Jon Stewart skewers Jim Cramer

It was historic. Simply historic. And I hope REAL journalists were paying attention because THAT is what America needs.

The attack on Cramer by Stewart is extremely suspect. Mad Money has been on the air for over 4 years,and it's CNBC's top rated show. Funny how Stewart didn't say anything about Cramer until AFTER Cramer started going after Obama.

Anyone who has a passing familiarity with Stewart's show knew what was in store for Cramer. Yet, it appears that he (Cramer) was completely taken by surprise. Honestly, I thought I would enjoy the beat-down, but in the end I was left feeling uncomfortable and pissed. It was apparent early on that Cramer did not have a leg to stand on, and it just got worse from there. Thanks for enlightening me (again), Jon.

The last time Stewart took a shouting-head TV show host down like that the show was cancelled. Remember Crossfire and the dope with the silly bow tie? I wonder if Cramer will be similarly treated.

Jim Cramer is an admitted liberal. He supported Obama in the election. This is Cramer's notice that he better stay on the reservation or else. No wonder Obama idolizes Chavez, Castro and the rest. He is one of them. Anyone criticize the Obama sadministration had better be prepared to get skewered in the media and threatened.

This tripe is the lead news story for today's Swamp?

No wonder the latest Pew Poll (www.pewresearch.org) shows that most Americans have simply tuned out their local newspapers:

"Stop the Presses? Many Americans Wouldn't Care a Lot if Local Papers Folded

As many newspapers struggle to stay economically viable, fewer than half of Americans (43%) say that losing their local newspaper would hurt civic life in their community "a lot." Even fewer (33%) say they would personally miss reading the local newspaper a lot if it were no longer available."

I "almost" felt sorry for Cramer. Then I got over it!!!!
It hits a note with Americans who are fed up with manipulation in the market on the peoples 401 money.

thought he did great! stewart is an ass.

So when is Barney "The Banking Queen" going to be on Stewart's show and be held accountable for telling the American public that Freddie mac and Fannie Mae are sound investments?

Now, if only he would appear with Stewart, everyone would see what a bag of hot air Rush Limbaugh really is too. Bring him on. But it will never happen. Too bad.

Many other members of the media deserve a similar dressing down. I hope this is just the beginning. Let's put Kass on next.

It really is sad and unfortunate that sometimes the only one with some real journalistic steel is the guy who's supposed to be a comedian.

And stories like this are one reason. A GREAT story on the sad decline of the Tribune by Michael Miner, if you can be bothered to stop writing about Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer for two minutes.

The Chicago Tribune bent over backwards to win back Coleen Davison. The paper did everything for her but the one thing she asked -- which was for it to turn itself into a newspaper she could take seriously again.

On March 2 Davison sent the Wall Street Journal a fan letter. "I simply wanted to write and tell you how thrilled we are with your paper," she wrote. "The caliber and depth of your reporting is incredible and easily surpasses the Chicago Tribune, to which until recently we had been long-time subscribers. Our growing discontent with the Tribune's diminishing quality became intolerable after their redesign last fall, and led us to explore other news options..."

On Wednesday Davison's entire letter was the centerpiece of a full-page ad for the Wall Street Journal that appeared in the Sun-Times. I commented on that ad in my blog.

Then I got in touch with Coleen Davison. "We'd been [Tribune] subscribers for 12 or 13 years," she told me. "Obviously we've seen changes we weren't thrilled by, but the last redesign was the final straw. It was sound-bite journalism -- all pictures, no stories."

Last September 29 the Tribune, exclaiming "It's a whole new day," presented its recreated self to Chicago, the fanfare and visual razzmatazz intended to mask the blunt reality that for financial reasons the Tribune was shrinking its news hole. Davison, who describes herself as a stay-at-home mom, and her husband Joel, a computer engineer, were already becoming disenchanted with the Tribune, she said: "It just sounded less and less intelligent as the years went by. The quality of the writing went down" -- John Kass being an exception she mentioned. She said she and her husband found themselves joking a little too often about typographical errors they'd spotted.

They gave the new Tribune a week and then decided to cancel the subscription to their Naperville home. At the suggestion of the woman in circulation she spoke to about that, Coleen participated in a readers' phone survey. "As I recall," she told me, "almost all of the questions were extremely vague and general. The respondee was asked to answer on a scale of 1 to 5 whether they agreed or disagreed. The only question that came remotely close to allowing me to voice my displeasure was something like 'I think the redesign contains too many pictures.' I was frustrated that the survey seemed designed to only allow for positive feedback."

