Fretting Obama’s Moved Too Far to Right, Tea Party Like Reckless Teenagers, Journalists ‘Scared of Being Labeled Liberal’
Three noteworthy spins, charges and/or claims made on the Sunday morning interview shows.
> ABC’s This Week, with “ALL CUTS, NO TAXES?” on screen: George Stephanopoulos hit White House senior adviser David Plouffe from the left on how “this enforcement mechanism would not include revenue increases, would be just across the board spending cuts.” He fretted the deal “all but guarantee that the final product is all spending cuts and not the balanced approach the President wants.” Christiane Amanpour despaired President Obama “has moved all of the way to the language and the ideals that the Republicans espouse.”
> CBS’s Face the Nation: Bob Schieffer insisted “some people say that the Republican Party has been held hostage by the Tea Party” and he discerned “some truth” in an allegation he saw on Facebook that allowing House freshmen “‘to control this debate’” is “‘like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget.’”
> CNN’s Reliable Sources: Host Howard Kurtz wondered why the media have failed to portray “this as a crisis largely created by one party” – the Republicans -- and “instead has developed this narrative that the two sides are just, you know, a bunch of clowns?” Chrystia Freeland, digital editor for Thomson Reuters, blamed/credited conservatives. Despite much evidence to the contrary, she maintained “mainstream journalism is averse to making judgments,” then asserted:
Mainstream journalists are particularly scared of being labeled as liberal. We all want to be sort of seen as objective. And I think sometimes there's a little bit of bending over backwards to be seen as objective by the right because that’s where a lot of the criticism comes from.
Kurtz agreed: “I think you’ve hit on an excellent point.”
>> Liberal media misdeeds won't fix themselves. Help NewsBusters continue to expose & combat liberal media bias. Donate now and your valued contribution will be doubled! <<
More about these three items:
From ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos, returning to the show Amanpour took over a year ago, lectured Plouffe:
Let m me press you on the details here because the details of this enforcement mechanism are all important. This is what the whole negotiation is coming down to, right now. The President has said time and time again, he wants a balanced approach that includes tax reform, revenue increases. Everyone I’ve talked to on Capitol Hill says this enforcement mechanism would not include revenue increases, would be just across the board spending cuts: Domestic spending, Medicare, perhaps and defense and would not include revenues. So if the enforcement mechanism doesn't include revenues, what incentive would Republicans have to consider revenue increases and wouldn't it all but guarantee that the final product is all spending cuts and not the balanced approach the President wants?
Stephanopoulos followed up:
Let me press this. Can the President accept an enforcement mechanism that is spending cuts only, automatic spending cuts only, that does not include revenues?
Amanpour soon joined in to relay far-left upset with Obama:
Frustrated members of your own party, they are saying, look, why doesn't the President who has his principles stand up for them, rather than spending so much time wanting to be bi-partisan, a conciliator. I mean, they’re saying the Republicans are driving a harder bargain. And as George has just described, the President has moved all of the way to the language and the ideals that the Republicans espouse. Yes, because he wanted a clean bill, then a bill with cuts on spending and now as George is talking about, it's all cuts for the moment.
Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:
Some people say that the Republican Party has been held hostage by the Tea Party. One of our Facebook followers sent in an interesting analogy and said, "why are Republicans allowing freshmen Congressmen to control this debate?" and this person said, "it's like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget." I mean, there's some truth in that.
From the July 31 Reliable Sources:
HOWARD KURTZ: But if you buy the Paul Krugman analysis, do you also agree with his point that this whole mess -- I can't think of a better word -- this whole mess has been portrayed as a bunch of immature, squabbling, narrow-minded politicians who just can't get in the room and agree when the alternative analysis, and certainly one that Krugman embraces, is that it's the Republicans and particularly the Tea Party faction that has been intransigent, that has said no to trillions in spending cuts and the Democrats and Obama have moved quite a ways toward the GOP position?
CHRYSTIA FREELAND, THOMSON REUTERS: I think that that conclusion, that actually the terms of the debate have been shifted far to the right is objectively the case. And what's interesting to me is, and you referred to this earlier – we already saw that on the front page of the New York Times today, and this was alluded to in your panel, people are now saying, well okay, in the post mortem phase, we're going to talk about how Obama shifted pretty far to the right. That's a little bit too late. The decisions will already have been taken.
KURTZ: But just briefly, why has mainstream journalism not portrayed this as a crisis largely created by one party, and instead has developed this narrative that the two sides are just, you know, a bunch of clowns?
FREELAND: Because I think mainstream journalism is averse to making judgments. And I also think that mainstream journalists are particularly scared of being labeled as liberal. We all want to be sort of seen as objective. And I think sometimes there's a little bit of bending over backwards to be seen as objective by the right because that’s where a lot of the criticism comes from.
KURTZ: I think you’ve hit on an excellent point, which is why we have you on.
- Brent Baker's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Who's in charge of the Family Budget
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:40pm.
Well, assuming the analogy of letting the teenagers handle the family budget, I would rather that be the case, as opposed to allowing "Uncle Sam" the drunken sailor, do the same.
Letting the teenager run the budget
Submitted by Dave81 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:52pm.
Well SOMEBODY has got to! I mean, congress hasn't passed a budget in over 2 years. Sounds like someone needs to take the checkbook and credit cards away from the "parents".
