CNN Anderson Cooper, Paul Begala, Get Schooled by Tea Partier Dana Loesch

[marley54fd]

Dana only wins arguments when she's the only one talking. She's a fucking moron, which explains why she has a radio show for conservatives.

[watsupjew]

@kcast12 can I ask when?

[watsupjew]

@markamadeojohnson typical conservative tactic. Ignoring what's right in front of you because you don't want to believe it.

[kcast12]

@watsupjew must be confused....liberals do that

[markamadeojohnson]

@pmsan29 what did she say that makes her a Counterfeit conservative? I must have missed it.

[pmsan29]

Dana Loesch=Counterfeit conservative 

[Jagnole101]

Obama is a president who put out a March Madness Bracket before putting out a legit budget(first was voted against by both parties, 97-0). He also managed to pump millions of dollars in taxpayer money into the bankrupted Sylindra before the budget as well.

[karlsmith00]

dana didn't school anybody in this clip.

[MrPoch12345]

I dont know about schooled. look up the facts ur self b4 u talk about somebody being schooled. I did and they have vaild points

[lareneg72]

anders on asked if paul was going to blame Republicans. anderson said Dana your just going to blame democrats. who's side is he on? the dems! what a failure as a reporter.

[BlueEnvoy4413]

"Beavis" Begala

[mbukow01]

Why do liberals never understand that money is FUNGIBLE. Whether or not PP can't take taxpayer money to fund abortions directly doesn't solve the issue! If PP has money from various sources and taxpayer dollars are part of that, how are they segregating that money from the taxpayers!? It's ridiculous. Money is fungible - it doesn't matter where it comes from, their mission is still to fund abortions in some respect.

[gotcalves]

dana usually does a better job at slaughtering these treasonist democrats. this video not as good as others

[notdonebefore]

That guy has a HUGE forehead so therefore Dana wins

[funkbrother216]

How did Dana school Belgala. Belgala said that the Dems tried to pass a budget and the GOP blocked it. Dana responds by pointing out that the Dems never passed a budget AFTER Belgala had already stated that and explained why. Dana's circular arguments only serve to impress ultraconservatives blinded by their ideology, those in the middle are more keen on her slight-of-hand. 

[GlennMendozaUSA]

@funkbrother216 Democrats didn't offer anything!

[MrPoch12345]

@funkbrother216 I feel the same way about her. Everytime someone says some about the gop she come right bac with something the dem did or didn't do and then says "we can do this all day"

[Visfen]

@Machead91 Do you know what a filibuster is? It's that you take up the bill and debate it. That's it.

[wxgeek27]

What?! More like Begala schools a cold-hearted blogger!

[spencerdev91]

Surely the tea party can find someone more intelligent to represent them lol.

[djmcs11]

College dropout Loesch is completely amateurish and unqualified to be on CNN as a "correspondent".

[gor1l1a]

Also funny about this, is that the person who posted this video, didn't post the rest of the interview. Dana got her ass handed to her by these same people later in the interview, but the tea baggers would have you believe otherwise. Tea-"partiers" are the most mis-informed people on this planet. It's lucky the Tea Baggers don't live in Libya, because they would believe anything the Libyan State TV said. Libyans are smarter than Tea Baggers = Fact.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Nowhere in your mindless drivel did you even come close to taking on an issue or making an argument. You could have made the argument that were made in the rest of the video, instead you choose to go with "they pwnd her, man they stupid those damn tea-baggers". That about tells me that it's not wroth watching the rest of the video.

They are the most mis-informed? According to what? You? What are they wrong about?

You're the one who believes the mainstream media...

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen She's a mindless Tea Bagger drone. Her argument "it adds up" when presented with the actual percentage of allocated funds she bases her stance on is asinine. Anything "Tea Party" related is "mindless drivel," and it's hard to make an intelligent argument against any issue tea baggers come up with. Like trying to make an intelligent argument to a 4 year old on how Barney the Purple Dinosaur is a human in a costume who probably drinks heavily. Pointless.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Well if you can't change the philosophy of what the government aught to do you can't change anything. Even as someone who supports abortion, I don't see it as alive (though it is a state issue, clearly not mentioned in the Constitution), I don't think the government should be involved with it. Of course it should go, why shouldn't it?

