Jon Stewart basically kills Jim Cramer

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

In this view where do inflated property values, questionable appraisals, over hyped loans, poor disclosure, and encouragement from Greenspan on down to take out these exotic mortgages come in?

I won't argue that there are irresponsible borrowers, but blaming everything on the sub-prime loan holder is just another form of ideological blindness.

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

This has to be the easiest gig for a comedian. I mean, hindsight is perfect, there are endless soundbytes and predictions on air. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

it's true. it's true what that morning show guy said - he waits for someone to screwup, pulls out the soundbite, makes a funny face and does a little quip in a silly voice.

but hey...sometimes there's genuis in the simplicity of comedy.

like the whole tina fey "sarah palin" thing. the genuis was that she just read sarah's words back verbatim. And there was very little call that that wasn't funny.

[Big Fo]

Jon Stewart is a better journalist on his comedy show than most of the clowns on the news networks, that was great. It's a shame people aren't asked tough questions on the other channels very often.

albionmoonlight, that was a nice summary by Sullivan you posted.

[JPhillips]

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

That's a much better argument than borrowers are losers.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So, what, bail out everyone even the irresponsible ones (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

So, what, let everyone suffer even the resposible ones? (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Because only the people that made these bad decisions will pay the consequences? Foreclosures don't lower surrounding property values? People that were responsible won't suffer at all under a deep recession? That's a very interesting worldview. Tell me more.

So your solution is to have the people that made bad decisions not face any consequences at all? Because other people may face the consequences of those peoples' actions (which, Hell, at least may get other people to get smart about getting their Congressman to do things to prevent this from happening again).

Once again, Hell of a moral hazard we are creating.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Well the choice is do we punish those who fucked up (both the bankers and the people with mortgages) in a punitive effort to have them learn their lesson and deal with the consequences, or do we look at it pragmatically and fix the situation as best we can while making sure this shit doesn't happen in the future?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So, what, let everyone suffer even the resposible ones? (after all, how do we know which ones were irresponsible rather than misled).

Yes. Maybe this will galvanize people to get changes made in the system.

They will be getting money from the stimulus bill just passed (and more money from the omnibus spending bill), so I don't see the reason for a mortgage bailout.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

it's true. it's true what that morning show guy said - he waits for someone to screwup, pulls out the soundbite, makes a funny face and does a little quip in a silly voice.

but hey...sometimes there's genuis in the simplicity of comedy.

like the whole tina fey "sarah palin" thing. the genuis was that she just read sarah's words back verbatim. And there was very little call that that wasn't funny.

There's usually a lot more to it than just waiting for someone to make a mistake. Typically, it's calling people out for inconsistencies or hypocritical statements. For example, a politician says X is right. A few weeks or months later, when it turns out X was, in fact, very, very wrong, the politician turns around and says X was wrong as if he or she had never said it was right. Most cable news shows don't call out people for this kind of two-faced bullshit. It all gets lost in the noise and constant churn of the 24 hour news cycle.

This is what's going on here. CNBC holds its folks out there as economic experts. The tagline for Cramer's show is "In Cramer We Trust". They talk and talk and talk, giving out advice with extreme confidence about stuff that really matters, while, in truth, they really don't know what they're talking about. Then they call out people who listened to their "experts" "losers" for doing so. No on calls them out on it. Stewart did.

So, it's more than just waiting for someone to make a mistake, playing a clip, and then making a funny face.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

So your solution is to have the people that made bad decisions not face any consequences at all? Because other people may face the consequences of those peoples' actions (which, Hell, at least may get other people to get smart about getting their Congressman to do things to prevent this from happening again).

Once again, Hell of a moral hazard we are creating.

Ya know...I agonized over this with my parents, and they have agonized over it too. And they're both economists.

I don't want to bail out the people with bad mortgages because it seems fundamentally un-American. And it's like saying "screw you" to the people that made smart choices. Now you can try to make the argument to them that it's better for them in the long run because of their property values and things, but I have a feeling that's going to be very little consolation when they see their irresponsible neighbor getting their mortgage renegotiated and spending the excess money on a new car or a new home theater system while the responsible people are stuck living more frugally as a result of their choices. Shit, I don't even have a mortgage and I'd be pissed off. And the politicians know that if they do that it's political suicide, because (particularly in the House) you can't get elected by promising someone that if they vote for you their lot will be better in 7 years or 5 years. It's all instant gratification. And they can't alienate that many potential voters.

