that this interview was done by Fox News. I will give credit where credit is due - they committed an act of real journalism.
Granted she never answered the real question(I'll bet because she has no real answers that are not political suicide), but that was not Chris Wallace's fault - he did his job well here. If Fox News would keep this up, I'd have to change my opinion of them. In fact, this is by far better than what any modern American news organization typically produces.
Then you have the subject they where discussing. She might be correct that doing something is better than doing nothing - but at the same time she is promising something that basic math clearly shows she CANNOT provide without doing thing she promises not to do. The only way to make those kinda reductions in spending involve doing things that neither she nor any other politician would dare speak of doing in an election season.
No details = no plan. She seems to have nothing but empty talking points. So when you ride the wave of discontent, and have no real workable solutions, what are you but a populist?! The thing that bothers me the most though, is how few people this seems to bother.
It's the same old thing, a journalistic mainstay...get a politician, candidate or appointeee to stumble on camera, then milk it like a bloodthirsty hyena. I have yet to see a journalist temper such a story with "you know, she's just trying to do her job, and being put on the spot is really difficult", or something like "we are all human, and capable of making mistakes...perhaps he was just having a bad day." Nope, it's always guns blazing, grind-their-face-in-it humiliation, on as many screens as possible. Puke.
I am surprised anyone even agrees to appear on TV anymore.
Quote:
Lastly,
Quote:
So when you ride the wave of discontent, and have no real workable solutions, what are you but a populist?! The thing that bothers me the most though, is how few people this seems to bother.
All I have to say is that it didn't seem to bother you or 67 million other people in 2008.
ouch....that has gotta hurt. lol.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Quiklilcav wrote:First, I agree with Mr. Hahn here. This really isn't anything new.
Second, bk3k, you seriously are just showing a major bias here at this point. The only reason you are finding this out of the ordinary for them is because they're not doing it to someone you agree with. Every time they've grilled a Democrat or Independent like this, you, or someone else, uses it as an "example" of how they're just a right-wing propaganda organization.
My bias is it? So... if MSNBC was ripping into Barney Frank - really hammering away at his refusal to explain himself - would you not say that is a good thing? I would also say that it would be good progress. Its not so much a matter of left-vs-right like you think. The bias is with these networks - or do believe either is "fair and balanced?" Tough interviews(apparently Hahn disagrees that this is one of them) with politicians - ALL politicians - is what being "fair and balanced" is all about. Fox did good here - and I'm applauding them therefore. Yes, I not only criticize them when I think they deserve deserve it, but I also praise them when I think they deserve it - a perplexing concept I'm sure - at least for those who think they must always be ""for" or "against" at all times.
Quiklilcav wrote:If you really listen to what Fiorina is saying, she's not entirely dodging the question, she's trying to explain the process by which she wants to see the problem solved. What candidate for any office have you ever seen make a statement as to what specific line items they will cut if elected, and where did she say she was ready to just start cutting entitlement programs?
Oh yes, she is dancing around the question most skillfully. She claims the intent to balance the budget(an admirable goal I support), yet while promising not to let taxes return to their Clinton-era levels(and no one wants higher taxes - obviously). Discretionary spending(including all the wasteful spending she mentions) - if you cut
100% of it(at a sizable cost to society I might add), it still doesn't come remotely close to filling in the hole. That tax revenue could go a very long way to doing so. So absent that, if you are really serious about balancing the budget, you need a real solution (not just talking points and platitudes about freedom etc). All that remains is basically MASSIVE cuts to military and/or entitlement spending. None of those options are pleasant, and all are political suicide. There are no free lunches, and SOMETHING somewhere has to give.
But she apparently promises to let America have its cake and eat it too - and Chris Wallace points out that her math is entirely unworkable. Empty campaign promises in an election season - imagine that. So his question to her - was what is her solution? What she answered with was not a solution. She did NOT answer his repeated question. That is exactly why he had to repeat it over and over. There is some merit to what she said - they should go after waste and inefficiency where ever they can. Something is better than nothing. But again, that is far insufficient to plug 1% the deficit hole(its a damn big hole). So what she provided is not an answer to the question.
Maybe you need something similar to relate to - just so you understand where I'm coming from. Imagine Obama being interviewed, and mention "the failed economic policies of the past 8 years." Then imagine the host asks him what he means by that, specifically. Then he answers with "Republicans had 8 years to fix things and didn't." The host isn't satisfied with that answer, and proceeds to prod further, and he proceeds in a like manner - or possibly going into the mishandling of Afghanistan. That is dodging the question - you know it and I know it. But... your left wing equivalents will absolutely come to his defense in this scenario in exactly the same manner you did. In your mind probably, I would too. In the scenario I described, I would not. The difference is "us vs them" as opposed to merit-based rationale.
