This is an actual question. I really don't know the answer, so I'm depending on the memory of the assembled Hellions: Does anyone remember if Newsweek or Time or U.S. News or any of the major alleged "news" magazines ever ran a cover saying "BUSH IS WRONG". Like when the Iraq War was being (mis)planned, did anyone put a picture of General Shinseki up saying "Bush is Wrong, We Need More Troops?"
Note: I'm sure the comments will end up being another debate about whether Obama is right or wrong. Nothing I can do about that. But I'd appreciate it if someone, especially any of you die-hard proponents of the whole "the media is controlled by liberals and is in the tank for Obama" theory could answer the question of whether or not any of Bush's critics ever got a full-face cover blaring that "BUSH IS WRONG". Anyone? Anyone?
43 comments:
JD, before you give yourself a stroke, read the subtitle, please.
The Lone Opposition of Paul Krugman
LONE being the key word, brother.
You really are starting to read like Keitho, my man. This is pretty desperate, to even suggest that TIME magazine is not a liberal read.
I do remember William Buckley's column on the Iraq war, "It didn't work" for the National Review ... but I won't suggest that the National Review isn't a convservative read.
Calm down, brother ... if I read right yesterday on CNN, even Penn Juliett (penn and teller) is concerned about Obama's counterintuitive recylcing of Bush economics ...
This for Tom, of course ... outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing, outsourcing ...
http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
Close enough for jazz?
I don't know about the big picture stuff, but... I am more convinced than ever that Paul Krugman is part elf.
Which is not to imply an elf-bias in the media. Rupert Murdoch is doing his best to keep all media dominated by trolls.
Close, Charlie. Only thing is, National Review is, as you pointed out, an unabashedly conservative mag, not a newsweekly like Newsweek and Time. And, if I may also point out, Buckley got the front cover because it was his magazine. So it's a very rough equivalence at best.
But you're right, Buckley's criticism of Bush was roughly equivalent, at least in content, to Krugman's "Obama's not liberal enough" position. Took him four years to get around to it, but better late than never I suppose. And the "liberal news media" was remarkably silent about it. I certainly didn't see Buckley touted on the cover of Time or Newsweek.
I do actually miss Buckley. He was one of the few conservatives remaining that actually had some intellectual honesty and could make a coherent argument for conservatism. George Will was another. I even have several of Will's books. But now the whole party's in the hands of the goon squad led by Caribou Barbie and Joe the plumber.
And tell me again: how is asking a question risking a stroke? You're really beginning to sound like Michelle Malkin, if I may return the compliment. She's fond of the whole "liberals are raving and unhinged" line of "reasoning" as well anytime anyone says something she doesn't agree with.
Finally, are you seriously saying that you believe this statement that Paul Krugman is the ONLY voice in opposition to Barack Obama? Really? Even if true, doesn't giving a lone voice of dissent the front page of a major-circulation newsweekly give the lie to the idea that the media's in the tank for Obama, which was my original point?
Time and Newsweek are only "newsweeklys" if you believe they don't have an agenda. While both have conservative columnists, they're equally decidely left of center.
And I "suspect" they didn't cover Buckley's declaration on Bush's war because there was some ill will between the parties ... as compared to the more friendly will between those mags (or newsweeklys if you prefer) and the Kennedy's (regarding Caroline's escape from the media limelight).
It's six of one, half a dozen of the other in the end.
Buckley and Will were/are terrific writers and I sometimes (though rarely) agree with them.
About that stroke … I guess it’s the way I read your “Anyone? Anyone?” I saw you on the edge of the couch, about to slip off. Steady, man.
I don’t know who Michelle Malkin is. Sorry.
I seriously think the cover suggests he’s the LONE opposition to the usual cast of party supporters, yep.
The fact he won the Pulitzer is probably why TIME put him on the cover as well …
More to the point … I’m suggesting that you are getting desperate in your attempts to protect your president. You seem to take swings at all and every opposition to anything Obama. (Please note that I didn’t call him the messiah.) Time is unabashedly liberal, JD … come on.
