you cant tax your way out of a deficit either. Wouldn't taxing slow the economy and cause an even larger deficit?
Do we have any economists in the house? (Not like you can get two of 'em to agree on anything anyway).
In the meantime, running up record spending isn't exactly helping either, right? Bush and Congress haven't had the cojones to put the stomp on blatant pork barrel spending on either side of the aisle. Shit is sad.
Comptroller General to Federal Government: Stop Digging David Walker calls America's fiscal condition "worse than advertised"
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The federal government is overextending itself in promises, Comptroller General David Walker said at the closing session of the National Conference of State Legislatures' Spring Forum.
Five years ago the nation's total liabilities and unfunded commitments totaled $20.4 trillion. In the past five years, Walker said, that has ballooned to $46 trillion. The comptroller blames Medicare for most of the increase, $8.7 trillion of which is attributable to the new Part D prescription drug benefit. That in itself, Walker said, is more than the nation's accumulated debt since its inception in 1789.
"If that's not imprudent, I don't know what is," Walker said. "The difficulty is that we have not learned the first rule of holes: When you're in a hole, stop digging. The most imprudent thing you can do is to expand entitlement programs. And that's exactly what was done."
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the main programs that are causing the federal fiscal imbalance. In 1965, Walker said, 43 percent of the federal budget was spent on defense. In 2005, that was down to 20 percent. These three health and social service programs have sucked up the balance, and then some.
The 2004-2004 federal budget had a 35 percent negative bottom line, Walker said. Its accrual-based deficit was a record-high $765 billion. And a relatively small portion of that--$100 billion--was spent on Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland security. Medicare spending, by contrast, is growing five times faster than the economy.
Walker called for leaders to step forward and get this nation on track. He recommends:
Re-imposing pay-as-you-go and spending cap federal budget controls that served the nation well through the 1990s; Improving accounting and reporting metrics so that lawmakers and the general public will know how much money must be invested today to deliver on tomorrow's promises; and Drastically restructuring Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"The status quo is an unacceptable and unsustainable path," Walker said. "There's no way we can grow our way out of this problem. It's simple math. ???
"Is this only a federal problem?" he asked. "The answer is, "no." Bad news flows downhill, to state and local governments, and eventually, to American families."
Marti Harkness, criminal justice director with the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, says this is already happening today, at least at the state level.
"The federal deficit has a direct impact on state finances," Harkness said. "When the federal government can't balance its books, the states have to pick up the tab. Everywhere, we're seeing more and more reductions in federal funds to states."
The latest update to NCSL???s Mandate Monitor shows Congress has shifted close to $75 billion in costs to states over the past three fiscal years. That figure could grow to more than $100 billion if the president???s FY 2007 budget is enacted. New NCSL data shows state budgets are stable for now, but they face their own challenges in the coming years. Nineteen states expect structural imbalances to show themselves by FY '08.
Delaware Representative Donna Stone, NCSL's vice president, heard Walker's call to action. "It is incumbent upon federal and state governments to start working together as partners, and not be at odds with each other, because our constituents are all the same. We need to solve these problems."
NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. It provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system.
but motown this is all directed at limiting spending, not taxes. I realize that republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism, but doesn't this argue against democratic propsals like national healthcare and other social programs?
This is from Wikpedia on Paul O'Neil as first sec. of treasury under Bush.
Bush Administration
O'Neill was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by George W. Bush. He selected Mark Weinberger to be the assistant secretary for tax policy. O'Neill was a somewhat outspoken member of the administration, often saying things to the press that went against the administration's party line, and doing unusual things like taking a tour of Africa with singer Bono.
A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill while Treasury Secretary suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003.
O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies as well as his push to investigate al-Qaeda funding coming from the United Arab Emirates led to his resignation in 2002 and replacement with John W. Snow.>>
but motown this is all directed at limiting spending, not taxes. I realize that republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism, but doesn't this argue against democratic propsals like national healthcare and other social programs?
I watched his whole speech on CSPAN where he also talked about taxes but I can't find a copy of the entire speech, just that small blurb. If I remember correctly he talked about how government spending is increasing under mandatory increases, Bush has made it worse by making his own spending increases, and then on top of it he's cutting revenues, all of which have led to an explosion in the deficit.
If the Democrats want new programs like national healthcare or anything else they need to find ways to pay for it, via taxes or other fees because nobody in Congress of either party is really going to cut that many existing programs.
but motown this is all directed at limiting spending, not taxes. I realize that republicans are supposed to be the party of fiscal conservatism, but doesn't this argue against democratic propsals like national healthcare and other social programs?