To quote P J O'Rourke
Submitted by billyjack on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 8:50am.
The facts are that the current program is as follows:
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
You can't get any more balanced than that!
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:40pm.
"all but guarantee that the final product is all spending cuts and not the balanced approach the President wants."
Hay, idiots, the idea is to lower spending until it matches collected revenue, and not "projected" revenues. You can only spend what you have on hand, and that's it! You can't get any more balanced than that! The president's plan is to keep the spending imbalances intact! He wasn't to increase bowstring so he can keep spending more that we can possibly collect in any given year. His "approach" no more "balanced" than a one-legged chair sitting on top of a beach ball.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Stunning, simply stunning.
Submitted by ArrowSmith on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:43pm.
The level of myopia and hatred exhibited by the MSM is off the charts. I've never seen it so bad as now.
ArrowSmith; and the Elephants have a long memory!
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:19pm.
They should be afraid, very afraid. I would never hire a "progressive" again and have good incentive to find out. So sorry, out of business for them. Oh is that unfair? Too bad you traitors to the Republic! Find a new home that you can corrupt or is already "perfect" in your own socialist way! Cuba has nice weather. Go for it!
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
At least they finally ...
Submitted by Fredy on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:50pm.
Had a show, or two, that managed to NOT use sexual pajoritives when describing the Tea Party!
MSM navel gazing at its finest
Submitted by ironchefofmunchies on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 3:57pm.
You can bet the media is going to sit down and try and figure out HOW they were unable to better steer public opinion in the direction it was supposed to go.
OBJECTIVITY will have nothing to do with it. It will be "what more can we do next time to get people to think the way we want?"
They really don't know how far to the left they even are. The bubble-it's not just for Presidents anymore MSM!!
That's going too far
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:10pm.
"allowing House freshmen “‘to control this debate’” is “‘like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget."
Everyone knows children should limited to running the health care system and deciding our climate policy.
In my experience teenagers do
Submitted by Reaver on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:25pm.
In my experience teenagers do not want to limit their spending and promise to stop borrowing other people’s money. Just unbelievable, I would describe Obama as a teenager who stole the families’ credit cards and the keys to the family car and went on a joy ride and spending spree. Now when the bill comes in the mail he says “I didn’t do nuthin’”
On a side note I do like the idea of doing a single roundup of all the Sunday talk shows, sort of like the weekly DailyKOS review.
Spot on
Submitted by Galvanic on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:16pm.
Bob Schieffer, on Face the Nation, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "Some people say that the Republican Party has been held hostage by the Tea Party. One of our Facebook followers . . .
" Some people" and a Facebook follower. That's cool, Bob. Great journalistic sources.
Bob Schieffer: " . . . sent in an interesting analogy and said, "why are Republicans allowing freshmen Congressmen to control this debate?" and this person said, "it's like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget." I mean, there's some truth in that."
Really, Old Man? The Republican freshman Congressmen are doing exactly what their constituents sed them to Washington to do.
What Jurassic Schieffer is too blind to see is that Obama has indeed brought some change to the way Washington does business, but ot in the way he intended. We're seeing a hugely significant impact from a numerically lesser political bloc -- the Tea Partiers -- in reaction to his wasteful spending and expansion of Big Government.
The days of the Beltway 'adults' running up insurmountable debt on the family unchecked may be waning, as the responsible "teenagers" are beginning to force budget discipline.
The lame MSM shows itself to
Submitted by DWoSD on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:10pm.
The lame MSM shows itself to be what is at every turn. Nothing more than the propaganda arm of the DNC and that socialist in the white house, Dumbass Obozo. Recognize the enemy and never stop fighting them for they are stealthy, insidious and particularly dangerous.
BTW, where are all the editorials and coverage of the lame ass war protestors. That's all we ever heard when Bush was in office but not a peep with their petulant emperor in charge. Are there any protestors or do they only come out when a republlican is in charge. That is a story un to itself... The hypocrisy of the shallow lefts protest being based on who conducts the war and not on their principal of peace no matter what.
NEVER COMPROMISE WITH COMMUNIST
Don't forget the poor !
Submitted by AGreer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:02pm.
Not much mention of the homeless poor with this administration. Except when they want to "grant" them more money.
What's up with the Bozo reference ? Boz is BELOVED by many folks of my generation. He, Cookie, and Whizzo were hilarious ! They were like watching Bugs Bunny cartoons, fun for the kids and funnier for the adults who understood the "under tones" of their comedy.
Not to harp on you, personally, DW. Boz get's a bad rap on most sites. Obummer WISHES he could as popular and cool as Boz. Bob Bell and Joey D'Auria were hugely more patriotic than Obummer.
Just saying...Have a good one DW !
liberal media
Submitted by kinijane on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:18pm.
When hasn't the media been biased? If anyone listened to the news the last 30 yrs, the media is only one way in their
thinking. There are very few that can claim the title of "true journalist" or "reporters." I sometimes wonder what planet they
think they are living on and just how stupid they think the American public is. Tea Party folks are extremist, stupid, not to mention the sexual phrases they throw in there. Last time I looked I am a average white older female, never been in jail or any of those other things the news media likes to label me as, and even though I live in rural America, I know that 2+2=4. When they throw those
labels out there it makes me wonder what kind of people they really are. LISTEN UP MEDIA...all the tea party folks want is for the
government to govern for the people...all the people, not just the union members, illegal's and people on the government dole that don't need to be there and especially not to take care of themselves at the expense of the rest of us. It must be nice to vote yourself a lot of nice perks and raises that no one else gets, then try to scare the hell out of grandma. Time to cut the spending.
