Jon Stewart Took Down CNBC and Jim Cramer - Hard Hitting - Awesome - Best

the more times i watch this video (4 times now....im bored)

The more i'm coming to realize....


If we, average every day citizens, would stand up to people (like Cramer) in a way that Jon Stewart himself has done, don't you think the world would be a better place?

Go watch Jon Stewart take on the hosts of crossfire (2004 i believe was the year)

There's something to be said for protesting from afar, and then there's something else to be said for taking these guys 1 on 1, coming prepared, and just shoving it down their throats.

Jon seemed to know everything Cramer was going to say, and had an immediate response for it all. It was beautiful.

Perhaps this economic downfall, and instances like we just witnessed with "battle of the anchors" - we could start a new trend in American culture, where the REAL people that make this country work start taking it back from the greedy SOB's that stole it from us decades ago.


Probably too optimistic, but my GOD i'd love to try.

Pull your 401ks out, and don't invest in big companies. =)

I think the reason it was so awkward and uncomfortable to watch is because of the following:

1- The MSM is often not called out on its lies and deception.

2- Jim Cramer is an emotional person who still seemed to take personal offense at being called out.

3- This was actually a comedian on an entertainment show challenging (and quite well I might add) Jim Cramer and his misleading/deceptive tactics with relation to our failing economic system when Jim Cramer is actually who you would expect to be on the other side of the table.

4- Jim Cramer was called out on alot of his previous contradictory statements and he couldn't come up with a good answer as to why. He seemed to apologize alot, actually.

I think it was generally just out of the ordinary. But it was still pretty refreshing to see and I think everyone watching was already extremely frustrated about our current economic situation. People are not used to getting answers. I think Jim Cramer was more or less dragged front and center and forced to answer for his own actions. ALOT of people in the MSM and in the corporate world are NOT used to dealing with that situation. In fact, I think most people would have walked off the stage. But I think the reason Jim Cramer wanted to be on the show to begin with was to more or less iron things out with Jon Stewart. I think that is to Jim Cramer's credit and I think it was good for the American people to see in general. The interview really did raise more questions than answers and even more uncertainty. But in a way it was good to see SOMEONE called out who was willing to spend time on the show answering questions. John Stewart seemed to represent us in this interview and I think that was almost healing in a way.

Jon Stewart had already called him on getting it dead wrong with relation to the illusion that the economy was doing well when it really wasn't. Jim Cramer definately seemed to portray the image of an economy that was doing much better than it really was when he probably knew what was going on..
He even came up with a word for it on the show.. Jim Cramer called these "Shenanigans". When he even later admitted he, himself, was guilty of these shenanigans.

I think the bad thing that comes out of all this is that Jim Cramer, unfortunately, has become the focus of America's disdain about the actions of our CEO's and corporate oligarchs who got us into this because of negligent business practices and overall corporate failure. Not to mention the fact that shows like Jim Cramer's represent a pandering to the big money traders that don't in any way represent most of the American people. Cramer said "There's a market for it".. When Stewart said "There's also a market for coc aine and prostitutes".. That response seemed to set the stage for the whole interview.

I think The good thing that comes out of all this is that Jon Stewart was able to get the kind of real, honest answers the American people have been wanting for a long time. We already don't trust most of the corporate world. Therefore, how can we possibly trust their statements anyway. They are only in it for corporate and personal gain. Especially when they recieve millions/billions of taxpayer bailout money to sustain their already questionable business practices.

-ChriS

[edit on 13-3-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by BlasteR]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by BlasteR]

Embed URL for 1st vid

2nd (earlier) vid

Episode with Jim Cramer

[snip], but I only posted here to do a small favor, and because the vid itself is not so bad. I never said that it was "worth watching," however.

Sorry, but I don't "love" somebody that I see on a TV show. You'd have to live a sad, pathetic life to do that.

This guy seems to actually revere Ronald Reagan, and he's another one of these quintessential closeted Marxists rooting for the common man (and assuming that the common man wants to be perpetually poor and suffering).

In the Jim Cramer episode, he uses the word "illumination."

[edit on 14-3-2009 by vcwxvwligen]


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

God are you all silly. Hooting and hollering about what a great job Jon Stewart did. Lets look at this a little deeper and ask ourselve some ?s.

Why did he get into this spat with Cramer in the first place?
- simple: because Cramer is hammering Obama for how he is "fixing"
the economy. Soooo, you get Frank Rich and Stewart, people so
obviously beholden to the Democratic Party(and more specifically
their liberal base), attacking Cramer's past misdeeds to MARGINALIZE
him. It doesn't matter that what Cramer is saying about Obama's
plan to "save" the economy is an outright joke, because Stewart has
exposed Cramer(detect the sarcasm?)

Stewart is as much a partisan hack as Hannity. They all play to their constituents and attack people to marginalize them. Sure Cramer's a snake oil salesman, but now that Stewart finally did some tough journalism, you all will be too busy whoopin' it up to see how he shills for Obama and co. Silly stupid partisan hacks.

notice how john stewart has never mentioned cramers name UNTIL cramer spoke badly of barack obama. Stewart is doing this with anyone who speaks out against him if you havent noticed.'

