Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Seriously, Erin Burnett?



October 07, 2011 – Comments (10)

6 October 2011 by Cullen Roche

Erin Burnett is in the first week of her big transition from CNBC to CNN with her new show Erin Burnett Out Front.    And what better place for the former Wall Street anchor to start than with the Occupy Wall Street protests?   Unfortunately, Burnett used the opportunity to spread more myths in the mainstream media and totally ignore the real point of the protests.

In a segment called “Seriously?!”  Burnett goes down to Wall Street and talks to Dan, an “unemployed software designer” about the purpose of the protests.  She says:

    “So, do you know that taxpayers made money on the Wall Street bailout?  They did.  They made money on the Wall Street part of the bailout….Does that make you feel any differently?”

Dan kind of (not really) says yes and then they cut back to studio and Burnett says, “Seriously?  That’s all it would take to end the unrest?”  Then she verifies her claim and tells her unwitting viewers that the bank bailout “made” $10B for taxpayers.  She proclaims victory by saying they “solved” it.  And that’s it.  2 minutes and 34 seconds and she did it.  Case closed, right?  Not even close.

So what should Dan the “unemployed software designer” have said to Ms. Burnett?  He should have said this:

    “Excuse me, but I believe you have a completely insufficient understanding of the way that our fiat monetary system works.  When the U.S. Treasury “makes” money it is actually reducing the outstanding net financial assets of the private sector.  There is no such thing as “making money on the Wall Street bailouts” because, as the issuer of our currency, the U.S. Federal Government is not a profit making entity and cannot be compared to a household, business or bank.   There is simply no such thing as the U.S. government having “more” money when it brings in tax revenues.  As the monopoly supplier of the U.S. dollar, the Federal Government must issue money before it is available to us.  And when they “make” money via increased taxes they are quite literally removing net financial assets from the private sector.

    So no, none of us are “making money” on the bailout except for the people who caused their banks to collapse.  That is of course, unless the banks or Uncle Sam are paying you some form of special bank bailout dividend?  Did that happen?  No.  So none of us are “richer” directly because of the bank bailout.

    More importantly though, what the banks did to us was break the moral code that is always attached to money.  Money is always debt and when an institution or individual fails to adhere to the moral code attached to our debts, they are directly infringing on their moral obligations that they are legally bound to.  And when a government bails out banks, individuals or businesses, they are saying that this infringement is okay and are in fact encouraging it.  This is why we don’t allow counterfeiting, fraud, scams, etc.  These are all forms of infringement on the moral code that inextricably links us all together via trade and commerce.  Without the soundness and strict adherence to this moral code, there is no such thing as a healthy functioning U.S. economy.  And the banks infringed on this moral code to the tune of trillions of dollars.  And we let them get away with it.  Now you’re justifying it with a false understanding of how a fiat monetary system works.  Shame on you.

    So, no, there is nothing you can say or do that would make me feel better about the Wall Street bank bailouts.  SERIOUSLY!”

It’s that simple.  People feel slighted.  And rightfully so.  Now, in fairness, most people in this country are not aware of the underlying mechanics of our monetary system.  And most people have a poor understanding of what money really is.  But one thing is very clear from the Wall Street protests.  Main Street got the short end of the stick.  And we all know it.   Whether it’s the fact that none of us are actually “making money” on the bailouts or the idea that we have all been subjected to approval of an egregious violation of the moral code that links us all through our money.

Although it may not be obvious, the anger that resonates from these facts is what is fueling the movement.  It is the heart of the Occupy Wall Street protest.  Misleading media coverage like Ms. Burnett’s is just another glaring reason why the mainstream media is dying a quick death in this country.  They continually fail to represent our reality and connect with the American public.

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On October 07, 2011 at 11:04 AM, L0RDZ (90.73) wrote:

Hmm maybe...  but  Erin is  hott... but not hott enough for me to change the channel and  watch  her...  lol....