I watched his whole speech on CSPAN where he also talked about taxes but I can't find a copy of the entire speech, just that small blurb. If I remember correctly he talked about how government spending is increasing under mandatory increases, Bush has made it worse by making his own spending increases, and then on top of it he's cutting revenues, all of which have led to an explosion in the deficit.
If the Democrats want new programs like national healthcare or anything else they need to find ways to pay for it, via taxes or other fees because nobody in Congress of either party is really going to cut that many existing programs.
here is an article from CNN on O'Neil seeking acceleration of the tax cuts, but the Simpsons is on so I'm out. Gotta have priorities. Its the one where they take the crayon out of Homers nose and he gets smart.
Here is an article on the racial make up of the military. The most significant thing in the article is that urban and rural areas make up the bulk of the military and suburbs are barely represented at all.
Since the economy was better under Clinton after all his tax increases than it is now we could argue that tax increases are better for the economy than cuts.
But that would be stupid.
I think we can all agree that a massive deficit like the one we currently have will spell disaster. I think we can also agree that an out of control Republican congress, senate and White House is the cause of the deficit. If you are going to make massive tax cuts you can't make massive increases in things like corporate welfare, agriculture pay outs, highway bills and other pork.
PLAESE TO NAME ONE GOOD THING THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS ACCOMPLISHED
Tax cuts, booming economy, I dont know how many millions of new jobs, low unemployment, highest number of minority home and business owners, higher minority test scores, lower drug use among teenagers
well sabadaba you're a smart guy so I don't have to tell you that correlation does not equal causation. in response to my question as to what the administration has accomplished you mention one "act" on the part of the administration (cutting taxes) and then a list of (unsubstantiated) events/occurences that transpired during the administration (the bulk of which can be attributed to business cycles, demographic shifts, etc. and not necessarily to policy).
the only actual "accomplishment" that you mention -- the only event that can be attributed wholly to the administration -- is tax cuts. you mention it first. i have no doubt it was the first thing that came to your mind. and that you thought long and hard for other things to add to that list.
and that says a lot, since that's basically all Bush has "done" (besides the admittedly admirable but ultimately bungled defeat of the Taliban).
and by the way, if you were positively impacted by the tax cuts, good for you. i don't hate on rich people. however, please recognize that you are in the EXTREME minority that can say that. forgive me for wanting a president to actually accomplish something positive for the nation and not just for his friends/corporate backers.
but you cannot deny the very serious dillemnas this country faces. in our disasterous military engagements abroad, in our economy's doomed dependence on fossil fuels, in our failing public schools, etc. the list goes on. and let's not stop at domestic crises. as the world's sole superpower, we have a moral obligation to at least acknowledge if not address the proscecution of genocide in Sudan, the growing threat to global stability posed by rogue states such as North Korea, human trafficking, erosion of democracy in Eastern Europe, etc. etc. etc....
so what course have the great minds assembled in the white house charted? what strategy has the administration designed to tackle these crises? what wise policy has the administration devised as the world looks to the US for help and guidance on issues of global import? what does this illustrious administration do to address these pressing issues?
bashes gays with a phony constitutional amendment. fucking pathetic.
Any soldier who rapes anyone/thing should be tried as a criminal in the U.S. Court System.
Servicemen/women are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). So if someone in uniform commits said crime, they will be court-martialed.
Tax cuts, booming economy, I dont know how many millions of new jobs, low unemployment, highest number of minority home and business owners, higher minority test scores, lower drug use among teenagers
Please to define "booming"? As in "headlights breakin cos your batteries drain" or "the trunk full of amps, there ain't no room for a spare"?
I also like how he threw that "minorty" shit in there. Assuming he's talking about white terds like himself...the statement is correct.
Tax cuts, booming economy, I dont know how many millions of new jobs, low unemployment, highest number of minority home and business owners, higher minority test scores, lower drug use among teenagers
Please to define "booming"? As in "headlights breakin cos your batteries drain" or "the trunk full of amps, there ain't no room for a spare"?
I also like how he threw that "minorty" shit in there. Assuming he's talking about white terds like himself...the statement is correct.
You have to be pushing 50, so how can you still be such an idiot?
The Right swears up and down that the mainstream media is in the hands of the Left. The Left swears up and down that the mainstream media is in the hands of the Right.
