Bizarre Fake Scripted "Debate" on Larry King Between Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Steve Forbes
Chris | InformationLiberation
I saw this video a little while ago ago on Larry King, initially I was shocked that the CEO of Google was on Larry King to whore for the bailout, but when I actually started to watch it more carefully I was even more shocked how their so-called "debate" was clearly completely scripted. Steve Forbes and Google CEO Eric Schmidt are both looking off to the side the entire time they are talking, they are crassly reading off a teleprompter and acting as though they're having a real interaction. After each one talked, they paused and let the other talk, both were clearly reading off a script and not talking off the top of their heads "debating."
Eric has some talent and he is not quite as blatant (though it is still obvious), his teleprompter is positioned closer to the camera, but Steve Forbes is looking very far to the side and is blatantly reading a script. What is so funny about this is they even go so far as to fake talking over each other, the elaborateness of the fakery is surprising to say the least (though to a more seasoned eye I guess it is par for the course).
The cherry on top is at the end when Larry King says "We credit both of you on pausing and allowing each to finish each other's sentences, an historic moment in cable television." (chummy smug laughter)
Stop it Larry, you're killing us!
The only thing historic about this is that three seemingly random personalities, Larry King, a seemingly unconnected CEO of Google, and another seemingly unrelated Steve Forbes, are actually secretly working in private to script and completely fake a "debate" to influence the minds of the American public. To think they can so crassly fake a debate and that Larry King has the audacity and shamelessness to congratulate them on their job well done sickens me. These people are disgusting and deplorable. I hope people realize how heavily controlled and completely fake the TV they watch is. - IL
Two men who know about money and jobs are next.
Eric Schmidt of Google and Steve Forbes of Forbes debate the spending plan.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) L. KING: Two distinguished figures in finance.
In Phoenix, Eric Schmidt, CEO for Google. He was on Obama's economic transition team.
In New York, Steve Forbes, chairman and CEO of Forbes, editor-in- chief of the magazine and former economic adviser to Senator McCain.
All right, Eric, we've got, apparently, a tentative agreement. It looks like a vote on Sunday.
Do you like this bill?
ERIC SCHMIDT, CEO, GOOGLE: I do. And it's certainly not soon enough. You've got 600,000 jobs lost last month, 600,000 jobs lost the month before. Time for action. This bill is not perfect. Let's get this thing done. Let's get it passed. Let's get people back to work. It's all about jobs at this point.
L. KING: Steve?
STEVE FORBES, CEO, FORBES: Well, the bill is the wrong one to get the economy moving again. Japan had six of these bills -- or 10 of them -- in the 1990s. They did not work. They did not increase incentives.
I'm surprised the administration didn't go for something that will really get money in people's pockets and put incentives to hire people -- and that is to suspend the payroll tax or cut it in half for two years. That mechanism is in place. People would have more money. The cost of hiring people would go down. And you would get the money to work immediately.
So in terms of the bill itself, it's not going few get that much money out that quickly. And a lot of infrastructure projects -- only 5 percent of the bill goes for the traditional infrastructure projects like highways. And a lot of it goes for stuff that's going to have minimal impact on job creation.
L. KING: Eric, has the...
L. KING: Go ahead, Eric.
SCHMIDT: Yes, 75 percent of the infrastructure stuff gets paid out in the first 15 months. Most of this bill goes to things like unemployment, making sure the medical programs are being funded. The states are desperate. The cities are desperate. It goes to more police. It goes to tax breaks for small businesses and for people of lower and medium income. They need the money now.
The problem with any of these other tax cuts is they take too long.
FORBES: But the payroll tax he could do right away in the next paycheck. That mechanism is in place. You cut that in half, people get the money immediately.
The problem -- one of the problems with this bill is low income people, who don't pay income tax, aren't going to get money until next year.
SCHMIDT: But on the other hand, all of the experiences that you have to do something overt -- you have to actually move quickly in order to get money into the people -- in people's hands. The good news...
FORBES: And the payroll tax would have done it.
L. KING: But...
SCHMIDT: The good news about a payroll tax is it increases employment. But it doesn't address the other issues. It doesn't invest. It doesn't deal with all the issues of crumbling highways and schools and so forth and so on, all of which are in this bill.
L. KING: Steve, Obama has...
FORBES: But the...
L. KING: Steve, Obama has inherited this, has he not?
FORBES: That's right. The Bush administration made some catastrophic mistakes -- everything from weakening the dollar; not reforming Fanny and Freddie a year ago; this mark to market, which I hope the administration deals with next week, Larry, which devastated bank balance sheets gratuitously. And the SEC has got to deal with the short selling abuses.
So, yes, he did inherit this.
L. KING: Yes.
FORBES: I just wish he'd done something more effective more quickly, because I want this economy growing again.
L. KING: Eric, does he seem to be getting some blame for it?
SCHMIDT: Well, the guy has only been in office for, what, a week and...