So she wrote a redesign feedback link she found at the Tribune Web site and complained. She told the paper that although its survey hadn't let her say so, she was "also appalled by the significant drop in the quality of what little news is reported. Rearranging and renaming the sections I can deal with, but the new Tribune looks and reads like a tabloid magazine."

She went on, "I understand the need to update your look periodically, and I also understand the desire to attract more readers. It's just terribly sad that the way you chose to do this was to pander to those who prefer tabloid journalism to real news." Her long note, which I'm merely excerpting here, she signed "Sadly and sincerely."

She heard back from John McCormick of the Tribune editorial board. McCormick wants his letters to Davison to remain between them, but much of the first letter can be inferred from her response to it. Thanking McCormick for the attention he'd given her, she nevertheless felt that he'd confirmed her suspicions -- "the new redesign was indeed intended to appeal to younger readers with (in my opinion) limited attention spans and a strong interest in popular culture...

"You mentioned the popularity of Red Eye," she told McCormick. "I guestion, if your Red Eye readership numbers 200,000 while the daily Tribune readership is close to 2 million, why you would pander to 10% of your potential readers...while ignoring the bulk of the other 90% of your daily readers...? I realize from your email you disagree that the quality of the paper has declined with the redesign, but to acknowledge the changes of 'bolder design' and 'more efficient story-telling' seem to me to be putting a pleasant spin on what are truly dressed up, dumbed down news sound bites."

She closed with a suggestion: "Since the new goal seems to be having the Tribune appeal to the younger, bold and efficient crowd, perhaps the editorial board could consider changing the Red Eye to serve as the newspaper for serious readers."

A month went by, and McCormick wrote Davison again. He referred her to an analysis of the Tribune redesign posted online by Jeremy Gilbert, an assistant professor at the Medill School of Journalism. Gilbert gave the new Trib a "qualified thumbs up," and in my view his ambivalence shines through. On the one hand, in an age when no one wakes up wondering what happened the day before because we already know, "the ability of newspapers in general to analyze the news, to think critically and act essentially like daily magazines is the most compelling case you could make for their survival." On the other hand, the new Tribune is an improvement because on busy mornings "I can skim it without feeling like I've missed something."

Davison told McCormick in reply, "I read [Gilbert] with interest and while it further clarifies the intentions behind the redesign, I'm afraid I still respectfully disagree with both the intentions and the results. Mr. Gilbert simply restates my concerns with comments such as, 'The goal . . . is to attract casual readers', '. . . hip and lively', '. . . to offer you enough so you can get by' and 'Increasingly our culture is becoming more visual.'"

(By this point, she tells me, "I felt I was beating a dead horse.")

But Davison closed by telling McCormick she was "genuinely honored" by an invitation he'd extended her. Would she like to visit the paper and sit in on the editors' daily page-one conference? She said, "I think it would be fascinating to observe the process."

She made the trip on January 29.

Standards editor Margaret Holt, who has a a sort of quasi-ombudsman role as liaison between editors and readers, showed Davison around and took her into the editors' meeting. It was a huge news day -- the Illinois Senate was in the process of kicking Governor Blagojevich out of office. But Davison met everyone, felt included during the meeting, and got to talk about the evolution of the front page with a couple of editors who hung around after it was over. Then Holt led her to McCormick's office, mentioning that he was the editorial writer Blagojevich had allegedly tried to muscle Sam Zell into firing.

"He was very modest about it," Davison told me. "That impressed me. He impressed me." The one thing Davison insisted on when we talked was that I make it clear she has no criticism of the Tribune people she met -- especially McCormick. She found him dignified, gracious, and "just lovely in all my exchanges with him. I can't say enough about him."

But Davison left the Tower that day knowing three things: She'd just been treated extremely well. The Tribune would not be going back to what it was. She would not be going back to the Tribune.

And she had something to wonder about: She told me, "Margaret Holt was very very positive about their changes to me. I could not tell if it was because she bought in or if that was her job. Whereas with John, I felt he was not completely on board with the changes though he did his best to argue for them."

McCormick replies, "We're not going back. I'm as bought in as bought in gets. The market spoke on what we were doing. That discussion's over."

Davison had left the Tower with an open invitation to sit in on a meeting of the Tribune editorial board -- and to bring along her son, a high school senior. Despite the Wall Street Journal ad, McCormick says the invitation stands. "She's a gracious lady. I'd like to win her back. I don't know how anybody lives with only one newspaper." He says Davison gave the Tribune a chance to make its case, and "you're not going to get anybody who writes editorials for a free-market newspaper" to beef about that.