1 rush limbaugh
2 cramer
3 rick santeili


stewart invited all of these people on his show ONLY AFTER they made anti obama comments.

reply to post by siryancelot


You are right. But is to Cramer's credit that he faced up to the questions with honest answers.

it is just unfortunate that he had to be the focus of all the negativity. I think that was wrong in a way. Cramer is hardly the guy we should be upset about.

I think most people are just so frustrated that they liked seeing someone being grilled. But how about we actually call out and attack the people directly responsible for all of this (The corporate oligarchy and the politicians who failed to listen to repeated warnings from people like Ron Paul that this was inevitable).

The Enron scandal involved the corporate leadership crucified over a few billion dollars.
We have not seen anyone put in jail yet over the corporate negligence, questionable actions, and failed business practices that are directly responsible for us being in this mess we are in right now. When the criminal acts of these CEO's and corporate leaders involved figures orders of magnitude over that involved in the Enron scandal.... That doesn't make sense.

-ChriS

The only point I would like to make here is this......

Comedians have always been the watchdog of politics for the average American. Political satire is a cornerstone of our system. From political cartoons in newspapers to one man shows. Many times it took a comedian to say what we all felt before we could actually start to discuss it. They humanize politicians who work hard to put themselves above the average person.

On more than a few occasions in our history humor has actually led to action from the citizens. Just do a basic search on the history of political satire.

Yes, we're all getting royally strip-mined by Madoff clones, and government cronies and it's all done in a way to appear as if it's legal and just. They dodge taxes (during wartime) by keeping their money elsewhere then spout off about how patriot they are and how they love America so much.

Meanwhile they have us bickering over welfare moms, and purse snatchers while the real crooks loot you dry.

It's a perfect cover.

They get into your pocket without you knowing it and demand you look the other way.

- Lee

Originally posted by Swatman
notice how john stewart has never mentioned cramers name UNTIL cramer spoke badly of barack obama. Stewart is doing this with anyone who speaks out against him if you havent noticed.'

1 rush limbaugh
2 cramer
3 rick santeili


stewart invited all of these people on his show ONLY AFTER they made anti obama comments.

Well it is obvious you have never watched the show... Stewart has been after Obama for a while.

 



i watch the show on a daily basis and his endless bashing of conservatives just shows how partisan he really is. he throws in a couple of pelosi jokes to keep the conservative viewership happy.

if you deny that you should get some glasses.


it was horrible to watch this interview because he attacks cramer almost as if it is cramers fault that the dow went dowwn 4000. who the hell listens to cramer about making money? that is just stupid. stewart should be interviewing barney frank and chriss dodd on why people no longer have homes, not cramer.



..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 14-3-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

 

www.vegsource.com...

GOP RECORD OF DEREGULATION DEMOCRATIC RECORD OF OVERSIGHT
December 28, 2002: A study by Federal Reserve economists reported homeowners taking advantage of falling interest rates and rising home values to extract $131.6 billion via mortgage refinancings in 2001 and early 2002, while consumers spent some of the money, they saved or invested more of it, according to a study published in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Homeowners spent an estimated $20.7 billion of the cash for personal items such as cars, vacations or medical services, the study said. [Chicago Tribune, 12/28/02]

May 2002: Senator Sarbanes introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2002. [S. 2438]

November 2003: Senator Sarbanes, introduces the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act of 2003. [S. 1928]

February 23, 2004: Instead of heeding warnings, Federal Reserve leadership promotes non-traditional mortgages over fixed rate products in a speech to the Credit Union National Association annual conference. "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.the traditional fixed-rate mortgage may be an expensive method of financing a home." [Remarks By Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, 2/23/04]

October 8, 2003: Bush administration objected to a proposal to have an independent regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be an independent unit of Treasury, much like financial regulators housed in the agency that oversee banks and thrifts. The Bush administration also objected to a proposal to have the Department of Housing and Urban Development have oversight over the companies' business activities. The independence provision has broad support from committee Democrats and Republicans. The HUD provision was pushed mostly by Democrats but had been accepted by Oxley and Baker as a compromise needed to move the bill forward. [Washington Post, 10/8/03]

..............................................................................
[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link
[edit: clipped quoted content and added Required source link]
Mod Edit: Quoting Externals Sources – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 14-3-2009 by 12m8keall2c]

and the point of that was?

reply to post by siryancelot


I think you are wrong on why Jon Stewart got into this spat with Cramer in the first place. He was not sticking up for Obama and his policies as much as he was sticking up for the average homeowner and middle-class worker who got their 401k's and savings wiped out recently.

He was pointing out the collusion between CNBC and the big banks and wall street as well as showing the irony of CNBC and Rick Santelli decrying a bailout for the very people they screwed after wall street got their bailout.