Just reread your last line ... even SNL could poke fun at its own agenda by poking fun at the media's agenda during the democratic primary, JD.
Come on, brother ... the media has been and remains BIG TIME in the tank for Obama. Pointing to single issues of dissent doesn't change the agenda. FOX claims it's fair and balanced. You believe that? Of course not. I don't think people who watch FOX believe it. Are you saying CBS, NBC and ABC are objective?
Please.
My regard for the media--liberal or otherwise--has yet to recover from the run-up to the Iraq war, when no one--No ONE--looked closely to see whether the emperor's claims had any clothes on.
I cannot conceive of the media running a headline reading, 'BUSH IS WRONG," with or without a subtitle, because they were afraid of the conservative backlash. There is no such fear of liberals, and opening any kind of debate about Obama's policies is calculated to increase circulation, so they'll go for it.
Liberal-leaning media? Maybe. Let's not forget it's the MBAs who make the important decisions now.
About that stroke … I guess it’s the way I read your “Anyone? Anyone?” I saw you on the edge of the couch, about to slip off. Steady, man.
Oh, I see. Guess you've never seen Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Ben Stein plays a teacher n that one and that's his often repeated phrase to a class of unresponsive students. IOW, I was making a joke. Thanks for your concern.
BTW, it's a pretty funny movie, Charlie, you should catch it.
As for your other points, this is an often repeated dynamic I see in these discussions:
Person A: The media is controlled by liberals! Everyone knows that!
Person B provides examples of where the media has gone after liberals and has slanted coverage to make liberals look bad.
Person A: The media is controlled by liberals! Everyone knows that!
I normally find Glenn Greenwald long winded and boring, but I did like this bit he wrote the other day, talking about the NRO's Jonah Goldberg on C-Span talking about conservatism and the liberal media:
In between Jonah’s petulant laments about how conservative opinion cannot be heard in The Mainstream Media, Bill Kristol talked about his New York Times column and his Washington Post column, John Podhoretz told stories about his tenure editing The New York Post Editorial Page and Charles Krauthammer’s years of writing a column for Time and The New Republic, and Jonah referenced his Los Angeles Times column. None of them ever recognized the gaping disparity between those facts and their woe-is-us whining about conservative voices like theirs being shut out of The Liberal Media. So important in conservative mythology is self-victimization that they maintain it even as they themselves unwittingly provide the facts which disprove it.
Heh.
I saw the movie and liked it but (mia culpa), I haven't memorized it. I do know The Pope of Greenwich Village pretty much by heart (highly recommend it--Mickey Rourke before he was completely NUTS and Eric Roberts best ever role--one of my top 10 ever).
What is IOW?
I don't get your Person A/Person B shtick, though. My bad.
Regarding media in general, however. I do think it leans to the left, but I don't trust it anyway because (a point you didn't make this time), it sure did a lousy job regarding Bush Iraq war propaganda.
But it does lean left and who cares? Both parties are in the tank for money anyway. Ralph Nader is as ignored by the media as he was in the Presidential debates (where he wasn't allowed to participate). So much for democracy.
The so-called "liberal media bias" is largely a matter of conservatives screaming from the rooftops (in the mainstream media!) that they're afraid to speak above a whisper.
And Charlie, the only "desperation" going on here is yours. This is another common pattern in political discussions: faced with incontrovertible evidence that a talking point is wrong, conservatives fall back on describing their opposition as "desperate".
Oh, and just in case you're telling the truth about having lived in such a bubble for the last 8 years that you don't know who Michelle Malkin is:
http://michellemalkin.com/
Go cure your ignorance.
IOW=In Other Words
And the point I was making is that it doesn't matter how many examples you provide to show that the media actually goes out of its way to make liberals look bad, you always get back a flat "The media is controlled by liberals! Everyone knows that!"
I don't know why I bother, really.
PS I agree about Pope of Greenwich Village. Great film. I haven't seen it in a while, and I think I'll rent it.
Celine ... I'm afraid you get your facts "This is another common pattern in political discussions: faced with incontrovertible evidence that a talking point is wrong, conservatives fall back on describing their opposition as "desperate". from JD only. I like him ... good guy ... usually makes some valid points ... that the media doesn't lean left isn't one of them.
