and you know, i don't think that this is just semantics.read quotes, that this in san francisco, the middle income housing orcpye middle i. and the housing element and the planning( b%ú codes.1 k8 so no one is making up a random phrase or arbitrarily putting this label on. this is how we define it. again i think it is sending a that we're not going to -- we're say that -- say two teachers living together in a household are not really middle income. we just don't feel comfortable referring to them as middle income. i think it sends a very bad message. colleagues i suggest that we reject this amendment or at least that portion of the vote. >> president chiu: any further discussion? okay. amendment. >> clerk calvillo: supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu,> elsbernd, no. supervisor farrell, no. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor wiener, no. there are seven ayes and four nos. >> president chiu: the motion passes. unless there's further discussion why don'thtp we takea roll ca

is it semantics?his is semantics but of course we're in the midst of a political fray here over the entire episode. there are people on the republican side who see this as tremendously danieling to president obama and -- danieling to thdamage --damagina administration and mastering al-qaeda. look at semantic since you point that out. they're important here. the difference is that in the document that susan rice basing remarks on she used the term "extremist" instead of al-qaeda. "tremists." that could include a range of people including al-qaeda but, of course, we know that ansar al-sharia in libya has someda. it's not clear they were taking directions from al-qaeda. but the difference between saying specifically we know this was an al-qaeda attack, or extremists. they did not say we know it's al-qaeda there. indications it might be al-qaeda. that is the difference. semantics but to some people it's now the point of great controversy. >> shannon: if we are talking about changing a word, al-qaeda to ex

there seems to be some semantics going on here around, you know, is it upper moderate income housing,y understanding was, that mayor's office on housing tends to refer and then you have planning that sort of has a different way of -- a different language that they use. rather than getting caught up in that semantics debate i just ja4ted to make sure that the intent of the amendment was captured which is to include 120 to 150, which wasn't originally this reporting. and then hopefully there will be a time when advocates and this board, land use committee, or planning and moh can come to some kind of consensus to define that housing between 120 and 150. so i think the fact that we're including it is some kind

there seems to be some semantics going on here around, you know, is it upper moderate income housing,y understanding was, that mayor's office on housing tends to refer and then you have planning that sort of has a different way of -- a different language that they use. rather than getting caught up in that semantics debate i just ja4ted to make sure that the intent of the amendment was captured which is to include 120 to

all the semantics.re dealing with this closing loopholes and capping deductions since the campaign. mitt romney ran on this. so did paul ryan. so it doesn't this weekend like a lot of movement there. despite painting the picture they are getting wobbly on taxes. >> what is going on now is positioning and posturing. you have to get the big boys here. there are four people and you saw them a week ago at the white house. they were optimistic rhetoric about getting a deal done before christmas, before the december 31 deadline. right now, the logic is, this came out of the meetings that were held between the white house liaison and the head of the staff director and the past week. we need large frames that we can offer to the principl princo when they begin negotiation they know where they are headed. >> bret: a lot of focus on the tax issue. republican side. what we haven't heard is the specifics about what the democrats are willing to do on entitlement reform. >> so given the fact of the election, the demo

it think they have somebody, but the semantics are the speaker is echoing mitt romney's comments about raising revenues. but the union folks are saying, we want to raise tax rates. big difference. >> i don't know if they can get that through. eighty-seven members of congress reelected two years here with a solemn promise that they're not going to vote for any kind of tax increase. get them to vote for some kind of major tax rate increase. a just and see how you can do it. >> it's an argument that you would think somebody in the math department would be held to figure out because republicans say the lower rates and revenues go up. we have history to show that. democrats say the opposite. >> and you stimulate your economy. if you raise rates and don't cut expenditures, what you are doing is making the fiscal problem that much worse. raising rates is a onetime revenue grab. expenditures is a long-term reduction in. and the reality is, we have to do a lot more of expenditure reduction than we do increases in revenue. tom: do you think that the democrats and specifically the president would

question, not arithmetic, but semantics. when is a tax increase not really a tax increase. if you don't raise the top rate, if you were talking to the senator before, but you do cap deductions, for the wealthy, does that count as a tax increase? in my book it does count as a tax increase. would republicans then be able to say, well, we didn't raise the top rate? so i think what we see going on right now is a lot of theatrics, you see some republicans in the senate, and i would argue that the house republicans are the ones we really need to hear from, because they're the most dug in on the tax question. so you hear some republicans kind of saying, you know, that's a pledge that was 20 years ago, et cetera, et cetera. bottom line, wolf, you need to have entitlement reform and those spending cuts on the table and you need to have tax increases on the table. then they can all hold hands and jump off the cliff together. >> even though the styles that republicans are using to pedal their position right now seems to be shifting, th