What someone really needs to do with Jim Cramer is ply him with brandy or some modern pharmacological equivalent thereof and get him to tell all he knows about how the manipulators ply their trade on Wall St.

Not that he used their techniques necessarily when he was a trader; just that he may have noticed some things along the way.

He's been pretty candid about the short sellers and the criminal neglect in the Bush SEC about the uptick rule and such.

So when is Barney "The Banking Queen" going to be on Stewart's show and be held accountable for telling the American public that Freddie mac and Fannie Mae are sound investments?

Posted by: Terry | March 13, 2009 10:50 AM

So when are America's newest welfare queens going to take drug tests before collecting their dough. And they better only be buying food with that money- no bimbos, booze or blow.

Would that "60 Minutes" or even Stewart would show the clips of Barney Frank telling a house committee there's "nothing wrong with these investments" while referrring to Fannie Mae's bundled securities. Sadly the standard for a television stockpicking host is higher than the one for the leader of the House's commerce committee.

From the files of news the swamp won't report:
The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”

Moreover, the document called for a sweeping ban on lawsuits against U.S. military officials, claiming constitutional violations by such officials. Allowing such lawsuits “for actions taken with respect to aliens during wartime,” it said, “would enmesh the courts in military, national security, and foreign affairs matters that are the exclusive province of the political branches.”
You heard it here, folks, the Obama administration is DIRECTLY defending Donald Rumsfeld. Now you can get back to your screaming match.

John D you are such a bonehead. Why do you even bother waking up in the morning? I mean all the evil liberals out there waiting to take everything from you....I would just put myself out of my misery if I were you.

CNBC Gunfight On Comedy Channel
(Gunfight at the Ok Coral, Frankie Lane)
WilliamBanzai7

Sing along link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO0qV7aCE10

Comedy Channel, Comedy Channel
there Cramer and the CNBC band made their final stand
Comedy Channel
Oh poor Jim Cramer got poked in both eyes
Lay down you CNBC bums we'll take a chance on losing you forever
Journalistic duty never called
Now Stewart's got your backs against the wall
have you no intelligent words to say
before the Nielson ratings ride away
away
Your love you love
Wall Street greed
you love
Keep the sexy anchor dames, let the rest burn
until the asset bubbles return
from the gunfight at the Comedy Channel
if the lord of satiric comedy is my friend
They'll meet once again
Of the gunfight at Comedy Channel
Comedy Channel
Boot hill Boot hill
so cold so still
There they lay side by side
the CNBC shlock jocks that died
in the gunfight on Comedy Channel
Comedy Channel

Funny the outcry to denounce the Tribune for bias. Hell boys, there is plenty of media out there to wet the taste of the hardest core "conservative" out there. I don't waste my time listening to it and the whine and moan to the outlet.....turn it off son.....make a new plan Stan....

At least Cramer had the guts to respond to criticism. Where is the dude that started all of this--"I'm a badass with my posse but a pussy by myself" Santelli? I guess he's taken to the mattresses.

Off subject aren't we? The administration has to defend lawsuits against the government, Jeff. We can still prosecute the wrongdoers.

What year was that Barney Frank quote? 2002 or so? He was probably correct at the time.

I, both, love watching Cramer's show and Steward's show! They are both funny and entertaining. I take the good advices and I disregardthe bad ones. Of course, having said that, I'm still not sure why he is long on SHLD??? What new ideas, concepts, and products have they ever come up with except for derivatives which is basically gambling. A great company is a company that comes out with things and services that people want to buy? Maybe, this is where we need to seperate the games Wall Street play from reality! And, that's the job, Cramer would best serve his viewers and fans! So. . . I agree with Steward. Don't wait for the Titanic to sink! If there is a iceberg ahead, let us know!!! LOL

Wrong again, Flo, it was 2004 and it would not have been true in either time because as you see in this video Chris Shays and every republican who was ASKING for more regulation got stonewalled by Barney and Maxine Waters talking about "the exceptional leadership of Mr. Franklin Raines."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&feature=related
This site has a nice mashup of the difference between Barney and Maxine's opinions from 2004 and what they are now. Yes, some people lose money when Jim Cramer is wrong, but when Barney or Maxine are wrong the ENTIRE COUNTRY's economy went down the tubes. Where's their acccountability? Why do Stewart and Bill Maher let them say whatever they want with no follow up when they're on their shows? But they skewer Cramer. Could ideoogy have something to do with it.
http://mcnorman.wordpress.com/2009/02/24/mashup-of-maxine-waters-barney-frank-then-vs-now-video/

I don't know what law school you went to, Flo, but defending lawsuits against the previous administration does not mean you have to back up the legal assertions of previous presidents.