Incontrovertible evidence?
Enjoy whatever you're smoking, honey. They tell me it's bliss ...
I don't know why I bother, really.
Neither, JD, do us (who don't agree with EVERYTHING you spew).
Trust me, there's equitable frustration over here, too.
Your invalid points (like your "examples") are cherry picked and thus ignored ...
I got the anyone, anyone, JD. Had Charlie ever seen one of the best teen flicks of the John Hughes 80s era with any of the Brat Back members...he might have figured out how to post a video clip of Jennifer Grey (pre-nose job) kicking the principal in the nose 3 times. What every tree-hugging peacnik liberal really wishes he/she had the guts to do to any Conservative. But alas, the liberal left is a party of crybaby wusses and you and Charlie are both conveniently forgetting the fact that your beloved Dems who voted to go to WAR read a little document which talked about "Use of Force". Maybe in your peacenik schools they tell you Force is something from another 80s movie, Star Wars? Just wondering...
Now that I know who this michelle person is ... what's your friggin' point?
I'm against BOTH parties, moonbats ... BOTH parties. Make no mistake. They're separated by a very thin pubic hair in my book. I have no use for EITHER PARTY.
But I don't let that blind me regarding the media coverage of Obama, Bush or any other president. Here's a flash for you ... BOTH Reps and Dems have been bought and sold by big money. Remember all those earmarks Obama wasn't going to permit (just like McCain) ... well, go cure your ignorance, kids, and read the legislation the DEMS didn't bother reading. It's loaded with EARMARKS.
back on point .. according to your "examples" JD, every time Bill O'Reilly defends Obama, does that make his fiasco show any less in the tank for conservatives?
Chris Matthews last night gave Obama a hardball blow job with his "hardball awards" or some such nonsense. That's one example (equally invalid of any point other than Matthews was in the tank for Obama going way back).
I don't assume there's a vast right wing conspiracy because the Fox michelle person disagrees with Obama. Nor do I think (or care) there's a vast left wing conspiracy ... in my book both parties are playing us for fools (especially arguing about this nonsense) while another 700,000 lost jobs this month while corporate welfare skyrockets.
Vey iz mir ...
I think Charlie is the bigger candidate for a stroke at the moment. Easy, Generalissimo. You'll have your chance at world domination in 2012. I hope you spare the masses of authors and writers out there, Conservatives, Liberals and what have you, earning their keep as slaves to the corporations still standing...I just don't want to go out against a brick wall.
But to get back to the point...the televised media except for Fox is most definitely way to the left. The females have googly eyes for Obama. His appearance on "The View" almost made me vomit. At least I was waiting in the doctor's office at the time. Fox is right of center. O'Reilly is just arrogant.
Print. Time is liberal. And so what? We don't want a homogenous voice in the media...well, maybe some do, like that Dem suggesting we bail out The New York Slimes, give them non-profit status for "educational" purposes thus nationalizing a major newspaper and using it legitimately as a propaganda tool. The Conservatives have talk radio. The Libs have tried and failed (Air America was a huge failure and cost its investors beaucoup buckaroos...) Fine with me. Long live Dr. Lavin. Now THAT's a good American...
Tom, please forgive me ... i forgot you.
"outsourcing"
Have a GREAT weekend everybody.
Baci, hugs, baci ...
Charlie, the next time you start spouting that "no difference between the two parties" bullshit, I will personally come over there and get medieval on your straight white Christian male ass.*
Why? Because for anyone who is NOT all of those things, there damn well IS a difference between the two parties. Comments like that are based in a staggeringly arrogant level of privilege; what you're effectively saying there is that I don't matter and many of the people I love don't matter -- that the only people who matter are People Like You. And I've had it up to here and beyond with that attitude in our government for the last 8 years.
*That last bit actually works equally well in at least two different interpretations. Nice bonus, that.
alas, the liberal left is a party of crybaby wusses
Says the tough guy hiding behind an alias.
And I haven't spared the criticism of Democrats who went along with Bush because they were afraid Republicans would say nasty things about them. Search the term Republican Lite on this blog and you'll see what I mean.