Well, I for one ...
Submitted by KC Mulville on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:31pm.
I am so glad that the media has finally exposed the right-wing bias of the media, and how the conservatives have intimidated the media to the point that they bend over backwards to accommodate us conservatives. If only the media would report the left-wing point of view!
This is what they tell themselves, I guess, when last call comes around.
Reckless teenagers is a perfect description...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:48pm.
Those who have referred to the Tea Partiers or GOP House freshmen as "terrrorists" should apologize. They are not by any stretch of any metaphor. But their behavior in the debt ceiling crisis has been stunningly irresponsible. There have been 78 debt limit hikes since 1960--49 granted to GOP presidents, and, to my knowledge, not one of which had any strings attached.
We have elections to put representatives in office to enact laws and set policy. The next one is a little over a year away. The case can be taken directly to the American people who are quite capable of replacing the current President and the Senate majority with Republicans. For a small faction of too-big-for-their-britches political adolescents to hold our nation, the administration, and the economy hostage in order to get their way--sneering at any reasonable compromise--is a dark and dangerous episode with disastrous implications for the future.
Jer
78 debt limit hikes
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:18pm.
Were 78 debt limit hikes to many.
The fact that something was done in the past is not an argument for it to be dine again, unless you can prove it was a good thing to do in the past.
We'll still here right?
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:28pm.
Proving a negative is a hard thing..but we are still here and I need to go shopping
We're still here
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:57pm.
with a huge debt crisis. We don't even have a plan to get us out of the debt we're in now, why would we want to add to that.
It's not just the straw that broke the camels back that's a problem. It's all the straws that were loaded carelessly upon the camels back before that.
If you think it is a good idea for the US to default
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:47pm.
on its PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATIONS, then you shouldn't support raising the debt ceiling. Personally, I don't think a failure to pay bills that are already due is very wise.
Jer
We don't have to default
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:52pm.
without a new debt ceiling. We can still pay our debts. We have to reevaluate what we will pay for though. Foreign aide, huge budgets for government agencies like the EPA and department of education, etc.
etc
Submitted by buttercup815 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:02pm.
Does that etc include the military budget? Wars are expensive things.
buttercup
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:58pm.
Obama should know, he hasn't ended any and involved us in a brand new one! Bully for Obama.
Rad...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:11pm.
Info on debt ceiling and default.
Jer
More info
Submitted by Model850 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:52pm.
From your link:
It would cause the government to default on its legal obligations – an unprecedented event in American history.
Another viewpoint on that assertion:
As Carmen Reinhart documented in her impressive chartbook of the last several hundred years of international financial crises, the United States has actually defaulted on its debt obligations before.
The first time was in 1790, the only episode Professor Reinhart unearthed in which the United States defaulted on its external debt obligations. It also defaulted on its domestic debt obligations then, too.
No beef with your link. Just pointing out that maybe there's a little "fudging" in the Treasury Department document?
Model...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:57pm.
Well I guess Mr. Geithner [or whoever authored the statement] stands corrected. He should have said it would be the second time the US has defaulted on external debt obligations. The first was when the nation was one year old.
Jer
Total of 5 defaults by US
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:10pm.
Total of 5 defaults by US government already and Obama and the Democrats have been working feverishly on number 6 since the 2006 elections.
There has been more than one default on external debt already (not counting the potential current one in progress) if the data in this link is factual.
Nice one, Jer
Submitted by Model850 on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 3:33pm.
I know you're a lawyer so I applaud your skill at parsing arguments to spin them in the best possible light for your clients. The "client" this time being the Treasury Dept. document you linked.
The astute reader of course will notice that the document does not say "external debt obligations," but rather simply "legal obligations." By adding the word "external" you re-framed the issue. To quote from the film Absence of Malice: "It's accurate, but not true."
; ^ D
Jer
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:16pm.
From my take on your link is that we could pay all of our debt obligations, but there are other bills that wouldn't be paid. Geithner equates this to default. I disagree. If we stop funding payroll to Congress, federal agencies such as the EPA, department of education, a few others, and withhold foreign aide until we straighten out our fiscal situation, it wouldn't be a default. In fact, the world might see it as a serious attempt to right ourselves and increase confidence in the U.S.
All these debt ceiling increases have not come with spending cuts. They've come with promises to decrease future increases of spending. So we end up needing to increase the debt ceiling again. It's just not working.
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:45pm.
Jer you have the right to your opinion but your wrong.The Debt problem isn't the first as you point out.Yet Obama and his party passed the Stimulus and Obama care.That is reckless.There was no compromise with them yet the Republicans are suppose to.Just a note:If they want revenue brought in then clean up all these econut regs and let's use our own energy resources.It creates jobs and keeps are money here.No the Dems can't understand that.Their solution to increasing revenues is taxes.
Funniest thing I read in awhile.