Cramer should have allowed Jon Stewart, who is one of the current greatest satirists, to have his say about CNBC and let it go, even if it took a personal hit on him. This was one bus Cramer should have let ride by without getting on and paying the fare. But he didn't. His pride and reputation meant too much.

Cramer responding to Jon Stewart was the nailing in his coffin. Now, Cramer is six feet under.

I don't understand why these so-called "media consultants, commentators, analysts" get their panties in a bunch when a comedian mocks them. When you have satirists, comedians like Jon Stewart, David Letterman, etc. go after you, just STFU and let it ride. Folks remember McCain and how Letterman destroyed him because he LIED about an emergency back to Washington, DC?

Didn't Cramer get the memo?

Flo, it was last summer, one month before Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went belly up when Barney Frank said both were solid and good investments. One month before they needed a government bailout, not seven years.

It's funny reading all the stuff from those on the Left. These posts show a clear inability to understand, a clear lack of knowledge of facts, history, current events, and a basic overall ability to think and reason clearly.
Chimpy, Rick Santelli has gone before the media to defend himself.
Anyway, it is amazing to see how those who criticize this sadministration, whether they are supporters or not, get attacked by the lapdogs in the media and the ignorance from the Left. As usual, those on the Left show they really are the most worthless of people.

Flo,
Don't let crybaby Jeffy change the subject.

Just ignore the little clown boy. All of the little chicken hawk Repuglicans like him and John D Donuthead are lashing out, they still haven't gotten used to the permanent Repug minority status they now occupy.

Well duh, Jeff. Thanks Prof. Dershowitz.

Jeff, Barney wasn't even a committee chairman in 2004, he was in the minority party. The entire country's economy didn't go down the tube because of Fannie and Freddie anyway. So rein in your spin a bit.
Barney's not a coward; he went on Fox with O'Relly and Bill O made a fool of himself.

“In 2004, it was Bush who started to push Fannie and Freddie into subprime mortgages, because they were boasting about how they were expanding homeownership for low-income people. And I said at the time, ‘Hey—(a) this is going to jeopardize their profitability, but (b) it’s going to put people in homes they can’t afford, and they’re gonna lose them.’ ” (In a recent op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, Lawrence B. Lindsey, a former economic adviser to President Bush, wrote that Frank “is the only politician I know who has argued that we needed tighter rules that intentionally produce fewer homeowners and more renters.”)

In 2005, while the Democrats were still in the minority, Frank contributed to a bipartisan effort to put his objectives—tighter regulation of Fannie and Freddie and new funds for rental housing—into law. At the time, Fannie and Freddie were regulated by a small agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development; the bill proposed to create an independent agency to monitor their operations. Frank and Michael Oxley, who was then chairman of the Financial Services Committee, achieved broad bipartisan support for the bill in the committee, and it passed the House. But the Senate never voted on the measure, in part because President Bush was likely to veto it. “If it had passed, that would have been one of the ways we could have reined in the bowling ball going downhill called housing,” Oxley told me. “Barney, to some extent, is misunderstood—with this image of him as a fierce partisan. He is an institutionalist. He believes in the House and in the process. He eschews the grandstanding style that so many members use and prefers to work behind the scenes and get something done.”

Frank’s prescience on the housing crisis should not be overstated, because Fannie and Freddie represented only one aspect of the problem. “Fannie and Freddie were contributors to the bubble, but they came late in the really bad loans, after the private issuers like Merrill and Citigroup,” Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington, said. “The law probably would have curtailed their lending, but it’s hard to say it would have made any difference. The real problem was outside of Fannie and Freddie, with the banks, and nobody in Congress was talking about it.”

Flo, darling, in July of 2008 Barney Frank said Fannie and Freddie were fine. Beginning in 2004, the Bush administration had been pushing for greater oversight of Fannie and Freddie because they were out of control, but Barney, Chris Dudd and many Democrata fought against any oversight, which lead to Barney declaring both agencies to be sound one month before all hell broke loose. Fannie's and Freddie's troubles aren't the only problems as you note, but they were a huge part of the housing collapse. Anyway, Barney said both were fine, so investors continued to pour money into them, only to lose that money. Seems to me Barney belongs in jail with Jeff Skilling. He lied and people lost millions and taxpayers BILLIONS!

Taint Rush,
.
"So when are America's newest welfare queens going to take drug tests before collecting their dough. And they better only be buying food with that money- no bimbos, booze or blow." I'm not sure your point in reference to my post, but I have no arguement with you.