One example:
And that's a symptom of what really bugs me about Hillary. She always takes what looks like the safe choice. She always goes toward where she thinks the middle of the road is. From their early cheerleading for the Iraq War to her support for the misnamed, anti-freedom "Patriot Act," Clinton and her cronies in the Democratic Leadership Conference keep trying to turn the Democrats into Republican Lite.
Here's a news flash, senator: It. Doesn't. Work.
The wingnuts don't care how many times you voted to send American troops into Iraq, or how many bills you co-sponsor to criminalize flag-burning, or how many hearings you have about racy TV or violent video games. You're still a dirty socialist hippie in their eyes and you always will be. Actual liberals hate you for stabbing them in the back, and centrists think you don't have any principles and will do anything to get elected.
Or this:
it's shaping up as the Democrats' election to lose. Well, if anyone can figure out a way to lose this election to whichever of these contenders finally gets enough grudging votes to get the nomination, it'll be the Republican Lite wing of the Democratic Party, led by their own front runner, Hillary Clinton.
Etc. So before you get all sanctimonious about my "dear Democrats" maybe you should, you know, READ THE FUCKING BLOG.
Celine: Okay, so you're nuts. Take a Valium.
My straight white Christian male ass wishes you well, psycho.
I'll say it again (at the risk of you're going whatever), the difference between the two parties is a thin pubic hair. Wise up.
And I haven't spared the criticism of Democrats who went along with Bush because they were afraid Republicans would say nasty things about them.
Just a question (no fireworks) ... did you include Obama in Bush Light because according to Mr. Krugman (you know, the guy started all this by being the "lone opposition") ... he says Obama recycled Bush's economics ... we already know he supported Bush's bailouts and extending them even more so.
Again, just a question ... but feel free not to restrain the sarcasm.
staggeringly arrogant level of privilege ... not that I have to justify myself to you, oh, great disadvantaged one ... but I work 7 days a focking week (with 2 12 hour shifts on weekends) ... I'm doing it (6 and 7 day weeks) for 3 years ... and I'm hanging on by the skin of my teeth (to my jobs) because those around me, every 6 weeks or so, disappear because YOUR DEMOCRATIC PARTY and the morons on the other side of the aisle (REPUBLICANS) didn't bother to protect workers in their eagerness to bend US over so for Wall Street could fuck us yet again.
Curb YOUR ignorance, dear ... frankly, it's staggering.
Charlie,
You say "Here's a flash for you ... BOTH Reps and Dems have been bought and sold by big money" like you're the first person ever to think of it.
Since there's not a pubic hair's of difference between, can I assume you also go to right-leaning blogs and dish this bullshit, since they must offend your sensitivities just as much?
straight white Christian male
Charlie, Celine can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the point she was trying to make is:
If you're none of those things, then then there IS a significant difference between the parties.
The Democrats don't go as far as I think some of us would like in the area of gay marriage, but at least the Dem's official line isn't that being gay is a perversion or a sin that needs to be "cured." The Democrats aren't the ones insisting that this is a "Christian country" and everyone who doesn't like their kids being pressured to perform a state sanctioned prayer on the taxpayer's dime just needs to sit down and shut up.
Dana:
The Wingnut who posted here is a dear friend of mine who works in the same building as I do in NY (different law firm). I torture her all day (trust me) about her Republican Party. She calls me a bolshoi, commi, pinko, etc. and she's right to some degree.
If there is a lesser of two evils, it is the democratic party but ... we're all kidding ourselves thinking they'll do anything radically different (and not radically as defined by FOX news) to aid workers/families. Every month another 600,000 people (or more) lose their jobs ... the people responsible for that just received hundreds of billions of dollars (no strings attached) ... and they continue to lay people off ... which leads to more bankruptcy, mortgage foreclosures, etc. When and how does it end? Nobody knows, but that didn't stop both parties from giving that money away without protecting the people they took it from.
Lesser of two evils doesn't translate to change in my book.
Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich (both of whom I totally disagree with on most defense issues) would've protected workers. One was laughed off the primary stages and the other wasn't allowed on them ... because big busines didn't want them there.
I don't waste my time on wingnut blogs because, frankly, there's no debating with them (usually because they're opinions are based in faith and I'm an atheist).
I'll give JD and his hellions that much ... "sometimes" they hear (or see) the other point of view (whether they agree with it or not).
And come on, Dana ... without whack job anarchists like me, how boring would it be hearing the same tune all day every day?
If you're none of those things, then then there IS a significant difference between the parties.
I apologize if I offended, Celine, but “significant” is the issue (for me). The 8.5% national unemployment rate has affected minorities probably more than just white males. When I use the term “workers” I mean just that (with no delineation between males/females, black/white, gay/straight, etc.).
Both parties (and the DEMS to a great degree didn’t bother reading the legislation, never mind amending it to protect workers) signed onto this mess at all our expense. Here’s a fact I just can’t get beyond:
A group of greedy scumbags ruin the economy and our gov’t goes to its people and takes their money and hands it back to the greedy scumbags (in some cases with million dollar bonus perks) and zero protection for the same American workers they just took the money from.
That is inconceivable to me … and in my opinion precludes anyone who signed onto it from staying in power. The political machines go to work spinning and here we are debating media issues … media issues while 760,000 more suckers got the axe last month.
If people stop voting the lesser of two evils and focus on real change, it could happen. Maybe it’ll take another depression. I don’t know. What I do know is I won’t lend blind faith to either party ever again (I’ve supported both—mostly Dems for the bulk of my life) until they represent the people they’re supposed to represent instead of Wall Street. And should that require a radical shift to socialism, then so be it. I don't mind paying taxes if the people are protected. I have a bigger issue paying taxes when we're ignored.
Dana wrote: like you're the first person ever to think of it.
Actually, Dana, I was being sarcastic ("news flash") but I'm not nearly as skilled at it (sarcasm) as JD (who's the champ in my book).
You know, I used to be one of those people who used to say there wasn't much difference between the political. "Not a dime's worth of difference" was the phrasing back in 2000.
And then came Bush v Gore, and when Bush got in, I figured, meh, whatever, one-term idiot, can't do too much damage. Obviously I was monumentally wrong in my assessment.
Whatever you think of Gore, he would not have led us into war in Iraq. He would not have set up Guantanamo. He would not have given a giant "fuck you" to the rest of the world. He would not have transferred hundreds of billions of dollars to the Halliburtons of the world. And he would not have treated the Constitution like a piece of toilet paper.
We would be in a far, far better place right now if we'd had a Democrat in the White House the last eight years instead of a Republican. There is a HUGE difference.
And so what if Obama is continuing some of the Bush economic policies? He's also changing many of them. But he's not the type to throw babies out with bath water. He's a pragmatist and a long-term thinker. He won't make a major change until he's thought through the ramifications. It's a process. I wish it were a faster process, but I fully understand why it isn't.
Anyway, point is, anybody who spouts the "no difference between 'em" bullshit is promptly invited to piss off and find a real opinion.
Man, I wish I'd been online yesterday. I'd have made popcorn.
Okay, throwing in my ill informed (and rambling) two cents worth here. I don't think Media has a liberal bias, or a conservative bias or a middle of the road bias.
There's an "If it bleeds it leads" bias. It's about sensationalism and selling copy. Look at the cover. It's advertising. "OBAMA IS WRONG" Big, bold letters. And in tiny text, "The loyal opposition of Paul Krugman".
Big, menacing picture. No background. Only show half his face, of course, because he's kind of on the dorky / chunky side. This makes him look thinner and more reputable without having to do too much Photoshop. Nobody takes fat people seriously, after all. All the TV commercials say so.
The tag line grabs your attention. If you agree with it you'll grab it, cackle in glee and open it up expecting whatever it is you're expecting. If you don't, you'll be outraged and pick up a copy so you can sneer.
Either way they get your money. If you don't much care you're not their target audience, anyway, so if you snag a copy it's just gravy.
