About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Beck falsely claims he never wanted banks to get bailout money

January 28, 2010 7:46 pm ET

From the January 28 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:

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.

EMBED

Previously:

A year ago, Beck called for a bailout bigger than $700 billion; now claims he "[h]ated" Bush for starting bailouts


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by Publius39 (January 28, 2010 7:57 pm ET)
      3 1
      Nice flip flop. There's a lot of that going around.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by John Paradox (January 28, 2010 9:04 pm ET)
        4  
        [http://talkingelectronics.com/FreeProjects/5-Projects/The-flip-flop-in-action-complete.gif]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Unreality (January 28, 2010 9:43 pm ET)
          1  
          Yes, but it is a logical flip flop. Beck is as far removed from logical as...(oops too many years of software to electronics)... divide by zero.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 8:18 pm ET)
      1 8
      He supported the bail outs for an amazing two whole days, and just barely (and after thinking about how it would be administered, moral hazard, etc). He openly and honestly reversed his position and laid out the points to oppose the bailouts before the final version was even written and never looked back. He has, multiple times, even pointed back to that reversal in opinion.

      Perhaps he should have referred back to it again, but how much more honesty do you want? Another instance of MMfA not telling the entire story.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by raddave43 (January 28, 2010 8:27 pm ET)
        3 1
        Glenn said "I never wanted to give the banks money in the first place." He didn't say I wanted them to get it and changed my mind.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Sharpe (January 28, 2010 9:04 pm ET)
          1 1
          I love how diamond completely skipped over your response proving that they cannot attempt to argue with the video that is right in front of you and the quote right in front of your face.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
              1
            Here is an idea, read my entire post next time, or if you are going to assume I conveniently skipped over it, read all of them.

            Perhaps he should have referred back to [his brief change in opinion] again

            I'm sticking with "didn't want them to get the money in the first place" is a good enough 10-word summary of his position for the rest of the point he was trying to make (conveniently left out by MMfA)
            Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (January 30, 2010 3:01 am ET)
             
          No, he said "I didn't want them to get the money in the first place" (emphasis mine)

          MMfA misquoted Beck and turned a perfectly true statement (by the time the bailout was written in it's final form, he was solidly against it) into a lie that Beck never said.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Boxer1979 (January 28, 2010 8:28 pm ET)
        3  
        He supported the bail outs for an amazing two whole days

        He should have done research before making his point. Video recorded comments can hurt you if you deny you made them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 8:37 pm ET)
          1 7
          When did he deny he said that? Did you even read my comment? On multiple occasions he even points back to that as an example that honestly changing your opinion is perfectly fine (just don't do it behind closed doors, ect)!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vhw28672478 (January 28, 2010 8:40 pm ET)
            2 1
            Beck is a joke
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Sharpe (January 28, 2010 9:02 pm ET)
            1 1
            No he is saying that when the bailout was passed - he didnt want it. That is exactly what he was saying. And on the day the bailout was passed beck didnt even say yea fine or I guess we need it. He said that we should be giving them even more than 700 billion like 2 trillion. He called paulson who was the architect of the TARP plan - immortal. Who calls someone they dont like or that is making a bad policy decision that you disagree with immortal. He should be honest instead of saying he didnt want the bailout. He is lying through his teeth. Im sorry you cant admit to reality,
            Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 9:10 pm ET)
              1 6
              By the time it passed he really did not want it!

              From my first post:
              ...laid out the points to oppose the bailouts before the final version was even written and never looked back.

              I'm sticking with "didn't want them to get the money in the first place" is a good enough 10-word summary of his position for the rest of the point he was trying to make (conveniently left out by MMfA)
              Report Abuse
              • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 2:39 pm ET)
                   
                Perhaps, diamonds, you are unaware of what "in the first place" means? Is that what is confusing you?
                Report Abuse
          • Author by raddave43 (January 28, 2010 10:05 pm ET)
               
            He denied it in this clip when he said "I never wanted the bailout to begin with."
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Boxer1979 (January 28, 2010 11:49 pm ET)
               