"Mainstream journalists are particularly scared of being labeled as liberal. We all want to be sort of seen as objective. And I think sometimes there's a little bit of bending over backwards to be seen as objective by the right because that’s where a lot of the criticism comes from."
Who needs Jon Steward when you have these guys.
well99...let me 'splain it to you....
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:21pm.
Obama is toast [unless the GOP runs a complete nincompoop against him]. His base is furious with him for what they perceive as an alarming series of capitulations to the "right"--abandoning the public option in health care, loading up the stimulus with tax credits and cuts, not pursuing cap & trade, cozying up to Wall Street and the banking industry, too hawkish on Afghanistan, renewing the Patriot Act, not fighting hard enough to ensure expiration of Bush tax rates, and now he's had his head handed to him by a bunch of irresponsible kids in Congress, embracing significant spending cuts while completely or mostly eschewing revenue.
The Democratic senate majority will likely go down with him. All I can say is that the GOP had better pray they wind up with a filibuster proof Senate, because their unprecedented obstructionism throughout the past three years and their staggering intransigence and political blackmail during the debt ceiling crisis has, regrettably, virtually guaranteed another generation of gridlock. Congressmen come and go, but the collective memory of a political party is long and the opportunity for revenge is rarely passed up.
Jer
Hmmm....does Pelosi and "rules" ring a bell?
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:40pm.
The Democrat Senate has not passed a budget in two and a half years.
The Elephant shall remember.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Evidently, Blonde...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:00pm.
it sent the Elephant on a rampage.
Jer
the elephant shall remember
Submitted by botg on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:20pm.
let's hope it remembers the disaster of having an expanding goverment, excessively spending POTUS like W.
Let's hope it remembers the basics of conservatism.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Yes, I think the elephant learned some lessons, U2
Submitted by Blonde on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:44pm.
There is no utility in Dem Lite.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:57pm.
Wow!You have won the Give Me A Break Award.The dems didn't do this with Bush?Jer well we just as well end this discussion.I don't need the msm talking points.You can go ahead and parrot the government media as they put out Obama and Reids message.Sorry but I actually pay attention to the news and use that new fangled think called the internet to check out the facts.
"The Democratic senate majority will likely go down with him. All I can say is that the GOP had better pray they wind up with a filibuster proof Senate, because their unprecedented obstructionism throughout the past three years and their staggering intransigence and political blackmail during the debt ceiling crisis has, regrettably, virtually guaranteed another generation of gridlock. Congressmen come and go, but the collective memory of a political party is long and the opportunity for revenge is rarely passed up."
That is so funny.Got to love those double standards.
well99...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:11pm.
While you constantly regurgitate Limbaugh and Breitbart, I don't parrot anybody. I do my own research and state my own opinions.. Sometimes they correspond with what the MSM reports, sometimes they don't. By the way, I never said the Dems didn't do it with Bush. I said the GOP obstructionism during the current administration has been carried on at unprecedented levels. It has.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:18pm.
That is a lie.I don't listen to Rush and vary rarely use Breit.Just a note:You never said they did and funny how it is at unprecedented levels when Repubs do it but hardly noticeable when Dems do it.Two standards.
OK...well99
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:05pm.
I won't accuse you of parroting Rush and Breit if you won't accuse me of parroting MSNBC and the MSM? Deal?
Jer
Jer
Submitted by well99 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:15pm.
You can accuse me of anything you want.I don't care.It don't make em facts.Say hi to Ed.
I would, well99
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:00am.
but the only time I see Ed is when NB has a clip of him.
Jer
Jer, If Obama is toast, it
Submitted by fitzfong on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:20pm.
Jer,
If Obama is toast, it is certainly not because he failed at being able to shove arbitrary, irresponsible, job-killing policies like cap & trade down our throats at a time when job creation and expansion of the tax base was most crucial. It's because this administration is loaded with academic-class, ivory tower bureaucrats without the first clue or interest in what it takes to start and operate a business in the private sector. And those that do have quasi-private sector experience are the crony "capitalist"-types whose means of advancing their corporate objectives amounts to using the government as a protection racket to wipe out their market competitors. The combination of ignorance and arrogance he displays in bragging about bankrupting coal companies and making energy prices "necessarily" skyrocket exhibits either a frightening economic illiteracy or an intolerable ill-will. His minions talking about putting a boot on anyone's neck suggests the latter. Furthermore, the "bunch of irresponsible kids" you refer to happen to be the ONLY responsible adults in this debate. You simply cannot expect to satisfy debt by taking on more debt forever...eventually there is no more debt to be gotten and you have to start actually paying down that which you've taken on. And, Jer, please. "Revenues"? That sort of euphemism is disingenuous at best...you're better than that.
And as far as your assertion that the "obstructionism", "intransigence" and "political blackmail" by Republicans has been "unprecedented"...PUH-LEEZE! With Chuckie Schumer playing human roadblock over federal judicial nominees and FDR threatening to pack the Supreme Court, I'll take no such lecture.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Yes, fitz...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:00pm.
it's tragic indeed that this administration wasn't populated by more Friedman monetarists like Hank Paulson--well, Ben Bernake does remain Chairman of the Fed--both of whom served during the administration of a small government business friendly president. Strange how those anti-Keynesians, including Bush, led the charge in pumping hundreds of millions out of the national treasury to prop up failing financial behemoths.
