These people are devoted to providing entertainment to their "low information viewers" who take them seriously as a news organization.
I know people who live and die by Fox News. They believe that all other news organizations are socialists liberals. And why do they believe that way??? Because Fox News told them so. I use to watch Fox news when it first went on air. But the more I listened to it…the more it became obvious to me how biased and completely one sided it was. They didn’t report the news as just news…Everything they reported on had political commentaries. Real thinking people DON’T listen to Fox news to find news.
The financial community as a whole needs regulation, but not just any regulation. The regulations in place now seem to protect them from their own folly rather than protect the innocent consumer from the devils amoung the wall street crowd.
The most significant and important regulations for wall street were that Glass-Steagle act I mentioned earlier, enacted in 1933 to prevent another great depression from ever happenin again…and that act was largely repealed in 1977.
I watch Fox. I must be a “low information viewer”. We’re actually a nice crowd. Ignorant, but nice.
Ya’ know, people that differ from one’s philosophies aren’t necessarily ignorant or “low information”. Two people with exactly the same education, the same IQ, and even the same upbringing, can take exactly the same information and draw diametrically different conclusions. Accepting that, and debating using that assumption, results in both sides growing. They may never agree, but both are forced to think through and articulate their ideas, and in that process everyone grows.
I agree that NOT everyone listening to fox haven’t a clue. What I have a problem with is the people who live and breath by every word.
Here’s an example.
I forget the report…but it was back when Clinton was president…
Fox news did a report on something to do with the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. They then went into a political commentary about how only their readers will hear about this because the other liberal media networks would NEVER report this.
The problem is…I heard it on NBC the night before.
The next day a guy I worked with who’s a Fox News junky came in BRAGGING about this new news story he heard on Fox News and how I couldn’t have heard about it because I never listen to Fox. He couldn’t believe it was ever on any of the other networks.
I listen to a wide variety of new stations. Including Fox news. And watching and reading other news sources…it’s NOT a matter of interpretation. Sometimes it’s the complete opposite what everyone else is reporting. Most of the time the news is just news. I just HATE the commentaries that seems to accompany every Fox news report. I rarely hear that on CBS or NBC.
We have been entertained by Fox, CNN, NBC, et al, for years while the corporate lobbyists pulled the strings of our representatives and succeeded in getting a myriad of seemingly insignificant changes in regulations and taxes made that have caused the divide of haves and have nots. And the more addament Rush and his friends at Fox news deny the divide the more certain that it is true. Since the mid 1970s the opportunities for the vast majority of Americans has declined. It is nearly impossible for a young family to have a comfortable life today and that is a shame. The system is broken and the repair must make it possible for a family that works hard to get ahead and enjoy a comfortable life and a few luxuries. We should not be a nation where the vast majority is struggling desperately, jumping through hoops and begging for work at starvation wages from a Plutocratic aristocracy but that is where we are headed.
Same…if you watch Fox for your primary news source and dogmatically restrict your source to same, IMO you very well could be a low information viewer. If you watch Fox news , msnbc, and John Stewart in the same vain, for entertainment, and view public broad casts and major network news, read avariety of legitimate periodicals, you probably will be much better informed. During the presidential debates, please look where the mutually agreed upon moderators primarily come from. You won’t see o’Reilly or Hannity, Ed Shultz, the Rev. and other mainstays of Fox and msnbc.
I disagree that the system is broken. That same sentiment is spoken when we feel we are on the wrong end of what’s transpired and is echoed by the party seeking to take control. More people are trying o get in then trying to get out ; we are doing OK. We just need an occassional “restart”.
As far as Glass/ Steagle was concerned, everyone thought there was a ligitimate roll for banks to play in he stock market. To make that roll transparent, the powers of the Fed. Mainly Greenspann, were expanded. What transpired had less to do with the regs. on the books then it did with those in charge…
Hence the term “administration”. Greenspann under the direction of the responsible administration, failed to execute his responsibility. Greenspann admitted such during the congressional inquiry that delved into the matter.
The restart…Republicans out, Democrats in ! The system isn’t broken.
I could not agree more that given the same facts, two people can come up with two different opinions. I just don’t see these entertainment vihicles as interested in facts as they are supporting an agenda. Whether that be getting laughs or supporting a political agenda at all cost,what is truthful is secondary.
Darling Greenspan said he was shocked at the activities of the bankers. He always thought they would be more gentlemanly than they were when given the freedom and never expected them to be the sharks they turned out to be. He been wrong. Probably his worst miscalculation was trusting the mega bankers to do the right thing.
