Posted on 10/31/2009 4:19:11 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Here's a transcript of what's said:
Unknown voice: "We need to change congress"
Friedman: No, we don't need to change congress, excuse me. You know, people have a great misunderstanding about this.
People in congress are in the business, they're trying to buy votes. They're in the business of competing with one another to get elected. The same congressman will vote for a different thing if he thinks that's politically profitable. You don't have to change congress. People have a great misconception in this way they think the way you solve things is by electing the right people.
It's nice to elect the right people but that isn't the way you solve things.
The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
That last line is the key, IMO. Milton never directly talks about the media but that's exactly what I hear as I watch this very short clip.
We here on FR deal with it daily: Correcting complicit progressive media propaganda on a daily if not hourly basis. I know I do it. And I see countless others do it.
The media is a huge obstacle. I'm of the opinion they are our biggest obstacle. On a daily basis, the news media set out to make conservatism politically unprofitable. From Sarah to Iraq to tax policy to gay marriage to NY23; I do not care what topic you pick. The liberal media will always make it seem as if conservatism is what's out of the mainstream and liberalism is what's 'enlightened'.
Did you miss the 2006 Amnesty debate?
Are you not paying attention to the healthcare debate right now?
Special interest money is irrelevant. It’s a liberal media talking point. A distraction.
thats a great way to look at it.
It is incredible amazing to me, where are the billionaire supporters of this great nation? We hear billions going to this cause or that cause to support the destruction of Amercia dailey. We also need to stop these idiots in Washignton from using our tax dollars against us!
Are you not paying attention to the healthcare debate right now?
Special interest money is irrelevant. It’s a liberal media talking point. A distraction.
This is why I keep the phone numbers for my senators and representative on my cell phone. They hear from me every few days, and I make it a point to tell their staffers that I always vote and that I talk to my fellow citizens a lot! All three are useless lefties, but I do my best to let them know I’ll actively oppose their re-election. It’s one thing I can do to help throw sand in the gears of this leftist juggernaut.
“Yes, but it is special interest money that seems to control the votes on any issue more than the media.”
In large measure it’s money that controls the media. Not on a day to day, story to story basis, but in the choice of who is hired, who are in higher editorial positions etc. Working in the MSM is probably like other businesses in which people watch what they say and mold their behavior to some extent to fit with what is perceived to be acceptable and what will get you promoted. If the people who control the money in the MSM are liberal the tone will be set employees to follow suit.
I’m not arguing that having a very liberal media doesn’t hurt us. I’m saying when we see votes that seem to go against the will of the average constituents in a representatives own area it is campaign money that is the primary driving factor. Case in point, Lindsey Graham, SC
Senator supporting Cap & Trade.
You missed what I said.(I probably just didn't articulate clearly enough)
Yes, money was at the heart of the heart of the amnesty debate.
And guess what........ the money lost. The special interests lost. Americans won. Because we spoke out.
The current healthcare debate is on that very same track.
---------You're forgetting who is going to benefit from all of these new programs.----------
No, I'm not forgetting that. I'm watching them lose.
You missed what I said.(I probably just didn't articulate clearly enough)
Yes, money was at the heart of the heart of the amnesty debate.
And guess what........ the money lost. The special interests lost. Americans won. Because we spoke out.
The current healthcare debate is on that very same track.
---------You're forgetting who is going to benefit from all of these new programs.----------
No, I'm not forgetting that. I'm watching them lose.
I do that too.
Wouldn't that be reason enough to throw them out? It's almost as though this guy is saying we can't change congress so the people need to learn to live with a corrupt and inept gov't. I don't buy that.
Do you think we'll soon see the complicit progressive media start lumping praise upon Grahamesty? Think they'll start calling him a maverick soon?
So many politicians think they can win if they get enough of the media on their side to cover their tracks.
We can only hope you are right. I’m sure not rooting for these programs to pass by any means.
—————Wouldn’t that be reason enough to throw them out?-————
No. Politicians by definition have to go out and get votes.
You’re looking at this as if it’s a bad thing when it’s not.
Take someone who’s never been a politician before. They are seeking votes. Are they already dirty in your view before they even get elected?
Now, in the case of someone like....... oh say......... Countrywide Chris Dodd, ok. What you’re saying is correct and is an argument that I’ve made myself.
————It’s almost as though this guy is saying we can’t change congress so the people need to learn to live with a corrupt and inept gov’t.-————
No, Friedman didn’t say that.
What he’s saying is that if enough people get up in arms about something and start making calls to congress; thus making it politically unprofitable to vote a certain way; then the american people will get their way.
I used the 2006 amnesty debate as an example to a previous poster. Every politician wanted that. But it has proven to be politically unprofitable to support amnesty. ACORN being defunded is another example. Because of what Okeefe and Giles did in showing us the underbelly of ACORN, funding ACORN has become politically unprofitable.
He said we don’t have to change congress as long as we change how topics are viewed.
I’ll give you an example for the future:
Let’s say enough americans became outraged at the progressive tax code and called in droves to all levels of government: Gubernatorial, local, and washington.
