Stossel: Bailouts and Bull

posted at 3:16 pm on March 15, 2009 by Michelle

John Stossel of ABC News is one of most effective and far-reaching free-market communicators working in journalism. He helmed a terrific special on “Bailouts and Bull” last night (though I do need to set him straight about border security/immigration issues!) Here’s the first part of the show:

Tags:

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

Is the Stimulus Bill Unconstitutional?
Rick Moran
Even if it is, someone would have to challenge it who has “standing.” And it’s not clear whether that would include governors or state legislatures.

But as Ronald Rotunda points out in the Chicago Tribune , for the states to accept a lot of that stim money, they must change their constitutions. The feds can’t do. But it also points up a good reason why some Republican governors are resisting the stim money; not only would it force changes in their government, it would leave them with obligations after the money runs out that they may not be able to pay for:

Like minds; thank God I’m not the only one shouting the unconstitutional premise of Obama’s Stimulus Bill. PETITION for the proper standing, that the proper force observe the people’s voice of OBJECTION. The Supreme Court refused to grant citizen’s standing to sue Obama’s legitimacy. Even citizens who are taxed should have direct voice, and our legislators voting “yes” ignored the majority calls to vote “no”. Why would politicians even be required to make the challenge. American businesses should be able to challenge–this bill is specifically stacked against businesses, and deals specifically with taxation.

maverick muse on March 15, 2009 at 8:54 PM

The arrogance of those politicians was palpable.

ronsfi on March 15, 2009 at 9:05 PM

We should beware the Federal/financial complex.

Dhuka on March 15, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Looks like the left hit their tipping point with the AIG bonuses but here not a peep.

BTW, here are some numbers on Santelli’s losers:

http://www.examiner.com/x-1765-Underground-Examiner~y2009m3d13-Santellis-losers-Republicans

getalife on March 15, 2009 at 9:14 PM

maverick muse on March 15, 2009 at 8:54 PM

We were talking about this at home today. There is also the issue of severability. From Rotunda’s column:

It is unlikely that subsection (b) will survive constitutional challenge. Does that mean that the entire law is unconstitutional or only subsection (b)? That depends on whether Congress considered the entire bill to be a uniform whole, so that if one part must fall, all must fall. Or, did it want the courts to sever the unconstitutional part of the law and leave the remainder intact?

It may seem silly to worry about such matters when we know that Congress was in such a hurry to enact this bill that a great many congressmen—perhaps all of them—did not have a chance to read all of it. But, the courts will still have to decide the severability issue and invalidate more than subsection (b).

Evidently there was no severability clause in the bill. Does anyone know more? This is what they get when they don’t make time to read what they vote on!

Boy, would I love to see the entire bill thrown out. Talk about hoist with your own petard. This would be the classic example.

INC on March 15, 2009 at 9:22 PM

I trust Maxscam Waters. Yep, yep, I really do. It’s so exciting!

Upstater85 on March 15, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Stossel is pretty good, but his views on homosexuality are pretty dogmatic. He goes on and on about how no one has ever changed their sexuality, despite evidence to the contrary. No doubt it’s difficult(as are such things as leaving alcoholism, etc), but he’s convinced, even though not a scientist or psychologist, that it’s never been done.

TTheoLogan on March 15, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Stossel is making me feel like I’m more and more like a libertarian.

ApartforHaShem on March 15, 2009 at 10:37 PM

Stossel is pretty good, but his views on homosexuality are pretty dogmatic. He goes on and on about how no one has ever changed their sexuality, despite evidence to the contrary. No doubt it’s difficult(as are such things as leaving alcoholism, etc), but he’s convinced, even though not a scientist or psychologist, that it’s never been done.

TTheoLogan on March 15, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Why would a libertarian care? Why should anybody care? If somebody doesn’t want to “change their sexuality”, that’s their business. Get over it.

DaveS on March 15, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Stossel is the best thing coming out of ABC News, and he’s right on with this spot. Can’t watch the rest of them without yelling at the TV (which I confess is a bit ridiculous). Guess that’s why I comment here. Thanks Michelle, Ed and Allah for the chance to vent to more than the TV.

Christian Conservative on March 16, 2009 at 12:15 AM

johnny stossel is a serious journalist.

benny shakar on March 16, 2009 at 12:18 AM

Who is BARRY SOETORO?

BHO Jonestown on March 16, 2009 at 2:11 AM

Well, that’s some of the best questions I’ve seen asked in a prime time environment since the election.

Simple and to the point.

The answers on the other hand from the politicians….

Yakko77 on March 16, 2009 at 2:51 AM

I fully support securing our borders, but I am not convinced that a fence is necessary. I am leery of walls anyway. Yes, the do keep people out, but they can also keep people in (ie. the Berlin Wall). But setting that aside, a border fence is pointless unless it surrounds the entire border — both the northern and southern border.

