Video: Michelle on Cavuto
posted at 7:46 pm on October 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The Boss has been fighting against the entire series of bailout proposals, and she covered the history of it with Neil Cavuto on Fox this afternoon. She and Cavuto appear to share the same analysis of Washington, which is that people there appear to be shifting with the wind rather than come up with any real strategy:
I can’t really add anything to what Michelle says here, except to criticize the Fox editorial decision in leaving more than two-thirds of the screen to the board that hadn’t changed in over an hour, and squeezing her into the margin. Maybe no one could believe that the numbers were that bad, and they needed to keep looking at it to be sure.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
Isn’t it clear that the market is manipulating the government?
The first clue was the day after the bill failed the first time. The market tanked and then public opinion changed a little and viola’! The bill passed!
That, I believe, was a manipulated event and now we have the same thing happening again. Every time the market tanks, the congress opens the purse. I’d be tanking the market everyday until the congress reaches it’s squeal point. This is a typical high pressure sales technique designed to prey on the ignorant and fearful.
csdeven on October 10, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Market manipulating government?, government manipulating the market? Neither and both.
What we got here is an unholy alliance of the Market movers and
shakersTAKERS and political movers andshakersTAKERS both selling out the medium and long term economic future so they can get through the next couple of months with as little pain as possible.They are just giving the patient a shot of novocain, then putting multiple layers of staph infected band-aids over an melanoma that needs to be excised, not patched over.
Michelle may not be a Wharton, Harvard and Oxford Degreed Economics and Finance guru, but she IS right. Common Sense and the adherence to the correct basic fundamentals beats credentials every time.
LegendHasIt on October 10, 2008 at 12:57 AM
I agree that capitalism requires some oversight, but you’ll never convince me that socialism is superior to capitalism. Socialism is a thoroughly tested ideology and yet has never demonstrated remotely comparable results to capitalism.
Additionally, this crisis was not a product of unfettered capitalism but rather socialistic government interference. The failures of socialism can not tarnish the reputation of capitalism as you’ve eluded, even if ill informed individuals believe it does. Socialisms failures are the consequence of its own inherent flaws and is why more socialism can’t possibly solve the problems it creates, at best it can only delay the inevitable, but at the cost of eventually revealing still more of it’s inherent flaws.
The relative strengths of capitalism and socialism are revealed by this very crisis, in more ways that one. While this problem was caused by a brand of socialism, still more socialism, in the form of cascading bailouts, has failed to overcome the raw might of capitalism’s ability to balance and correct itself. This in spite of the wishful thinking of so many misguided people who’ve convinced themselves that the good times could never end and personal responsibility was merely a fanciful figment of history.
FloatingRock on October 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Spirit of 1776 on October 10, 2008 at 12:03 AM
several reasons.
One they didn’t know which one and it would take alot of research to find each one which would be costly for the banks.
Two it was a game for them. If Citibank admitted to what it owned that some other bank would take advantage or not trade with it. thus they did not want to make known what they owed to they competition. The present action shows that no news is worse than bad news but the banks didn’t want to own up to it.
/both reason were why the government needed to force the banks to do it.
another reason was the banks that they could sell their bad paper to another bank and get out of it. No buyers except of course the taxpayer
On a plus note I think the present selling is about done. Friday and possible Monday should finish it and the market should rebound for a couple of months. good News for McCain, We will retest this levels and if Obama gets elected I can see the lows broken and we hit 7,000 DOW by Jan
unseen on October 10, 2008 at 2:15 AM
FloatingRock on October 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM
CaFloatingRock on October 10, 2008 at 1:06 AM
capitalism also has its inherent flaws. Rich get richer etc. Busts , panics, etc
I am not saying which is better or worse. Both have their drawbacks. Personally I think the mix that the USa has had over the last 70 years has been good.
Socialism got the upperhand over the last 16 years because of politics and trying to win votes. And now we are paying for that.
However, that was not the topic of my post. People are still argueing and capitalism/socialism
My point was that the due to a lot of things including the election we were going to get socialism no matter what. I was trying to get the least amount as possible. It was the 100% pure capitalists folks that blocked it and due to their
blockage we are now going to get massive socialism.
We were always going to pay. We could have paid last year for a small amount. Now we have to pay in a crisis and we have to pay massive amounts.
the capitalists were fighting a figth they lost 16 years ago and do not understand they lost
unseen on October 10, 2008 at 2:23 AM
hillbillyjim on October 10, 2008 at 2:54 AM
How in the name of Obama do you get 100% pure capitalism from a system where banks were forced into providing subprime loans to risky borrowers? A system, by the way, that the government rigged by propping up FM&FM, thus creating a false sense of security regarding these crap loans and bundles of crap loans. Fannie and Freddie were the product of social engineering, not free market principles. Geez.
Want some more of the same? Vote for the social justice candidate. Barack Obama.
hillbillyjim on October 10, 2008 at 3:03 AM
Capitalism isn’t perfect; neither is democracy. Nothing created by man, especially civilizations, is perfect. It’s a matter of relativity. Despite it’s flaws, no economic system in human history has proven itself to be as efficient and resilient as capitalism. Capitalism is essentially a natural economic system founded on the principles of freedom. While intervention is sometimes helpful to ensure a degree of stability in the system, to smooth the jags, there is no reason that I’m aware of to believe that socialism is even capable of curtailing badly needed value corrections.
