There’s been plenty written about how reporters skew reality by treating “both sides” as equally intransigent or inflexible when it comes to the budget deficit battle.
Another example, from the L.A. Times today (8/2/11):
For Republicans, it was preventing any tax increase to upper-income families.
For Democrats, it was ensuring no cuts to Social Security, Medicaid and a handful of other programs that aid the elderly and the poor.
And for Obama, it was getting a deal that would end the threat of an economy-shaking default until after the 2012 presidential election.
None of the key players was willing to go all out to actually solve the nation’s long-term financial problems. As a result, the deal doesn’t.
The implication of course, is that opposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare is in some waycomparable to opposing any tax increases anywhere under any circumstances. This glosses over the fact that the Bush tax cuts played a large role in creating the current deficit problem. And it evades the fact that it is certainly possible to fix the budget problem without cutting Social Security and Medicare. It is much more difficult to imagine how to do the same without raising revenues.
But the real lesson we must be taught over and over again is that both sides are to blame for not fixing the nation’s problems.
Or consider this exchange from the July 31 NBC Nightly News:
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Andrea, you’ve seen them come and seen them go. This has hardly been a profile in courage. Have you ever seen anything like this?
ANDREA MITCHELL: I actually never have. We’ve had crises before, political crises. We’ve had in our lifetime 9/11, Katrina, other national emergencies, tragedies. And in one case or another, in all of those cases one branch of government at least, if one failed, the other would step in. In this case, all branches of government, our entire government seems to be dysfunctional. And it’s even questioning in people’s minds the checks and balances that was the genius of the framers because now it’s stalemate, it’s gridlock.
It’s hard to know what to make of this. On one level, you sense that Beltway fixtures like Andrea Mitchell have so much invested in the status quo that they cannot fathom how or why the system cannot produce even the appearance of ‘bipartisan compromise’ they find so important to a functioning democracy. That’s the crisis.
More concretely, one has to wonder what she thinks should have been done differently by one of the branches of government. The White House backed a “compromise” that gave Republicans much of what they wanted. They balked and demanded more–which they got. If she means that the Republicans were unusually resistant to compromise, she should just say that–and not blame it on “checks and balances.”
I responded to FAIR’s Action Item about David Gregory with the following e-mail on the Meet the Press website:
Mr. Gregory:
Several times this year, you have blamed Social Security and Medicare for the deficit. Social Security and Medicare have absolutely nothing to do with the deficit. The deficit is made up of the following four things:
– The Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% of the population.
– Two wars of choice which were originally not included in the Budget.
– Subsidies to the most profitable industries
– The giveaway of taxpayer money to the Wall Street banksters who crashed our economy in the first place.
Please stop misleading your viewers about the causes of the budget deficit.
Let’s be straight here. Corporate lackeys like Williams, Mitchell, David Gregory (the subject of the latest FAIR Action Alert) et al. know perfectly well what the reality is. Their mission, which they eagerly accept, is to obscure that reality from the public.
Put simply, they’re propagandists. Put more simply, they’re liars.
The “balance” line is a charade to appear “impartial”, while carrying water for the slicing and dicing of programs, however limited, that buffered us to some degree from the gale force winds of the perfectly pernicious storm known as the profit system.
That’s the true goal here, and it’s shared by the “leadership” of both parties, controlled by the doyens of that system. Dear Misleader was backed by Wall Street for this express purpose, as it couldn’t have been accomplished under a Republican administration, could it?
The corpress’ charge is to Newspeak with forked tongue, to cause folks to doubt their own common sense, or at least to conclude you can’t fight City Hall.
(Or more precisely, the Chamber of Commerce.)
They’re well compensated for their complicity, and I’d say they’ve earned their pay, wouldn’t you?
Paul Krugman wrote about this “balance” bias twice last week:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/26/the-cult-that-is-destroying-america/
And:
http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/52288810-82/centrist-obama-republicans-president.html.csp
In both instances, Krugman was attacked by the “media watchdogs” of the right-wing Media Research Center, who characterized his remarks as an attack on fairness in the press and even advocacy of censoring, from coverage, conservative views of the debt ceiling mess. Both utter mischaracterizations, or, to put it more bluntly, outright lies. To refute Krugman’s assertion about “balance” bias, the MRC boys drug out one of their phony “studies” that, as it turned out, didn’t refute Krugman, even if accepted on its own terms. I jotted out some comments on both attacks:
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/phony-balance-phony-study-phony-crisis.html
And:
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2011/07/more-on-phony-balance-phony-study-phony.html
Not my best work, but I haven’t been up to my best in a while.