Actually O'Reilly destroyed Frank. Why is it when Stewart goes off on a guest and doesn't allow him to defend himself he's a hero, but when O'Reilly does it he's making a fool of himself?
John D has accurately pointed out that Barney Frank said the same thing last summer when he was chairman. And being in the minority party is no defense. What happened is that Maxine, Harry and a few RINOs were able to kill the bill to regulate Fannie and Freddie in committee OVER the objection of Shays and other republicans. Just because he had help doesn't absolve him in the least! And, yes, Fannie and Fredddie ARE what caused the housing bubble.

Flo, why is it that when Stewart shows video exposing someone of making wrong statements that he's "skewering" and "humiliating" them? When I post video that clearly shows Barney is wrong, it's spin according to you. Interesting.

I have to agree with other posters. When will Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and others be held responsible for the sub-prime debacle? They said there was nothing wrong with Freddie and Fannie. They lied. The CRA and ACORN caused these terrible loans and subsequently the failure of the system along with Greenspan's easy money...

"Jim Cramer is an admitted liberal. He supported Obama in the election. This is Cramer's notice that he better stay on the reservation or else. No wonder Obama idolizes Chavez, Castro and the rest. He is one of them. Anyone criticize the Obama sadministration had better be prepared to get skewered in the media and threatened.
Posted by: John D | March 13, 2009 10:07 AM"

John D!?
Whhaaaaaaa??
Your posit is nonsensical.
On the one hand you call Cramer a liberal Obama supporter.
Jon Stewart, a liberal Obama supporter criticizes Cramer. So this is notice from Obama through Stewart to Cramer the Obama supporter? Or is Cramer, the Obama supporter according to you, serving notice on Castro and Chavez??

Please clarify.

Flo,
Jeff wants everybody to forget that head pig Hastert ran the US House Animal Farm like the Soviet Politburo.

To think that Barney had any influence in 04 is beyond absurd. Nothing was voted on, or even discussed without the permission of the committee chair.

Nothing was voted on in the House unless it was approved by a Republican super-majority.

Bill R,
John D is gonna take all his HVAC equipment and move to the secret island with John Gault.

Wow, this is one of the most amazing interviews I have ever seen. Cramer's done...put a fork in his @ss. I'm glad. Maybe they should all be done, as it is just one big game for them. I hope cnbc drops like a log too. I hope the large banks fail. I hope anyone who makes a buck using someone else's buck fails. Stewart was right....we need to be making things again. Financial services are like blood sucking leaches that kill the host. Thanks pugs.

John D, you have really gone nuts around here these last few weeks. You used to be a typical stupid pug, but lately you demoted yourself to !nky status. Go see a doctor or something.

...
When I post video that clearly shows Barney is wrong, it's spin according to you. Interesting.

Posted by: Jeff | March 13, 2009 8:14 PM
...

Crybaby Jeffy,
Your Repug party was the MAJORITY party when the economy started tanking and your Repug MAJORITY party (at the time) ran things like the fascists they are, which meant that Barney Frank or any other Dem was ignored.

You've already lost this fight, crybaby Jeffy. That's what the last election was all about, you dimwit.

Ralphy, I choo-choo choose, you. Whenever you have to resort to namecalling there's a good chance you've already lost the argument and don't even know it.
Hastert WAS an earmarking pig, but it doesn't change the fact that he could never get a single vote to the floor on regulating the rampent corruption at Fannie and Freddie, because Waters and Frank derailed the push for regulation in the committee! Unlike Pelosi, Hastert actually allowed the minority to vote and they were able to stop the regulation that could have saved our economy.

Also, by that twisted logic, Cramer never had any influence over anyone picking stocks in the first place since he's a mere television personality and not the speaker of the US house. To these people being the ranking democrat on the committee in charge of regulating the two GSEs that committed massive mortgage fraud means nothing. Shocking ignorance of the political system, really.

Well Jeff, you seem to "spin" even when you read. I never used the words skewering or humiliatiing; and you totally changed my meaning when I used the term "spin."
And now you're switching from 2004 to 2008; if you think "the ENTIRE COUNTRY's economy went down the tubes" because of something Frank said in Sept. 2008 (or '04 as well), you're as nuts as John D. That is what I referred to as spin, jeffy.

"So when is Barney "The Banking Queen" .. "

It's easy to spot the Limbaugh dittoheads. Typical Republican strategy--take the homosexual Congressman and the black President (maybe toss in the female Speaker) and blame the crisis on them.

DAY TRADERS/HEDGE FUNDS ADVANTAGE OVER JOE DOE INVESTOR.

Jon Stewart's point was the whole crux of this interview: Wall Street has become a big roulette wheel for the day traders and hedge funds while we sit by being told to buy and hold.