As I haven't watched her show.. I can only take your word as to what was said..

Isn't  Cnn and  CNBC  owned by the same people ?

 sister  stations...

Report this comment
#2) On October 07, 2011 at 11:25 AM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Ms. Burnett has the right to express her opinions, opinions that I found valid.  The people she met were angry but weren't sure why.  They were protesting but didn't know why.  Of course, after her presentation, the protestors had been influenced and organized by and the unions, so they are now more organized and have some demands. Some of the demands are quite valid and should be supported.  But Burnett met with the protestors and covered their story before that.  Furthermore, if the protestors are angry about Wall Street and corporate greed, why didn't they have this concern during the Bush administration?  These protestors weren;t trying to occupy and blame Wall Street during the Bush Administration.  Perhaps it's because it's harder for people to blame Bush now that Obama has been president for 3 years and the Democrats have controlled the Senate for much longer than that.  Obama can't blame himself, and his fans refuse to blame him, so they must find another scapgeoat.  Why is there no anger from the protestors about GE, which makes billions of dollars but pays no taxes and fires workers so that they can get cheap labor overseas?  It's because Jeff Immelt is so close to Obama.  Why is there no anger toward Solyndra after wasting half a billion dollars that could have been used to fund another stimulus to create jobs?  The protestors don't blame Warren Buffet for having billions of dollars while paying less taxes than his secretary and trying to get out of paying taxes after his death by giving the money to Bill Gates' foundation--taxes that could be used to fund new industries and create jobs.  That's because Buffet is a donor to Obama's campaign and supports the president greatly.  I have to admit that the protests are very clever, a great smokescreen for Obama.  No mattter what Obama does, the fault lies with Bush, Congress, hurricanes and tsunamis, the Arab spring, Europe, blacks who complain, Americans who are too soft, and now Wall Street and corporations.This cleverness on Obama's part is why he will certainly be re-elected.  I don't think his policies are working, but I hope they do in the future.  I hope he succeeds in his policies so that American will thrive.

Report this comment
#3) On October 07, 2011 at 12:11 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

Apparently the protestors are also anti-war.  That's great.  I hope that Obama will send all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan and will stop any fighting in Libya.  It's time to send the troops home, which will save the government a lot of money.  I agree with the protestors on this issue.

Report this comment
#4) On October 07, 2011 at 12:43 PM, BillyTG (29.50) wrote:

She's CFR and, along with her fiancee, evil bank (Goldman, Citi) insiders. Oh, plus she's a spoiled brat. Did you really expect more from her?

Report this comment
#5) On October 07, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Hey Binve- Yep, I saw it. She's just doing her "job" (hint- it's not in-depth fact finding).  Here's Dylan's take after spending 3 days at OWS- 

I wish she had interviewed you but I don't think it would have aired.  Thanks again for your contributions here and on your excellent site

Usual +1 rec

Report this comment
#6) On October 07, 2011 at 4:13 PM, binve (< 20) wrote:

Hey Starfire!

She's just doing her "job" (hint- it's not in-depth fact finding).

Completely agreed.

I wish she had interviewed you but I don't think it would have aired.


Thanks again for your contributions here and on your excellent site

Thanks man!

Report this comment
#7) On October 07, 2011 at 5:57 PM, eddietheinvestor (< 20) wrote:

These 2 articles show why Erin Burnett was right when she wrote her article:

Report this comment
#8) On October 07, 2011 at 8:35 PM, amassafortune (29.23) wrote:

The banks didn't only get to borrow low-interest money. They also got some relief from much of their worst investment decisions - these poor investments remain backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. taxpayer, even though the Fed is still holding many of the "assets" at this time..

Banks also received accounting gifts that have not yet been paid back, mark-to-market being the giftiest. Remember when Kobe bought his wife the big diamond? Similar situation, the taxpayer got screwed, but the core, long-term relationship got reconfirmed with the exchange of something valuable. 