The only thing I watch dogmatically is PBS. News media I watch on & off, admittedly probably Fox and NBC more than any other. I’m also a voracious reader (without a tenaciouss memory, however). I also luch with, work with, and am friends with countless PhDs, lawyers, MDs, and others with professional level credentials(I’'m a denizen of the halls of academia). One of them is a PhD in physics from the Middle East (educated here in the US).
15 minutes ago I was having a political debate with one of them who I often sit and knock heads with. We both have a blast doing so and seek one another out. We were debating the whole issue of cost cutting vs. tax increases and of types of spending (where the money should go and where it should stop going). Bottom line, he believes we should up taxes first and then look at spending. I believe we should reduce spending first…eliminate alll the billions and trillions going to third world countries for their “green initiatives”, ethanol producers, subsidies, studies on the amount of methane a cow produces, etc. etc… Then, and only then, should we consider tax increases.
So, while I may not meet your perception of the typical Fox watcher, I understand your point. Those who get all their information from one source cannot help but be basing their perspectives on limited and biased information.
That doesn;t mean I agree with your conclusions. Butit does illustrate that judging people by whether they watch Fox news or not really is not a good way to judge them.
Greenspan had access to workings of the banks during this time. No reason for him not to know.
Btw, I watch Fox News…I watch msnbc. But, I’ll trust the interveiws of Diane Rehm before Hannity or Shultz for real news. But I am entertained by both Shawn and Ed.
A far as reducing spending in the recession we are still in without generating revenue…spending by the largest consumer, the US govt. in the country is instrumental for stimulating recovery. Should it be balanced, sure. Just remember that no conservative has made an attempt to balance the budget in modern history. Balanced budgets have only occurred UNder liberal administrations.
This proves that a balanced, well thought out plan of spending and taxation that generates growth works. Just austerity spending cuts and reduction never has, never will succeed. It’s a falacy born out by history from the great depression through all the recessions since. Since Reagan, who took our country from the biggest lender to the biggest debtor nation in the world, conservatives have only believed in deficit reduction when not in office.
There’s no question that Greenspan had access to the inner workings of the banks, and also much control over their prime rate. But what they were doing was perfectly legal under the new 1979 laws. The real question about the Fed Reserve is how much authority do they really have? The Reserve’s original mandate was to protect the value of the dollar, iriginally with gold supplies. Once the gold standard was lifted, they simply became the banks’ bank. It never was, and still is not, the function of the Fed Reserve Bank to regulate or oversee the banks. Member banks actually even own stock in the Fed Reserve.
It’s up to the congress, via legislation, to regulate the banks. And they do it largely with legislation written for them by lawyers in the financial community… which they get from .lobbyists working for the banks.
I agree that the system is broken. And getting worse as time goes on.
A statement read to Greenspan during congressional hearings from his responsibilities to control the banks. While not responding directly to the statement, Greenspan later published a printed response that he accepted responsibility and agreed he could have interpreted his authority to control the banks as stated.
That he continually lowered the prime, forcing legitimate savers into the stock market, just to prop up a failing economy that had billions leaving our country, never to return, was the biggest malfeasance he committed. Several mild recessions that could have prevented the housing market from becoming an investment vehicle for average consumers would have been preferable over what happened. If the primeisn’t at 5 plus percent along with common savings accounts to keep up with the rise in inflation, and home mortgage rates aren’t on the plus side of 7%, the economy isn’t healthy.
You are right, though, we have a ways to go as everyone’s money is still at risk.
The statements made about Greenspan’s “responsibility” by the members of the banking committe at the senate hearings were political grandstanding. Nothing more, nothing less. They know better, they know the limitations of the Fer Reserve, but they like their names and photos in the hometown paper. Of course Greenspan accepted responsibility. It comes with the job. You don;t think the members of the Banking Committe are going to accept responsibility, do you?
I believe we’re headed down a seriously bad path. We.re headed toward a $25 trillion deficit. Since the governments (state & federal & municipal) already eat up 40% of our GDP, I don’t think more taxes are the answer. But that’s the direction we’re headed.
Hey Mike, thanks for the chuckle. I remember you saying you read the Eagle Tribune long ago. I can’t remember what I did yesterday, but I remember THAT!
I won’t take credit for this but…"we can talk about cutting social security (which is in the black) we can talk about cutting Medicare (which the vast majority approve) and we can talk about cutting Medicaid ( with supplies most of the funding for the elderly) but we can’ t bring taxes back where they were during the Clinton era. "
Obama won the election by an electoral landslide with a platform that has reinstating taxes to the prior level. Not at 90% where it was in the 60’s but 4% higher to help move towards a balanced budget.
I will repeat. NO administration can cut the size of govt. when infrastructure is in disarray and global climate change is at the water’s edge. It’s all about responsibility and federal spending on necessary programs that helps grow the economy. Building a bunch of war ships while throwing more money at the rich does not.