Shit, if the government is going to renegotiate people's mortgages utilizing taxpayer money (which they are by giving it to these banks in the forms of bailouts) then I want my fucking individual bailout too even though I don't have a mortgage.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

watching the unedited interview and either

a) Cramer is full of BS

or

b) he's actually a decent guy

Talking about how he wants to see indictments for AIG and how he's talked to the Justice Department about how to go in and get them and what not.

Maybe if I'd read one of those body-language books I'd be able to tell if he was truthful or lying, but he seems contrite.

I think he was caught completely off guard last night and that was the only place he could go. Was he going to go after Stewart and say "no that video is a fake"? I mean, really, what was he going to do?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

They will be getting money from the stimulus bill just passed (and more money from the omnibus spending bill), so I don't see the reason for a mortgage bailout.

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

There's usually a lot more to it than just waiting for someone to make a mistake. Typically, it's calling people out for inconsistencies or hypocritical statements. For example, a politician says X is right. A few weeks or months later, when it turns out X was, in fact, very, very wrong, the politician turns around and says X was wrong as if he or she had never said it was right. Most cable news shows don't call out people for this kind of two-faced bullshit. It all gets lost in the noise and constant churn of the 24 hour news cycle.

This is what's going on here. CNBC holds its folks out there as economic experts. The tagline for Cramer's show is "In Cramer We Trust". They talk and talk and talk, giving out advice with extreme confidence about stuff that really matters, while, in truth, they really don't know what they're talking about. Then they call out people who listened to their "experts" "losers" for doing so. No on calls them out on it. Stewart did.

So, it's more than just waiting for someone to make a mistake, playing a clip, and then making a funny face.

You're right, and I was over-simplifying.

I don't have a problem with it either way...I think Stewart + Colbert is probably one of the funniest hours of TV - certainly the funniest hour of "regular programming" on TV.

Part of me wonders if Cramer was just conceeding to get off the show, or if we might actually see changes in his show. I guess that will tell us how serious he is. And I'm sure if he fails to make changes Stewart will continue to point that out.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Ya know...I agonized over this with my parents, and they have agonized over it too. And they're both economists.

I don't want to bail out the people with bad mortgages because it seems fundamentally un-American. And it's like saying "screw you" to the people that made smart choices. Now you can try to make the argument to them that it's better for them in the long run because of their property values and things, but I have a feeling that's going to be very little consolation when they see their irresponsible neighbor getting their mortgage renegotiated and spending the excess money on a new car or a new home theater system while the responsible people are stuck living more frugally as a result of their choices. Shit, I don't even have a mortgage and I'd be pissed off. And the politicians know that if they do that it's political suicide, because (particularly in the House) you can't get elected by promising someone that if they vote for you their lot will be better in 7 years or 5 years. It's all instant gratification. And they can't alienate that many potential voters.

Shit, if the government is going to renegotiate people's mortgages utilizing taxpayer money (which they are by giving it to these banks in the forms of bailouts) then I want my fucking individual bailout too even though I don't have a mortgage.

I agree. I think if you have a mortgage bailout there are going to be LOADS of pissed off people who cut back and scrimped and saved and made the cautious choices and bought a smaller house who see their dumb ass neighbor, who wasted his cash get a mortgage bailout. They'll ask, what about for the guys who were smart and cautious. What about the story of the two squirrels (you know, the one hordes nuts and the other fritters the summer away), etc, etc.

I think that the stimulus and omnibus budget bills had plenty of protections for people who are suffering and the mortgage bailout is just a bad idea.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

She read the one speech back verbatim didn't she? that was my understanding.

we all know that palin said "you can see russia from alaska."

which is still false by the way - you can't. not even from that little rinkydink island off the coast of alaska that palin never visited

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I agree. I think if you have a mortgage bailout there are going to be LOADS of pissed off people who cut back and scrimped and saved and made the cautious choices and bought a smaller house who see their dumb ass neighbor, who wasted his cash get a mortgage bailout. They'll ask, what about for the guys who were smart and cautious. What about the story of the two squirrels (you know, the one hordes nuts and the other fritters the summer away), etc, etc.