Cramer is part of the problem, but the rea culprit of bringing Las Vegas to Wall Street is the US TAX CODE:
Option sellers can pay as little as 10% income tax
.
Private equity (who borrow our savings to do their deals) pay 15% in taxes.

A day trader using borrowed money pays the same tax rate as a hard working mother of four, and the day trader gets to deduct is interest costs on the borrowed money, while the working mother can't even deduct the interest on her car loan!!

I work on Wall Street. For year I have been saying the speculators are running the market. Today it is even more than ever. The only way to stop it (regulators are too few and too far behind) is to tax the hell out of short term trading and derivative trading.

Obama and Congress should impose 80% tax rate on any trade held under 1 year, and 905 tax rate on any derivative transaction: and do this for all accounts whether it is off-shore, tax free, pension, trust, etc.

To Mr. Stewart,
How about skewering Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters now, or are they off limits?

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Liberal!

It’s been bad enough that Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd and Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank have dodged mass media scrutiny for their dirty hands in America’s fiscal mess but now the Queen of Hypocrisy, Congresswoman Maxine Waters, is also dodging and weaving and will no doubt also escape that scrutiny.

Sweet Barney Frank was reprimanded by his fellow Dems for his “involvement,” (nice word), with male prostitute, Stephen Gobi, back in 1991, but survived that censure and was repeatedly re-elected in gay-friendly Massachusetts primarily on the basis that he was “suckered,” (even nicer, and an even more apt word), in the whole rancid affair:

Barney has not been censured for his “involvement” crotch-deep in the mortgage collapse of those incestuous brother-sister Fannie Mac and Fannie Mae partners even though he was virtually on their payroll as recipient of their campaign contributions: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/who_is_barney_frank.html

Chris Dodd, good buddy of soon-to-be SIR Teddy Chappaquiddick Kennedy, sees no evil, speaks no evil, hears no evil, especially when it comes to Countrywide Mortgage and his sweetheart deal and dirty laundry with that prime player in the mortgage debacle.

Portfolio.com reported on Countrywide’s gracious point-shaving, fee waivers, and mortgage interest rates below as low as 4.25% for Dodd and other VIP’s at the same time it contributed heavily to Dodd’s campaign: http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/06/12/Countrywide-Loan-Scandal?page=2#page=2

Barney Frank is now the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd is the Chairman, (I refuse to use the inanimate, P.C. term, ”Chair” with regard to a person, even for Frank and Dodd), of the Senate Banking Committee.

Both positions take American socio-political irony to heights not seen since Mary Lincoln convinced Abe to go see a play in April 1865.

But then along comes California’s Maxine Waters,...
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com/.)

Gord,
.
I really could care less if Barney is gay, Nancy the Dimwit is a woman, or the BO is black. Their sexual preference, gender, and race is irrelavent. Their comptenance on the other hand is what matter. On that matter, Barney "The Banking Queen" Frank is incomptant chairman of the Financial Services Committee. He is the one that stated just this past summer that Freddie and Fannie were in good shape. He is the one that fought President Bush on more regulation of Fannie and Freddie.
.
As far as Speaker Dimwit and BO - Pelosi has been probably the dumbest Speaker in my lifetime and BO has not shown too many flashes of brilliance in his first 50 plus days.

While I enjoy watching Cramer every night, one must remember the show is primarily entertainment. The financial networks exist to promote their advertisers financial and investment products. Who would expect them to warn about the credit bubble or coming Washington national debt collapse which will destroy much of the remaining private wealth in America today or what this will do to the dollar, the stock market, bonds, gold or the real estate market?

China is now worried about their dangerous over investment in US Treasury obligations. Washington ’s long-term choice is either repudiation or monetization. For monetization to be effective, the depreciation in the dollar would have to be substantial and this in turn would dramatically raise prices of imports for American consumers which would mean a tremendous drop in foreign imports. Debt monetization would cause more disruption to exporting nations than selective repudiation of Treasury debt.

The Campaign to Cancel the Washington National Debt By 12/22/2013 Constitutional Amendment is starting now in the U.S. See: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=67594690498&ref=ts

Thanks,

Ron with 30 plus years in the investment business and banking industry.

push for regulation in the committee! Unlike Pelosi, Hastert actually allowed the minority to vote and they were able to stop the regulation that could have saved our economy.

Posted by: Jeff | March 14, 2009 1:06 AM
....

Billy,
The minority party Dems had NO say in anything when your beloved Repugs were in charge. None, Zero, Zip, Nada!...plus Fannie and Freddie went down with everything else, they weren't the sole cause of the Bush recession that we're in right now.

