Beck says of stimulus package: "It is slavery"
February 10, 2009 10:24 am ET
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
I don't know about "slavery," but it certainly would be "torture" to have to listen to this guy for more than about 30 seconds straight.
And what does the Little Fellow Mark Levine have against him? He consistently rips him, accuses Beck of stealing his talking points, calling him a "Back Bencher" (how quaint!). What's going on here?
Uh, Beck? Bush used government to fix problems. In fact, HOW do you suppose you can fix problems without the government? And why are you still harping about Gore's line about children knowing more than their parents?
"There are things you instinctively know to be true that your parents won't understand", huh? Well, apparently there are things that Glenn Beck will never understand, either.
Kids, you are all smarter than Glenn Beck.
Beck and dubyah are both proof that recovering alcoholics should be ignored at all costs.
$10 trillion deficits are slavery, although it is for future generations. We are economically binding generations to this debt because of the decisions we are making today. Most of it is on Bush, though I expect Obama to run the deficits even higher.
The deficit, foreign loans, the monetary system and the banking system is real slavery, the government nanny-state is a minor problem by comparison, which is where Beck misses the mark here.
BECKis a brain dead FAR RIGHT WING moron that dosen't deserve the time of day.
I assume you mean me. What's "typical" about that solution? That certainly isn't the solution the "right wing" George W. Bush, that free market president. That free market president BAILED OUT the banks, rather than "do nothing." What a joke. Bush and the "right wing" crowd has been playing this game for eight years. Stimulus packages, bailouts, tax cuts, repeat. It didn't work then, and it certainly won't work now. What you need to do is balance the budget. Without that, all of this nonsense about saving the economy is just wishful thinking.
Well, we did have that. With Clinton.
Obama is not doing more of the same, since his package will benefit others left behind on Bush's watch.
Let him try. We need to do something don't we? The market isn't going to just fix everything, we know that this doesn't work already. If Obama tries, and fails, he is a one term President. If he tries, and succeeds? Well, he gets to be the hero.
We've tried it the republican way, why shouldn't we try it a different way?
Let's agree with this. I'm not one who appreciates name-calling either, and after seeing O'Reilly do it to "pinheads" and finger out Helen Thomas last night, I think we can all be better people by pointing out fallacy with intelligent argument. Let Fox and the right-wing media appear to be the infantile sect instead.
To magnolialover and purplestate: I'm glad to see that some here don't reduce themselves to name calling. Unfortunately, there has been far too much name-calling. I thought MM was better than the neo-con sites in terms of personal attacks, but so far, it hasn't been.
To magnolialover: You're absolutely right about Clinton, who was much more fiscally conservative than W. As far as letting Obama try, he's going to anyway, and now the Senate bill has passed, its a done deal. When have we tried to let the markets fix themselves? Perhaps in the economic downturns, like the ones in the 19th century, that most have never heard of because they weren't made worse due to government intervention. In capitalism, slumps and downturns happen. To think we can have sustained growth at all times is wishful and not grounded in reality.
My main concern is the deficit. Putting aside philosophical differences, what about the reality of our national debt. We're at $10 trillion and growing JUST for the economic moves made by Bush ($9 trillion) and Obama ($1 trillion), not to mention the cost of running two wars.
My questions for you and for others is as follows: Do you think running this kind of debt is wise, or sustainable? Do you think foreign investors will continue to give us unlimited amount of credit and trust?
I guess you could raise taxes and slash government programs to the bone.... are you willing to live with the resulting mass misery that would create? I suppose we could try the favorite Republican remedy, cut taxes for rich people and cut spending to the bone. But, with Bush's boondoggle wars still going on, is that really smart?
Given current circumstances, I don't think it's a viable option.... at least for now.
The best way to start would be to slash dramatically defense spending.These are expenses that may employ some people, but do not serve our national interests. Its a proven fact that our actions in the Middle East have harmed us rather than helped us (bin Laden sited the bases in S.A. as one of the reasons he stood against America).That would effect the least amount of people domestically while drastically improving our economic lot. This might draw fire from Republicans (and some Democrats), but they got us into this mess. As someone said, its time to try something new. You'd ease off domestic programs as well.
What we don't need is more gov't spending. That is part of the problem not the solution. Cutting spending overseas will be easier on us, and will take a huge bite out of the deficit for starters.
To tie it back into the clip, the "slavery" Beck should be focusing on is economic slavery. Bush has bound this country for years to come, Obama will likely make it worse. A nanny state will make you a slave a lot slower and less efficiently than a serious national deficit.
Does anyone here have a running count of the negative historical references that Beck has used for the stimulus bill?
My running tally is 5: socialism, communism, slavery, anti-religious and facist.