of the general public will allow our morally corrupt politicians (that's all of them since you can't win national election without corruption) to distort the truth and enact a partial remedy which gets them through the next election cycle. Why am I even bothering to comment? Makes no difference. The political process in the US is beyond mending. Other countries are baffled by our politics i.e. re-electing G. Dumbya Bush. But, it is entertaining.
Lawrence, I was happy to see Harry Reid on your show. I bellieve you are sincere
in your concern for social security. Senator Reid was impressive but maybe about
thirty years too late. On page 596 of Richard Parker's biography of John Kenneth
Galbraith he says this:
More than a politicall price was paid for (the democrat's compromises
on taxes with Reagan) these compromises. For one, the compromises
presented substantial advantages for wealthy individuals and corpora-
tions, and the immense benefits they'd received in the 1981 supply
side bill were never rolled back. By the end of the Reagan years the top
marginal income tax rate paid by the wealthiest American families was
roughly a third of what it had been under Eisenhower.
The taxes or "revenue ehnancements" that were initiated to replace Reagan's
income tax cuts for the rich were regressive. The largest was social security al-
though Reagan initially promised that the revenue raised from social security
taxes would only be used to aid America's seniors, he was lying. Reagan and
Greenspan ran a swindle. We know this because the amount of increase in the
social security tax was far too extreme for any small short fall the social security
trust had run until that time.
Henceforth, social security should go forth in a designated trust fund as was originally intended. (lock box--remember Al Gore?) No access whatsoever by our sticky fingered Congress. Then, our government should be required to begin immediate repayments of the trillions taken from the fund for who knows what. After repayment, then, and only then, should changes to social security even be considered. Not one member of congress has ever looked into a TV camera and said that the money from social security was pilfered--that they robbed the fund blind. No, it's just social security is broke, the sky is falling, and the citizens must suck it up. Way to go Harry, but he omitted some very pertinent facts, and didn't mention the necessary corrections needed to eradicate the problem. Lots of luck getting congress to vote for a trust fund., because their cash cow would disappear. Our government is completely broken.
Watch out your sounding like a conservative in your second paragraph. I agree with it 100%. I would however suggest the sole intent when creating Social Security was to create a pot of money that could be robbed. After all do you really believe our legislator would do anything to benefit the people? The very premise behind the introduction of Social Security was that the average citizen was too stupid to set aside money for their future. The other issue I have is the number people receiving Social Security benefit while they did not contribute to the program. Between the handouts and Congressional thievery the system cannot hold up. Social Security needs to be abolished, the question is how do you abolish it without completely defrauding the contributors of the hard earned money that has already been confiscated by the Federal government.
Laurence
I enjoyed Harry’s optimism concerning the Tea Party; they will simply fade away. This is coming from a guy who denied them as a political force in the first place. The Tea Party is far from fading away. We have a few seats in the legislature now; in 2012 we will have more. The Tea Party will influence the legislation until we are the majority in both the House and Senate. The Federal government must and will curb spending. The weak kneed Republicans may cave, but the Tea Party will not. The good news for the Democrats is the Tea Party will go after Republicans in 2012 too.
"The good news for the Democrats is the Tea Party will go after Republicans in 2012 too." Nothing beats internecine warfare for entertainment.