Hmmm… put up a post, here, an hour or two ago, and it seems to have disappeared. Has it been deported to the spam filter?
While it remains unlikely that the Beltway crowd will ever have any notion of American reality, it does appear that among those outside the loop who care about the direction our country has taken there as a growing awareness that the immediate problem is not the corporate oligarchy but the news media. if a broad segment of the electorate can awaken from the hypnotic trance created by the dishonest commentators mentioned here and others, we may soon begin to see boycotts of certain news media outlets and their sponsors. FAIR would do well to list the major sponsors of these professional liars.
Actually, the main debtor of the United States is the private Federal Reserve Bank. With this knowledge, A sane person could imagine Nationalizing The Federal Reserve bank and forgiving the debt. Thus resolving the both the current debt problem and reducing the nation’s debt!
¢HE¢K$ to the $WELL$ and the “balance” of the BI££$ to the rest of US! THEIR TAXE$ are Too DEM Low!
Liberal arguments are falling on deaf ears as far as standard and P goes.We were just downgraded. Geitner should resign NOW.Only cut cap and balance would of avoided this.This government refused to even debate it.You have people above like Pszymeczeck who still believe that the wars ,or Bushes tax (non raises)were anymore than 5-6% of this mess.Whatever.Point is is that Obama and his keneysian ideas are fueling this.I told you 3 years ago not to spend the kids future(and ours) on a pot of magic beans with the Obama seal of approval slapped on its outside.You and nancy p pushed us aside ,and now after being in charge for all that time you have the gall…..the gall not to take full responsibility.We knew this economic model was a nightmare.You would not listen.S and P just told you what they think of the little agreement between the dems and the Rs.They (believe it or not)do not listen to Obama and his shpeel.They see that yesterday this government went in debt another 254billion dollars.That is 5x more that all the real cuts spread over 10years in this “agreement”.See my good libs.Thats the real world.That is the change that you now are gonna be forced to believe in.
Meanwhile, out the the real world, S&P didn’t put this downgrade on just one side…
“We have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government’s debt dynamics any time soon.”
Plus, part of the reason S&P did the downgrade was because they believe, due to Republicans in Congress, ending the Bush tax-cuts is now off the table…
“Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/08/05/sp-downgrades-u-s-debt-rating-press-release/
From Standard & Poor’s report: “We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, OR ON REACHING AN AGREEMENT ON RAISING REVENUES is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.”
S and p actually put a lot of blame for this mess on republicans.They pointed to republican intransigence.How strange.What they failed to point out was there was never a plan from our president.Just carping about republican plans.The republican plan was cut cap and balance.period.What we have now was the second republican plan(the compromise)with more Dem demands on top of that.End result….. a total wash.They(s and p) also were totally against almost every Dem proposal.There was not one fiscal proposal that was helpful to lowering the debt from that side.They are a one trick pony.Raise taxes. In a way that works on S and ps sheets.Tax every rich person at 100% and it looks great right?But what happens tomorrow?There is a reason why Obama kept the bush non tax raise structure in place beyond trying to make nice nice with the right.Because it works.Sometimes think the only thing Obama does well these day(though it is waning)is manipulate the press stories.
October 2010: S&P endorses the nation’s AAA rating with a stable outlook, saying the United States looks to be in solid fiscal shape for the foreseeable future.
November 2010: Republicans win a U.S. House majority, citing the need for fiscal responsibility.
December 2010: Congressional Republicans demand extension of Bush tax cuts, relying entirely on deficit financing.
March 2011: Congressional Republicans declare intention to hold full faith and credit of the United States hostage â┚¬” a move without precedent in American history â┚¬” until massive debt-reduction plan is approved.
July 2011: Obama offers Republicans a $4 trillion debt-reduction deal. GOP refuses, pushes debt-ceiling standoff until the last possible day, rattling international markets.