Different companies do it differently. It's branding. It's about targeting an audience. The suits at Fox News (or CBS, ABC, The New York Times) give a fuck if you're conservative or liberal as long as you stick around for the ads.
Rush Limbaugh is a genius. This pill-popping, hypocritical psychopath has managed to take two polar opposites and make them watch him, love him, hate him, listen to him, quote him. Every single day. He fucking owns these people.
If he thought he could make more money and get a bigger audience being a liberal firebrand he'd probably do that instead.
Anne Coulter? Arianna Huffington? Same thing.
Now journalism's different. There's no such thing as bias-less journalism. The bias absolutely exists. I'm sure Rush and Huffington believe their own bullshit. We all do to some extent. That's probably why they got into journalism or punditry in the first place.
But journalism isn't the media. It's on a person by person basis. A conservative branded paper is going to attract conservative reporters. If there's a liberal reporter working for a conservative paper, dude needs a career change, or he's going to be popping the Zantac like there's no tomorrow.
But the companies themselves exist to make money. If Obama making a statement will appeal to their audience more than Britney Spears flashing her cooch that's what they'll do.
You want a real answer for liberal or conservative bias in media? Count the headlines.
But you better count them every day because it constantly shifts depending not on what people think one way or another, but on what scares them more.
Right now people are scared about the economy. Few years ago they were scared about terrorists. Couple years from now something new will happen and the herd will spook at that, too. When aliens finally appear to make contact the first headlines will be "WILL THEY KILL US?"
So, my point, if I had one, is that whatever bias the media has (and that generic label's a gross simplification right there - it's not like these companies aren't all trying to fuck each other for market share) it's going to be one that will make the most money.
Okay, I'm going to go hobble off now, get my coffee and calm down.
Anyway, point is, anybody who spouts the "no difference between 'em" bullshit is promptly invited to piss off and find a real opinion.
Another invitation, how can I resist?
Interesting how you “know” what Gore and Kerry would’ve done, but then accept what Obama is doing (following Bush’s lead). Talk about bizarre. So, what, George Bush’s economic plan was far sighted? There was some long term goal there and Obama recognized it and the Democrats didn’t need to read the legislation and just passed it because … ????
I can’t argue what Gore and Kerry would’ve done … and Lord knows I don’t want to start in on Bubba and what he didn’t do (regarding allowing the country to take hit and hit while he was playing hide the cigar), but … the fact is your party just supported corporate welfare to the tune of numbers too big to comprehend while the people who voted for them move into tent cities. They used to call them Hoovervilles and I suspect Hoover himself would’ve gotten a woody from this “stimulus” (in that it was pro business only) …
And I’m not sure if you moonbats noticed it or not, but companies and corporations have scaled back benefits akin to the 1930’s (no more sick days, worker bonuses (of course), raises and a never-ending reminder that we should be happy to have jobs (those of us who still do)).
As regards the Iraq war and Halliburton, etc., etc. … seems to me the Democratic Congress sure had the numbers to at least begin impeachment proceedings for what was surely an impeachable offense (a bogus rush to war). They also had control those last two years of Bush’s administration yet they gave him pretty much everything he wanted … or maybe they had the “long term” vision you mentioned.
Piss off?
You piss off, genius.
a) I didn't say I knew what Gore would have done. I know what he would NOT have done, a much easier point to argue.
b) What part of 'kept some, changed some, will probably change more' did you not understand? A new president doesn't (can't) immediately change everything the last administration did.
c) Dems also passed a huge stimulus bill (probably not big enough, but that's another argument) with funds for actual employment-generating projects. If you'll recall, the Republicans only stimulus plan involved more tax cuts. Big difference there.
d) Moonbats?! Really? That is sooo last decade.
Phoebenator: Let me ask you this then ...
Point a) And how do you know that? Are you two (you and Gore) on similar wave lengths? I only ask because I’m sure many democrats didn’t expect their representatives in Congress and the Senate to vote for Bush’s war … yet they did (overwhelmingly—just like they voted for HIS economic package overwhelmingly). I’m not so sure you should be so sure. Hillary Clinton had a point when she said Obama’s non-war vote came without the pressure of being on the national stage and since he’s acting like a total politician ever since … well, it makes one think (or some of us).