you can do it we eliminating deduction but that's word games and semantics and i think the republicans have to get over this concept there are some different between raising revenue and raising taxes and it doesn't really matter to individuals. they either will have more money in their pocket or they're not. this is a game to nullify grover norquist. some members put forth an option to tax the first $400,000 of income and people making more than that at 35%. all that does is increase everybody's taxes over 400,000 by 30,000. somebody at 450,000 gets hurt badly and somebody at 20 million isn't touched at all. >> honestly, those are the number that is make some people's head spin and makes -- >> i understand, absolutely. >> and the average constituent say i don't know what's going on here. what is your message to folks? what should they be looking at and how do they figure out where they stand on this? as you may well know, the obama administration is trying to get all of those people who voted for the president to come on board and say this is what we want and to press congress to make

as long as romney doesn't walk into some nitpicky semantic trap that hadn't even really been send... >> i think it's interesting the president said on the day after the attack he went in the rose garden and said that this was an act of terror. >> jon: oh, boy. >> you said in the rose garden after the attack it was an act of terror. it was not a correspondent utahnious demonstration, is that what you're saying. >> please proceed, governor. [audience reacts] [applause] >> jon: there's your first clue. when you feel you're about to spring what you, governor romney, think is the checkmate moment of the debate, and your debate opponent says to you, "please, proceed," hold on. [cheering and applause] are you trying to open that door? allow me to open it wider. the door that you appear to want to walk through. but when your opponent does, that you might want to take a breath and wonder if wiley coyote and the road runner, that door your opponent is pointing to, is merely paint on a rock. >> please proceed, governor >> i want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the presid

. >> as you say semantics, this is a semantics conversation, right? because simpson/bowles says i'm going to cut the overall rate. so rates actually went down. >> they did, but where they started was where you start the baseline. what youuild into your base. where that additional -- basically $1 trillion swing is, which is not only the rates, but also allowing capital gains and dividends to go back up slightly, to go ahead and go back to the old rules around estate tax. when we talk about rates, that's also code for a series of changes that were part of the so-called bush tax cuts that would take us back to the clinton era. we can still bring them down and simpson/bowles demonstrated that. but where we started the discussion was in effect, with some of that money in the bank. and as someone who has looked at this every which way, and we've got to make entitlement changes, i think we need to start with that so-called old baseline to get the deal done. >> so start at 39.6% and you might move it down? you might go back up, move it down -- >> simpson/bowl

einselen brought up that we spoke about was number 3 on your list, i think that was just semantic, it states patrons must be visually and audio recorded, strike the audio, that was a clerical error, if you will, and again, you also addressed many of the same thoughts we had as far as business plan, what kind of venue he's promoting, what kind of crowd he's bringing in, it's excited to see the outcome, so if you have any questions. >> it's long. but nothing out of the usual, i don't think. >> do you know what kind of clothing you want the security staff to wear? >> the clothing is just something that distinguishes them easily from patrons. >> [inaudible] and striped shirts. and a mustache. >> and a baguette. >> i have a question for mission station, you are questioning proof of completion of score cards here, do you always require proof of completion to lead, or is that just us? we don't get it either? yeah, i think we should do that. do you normally request proof of lead training? >> no, the guard card as far as i'm aware, i'm still exceptionally new at this and i'm learning the road.

so in many many senses this might be kind of a semantic debate. but it shows you how interesting this place is, to scientists. >> warner: first before we get to that you can explain in layman's terms how they came to different conclusions? in other words, are they testing different materials? using different methods? >> there is not much debate that they got a good number on the age of the rocks and the depths of the rocks. >> warner: you mean on the side of the canyon. >> on the side of the canyon as they measured helium isotope as it escaped. that is not the question, the question is that part of the the grand canyon or is it a paleo canyon that morphed into the canyon we see today. in a way it is a semantic debate them are sort of both right except the paper that came out says the grand canyon which we see today is 70 million years ago. scientists on the other side are saying wait a minute, it might have been old canyons there but it is not our grand canyon. >> warner: on what do they base that. >> they are base continuing on the data that they

. >> guest: again, it goes beyond the semantic point. we are in a time of tremendous economic upheaval. bullets contextualized in two ways. first of all, ours is the most dynamic and promising era in human history bar none. because in our lifetimes the majority of the worlds population is joining the global economy. what does that mean? and should be estate brought her to people out of poverty. when china joined the global economy, so far today they brought 300 million people out of poverty. chinese saving in the world financial markets were part of which are the most recent. alan greenspan couldn't figure it out. he was looking at the reality of our moment. he called this conundrum. unit back to it when he wrote his book. as brilliant as a menace alan greenspan, was unable to grasp the reality of our historical moment and he was in part due to the failure of systematic errors were made that led to the meltdown in housing markets. an adequate response and policy to a sea change in financial markets to growth elsewhere in the world. in th

