March 22, 2009 2:26 PM
From the AIG bonuses, to the economic meltdown, to the war in Afghanistan, it has been an eventful two months in office for President Obama. Steve Kroft has the behind-the-scenes interview.
Obama On AIG Rage, Recession, Challenges
A Long and Dangerous Journey, Lion Kings, Taylor Swift 42:46 May 19, 2013
Taylor Swift: A young singer's meteoric rise 12:09 May 19, 2013
Afghan children on a long and perilous journey 12:10 May 19, 2013
A Face in the Crowd, Three Generations of Punishment, Michael Jackson 43:59 May 19, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
MJ's "manifesto," penned in 1979
May 19, 2013
Backstage at Cirque du Soleil show "Immortal"
May 19, 2013
Becoming human: Shin's new life
May 19, 2013
Big changes for the 2012-2013 season! Watch the current week's episode for FREE up to a week after it airs or subscribe for access to all shows, classic episodes and more!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 14
- Next »
See all 138 CommentsThis statment is a clear case of projection and bias.
I am neither a frat boy, ultra-wealthy, nor do I live in a Red State. I live in Los Angeles.
Clearly your mind is made up, and only those who agree with you are characterised as "... engaging in rational, reasoned and substantiated discourse."
I disagree with you, and you then conclude that I am not engaging in substantiated discourse. Of course your standards are the standards we are to use, and if I agree with you then you approve. If I disagree, you leave.
Obama has spent more money than any Republican ever.
Whether Republicans did it is not the issue.
The bailout under Bush was bad.
Doing 10X greater a bailout under Obama is WORSE.
I do not understand how Leftists can say that Bush doing X is bad, and Obama doing 10X is good. It makes no sense.
"You've really proven to anyone reading this that you're a paranoid who doesn't see reality the way the rest of us do."
Unlike almost everyone else in the country, I knew of and anticipated this downturn. My portfolio rose +30% last year. Most everyone else lost half. Not seeing reality "the way the rest of you do" was a very good decision on my part.
I know of people who made 20X their initial investment 2007-2009, because they knew that the credit bubble was going to burst.
If being fiscally smarter than everyone else and being ahead of the curve, and preserving assets means that "(I'm) a paranoid who doesn't see reality the way the rest of us do.", then I will continue to walk my own path.
Obama's policies will financially destroy this country. They aren't 'investments' they are disastrous. The notion that we will earn a 50% return on the monies spent, as in Sweden, is ludicrous and is not reality-based. We lost money on Bear Stearns, Maiden Lane LLC 1-3, Chrysler, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and AIG. This 'opportunity' for the tax payer to earn a ROI is just fictional.
The investments are all losing money.
You just described what Republicans have done since the Reagan Era. Good job! Or, heckuva job, or whatever the term is those ultra-wealthy frat boys use when slapping themselves on the back.
"n this fashion Obama is an innovator, although the results will be catastrophic." Please. You should have quit while you had the chance. You've really proven to anyone reading this that you're a paranoid who doesn't see reality the way the rest of us do.
I've stated my case and, once again, you've responded with opinion...this last posting, quite steeped in fantasy more so than usual, I might add. You're either a troll from Fark.com or truly incapable of engaging in rational, reasoned and substantiated discourse. Either way, I won't be back to this site again to waste my time.
Obama wants both - I just look at his actions and analyse. You assume that someone is incapable of acting upon both concepts, and that is a flaw in your logic. You look at 1930's history and conclude the two cannot exist together.
I will spell it out for you my narrow minded, arrogant friend:
Obama is a Socialist as he is attempting to partially nationalise healthcare coverage, and having the .Gov purchase private industry and run it in its stead. AIG, FRE, FNM, the .Gov stak e in auto makers are some of the purchases the .Gov has made.
That's Socialism - .Gov controlling the means of production.
Obama is a Fascist as he has extended the hellish policy of the .Gov taking money from the taxpayers by force and threat, and giving it to companies. This partnership of business and government, whereby an elite that runs both and comes from a similar social and educational background, is Fascism.
As you can see, this is not your Mussolini's Fascism. Just because the history books have made differentiations and just because you insist that the two cannot be simultaneously pursued, does not mean that they cannot.
In this fashion Obama is an innovator, although the results will be catastrophic.
Obama is putting into place laws that allow the .Gov to forceably seize a business that is vital to the national interests (Socialism - just like Hugo Chavez), and then structuring the deal around that seizure so that it only benefits those in the elite strata of the financial and business community, using taxpayer monies to do so. This use of taxpayer funds to enrich the elite, against the wishes of the electorate, is Fascism - just like Mussolini.