On to point b … Well, he sure “kept some” (and expanded it by hundreds of billions, which I guess was the “changed some”) and as for changing more, it’s a little too late for all the workers (who I’m advocating for, by the way) already laid off or who’ve lost their homes. So, you tell me, all knowing one, since whatever you’re talking about didn’t happen and the fact many in his party didn’t bother reading the legislation they signed, or maybe he didn’t bother reading it either, (which reminds me of how often Bush was harassed for not being a “reader”) … so, they kept some, changed some, but didn’t bother addressing worker/taxpayer concerns at any point along the way. This change he (and you) speak of … where is it?
And, still on point b) You wrote: A new president doesn't (can't) immediately change everything the last administration did” … Well, as it turns out (if you look at the facts), he sure could’ve done a lot more to protect workers than the great big zero he produced for those who voted him into office (what TIME’s cover story is all about, by the way). What part of “recycled Bush economics” don’t you get? Obambi, et al supported Bush’s proposal while he was still in the Senate, then voted it into law after becoming president. The fact is he could’ve and should’ve changed it … for the sake of all the poor SOB’s filing new unemployment claims (600,000 plus every month). He could’ve front loaded it with a ton of stipulations to protect jobs rather than the ton of earmarks he permitted. He could’ve stopped outsourcing, for one thing, at least to companies WE’RE funding. He could’ve guaranteed that Citibank, GM, et al not lay off people when they were getting all those billions of free bailout bucks. He could’ve insisted that corporations getting bailout bucks negate any and all bonus guarantees. That’s just a touch of what he could’ve done (DIFFERENTLY) from George Bush … and he didn’t. Who cares what the Republicans proposed … the Democrats ran with their (the Republican’s) ball!
c) I don’t speak for the Republican party, phoebes (see above) … and the point of my argument is that all the STIMULUS packages have ZERO PROTECTION FOR WORKERS. What is so hard to understand about that? They guaranteed bonuses to the clowns who drove the economy (and their banks) into the ground, but offered us “extended unemployment” (in NY, not every state). Great, thanks, Obambi. I’ll sleep better nights knowing I’ll get 1/3 of one of my two paychecks (and I have to lose my other job or I can't collect squat) for an extra 13 weeks. Maybe you can bail me out when the banks I just bailed out aren’t interested in my problems.
d) I’m old.
Peace.
Charlie... what are you smoking? It must be grand stuff, let me tell you, because you're completely ignoring my point of view. I know - because you disagree with me - that you don't have the chops to understand what you're talking about. If you did, you'd agree with me. Anyway, since it's obvious that you're only cribbing from sources that are in the tank for your point of view, you're not going to learn any differently, not after this long of listening to the echo chamber and refusing to open your eyes.
Calm down; get out a bit more.
Oh, and all your examples are cherry picked, and thus worthless. Because they don't further my point of view, and face it, I'm right, you're wrong, and that's just how it is. I'm sorry, brother, I don't make the rules about that, facts are facts.
Phoebe you said "Dems also passed a huge stimulus bill (probably not big enough, but that's another argument) with funds for actual employment-generating projects."
Employment-generating projects are socialistic projects. Wait, most will result into very little. I'm also sick of the Chinese buying our T Bills and us being beholden to them. Expect a huge lost of American ingenuity in our workplace. Gov't involvement... not me.
But don't worry Babe, You'll have your social programs and projects for your left-rooted press to cover.
Which reminds me, Joey: I asked you this question almost a month ago and you never answered . In fact, you disappeared. Care to answer it now?
So what's your solution, Joseph? Tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts for the rich? We've had eight years of it, and look where we are.
We've been waiting almost a month, so this better be good.
"Babe"? You really called her "Babe?"
Oh, this should be entertaining. *Makes popcorn*
My company sent me overseas on business and I returned on Thurs. Got to Istanbul, Tunis and parts of India. Glad to be back in the USA. Read Charlie Stella's Novel "Cheapstakes" on the plane, a crime knockout, highly recommended.