Banks barely had a pulse in October, 2008, yet most were posting profits again by Q2 2009. That miracle was due to much more help than just bailout cash. Erin knows all this. I wonder how many more knowledgeable interviewees she hit up before finding the guy with a general sense of anger and few details about the history we just all lived through (are living through). 

Opportunity cost was mentioned above in the form of missed private sector investment. You know the big employment package being discussed today? That was a missed opportunity not on Henry Paulson's list in 2008. If congress had only set a minimum 1,000 words for that report, Hank would have had to have added a page and maybe some domestic jobs-generating investment could have been made in a more timely manner.Then again, he would have just changed the font size.

Erin did not mention the terms of the loans. If, in trade for the loan, the banks allowed customers to forego interest and repay bank loans and credit card debt as they could, the level of anger would be much lower today. Instead, banks rushed to ID borrowers who were in trouble so the 6.99% rate could be jacked up to 24% or 39% before the finreg changes got locked in. 

I have not seen the show, but Erin is not much different from Rush Limbaugh or Howard Stern. It's pretty much the same on the liberal and conservative sides. These people are not really analysts or even commentators - they are personalities. They broach meaningful subjects, but quickly render the subject down to a few soundbites and distill that concentration into ratings. Look good, talk good, track good.  

Report this comment
#9) On October 07, 2011 at 10:22 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

Eddie, Eddie, Eddie... Erin's opinions are valid? I absolutely agree that Erin has the right to express her opinions but let us not lose sight of the difference between opinions and reporting facts. That was not an "op-ed" piece.

See this-  "

Memo To Erin Burnett - Shut Your Banking Apologista Pie Hole And Get Your Facts Straight On The Bailout, Seriously!
  "CNN's Erin Burnett ventured down to Occupy Wall Street and told some protesters that "taxpayers actually made money on the Wall St. bailout."  She made fun of the protesters on-air and derided their knowledge of the bailouts.The only problem for Erin, is that she's the one who didn't get her facts straight.That's right, the banking apologista, who is engaged to a Citigroup executive, and is infamous for having her ass handed to her on camera by Congressman Brad Sherman over AIG bonuses, didn't do her bailout research before she decided to ridicule protesters for not doing doing their bailout research.According to the U.S. Treasury's own figures, available publicly to any reader, including pneumatic (we understand if you need a dictionary for that one, Erin) and arrogant CNN reporters, as of TODAY, taxpayers are still more than $95 BILLION IN THE RED on TARP.  And that's including all interest and other income.  There is still $122 BILLION of TARP funds that have NOT yet been paid back.We understand that Burnett was excluding GM, but she somehow missed that AIG, alone, still owes over $50 BILLION.The "we made money on the bailout" meme just won't die.  Facts and in the case of Burnett, poor research, be damned."
  Here's the ultimate proof, Erin.  We did the research for you while you were in makeup:U.S. Treasury TARP Update -October 4, 2010


Oh no, we're not done with you Erin.  Since you loosely used the term 'bank bailouts' instead of TARP, in your on-air embarrassment today, we offer an extra can of whoop-ass, courtesy of Dylan Ratigan, your former colleague.

"So when someone like Sen. Gregg, or Erin Burnett starts lying to your face about how much money they made us with their bank giveaways, tell him he's $2 trillion short, and we can talk about the interest they owe us later."   From here- [end]]

  There's more if you care to know.

Also, your statement that "the protestors had been influenced and organized by" is incorrect.   This movement has Never been "influenced" nor "organized" by them- nor   affiliated with them.  

  Your link to Daily Caller is referring to Occupy DC, an effort put forth by "a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting rent control in Washington, D.C."  A "rent control advocacy group", With no affiliation with ODC.  How does that make Erin "right" being totally unrelated and never mentioned in her "report"?  Best.



Report this comment
#10) On October 07, 2011 at 10:27 PM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

This is the link that works-

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners