The part before the interview is a dupe of this video of @marinara's. I would have tubechopped it, but it's a good intro to the interview.

Not sure if this counts officially as a dupe since there's a lot of good additional content after.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Uygur, social security, teats' to 'Uygur, social security, teats, TYT' - edited by Boise_Lib

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Uygur, social security, teats, TYT' to 'Uygur, social security, teats' - edited by Boise_Lib

Context is good.
*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

Holy fucking shit nuts, that was infuriating

On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.

Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.

They sure do seem to lose a lot of shit at TYT eh?

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.

That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:

On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.

>> ^messenger:

That Yes or No part was silly. A politician can't make promises like that, and to conclude that the answer must be yes is unfair. I'm glad Cenk went back to his YouTube-only format. Reading scripts to a camera is not his way.
That said, he still has some stupid arguments with guests on his YT show. Case in point: http://videosift.com/video/TYT-pratt-defends-zimmerman-and-cenk-loses-
it. IMO that interview was much worse. I wish he wouldn't do that. It takes away his credibility.>> ^Sotto_Voce:
On his internet show, Cenk used to have good debates with conservatives because he would remain calm and allow them to speak while still putting forward his case forcefully. You really got a sense that he was interested in having a conversation rather than using his guest as a foil for his own argument. See his interview of John Ziegler, for instance.
Now it seems like he's decided that the way to make it on cable TV is to turn into a liberal version of O'Reilly, and that's sad. Take, for instance, his ridiculous "ANSWER THE QUESTION! YES OR NO!" tactic. I hate that. There are often answers that are more complicated than just a straight yes or a no, and to demand that they be simplified just encourages a dumbing down of the discourse. I'm on Cenk's side on the substance here, but his style was really annoying.



Jesus, that is a horrible interview. But it looks like that's from his Current TV show, so it's consistent with my "TV is ruining Cenk" hypothesis. I never thought he was a particularly profound analyst, but AFAIK he wasn't always this ridiculous. I really think he's deliberately going down the route of garnering attention by providing red meat for the base. Maybe that is the way to be successful on cable news, but it's still pathetic.

Honestly, are there any good hosts on cable news? Maddow is pretty smart, but her constant snark is a little grating. Lawrence O'Donnell does the whole outrage thing a bit too much, although he does it infinitely better than Cenk. I like the format of Chris Hayes' new show a lot, but he really comes across as a smarmy tool. The best I can think of is Fareed Zakaria. Anderson Cooper is decent too, but he covers too much fluff.

@Sotto_Voce

I had no idea that was a real TV show. I never cottoned to it.

That was a horrendous interview all around, it...went...nowhere... Cenk is getting overtly irate at a Fat Cat Republican Congressmen who says that he read the 2011 Social Security release. Then Cenk has a large problem of "centering" himself, allowing himself to give the man who is talking enough rope to hang himself on it. He almost had him after the first part, but he got SO angry and overzealous in his pushing of the conversation that the conversation drowned in the ramblings of two pride filled men who couldn't stand to allow conversation to be heard or really go anywhere--with some sort of pint or reason.

Cenk needed to get this idiots ideas, all of them, onto the plate before pressing. When I say pressing I don't mean yelling. Cenk needed to allow this Congressmen to bring in his own "proof of fact" (with various sources for them to look at and then take him out strategically if he used them and the source is incorrect, biased, or useless--tell the public why this is so), so that when he said that the surplus was a short fall they could napalm him later for it. Of course a lot of these idiots read a few lines of facts before they go into an interview and try to use them--the fact that Cenk pressed him and he said nothing except to mumble his correctness and sit and smile, just smile when you may have erred--but you can NEVER be wrong. That lets us know that that may have been the case here. You can EASILY look on factcheck.org and quickly find out that Cenk was right, but there was a short fall too. That number was of course still large, but was clearly defined by MANY that it indeed was most likely the result of a terrible economy and recession.