The question that was also raised without saying it explicitly - do deficits matter that much? Dick Cheney famously said they do not. If she really believes they do, then she is gonna have to do some very unpopular things to fix the matter. But... she refuses to say just WHAT she will do. She's hardly alone. Politicians need to come out and be frank with the public - but the ones who do so will suffer politically. The net effect is we are just gonna elect people like her. That might not be something new, but I think alot of the tea party crowd is expecting the same bag of unicorns and rainbows this November that many Obama supporters expected in 08.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Quiklilcav wrote:Lastly,
Quote:
So when you ride the wave of discontent, and have no real workable solutions, what are you but a populist?! The thing that bothers me the most though, is how few people this seems to bother.
All I have to say is that it didn't seem to bother you or 67 million other people in 2008.
ouch....that has gotta hurt. lol.
.
Think so? Think again.
No doubt that discontent helped Obama - and to a greater degree Democrat elections nationwide. I think Obama would have won anyways - and you probably disagree. But that is a hypothetical "what if" scenario with no way to prove either of us right or wrong.
Now maybe that would "hurt" - as the truth often does - if I though Obama represented nothing but discontent, with no workable solutions. That is where we disagree. I think he represents more than that - but these things are things I value and you do not. Therefore, we both see very different things when viewing him.
As for workable solutions - I think his solutions have not been so bad. Granted, I'm less than warm to the idea of "cap and trade" - especially at this point and time. I think the market is very adaptive and can adjust to anything - given the right conditions. But I don't think the market is in a place today to handle that adaption. I'm still not a big fan, but I feel a time and a place for everything is a bigger issue. You think the stimulus is a failure, and I do not. It would have been more successful if not for the fact that so much of it only offset reductions in state-funded spending. It kept many of these workers - whose paycheck comes directly or indirectly from the government - working. These workers are also part of the economy too you know. They spend money.
Most people think that Government spending should shrink during a recession and is ok to grow during a boom (at least these voices are the loudest during these times). But this is the opposite of reality. A reduction in Government spending is directly a reduction in the GNP of this country(the Government being a sizable part of this). That is NOT good in a down economy at all. You might say that its better to have the GNP come from the private market - and I don't disagree. I support shrinking the Government's spending and thus its percentage of the GNP - during good economic times(even though there is no pressure to do so). Then they should also pay down our debt during these good times. Once the dept is PAID, only then lower taxes. During times such as these, they should spend more(even if there is pressure to do the opposite) - temporarily replacing money someone else isn't spending - especially when no one else is in a position to do such. Again, a time and a place for all things. Its counter-intuitive I know. Often times the truth is.
I fully believe that things would have been MUCH, MUCH worse without the stimulus bill, auto bail outs etc. You might not, granted. I'm sure some people believe that we would never have suffered any further terrorist attacks if we just ignored 9/11, didn't pursue Al-Queda, and "just kept to our own business" etc. You know some far-lefties believe this. But it is NOT what most credible experts will tell you.
Now the bank bail out is a bit iffier. In theory, that should have helped more than it did - save the behavior of the banks after having received the money(which is another, very lengthy topic). In my view - hindsight being 20/20 and all - it would have been far more effective just for the government to let those banks fail, then loan out the money to businesses more directly(probably via the fed etc), rather than just giving money to the banks and hoping(in vein as it turns out) that the banks turn around and loan that money to businesses. Granted, we look to be getting that money all paid back to us - but it still did not accomplish what is was intended to accomplish.
bk3k wrote:No doubt that discontent helped Obama - and to a greater degree Democrat elections nationwide. I think Obama would have won anyways - and you probably disagree. But that is a hypothetical "what if" scenario with no way to prove either of us right or wrong.
Now maybe that would "hurt" - as the truth often does - if I though Obama represented nothing but discontent, with no workable solutions. That is where we disagree. I think he represents more than that - but these things are things I value and you do not. Therefore, we both see very different things when viewing him.
As for workable solutions - I think his solutions have not been so bad. Granted, I'm less than warm to the idea of "cap and trade" - especially at this point and time. I think the market is very adaptive and can adjust to anything - given the right conditions. But I don't think the market is in a place today to handle that adaption. I'm still not a big fan, but I feel a time and a place for everything is a bigger issue. You think the stimulus is a failure, and I do not. It would have been more successful if not for the fact that so much of it only offset reductions in state-funded spending. It kept many of these workers - whose paycheck comes directly or indirectly from the government - working. These workers are also part of the economy too you know. They spend money.
Most people think that Government spending should shrink during a recession and is ok to grow during a boom (at least these voices are the loudest during these times). But this is the opposite of reality. A reduction in Government spending is directly a reduction in the GNP of this country(the Government being a sizable part of this). That is NOT good in a down economy at all. You might say that its better to have the GNP come from the private market - and I don't disagree. I support shrinking the Government's spending and thus its percentage of the GNP - during good economic times(even though there is no pressure to do so). Then they should also pay down our debt during these good times. Once the dept is PAID, only then lower taxes. During times such as these, they should spend more(even if there is pressure to do the opposite) - temporarily replacing money someone else isn't spending - especially when no one else is in a position to do such. Again, a time and a place for all things. Its counter-intuitive I know. Often times the truth is.