einselen brought up that we spoke about was number 3 on your list, i think that was just semantic, it states patrons must be visually and audio recorded, strike the audio, that was a clerical error, if you will, and again, you also addressed many of the same thoughts we had as far as business plan, what kind of venue he's promoting, what kind of crowd he's bringing in, it's excited to see the outcome, so if you have any questions. >> it's long. but nothing out of the usual, i

aren't we arguing over semantics? >> i have not heard a shift from revenues from growth and tax reform. however, that said, the republicans, looking at an agreement, are waiting for president obama to put anything on the table. >> but if the republican leadership does some kind of deal with the president, where they raise tax rates, but in return they get deep entitlement savings, they do something like a 2 trillion-dollar grand bargain, that cuts the deficit over the next 10 years, are you still going to go aft republicans who vote for that? >> you have so many hypotheticals there. we have had this conversation for the past two years, and the democrats refused to be any part of reducing. or spending entitlementments. the president talks about his spending plans. he is planning on raising so much in taxes that he can spend more. so he isn't even on the planet of reducing the cost of gernment. >> there is an increasing number of conservatives who are saying that the republican brand is in danger of being seen as only i

. >> so again, it goes beyond the semantics. we are in a time of tremendous economic upheaval. i agree with that. but let's contextualize it in two ways. first of all, ours is the most dynamic and promising era in human history, bar none. why? because in our lifetime, the majority of the worlds population is joining the global economy. what does that mean? when japan industrialized that brought roughly 30 million people out of poverty. when china joined, so far that brought about 300 million people out of poverty. that's been a big story. chinese savings in the world financial markets for the part about shows the most recent housing bubble because we had all this new bulk of the world. alan greenspan couldn't figure it out. he called this a conundrum. he went back to it when he wrote his book. as brilliant a man as alan greenspan, was unable to grasp the reality of our historical moment and it was in part due to that failure to systematic errors were made that led to the meltdown in housing markets, right? inadequate response of policy to what was really a change in financial m

just don't know but on the other hand i want to do it live you know it's i'm not saying this is a semantical isn't this politico isn't this three point you know last night on hannity apparently or maybe today on his radio show the word impeachment came i mean this is the it's this is this is what republicans do to democrats their second term to impeach them i predict that this is going to be you know fox's gin in this thing up the right wing machine over the i did the hannity show today on the radio and but there are some questions to be asked when we lost our ambassador and three other patriots you know either of i'm not so i'm not mentioning two of them security guards yeah i'm just you know yeah i know what they do i spent some time in afghanistan doing a dance for president obama and that team of guys that are usually retired special forces folks these guys go there they work about six months out of the year they put themselves in the highest threat situations and they lose people all the time these guys were heroes there are some very common sense questions i was a secret service it jus

you have overall what is federal government taking from american population in tax revenue, the semantics of what is and is not a tax increase has been the foundation, of this entire argument between them, you have norquist saying further reduce deductions by 750 billion over 10 years, you then must cut rates, immediately. to offset that to give about 750 billion back to another segment of the taxpaying population. that is not what we're seeing in the discussions. not every republican, every know out there does not believe that if you close preferences in one place and you get rid of deducts in one place you must have to have a corresponding offset, democrats are not going to walk away thisw this and say, economic growth am shunning the get us 1.6 trillion in revenue that we want, they rt hard and -- they want hard and fast tax increases. >> you know, sabrina, here is what worries me, this is a green thing, i see much more emphasis on republicans having to make concessions on revenues, they appear to be doing in lockstep. so, i am accepting that, as a given. but, as far as cor corps stand

now it appears there may be a semantics ap solution that could lead to both sides would raise taxes butot tax e rates. joining me now to talk about it from baltimore, maryland senator ben cardin, good afternoon. >> it's good to be with you, thank yo >> where do negotiations stand right now from your perspective? >> they are taking place at different leve.w that the presi speaker of the housend meeting. i could tell you as a member o the senate finance committee, we've had discussions democratic and republican members of the senate finance committee as to how we could be helpful. but u' hurdle isd revenue. and how we're going to be able to achieve enough revenue to ma work. >> let's talk about this soluti, mentioned in the new york times today, raing tax revenue by taxing wealthy americans, entire income at the current top rate. is tso both sides could agree to? >> i think it's going to be challenging quite frankly. the eni?pasiest way to get ther let the highest rates expire and no go back to the bush rates. if we start dealing with exemptions and can do that but normally we would ta