            Beck knows nothing. Never had. Never will. He is a corporate puppet spitting nonsense because that is what his corporate daddy tells him to.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by Bongo Fury (January 28, 2010 8:29 pm ET)
        4 1
        I generally lay back and just read posts and don't say much.But I'll say this Diamond.Who gives an RA what this bag of snot thinks?He is a high school graduate that is not versed in much except his vapid opinions.If he actually read as much as he blathers,then his opinions would mean more.You say MMFA doesn't tell the whole story.The whole story is MMFA reports on the dangers to america.Glen beck is one such danger.I would urge Beck's listeners to read a book and think for themseves...steam rising from my head.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 8:41 pm ET)
          1 6
          Then why do you bother hanging out here then, if it doesn't matter? Why do you think I bother hanging out here, if I can't think for myself? I very proudly read and study competing opinions, study original research and primary sources, thank you, and don't take any facts he presents verbatim.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by vhw28672478 (January 28, 2010 8:44 pm ET)
            2  
            Beck know no facts
            Report Abuse
            • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 8:51 pm ET)
              1 8
              Care to back that up with, oh, facts? He presents more facts than any other commentator I know, and provides sources. Sometimes I find flaws in the facts (sometimes easily corrected though), but most of the time it is verified, primary source research including video, audio, quotes, etc.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by Bongo Fury (January 28, 2010 8:46 pm ET)
            1  
            I said Beck doesn't read,merely opines.I didn't realize that you were an expert on shock jocks.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by sodium (January 28, 2010 9:34 pm ET)
        4  
        Diamond, the Glann Dreck forums just called and need you back there ASAP.

        Apparently they're running short on brain - dead drooling sycophants this week and need all able-bodied m o r o ns back there NOW!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 11:10 pm ET)
            3
          So you want to call people names instead of argue facts. I don't even know how to respond, honestly.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by soze169880 (January 29, 2010 12:46 am ET)
            1  
            How about with the same adulation you give this pathetic drunk, since he's the one who calls people names instead of arguing facts?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by sodium (January 29, 2010 1:02 am ET)
              1  
              soze169880:"How about with the same adulation you give this pathetic drunk, since he's the one who calls people names instead of arguing facts?"


              Hi 5, soze!!!!
              Report Abuse
          • Author by sodium (January 29, 2010 1:05 am ET)
            1  
            diamonds whined: "So you want to call people names instead of argue facts. I don't even know how to respond, honestly. "

            Sorry man, it's just I can't help giving obvious t r o ll s a tweak.


            Now seriously, please get in touch with Glenn's forums, I wasn't kidding when I said they really need you back there, man
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Boxer1979 (January 28, 2010 8:30 pm ET)
      1  
      Beck falsely claims he never wanted banks to get bailout money

      Well you should go back further in the history of why and how the banks got to big to fail and you would have bashed Congress and President Clinton for taking away Glass-Stiegel.

      Major failure for this country.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 8:47 pm ET)
        1 3
        If you went further back into history you would discover the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 that eventually caused the great depression and far bigger and deeper recessions than any previously known to mankind. While the Federal Reserve isn't the first central bank in the country's history it is certainly the most powerful.

        Fact is interest rates were lowered as low as 1% during 2001-2004, thus printing massive amounts of new money forcing banks to lower their rates, or their standards in the case of Fannie and Freddie, thus artificially increasing home prices and creating an unsustainable boom that would eventually wipe out the banks by no fault of their own.

        The Federal Reserve is a privately owned and operated cartel of the banks that made the worlds largest profit last year (yes, larger than Exxon) and I'm surprised that anyone allows it to continue to function.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by raddave43 (January 28, 2010 10:18 pm ET)
             
          Now there is revisionist history if I ever saw one. The federal reserve did not cause the great depression. It was deregulation and hands-off approach that you conservatives love that caused it. A bubble grew and it burst and there were no safety nets in place then to stop it.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by diamonds (January 28, 2010 11:00 pm ET)
              2
            Says all the people that thought there would be no more contractions ever because of their new central bank. The few people that predicted and saw the Great Depression coming saw it because of the Federal Reserve. America's Great Depression, published 1963, documents this very new theory and the people that saw it coming.
            Which conservatives deregulated anything? Progressives had been running the presidency and congress in a similar fashion to now from the beginning of the century through WW2, Hoover and FDR included (their monetary and economic policy was exactly the same right down to increases in spending, wages, price of gold and interest rates).
            Report Abuse
            • Author by raddave43 (January 28, 2010 11:05 pm ET)
              1  
              Hoover was anything but a progressive, he practiced the same things that the conservatives do today, less regulation, low taxes, etc... It is a "new theory" because it is revisionist. No one saw the depression coming in 1913.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by raddave43 (January 28, 2010 11:10 pm ET)
                1  
                or I should have said he was anything before the stock market crash, then he started trying to implement progressive ideas.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by Boxer1979 (January 28, 2010 11:52 pm ET)
             
          I'm surprised that anyone allows it to continue to function.