BTW, when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security (slowly though, so you don't rebel all at once). I would assume anyway. After all, if we wished to really solve the problem we could SLOW DOWN life for ourselves. Work only 6 hours a day and only 4 days in a week. We get One month off in the summer, the nation splitting that break into groups the size of thirds or fourths of all of us. The Federal system could limit certain types of inflation and interest (and maybe one-day we could almost entirely kill off interest, but probably not rich men need their golden swimming pools). We could start to shape the way we pay people (as I assume most of you want your grocery store as much as your doctors and so forth). To move so much money from a business to help to pay people between a certain age range. Teenagers may have to take the bullet of the lowest wages, but it may secure their futures in the process. Then we could talk about re-managing the entirety of the Federal Budget and maybe one day we could get away from spending for a war machine that HAS NO WARS. BUT, this is crazy talk.

Instead... Are FICA and SS minimums will go up, thus we make even less, and our taxes will as well--unless you're rich. Your life will stay about the same and your affect upon the middle and lower classes will show your indifference to their demise or situation--unfortunately this seems to be something you learn by going through, what you know nothing of--it is the power and the price to having true empathy. Houses will tend to cost as much as a top scale middle-American could pay for one in half their lifetime. Gas will cost more, as hybrids get more efficient--until you never by it again they will try to make sure you ALWAYS pay the same amount. You work 8 hours a day but overtime is nearly mandatory everyday, somedays can get up to 10 hours, if you're a blue collar it might even go around 12. Then they want you to retire at 72. Medicare and Medicaid barely get you along, you HAVE TO buy a "jacket" plan now (such as AARP), this says nothing of dental or other medical concerns.

Or we stay a lot like it is now. I hope not, because I always hope for a brighter future.

I'll be blunt the Republicans are taking us FAR from that idea and Cenk doesn't help here. His audience must eventually try to grab every ear it can IF it, if we, are to be successful. Otherwise, a revolution may be coming--not now, but someday off in the future--maybe in my lifetime. I'm 35 and paid into SS.

/oops longer than I meant, hopefully not too much dystopia or utopia -- things in reach, for worse or better...

I watched this video,and all I could do was imagine a different setting.

Cenk dressed as a peasant shouting up at some silk clad bejeweled Lord smirking at this comic farce of a discussion. The Lord sips his wine,and sighs as the serf rages on,because he knows that the wall seperating them is high,and the swords guarding the Lord are sharp. The Lord is indulgent,amused,and a few empty words will dismiss this minor irritation to a near perfect day. The senator smirks,because he knows nothing will be done and he can go about his business lining his pockets with whatever scorn is heaped on him,since all it really is to him is empty air.

Lords and serfs. Perpetuating this illusion of a democratic process. When the serfs Occupy someplace embarassingly public,the Lords send the Swords to cut them down.

Cenk is a floating turd in a septic wastebowl.

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security

I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.

I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.

Where does all that lost shit go?

Funny, the only thing I could think of was that Cenk looked like my two year old having a fit because I won't let her have another graham cracker.

>> ^TheDreamingDragon:

I watched this video,and all I could do was imagine a different setting.
Cenk dressed as a peasant shouting up at some silk clad bejeweled Lord smirking at this comic farce of a discussion. The Lord sips his wine,and sighs as the serf rages on,because he knows that the wall seperating them is high,and the swords guarding the Lord are sharp. The Lord is indulgent,amused,and a few empty words will dismiss this minor irritation to a near perfect day. The senator smirks,because he knows nothing will be done and he can go about his business lining his pockets with whatever scorn is heaped on him,since all it really is to him is empty air.
Lords and serfs. Perpetuating this illusion of a democratic process. When the serfs Occupy someplace embarassingly public,the Lords send the Swords to cut them down.

>> ^kymbos:

Where does all that lost shit go?


Into their pockets, that's why cenk is furious and i totally understand why. We need more angry young men to shout and scream the odds, we need people to get motivated. This person has 'borrowed' money, then told you he won't pay it back, and furthermore told you that he wants you to work harder to give him more money in the future.