I think that the stimulus and omnibus budget bills had plenty of protections for people who are suffering and the mortgage bailout is just a bad idea.

i agree that there will be loads of pissed off people, but there are definately economic arguments that can be made for the other side. and therein lies the dilemma.

frankly I don't think you'll see one because of the political reasons i brought up.

at least not a blanket one. maybe one like obama floated before where it's heavily qualified and conditioned.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by path12

That's not Stewart's fault or the fault of the Daily Show though. That is (as Chesapeake noted above) an indictment of how immense a failure the media has become.

Well, again, that's the damning thing- very few in the media said anything about it.

The one really sad thing to me about this has already happened in this thread quite a few times. This is being billed as Stewart vs Cramer, some big tv personality clash.

But the real point of Stewart's whole lead up and interview is being missed- people aren't talking about the financial implications much or, god forbid, calling for investigations. It's all about the two personalities. And, frankly, that wasn't the point of the interview at all.

SI

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

OTOH, I was struck by the Tiny Fey read Palin's words back verbatim. She didn't. Millions think that Palin actually said "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say anything like that. Now Stewart uses actual clips, but just something I noticed.

For certain responses, Fey did, indeed, read Palin's words back verbatim. I believe it was that whole, long rambling thing about job creation and healthcare or whatever. Not all of Fey's responses were verbatim, but some were.

As for the Russia quote, while Palin didn't say she could "see Russia from my house" she did, in fact, say something very much like that. Here's the real quote:

PALIN: And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

Bolded the problem...it would. All of the major banks in this country were over-leveraged. If we got rid of them all we'd back to the 1800's model of having lots of little community banks, which would in turn inhibit large-scale economic growth and financial services.

[DaddyTorgo]

you're right SI - and hopefully now that the interview has happened that will direct the focus back on the substance of it (particularly since it was so different than maybe what people expected).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Of course if there is a partial nationalization of the banks, there will have to be something done about that. Then again, I think the banks that did over leverage deserve to be dragged out as well... as long as it doesn't create a total financial collapse.

But that's the reason you can't just say "fuck the people who took out the stupid loans". If those default in massive numbers, then it will take down the financial system, because no one really knows how leveraged the system really is. Some estimates are as high as $80 trillion, which is over 4 times GDP. So by far the cheapest way to keep things afloat in the short term is to keep the original loans that were issued from being defaulted, triggering a multiplicative effect down the line.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

For certain responses, Fey did, indeed, read Palin's words back verbatim. I believe it was that whole, long rambling thing about job creation and healthcare or whatever. Not all of Fey's responses were verbatim, but some were.

As for the Russia quote, while Palin didn't say she could "see Russia from my house" she did, in fact, say something very much like that. Here's the real quote:

PALIN: And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia.

didn't i see an interview with someone who lived on that island (which has like < 100 inhabitansts or something), and he said that wasn't even true...that you couldn't see Russia?

edit: okay i'm wrong. you can see it.

Anderson Cooper 360: Blog Archive - You CAN see Russia from here! « - Blogs from CNN.com

From Alaska, it's mighty hard to see Russia: Craig Medred Columns | adn.com

Not that being able to SEE Russia really gives her any foreign policy credentials.

[PilotMan]

FWIW, I think Kramer and his show is full of it. But I do watch CNBC pretty regularly. They have some good discussion, and frequently there is some spirited debate. The stuff that Santelli said isn't all that has been going on, it's just what was publicized.

Guys go off on editorial diatribes all the time. Some of it is funny, eye opening, "wow, I can't believe that he just said that," stuff. I think that they have enough of opposing opinions that the channel is worthwhile. Certaily better than watching O'Reilly and his bs.

Some thoughts

1) people who signed on the line and now try and blame the banks for lending them the money when they knew full and well what they were doing are fuckups. They shouldn't be helped.

2) there is no such thing as predatory lending. How is any of this different than a credit card company?

3) There are people who genuinely need help. I don't want to sit by and do nothing while my home keeps dropping because houses all around me are being foreclosed on. kinda like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

[panerd]

The topic seems to have moved to Palin somehow. But to go back on topic basically the show has gathered an audience over the last 8 years of people who hate Bush and the Republican party. Why would they start slamming the audience they have made? Do you think conservatives are going to start watching the show if they go strictly after Obama? They will just lose their audience.