August 2011: S&P downgrades U.S. debt, citing GOP refusal to consider new revenues.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/a_timeline_of_events031362.php
B.s it sounds as if you are trying to say this nations fiscal problems are due to republicans in congress and the extension of the non tax raise by Bush.Thats not believable from any angle.It is like saying the ocean was caused by a cap full of water.The same would go with Obama extending those “cuts”(sic).It is a non factor.Republicans say it brought money in(and it did).Dems would say it took projected tax growth out of government hands(and in a sense it did)I would call it a wash falling slightly to the right.
Now for the big lie.Obama offers 4 trillion in cuts.He offered nothing. According to the CBO he offered nothing in legislative language that could be rated.I looked at his so called cuts.Smoke and mirrors.Double talk.How about his idea to move Social security two years to 67.Starting in 2036!!!!!His other savings were in promises not to expand his spending.Only in washington does that count as a cut.Military savings if we leave war zones…etc .Nothing rate-able is right. And nothing on paper.After three years not ONE CUT ONE PAPER.Say it B.s and be proud.Your damn right we don’t have new revenues.Get it straight.Get it through those thick bones in your heads.Raise taxes to 100% and you don’t have enough to do what is needed to save this country.Creation of new business and jobs is the only way.Not lying to the world about invisible cuts or borrowing and printing money with new IOUs.YOU CANT TAX YOUR WAY OUT OF THIS MESS.S and p has cited the intranscience in our political system as one(not the most important)reason for the downgrade.If that means that those rascally tea party types mean to put an end to spending that no taxation could ever hope to meet…fantastic!If that means putting up a stop sign on any new taxes whether it is 3 %on the rich, or incurred tax on the poor the answer is still no.First because raising taxes in these times is counterproductive to economic growth and second because the numbers are so low as to be very little help when weighed against the downside.No sir…your dredit card has been confiscated.Your bank account closed.Government growth stopped.I don’t blame only Obama.We have spent far beyond our means for years.
I almost wish the Rs would accept all tax raises for one year to see what comes of it.To show the Dems as was showed them with the failure of the stimulus.It does not work.But we do not have the time for games.You mocked the tea party as ineffectual buffoons.You wrote endless blogs on same.How ineffectual are they?Just regular people turning off the taps.You will get your card ,your bank accounts,and your taps turned back on when you show an ounce of responsibility.Till then see you at the polls.We mean to take this country back.
S&P made it clear that the most important reason for the downgrade was their view of the political landscape, not problems with the basic fiscal soundness of the American economy.
The biggest drivers of our current budget shortfalls…..extending the Bush tax cuts, lost revenue due to the collapse of the Republican economy in 2008, increased mandatory safety net spending due to the collapse of the Republican economy in 2008, increased defense spending and the ever increasing costs of health care.
Bush policies added $5.07 trillion to the debt, Obama policies have added $1.44 trillion.
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24editorial_graph2.html?ref=sunday
Obama offered Boehner a $4 trillion, 10 deficit reduction package…$3 trillion in cuts, $1 Trillion in taxes. It was rejected.
(AP) 7/9/11 – House Republican budget negotiators have abandoned plans to pursue a massive $4 trillion, 10-year deficit reduction package in the face of stiff GOP opposition to any plan that would increase taxes as part of the deal.
House Speaker John Boehner informed President Barack Obama Saturday that a smaller agreement of about $2 trillion was more realistic.
Nice work, B. S. Notice the implicit anti-democratic, authoritarian streak in the Bagger’s chief defender? More insane gibberish when S and P itself explicitly blames the lunatic Baggers and Republicons in Congress for their black-mailing of the good old USA.
B.s I want you to try to calm down and realize you just blamed Bush AGAIN for the state of the Obama economy.I suppose using your logic….The founding fathers “policies” are responsible for all the debt today.Lets not get into taking responsibility .You obviously wont.Bush handed Obama a bad economy and obama did everything he could think of including spending us into oblivion to make it worse.
Only a nut can blame the folks who demand an end to government deficit spending and a balancing of the budget and so on that are the main points of tea party platform.It is common sense.
