Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> RATIGAN: Cenk, does this mean that the Tea Party is a socialist? That they're in
favor of a giant--the government take over of the banking system? They seem fine with
it. >> UYGUR: I actually think that the protesters
themselves are honest and genuine about their feelings. And I think they really were worked
about--opt about the bailouts. But I have to be honest, I think they're suckers. I think
they get easily duped by groups like Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks which are
corporate sponsored groups. And so instead of going to protest in Wall Street which is
where all their efforts should be, they go protest in favor of healthcare companies.
I mean, boy do they get led around by the nose. And then they got to feel kind of silly
right now. Why aren't they out there on Wall Street protesting "Hey, why did you take our
money?" They don't have to join the labor protest if that makes them uncomfortable,
do their own protest. I've been challenging them since the beginning of the year. I dare
them to prove me wrong. That they're smart and that they care about this issue. Go protest
on Wall Street. I guarantee you, they wont do it because they're corporate sponsors don't
want that. >> RATIGAN: Matt Lewis how do you explain
the Tea Party's absence from any thing having to do with Wall Street or forming the bailouts
when that was the catalyst for their formation. Am I correct that the Tea Partiers are in
fact secret socialists? >> LEWIS: well look I think they're being
smart. I'm--it would probably feel very good for us to go protest Wall Street but that's
sort of pitch for populism and class warfare, economic warfare. Is it going to be effective?
It was actually the government who gave us the bailout. I mean politicians work for us,
hedge fund brokers, maybe they have a responsibility to us ethically but they don't work for us.
It's the politicians who gave us the bailout. It's the politicians who own the car companies.
It's the politicians and the fed who kept interest rates too low. It's the quasi-government
companies like Fannie and Freddie who destroyed the housing market and so at the end of the
day... >> RATIGAN: Isn't it Wall Street that sends
the money to the politicians to change the rules to take the money required to bail...
>> LEWIS: [INDISTINCT] >> RATIGAN: Remember don't politicians give
work? >> LEWIS: Goldman Sachs gives a million dollars
to Barack Obama. >> RATIGAN: Exactly.
>> LEWIS: So you're right about that. >> RATIGAN: Not only that but he gave a lot
to Chris Dunn and Barney frank too. I don't understand but it's clear that the Democrats
and Republicans are largely bought by the banking industry. If you're upset with the
government, to Cenk's point, our Tea Partier's not intelligent enough that the government
is under the employment of the banking system that is creating the loss that's allowing
the banking system to steal the Tea Partiers' money?
>> LEWIS: I think it's about being effective. If I were a strategist advising the Tea Party,
I would say look you can feel good and go to Wall Street and hold up sign or you can
vote the bums out in 2010. That's where the action is.
>> UYGUR: Who will they vote for? >> LEWIS: That the politician work for us.
Well I look... >> UYGUR: No. No. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I got to regulate on this. I got to regulate on this. Who would they vote for, Republicans?
They're 10 times more in the tank for Wall Street...
>> LEWIS: That's actually not true. Wall Street means a lot more money to Democrats than Republicans...
>> UYGUR: No, no, no, no, no. Wait a minute don't...
>> LEWIS: Goldman Sachs gave a million dollars to Barack Obama.
>> UYGUR: No. No. The whole point of... >> RATIGAN: Ask him who did the bailout? Who
was the president when the bailout was created, Matt?
>> LEWIS: Look I can see that. I was against the bailout.
>> RATIGAN: No, no, no, no, no, no, no. You can't have it both ways, my man. We know the
Democrats are completely screwing this up and bought by the bankers. That is clear but
this argue fraudulently in public that the Republicans were not directly responsible
for the accommodation of Wall Street as much as Bill Clinton and Bob Rubin were in the
late 90's. To argue that the president of United States at that time that the money
was delivered to the banks wasn't a man named President George W. Bush is intellectually
dishonest and directly manipulative of your desire to try to serve the interest of your
special community to try to accumulate power at the expense of the truth, Matt.