I fully believe that things would have been MUCH, MUCH worse without the stimulus bill, auto bail outs etc. You might not, granted. I'm sure some people believe that we would never have suffered any further terrorist attacks if we just ignored 9/11, didn't pursue Al-Queda, and "just kept to our own business" etc. You know some far-lefties believe this. But it is NOT what most credible experts will tell you.
Now the bank bail out is a bit iffier. In theory, that should have helped more than it did - save the behavior of the banks after having received the money(which is another, very lengthy topic). In my view - hindsight being 20/20 and all - it would have been far more effective just for the government to let those banks fail, then loan out the money to businesses more directly(probably via the fed etc), rather than just giving money to the banks and hoping(in vein as it turns out) that the banks turn around and loan that money to businesses. Granted, we look to be getting that money all paid back to us - but it still did not accomplish what is was intended to accomplish.
I like this. Way to go...you show a nicely balanced view of the big picture. You're not in lockstep with either "side". You get my MOTM (Moderate of the Month) award!
Quote:
I fully believe that things would have been MUCH, MUCH worse without the stimulus bill, auto bail outs etc.
[quoteI fully believe that teachers union jobs fat-arsed uaw jobs and short-term only construction jobs would have disappeared MUCH MUCH faster without the stumulus bil, auto bail outs, etc]
fixed it for you.
All the stimulus did was stick their finger in the dike to delay the gushing......but enough about your mom.
.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Regarding the bank bailout not working... maybe not to the extent you were expecting, but it did do a lot to sure up the chaos that was going on in the market at the time. Do you realize how bad it was for all banks during that time period? Banks lend to each other money every day in order to fund day to day operations, and at the time no banks were willing to lend to each other at all. Several large banks were literally going to fail on the next business day if something didn't happen. The Fed helped broker deals for the Bear Stearns take over and by the time Lehman was going under, they realized the issue was just too big. Banks were not willing to step-in and adsorb another failure with increasing uncertainty regarding the near term and long run future. As the economy continued to flounder, the numbers of loans going bad were increasing; no one was going to take on a portfolio from a failing bank only to see that portfolio be filled with 50% failing investments at the same time contending with your own portfolio. The majority of the money paid during to banks as the bailout, went to funding day to day operations and increasing capital reserves to reduce the financial burden of under performing loans. If banks immediately lent out all the money they received, they be in the same boat they were just in. They'd still have portfolios of loans going under, but because they just lent out more money, they wouldn't have a capital reserve to dip into. Let the Government lend out consumer credit? If it was up to the government, everyone would have had a $1mm home... they were the ones pushing to make housing affordable to everyone. The banks created a plethora of new mortgage products to meet the demand.
After the banks were on better financial footing, the lending could begin to resume... and it has.
That's guite a big spike in consumer lending since the start of the year.
Commercial lending has been slower to react but has begun to show a slight turn around.
Now, I’d argue the reason for not seeing such a spike as you did in consumer credit is due to the investment banking market, which is extremely hot right now. There is a lot of risk aversion in the market right now, and the bond market is much hotter than the equity market. This has caused corporate credit spreads to tighten to some of their tightest levels ever. Combined with record low prevailing interest rates in the market, it make more sense for companies to retire older, higher coupon debt and issue new much lower coupon debt. This saves companies millions each year in fixed costs and can push out par redemption / repayment dates farther into the future. Who is doing all the book running on these issues? The same banks that took bail out money. I imagine you will soon see commercial lending and private employment numbers increase as both banks and corporations have a stronger financial footing and outlook. The unprecedented reasons for the financial collapse will continue to constrain the economy, meaning the recovery will be slow rather than robust, but it will take place. It's important to note that there is generally a lag to recovery when it comes to employment. Corporations are known for over reacting, as in they are quick to layoff to cut costs and generally go to a greater extent than is necessary and are slow to rehire as they test the waters during a rebound.
So yes, I do feel the bank bailout was necessary and worked as intended.
The charts worked in the preview, though that could just be from my cache. They are coming direct from the Fed though and I can provide links if needed/wanted, depending on whether or not others cannot see them or if you are just interested.
I work on Wall Street, but didn't force you to take out a loan you couldn't afford.
Mikey (drpdcavi) wrote:So yes, I do feel the bank bailout was necessary and worked as intended.
Truth. This exercise rescued our nation from the brink of financial oblivion. Frankly, it was heroic in what it prevented.
I'm not a partisan, so it doesn't matter to me who wrote it, or when. As a moderate, I am delighted to hear that all parties had a hand in its creation and execution. As some cabinet members were retained during the federal administration's turnover, hearing this becomes even more encouraging. It shows real hope in an otherwise bleak landscape.
You are certainly free to not agree that this action saved us from the brink, but for someone who continually yammers about backing up statements with "facts", stating your
opinion about this one puts you on a very slippery slope.
The only verifiable fact in THIS case is that we didn't collapse. "Statistically" speaking, that is