What Obama offered Boehner was talk.Nothing more.Nothing on paper, nothing in legislative language. Nothing anyone(CBO), let alone Boehner could rate.In fact find me a rating by the CBO of any obama plan.He might as well of said 30 trillion for what it was worth.Then you could carp he promised 30 trillion in cuts.
Look the Dems had better start attacking the tea party.The term terrorists wont stick because they don’t call terrorists “terrorists”.If I were them I would go for the big lie.Call the downgrade…the tea party downgrade.They have to do something to paint simple common sense as madness.It is the only way to move on with tax n spend insanity.Ah well .you crumbs do your worst.We will do our best
By the way hate to agree with the prez but…..I think S and p did overshoot in downgrading us at this time.They say they downgraded because the size of the deal was too small.Actually according to the S and p standards we should of been downgraded years ago.
Here is the good news.Get rid of Obama and the market will respond.The economy will respond.S and P will respond.Moonies(who will soon downgrade us)will respond.
And by the way what did you want……That the tea party reps simply print two trillion more to give to this president sight unseen?
Tim have you heard the new term for libs?Fiscal pedifiles. Attacking our children, and their children’s children with debt.Is that as mindlessly moronic as “tea baggers”?And it is funny being call anti -democratic. and authoritarian by a bloody socialist!Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
During the Bush presidency, Republicans raised the debt ceiling, without strings or preconditions, seven times. The current GOP leadership in Washington has voted to raise the debt limit 19 times. In all 19 cases, it was a clean bill. Bush’s former budget director said this â┚¬Ã…“ought to be treated as the housekeeping matter it is.â┚¬Ã‚Â
To an extent, Bush-era fiscal irresponsibility is the result of reckless spending: two wars, health care expansion, and a new education law without even trying to pay for any of it, but the debt spiraled because of tax cuts, the GOP didn’t try to pay for those either.
About that “spending us into oblivion:”
On June 30th, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) released a statement and accompanying Fact Sheet, showing that since 2001, a year in which the U.S. government had a surplus of $128 billion, THE INCREASE in non-security domestic spending, when adjusted for inflation and population growth, HAS BEEN ZERO.
â┚¬Ã…“The focus of our deficit talks should not be on domestic discretionary spending, but
on the real reason why we are not running a surplus: historically low revenues, soaring
mandatory spending, and the cost of war.â┚¬Ã‚Â
The three main drivers of the entire projected deficit over the next ten years are, in order, Bush’s tax cuts and their extension. the economic downturn, and the continuation of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The deficit for fiscal year 2009 â┚¬” which began more than three months before President Obama’s inauguration â┚¬” was $1.4 trillion and, at 10 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the largest deficit relative to the economy since the end of World War II. At $1.3 trillion and nearly 9 percent of GDP, the deficit in 2010 was lower. 2011 deficits will likely resemble the figures from 2010.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3490
The economy Bush handed Obama was actually much worse than previously believed.
Originally, the Commerce Department reported that the economy had contracted by 0.5% in the third quarter of 2008 and 3.8% in the fourth quarter.
Their revised numbers: Output in the third and fourth quarters of 2008 fell by 3.7% and 8.9%, respectively. Great Depression territory.
http://www.frumforum.com/could-it-be-that-our-enemies-were-right
“I suppose using your logicâ┚¬Ã‚¦.The founding fathers “policies” are responsible for all the debt today.”
I wouldn’t apply that “logic” for a simple reason, the country didn’t start consistently creating and adding to the debt until 1969. Even after the oil shocks of the 70’s, our entire debt was less than $1 trillion when Reagan was sworn in. 12 years worth of trickle-down later it was $4.2 trillion.
On 1/21/2001 the debt was $5.1 trillion,. 10 years and a few months later the Bush decade has added over $9 trillion. Somewhere between 80-85% was caused by Republican policies.
Let’s not get into taking responsibility. You obviously won’t.
Lets not get into taking responsibility .You obviously wont.
Bs…It is hard to comprehend you because you are holding up little drips in an ocean.Let me be clear.You can tax all our rich at 100% and it effects nothing.Our defense budget is less than 4% of our GNp so that is not and never was the cause..In the past it was as high as 10%.Before we move forward we have to get past this idea that if only Bush would of taxed more all would be well.If only Obama did.As it stands 48% are paying no fed income tax.I suppose if they all payed more…..Look the president will be on at one.I hope he tells the truth.A good economy will cure all.Lets release the business and corporate entities and re create wealth.He will ask for more taxes -period.Last summers re runs.He is as lost as Geitner who has been wrong about everything.