See Buffett’s comment on investment and tax increases.
If tax cuts for the wealthy creates jobs (a fallacy because building a business is tax exempt to begin with)
Why have we been in deficit spending with conservatives both in office and their money collecting albatross still with us ? I still trust the stock market solvency and fiscal responsibility with progressives. History is on their side.
Besides, one man thinks we are going to hell in a hand basket because of our debt, another thinks that what is really important is the deaths of 30 o 40k people per year due to lack of health care coverage. This is where two people can see one set of facts differently. One looks at bank accounts, one looks at people.
It WAS a healthy margin, but I wouldn;t call it a landslide.
Anyway, why is it that we can talk about cutting social security, medicare, medicaid, and the military, but we cannot talk about cutting farm subsidies, ethanol subsidies, oil subsidies, use of tax dollars to prop up failing private enterprises, and billions in “green” projects? And billions in aid to countries hostile to us?
Obamacare doesn’t provide healthcare for anyone. It requires people to buy it from a private company whether they can afford it or not. And it uses the IRS as an enforcement agency. If we knocked off the money spent for special interest groups and porkbarrel projects, the feds COULD provide healthcare to everyone…and perhaps reduce taxes at the same time.
It ain’t “one looks at bank accounts, the other at people”. And, frankly, I find that statement offensive. It’s really about the government contracting toward its true function and not giving all our tax dollars to special interests vs. forming a huge centarl government that takes all our hard-earned money and redistributes it to their friends and their own best interests.
We’re not going to agree on this issue. Perhaps we should free the thread up for others. I think I’ll bow out and focus back of the threads about car problems. They’re less controversial.
Same…let’s call it a healthy margin then.
You have my attention when you seem to agree that a non profit, single payer heathcare system, as supported by Nixon and other earlier real fiscally conservatives as the best way to keep Heath care costs down. Single payer works because it’s now the buyer who has equal imput in the costs of healthcare. Many thanks for that statement. IMO the key provision in Obamacare is the limit on profit not used for subscribers is less then 20%. Sounds like it’s pretty close to non profit which is allowed operating costs in the same range.
A billion dollars has been turned back into small businesses and single payers in the last year alone by this provision. Cost cutting is working. Notice, I never refer to federally run plan , just single payer, non pofit.
I am sorry you are offended by my reference to 30 k and more people dying each year as a talking point for providing universal healthcare by some who want a change in the system. But, if one associates with a group that NEVER uses that most important fact as a talking point for a change in the system, but only money, it becomes an intended observation and not an intended offensive statement.
The real issues include, single payer costs less, as you seem to agree, and it saves lives. Obamacare supports have made no bones about it…it’s just a first step toward single payer, and for many, Medicare for all, though this govt. run program for all is not is not my first preference. The reason is, it will generate excess funds like the social security trust funds have which have been raided by every administration, except for Clinton and Johnson. My church, the Red Cross or any other non profit can be trusted more, to be entities that could manage healthcare accounts under a single, non profit umbrella.
Bowing out is good…take care. , we do agree on 99% of all other issues it seems, car related or not.
Btw…just to get back on the car talking track; as stange as it may sound, subsidies for oil companies may sound reasonable, but these companies are used to a certain profit margin. My concern is that these cuts. In subsidies, will do no more then drive up the cost of oil, like every other “excuse” it seems.
Perhaps. But I’d rather pay it directly than have the feds take it out of my paycheck, remove half or more of it to pay for the administartive costs, and then give it to the oil companys. Besides, by paying it directly it becomes allocated by useage.
If I were King, I’d provide a path to citizenship for “undocumented” aliens. I’d even make it cheap to do so. The sooner they come out of the shadows, the sooner we can start collecting taxes from them. It’s not an increase in tax rates, but it is an increase in tax revenues.
I support that. Undocumented aliens with no criminal backgrounds should have a path to citizenship, and it should cost them nothing. However, I also believe we should cut off the pathways by which aliens come here undocumented.
Regarding this while “redistribution of wealth” argument, this issue was settled in the 1990s, and the conservatives won when Congress added the work requirement to welfare.
The whole idea of “welfare queens” was a myth created to exploit racial stereotypes, but let’s ignore that issue and pretend “welfare queens” were actually a problem. The problem was solved with the welfare work requirement, which Obama is not going to get rid of.
The conservative mantra that liberals are people who want free stuff and don’t want to work is pure hogwash. We liberals want the same things as conservatives, fair pay for hard work.
The war over “welfare queens,” though based on fiction, was fought and won almost two decades ago, but when you’ve got nothing else to complain about, you try to make the Democrat look like a communist. The lesson of Tuesday is that this won’t work anymore.