Larry Summers and Tim Geithner weren't wild-eyed socialists. Even Noel remarked on the wisdom of their appointments at the beginning of the Obama presidency. Jump-starting a stagnant economy--frankly, one teetering on the brink of catastrophic collapse--via the rapid infusion of public funds was hardly some arcane, crackpot economic theory. Its impact is difficult to calculate, and there is no doubt the effect on unemployment has been an enduring disappointment, but, listening to the frenzied wailing from the right, one would think Marx himself came out of his grave to author the stimulus package.
What is so frightening about "revenues"? I think it abundantly clear that the Obama administration has accepted the propositiont the level of debt is too great and its current trajectory is unsustainable. He is committed to deficit reduction and the necessity of spending cuts--and the primacy of cuts over taxes. But revenues can also be utilized to pay down debt. Our economic health is currently crippled by a series of problems lined up like dominoes and employment is the key to toppling all of them. If low taxes were the answer, it would seem that the compromise which continued the Bush era rates would have been a shot of adrenalin to the business community and the precursor to a hiring boom. Instead, the jobless numbers as well as the GNP rate of growth have only become worse.
In any event, I'm sticking to my guns. Barring a miracle, Obama is a one-term president and the GOP will retake the Senate. Still,, I've been a pretty close observer of the political scene for a long time--over fifty years--and that debt ceiling stunt engineered by the House Republicans over the past few weeks is the sorriest political spectacle I've ever witnessed.
[And, by the way, at least the Democrats gave the Republican nominees hearings, which is more than the GOP-led judiciary committee would do for a number of Clinton appointments Finally, FDR and court packing? You're not only reaching back nearly eighty years, but, more important, he didn't get away with it!]
Jer
What ?? Are you kidding?
Submitted by stunned on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:10am.
The judicial appointment game began with the Bork hearings and Borking became a new word to describe demonizing judicial appointees. Bork, Thomas, Scalia and Alito were raked over the coals for being too Conservative while the Liberal (not that the MSM ever describes them as liberal) Democrat appointees were given kid glove treatment, heck their records were glossed over and when you quoted their words or legal opinions you were called racist. Sotomayor had more opinions reversed on appeal than ANY other Supreme Court Nominee (how many of the MSM bios included that little fact). The Bush appointees were held up so long starting in 2003 that the nuclear option was talked about endlessly for months, remember the first gang of 14 got together in the Senate to halt the blocking of Bush nominees in 2005 to end the talk of the "nuclear option" that was going on. Remember all the articles how the problem was Bush was nominating too many extreme candidates and he needed to work with the Dems in the Senate to come up with "reasonable appointees" or how about his basing his choices on "ideology vs diversity of opinion". LOL how many opinion pieces do you see suggesting that Obama do the same. The myth that Bush appointees had an easy time is just that a myth and Clinton ended up with more than 50 more appointees. Hey Jer karma sucks and don't say the Dems weren't warned they would regret playing this game when they were back in power.
President Total Judges
Bill Clinton 373
George W.Bush 325
tired of liberal lies
stunned...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:48am.
Of course an overriding factor is the number of vacancies to be filled. But I'll do some further checking. I indicated that at least Bush nominees were always given hearings. I was wrong about that. My apologies. Anyway, I'll follow-up later.
Jer
Jer, Hank Paulson, Ben
Submitted by fitzfong on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:18am.
Jer,
Hank Paulson, Ben Bernake and even Alan Greenspan may have had flirtations with the logic of Milton Friedman and Greenspan may have slept with Ayn Rand, but at the end of the day, they along with Larry Summers and Geithner are of the Wall Street/K Street/Goldman Sachs variety lobbying government to pick winners and losers rather than letting natural markets take their course. These are quintessential crony capitalists with a huge emphasis on crony. Government interference in the marketplace is what caused the housing bubble to expand artificially, to burst spectacularly and to continue to die an excruciatingly slow death leaving people needlessly out of a market that should be rising from the ashes. And the notion that a tax delinquent could plausibly be positioned as not just a candidate to be Treasury Secretary, but the ONLY ONE CAPABLE to be Treasury Secretary at that time shows how delusional Washington has become.
There's nothing frightening about "revenues". That's why leftists employ the word as a dishonest substitute for "tax rate increases", which is what they actually want. Sure, you're not going to stimulate job-creating economic activity simply by not raising current tax rates. You have to create an environment that does not discourage (not necessarily the same thing as directly encouraging) business investment and growth. Weighing businesses down with overbearing regulations and mandates discourages companies from hiring because the cost component makes the potential return less worth the increased risk. Increasing capital gains rates also puts upward pressure on the returns required to make the reward potential attractive relative to risk. If by taxation you confiscate too high a percentage of earnings, you price a lot of investors out of the market, which in turn constricts job creation. Simple math: if you make the same amount of money and something you buy starts to cost more, you buy less of it...or less of something else to compensate for it. Bottom line, in order for an economy to grow, investors have to have more money in their pockets with which to invest.