It's just a lot more complicated than suggesting that the media is anyone's pocket. At any given time, with any given story, you can spin the media in either direction. That's not enough to base an iron clad accusation on.
Odub,
i would never think in a million years that a journalist....especially a liberal journalist would have this opinion. the mainstream media is CONTROLLED by the right. its not even up for debate. this is a fact. whether there are liberal writers, tv and radio personalities is entirely different.
starting with the obvious - fox news, there is also Clear Channel (the biggest radio conglomerate). these two major news sources serve as complete republican propaganda. people who are educated and follow the news understand this but its not like for everyone else they put up a disclaimer saying "be advised that this news is spun entirely in favor of the right wing". the liberals have nothing. air america is tiny and poorly funded. that is all we got, a talk radio station that is only available through the internet (for a fee).
looking past the 1984-type brainwashing stations, the rest of the mainstream media is controlled by big business...which is of course, bush's bread and butter. there are some liberal writers at the times, the post and mags like the new yorker, but they are a rare breed. not to say that journalists are generally republicans, but take a look at the major news shows and see who is actually getting heard.
meet the press- russert has become a poster boy for the gop. there are websites that have "russert watches" which detail all the soft-balls he gives to republican guests. also, when you look at his roundtable, it is ALWAYS a majority of republicans.
cnn- american morning (former host is now at fox news, current hosts are very conservative...i watch this every morning), lou dobbs (racist), anderson cooper (dem, but a pushover)
msnbc- imus' morning show (republican, but asks some hard questions), chris matthews (conservative republican), joe scarborough (right wing republican), keith olberman (only hard hitting dem on cable news!), tucker carlson (extreme right wing fox news type republican)
i could go on and on. your right that there are plenty of liberal journalists, but how many of them are really getting heard. people think of the ny times and wash post as liberal, however, the editorial page is really the only place you'd find an opinion. they get that rap because they are the only papers that don't stick to the news that that bush's press secretary hand delivers.
The Right swears up and down that the mainstream media is in the hands of the Left. The Left swears up and down that the mainstream media is in the hands of the Right.
It's just a lot more complicated than suggesting that the media is anyone's pocket. At any given time, with any given story, you can spin the media in either direction. That's not enough to base an iron clad accusation on.
Odub,
i would never think in a million years that a journalist....especially a liberal journalist would have this opinion. the mainstream media is CONTROLLED by the right. its not even up for debate. this is a fact. whether there are liberal writers, tv and radio personalities is entirely different.
starting with the obvious - fox news, there is also Clear Channel (the biggest radio conglomerate). these two major news sources serve as complete republican propaganda. people who are educated and follow the news understand this but its not like for everyone else they put up a disclaimer saying "be advised that this news is spun entirely in favor of the right wing". the liberals have nothing. air america is tiny and poorly funded. that is all we got, a talk radio station that is only available through the internet (for a fee).
looking past the 1984-type brainwashing stations, the rest of the mainstream media is controlled by big business...which is of course, bush's bread and butter. there are some liberal writers at the times, the post and mags like the new yorker, but they are a rare breed. not to say that journalists are generally republicans, but take a look at the major news shows and see who is actually getting heard.
meet the press- russert has become a poster boy for the gop. there are websites that have "russert watches" which detail all the soft-balls he gives to republican guests. also, when you look at his roundtable, it is ALWAYS a majority of republicans.
cnn- american morning (former host is now at fox news, current hosts are very conservative...i watch this every morning), lou dobbs (racist), anderson cooper (dem, but a pushover)
msnbc- imus' morning show (republican, but asks some hard questions), chris matthews (conservative republican), joe scarborough (right wing republican), keith olberman (only hard hitting dem on cable news!), tucker carlson (extreme right wing fox news type republican)
i could go on and on. your right that there are plenty of liberal journalists, but how many of them are really getting heard. people think of the ny times and wash post as liberal, however, the editorial page is really the only place you'd find an opinion. they get that rap because they are the only papers that don't stick to the news that that bush's press secretary hand delivers.
so basically - you think that the democratic party funds itself entirely from $5 and $10 donations from average joes just like you? And that no "big businesses" are run by liberals? The problem with many of your arguments, is that you base them on "facts" that are not facts at all but just liberal myths mostly left over from a generation ago. You need to start challenging your basic assumptions, and this is one of them.
so basically - you think that the democratic party funds itself entirely from $5 and $10 donations from average joes just like you? And that no "big businesses" are run by liberals? The problem with many of your arguments, is that you base them on "facts" that are not facts at all but just liberal myths mostly left over from a generation ago. You need to start challenging your basic assumptions, and this is one of them.
what are you talking about? is there a counter-argument in there somewhere?
