*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, December 22nd, 2011 5:16pm PST - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Shiffs acts like a scientologist... speaking over his interlocutor constantly, he has zero interest in actual discussion.

Nice to see one of these corrupt think tank bullshit artists held accountable for once, though I'd rather see Cenk continue to rip this guy a new one than cut him off.

*quality

I am upset.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tingles.

Great job, Cenk.

The first time I cam across Schiff was when he was economic advisor to Ron Paul in the '08 election. I took an intense dislike to him then and it certainly hasn't diminished hearing his tripe in this interview.

Nice segment! I like the fact that he kept it non-partisan, i.e. he mentioned Obama's highest contributor as being Goldman Sach's, rather than trying to blame it all on the Republicans.

I'd rather see Cenk continue to rip this guy a new one than cut him off.

It wouldn't happen. Cenk = cut and run.


>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Nice to see one of these corrupt think tank bullshit artists held accountable for once, though I'd rather see Cenk continue to rip this guy a new one than cut him off.

I couldn't find a reason to disagree with either of them.

In Schiff's defense...sorta.

It does take TWO.

It takes greedy bankers to take the money and to bribe our politicians....but it also takes weak politicians with no integrity to accept said bribes.

But Schiff is essentially saying: "It's not OUR fault that we bribe politicians and those politicians accept those bribes. If only those politicians would say no to us."

Cuz that makes SO much sense. In other words, "It's not my fault that I'm a bad guy and that I do bad things. It's the good guy's fault for not stopping me.

I wish he would have let Schiff explain more. Even if he was wrong, I certainly couldn't tell because Cenk just kept bowling over him with his insistence to make his point.


Cenk very much took a page from the O'Reilly interview handbook this time.

I actually thought the same thing. Cenk was totally like Bill O'Reilly but in this case Cenk is speaking truth something O'Reilly has a delusions of. Let's hope Cenk doesn't get carried away with it. Being reasonable / logical does not need to consist of aggressive veneer.

I understand where Schiff is coming from. He is absolutely delusional, upper-class filth. Off with their heads!

>> ^artician:

I wish he would have let Schiff explain more. Even if he was wrong, I certainly couldn't tell because Cenk just kept bowling over him with his insistence to make his point.
Cenk very much took a page from the O'Reilly interview handbook this time.

I really find it hard to agree with someone who argues that because it was made available you should not be upset when someone takes from it and wastes it.

I mean we're talking a lot of money here, and they turned around and paid out bonuses and went on vacations with that money. Never mind they pay it back without interest, they used the profits gained from that money to benefit themselves. And now turn around and say they need more cash to "create jobs".......what's stopping them from using bonuses and corporate vacation costs to create those jobs? A million dollar bonus would certainly cover hiring extra employees for a number of years.

What they are saying is, it's OK to borrow money, intentionally wasting it on non-recovery related expenses because it was offered. This is like going up to any take a penny leave a penny, free candy at the doctor's office, sample tray at the supermarket.....taking it all and being surprised when people are pissed off at you because hey it said have some. And this is maybe 5 bucks worth of cost at most in any circumstance. These people took billions, frivolously spent millions that has been noticed and who knows what they did with the rest of it. Then turn around and complain about tax rates and how they need more money...and try to use job creation as the excuse.

There's just no defense for that. Especially when you realize many of their lower tier employees are lucky if they are ALLOWED to take their vacation days, use their sick days, or generally use benefits allotted to them as part of their employment package. Perhaps discouraged to use their vacation days except for certain windows or threatened with job loss if they use bereavement days. It's OK if they take your tax dollars to go on vacation and get paid, but it's bad if you try to use the benefits you should have every right to use that the companies provide as part of the employment agreement. You shouldn't use what you are entitled to, but they can use what they are offered...to excess and then blame you for it.

They shouldn't just let these organizations fail, they should dismantle them whether by breaking them up or dissolving their corporate charter. Teach the rest of the pack a lesson in humility, you exist at the will and sufferance of the citizenship not to exploit them.

listen ,schiff should get credit for predicting things more right than anyone else back in 2007, and he wasnt totally disagreeing with cenk in the end, but cenk went totally bill'o in this interview. i saw schiff doing the visit to occupy, and his face when some lady told him that she didnt want to be like the 1% when he asked her if she didnt like to be part of the 1%. he was shocked, and didnt believe her, that was obvious by looking at his face and i thought it was funny. but he should be challanged on his positions in a decent manner.....this wasnt it, cenk lost it.

And after thinking about it for a bit.

Do you honestly think anything has been learned from this whole economic meltdown fiasco? It seems like history would provide us with an example of how to restructure and set up a stable environment for all to operate in. But it seems like despite all evidence, the people with the power and influence to set it right are happy with the way it is now. They even argue it should be even more so.

Has there been anything that's been reacted upon in a positive manner for the majority of the population? I can't think of anything. There was no punishment given, amnesty given to individuals......nothing that they repealed or revoked. Everything that's been put in or is trying to be enacted has been to squelch people in a myriad of ways....to the great joy of the corporations, politicians on their strings, and the people pulling the strings.

Actually, the part that got me going was when Schiff states, "You can't write off things, like you used too...". So he says blatantly that he really doesn't want to pay taxes, he just wants his f$&king loopholes back.

It's all about incentives. Right now there's strong incentives for rich bankers to influence politicians with lobbyists, and to grab money in every way possible, because there's no real penalty for it or no better incentive to not do it.

In smaller companies, the CEOs have a higher incentive to keep people employed, because they are often more specialized, so they can't just get outrageously more pay than other workers for instance.

In the end it comes down to politicians must implement checks and balances, such that they are harder to corrupt. Companies are in it for the profit, morals don't enter into it.

Yay for talking heads yelling at each other.

But seriously, I feel like they were arguing different points, and Cenk couldn't listen enough, out of the need to tell his opponent he's wrong.

And then Schiff kept talking... and talking...

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue

If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.

I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.

Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.

We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy

>> ^VoodooV:

Quite simply, people need to take a stand on the whole "Money is not free speech" issue
If enough people dislike a product and don't buy it..thus motivating the company to make a better one, well that works for commerce, but it doesn't work for government. equating money to speech runs DIRECTLY counter to the whole notion that everyone has an equal voice in our gov't.
I would simply argue that in the information age, there simply is no need for lobbyists and corporate donations. If you've got something to say to your elected officials, you can email them or write a letter just like everyone else. You want to learn more about a candidate? that's what we have debates and that's what we have publicly funded websites for. There is just absolutely no need for billboards and commercials and stupid lawn signs that clutter and ugly up the landscape.
Remove/ban private money from public government (no I'm not referring to taxes, that's separate and necessary and you know it...deal with it) and I guarantee you we'll have a more fair society. Remove/ban the ability for a business to influence gov't and there will be no incentive for a politician to take the job so he can get corporate lobby/donation money.
We have to make it so that the only reason to become an elected official is because you want to make the country better. We have to make so it really is one person one vote and restore democracy


Correct step, but you're not accounting for folks who hire onto some big corporation or what not after their public service term. Government regulatory bodies are notorious for this, but so are Congress or their staffers. You can't really deny them future employment, but there is obvious alignment and abuse of that taking place throughout government. Taking lobby dollars away might make it harder for them to maintain a relationship, but they will work out it by employing their family members with fat salaries or other means.


And then once they get to working for the company, they have a line into the relationships created during their terms. While it'd still be lobbying, it'd just end up being favors....a less quantifiable currency.