to anyone who really wants to learn alot more about our ....goverment.....

[Vteckidd]

The fact that there may be a marginal bit of truth only makes him more dangerous in my eyes. People like you and I (VtecKidd), I am assuming you are of reasonable intelligence and take a genuine interest in politics like I do, see Glenn Beck's stories loosely based on sincere truths and we appreciate the fragments of fact. However, I would venture a guess that the average Beck viewer fails to recognize that any of the "information" he spouts is an exaggeration, an embellishment or a downright falsehood. He bases the occasional story on fact in much the same way that Hollywood bases the occasional movie on a true story; sure, it is based on a true story but the main purpose is still to entertain and if the story doesn't live up to the standards Americans require for entertainment, what is one to do? Embellish. He is even more dangerous than if he failed to ever base anything on anything at all. It earns him just enough ardent supporters who will quickly point out the fundamental truths which keeps him afloat.
Ron Paul "talks about concerning the FED, congress, the falling value of the dollar, seiu, etc." Yet, these two individuals aren't saying remotely the same thing. It's not always what you say but how you say it.

i will agree with that. I mean i get my information from all sorts of arenas. Not just the "right" or the "left". Not just the USA, not just europe, etc. I will agree with you that

The average voter has no idea what Obama is seeking to do or do to this country because they either A) Lack the intelligence to comprehend it B) just dont care

I will say the average Beck watcher is prob in the same category.

Hell i read Palins book, not because i LIKE HER, but because i like to hear all sides to a story. I really cant stand Hannity either, but ill watching him from time to time.

I think Oreilly gets a bad rap, i really think he tries to stay in the middle and he has said some things to back up Obama that people just skip over. I think hes prob the most middle of the road guy on there.

Beck is way out in right field (even though hes not a republican) but some of the stuff he talks about i will agree with or know what hes trying to say.

[preferredduck]

i will agree with that. I mean i get my information from all sorts of arenas. Not just the "right" or the "left". Not just the USA, not just europe, etc. I will agree with you that

The average voter has no idea what Obama is seeking to do or do to this country because they either A) Lack the intelligence to comprehend it B) just dont care

I will say the average Beck watcher is prob in the same category.

Hell i read Palins book, not because i LIKE HER, but because i like to hear all sides to a story. I really cant stand Hannity either, but ill watching him from time to time.

I think Oreilly gets a bad rap, i really think he tries to stay in the middle and he has said some things to back up Obama that people just skip over. I think hes prob the most middle of the road guy on there.

Beck is way out in right field (even though hes not a republican) but some of the stuff he talks about i will agree with or know what hes trying to say.

on info gathering, thats what i do, i dont stay glues to one site of tv station you simply can't cuz you will miss alot of stuff.

[Total_Blender]

Its not that the fed "lost" the money, its that they couldn't produce a rundown of all the places the money was when they were put on the spot in front of congress. The money isn't gone, they just need time to produce a report on all of the different things the money has been used for.

[PatrickH]

Its not that the fed "lost" the money, its that they couldn't produce a rundown of all the places the money was when they were put on the spot in front of congress. The money isn't gone, they just need time to produce a report on all of the different things the money has been used for.

I'll give you 10:1 odds that most of that money will never be seen again.

[preferredduck]

I'll give you 10:1 odds that most of that money will never be seen again.

i'll put 12 trillion on it!!!!

[preferredduck]

Its not that the fed "lost" the money, its that they couldn't produce a rundown of all the places the money was when they were put on the spot in front of congress. The money isn't gone, they just need time to produce a report on all of the different things the money has been used for.

like losing it, loaning it to crooks, i have that video bookmarked and laughed my ass off at it. that kind of $$ should be accounted for at all times even if put on the spot infront of congress. also isn't it bad that they won't tell us who all got the bailout money, it is our right to know since we will be paying for it for the next 200 years.

[Total_Blender]

it is our right to know since we will be paying for it for the next 200 years.

It is my understanding that banks have paid most of it back already, and that GM is seeking to pay theirs back as well. Also, since these are loans that bear interest, when its all said and done the Gov't will have made a return on their money. I'm not saying I approve of this corporate welfare, but its really not the big deal its made out to be by the wingnuts.

[PatrickH]

It is my understanding that banks have paid most of it back already, and that GM is seeking to pay theirs back as well. Also, since these are loans that bear interest, when its all said and done the Gov't will have made a return on their money. I'm not saying I approve of this corporate welfare, but its really not the big deal its made out to be by the wingnuts.

You're not looking at the big picture. What this has done is changed the game. It's now accepted that if you're a big corporation you can make bad decisions that hurt everyone and the taxpayers will bail you out. We basically just subsidized failure. This in turn, encourages more failure. It's the same thing we've been doing to our children for years. "It's okay little Billy. You're still a good little boy despite failing your classes, throwing temper tantrums, etc. If you fail high school you can just live with mommy."

[bu villain]

This whole economic downfall just shows how brutal free market capitalism can be. Bailouts or not, we would still be in a messed up situation right now. The question is which is the lesser of two evils?

[youngpre]

You're not looking at the big picture. What this has done is changed the game. It's now accepted that if you're a big corporation you can make bad decisions that hurt everyone and the taxpayers will bail you out. We basically just subsidized failure. This in turn, encourages more failure. It's the same thing we've been doing to our children for years. "It's okay little Billy. You're still a good little boy despite failing your classes, throwing temper tantrums, etc. If you fail high school you can just live with mommy."

While I do very much agree with this setting a very bad precedent, you also have to look at the implications of letting all of those corporations fail simultaneously. The situation could have, and likely would have, turned from bad to worse very quickly

[Vteckidd]

It is my understanding that banks have paid most of it back already, and that GM is seeking to pay theirs back as well. Also, since these are loans that bear interest, when its all said and done the Gov't will have made a return on their money. I'm not saying I approve of this corporate welfare, but its really not the big deal its made out to be by the wingnuts.

its a huge deal, they just made failure acceptable.

They talk about golden parachutes, The Govt gave these guys the BIGGEST GOLDEN PARACHUTE of all time.

Name me the LAST TIME our government loaned someone money, got paid back with interest, and applied it to the national debt? They dont do it, they will spend that money on something else.

Congress reported they got back something like 8 billion from the banks 2 months ago and did they pay off anything or the national debt? no they turned around (led by Rangle and Barney Frank) and put that money into paying off peoples mortgages who were "hurting" or "in trouble of defaulting".

COngrats, you just marginalized failure again