But even if the fence is built, I still do not think that it will reduce illegal immigration. The 9/11 hijackers entered this country legally and even had their visas extended posthumously (WTF?).

I believe that we should incarcerate employers that knowingly hire illegals. No more of issuing fines against them (which are simply passed along to the consumer anyway).

As far as the cartels, the simple solution would be to decriminalized drugs. Quite frankly, I do not understand why some recreational drugs (ie. cigarettes) are legal while others (ie. marijuana) are not. If we are going to say that marijuana is an illegal substance, then we should to the same to tobacco . . . and maybe nicotine too (because it’s the nicotine that keeps the smoker buying their product). I wasn’t alive then, but does anyone remember what happened when the federal government made alcohol an illegal substance?

eaglescout1998 on March 16, 2009 at 4:27 AM

BTW, John Stossel advocates and is very vocal on legalizing marijuana.

Discuss

Knucklehead on March 15, 2009 at 8:54 PM

He’s a libertarian. I wish more libertarian’s were like him and less nutty.

Ampersand on March 16, 2009 at 4:36 AM

Government is the answer. The Question is. “What the freak is wrong with our economy?”

darktood on March 16, 2009 at 5:02 AM

Government is the answer. The Question is. “What the freak is wrong with our economy?”

darktood on March 16, 2009 at 5:02 AM

The answer to your question is “Too much government interference in the first place”. Which, as it so happens to be, is also a rebuttal to your first statement.

Theophile on March 16, 2009 at 5:53 AM

Segment 2: many people are against it because the privatized roads aren’t unionized.

Black Adam on March 16, 2009 at 8:12 AM

I watched the segment and was shocked that ABC was talking about this in a way that did not shed a golden glow on the congress and Pelosi. I guess the honeymoon is over. I wonder how long Stossel and his crew with have a job.

workingforpigs on March 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM

Is there any words more ominous then a politician saying “I hope so”.

right2bright on March 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM

Polling data shows we are in crisis, facts show government intervention increase the crisis.

Ms. Waters is in crisis mode and insists you must give it (your money and vote) all up to her and her cronies so they can fix it (their ego). Er’ go their ego so you must go.

You, me, and all of U.S. have a choice so let’s start making the right choice, freedom to produce our own wealth.

MSGTAS on March 16, 2009 at 10:04 AM

Sorry, forgot to give my kudos to Mr. Stossel for his unique way of uncovering that which tries its damnedest to keep covered up. I guess, that the problems facing U.S. have finally become ‘shovel ready’ to be exposed.

MSGTAS on March 16, 2009 at 10:08 AM

Segment 2: many people are against it because the privatized roads aren’t unionized.

Black Adam on March 16, 2009 at 8:12 AM

I never even thought about private toll roads until I hit a couple of them on the way from California to Maryland. Seems like a good idea now. Also, once all cars are essentially on-line and with GPS, it would be really easy to privatize even the surface streets.

Count to 10 on March 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Why do these politicians constantly refer to the US as a democracy? We are not a democracy! We are a representative Constitutional REPUBLIC. Our elections are based on democratic principles but that is the extent of it. That is why we have the electoral college, etc. These things are for our protection.
PrincipledPilgrim on March 15, 2009 at 3:30 PM

+1

That was my first reaction again as I see those dolts in Congress talk about polling and democracy. Dadgummit, they were voted for to represent the people, not go with the popular flow. It’s a whole different mindset when you realize that our government is of the people but not the people themselves. Grecian style democracy doesn’t work in a large society.

Tennman on March 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM

It’s all you know and how much money you gave them. You all heard about the Microsoft bridge? Give money to the Won and get all your problems solved by the taxpayers, even if you are the richest company on earth. Why spend money that you already have if you can get Joe Sucker to pay for it.

TimothyJ on March 16, 2009 at 2:27 PM

I watched the show here in Germany on AFN (Armed Forces Network) on Sunday night. It was good, though I didn’t agree with all of it.

I appreciate the contribution John Stossel and other libertarians make to political debate, and I especially appreciate their willingness to debate, unlike “liberals” (let’s face it; leftists) whose typical agenda is to insult and silence their political opponents. If libertarians were stronger on national defense they could win a lot of us conservatives over. I can live with legalized pot. I can’t live with an isolationist defense policy.

OscarSchneegans on March 16, 2009 at 2:37 PM

I wonder how long Stossel and his crew with have a job.

workingforpigs on March 16, 2009 at 9:10 AM

You can bet FOX has a spot for him.

saiga on March 16, 2009 at 2:50 PM

johnny stossel is a serious journalist.

benny shakar on March 16, 2009 at 12:18 AM

So is Katie Couric.

The one who interviewed the dog from ‘Frasier’.

Yes, you read that right.

DaveC on March 16, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2