He taught law 12 years.Where is even one student who talks about his classes.?Do we even know if they were inspirational ?Where is his review in harvard law on his published work?There are none.My point is you B.s are supporting this spender n chief who is so far over his head.You rightly knock Bush as if it matters now.They all spent.To say obama is not the worse of the lot or at least horrible in his own right is simply a lie.And now it has all come to an end.What do you think …the rich are sitting on money that could save us all?Stop stop stop spreading that lie to people who do not know any better.That is the seed of your class warfare.We had a chance with cut cap and spend.When that was refused even a debate we were cooked.Obamas economic plan as you recall barely got a vote even from the Dems back a ways.Now you say it is not the spending it is the lack of taxation.Here is how it works.Im going to describe how we tea party types have to deal with this man.
Obama offers a candy bar for 1 million dollars.We say it is worth $1.50.
He says ten thousand.We say $1.75
He says I came down massively and you barely budged.
Press says tea party is intransient.This is the insanity of dealing with these people.
Obama spends more than every president from Washington to Reagan and beyond and to you he is doing a stellar job.To you if only he could be free to tax and spend as he pleases we would all be fine.What gives you this belief?What success can you point to in his life that leads you to believe this?I have seen his area of Chicago where he spent so much time and other peoples money.Can you say wasteland?what good has he done since becoming president?If your only answer is it is bushes fault i would say this.Bush is gone.Obama should be soon.Especially if that is his only defense of the worst presidency ever.
correction…cut cap and balance
Over the last 10 years, Bush policies have added $7 trillion plus to the national debt. That’s not “little drips in an ocean.”
Our defense and security spending has nearly doubled over the last decade. It accounts from between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion of this years budget. Its current relative size to GDP relative to where it was during the height of the cold war is meaningless.
The spending in Obama’s FY 2011 budget is somewhere around $400 billion more than Bush’s FY 2009 budget. That’s it. The rest of the shortfall is in missing tax revenues. If a balanced budget matters, than both spending cuts and revenue increases have to be in the equation. The fact that Republicans won’t budge on taxes was a major factor in the S&P downgrade.
First even Obamas top guy says under Bush we went up 4 trillion.You numbers are goofy.And they dont take into account the Dem blame for raising those numbers under Bush.Do you honestly believe they had no place in that?Remember wherever there has been spending there is a dem.Its like smoke and fire.Or follow the money trail.But I am not one to stick up for Bush.He spent and spent too.He was no conservative by any means.The good news is the Congress now in pace is halting the practice.Any republican elected as president will do more of the same.Your counting the money we would of gained if Bush raised taxes is nonsense as well.What would we of lost?That would never occur to a lib.Were there any good results of the non raises?According to you no.Why did Obama keep it?No we are not falling for it.This problem is not a fiduciary problem.It is spending.We will not agree to tax hikes in this climate.Period.Be serious for a moment.Look at Obamas/Bidons promises before the massive stym.All the jobs they would create.All the shovel ready jobs ready to roll.The massive economic revival.Wrong about everything.They padded union coffers is all.That is what raising taxes is to this lot.A way to throw more down a rat hole.They are addicted.B.s lets agree on one thing…..This government does not warrant your trust.The last also did not.The next i hope will.By doing a few things.CUT CAP AND BALANCE .Stop borrowing.Stop printing money(Obamas people will be asking for more of that this week.).Lower corporate taxes.Lower taxes period. Absolutely close the loopholes and make the tax structure fair and simplified(Im sick of Obamas cabinet members claiming they don’t understand it as they don’t pay THEIR fair share.).A flat tax would be great.And how about BAM saying certain rich folks dont pay enough.WHo?How much more should the rich pay of the total?Does he not see what the top 10% now carries on their backs?How about this…..I believe all Dem politicians should pay 98%.Lead the way- Im right behind ya.And Hollywood noodnicks like Matt Damin 99%.Lead on Macduff.