The elite reap the benefits of money flowing from the lower classes to the upper classes, and the .Gov takes over a larger percentage of the economy via seizure and forceable stock purchases of formerly private business. The .Gov then structures the deal so that the top 1% fiscal elites benefit from their relationship with the .Gov.
Go back to school, take some history classes and throw in an economics class or two....it'll really help. Nothing makes me laugh harder or makes extreme rightists look sillier than when they call Obama both a Fascist and a Socialist. So, which is he? From the extreme right or the extreme left? You can't have both.
"Don't be a lying, hyperbolic, dissembling, Letfist.." I'm looking over my copy and I'm not seeing any lies, sorry. And I'll need some factual back-up to undercut what I wrote. But that's typical of the response I've seen in similar comments on fabulous websites like Redstate.com...comeback with attempted slurs instead of taking on the talking points with documented fact, not opinion.
By the way, it's not "state ownership" to infuse money into a failing economic system. And there is no difference between that and any of the programs like NASA in that both are designed to better our society and both employ the private sector to hire private citizens to create/maintain the product/services, while preserving the capitalist nature of the society. This notion of yours that Big Brother will somehow own everything is nonsense. And if you'd listen to people far smarter than you regarding the economy, like Warren Buffett, you'd know that to have "just let everything work itself out" (and let AIG or major banks fail) would have had the same effect, or worse, than what we had in the early 1930's. Start reading some of Nouriel Roubini's articles. He's the only one who had a handle on this more than 5 years ago. Oh, sorry, right.......he's one of them intillechewals so he's got to have an agenda. He also happens to be one of the best economists in the world..........Hannity notwithstanding!
And by the way, Sweden actually did a better job of handling their bank problems a couple of years back when two of their biggest were about to go under. The government took them over (much like our FDIC), fired the top execs who put them in that mess, put things back in order over the course of a year by selling off certain assets, strengthening certain leverage and saved the customers all of their deposits. And do you know what they did then? The government SOLD the banks back to THE PRIVATE SECTOR and gained a 50% PROFIT as a result. We would be wise to do the same with a Bof A or similar bank in trouble. But people of your ilk would scream "Bank takeover! Socialism!", thereby not seeing the end result where the banks wind up back in the hands of private investors and making the government (us taxpayers) a tidy profit as a result. Sometimes you have to think outside the tiny box that is your Redstate mind. Your view of places like Sweden and the rest of the world tell me you've never traveled abroad otherwise you'd know that there are not only a lot of nice people in other countries, but that we don't hold the keys to all the answers in this world.
Your last paragraph is just outright hysterical! All lunatic conjecture or wishful thinking (Bush ONLY in bed with the banks for a mere six months? Between his inactivity and the aggressive ACTIVITY of Phil Gramm and the rest of the Rep congress over a 12 year period, all of those regulations you want back were destroyed.).
Here ya' go:
"fas?cism? ?/?fæ??z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm]
?noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
Now...who does that sound like? Oh, I know....the Cheney administration and the religious right.
"so?cial?ism? ?/?so????l?z?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
?noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."
Still doesn't sound like what the stimulus act is accomplishing to me. Doesn't sound like that to the Stock Market either, judging from the past few weeks.
Go back to school and open your mind.
Don't be a lying, hyperbolic, dissembling, Letfist..
There is massive intellectual difference between giving companies preferential tax breaks, and buying them outright.
There is massive intellectual difference between taxing citizens, paying for roads, and maintaining them, and giving nearly 1,000 Billion to banks, and not holding them accountable.
If you are incapable of recognizing this you either lack intellectual capacity or you are pushing an agenda.
"Then again, sure is nice having an OSHA, FDA, FCC or FAA,"
Obviously you cannot differentiate between regulation and outright state ownership.
Clearly you have an agenda. Or lack intellectual capacity.
"Sometimes, certain measures are necessary to correct economic wrongs when a handful of bad, powerful Capitalists have their way with the system. The WPA and Wall Street regulations during the Depression are just two fine examples."
Yes. Thanks to the US taxpayer, both parties, Presidents of both party's, and Congress' of both party's, those essential regulations were gutted.
We don't need Socialism to fix this mess.
We need to go back to the regulatory framework we had in 1986. Just enforce the existing laws. No need to buy out GM or AIG.
"However, I do know one thing - you don't know the meaning of the word Socialism "
Clearly another contemptuous Leftist. There is no arguing with you as your arrogance has you assume you are correct, no matter what.
Socialism is a government by which a very large tax burden is placed upon makers to give to the takers. A policy whereby public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods is accelerated. With our $12T in new spending the taxes that will be levied to give money to the entitled class will be legendary.
A little state ownership of the means of production via incentives is good. NASA. $18.7B budget. Taking us past where Sweden would go is bad. Buying GM and Chrysler, lending them $40B. The Swedish government said it "is not prepared to own car factories,". You know we are screwing up when Sweden thinks we are too Socialist. Their cradle to grave provsions and massive tax burden are Socialism. Our lower tax burden and less intrusive goverment ownership is not.
Couple this with the Statist Fascism, whereby Government and Corporations are run by the same people for their benefit, looting the public treasury to line their pockets, and you have a massive mess.
Obama is clearly a Marxist-leaning Socialist who wants to put more of the economy under government control. His friendships, associations, pastor, and the books he quotes from all prove this. Since he isn't changing Bush'es policies, he is also a Fascist in bed with the banks, as was Bush in the last 6 months of his administration The topper is the Statism with elite beneficiaries running the show in business and government, and giving them even MORE money, and spending us into a $2,000B deficit this year.
Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Statism - we are in a mess and heading down a destructive road.
By your definition, we've been a socialist country all along. Know that roadway you drive on? Yep. The Government built it. The military that protects the U.S. and her interests....yep. Government put that together, too. How about that velcro you use instead of shoelaces on your sneakers? Yep. Came from the Government's NASA program along with thousands of other discoveries/materials/products we use in our everyday life. Of course, you do realize that these things are created by using products or manpower from independent companies, like, say, Caterpillar or McDonnell-Douglas or Bob's Paving and Asphalt Co.. Too bad Big Brother has such a say in our private lives and businesses... how dare they! Then again, sure is nice having an OSHA, FDA, FCC or FAA, to name a few, to make sure the wrong kind of Capitalists don't take advantage of or even kill the average consumer. (See: Chinese toothpaste, Chinese pet food, etc. Bet the average Chinese citizen wishes their government looked after them that way.)
Sometimes, certain measures are necessary to correct economic wrongs when a handful of bad, powerful Capitalists have their way with the system. The WPA and Wall Street regulations during the Depression are just two fine examples. By pumping our money into failing banks and financial institutions in order to save the rest of our hard earned money (401ks, mutual funds and other retirement vehicles), we most certainly have a say, as major owners, as to how our money will be spent. So, yeah, screw up and you're fired...just like in the regular business world.
If you honestly think that our government could ever take over every business in America and "Socialize" our system, then you either think there are quadrillions of dollars' worth of gold hidden under the Capitol building to be used by our president to buy all of them or you think that every business would have to submit ownership due to military force, commandeered by our Commander-in-Chief. Either one is fantasy and neither will ever be possible in a land of more than 300 million people; a majority of whom either own their own, or work for, small INDEPENDENT businesses.
You do know that most of the "blue" states in this country get less back from the federal government than they pay into the system, right? I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you probably come from one of the many "red" states that takes in more money from the government than it pays out in federal taxes. However, I do know one thing - you don't know the meaning of the word Socialism and you are indeed paranoid...good luck with that and the happy life you must lead.
Nothing ludicrous about it. Obama is taking the small start that Bush made of moving the US towards Socialism, and running with it.
How else to categorize $1.2T deficits, and Universal Coverage, $600B for healthcare, billions for Green Inititatives, and further purchases of private companies?
What would you call it when the CEO of a formerly private company, now owned by the Federal Government, is summoned to the White House and is 'requested' to step down by the POTUS? That's what is done in command economies like Cuba and Venezuela and China. The Government tells business what to do, they hire and fire.
That's Socialism, my friend. Nothing ludicrous about it.
It's Reality in the USSA.
I don't think I'll be asking you anything until you get a few things straight...my first clue was you calling it a 20/20 interview. As for WWII getting us out of the Depression, here's a good place to start, along with a graph using stats from the U.S. Commerce Department showing how the rebound was well on its way before we entered the War: http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth Nice try, though. I'm afraid you've been listening to too many Righty radio stations again. Time to look up the facts when you hear them from the likes of Savage, Hannity or Limbaugh.
As an interviewer when President Obama states there were lessons learned during the ?Great Depression? as an interviewer my question would ask to Mr. Obama to share his perspective and opinion what he thinks those lessons are? From my perspective F.D.R.'s attempts failed. What cured the depression was World War II.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 14
- Next »
See all 138 Comments