It would be like Married with Children or the Man Show or that ESPN NASCAR show trying to court women or The View or Ellen trying to court men. Or the NCAA Women's selection show trying to court anyone. Why piss off your base audience to try and be "fair" or balanced?

[Flasch186]

I remember this thread.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Not that being able to SEE Russia really gives her any foreign policy credentials.

Bullshit.

My office over looks the Detroit River. Every day I sit here and look across it right at Canada. In fact, I look right at the Caesars casino in Windsor. Therefore, not only do I have awesome foreign policy credentials, my gambling skills are second to none.

A little tip: jbmagic's Black Jack strategy? Totally works. Don't listen to those other guys. Do they sit and look at a casino all day? No. I don't think so.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Bullshit.

My office over looks the Detroit River. Every day I sit here and look across it right at Canada. In fact, I look right at the Caesars casino in Windsor. Therefore, not only do I have awesome foreign policy credentials, my gambling skills are second to none.

A little tip: jbmagic's Black Jack strategy? Totally works. Don't listen to those other guys. Do they sit and look at a casino all day? No. I don't think so.

Maybe it only works if you're playing with Canadian money.

[DaddyTorgo]

LOL.

Okay, back to Stewart & Cramer

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

But that's the reason you can't just say "fuck the people who took out the stupid loans". If those default in massive numbers, then it will take down the financial system, because no one really knows how leveraged the system really is. Some estimates are as high as $80 trillion, which is over 4 times GDP. So by far the cheapest way to keep things afloat in the short term is to keep the original loans that were issued from being defaulted, triggering a multiplicative effect down the line.

Which can be done in other ways, such as allowing bankruptcy judges being able to adjust mortgages and issuing demands on the banks for taking TARP money to be involved in mortage readjustment, and not taxpayer money

[larrymcg421]

I expect Stewart will go after liberals/Dems, but often it will be in the self-deprecating "see how screwed we are" he does whenever people like John Kerry open their mouths.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Maybe it only works if you're playing with Canadian money.

They don't call 'em Loonies for nothing!

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Which can be done in other ways, such as allowing bankruptcy judges being able to adjust mortgages and issuing demands on the banks for taking TARP money to be involved in mortage readjustment, and not taxpayer money

But that is not an option at this time, due to the changes to the bankruptcy laws made a couple of years ago.

[path12]

Have to say I find it somewhat depressing to see this devolve into the same ideology argument as usual, with the sides also shaking out as they usually do (myself included).

Seems to me that the main point is being kind of lost. I've seen Stewart go after Dems in the past. I think what really pisses him off is hypocrisy in the media, as was the case with the Crossfire incident as well.

But the corporatization and propagandizing of the media is what I loathe most in this country, so maybe I'm just seeing it through my own biased lens.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by path12

Have to say I find it somewhat depressing to see this devolve into the same ideology argument as usual, with the sides also shaking out as they usually do (myself included).

Who cares if someone fucks up. The liberal media is biased for reporting it.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

2) there is no such thing as predatory lending. How is any of this different than a credit card company?

If you actually believe this you really have nothing to stand on in this discussion. Credit card companies BY DEFINITION are predatory lenders.

I can point at my own mortgage and the entire process we went through as a predatory lending system. They tried over and over again to get us into and ARM. They "approved us" for $125,000 when every standard loan calculator we looked at said we could only afford 60-70k. We got a great house at a great price with a fixed rate 30 yr mortgage because we took the time to question everything these people told us. We're stubborn people who tend towards paranoia, not everyone is like that. I understand that people in general are stupid, but blaming them all for listening to so called "experts" who assure them the market will make their ARM worthwhile in 10 years is just as stupid.

You can't sit there and ignore the fact that these loan agencies and representatives and overall companies weren't pushing all of this as hard as they could to make every cent they could off people they KNEW couldn't handle the mortgages if the interest rates changed even 1%. If you do you're either far more ignorant than the people who TOOK the loans or you're simply burying your head in the sand and listening to too much National Media hype..

