Jim Cramer scheduled to be guest on Thursday's "The Daily Show"

[chequita guevara]

It's pretty clear that Stewart picked on CNBC because Santelli went after Obama. Stewart obviously felt the need to defend his side.

Right, cuz Stewart hasn't been going after Obama himself. Stewart went after Santelli because Santelli lobbed a great big fat one. The segment Stewart picked was where Santelli was a giant moron.

[notyoueither]

Actually, I'm finally going to come out and say it. NYE, it's getting tiresome to watch you over and over again post about topics you are completely ignorant of then immediately insult anyone who responds. I know, you're the least educated of the big conservative trolls here, but you must have some common sense. Seriously, you lost an argument to Ben Kenobi over roads. That was sad that there even was such an argument, let alone to lose it. So what I'm saying is, either stick to what you know or lose the chip on your shoulder. As stated before, it's one thing to be a smartass and another to be just an ass.

Enjoy life on your planet.

[Guynemer]

Let's all be honest here.

The interview was terrific--entertaining, cathartic, funny, painful. But, it is ultimately just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Is CNBC a giant fraud? Is Cramer a (smallish) part of that? Both--great big yes. Are they the center of the crisis? Hell no.

Government regulation has been asleep at the ****ing wheel for well over a decade, and that's on both parties. The fact that we don't have a true journalistic media to report on that sure aids and abets, but it is not the primary problem.

[chequita guevara]

Government regulation wasn't asleep at the wheel. It was actively dismantled by the efforts of both political parties, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans. The corporate whores have been shouting for decades, less regulation, less regulation. This crisis is the result of people like DanS saying that the market is wonderful, it would work better if there was no regulation, blah, blah, blah, when in fact, what it has been, all along, is about figuring out how to steel more money from working people.

And nothing is going to change as long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, because they have no incentive to change.

[-Jrabbit]

Stewart picked on CNBC for a vcery clear and simple reason - they were the cheerleaders of the bubble.

It's pretty clear that Stewart picked on CNBC because Santelli went after Obama. Stewart obviously felt the need to defend his side.

...and Santelli cancelled his scheduled Daily Show appearance. Let's not forget that as a motivating factor for Stewart.

[EPW]

Government regulation wasn't asleep at the wheel. It was actively dismantled by the efforts of both political parties, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans. The corporate whores have been shouting for decades, less regulation, less regulation. This crisis is the result of people like DanS saying that the market is wonderful, it would work better if there was no regulation, blah, blah, blah, when in fact, what it has been, all along, is about figuring out how to steel more money from working people.

And nothing is going to change as long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, because they have no incentive to change.

What are you, some kind of Communist?

[chequita guevara]

x-posting for teh w00+

[EPW]

x-posting for teh w00+

You won't be laughing when you are burning in hell you red bastard!

[Guynemer]

Side note: tomorrow's "Reliable Sources" on CNN, with so-called "media reporter" Howard Kurtz, will lead with the Stewart-Cramer story.

Tucker Carlson will be one of the guests.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Government regulation wasn't asleep at the wheel. It was actively dismantled by the efforts of both political parties, the Republicrats and the Demopublicans. The corporate whores have been shouting for decades, less regulation, less regulation. This crisis is the result of people like DanS saying that the market is wonderful, it would work better if there was no regulation, blah, blah, blah, when in fact, what it has been, all along, is about figuring out how to steel more money from working people.

And nothing is going to change as long as you keep voting for the lesser of two evils, because they have no incentive to change.

I know this has been asked over and over and over again, but which regulations were dismantled? Don't say, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, because you should know that's a retarded answer.

[Naked Gents Rut]

with so-called "media reporter" Howard Kurtz

Kurtz

[chequita guevara]

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/10/cramer_stewart/index.html?source=refresh

[Darius871]

I know this has been asked over and over and over again, but which regulations were dismantled? Don't say, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, because you should know that's a retarded answer.

The argument I've heard more from insiders than from outsiders is not so much dismantled regulations as comparatively lax SEC enforcement of theoretically "intact" regulations. I have no way to quantify that, however.

[Naked Gents Rut]

You also have to factor in that finance was becoming more and more complex and moving faster than regulators could keep up with. The financial types are smarter and understand the system better, so they're always going to be a few steps ahead of regulation.

[DinoDoc]

You also have to factor in that finance was becoming more and more complex and moving faster than regulators could keep up with. The financial types are smarter and understand the system better, so they're always going to be a few steps ahead of regulation.

Given the fact that there wasn't anything particularly complex or novel about the Madoff scam, I would say that it points to the fact that there was indeed a lack of due dilligence on both the part of regulators and individual investors when it came to the market in the run up to this crisis. That's not to say that your point isn't valid to an extent. Recessions do seem to catch more con men than regulators do.