>> LEWIS: Well I'm not arguing with that Dylan. If I were...
>> RATIGAN: So knock it off. >> LEWIS: Well if I were, you would be right
but im not. George W. Bush gave us the bailout. And by the way, let me just say to those Tea
Partiers. Go look at who voted for the bailout if you don't like it. And vote them out of
office. It's a lot of Republicans and a lot more Democrats.
>> RATIGAN: All right, let's--yeah. >> UYGUR: I like how he's against populism
when its against Wall Street. Isn't that convenient? I thought the Tea Parties were all about populism?
What happened? All of a sudden, "No, no, no. Protect Wall Street."
>> RATIGAN: All right... >> UYGUR: Nonsense.
>> RATIGAN: ...this is [INDISTINCT] with funny. Next, a mixed verdict from the first independent
look at President Obama's healthcare overhaul since it passed last month, speaking of comedy,
the plan does cover more people. That's kind of the--that's how they get you in there.
And then it raises cost and takes care of every special interests in the pocket of the
Democratic party. The health department report says the plan will actually add coverage for
34 million Americans, which by the way, if you spend more money and take care of all
the special interests and don't mind torpedoing. The deficit isn't that hard to do. It actually
will increase spending by about 1%. They say [INDISTINCT] all these things or kind of--who
knows but $311 billion over the next 10 years. The report also warns that expected savings
from Medicare cuts might be unrealistic, surprise, surprise. And that those Medicare cuts could
send about 15% of hospitals into the red Republicans pouncing on the report saying it validates
their concerns about the trillion-dollar plan and of course don't have an alternative plan
to actually do it, although Paul Ryan's plan, I think, made the most sense to me, Matt.
How much farther is this for Republicans and will they actually come out with a better
plan or they just talk about how the Democrat's healthcare special interest?
>> LEWIS: Well it's pointless for Republicans to come up with a better plan because they
had a better plan. This is... >> RATIGAN: They did not have a better plan.
They did not have a better plan. They did not cover all the people, Matt. If you don't
cover all the people, it doesn't count as a plan. If your plan is to Rwanda plan, that,
we don't want it. Then the Republican's plan was the Rwanda plan.
>> LEWIS: Dylan, we've been saying all a long that this would happen and by the way...
>> RATIGAN: Me too. So are you kidding me? Everybody can see. The Republicans won't solve
that--well, Cenk, the issue is we don't have a opposition party. Please elaborate. It's
a joke. >> UYGUR: It's exactly right because, because
we're--actually all three of us are in agreement that this was going to happen. I was against
the healthcare bill because it was half a loaf. You know the subsidies are good and
liberals are happy about that, but I'm more of a progressive than a liberal. What I want
to do is I want to fix the system and they didn't fix the system. And when you go to
the opposition party, well they want to fix the system less. They want to keep the insurance
companies, the drug companies in even bigger charge. And we have no alternatives.
>> LEWIS: Hey the insurance company [INDISTINCT] bill. The truth is that what we should do
is actually really fundamentally tackle this problem. And I think that right now, the part
of the problem is that people get their insurance or health insurance from their employee.
>> RATIGAN: Bingo. Bingo. >> LEWIS: I would actually get away from an
employer health care system. That's a fundamental solution.
>> RATIGAN: Yes it is. I think we can all agree to that. The employer-based health care
system is in the interest of the special interests who went to it and at the expense of every
tax payer, patient and doctor, in this country. The Obama plan does provide more coverage
and that's about it. It provides a lot more bills and a lot more promissory [INDISTINCT].
Cenk, Matt, it's always a pleasure. But Matt, help us solve the problems, Matt. Forget the
Republicans, forget the Democrats... >> LEWIS: I'm a, I'm a problem solver Dylan.
>> RATIGAN: They're a bunch of--they're all talking about nonsense. We can solve this,
but these parties aren't going to do it... >> LEWIS: Wait until November.
>> RATIGAN: All right. Well listen, to Cenk's point, who are we voting for in November?