The debt when Bush was sworn in was $5.1 trillion, when he left it was $10.6 trillion…that’s already $5.6 trillion…the additional, probably underestimated, $1.4 trillion is because of the continuation of the tax cuts, and the collapse of the economy.
Both tax rates and tax receipts are at 50 year lows…where is the explosive supply side growth?
Spending, much of it mandatory, has gone up since the crash, tax receipts have gone down.. It is simply not just a spending problem, as every Republican elected official would have you believe. They’re lying.
*******************
Washington Times 4/17/2011:
In an April interview with the Daily Beast, David Stockman, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan, said Republicans are foolish to ignore and to add to the gaping hole in revenues.
â┚¬Ã…“You are totally out to lunch, thinking you can address a $1.6 trillion deficit, and spending 43 cents on every dollar for borrowing, without tax increases,â┚¬Ã‚ he said.
The proposed House Republican budget would add to the problem by cutting taxes another $4.2 trillion over the next 10 years, â┚¬Ã…“burying us that much deeper because of this Republican catechism about tax cuts, anytime, anywhere, for any reason,â┚¬Ã‚ he said.
Bs….I can throw facts around all day showing if we simply reined in spending to 2008 levels all would be fine(as far as balancing the budget).You would try to tie the disaster of Obama’s time in office to Bush not raising taxes.You ignore the surge in the economy that came from those moves.You also ignore that every move Obama has made has been disastrous.His keneysian model is garbage. So Let me ask you two questions.You want to raise taxes .You have made that clear.That presupposes that you can trust this government with the revenue they have, let alone more revenue taken out of the private sector.This leads to a great leap of faith that they will wisely and better use money than those who earned it.Do you actually believe that is my first question(yes or no).My second is what is the top rate that you feel would help this country recover, when balanced against the simple fact that taxing those who are the economy’s producers is money taken out of the only community that creates real revenue?Where would you place the top tax bracket?
I do wonder if you actually believe only the super rich will be hit?You must understand any tax raise will flow into the middle class by any one of a number of mechanisms.And of course we still have 48% paying nothing.Read Wall st journal today where they discuss the downgrade ,and the state of the economy.Im sure you will hate their facts and assumptions.
And as far as that daily beast article I laughed my ass off.They forgot to mention a wee little fact.They (Obamas people)are printing money and borrowing it as fast as they can while yelling over their shoulders “those damn republicans had better agree to raise taxes to pay for this”.The president wants money now for cuts spread over ten years.Well Here is the deal.Cut now….. and we will pay for it over the next ten years.It is the same thing we said all along.We will loan you a dollar for every dollar you cut. Honestly i do feel for you.It must be frustrating to have a group of people in washington who cant be bought off by you who have truly turned off the tap on your spending.Your attacks in the press and the massive wheels of the Democratic machine being used in nuclear attacks against the Tea party are water off a ducks back.Your squeals do not upset us one bit.It is always so when people come off an addiction.
See bs you are a contrarian.You need the countries economic wealth to support your beliefs.But you hate the economies wealthy.At some point you must make your peace with that.
Tim hates capitalism.Yet accepts it as the host to socialism.I hated Bush.He was no conservative.He was a war time president who cut every deal he could with the left with his right hand ,while fighting his wars with his right.It is painfully obvious that all of Obama’s academia inspired economic models have crashed.His economic team (except for Gietner) have all fled.Is it not time?Has he not done enough harm?When is enough enough?I think Romney will be your next president.He is not my first choice.But he will i believe, turn things around.You will see an economy instantly respond.Business will breath a sigh of relief that this man is gone, i promise you that.But till then we in the tea party are not willing to buy into his ideas .Imagine telling those who pay the lions share that they are not doing their fair share while near 50% pay nothing.Insanity.How did he say it…”he means to remake this country”Well so far- not so good.Private citizen Obama has a nice ring to it if only we can hold on long enough.
Have to throw something out to all you libs.
The other night when the market crashed FOX exploded skyward in its listenership, and the lib networks all got slaughtered.Totally pancaked out.O’reilly’s Figures were some of his highest ever.What does that say?People are going there for the truth and avoiding like the plague the lib spin.