I understand your point that we’re going to get a little or a lot, and you may be right, but I disagree that we should surrender to inevitability. It should be fought tooth and nail until the end or else it’s sure we’ll lose. If we lose a battle we should devise a new strategy to defeat the enemies of capitalism, freedom and liberty. Never surrender. Socialists, if they win this battle, will have placed a noose around their own neck. When their policies fail, and they will eventually, a new era of capitalism may be reborn from the ashes assuming any of us are still around to fight for it. For all we know it might be happening now.
Old European cultures have more societal ills than we do right now, IMO, and much of it stems from socialism. I’ve long thought that if it weren’t for the economic powerhouse of the USA they’d have run out of steam long ago. European socialism would be dead and gone.
FloatingRock on October 10, 2008 at 3:05 AM
…which is to say, if capitalists surrender to the inevitability of socialism then the fight will already be lost.
FloatingRock on October 10, 2008 at 3:15 AM
Absolutely. The bloated socialist programs enshrined (and going broke) in Europe today were made possible because their favorite whipping boy, the good ol’ USA, shouldered the burden of and funded their national defense for decades; keeping the Soviet bear from lumbering east through Western Europe even as their defense spending/GNP dwindled.
Had they been carrying their own water, they simply could not have sustained such nonsense as 30 hour work weeks and 6 and 8 week vacations, much less enormous welfare programs, national health schemes, and government-provided cradle-to-grave everything else..
hillbillyjim on October 10, 2008 at 4:30 AM
MM…perspicacious …..as always.
jerrytbg on October 10, 2008 at 5:52 AM
If no actions had been taken it is likely the whole thing would have melted down. But action was taken. The talking heads will always be able to debate endlessly on how that was the wrong move — in other words a theory that can never be proven. It is possible they are correct but equally possible they are dead wrong.
This recession is only beginning and the under 40 crowd has no idea just how precarious things are about to get.
Just a few examples.
- Christmas sales will be the worst in years causing some businesses to fail
- Younger families (even responsible ones who make an effort to live modestly) who have low credit lines will experience problems the first time a major repair on their car is needed and the credit limit has been reduced to a point they cannot pay that way.
- Squeezed credit will begin to force small businesses into closure, causing job losses and further foreclosures (even on the responsible people who manage their money wisely - most people cannot lose a job and last for more than a few months before they lose the house)
- Government will not collect as much revenue to help out the folks who need it — watch families start moving back in with one another as times get worse.
But at the end of the day when the “responsible people” begin to feel the bite and slide under financially will it be passe to lecture everyone on personal responsibility?
Bradky on October 10, 2008 at 6:51 AM
This is such an important point, I just want to stand and applaud.
DrMagnolias on October 10, 2008 at 6:51 AM
austinnelly on October 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Now we have a choice between a pure Socialist Liberal, and John McCain (what ever his political ideology is). Democrats have brought ruin to our economy on purpose in order to win the WH, as a bad economy has historically worked really well for Democrats. McCain/Palin get (3) votes from my household, as we have no other option.
Damn!
Keemo on October 9, 2008 at 10:27 PM
You call that cheer leading you self righteous troll?
Keemo on October 10, 2008 at 8:02 AM
Michelle, you are so talented, intelligent, diligent and beautiful; you are the total package. Thank you for doing all that you do.
It would fun if you, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and Elizabeth Hasselbeck could have your own TV show, we could call it the “Right View.” :-)
mindhacker on October 10, 2008 at 8:03 AM
Michelle does her homework, as usual, and its payoff is she is capable of tackling a difficult topic and make her followers and the common folk to understand it. That is the mark of a great journalist.
The other side plagiarize and do not digest the information. This make it easier to appear to be doing their job so they can pay to get into the best parties in town to gain more plagiarized information-and we pay them to lie to us.
Let’s get smart the way Michelle does so we can be proud of knowing that what we know is the truth.
MSGTAS on October 10, 2008 at 10:32 AM
One of the immediate practical problems is that banks aren’t inclined to lend to one another and thus are demanding higher risk premiums when they do lend to one another. Banks are reluctant to lend to one another because they do not know the extent to which the other banks are holding assets based on subprime mortgages. They also recognize that borrowing from other banks to safeguard their own solvency in the event of a run is likely to be difficult, for the same reasons. Consequently, banks are madly conserving cash and will continue to do so until they have confidence in other banks.
Bottom line: clarity and certainty as to bank holdings and solvency is thus urgently needed. There is only one way to provide that the type of clarity needed - weak banks must be allowed to fail. As weak banks fail, increasing confidence will be restored in those that remain.
Cruel? Yes.
Inevitable and necessary? Yup.
Do bailouts help? Nope. First, there isn’t enough money in the world to backstop the financial system. Second, bailouts delay the one thing that can help, i.e., bank failures. Therefore, bailouts prolong the negative effect on the real economy.
pussum207 on October 10, 2008 at 10:58 AM
+1
During all this mess, Cavuto is the one person who has been able to explain things in a way that I understand. I find his show to be the most soothing, frankly.
I love Brit Hume for my political fix, but Cavuto for business news.
Y-not on October 10, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Michelle is rock solid on this one - very well said!
These bailouts are merely pissing in the wind. Failures and market corrections are healthy for the economy - at some point, the turd needs to be flushed.
LimeyGeek on October 10, 2008 at 12:16 PM
These two are pretty much all that’s worth watching on FNC….I also like that limey Stuart, and the Capitalist Pig guy that looks like the Mad magazine character.
LimeyGeek on October 10, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Massive protests are needed. Peaceful, of course, but MASSIVE! Millions and millions of people lining the streets. Kick the corruption out.
apacalyps on October 10, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]