[Gary Gorski]

I've found Cramer to be interesting in the past so I checked out the interview online (btw, how ironic is it that the sponsor of the online segments is Bank of America considering the subject matter)

I think Cramer's problem is the format of the show. I for one like the fact that he's crazy and hits the buttons for the sound effects and stuff like that - it makes the show interesting. The problem is that he (and the other shows like Fast Money and even all the market commentators) make predictions...every day...and they have to make different ones each day. Of course he's going to be wrong - very wrong in some cases. What would your percentage of "winners" be, especially in a market like this, if you picked out a couple new stocks every day?

I don't know why he interviews CEOs on his show - almost every time I've seen him do so he says the guy is a good guy and recommends the stock and says he likes what he heard. He talks in the interview about some of them lying to him - well what CEO is going to come on the air and say that his company sucks, is bleeding cash and could be out of business by next week? Seriously?

Cramer's a bright guy - very interesting life story, very successful at trading stocks and even does offer good investing advice in his books but if you read his story about the money he made trading stocks he didn't trade hundreds or thousands of companies - he and his firm carefully picked targets and traded them. His books mention over and over that to invest properly you can't just buy what some guy (even he) says on TV - that you have to research the company, do your homework on it, look at the numbers, etc...but his TV format completely does him in. He would be much better served if he either did the show like once a week (not going to happen b/c of ratings) or devoted more of the show to educating about the market and picking a handful of stocks he really does like at the time and talking about them over and over and updating the viewers as to what "homework" he is doing on them and why he still likes or now dislikes them. Of course then people would say the show is boring because all he ever talks about is Google and financial mumbo-jumbo. The people want to see him hit the "buy, buy, buy" button on some obscure stock that they put $1000 into and are expecting it to turn into $10000 in a month and that makes for good TV but bad investing advice if taken solely at face value.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski

I've found Cramer to be interesting in the past so I checked out the interview online (btw, how ironic is it that the sponsor of the online segments is Bank of America considering the subject matter)

I think Cramer's problem is the format of the show. I for one like the fact that he's crazy and hits the buttons for the sound effects and stuff like that - it makes the show interesting. The problem is that he (and the other shows like Fast Money and even all the market commentators) make predictions...every day...and they have to make different ones each day. Of course he's going to be wrong - very wrong in some cases. What would your percentage of "winners" be, especially in a market like this, if you picked out a couple new stocks every day?

I don't know why he interviews CEOs on his show - almost every time I've seen him do so he says the guy is a good guy and recommends the stock and says he likes what he heard. He talks in the interview about some of them lying to him - well what CEO is going to come on the air and say that his company sucks, is bleeding cash and could be out of business by next week? Seriously?

Cramer's a bright guy - very interesting life story, very successful at trading stocks and even does offer good investing advice in his books but if you read his story about the money he made trading stocks he didn't trade hundreds or thousands of companies - he and his firm carefully picked targets and traded them. His books mention over and over that to invest properly you can't just buy what some guy (even he) says on TV - that you have to research the company, do your homework on it, look at the numbers, etc...but his TV format completely does him in. He would be much better served if he either did the show like once a week (not going to happen b/c of ratings) or devoted more of the show to educating about the market and picking a handful of stocks he really does like at the time and talking about them over and over and updating the viewers as to what "homework" he is doing on them and why he still likes or now dislikes them. Of course then people would say the show is boring because all he ever talks about is Google and financial mumbo-jumbo. The people want to see him hit the "buy, buy, buy" button on some obscure stock that they put $1000 into and are expecting it to turn into $10000 in a month and that makes for good TV but bad investing advice if taken solely at face value.

I think you're right Gary. He mentions in the interview (i think it was in part 3) that he knows that nobody wants to hear him sit there and talk about P/E ratios and Tier 1 Capital levels and things like that, even though he admits that that is what he should be doing more of. It seemed to me that he did leave the door open to trying to do more of that (at one point he said "well let's try that"), but given the ratings of his show and how little clout he probably has over that type of thing I'm not holding my breath to see it change.

Maybe he'll expand "part 1" and "part 2" of his show and actually use the time to educate.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

But that is not an option at this time, due to the changes to the bankruptcy laws made a couple of years ago.

As the housing bailout is a new bill with pushback (even among some Dems), one would think that getting a different bill that reforms the bankruptcy laws may be easier to pass.

[Flasch186]

the new bankruptcy law's timing was impeccable and evil all the same. That is all.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

As the housing bailout is a new bill with pushback (even among some Dems), one would think that getting a different bill that reforms the bankruptcy laws may be easier to pass.