Like I said earlier Mr Chickenhawk, you already lost this battle, this was one of the many reasons why you Repugs lost the last two elections.

You might as well go spend some time with your Grampy McCain blowup doll Billy/Jeff, because your wingnut spin has already been rejected by the only people that matter - the American people.

And you're an "incomptant" poster, dittohead Terry.

at Fannie and Freddie, because Waters and Frank derailed the push for regulation in the committee! Unlike Pelosi, Hastert actually allowed the minority to vote and they were able to stop the regulation that could have saved our economy.

Posted by: Jeff | March 14, 2009 1:06 AM
..................

I would like nothing better than to have Jeffy and the Rethugs bring their Barney Frank "argument" into the 2010 election with them....ha ha ha!

The last eight years, while Republicons were in power, they doubled our national debt by giving tax cuts to the richest 1-2%, big corporations, and big oil. They also started an uncalled for pre-emptive war in Iraq where they gave out billions and billions to their rich private business cronies like Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater and they allowed billions that was meant for rebuilding Iraq to be put on pallets on C-130's transport planes to be flown over to Iraq only to have it go "missing" and now be "unaccounted for"..

....but please Jeffy, tell the people in 2010 how minority party Dem Barney Frank tanked the economy....because I can't wait, maybe you can have Joe the Plumber present that one? ha ha ha!

Gord,
.
Is that the best you got?
.
Do you have anything to show me that Pelosi isn't a dimwit? Do you want to show me some of BO's flashes of brilliance since 1-20-09?
.
Not sure what you mean by "incomptant poster". You on the other hand are an "incompetent" liberal; but that would be redundant.
.
I love it when I get to correct other's spelling.

Flo, he said that Fannie and Freddie were "in good shape" in 2008 and he said "there's nothing wrong with these investments" in 2004. That's not spin, those are the facts. Here are links to back it up: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html?mod=most_emailed_day
When you can't demagogue someone is "spin" your default retreat or something? Here are Frank's own words in 2004: . "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets." Great or not, we'll give Mr. Frank this: Their assets are now Uncle Sam's assets, even if those come along with $5.4 trillion in debt and other liabilities.
This was Barney Frank in JULY OF 2008! July 14, 2008: "I think this is a case where Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are fundamentally sound. They're not in danger of going under. They're not the best investment these days from a long term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in the housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid."
Less than a month later the GSEs were taken over by the government after the housing market began to collapse. If you don't want to believe it coming from me, that's fine, here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Yv7jT0TX0&feature=related
Notice where he says "they are well-financed and not in economic trouble."
Those are Frank's words, not any "spin" from me. Flo, I'd love to continue this conversation with you but you seriously need to open your ears up to the truth first and not just throw out accusations of spin.
Ralph, as the ranking democrat Frank had extraordinary power. Today he calls the non-regulation THAT HE PREVIOUSLY SAID WAS UNNECESSARY "irresponsible." That's funny, since it was his responsibility. There were some republicans who foolishly went along with Barney and Maxine's non-regulation, but they weren't Chris Shays or John McCain or even the Bush administration who had been calling for regulation of the GSEs for years.

Terry, You're the dimwit. Incomptant was how you spelled in your post.

You still don't want to read what I said about "spin" do you, Jeff? Your reading comprehension is apparently quite weak; as I said twice already, your words were the spin: "the ENTIRE COUNTRY's economy went down the tubes" because of something Frank said. Total crap.

As for Barney, in July 2008 he was already working on the housing legislation which passed in July and enabled the "bailout" of Freddie and Fannie a few months later. So in that context, I'd say he knew what he was dealing with. Besides, this constant blame game is ridiculous. You're demagoguing, Jeff.

"comptenance"
"incomptant"
Those are your words, Terry. From your post. I just love correcting a dittohead's spelling.

Okay, Flo, you obviously don't know what you're talking about and it's really quite embarassing to have to keep correcting you like this. There was no "legislation" that bailed out Fannie and Freddie, and your attempt to twist my words is just pathetic. It wasn't Frank's "words' that caused Fannie and Freddie to fail. It was his inaction and his staunch resolve to not regulate the GSAs. That's the third time I've had to explain that to you. Is your reading comprehension that bad?
It was the treasury department that seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September of 2008 and assumed a combined $5.4 trillion of their debts. Congress had nothing to do with it, it was a purely executive takeover. You're just digging yourself deeper. Get out now while you have a shred of dignity left. Barney's public statements show his incompetence and it's very clear that he had no idea how bad the problems were with the mortgage giants.
Post a link for once in your life if you have anything to back up your bile and accusations of spin.