“if we simply reined in spending to 2008 levels all would be fine(as far as balancing the budget)”
In FY 2008 there was a budget shortfall of over $400 billion.
“You would try to tie the disaster of Obama’s time in office to Bush not raising taxes.”
No, I wouldn’t. The disaster Obama inherited was caused by the collapse of the Republican economy. My point about raising taxes has been in the discussion of why S&P did the downgrade and their role in bringing the budget back into balance. (To be clear, I don’t believe Bush’s unbalanced budgets caused the collapse.)
“You also ignore that every move Obama has made has been disastrous.His keneysian model is garbage. ”
GDP – Bush’s last quarter – 4Q 2008: – 8.9%
GDP – Obama’s last quarter – 2Q 2011: + 1.4%
Jobs – Bush’s last month – Jan 2009: – 740,000
Jobs – Obama’s last month – Jul 2011: +117,000
You obviously didn’t read the Daily Beast Stockman interview, because David clearly complained “The fools inside the Beltway are borrowing $100 billion month in and month out, and there’s nobody left in the world buying except the central banksâ┚¬”Âthe Fed and the people’s printing press of China. ”
Stockman was being quoted in a Washington Times article which also included this: â┚¬Ã…“The upcoming fiscal challenges simply cannot be solved by spending cuts alone,â┚¬Ã‚ said Harm Bandholz, an economist with Unicredit Markets who is mystified by the stubborn resistance to raising taxes in Congress given historically low revenue levels and the inexorable growth in retirement spending in coming years.
The â┚¬Ã…“categorical rejection of higher federal revenuesâ┚¬Ã‚ by many lawmakers could doom chances for a breakthrough agreement on reducing today’s oppressively high deficits, he said.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/17/60-year-low-tax-revenues-contribute-deficit-growth/
The Prime Time Fauxnews audience on Monday Aug. 8th was 15% higher than it was on Thursday Aug. 4th. [An average increase of 373,000] That’s up a bit, not “exploded skyward.”
CNN by comparison saw a drop of a bit over 8%, while MSNBC saw a drop of 3.3% [31,000] That’s not “Totally pancaked out.”
What does that say? People are going to Faux for the spin.
Not the figures I saw.Not at all.Point is your arguing the numbers not the reality.Fox was up.People were panicked.They were not looking for spin.They were looking for understanding.
Look your president cannot run on this mantra…”ALL WOULD BE WELL IF ONLY REPUBLICANS LET ME RAISE TAXES”.Word to the wise….It is a loosing idea.Look you cant ever prove that high taxes and high spending are going to work.England and Europe are burning for a simple reason.People who live in an entitlement system freak when things are taken away .They are used to living on other folks money.We are not there yet.Europe is running back from the cliff yelling to us to stop as we run that way.You are going to have to stop arguing as if you want to just tweak the system.You want much more than that.Come on stop now with the semantics.The half measure to slowly sway the sheeple. What do you want.What form of government.Spit it out.You obviously cant con me.But here is your stage.How would you have it B.s D’Tecktor
Fair appears to have eater my comment….hopefully not a duplicate
Monday 8/8/11
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,556 636 1,230
CNN 675 227 319
MSNBC 883 227 405
HLN 524 101 214
Thursday 8/4/11
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,183 519 1,046
CNN 622 207 287
MSNBC 854 229 399
HLN 686 178 298
The Prime Time Fauxnews audience on Monday Aug. 8th was 15% higher than it was on Thursday Aug. 4th. [An average increase of 373,000] That’s up a bit, not “exploded skyward.”
CNN by comparison saw a drop of a bit over 8%, while MSNBC saw a drop of 3.3% [31,000] That’s not “Totally pancaked out.”
What does that say? People are going to Faux for the spin. More people watched the BillO and Hannity opinion shows than watched the 6pm or 7pm news.
And here’s where we were on Wednesday 8/10/11
Primetime P2+ (000s) 25-54 (000s) 35-64 (000s)
FNC 2,566 670 1,239
CNN 547 208 274
MSNBC 911 254 445
HLN 657 157 296
So, since Monday Faux held up, CNN lost more ground and MSNBC was higher than it was last Thursday.
apologies for the lousy formatting…..FAIR needs a preview function on their comments…