But even then, it is usually in the best interest of all parties to try and get things worked out before it hits the point of having to declare for bankruptcy.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by molson

I don't know enough about all that to have an opinion, but I do think watching the Daily Show is like watching a frat boy jerking off in front of a crowd of other cheering frat boys.
.

Thats a very good take on how retarded the show is.

[cartman]

I find it disturbing that at least two people posting in this thread have knowledge of what a frat boy jerking off in front of crowd is like. To each their own.

[RendeR]

removing misquote *sorry cartman*

Originally Posted by stevew

Thats a very good take on how retarded the show is.

If thats all you see then you're not paying much attention to whats actually being said.

Sure its a comedy show, but discounting the actual content out of hand because you dislike the type or style of comedy is just as foolish as the people who listen to the "fast cash" tip shows.

Several people make good points in this thread that its downright pathetic that it takes a B level comedian and a stylized news show to actually focus the nation's attention on some very glaring stupidity in our government and industries.

[cartman]

Uh, why was I quoted in the above post?

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Jon Stewart is a better journalist on his comedy show than most of the clowns on the news networks, that was great. It's a shame people aren't asked tough questions on the other channels very often.

albionmoonlight, that was a nice summary by Sullivan you posted.

Acouple of things after seeing the whole show today. First off, I am not a big Stewart fan and feel he leans way to far to the left for my liking though I am a moderate Dem. Second, Kramer came off as a complete pussy. lol. Also, the video of Kramer from 12/22/2006 was incredibly incriminating and I am sure an eye owner for alot of average people who wer not aware of the horse trading that went on behind the scenes. Alot of the stuff appears that it could be insider-ish trading from an auditors view. And lastly, I do agree Stewart went for the low lying fruit with this just too easy. And Stewart is about as much a biased joke as Hannity is on fox.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

[SportsDino]

Originally Posted by cartman

One reason I could possibly see for a mortgage bailout is to minimize the effects of the massive over-leveraging of the mortgages via bundling them up and creating a new instrument that had a better than subprime rating that was then "protected" by a credit default swap.

So, going on the 25 to 1 leveraging that has been widely reported, for every $1 spent keeping a mortgage from going into default potentially saves $25 down the line.

Ding, ding, ding, ding... except we didn't get a mortgage bailout FIRST which is what should have happened. Timing is key here.

This assume mortgage debt is the true cause of the collapse (there is enough to indicate that a whole grab bag of shenanigans got into the daylight at the same time, but the mortgages were the easiest to pin it on)....

But anyway, you buy up every mortgage and give it to the gov, the gov demands that the person living there either make payments, renegotiate a sensible (for all sides) alteration of the mortgage, or get the hell off of government property. You help no 'loser' you just try to turn as many that can be reformed into winners as possible, and know exactly what your sinked cost is.

Gov guarantees the payments for x period, it reserves the right to auction the property off when it reaches some relative price threshold.

The end result is that you are keeping assets alive for a fraction of a cost it would take to buy the assets off the banks sheets. If mortgage debt truly was the problem, this prevents the massive credit crunch and subsequent liquidity freeze, in a manner that gives the government massive collateral as a backup. The government does not even really need to be on the hook for the whole mortgage, they just need to manage payments for a year or two until the economy recovers, and can space out the defaults on the mortgages into tiers so banks have times to offset the losses.

Instead they did exactly what I said they should not do, pass frickin TARP which in its ideal state was DIRECT GOVERNMENT SWINDLE OF TAX DOLLARS FOR GARBAGE, and in the actual state was redirected to secret spending accounts at the banks for who knows what (mostly MERGERS of the next generation of too big to fail banks). The credit crunch occurred anyway. Foreclosures zipped up, consumer confidence plummeted (which I think is garbage philosophy anyway), people start getting fired from otherwise productive companies because of the fear of economic collapse... spurring more foreclosures and economic fears.... it is a classic case of throwing money at symptoms instead of causes. We'll end up trillions deeper in the hole because of them using corrupt strategies instead of straightforward ones.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Repeat: Stewart is a host of a comedy show. Comparisons to "actual journalists" are curious.

I still think Ohlbermann is funnier than Stewart. Especially when Keith decides to get all teary eyed.