Oh, and we get it, Flo. The blame game and the demagoguing are "ridiculous" when it's one of us pointing out Barney Frank's incompetence, but it's good fun and heroic when it's Steward doing it to Jim Cramer. Thanks for coming around to my original point. Hypocrite, thy name is thee. After all, Cramer's a non-elected stock picker on TV. Frank's an elected official in charge of the house banking committee. Good point.

Jeff, stop making a fool of yourself. I didn't day a word about Cramer. I'd suggest you stop posting at 1:00 a.m. when you aren't lucid; and take a chill pill on Barney, he didn't bring down the entire country's economy. Anyone can go to a search engine and cherry pick some lines out of context. But your facts are faulty.

The chill pill is for you, I've proven through links, video of his remarks and other evidence that he fought hard against regulating Fannie and Freddie and had no clue that they were near government takeover. It WAS his fault. Yeah, he had help from other congresscritters but the man in charge of the banking committee should know more than them, anyway.
That's not cherrypicking, that's called a pattern of incompetence that started in the early 2000s and went up to the very day the government took over the GSEs. Time for you to face facts and take that chill pill, Flo.

Your interpretations and conclusions are not correct, Jeff. Your facts are wrong too, for example there was legislation in July which created the conservator for Freddie and Fannie, which you denied; but I won't waste my time with a bunch of links. You know how to find the full story if you really want to. Besides, this story is over and out.

Wrong again, Flo. Here's a link:
The bill from July gave treasury the ability to overtake Fannie and Freddie as a last resort but as my previous link shows, Barney DIDN'T THINK THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,418241,00.html
It was a last resort as Frank's own words attest he believed "they'll be fine."
Now let's apply Flo's words to another situation: "cherry pick some lines out of context. But your facts are faulty."
Is that what happened with EVERY quote and video Jon Stewart showed of Jim Cramer, too? Cherrypicking?

Gordo and Stewies Stuufed animal,
.
Thank you for doing what you do best, correct spelling.
.
One of your heroes even misspells his own name:
.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/03/sarah_palin_star_fundraiser_fo.html#comments
.
Anyway Gordo,
.
Do you have anything of substance on my misspelled posts?

NOT "wrong again", it's right. Don't put words in my mouth. As I already said, spinboy, I never said a word about Cramer; I didn't watch it.
I also don't care about a link to FoxNews. I know the deal, and it's not my job to try to convince you.

Terry, all you posted, besides "incomptant" was a homophobic post about Barney, and a claim that Pelosi is a dimwit. Neither is the subject of this article and I disagree with your factless attacks.

Gordo,
.
Original point was when was Jon Stewrat going to have Barney "Brothel" Frank on his show and rip into him about all of his comments about Fannie and Freddie being sound investments.
.
As far as Pelosi (and BO), you are the one that entered them into the dialogue.
.
Posted by: gord | March 14, 2009 9:05 AM "Typical Republican strategy--take the homosexual Congressman and the black President (maybe toss in the female Speaker) and blame the crisis on them."

I used to be a fan of both Mad Money and The Daily Show - not for the latter any more (also sad to hear Cramer say he is a fan at the beggining of the interview). I started watching MM in Jan 2008 with zero knwlodge regarding what to do with my 401k/IRA. I picked and chose what I felt in agreement with Cramer. All in all, I felt Cramer speaks his mind and owes up his mistakes more than usual as TV show host. Based on my daily dose of MM, I rebalanced my 401k the very first time ever on 9/16/08 (oneday before Crame told viewers to take out the short-term fund). Of course at the time there were many voices on CNBC saying "stay the course" - it all depends on what you do with the info presented. As to the Daily Show and the Cobert Report - the jokes are no longer truely funny when it is biased - no regret for sparing the time for other thing more productive...

===> typo's corrected

I used to be a fan of both Mad Money and The Daily Show - not for the latter any more (also sad to hear Cramer say he is a fan at the beginning of the interview). I started watching MM in Jan 2008 with zero knowledge regarding what to do with my 401k/IRA. I picked and chose what I felt in agreement with Cramer. All in all, I felt Cramer speaks his mind and owns up his mistakes more than usual as TV show host. Based on my daily dose of MM, I rebalanced my 401k the very first time ever on 9/16/08 (one day before Cramer told viewers to take out the short-term fund). Of course at the time there were many voices on CNBC saying "stay the course" - it all depends on what you do with the info presented. As to the Daily Show and the Colbert Report - the jokes are no longer truly funny when it is biased - no regret for sparing the time for other thing more productive...