So anything they say is mindless drivel, you're not even going to argue it? You're gonna call them tea baggers instead?

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen The tea baggers don't deserve the title "Tea Party." The real Boston Tea Party was staged because of tariffs and the monopoly that was The East India Trading Company. These tea baggers are the complete opposite. They are all for giving corporations more power (although most unwittingly). They only watch Fox News which spins everything in favor of the nation's largest corporations and believe it as fact. They fail to educate them selves and operate with a mob mentality. Hence TEA BAGGERS

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Well Washington is just as far removed in the hierarchy of power as the British were. Many people don't want the political structure to be even more centralized, which is why there were ton of opposition brought up in the debate of the federal health care bill that would for instance institute a federal exchange for insurance.

And they are protesting the real tax burden - spending. Are you not concerned? We in the stock market are going to kill the US bond market if you don't change.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a No they don't, they call for deregulation which means less control for the companies, lobbyists write the laws now. Very much like how the EITC got the US market by British law. That's what regulations do most of the time.

You've basically made two argument: It's not enough to cut and that they don't have the same philosophy as the original tea party. Is it impossible for you to actually discuss the policy? You have this incredible hatred for them, it seems more cultural to me.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen De-Regulation = U.S. tax payers on the hook for the next gamble by Wall Street, while they pay themselves bonuses with our money. How you get deregulation=less control from corporations is illogical. Deregulation is why we're in this hole in the first place. That is the fundamental flaw with the tea bagger argument. They've been sold this crap by Fox "news." I would recommend watching the documentary "Inside Job." After which I would be happy to debate this issue.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a That's just sounds like something out of a childs book. If you can't see how laws, designed by lobbyists, can help the companies that hire them, then you have an incredible faith in the people you elect to understand the bills they don't read. Maybe they use magic, I don't know.

No, de-regulation means market forces. Corporations are beholdant to market forces and market discipline. It would make sense if you knew the first thing about economics, finance or the politicial economy.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen "Laws" created by lobbyists should never be laws. Those are laws for the corporations, by the corporations. It doesn't "trickle down," people by nature are greedy and competitive. The people I vote for are never perfect (in my mind) but in a 2 party system how could they be?

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Seriously, how little do you know of the process in Washington? All laws are written by lobbyists.

I don't think they should write laws, but you're supporting more "regulation" (contro)l under the current situation when they are writing them. Like the Dodd-bill, it's leveled with corporatism.

Yes, everyone is greedy and competitive. That's why it makes little sense to make some greedy men control others.

And how in anyway is this an argument for endless spending and deficits?

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen Right but what which party are the lobbyists more prevalent? Furthermore which party has their own 24/7 "news" network? I'm not saying the Democrats don't have lobbyists, but the solar/wind companies obviously don't have the funds the oil/gas companies have.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Well the democrats have MSNBC, that much is for sure. CNN, NBC and CBS have a slight tilt towards the left.

Haha, so GE doesn't have the funds to push for subsidies and corporatism? Why don't you actually do some real research. The dems receive plenty from unions, which are lobbyists, give a shitload of money.

Why don't you respond to what the tea party is about, cutting spending? That's the real problem. The scope of government. A smaller government is always less corporatist

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen Can we agree at least that the American Taxpayers is the reason the Investment Banks are still operating?

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Yeah, they shouldn't have gotten bailed out in the fist place. Just dissolve TARP. Paul Ryan and Rand Paul both did it in their budgets. Sick thing about that is that when Paul Ryan, which didn't cut anything really, just slows the growth of spending, presented his bill, there was this inane demagoguery. If that is the level of the debate that is possible, then the US is totally fucking screwed. If you can't even TALK about reforming entitlements the US is going bankrupt in two years.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen Lets not forget Larry Summers... Entitlements are big, but if you do the math TARP will cost $6.4 trillion, if you subtract that from the $14 trillion debt, also if you save $400 billion per year on military spending, without touching "entitlements" we're out of the hole in less than 10 years. Since we can't take back TARP we can cut $400bn per year in military spending, not touching anything else and we're out of the hole in 12 years, and that's assuming we don't increase GDP.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Btw, they're not following summers advice, for instance he wants the welfare programs to have a set time (I do too) but they just keep extending unemployment benefits forever. He's not in charge and they don't even listen to him.