If I remember correctly, Chuck Schumer held off many of these "extreme" judicial nominations while in the minority...or at least during that Daschle/Lott "power sharing" fiasco. The House of Representatives is, at least, representing the majority judging by the results of the 2010 election. They are doing exactly what they were elected to do. The fact that Democrats still hold a majority in the Senate is only down to the relatively few Democrat incumbents that were running last cycle, had there been the number running in 2010 that there will be next year, the Republicans would already be the majority party. And as for FDR, he ultimately got what he wanted, simply by threatening to pack the Court.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
You said it. Don't make me look it up.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:57pm.
And what was the highest debt to GDP ratio of those debt limit hikes since 1960--49 granted to GOP presidents? Just the 49 mind you. Don't wanna overtax you looking up every single one.
And what is the debt to GDP ratio in this request, you know, the one being discussed now?
And what would those 2 numbers look like standing right beside each other on the same line playing grab-ass while we look and ponder?
Vet...Are you talking to me?
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:26pm.
I think currently somewhere around 10 per cent. Maybe a little over. Previously, I'll take a guess at 3%. Of course it pales in comparison to what it was during WWII, not long after which the boom years began.
Jer
Freebie.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:59pm.
I will give you a freebie. You weren't even close. Maybe you were thinking of interest on the debt.
United States Federal debt as a percentage of GDP.
Now vs. those 49 hikes during Republican Presidents. (just the highest. Not every single one)
I have no idea what I was thinking, Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:23pm.
The GWB years: the % ranged from app. 56 to 69. For 2011, estimated is 102+%
1960
526.4
55.19
a
1961
544.8
53.72
a
1962
585.7
51.72
a
1963
617.8
50.23
a
1964
663.6
47.63
a
1965
719.1
44.82
a
1966
787.7
41.70
a
1967
832.4
40.90
a
1968
909.8
40.52
a
1969
984.4
37.16
a
1970
1038.3
36.69
a
1971
1126.8
36.22
a
1972
1237.9
35.22
a
1973
1382.3
33.73
a
1974
1499.5
32.27
a
1975
1637.7
33.09
a
1976
1824.6
34.47
a
1977
2030.1
34.80
a
1978
2293.8
33.86
a
1979
2562.2
32.37
a
1980
2788.1
32.60
1981
3126.8
31.82
a
1982
3253.2
34.96
a
1983
3534.6
38.81
a
1984
3930.9
39.80
a
1985
4217.5
43.09
a
1986
4460.1
47.54
a
1987
4736.4
49.53
a
1988
5100.4
51.00
a
1989
5482.1
52.31
a
1990
5800.5
55.28
a
1991
5992.1
60.05
a
1992
6342.3
63.10
a
1993
6667.4
65.26
a
1994
7085.2
65.54
a
1995
7414.7
66.36
a
1996
7838.5
66.10
a
1997
8332.4
64.44
a
1998
8793.5
62.30
a
1999
9353.5
59.93
a
2000
9951.5
56.56
a
2001
10286.2
56.09
a
2002
10642.3
58.24
a
2003
11142.1
60.67
a
2004
11867.8
61.97
a
2005
12638.4
62.55
a
2006
13398.9
63.07
a
2007
14061.8
63.65
a
2008
14441.4
69.15
a
2009
14119
84.11
a
2010
14660.4
92.28
a
2011
15079.6
102.63
e
2012
15812.5
105.32
e
2013
16752.4
105.96
e
People were alarmed by the debt under President Bush.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:49pm.
Alarmed.
We don't estimate so much in Vetland. Let's go by the closed books. 2010 - 93%
You think the boys and girls might be a little more agitated and this might not be a little different? Debt as a percentage of GDP under President Bush went from 56 to 69. A rise of 13% over 8 years. (Shhhhh. Public debt as a percentage of GDP went from 27% to 30% in the first seven years, a grand total of 3 points, so that means, hmmm. most of that rise was debt that was not public, hmmmmm. what debt do we have that is not public? And wait, how do we stop the rise of that debt that is not public?)
In 2 years we have gone from 69 to 93. A 24 point rise in 2 years. And it does not appear to be slowing down.
Now, people are worried not just about what was done, but what is still coming. So is reckless teenagers really an apt description? Or maybe, just maybe, they might kinda be like some man that is standing athwart history, yelling stop?
"Vetland"
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:08pm.
I like it. I like it very much. I think that phrase will be catching on around here.
PS
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:13pm.
There is a reason we don't estimate in Vetland.
Your figures for outlying 2012 and 2013 I believe are the rosy rosy rose colored glasses with buttered puppies painted on the inside figures I believe. They are presuming, assuming, calculating, blah blah blah the economy will start booming like it did in the Reagan years, presuming it will start booming sometime around oh, I don't know, sometime around the middle of 2009. Wait, that din't happen did it? Oh, that boom figure - 8%. I believe. Say, din't we just get a quarter's numbers in the last few days? I believe the growth last quarter was officially in jack squat range (.001 to .93)
Correction: I know exactly what I was thinking
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:36pm.
Fed DEFICIT as a % of GDP, in which case I wasn't that far off. [e.g. 2011: 10.91%]
maybe you weren't thinking Jer
Submitted by botg on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 8:55pm.
else you would recognize the true effect of this concern which we debate
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
botg....
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:16pm.
If you take a minute to check, you'll notice you linked the same page from which I copied and pasted the long series of figures in my post above to the Vet.