Aside from failing to cite any examples you are ignoring basic logic. Media entities are owned by whom? Corporations. And what ideology is more likely to be represented in corporations? Conservative. Why? Bush and the GOP are pro-business in every aspect and on every issue: taxes, the enviroinment, tort liability, anti-conglomerate laws. aren't you a lawyer? you should know how advantageous it is for a corporation to have a right wing federal judge. who do you think bush is appointing to the bench.
so we'll just ignore the fact that the overwhelming overwhelming[/b] majority of news stories are critical of the president, the administration and everything associated with it. As, was the case with the previous Bush and certainly with Reagan. Do you know that for their piece on 6/6/6 yesterday CNN felt compelled to mention that Ronald Wilson Reagan had 6 letters in each name. Are you really so wilfully blind as to disregard the obvious. You talk about facts, but you don't offer any, its all supposition, "who do you think a corporation wants on the bench?" As a corporate institutions they may be conservative, but their editorial policies, their writers and everything else about them are most certainly not. I actually read the papers, a lot of them, and I'll choose to believe my own lying eyes.
This has been a ongoing complaint from the Democrats that they "just aren't getting their message out, and that if they could make the people understand ... blah, blah, blah." Their real problem is that people hear their message loud and clear and reject it, they rejected Mondale and the "Massachusetts Miracle" not because the conservatives controlled the media, but because they weren't buying the same-old failed "great society" programs the democrats were selling. Whats even worse, is that now the Dems can't think of any message to replace the old one that they all recognize doesn't work any more, "we can do better"? They lost most of the white workingclass vote, even the Unions (those that still swing any weight) don't lock step for them, their losing Catholics, women, Latino voters. Dont blame the media, "its a poor carpenter that blames his tools."
so we'll just ignore the fact that the overwhelming overwhelming[/b] majority of news stories are critical of the president, the administration and everything associated with it. Of course that is Bush's problem. All the facts are against him. All his policies have failed.
Fortunatley during Clinton's administration the media focused only on the issues and never attacked him for his personal failings. It is a well known fact that the media ignored all the evidence of Clinton's wrong doing in regards to Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Instead the media focused on foriegn affairs, success in Kosovo and the Balkans, democratisation of central Europe, democratisation of Latin America, containment of Iraq. Balancing the budget. The booming economy and how Clinton's tax cuts were the cause was front page news day after day. Drug use and teen pregnancys dropped sharply during the Clinton years, as I am sure you heard over and over again on the nightly news.
I think it is so unfair that after being so kind to Clinton the news media focuses only on Bush's failures like ignoring warnings about 9/11, failure to finish off the Taliban or al Qaida. Failures in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lybia, Haiti. Inflation, deficits, medicare drug plan, FEMA, NCLB, port security, raising poverty, stagnent wages, huge payouts to agri-business, the most pork ridden transportaion bill ever, energy policy.
They should concentrate more on his success; gay bashing and fear mongering.
Let me start by noting that you should really think of the media as something more than just cable news. Almost all your examples presume that the MSM (mainstream media) is somehow reflected by CNN/MSNBC/FOX News and whatever radio stations Clear Channel and Infinity own. Not surprisingly, I don't watch/listen to any of those sources to get my news. I read newspapers. Magazines. I listen to NPR.
Maybe that just means I'm disconnected from the Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reillys of the world and frankly, that suits me just fine.
This idea that because MSM = corporation = Right just doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering that, last time I checked, the MSM has always been largely based and funded by corporate interests. I mean, PBS is funded by the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting, amongst other sources, no? Does that mean I can't trust PBS? Even Pacifica, the bastion of Left leaning radio, is based around a corporate model. Should I only get my news from pirate radio/video and blogs?
The idea that the entireity of the MSM is under the thumb of the Right is not just cynical, it's just plain removed from any reality that I live in. You claim this is a FACT - and I don't see how you can make that claim. A "fact" would have verifiable, objective, empirical evidence to support it. What you have is a "claim," and nothing you write below remotely supports a promotion of said claim to fact status.