They screwed them by claiming to be a legitimate financial news source but how can they be when they take a CEO's word at face value that their company is doing fine. All you have to do is look a little below the surface to see the toxic assets they have in their books like derivatives, credit-default swaps, etc. and they acted like this economic crisis came out of nowhere. Their inability to do a little actual journalism is pathetic and they deserved to be called out.

But then again I guess you could blame the average joe for trusting the MSM like CNBC, but thats another issue altogether...

Originally posted by Swatman
and the point of that was?

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1] Some provisions such as Regulation Q, which allowed the Federal Reserve to regulate interest rates in savings accounts, were repealed by the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980. Provisions that prohibit a bank holding company from owning other financial companies were repealed on November 12, 1999, by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.[2][3]

en.wikipedia.org...

according to a summary by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress:
In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, bankers and brokers were sometimes indistinguishable. Then, in the Great Depression after 1929, Congress examined the mixing of the “commercial” and “investment” banking industries that occurred in the 1920s. Hearings revealed conflicts of interest and fraud in some banking institutions’ securities activities. A formidable barrier to the mixing of these activities was then set up by the Glass Steagall Act.[7]

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]
The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[2] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities"

en.wikipedia.org...

ABOVE is the very piece of legislation that conservatives point to as being the reason Clinton created this whole meltdown...

[NOTE that 100% of voting GOP members voted up or to repeal the GS act of 1933]

AS you can see,

The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia),

SWATMAN

DO you realize BANKS were loaning out 30 -35 X's more money than they had???

If you do understand that - tell me why do you think that is JUSTIFIABLE?

THIS happened in the 20's an it gave us the depression - the rules that would have prevented this crisis were killed in 1999...


Explain to all of us how letting banks lend money they did not have in their possession is ok???

i didnt say it was ok, but barney frank is the root of that problem by telling banks they had to lend money to poor people that could not afford housing. it is not a RIGHT that people should own housing, it is a privelage, just like electricity.

Originally posted by Swatman
i didnt say it was ok, but barney frank is the root of that problem by telling banks they had to lend money to poor people that could not afford housing. it is not a RIGHT that people should own housing, it is a privelage, just like electricity.

You know what the FDIC is???

Its the insurance policy that guarantees your bank account will be safe up to $250,000.

There were also other laws included - one of them being that a bank could not sell certain products that create artificial bubbles.

Bankers in the 20's would buy up a lot of stock and then dump it all creating a panic so everyone else would sell. Then the same bankers would come in and buy it all back for less then they initially paid for it, while many lost it all.

Anyhow this is why the Glass - Steagall act was so important

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in the United States and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation.[1]

What happened this time is once this law was repealed in 1999 - banks were once again authorized to create questionable financial instruments.

Yes in 1999 the democrats chimed in on the bill

in short they asked for medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities".

The economic opportunities part is where you blame Franks...I understand you, I agree everyone should have to work for their own home on their own steam.

However the mortgage industry went completely wild and ACTIVELY participated in
taking as much money and risk as they could - MORE MONEY FOR THEM right?

Unfortunately the repeal of the depression era laws made it very easy for banks to loan out many times more money than they had... And it made it easy to hide and shuffle financial solvency.

I understand if that you want to frame the argument in a way that is simple and good for conservative ideology, but that doesn't make you more informed which is what we all need.

It makes me uncomfortable to watch people squirm.

However, that guy needed it and Stewart gave it to him.

Stewart spanked him in the street.

That full vid of cramer giving illegal advice is online and fully nauseating.

What most of you are missing, is that the attack on Cramer and Rick Santelli, is merely Obama's faithful attacking those that attack the White House. I am surprised that so many of you fell for this massive red herring. Why did Jon Stewart attack Cramer? Why Santelli? Was this out of the blue? No. Most of you don't know that Cramer and Santelli made seething critiques (correctly and justified) against the Obama administration last week. As this administration is extremely thin skinned, Press Secretary Gibbs had specifically named these two in press conferences (which normally would be unheard of).

Instead of focusing on the Obama administration (of which the market has fallen over 20% since his inauguration), or his Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner (who totally screwed up on making his much heralded bailout announcement nothing more than a non-informative, indecisive, market-dropping announcement), or the Federal Reserve, or Barney Frank, etc., etc., this comedy show threw out the red herring.

We are expected to believe that Jim Cramer caused the financial meltdown?

All this amounted to was the Obama administration saying, "Hey, don't say anything bad about us, or you will end up like Jim Cramer!" These are political thugs and hitmen, nothing more.

Just so you know, I would never make a trade based on a Cramer recommendation. I don't like to watch Jim Cramer. CNBC is as boring as it gets. My goal is to not defend Cramer, but to point out that these attacks would not have happened if they had not critiqued Obama. Plain and simple.

reply to post by jon123



How long have you been watching JS???

Because it sounds to me like you are not very familiar with him...

Jon Stewarts mom was wiped out with the crash, take it for what it is worth.



[edit: replaced quote of entire previous post with "reply to:"]

[edit on 14-3-2009 by 12m8keall2c]