Jer
yes Jer
Submitted by botg on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:25pm.
i followed your link but used the more relevant comparison so there would be no questioning my source since it was your source.
you were only showing the straws, i was showing how we got to the point of breaking the camels back
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -- Chief Justice John Roberts
Okay, botg...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:41pm.
understood.
Jer
Another reason this might be a little different.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:39pm.
All the times before with the debt limit being raised without so much as a mouse squeak....
Would we have had the ability to link to a site such as usgovernmentspending.com and usgovernmentrevenue.com like we are here, now, whilst standing athwart history?
Or is that just more evidence the MSM is slowly slipping away as a source of the monkeypipple's opinions?
I certainly wouldn't dismiss that as a factor, Vet.
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:08pm.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by MrShy on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 11:16pm.
Two good charts charting our debt and our revenue (one that includes a third bar for our GDP) over the years, for your viewing pleasure (or education):
CHART 1
CHART 2
Notice a real fork in the road going in extreme opposite directions around 2008-2009 ??
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Thanks, Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:03am.
i liked the first one. The second one made me cross-eyed.
Jer
Yeah dude. Just as alarming.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:04pm.
Extend your timeframe for the federal deficit as a percenatage of GDP ---
Outside of a World War, at no time in the history of the United States has the deficit been this large. What? Who said the Civil War? Nope - 9.75 highest.
Are we in a World War? No. So what is so different about this recession than all the rest that we have to spend so much in such a short time with no real end in sight?
I can only go back to the question I have asked you again and again and again. What did then Senator Obama mean when he said he wants to fundamentally transform the United States?
Reckless teenagers a perfect description? Still think that?
Vet...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:22pm.
As I said, there are elections to change the direction of unpopular or flawed agendas. What these reckless teenagers did was an irresponsible stunt.
Jer
Looks like we are gonna just continue to disagree then.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:53pm.
As I have posted before, we have had actual government shutdowns before without the whines (AKA lies) about defaulting and grandma not getting her SS check coming from the White House.
■September 30 to October 11, 1976 (10 days)
■September 30 to October 13, 1977 (12 days)
■October 31 to November 9, 1977 (8 days)
■November 30 to December 9, 1977 (8 days)
■September 30 to October 18, 1978 (18 days
■September 30 to October 12, 1979 (11 days)
■November 20 to November 23, 1981 (2 days)
■September 30 to October 2, 1982 (1 day)
■December 17 to December 21, 1982 (3 days)
■November 10 to November 14, 1983 (3 days)
■September 30 to October 3, 1984 (2 days)
■October 3 to October 5, 1984 (1 day)
■October 16 to October 18, 1986 (1 day)
■December 18 to December 20, 1987 (1 day)
■October 5 to October 9, 1990 (3 days)
■November 13 to November 19, 1995 (5 days)
■December 5, 1995 to January 6, 1996 (21 days)
What was the description of the teenagers back then?
Oh and the government ain't even shut down yet. I been watching the news, there might not even be a shutdown. In that case, where is the recklessness? Seriously, all those time the government actually did shut down, reckless? Teenyboppers? Driving Hot Rod Lincolns? You white as a ghost? You hear that knockin'?
→ Vet
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:11pm.
Stop picking on Barack! Can't you see he's black?
Don't make the Dems send Sheila Jackson Lee over there!
The liberals are getting very
Submitted by jkwtrading on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:49pm.
The liberals are getting very close to officially imploding.. a few more weeks or until mid August just might do it.
The Tea Party are the Adults...
Submitted by boscokraft on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 4:55pm.
NO!!!!! The "teenagers" have been spending money they dont have. They've over spent their allowance and the parents are finally stepping and saying enough!!!
HEY LIBERAL MEDIA MORONS
Submitted by CradleofIdiocy on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:07pm.
You're damn right the changes better include all cuts and no taxes!
People like me are tired of giving 40-50% of our income to the giant leech known as the federal government.
Hell, socialism is already here for someone that makes a mere $42,000 a year 10 years into their career. I'm not just talking about income taxes. There are so many different taxes I've calculated I pay at least 40% of my income to the government.
People have started wars over less taxes than this!
It sickens me.
And what does the government do with the money? Waste it, of course. Then ask for more.
We wouldn't be facing a social security crisis if the damn government hadn't wasted every penny people paid into the program by using Social Security Trust Fund money for their grand socialist schemes in the past. Every cent was wasted, and now they wonder how they're going to pay for it.
No, you liberal vermin in the media, the government does not know how to spend it better than those of us who worked for it!
Go to hell all of you!
the dems accuse the right of what they are guilty of
Submitted by right of way on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:40pm.
the dumbacrats are like a drunken college student running up mom and dad's credit card bill. it's supposed to be used in emergencies, but he's spending it on everything but that. the tea party are the responsible parents who tell the kid to quit wastefully spending so much. the tea party is labeled as radical and terrorist. what is so radical about reining in spending and as a country live within our means? that would raise our credit level. there is so much wasteful spending in the budget. why not cut what we are wasting in every agency and department. obama himself said that obama care would pay for itself if we cut out the coruption and waste. empty words from a proven liar no doubt. he is so lazy and a poor leader he didn't follow up on his own words. odumba loves to spend other people's money that we don't have!