Moreover, none of the journalists I know - and I know quite a few - would ever, ever, ever agree with the idea that somehow, the Right has the media on lock. Even the most left-leaning journalists I know would laugh at the suggestion.
Let me counter your cynicism with some naivete of my own:
I tend to think that the press naturally slants Left for this reason: if you are purportedly involved in media in the desire to report on the Truth, then you will value the freedom to do so above all other considerations, including political, economic and personal. To me, what I find troubling about Right-leaning journalism is that some - if not most - would put such ideals such a patriotism and loyalty ahead of the pursuit of the Truth, or that their desire to seem supportive of a President or his administration would outweigh the purpose (in my mind) of a free press to constantly challenge and investigate.
To me, this is precisely what the MSM - with a few exceptions (such as Fox) - has done. Sure, too many reporters and editors walked into the Iraq War without asking enough questions, but since then, from what I can see, the Right has treated the MSM as an anathema to their agenda, accused them of being biased, the White House has all but shut out the press corps except when they're leaking information to them to fuck over their opponents. But otherwise, MSM newspaper and magazines, to me, have been very critical about this current adminstration, about the rise of the Religious Right, about the changes around social morality. To put it another way, MSM is very much a secular institution and I think they are very protective of their secularism and this AUTOMATICALLY puts them more towards the left (or at the very least, center) than what I've seen as a rise in far Right ideology that's becoming part of that community's sense of media/press.
Just to reiterate: it's a lot easier to see this when you do more than watch cable news. I think cable news tends to slant Right if only because Right-wing personalities are usually a lot more entertaining to watch than Left-wing types. I would argue this is precisely why cable news seems to be more Right leaning: the Right have learned the importance of performance better than the Left have these days. But outside of the realm of side-by-side video debates and digital ticker tape updates, I think you'll find that the rest of the MSM is hardly as skewed as you think it is.
And just to note: my politics are most definitely left but I would never identify myself as a "liberal journalist" since I don't describe my interest in journalism through a lens of political affiliation. Does one influence the other? Of course it does, but that doesn't mean that I pursue stories based strictly on ideology.
Odub,
i would never think in a million years that a journalist....especially a liberal journalist would have this opinion. the mainstream media is CONTROLLED by the right. its not even up for debate. this is a fact. whether there are liberal writers, tv and radio personalities is entirely different.
starting with the obvious - fox news, there is also Clear Channel (the biggest radio conglomerate). these two major news sources serve as complete republican propaganda. people who are educated and follow the news understand this but its not like for everyone else they put up a disclaimer saying "be advised that this news is spun entirely in favor of the right wing". the liberals have nothing. air america is tiny and poorly funded. that is all we got, a talk radio station that is only available through the internet (for a fee).
looking past the 1984-type brainwashing stations, the rest of the mainstream media is controlled by big business...which is of course, bush's bread and butter. there are some liberal writers at the times, the post and mags like the new yorker, but they are a rare breed. not to say that journalists are generally republicans, but take a look at the major news shows and see who is actually getting heard.
meet the press- russert has become a poster boy for the gop. there are websites that have "russert watches" which detail all the soft-balls he gives to republican guests. also, when you look at his roundtable, it is ALWAYS a majority of republicans.
cnn- american morning (former host is now at fox news, current hosts are very conservative...i watch this every morning), lou dobbs (racist), anderson cooper (dem, but a pushover)
msnbc- imus' morning show (republican, but asks some hard questions), chris matthews (conservative republican), joe scarborough (right wing republican), keith olberman (only hard hitting dem on cable news!), tucker carlson (extreme right wing fox news type republican)
i could go on and on. your right that there are plenty of liberal journalists, but how many of them are really getting heard. people think of the ny times and wash post as liberal, however, the editorial page is really the only place you'd find an opinion. they get that rap because they are the only papers that don't stick to the news that that bush's press secretary hand delivers.
The Reagan administration removed the fairness doctrine. Murdoch, Rush and others quickly saw the advantage to be had and grabbed it. This has led to a domination of the right on broadcast media where most Americans get their news.
No broadcast outlet has had the same success with an all out rah rah liberal agenda. Except comedy central of course. People listen to NPR not for their liberal bias, but because they do in depth factual reporting that generally leaves out a bias. I am thinking of ME and ATC when I say that. Fluffier programs like Terry Gross and Slate show their liberal bias more, but TG is the only place I have in depth interviews with people like the President of Patrick Henry University and the authors of the Left Behind series.
