Beck: "Economic holocaust is coming"
February 20, 2010 6:54 pm ET
From Beck's February 20 CPAC address:
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.
by the way, I've listened to Beck on a local outlet starting a year before the last election. During that time, he was predicting economic calamities and other ridiculous events to occur within the next year. That was two years ago now and nothing has come to fruition. Nothing. In fact, leading economic indicators show a definite slowing of job loss, economic growth recently, and most recently a report showing the worst of the housing crisis may be over. the reality is that things may be looking up and this is Beck's worst nightmare. Think about this, he is now in a position where he has to actively root against recovery. the better things get, the worse he looks. So, what does he do? He routinely preaches unfounded predictions and conspiracies while hoping that things in the country (he supposedly loves so much) get worse....not better. How pitiful is that? He is, in effect, hoping that many of his listeners economic condition gets worse instead of better. He can't grow unless the cancer on our economy grows or worsens. What's the word when two organisms both benefit from each other? That's Beck and poor economic times. One cannot exist without the other.
Sorry, He just makes me so mad!! It is words like Holocaust that get people to fly planes into IRS Buildings..
I truly, TRULY HATE beck.. I know... Hate is just bad for me.. But really!! This guy is so damaging to our country! He is DANGEROUS!And his followers would keep us in the 50's forever..
WE PROGRESS!! It IS the POINT of Life!!
One
Two
Three
Four
Beck on captured Taliban leader: "Shoot him in the head"
Beck warns of "riots in the street" in Europe; suggests progressives in U.S. want same
BECK: So, Speaker Pelosi, I just wanted to -- you gonna drink your wine? Are you blind? Do those eyes not work? There you -- I want you to drink it now. Drink it. Drink it. Drink it.
I really just wanted to thank you for having me over here to wine country. You know, to be invited, I thought I had to be a major Democratic donor or a longtime friend of yours, which I'm not.
By the way, I put poison in your -- no, I -- I look forward to all the policy discussions that we're supposed to have -- you know, on health care, energy reform, and the economy.
Violence to a group: From the August 10 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
"All you Muslims who have sat on your frickin' hands the whole time and have not been marching in the streets and have not been saying, "Hey, you know what? There are good Muslims and bad Muslims. We need to be the first ones in the recruitment office lining up to shoot the bad Muslims in the head." I'm telling you, with God as my witness, America is - no I'm not going to make this an American thing - human beings are not strong enough, unfortunately, to restrain themselves from putting up razor wire and putting you on one side of it. When things - when people become hungry, when people see that their way of life is on the edge of being over, they will put razor wire up and just based on the way you look or just based on your religion, they will round you up. Is that wrong? Oh my gosh, it is Nazi, World War II wrong, but society has proved it time and time again: It will happen."
Implicit violence: Beck portrays Obama, Democrats as vampires "going after the blood of our businesses," suggests "driv[ing] a stake through the heart of the bloodsuckers"
read here
March 30, 2009 7:14 pm ET
Seriously.. The guy who flew his Plane sounds like a teabagger to me..
Becks words are inciting others to take action! Quickly! Without thought!! The Sky is Falling and if YOU don't act now.. SOMEHOW.. WE ALL WILL DIE!! That is what words like Holocaust do...
There is NO LOGIC in his words.. NONE! Yet they stand and applause!
Sorry.. I may have been a bit hot under the collar.. But a few minutes of BeckHole STEAMS Me!!
Did Hitler Rail against Hitler in the beginning?
That's all ANY of the traitorous a$$-clowns are concerned about!
Beck, Limbaugh, Brietbart... ALL of them. They hate this Country... At least they hate the one that actually exsist. They only love the America that they think they can bring about.
---------------------------------------------------------------
They're traitorous scum. They'd better hope the atheists are right or they'll get theirs.
"It is words like Holocaust that get people to fly planes into IRS buildings." I heard him say it, you heard him say it, and thousands of people have heard him say it. We aren't all flying airplanes into buildings. It is not a casual relationship. Unbalanced people don't need any influences to do irrational things.
"WE PROGRESS!! It IS the POINT of Life!!" Mr. Beck is not against progression, but progressivism. There is a difference. I would say that progress is a consequence of life, but not the point of it. At least, I hope the point of life is something more profound than just progress.
FCUK YOU BECK!
It's ridiculous hear him play the victim and co-op the holocaust, or anyone else's pain. He can claim "metaphor" all he wants. It's obvious he's trying to hype up the fear with thoughts of genocide in a country where currently there are ZERO genocides taking place. OH, and he says all this while using "metaphors" like disease, cancer, vermin, leeches to describe unions and progressives...the same sh!t that the Nazis preached about Jews to justify the holocaust. INSANE!
I'm sick of having to plaster on a good natured smile and "criticize" someone who would belittle the systematic killing of 6 million by unjustly hijacking the imagery. All the Beck apologists can use my words to claim that "liberals are full of hate"...go ahead. I was quite civil, but there has to be a final straw for this rhetoric.
So fcuk off Glenn. Go to hell you sensationalist, fear mongering, corporate shilling piece of sh!t.
Yes run to gold! Nevermind just doing it for an investment. Just switch over to gold and we will be fine! Yep and a harder depression will hit us!
SMH at fearmongering!
Try and keep up, Glenn.
The "economic holocaust" already arrived in 2008 -- right now, we're in the process of "liberating Paris" . . .
Beck should be an embarassment to conservtaives. A pariah. NOt their keynote speaker.
Six years year of a Republican Congress and a Republican President started with a recession and ended with the biggest recession we've had since the great depression. The last three Republican Presidents are responsible for 2/3 of our National debt, while the last two Democratic Presidents both ended their terms in office with surpluses.
At what point will they STFU, and learn a thing or two about economics before going back to bemoaning that which do not understand? It's embarassing. They've done enough damage. Why anyone would want to give them another change is beyond me.
----------------------------------------------------
Well, not really... The "liberal" media keeps covering for them and reporting their b*llsh!t as fact, as oppoised to reporting actual FACTS.
And why is it so absurd to think that an economic collapse is possible. Major empires have fallen. I am sure there were people who thought that Rome could not fall, but it did. Under the right circumstances and with the continued over spending and increased size of government, it seems perfectly reasonable to speculate that an economic disaster is not only possible but perhaps probable. Nothing is certain, either way, but if we are to be considered "derranged" (only one "r" in deranged) for believing the possibility of an economic collapse, then you could be considered deranged for believing it "positively absurd" by your own argument.
Not even mentioning the odd conspiracy elements that imbue all of his rants.
If his odd conspiracy elements actually convinces people, who might not be otherwise, to be fiscally responsible and save some money, I would have to say that his advice was good, although packaged poorly.
He's not saying "Save your money! The banks are looking to screw you out of it."
He's saying, "The President is a radical and he's putting pieces into place to deprive you of your freedoms, you have to fight it any way you can. I see it, I can't understand why all of you don't."
The imminence of a "revolution" that doesn't exist has had the effect of polarizing a number of people against the current administration and led to a number of people doing things like amassing arms, threatening violent acts against the President, and whether the wingnuts like it or not, people like the IRS suicide attacker. The rhetoric that Beck spews is inspiring acts of domestic terrorism, and steeling the will of those who are already enemies of our nation. The idea that presenting something as imminent is good as a tool to scare people straight is just plain wrong.
THEN take into accout that true leisse-faire libertarianism has NO historical precedent for success. You bring up ROME? In the words of Gorobei Katayama: Are you kidding me? The world has changed a bit since the fall of the Roman Emprie, and besides: We are not a conquering EMPIRE. We are a free and peacefull state, living amongst other free and peacful states. Libertarianism brought about the Great Depression more so that any other political force or ideology and led to the more recent Great Recession more than any other political force or ideology.
If the gov't had ACTED to REGULATE the banks more, and PREVENT this recent fiscal collapse, the you can take out TARP, STIMULUS, etc... and that, added to the fiscal misteps I mentioned above, plus considering the economic growth we wouldn't have lost, you're basically back to a balanced budget.
What's more, libertarians always over-simplify things by saying "just cut spedning." But they never mention (or realize?) that you just can't do that without causing serious economic harm to EVERYONE. And every bit as much harm (more so actually) that raising taxes would, and in fact, more harm than the good that would be done by CUTTING TAXES. Put simply: Libertarians all ace MICROeconomics, at least at the intro level, but the FAIL MACROeconmics miserably. (And yes, I'll grant you that many liberals fail MICROreconomics, or at least ignore it at their own peril, or the peril of thier policies. I always try to consider BOTH before forming an opinion on policy.)
Finally: T.R. was the greatest Republican President since Lincoln, and George H.W. Bush('41) was the greatest 1-term Republican President there ever was, and possibly the greatest 1-term President overall since Polk. I'm a huge admirer of both men. Glenn Beck's an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. I've herad his schtick a hundered times, and I'll always answer it the same way: TAKE AN ECONOMICS COURSE. WHAT HE'S SELLING IS DANGEROUS AND EITHER HE DOESN'T KNOW WHY OR HE DOESN'T CARE. He's in it for himself and himself alone. If you think his nonsense will help YOU, then YOU need to take that economics course. (That's MACRO now, not MICRO. You get MICRO, I'll always give the libertarians that, but you need a better understrading of the BIG PICTURE.)
------------------------------------------------
IMHO
I brought up Rome as an example of one empire out of many throughout history that seemed incapable of collapse. (A more current example would be the U.S.S.R.) I never intended to indicate that it was a representative example of our current state. My point was that people throughout history have assumed their society's stability. Nothing is impervious to change or decay. If you hold vehemently to the notion that the idea of economic collapse is "absurd," then you are committing a classic blunder - ignoring history.
But government action was part of the reason that banks failed in the first place. Overregulation, corrupt "crony capitalism", and excessively powerful centralized government has been at the center of all of the economic downturns.
Over-simplification is a problem in most arguments it is not just a symptom of Libertarians. I don't think that the main platform of Libertarianism is cut spending. I see them as wanting to de-centralize power to avoid things like corruption and misuse of power. Libertarians want to preserve freedoms. I agree that there are dangers in just cutting spending, but equally problematic is spending more than we can afford. I know that we cannot continue to increase the national debt indefinitely, and that the 107 Trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities means people are going to suffer.
Thank you for your response. I appreciate your point of view and I appreciate that you were a "Niceguy" Eddie.
I do have a bit of a problem with this though...
But government action was part of the reason that banks failed in the first place. Overregulation, corrupt "crony capitalism", and excessively powerful centralized government has been at the center of all of the economic downturns.
If you're referring to the CRA in your first statement, you should know by now that the CRA had basically nothing at all to do with the recent collapse. If that's NOT what you mean, then please clarify. As for the second statement, again, maybe it's my bias, and maybe it's semantics, but I just don't see it. The Great Depression followed, and was caused by, a period of almost total laisse-faire economics - of NO regulation. The recent great recession was brought about by a culture of DEregulation. There was plenty of "crony-capitalism" going on, but the gov't's only role in it was to keep passing legislation REPEALING regulations. (The Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, for example.) It seems to me that "Crony-Capitalism" flourishes in a de-regulated environment. Wall Street centralization of power over the economy was not something contrived by the government, by their own design. Wall Street itself sought out that power. The Government's role in it was to stay out of the way. That's why IMHO, it's the Libertarians that are the ones who are being naively optimistic.
I see [the main platform of Libertarianism] as wanting to de-centralize power to avoid things like corruption and misuse of power.
A laudable idea, but again, IMHO a foolish one. And who's "misusing power" exactly? That will NEVER be more than a matter of differing opinions. Decentralized power only means that the "Crony-Capitalists" (in private enterprise) will have less oversight within each of their own little 'small-ponds.' I see the main platform of Libertarianism as a bunch of rich industrialists saying 'don't regulate us' so they can avoid the cost of acting responsibly and sustainably, earn and keep more profits in the short term, and externalize the cost of cleaning up their mess in the long term.
There certainly are plenty of threat to our 'freedom,' but the way I see it, most come from the RIGHT, and gov't regulation of industry is not one of them. (At least noty a significant one, in it's current form.) I used to be a libertarian myself actually, and I still am a SOCIAL libertarian, but in my experience it's more about money than about freedom. And Corporations have seldom missed any opportunities to show us just how reckless they're willing to act in pursuit of profit, when left to their own devices.
"Decentralized power" only means that Corporations will be able to do whatever they want, PUBLIC INTEREST and PUBLIC HEALTH and the NATIONAL ECONOMY be damned.
--------------------------------------------------------
In the [approximate] words of Darth Vader, "[I] once thought as you do. You don't know the power of the dark side." (Of course, in this case the point is reversed: that dark power was why I turned AWAY from it! LOL)
I disagree with the idea that "Crony-Capitalism" flourishes in a de-regulated environment. I agree that companies become corrupt, monopolies form more readily, and consumers get taken advantage of, but that is not "Crony-Capitalism." Crony-Captitalism requires a strong central authority. It is by having a large and powerful federal government that the problem even exists. The larger the central government, the more lobbyist and money is committed to it. If the central government did not have the authority to pass such wide-spread regulations, companies would not lobby congress for such laws. "Crony-Capitalism" would still exist. We are talking about humanity. Greed is a part of our make-up, but it would be at the state and local level. The closer the power is to the people the more likely it can be controlled and monitored. Also, people can vote with their feet and leave the state to find ones that operates more fairly. I don't think that some sort of utopian ideal of a completely deregulated system is possible, but the less centralized the power is, the less powerful "Cronyism" is.
I am sure that there is some sort of balancing act involved. Right now I think we are tottering a little to far to an over-regulated system with a large, over-powerful central government. Thanks for the intelligent conversation. It was a refreshing contrast to some of the mind-numbingly pointless banter that often appears on this site.
You cannot square that statement with the fact that what ended the Great Depression was WWII, which, from the POV of this statement would be INCREDIBLY irresponsible from a fiscal standpoint. (MASSIVE Gov't spending.) In my experience, only Libertarians and hard-core Supply Siders really argue this. And it's a fairly recent viewpoint to emerge. IMHO, it's politically charged revisionism.
The economic reality is that spending helps and taxes hurt; but the effect of spending has been shown, both in theory and in practice to be greater than the effect of taxes, relative to the country's collective income and ability to consume. And this is true in BOTH directions, up and down. So yeah: A balancing act is certainly needed. It seems to me however that we're disgareeing along the classic lib/con lines: You mistrust the Gov't more than you do corporations, and I mistrust corporations more than I do the Gov't. At least... more than I do a liberal, Democratic Gov't. You argue that you see "crony capitalism" as a danger in the current system. Me? I saw it running rampant during the BUSH years. I think I get the point that neither of us really truts either - you acknowledge that Corporations do behave badly, and I'll glady acknowledge that Gov't CAN certainly screw things up worse as well.
But we differ of what the lesser of the two evils is. And that's just comes down to the difference between libs and cons.
;)
------------------------------------------------
And thank you for your replies as well. This has been interesting.
The last time I "really listened to Mr. Beck", I heard him bark like a dog . . .
If you had watched the speech you would have seen him slamming Republicans harder than Democrats. There is no doubt that BOTH parties have a spending problem....is there Edward?
Our current debt to GDP ratio is 84%. No economy has ever recovered when this number has surpassed 70%.
Call me a troll, call me an idiot, whatever, but name one country who has ever survived a debt/GDP ratio over 70%. If you can name one nation, I will admit I am wrong about everything.
We are already in an economic death spiral. It is a question of when we hit bottom. BHO is trying to kick the can down the road past November of 2012 (at which point he will no longer care). I don't believe he can.
What BHO is doing is proximately analagous to taking a cash advance on a credit card to come up with money to make the minimum payment that you can not otherwise afford. WAKE UP!