Only with rosy projections will you get out, that's assuming like 4% unemployment and a growing economy. There's a bomb of spending coming in the entitlements programs, that has to be reformed by something, like raising the age of SS eligibility.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen I realize that's a simplistic and naive way to look at it. Although if I was balancing my personal budget and factoring in gas, medical insurance, car insurance, mortgage, home owners, property taxes, utilities, etc. it makes sense. Medical insurance would be the last cut, but if I didn't have to worry about it my bottom line would increase and I might buy that new iPad.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a If you were balancing your personal budget it would make sense for you to look at your largest expenses, like retirement savings, medical insurance and unemployment insurance and take a cheaper rout. Because it is literary impossible to balance the budget without touching these things.

Politicians however never have to worry about the bottom-line. So they spend and promise and then when the bill comes, they are out of there. SS and Medicare are just huge scams, there's no money there

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Yeah, I've seen Inside job. To me, that's kinda pathetic. A company with a market cap of 2.17 billion is somehow responsible for destroying the entire industry. That's pathetic. Even if everything they did was a scam it wouldn't have affected the markets in any way

The bubble started with the increased issuance by F&F up until 2004 when the private banks took over (though F&F were the largest buyer in the securitization market). The primary factor in all this was too low interest rates.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen "Market Forces" are subject to how many ticks the line graph goes up during the annual stockholder meetings. When that line isn't going up it leads to people working for said corporation doing anything and everything to make it so. Which leads to CDO's and credit default swaps, together with corrupt ratings agencies = total system failure. If we don't regulate the richest and most greedy, we end up on the hook so our savings doesn't vanish overnight.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Wow, that was such utter and complete drivel. So stockholders have no understanding whatsoever of the company's balance sheet or anything, they simply go by the stock price? And somehow they just think it is a good idea to trade insurance? And take more risk? The people who then buy these things don't investigate it they just look to the rating agencies?

So then to solve this. You put greedy ppl in charge to institute non-specified regulations.

Huh, what? Just shut up, you're clueless

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen Comically I would venture a guess that 75% of stockholders can't read a balance sheet which is what Wall Street preys on. They rely on their broker to tell them these things, after all what are they paying them for? As for spending, if we could limit our military spending to around $220 billion per year that saves us almost $400 billion per year, that's a good start.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Then they shouldn't be private investors, if they screw up because they don't know what they are doing I'm not going to cry a tear for them, that's like tourists playing poker. Far less then 75%, most of it is fund managers which know darn well how to read a balance sheet.

Sure, cut the military, but that's not enough. If military spending was 0% during Bush that still wouldn't balance it. You need to reform entitlements, you have to, that's the reality that's impossible to discuss.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen I also take issue with your "then they shouldn't be private investors" comment. If that's true then what is the point of a Stock Broker? A stock broker is paid to look out for his investors, not the other way around. What is the purpose of his occupation then? Just to make contact with investors then play golf for the rest of his/her life? By that standard "stock broker" shouldn't be an occupation.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a He's not paid for looking out for his investors, he's paid to buy what you tell him and sure he do lose customers and his advice but he doesn't get paid on that basis. Honestly, there's too many brokers, we don't really need them in the time of the internet. Just open an account with your bank and do it yourself. In the end, it's up to you. If you don't know what you're doing you should invest in general funds, that's the simple truth.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen So a stock broker is nothing more than an operator back in the 1940's. I tell him what I want and he plugs in the wire. Why then are their such educational requirements for him/her to be hired? If all they do is take orders? I can easily give my order to the guy who works at McDonalds, yet I don't pay him $5 -$33 per trade.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Basically yes.Because there are regulations in place in order to be a broker, in particular if he is going to give you advice. Basically what that education is regarding is "what kinda advice am I allowed to give", some law so they can tell on you if you're manipulating stocks (which doesn't even work unless you have a shitload of money) and of course there's some business in there