          Thus why I am a strong advocate of it being audited and nationalzed under the U.S. Treasury. By right of the Constitution.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (January 28, 2010 8:57 pm ET)
      1  
      Went from saying the bailout should be bigger, to we needed it, to muttering "hated him for it" under his breath to flat out saying he never wanted it. Could you be any more contradictory? Was he still on the booze during that program? He had to be - he called Paulson "immortal" of all things. Paulson - the same guy who twisted arms and shoved through congress that 3 page 700 bill dollar TARP program with no strings attached and no time table to pay it back and no guarantee they would only use the loans to pay off toxic assets. I think paulson is the biggest dbag EVER not just because he rammed the bailout down our throats (as teabaggers love to say but this time its actually true) but he made millions in the process- i wonder if he disclosed that one while he was twisting most of the arms in congress. We SHOULD HAVE LET THE BANKS FAIL! At least we would have a new system set up without too big to fail in it. Without the stricted regulations in place, we can all rest assured that we will face another financial crisis within the next decade. And we CAN thank paulson and bernanke man of the year for giving it to us in the @$$!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MagCynic (January 28, 2010 9:04 pm ET)
      1 5
      I almost gave MMFA credit for actually catching Beck stepping in something. But then I followed the link to the other posting and he said this:
      I thought about it an awful lot this weekend, and while it takes me -- it takes everything in me to say this, I think the bailout is the right thing do...The $700 billion that you're hearing about now is not only, I believe, necessary, it is also not nearly enough

      See what I did there. I put it in context. In this clip he's saying he "didn't want them to get the money in the first place." In the previous clip he's saying he doesn't necessarily want them to get the money but sees it as a necessary evil.

      On second thought, whatever. Fine you got Beck, finally. Congrats. This one post totally refutes everything conservatives believe in and stand for and we can all finally can stop arguing and go home. Cheers.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by sodium (January 28, 2010 9:37 pm ET)
        1  
        MagCynic said: "This one post totally refutes everything conservatives believe in and stand for "


        Maybe ratchet back the cynicysm a notch of two, man. You're not making much sense
        Report Abuse
      • Author by soze169880 (January 29, 2010 12:48 am ET)
           
        Context doesn't make him not a liar in this case. He's claiming he never supported the bailouts. He could've said he only thought they were a necessary evil, or he could have said that he initially supported them but came to feel differently, but instead he claims he never supported them, which is a demonstrable lie.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by diamonds (January 30, 2010 3:04 am ET)
             
          No, he said "I didn't want them to get the money in the first place" (emphasis mine)

          MMfA misquoted Beck and turned a perfectly true statement (by the time the bailout was written in it's final form, he was solidly against it) into a lie that Beck never said.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by mikehuck1976 (January 30, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
           
        Right. Great defense, Mag. Wonderful pretzel of logic you've twisted yourself into. Beck didn't really want them to get the bailout (after much reflection) he wanted them to be bigger. But, now he is against them since Obama took office so all is well in Beckerland. You Beckers should be a case study. I find your way of thinking remarkable.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Civic Racecar (January 28, 2010 9:09 pm ET)
      3 1
      The great thing about television, is that there is always a recording when you say something stupid.

      The great thing about Fox television, your viewers don't care when you say something stupid.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by richardsimones (January 28, 2010 10:15 pm ET)
        2
      I'm not trying to make a point with this, but when did he say the banks should get bailed out? As long as I've heard him yell, scream, and cry he's been against it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by donwelty (January 28, 2010 10:41 pm ET)
         
      So when Bush was newly out of office, bailouts are good because they reflect on him. Now with Obama in office bailouts are bad.

      And lying about it is OK. I'm glad that's clear.
      Report Abuse