We would see a flat tax or something because it would be politically profitable for them to do something about this problem. And even the wrong politicians would vote the right way to save their own jobs. That is what Friedman is saying.
But this kind of thing isn’t gonna happen until we defeat the left wing media. They actively/daily work to make conservatism politically unprofitable despite most americans being conservatives.
As long as the polling stays as it is now; a downward spiral for this healthcare proposal.
But the left wing media is doing everything it can to change that.
Just as they did in the amnesty debate too. The media supported amnesty.
Until tomorrow, when their funding kicks back in while no one is looking.
Hence Obama’s horror at the even halfway evenhanded FOX network.
I agree. I don’t think we can ignore any of these issues. Also, although Friedman’s designation of Congress as essentially ‘businessmen’ making the self-interested decisions that benefit their ‘business’ is correct, this is true in large measure because people can make careers in politics. That’s why it becomes their ‘business’, and that is one big reason they are so corruptible. IMHO this is the biggest thing the framers failed to adequately address when laying the foundations for our government.
There should always have been strict term limits. No one should ever be allowed to spend more than 12 years of their life in an elected federal position. The only exception should be that you can run for the Presidency even if you’ve ‘served’ your 12 years. Being a Senator or Congressman/woman should never have become a ‘business’. How can we expect public officials to respect the private sector when they are never part of the private sector and never have to experience the consequences of how their legislation affects the private sector?
Good points. I doubt the founding fathers gave any thought to special interest campaign money or a one sided media back then. As to term limits, they may have thought the normal life expectancy of around 40 years would get rid of most representatives a lot faster than what we experience today.
We the people ourselves took that away when we changed the 17th amendenment....making Senators an electable position subject to “lobbyists”...vrs the Founding Fathers position of being able to be recalled by the home state Congress....
N.Dak is prime example....Red State...with all 3 Congreemen Camo-Libs: State Congress controlled by GOP & Gov GOP——would be much easier to recall Conrad & Dorgan under the framers Constitution.
Consider this last election: I certainly don't believe that McCain was perfect, that he wouldn't need the same public groundswell to keep him in line. But do I believe that we would have been better off today if McCain had been elected? HELL yes! I know, some would insist that having a nut-job like BO in there galvanizes the opposition, but this is only the start of our misery. Before BO's agenda gets defeated, this country is going to suffer HORRIBLY.
As we have seen, the MSM is quite willing to forego their own interest to advance their socialist/liberal fascist agenda. They are dying, but they would rather spend what credibility they have left promoting the leftist agenda.
Well you probably have never seen a media person being fired for being too liberal.
ACORN Funding is discontinued until Dec. 18 according to an Oct. 30 post at biggovernment.com
Good news but of course we must keep calling.
My critters’ numbers are on my speed dial too and they hear from me ALL the time.
I agree that it is ideology and not money that drives all this. However, it takes money to build a soapbox from which to spout ideological bias. Ultimately it's the ideologues with money who are at the top of the food chain in media. If the major management and investors of MSNBC were not leftist ideologues they would get rid of Olbermann and pursue a format that would get them a larger audience share. So it is ideology that drives them, but they have to have the financial resources in the first place in order to overpay jerks like Olbermann. The financial resources make it possible for them, at least for the time being, to spread their biased ‘news’.
Milton Friedman, "this guy?"
yes, that guy. He’s the one making the point
Exactly!
It’s funny hearing Milton Friedman referred to as— “that guy!”
That's even funnier...considering you're referring to Milton Friedman!
There is nothing as permanent as a temporary government program.
Nobody spends somebody else's money as carefully as he spends his own. Nobody uses somebody else's resources as carefully as he uses his own. So if you want efficiency and effectiveness, if you want knowledge to be properly utilized, you have to do it through the means of private property.
The government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem.
The Great Depression, like most other periods of severe unemployment, was produced by government mismanagement rather than by any inherent instability of the private economy.
Well, unfortuneatly, Mr. Friedman died several years ago.
Too bad we can’t dig him up. Make it the late MR. FRIEDMAN YOUR HONORSHIP SIR!
I think you don’t have a clue who Milton Friedman is.
—————you’re incredibly naive. How many people need to call congress or show up at meetings to stop govt health care?-—————
You misunderstand. All this is in black and white on a computer screen, so it’s easily typed.
I know full well that we have to keep the pressure on, otherwise we’ll lose our liberty.
I know that’s not easy. And on top of trying to push back against government, we have to also keep the fight up against government supporting media outlets which are still the majority.
—————I don’t care how many people call or demonstrate, the congress is not going to miss an opportunity to pass one of the largest power grabs in history regardless of what the people think.—————
All it takes is one or two people. Lieberman comes to mind.(which frankly, I’m of the opinion that he would not hold to his filibuster threat anyways) His threat of a filibuster buys us time if nothing else. The closer it gets to the elections, the more unsavory the healthcare bill will be to politicians.
We are going to have to guard our liberties until at a minimum; 2012.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.