And after all this...
Submitted by nicodemus on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 5:59pm.
...if a deal gets done, look for a week of the MSM furiously trying to sell it as a huge Obama victory!
You're right!
Submitted by CradleofIdiocy on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:56pm.
You're absolutely right.
I guess I should turn off the tube so I don't throw my remote through it.
Luckily, I don't watch that much TV anyway. I had enough liberal media brainwashing growing up, and it took me nearly 10 years to de-program myself.
Bias?
Submitted by tomaspain on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:21pm.
The "Journalists" mentioned in this article can't possibly be aware of the meaning of "objectivity" or "analysis". For if they understood the meaning of the words, they would know how to use them.
These paid up members of the
Submitted by Jack Bauer on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:42pm.
These paid up members of the sinister DEMOCRAT-DYSENTERY-MEDIA COMPLEX live in a parallel looniverse.
All of the above Mr Obama? --- How about ALL OF THE BELOW, instead.
The only move Obama has ever moved to the right...
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:32pm.
...was when he parked the golf cart to the left of wherever his ball landed on the fairway.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
True Dave*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:45pm.
I'm sure we are not going to like why since he is slithering to the right.
The "Teenagers" are far better economically...
Submitted by gopcongress on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:46pm.
...than their liberal dope smoking baby boomer parents. The parents go all out of whack maxing out credit cards spending and freewheeling, while the teenagers look at their brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews and wonder why their parents don't really care.
That is a more apt description of teenagers running the budget.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
So gop*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 6:57pm.
Why would anyone want to follow you on that thinga ma jig when you just insulted a large portion of the population. Not all of us boomers were hippies. Those of us who grew up poor, had to work hard for a living laughed at the hippies and liberal nuts back in the 60's. True, many of them have become a serious threat to our way of life but some of us are still independant, responsible and hard working. Thankfully, I taught my children the same values and they are teaching their children. Take a look at photos of TEA Party rallies. Lots of folks there with white hair. Try not to generalize a population, thats called stereotyping.
I think he forgot.
Submitted by mandrake on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:07pm.
He forgot to hit the /sarc button. I basically assume everything here is sarcasm..works for me.
Perhaps mandrake*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:20pm.
If one has a tendency to sneer at those who have a different view then perhaps that is a bend toward sarcasm. However, NB is intended to discuss BIAS and that was the point of my post.
I was a kid in the sixties
Submitted by stunned on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 12:26am.
Most of the hippies didn't make it to cashing a social security check. I remember two older neighbors who went counter-culture and both were dead before 40. Mentioned that once to a group of friends and they ALL knew kids that went that route and not one was still alive. The myth that most teens were hippies back then running naked in Woodstock, or burning their draft cards is engrained today by the MSM but the facts are what you state that most kids didn't go that route. In fact most of the folks I know who were 18-25 back in those days were in the military, college or already married with kids and too busy getting on with their lives. The young rebels just made for better TV pictures nd were useful in promoting the left's agenda. LOL nothing much has changed in 40 years in that regard
tired of liberal lies
Well...Yah
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 7:31pm.
When your parents are junkies what choice do you have? They're shooting up your future. You have to take matters into your own hands. You gotta try to take their 'fits away.
Good grief! Social services would have put these abusive parents away in the real world.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Journalism in America is DEAD!
Submitted by Scott Trent on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:01pm.
Journalism in America is DEAD. Journalists used to be watchdogs for the people. Today`s MAINSTREAM so called journalists act more like LAPDOGS for the big spending SOCIALISTS than watchdogs. The Nightly News and World News makes my want to puke literally. They are biased lapdogs... It`s so obvious.
Pelosi, Reid, and BO are
Submitted by Bodini on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 9:11pm.
Pelosi, Reid, and BO are the great bipartisan leaders that we conservatives have witnessed for the last 31 months as they passed Obama Care etc. (on a BIPARTISAN BASIS??) in support of the American People ... while their leftist, socialist, media outlets sat on their microphones!
I'm all for boycotting ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC and their advertisers ... so they will get a taste of Glen Beck's medicine!
If the freshmen Congress Class is labeled, "teenagers?"...
Submitted by Indie Dude on Sun, 07/31/2011 - 10:45pm.
"why are Republicans allowing freshmen Congressmen to control this debate?" and this person said, "it's like letting the teenager in the family run the family budget."
Using the same analogy, so what does that make Obama?
"It's like having the loser Uncle who calls your parents up once a month asking for money to support his drinking, partying, and gambling lifestyle to run your family budget."
Obama's knee-pad brigade
Submitted by Injest on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 6:19am.
Journalists ‘Scared of Being Labeled Liberal’
So they prefer to be known as "Obama's knee-pad brigade"?
I'm sitting in the local
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/01/2011 - 9:53am.
Mr. Tire yesterday having two tires installed to replace the one slashed late Saturday night (but that's another story) and they've got CNN on in the waiting area. First I had to watch that imbecile Fareed Whatever-his-name-is, then Kurtz. I was laughing out loud at this woman from Reuters. At one point she talks about the Washington Press Corps as being somewhat out of touch with mainstream America, then goes on to say that mainstream America finds what Tea Party Congressmen doing reprehensible. The "bending over backwards" comment was really just the icing on that relly bad cake.