But no, you don't really need them. Spend those fees on educating yourself instead, it's a complete waste

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen The biggest problem that I have with the "entitlement" argument is that it worked fine and to a surplus in 2000. But now it's needs to be cut, and why? Everyone who gets a paycheck pays medicare/medicaid, and social security. Social Security was enacted in 1935 (population 127 million), Medicare 1965 (194 million). The percentage per person has fluctuated, yet at over 300 million people today and somehow it costs more today when 100 million more people are alive to tax?

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Well it has never really worked fine, they have reformed these programs like every decade to make them solvent, because there is no money in the SS or medicare trustfund. Just IOU's issued by the government, literary borrowing from yourself.

People are living longer and there's no money to pay for it. It's a scam. Bernie Madoff said when they asked him where he got the idea that he got it from Social Security.

You're gonna get Swedish kind 90s reform if you don't do it soon.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen Then where is the money going? If we have more people than ever paying into these programs and the the 18-65 population far outnumbers the 65+ population then how is this possible? The only way it's possible is if the government has been borrowing from SS and using it elsewhere, ie. military spending, oil/gas subsidies, etc.

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a Well most of it is going to the people that got it earlier, much of it has been looted by the government. The basics of it is that a pay as you go system like these programs are called is not that different from a pyramid scheme, it's only that people are forced into them.

How Medicare and SS is supposed to work if it is sustainable is that we pay in money, that sits there and earns interest, then we get paid from it when we qualify. Basically everything that goes in now is paid out.

[gor1l1a]

@Visfen That means it's going "bankrupt" because it's being mismanaged, not because fundamentally it doesn't work. It's no reason to get rid of it. One thing is for certain, which can be proved by the 100 years, human population will increase and that means more tax payers. In which case these programs work. Unless they figure out how to reverse the aging process and we all start living until we're 200 years old. Then we have some thinking to do. But I'm sure the treatment will be expensive...

[Visfen]

@gor1l1a It's both. The Swedish pension system wasn't mismanaged, same thing happened. Sure you would have more years if you didn't loot the SS-trust-fund but in the end the same thing would happen. Unless you have exponential growth in population and economy.

I don't really like ponzi-schemes, so I don't support it. Don't be so scared of private pensions, they got it in a district in Texas and half of Swedish pensions are based on it. It's better returns and more sustainable.

[gor1l1a]

Dana calling Begala her "colleague" is an insult. She's a moron.

[bydesign001]

The Tea Party rules. Everytime Progressives attack, incite and blame the left, the membership increases TWENTYFOLD.

[bydesign001]

Dana Loesch totally rocks. Tell Progressives that the bank is closed and they immediately become rabid dogs. School 'em Dana and then give the moonbats a test.

[Nighthawk5210]

Dana Loesch is undeniably the biggest idiot who has ever spoken on behalf of ANY group. She's shrill, rude, can't back up her arguments with actual facts and evidently as dumb as a box of rocks. But let her keep speaking for the Tea Party, she's the perfect example why the American public's opinion of them has slid considerably.

[FulinYu]

Republicans have already shown their cards - They are pushing for a shutdown - they won't take "yes" for an answer. THey don't want a deal.

[OedipaMaas40]

Dana is a dimwit. Tea Party is on the decline with the American people, this issue will be the nail in the coffin.

[Visfen]

@OedipaMaas40 This is ridiculous. The kind of hate-filled rhetoric being thrown at the freedom-movement over a couple of billions, because what? You think it's a good idea to have the federal government subsidize one of the most decisive issues out there? Because having the largest deficit in the world, the largest debt and no end in sight on the deficit spending is a good idea?

Well I guess I know what you're argument is going to be. You're going to call me a racist...