My solution: Stop the government spending, let the companies that were irresponsible fall. Its the way of the free market and will correct itself. I hate borrowing the money from foreign countries and have high inflation in our future. Lets have tax cuts for new business growth, lets get American moving with American ingenuity. If someone has a good idea, they should have some opportunity to market it and bring in US labor to make it successful (Lets give him a break)
My strongest feeling is our Gov't should be upholding to a moderate budget like you and I have to do for our families. Not borrow, spend and waste like a drunk sailor. But after all the Gov't can't go bankrupt, they have a "get out jail card" THEY CAN ALWAYS RAISE TAXES.
It's good to be home.
So your answer to recession is letting it turn into a total economic collapse, complete with the massive unemployment that would follow.
Yeah, good luck selling that one. Even the fact that it would probably mean the utter and final destruction of the Republican Party if that plan was implemented isn't enough to make me think that's a good idea.
And this? My strongest feeling is our Gov't should be upholding to a moderate budget like you and I have to do for our families.
Have you been in a coma the last eight years?
God, I'm glad you people are out of power.
Throwing money at the problem will not solve it. Example, look at the Public Schools in this country. For decades we have been throwing billions, year after year. It continues to be a failure. New York, California-they live on the rule of raising taxes, they also are a disaster.
I believe the major job cuts we need is in gov't (Federal, State, and Local) Yes-I would like to see less taxes for ALL Americans.
And this "So your answer to recession is letting it turn into a total economic collapse, complete with the massive unemployment that would follow." is what you're hearing by these "expert" talking heads on the tube. It wont be as bad as they say, it's to scare you. Companies have fallen before and the others are there to carry on. Giants have fallen and it opens the door for others to grow.
What this country needs is a little "tough love."
See ya later. Bye
Charlie, as to Bush's war, BushCo, Inc. wanted an excuse to get into Iraq from day one, and it wasn't just to satisfy some Oedipal complex of Dubya's. The neocons started salivating over Iraq back in the '90s.
As to why the Congress voted for it, well, they were LIED to by the administration that cooked the intelligence. Lies, lies, and more lies upon lies got us into Iraq. And since Gore wouldn't have started off day one wanting to get into Iraq, he wouldn't have manipulated the intelligence to do it.
As to the rest, you're just talking circles now, so, whatever.
As to Mr. Government-Spending-is-Socialism...
get a clue.
Not one single capitalist ever made a fortune without the help of that government spending you so disdain. It goes all the way back, and the support has ranged from the use of force to clear out Native Americans and prop up banana republic dictators to allowing monopolies like AT&T back in the day to funding massive defense contractors to providing the fundamental research that makes these here internet tubes possible to the Interstate Highway system, without which WalMart would never be able to function.
I dare you to show me one great capitalist who ever existed without government.
Until you can do that, you're welcome to STFU, "babe."
Joe, thanks for the very kind words.
All, I'm too exhausted from yesterday to argue this stuff into the ground anymore ... so here's a rap up from me: JD, we're already falling apart (look at unemployment stats--they go up more than 500,000 a month). Not sure how a stimulus will work if it's only benefitting the bankers on Wall Street and/or the companies while (us) the people continually lose their jobs. Don't you think something should come back to those providing the banks with their billions (i.e., in the form of guarantees to workers (for Christ's sake--you get the bailout but you DON'T LAY OFF ANYONE UNTIL YOU PAY IT BACK)? My wife and I can certainly lose the house we bought last year if we're both unemployed at the same time for any length of time. Then what happens? We hold hands and sing "Yes, we can?"
Phoebe ... here's a circle for you; they were lied to (I agree) ... so why didn't they impeach him? Why did they continue to give him everything he wanted (no more listing it all, you're not getting it). The answer, I'll guarantee you, was NOT because they were doing it for the country.
Long hair ... get a haircut, right now. No more smoking the weed until the extra hair weight is lifted from your skull and eases up soem of the pressure obviously building there. "Cherry picked" (i.e., Person A vs. Person B). That's made up, genius. That's a cherry picked example. Clean out your bong.
Peace to all ... and to all a good night.
Post a Comment