The gist, if you don't care to watch, is that Stewart stands behind all he's said. He also has a cute 'MTV Networks media blitz' to counter Cramer's.
Well now we may get the real deal. Jim Cramer will be appearing on The Daily Show tomorrow night. (I say may because Rick Santelli backed out after confirming for last weeks show, so I'll believe it when I see it.) John Cook at Gawker brings up the point: Where is the upside for CNBC and Cramer in this? He can't really see any and neither can I. This is win-win for John Stewart. Cramer and Co. would have been better off shutting up and letting the story die.
Still, I shan't argue. You know what I'll be watching tomorrow night.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
I've been following Josh Marshall's posts of reader comments (here, here and here) regarding the Jon Stewart - Jim Cramer "dustup." I've read through and agreed with most of the comments including when TPM reader DC says, regarding Joe Scarborough criticisms that Stewart attacked Bush daily but doesn't attack Obama, that:
Joe repeatedly says that Jon Stewart would always rip on Bush but now that Obama is in office he will not make fun of the President so he must go after people "in the arena," aka Kramer(sic). If any of them had been watching Daily Show last night or any other time recently they would have seen many segments making fun of the new administration and the Democrats in Congress.
Now just to understand better what I am, and will be, talking about, watch this video from TPM which included Jim Cramer on the Today show as well as Jim Cramer on Morning Joe:
First. Joe. Perhaps there aren't transcripts. Perhaps Viacom is a pain in the a$$ as far as putting stuff up on YouTube. But, if you want to know what Jon Stewart thought about ANYTHING on ANY particular day his show aired, his website kicks ALL of NBC's properties for ease of access. Go to the site, click "Videos" and then move the sliders to the appropriate date. For instance, this is an easily accessible clip from January 11, 2007. You know, the day after our dear departed President announced "The Surge":
Yup. Sure looks like he's hiding from all of his past calls. BTW, there are a lot of us who are happy that "The Surge" seems to have worked, who still will not, in retrospect, recant our opposition to the concept. (Actually, there are some who think that the result would have happened anyway and the the surge might have just sped things up a little but wasn't instrumental. That's a topic for a different day and post though.)
Apparently, Jim Cramer himself, though, is getting all buggy because Jon Stewart won't shut up, like last night:
You know, I don't have anything in the market. I did 10 years ago. I was around when The Street was launched. I thought Jim Cramer was a loud-mouthed jackass then. Not much has changed.
I have long been talking with a very good friend of mine about the market. A little over a year ago, he started moving money out until he had zero exposure. I agreed that was the best move. You know why? Because we both knew something bad was happening with the subprime crap and neither one of us thought there was a safe haven within the market. In that TPM video, Cramer states that "any stock you recommended is down", and that "I told people to sell...everything."
Well, first of all, you kept recommending stocks. Even in an incredibly unstable environment. Why? That's your job. At least as you and CNBC see it. The people who trust you? They see you more akin to a financial advisor. That's what makes you and your network so dangerous. Yes, you told people to sell after you spent month after month telling people to buy! You finally told people to see on October 6, 2008. Gee, Jim. By then the DJIA was off over 23% ALREADY for the year. (Some would argue that a media stock pundit saying "sell everything this week!" isn't particularly useful to the economy or the market either. You don't care. Tact isn't your schictk.) Don't cry to us now, jerk.
Folks. Let's just talk sense. Jon Stewart tends to make sense. He tends to be funny making fun of other people not making sense. That's why he's funny. Jim Cramer, yesterday, could not be made to see sense by an anchor on his own network. Stomach as much as you can of this crap:
(Side note: CNBC's video embeds like crap too.)
You really want to follow this guy's advice? I think he could use some Ritalin. If you want to listen to Jim Cramer and CNBC, and be assured, the vast majority of Americans are happily ignorant of his existence, more power to you. The rest of us will watch Bloomberg and probably lose less money than you.
(I will not go on too much disputing the numbers they bandied about in that last clip right now. Such as the fact that the top marginal rate went to 79% not 73%. At least she had the right argument. I know there numbers were wrong. Suprise! Jim was reading from a slip of paper too! At least she threw a somewhat accurate fastball between his eyes extemporaneously.)
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Update: Forgot to include one of the many 'critical of Obama and the Dems' Jon Stewart segments has, just for you Joe "I speak of things I don't know" Scarborough:
You may have heard RNC Chairman Michael Steele spouting off about how:
the Republican plan would create 6.2 million jobs, twice the number created under the Democrats' plan, at half the cost.
Well, as Elana Schor and Eric Kleefeld have reported, though those numbers come from a credible source, using them as they are being used is questionable at best.
The numbers come from a study done by now Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer and her husband, David Romer in March 2007. The study concludes that the net effect of a tax increase of 1% of the GDP would be a loss of 2.2% - 3.0% in the GDP. Catch that? Tax Increase. Although the studies discusses 'tax changes', nowhere does it put forward the idea that a tax cut equal to 1% of the GDP would necessarily result in a 2.2% - 3.0% increase in the GDP. That's just the Republican's on the Ways and Means committee deciding that they can just flip it and it will necessarily follow.
That 6.2 million jobs number is directly derived from the great assumption that you can just flip the math around and get that number. The Ways and Means Republicans take the 2.2% - 3.0% growth number and then apply the math that Romer is now using to that assumption and come up with 6.2 million jobs. Look at it here (page 5 will show you how they got their numbers).
There are two problems here. First, that paper didn't actually examine tax cuts, but instead looked at the negative effects of tax increases under normal circumstances. The Republicans' predictions about tax cuts come from flipping the numbers around and assuming the mirror-image effects.
And furthermore, they've totally ignored the fact that we are in an abnormal scenario right now, with different fundamental underlying assumptions.
I am not sure if it worries me more that Steele, Boehner and Co. are using these numbers just to win the political fight or whether they might actually believe them. Given their apparent lack of intellectual curiosity, it might be the latter that is happening. That is scary.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
Not being completely in the tank for the Obama administration, I find this "honest mistake" of Timothy Geithner failing to pay payroll taxes rather hard to swallow.
I am not qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury. I am not an accountant by trade. I have used "a popular tax-preparation computer program" to prepare my taxes. I have also not used said program and done it by hand. I have paid payroll taxes due from self-employment under both circumstances. Why this man didn't raises some big flags for me.
I will suppose my first statement, that I am not qualified to be Secretary of the Treasury, is the most important. As Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said, "To some, he is not only the best choice, he is the only choice." I am still apprehensive of this choice. Seems like a really crappy personal decision.
I am familiar with people who are incredibly successful professionally while having a disastrous personal life. Also, I am familiar with many who are great at handling their personal affairs whilst being unsuccessful professionally. I must assume that this man will not carry over his personal oversights into his professional obligations. I make this assumption with great trepidation.
Timothy Geithner appears to be an extremely intelligent man. Under most circumstances, I would be more than happy to cheer his nomination. I, like a number of Republicans (aagghh, I'm agreeing with Jim Bunning!), have deep reservations about this nomination. He is someone who, under most circumstances I would be pleased with which really ticks me off!
In conclusion, we need this guy. He's going to get confirmed. I think he'll work. I hope he'll work. But I am really annoyed that there are stupid things in his past that nag at me! I would rather that he had an affair. At least that wouldn't touch on his professional competence.
Comments welcome,
Pat McGovern
It's got electoral votes. It's what politicians crave.