He simplifies the problem thus:

He (and you, and the entire working population) has given the man many many trillions of dollars. Now that man is turning around and saying "you will not get your money back."

Can you imagine if you said that to a bank loan?

He's right to be furious. I think the interview was a fresh change, and i think it was about time that someone spoke the truth, hard and clear, in natural language that everyone can understand, to fuckpigs like this who have utterly no conscience and utterly no morals and REALLY DO steal money from you every single day.

On TV, in the open, for everyone to see, strip it bare, strip it down to the simple facts - someone has taken your money and spent it, and now they're telling you to give them more. And they're doing it in a way that you can't legally fight back, and it doesn't matter how many letters you write to them, or anyone else, or who you vote for, you WILL be giving them more of your money, and they will NOT be reimbursing you.

I'm surprised cenk didn't call him a few choice names. When asked where the money was, or whether it was going to be reimbursed, the guy just sat there, LAUGHING, and said "well it's gone now, so you're gonna have to put more in!"

Seriously, can you believe that? Could Orwell have written that any better?

Ugh... couldn't watch the whole thing. Cenk blew it. I've seen FOX interviews less ridiculous.

He (and you, and the entire working population) has given the man many many trillions of dollars. Now that man is turning around and saying "you will not get your money back.

We aren't going to get it anyway. Like all government programs it started small and grew until today it is the biggest single item in the entire national budget - including Defense. The naked truth is that the government has promised too much to too many - and there isn't enough money to pay for it all. When you calculate how much in social programs the government has 'promised' versus what they are going to take in (IE 'Unfunded Liabilities'), the US is currently over 140 TRILLION DOLLARS in the hole.

SS - like all Federal social programs - should die in a fire - and do it overnight. Frankly, it is offensive that we ever got stuck with such anti-constitutional programs in the first place. Let it be a warning to all of us to NEVER give the government so much as one plugged nickel if it can possibly be helped. Sadly, our Grandparents and Great Grandparents sold us all down the river because they liked FDR instead of running him out of town on a rail like he deserved.

And they're at it again with Obamacare. If Obamacare isn't thrown out (like it should be) by the SCOTUS, then 20 years from now your kids will be cursing every mindless fool who supported it. We Conservatives are warning you right now based on simple history. All government programs start 'small' and then balloon - becoming unsustainable monsters. It is better to never allow these programs to start in the first place. Learn to ignore the leftist/progressive bullcrap saying we "need" the program. It's a lie. We don't need the programs. Quite the opposite. If you want to see the "future" of Obamacare (if it passses) then just look at Social Security today. Don't allow yet another layer of this federal garbage to get vomited on top of the layers that are already burying us.

Wow. I have never been a real fan of Cenk to begin with, but this is really over the top.

I won't pretend to understand the nuances of the federal budget and social security, but it seems to me that having 72 million baby boomers suddenly start collecting Social Security is pretty intense - especially since they are now projected to live much longer...

http://www.nasi.org/learn/socialsecurity/boomers

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security
I would rephrase this, but only slightly. I wouldn't say "Republicans", because there's plenty of the GOP that are just fine with Social Security as long as they're in charge of it. I would instead say that "fiscal conservatives" wish to liquidate SS. If you phrase it that way, then it would be more accurate.
I'm one of them. The SS program, as well as Medicare and Medicaid, are New Deal boondoggles, and if I was "King For A Day" I would instantly abolish both of them and just let the chips fall where they may. They were terrible ideas when they first started, and they are only even more terrible today. All the arguments made against these programs when they were being debated have all come true with almost perfect accuracy, and if they are allowed to continue they will bankrupt the nation. It is not a matter of 'if', but 'when'. Staunching the bleeding with temporary measures is not going to solve the problem, but only postpones the day. Just eliminate them now. We got by just fine without them before, and we can do it again. Give the money back to the people in wages and lower taxes, and let people save up for thier own retirement and medical expenses. Let the states cook up their own solutions for those that are truly in need, and let's stop making disastrous Federal "One Size" programs that inevitably crash and burn. We aren't doing anyone any favors with these awful systems.