L. KING: I know, but...
SCHMIDT: ...a week-and-a-half. So honeymoons are pretty short right now.
But the fact of the matter is this is the first major initiative for this new president. And it's something that has to happen quickly. He's got to do three things. He's got to get jobs going, he's got to get the banking going and he's got to deal with the foreclosure issues.
The latter two are being addressed maybe in the next week. So we're seeing very, very fast action from people who are just getting confirmed.
L. KING: Your man, Senator McCain, Steve, went on the attack against the bill tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: This is not bipartisan. This is two Republican senators that decided to join after meetings behind doors from which almost all of the rest of us were not present. It is as expensive, or more expensive, than the legislation passed by the House, if you count the amendments that have already been passed, which we are told would be included in this bill.
And there is no provision -- there is no provision whatsoever, once our economy recovers, to somehow begin to reduce this multi- trillion dollar debt that we have laid on future generations of Americans.
Mr. President, if this legislation is passed, it will be a very bad day for America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
L. KING: Steve, is the rush necessary?
FORBES: Well, rush is necessary to get positive things done. But this bill is not it. To be blunt about it, Larry, a lot of this stuff was just thrown together by Nancy Pelosi and some others -- a grab bag, like $650 million for digital TV.
Well, what in the world is that going for?
$400 million for research on diseases. Very nice, but that's not going to simulate the economy.
It does not address jobs in areas where jobs have really been hit hard, like construction. Again, only 5 percent of this bill is going for traditional infrastructure projects.
SCHMIDT: There are...
L. KING: Eric?
SCHMIDT: There are billions of dollars going into, for example, upgrading the federal program. There's a huge number of billion that are going to retrofit and insulate low income homes through an existing program that was passed by the Republicans but not funded.
So, in fact, there's lots of jobs being created. Even the ones that Steve mentioned do, in fact, create job. And they create high quality American jobs.
This is all about getting things happening quickly.
FORBES: But the -- OK.
But the bottom line is all it does is take money from one pocket and put it into the other. Other than some provisions for small businesses, which is good, it does not have a stimulative impact long- term.
FORBES: Japan did this 10 times in the '90s. It did not pull the economy out of recession.
SCHMIDT: The Japanese economy is a very different beast. We are much, much more flexible. The great thing about the American businessperson is they're very, very innovative.
And by getting consumers going, by getting jobs happening, all of a sudden people will get confidence and people will start buying, building, traveling and all the other things that are happening.
We're in a very bad spot right now. It looks like the March and June quarters across the United States are going to be very, very tough, with a lot more lay-offs coming. We need to move very, very quickly.
FORBES: But that doesn't mean you have to give into passive pork spending. They could have gotten a bill addressing things like having more broadband, which they did, but doing more of that. Electricity grid -- that's a good thing. They could have done more there. Things that would have laid long-term foundations.
SCHMIDT: Right, but...
FORBES: But a lot of this stuff -- thank goodness they took the contraceptives out.
But a lot of this stuff is just traditional pork.
FORBES: Why -- why did they put it in there?
SCHMIDT: But, in fact, the majority of this money, by the way, goes to states and local governments, who are desperate -- who are literally not able to pay their payrolls. California has put people on furloughs. They're suspending unemployment benefits because of the collapse in income.
One of the issues fundamentally here is nobody has got any money. The only people who can come up with money in this desperate situation is the federal government. This is the one time when even a strong business focus needs the government to help things going.
L. KING: All right. We've only got a minute left.
Steve, despite your protestations, is it going to pass?
FORBES: Oh, it will pass. And the question is what will be the final bill after conference with the House?
I just wish that when they're going to do something big, they did something that would have positive impact, like payroll taxes, instead of a traditional pork bill, most of which is not going to get this economy moving quickly again.
L. KING: Eric, is Obama going to turn this around?
SCHMIDT: He will. And this is -- this is a strong set of actions in his first couple weeks as president. And the good news about it is it's all going to be checked, it's all going to be public. You'll be able to see exactly where it goes.
And let's see if Steve is right or if I'm right.
FORBES: But the thing is...
L. KING: OK. Let's see.
FORBES: ...why wasn't that put on the -- have that kind of debate before the vote...
L. KING: By the...
FORBES: ...instead of having to examine it after the vote?
L. KING: We credit both of you on pausing and allowing each to finish each other's sentences.
L. KING: An historic moment in cable television.
Steve Forbes and Eric Schmidt.
President Obama sounded the economic alarm once again today. He'll tell it like it is. The warning in 60 seconds.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which in some cases has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for the purposes of news reporting, education, research, comment, and criticism, which constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (found at the U.S. Copyright Office) and other applicable intellectual property laws. It is our policy to remove material from public view that we believe in good faith to be copyrighted material that has been illegally copied and distributed by any of our members or users.