accept it, then the devil is in the detail of what the tax hikes are, and why i get caught up in the semanticss that it depends on what is a tax hike? i think, i think from republicans with whom i chatted, that they want to expand that to include, realm, you know, if we close loopholes, credits, special breaks, and the $4 billion for the oil industry, what have you, that that might go away to show we're serious about eventually looking at the tax code itself, and its preponderance and that results in tax hikes. the president might require more than that, but maybe there is this room that the president then has to say, all right, as long as that means that a good many in that group of americans, the 250,000, and over crowd is paying more, i'll be okay with that. am i just be naive? >> you may be right, neil, but, again, if consistency holds true, the republicans were clear. whatever tax reductions and deductions and getting rid of deductions was there, it had to be, quote, "revenue neutral," and i don't think president obama's thinking on revenue neutral terms. he wants taxes. neil, more import

and graham dod used semantic analysis and picking up key words as people talk about their illnesses. john's hopkins did the own study and found that twitter is reliable in tracking emillnesses, and it is generally two weeks ahead of the cdc. >> how much does it cost? >> it's free. >> oh. >>> and i will tell you, too for the average person, it can help you be proactive. if you're going california, can you see if there is a outbreak of a flu or cold and arms you in case. >> nice to be informed. >> yes. >> especially in advance. >> yes. >> and love laura's likes today. >> thank you. >> thank you, laura. >>> forget black friday, black thursday is more and more popular. tracy burns has one woman's plan to make it go away. >> reporter: a california target employee is telling the company to keep the doors shut. casey saint clare is leading the charge to stop target from opening at 9:00 p.m. on thanksgiving day so workers can stay home and spend time with families. she's the brains behind an online petition that has already brought in more than 200,000 supporters. and not everyone is in favo

so, is that a matter of semantics? >> he says the wealthiest to pay a little more in taxes. i didn't hear him use the number 35% or 39.6%. >> exactly. >> so if they eliminate a lot of deductions and say if you're making more than than amount of money, you're not going to be eligible for these deductions, these loopholes, these tax credits or whatever, is that an area where they can exrie myself. >> he's had a proposal exactly to that effect in the last few years that says the that value of deductions would be reduced to people who are at the highest level of income. i don't see him accepting the tax rate, the lower tax rate keeping at 35%. >> let me stop you for a second. if he's going to insist on raising from 35 to 39.6, do they have the votes in the house of representatives to block it? >> they don't need the votes. that's the point. the point is the table is not the same table that it used to be. >> in other words you go over the fiscal cliff. >> you go over the cliff. >> all the middle class, their taxes are going to go up, the sequestration, the cuts in defense spendin

now we just have to decide under what semantic umbrella do we raise more revenue.her rates, republicans say no. tax reform, republicans are giving a green light. everyone has to figure out how to get into that or under that semantic umbrella and make things happen. >> one of the criticisms of the president is that he spent so much of his early part of the first term focused on health care when he should have been focused on the economy. is there another big idea that you think could overwhelm the more pressing issues of unemployment and the deficit? >> anything that can happen on the international stage could take precedence. and i would say the next 6 to 9 months months, iran and the nuclear question will loom large. if there are going to be external pressures threatening the national security, we need a unified country and the best way to be unified is to get things done early, reassure the rest of the american public it that's uncertain that washington can get it act together and that can put the country on on a better footing. >> had president obama not won re-

melissa: it is just semantics. i don't know we'll see. >> you're absolutely right. and, and i've got to say, nothing looks like it is a thway out to growth for our economy. that's the real problem. you want to grow out of this and that is the problem in greece as well. you want to grow out of it, not cut out of it. melissa: it is a total disaster. i'm completely depressed. professor lipscomb thanks for coming on. >> i'm sorry. melissa: we're having a good time. that is all that matters. >>> time for today's fuel gauge report. first up, natural gas prices soared 5%. demand expectations spiked following a cold weather forecast for much of the u.s. the international energy agency lowered forecast for global oil demand by 290,000 barrels a day. the iaea blames superstorm sandy, you remember her. >>> bipartisan group of 28 governors want congress to renew a wind energy tax credit. governors say letting tax break expire will cost 37,000 jobs and drive away $10 billion of private investment. it expires a t end of this year. >>> next on money, elizabeth warren hasn't even b

it's more than semantics. let's take mitt romney's tax return. 20% he gave to charity.he detoukses of 10% of income, a lot of charitable deductions would not be taxable and he would -- >> greta: or not -- >> the actual rate would go up. >> greta: maybe some people would be discouraged. cutting the deductions, i would hope that for people, for the mortgage deduction is so important for so many americans, i would assume that -- this would be -- the wealthy people. >> the realtors would go bananas, people in the housing industry because the mortgage interest deduction is a real incent testify buy houses and rental properties. >> greta: and savings. >> a love us older folks who have paid off our mortgages, it doesn't affect us at all. but young people, who got high mornings -- >> greta: tell affect them. >> it really affects them. but interest rate deduction, pose you capped it at $24,000 a person per year. what is that? $2,000 a month or something? then you take care of all of your middle-class homeowners and you take the folks in the $3, $4, $5 million houses who have lev