When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we" you're referring to? There's very good evidence that SS is responsible for the significant drop in the rate of poverty among the elderly over the last half-century. The facts are that when social security spending (per capita) increases, the poverty rate among seniors reliably decreases, and vice versa. Opponents of SS may honestly believe that an increase in elderly poverty is a painful tradeoff that must be made in order to protect the financial future of the country. That is an honest position that can be debated. But at least acknowledge the existence of the tradeoff. The program has had a huge impact in the lives of some our most vulnerable fellow citizens.

The idea that abolishing SS will do no harm because people will be able to invest their own money to protect their future is ridiculous. First of all, investing wisely is psychologically difficult. We are not built to plan carefully for that far in the future. Second, even if you do make the decision to invest sensibly, it is not easy to do, given that the financial system has been set up to prey on small investors for short-term profit, with high fees and fraudulent advice. You just can't expect the average person, who has no idea how or why to invest in a suitably diversified portfolio of low-cost index funds, to successfully invest in the market.

So I think there is very good reason to think that getting rid of SS will have a significant cost attached. Of course, it is also true that SS faces a long-term financing problem, and we need to be having a discussion about how to deal with it. But it does neither side any good to just deny that there are any worthwhile arguments on the other side.

Incidentally, the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable. Their interest in the deficit is, in general, a pose. The primary reason they are interested in cutting spending is that it makes room for tax cuts. Again, the position that taxation (above a certain minimal level) is wrong is one that can be debated, but at least admit that that is where you're coming from, rather than pretending that this is about ensuring the solvency of the government. Because letting the Bush tax cuts expire would do a lot more for the deficit than abolishing Social Security.

When you say "we got by just fine without" Social Security, who's the "we"

We is the general citizenry of the United States. Back in 'the day' when the nuclear family was stronger, working families would take care of thier elderly. Often they would live under the same roof until they died. Also before Social Security, people would save for thier own retirement and generally (not always, but generally) would have enough saved up for a good living when they stopped working. There were a few cases of widows, or other hard luck cases who were in genuine need, but this vision you are creating where every elderly person was living in a box and eating dog food is bunk.

You see - SS was originally designed to be ONLY for those rare 1 in 100,000 elderly persons who was in GENUINE need. It was supposed to be a very very very small program, only to be tapped in the most exigent of circumstances. It was not ever supposed to be a program that took more from a person's paycheck than INCOME TAX (it is today). It was not supposed to be the de-facto 'retirement program' for every man, woman, and child in the nation (it is today). It was not supposed to be the biggest item in the national budget (it is today). But that's what happens you you take a simple problem (take care of the 0.01% of the needy) and hand it to the Federal Government.

The number of people who qualify for SS should be infinitesimally small. The amount taken from taxpayers for the program should also be virtually nothing. All of the needy eldery can be cared for with state programs which can receive RARE and OCCASIONAL assistance from the tiny Federal program. The order of operations is "Family" first, then "Extended family", then "Community", then "State", and the very very very very very LAST place you ever go is Federal.

the idea that fiscal conservatives are the ones looking out for the long-term fiscal health of the nation is laughable

They are - but you (like many) are confusing "Republican" with "fiscal conservative". The GOP is not filled with fiscal conservatives. In fact, the GOP routinely and regularly opposes fiscal conservatives. The Tea Party is filled with Republicans, Democrats, and Independants that are all united under a banner of "fiscal conservatism". The GOP doesn't like them. Not one bit. Fiscal Conservatives are not in a position to "look after the long-term fiscal health of the nation" because they are not in a position to do so. The GOP and the Democrats are both dominated by big-spend, Big Tax, Big Government leftists. The GOP panders to both social and fiscal conservatives with a bunch of lip service, but (as you noted) they don't walk the walk.