The difference between the not-for-profit-corporation that oversees Pacifica and the publicly traded company that owns ABC is enormous, and to compare the 2 is meaningless.
But the same token I think we can agree that big business loved Clinton and the way he opened world markets for them and encouraged technology.
Let me start by noting that you should really think of the media as something more than just cable news. Almost all your examples presume that the MSM (mainstream media) is somehow reflected by CNN/MSNBC/FOX News and whatever radio stations Clear Channel and Infinity own. Not surprisingly, I don't watch/listen to any of those sources to get my news. I read newspapers. Magazines. I listen to NPR.
of course the media is more than cable news and talk radio. that's not the point. most of the country, even the well-educated, get the majority of their news from soundbites. if a majority of americans read the nyt and listened to npr, bush would not be in office. his game of deception relies on our collective ignorance. if you think americans aren't persuaded by tv and radio, well, i beg to differ. also, you didn't mention nbc, abc and cbs, which are also heavily slanted. google the tim russert watch and you will get the picture as far as my comments about meet the press.
This idea that because MSM = corporation = Right just doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering that, last time I checked, the MSM has always been largely based and funded by corporate interests. I mean, PBS is funded by the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting, amongst other sources, no? Does that mean I can't trust PBS? Even Pacifica, the bastion of Left leaning radio, is based around a corporate model. Should I only get my news from pirate radio/video and blogs?
yes. we are living in the information age. the blogs often have the scoops before the mainstream media. furthermore, your right, they don't have the burden of a coroporate big brother monitoring what they write. if you truly want to stay informed, we have come a long way.
The idea that the entireity of the MSM is under the thumb of the Right is not just cynical, it's just plain removed from any reality that I live in. You claim this is a FACT - and I don't see how you can make that claim. A "fact" would have verifiable, objective, empirical evidence to support it. What you have is a "claim," and nothing you write below remotely supports a promotion of said claim to fact status.
just about the entirety. if i was still in school, i'd write a paper about this, but i'm at work, and while i'd love to give you a list of sources for my argument, i don't have the time right now. however, i guarantee that if you google "conservative control of the media" the evidence will speak for itself. there have been several books written about this in the past year. i think one is titled "the so-called liberal media bias".
Moreover, none of the journalists I know - and I know quite a few - would ever, ever, ever agree with the idea that somehow, the Right has the media on lock. Even the most left-leaning journalists I know would laugh at the suggestion.
Not to discredit the rest of your post about your own opinion, but please do as you suggested above (and actually ask some of your journalist friends about their opinion) and let me know the response. remember, i never argued that there are a dominant number of right wing journalists. in fact, i would guess that the opposite is true. my point is that the conservatives control the corporations who own the media outlets and tthat hey are using this power to filter the news so that it conforms to their own interests.
so we'll just ignore the fact that the overwhelming overwhelming[/b] majority of news stories are critical of the president, the administration and everything associated with it.
Of course that is Bush's problem. All the facts are against him. All his policies have failed.
Many conservatives have this cocksure attitude about how things should be. Whereas, many liberals appear wishy washy and unsure because of many possibilities and alternative explanations.
Journalism is naturally more compatible witht the latter and proabably explains why left leaning individuals have been attracted to journalism through the years.
At the same time journalists have been critical of public officials since forever:
George Washington was a teabag dandy. FDR owes everything to nepotism. Up to recently... Carter a dumb country bumpkin. Reagan a dumb actor. HWBush out of touch. Clinton a slimy pimp. etc...
Unfortunately, the right wing has gamed the system by falsely proclaiming the media is liberal. So now their version of objectivity relies on the false premise of balance through a forced dichotomy of every issue. And too many journalists have caved in.
false premise of balance through a forced dichotomy of every issue.
This absolutely drives me up the fucking wall. The truth needs no counterbalance--it simply is. Which is probably why PBS pissed off the Bushies so much--it failed to be sufficiently conservative, so it needed to be "balanced," aka made more conservative. Pursuant to this, I saw a question asked once that I have yet to see answered:
When's the last time a conservative argued for balance or diversity and didn't mean himself?
false premise of balance through a forced dichotomy of every issue.
This absolutely drives me up the fucking wall. The truth needs no counterbalance--it simply is. Which is probably why PBS pissed off the Bushies so much--it failed to be sufficiently conservative, so it needed to be "balanced," aka made more conservative. Pursuant to this, I saw a question asked once that I have yet to see answered:
When's the last time a conservative argued for balance or diversity and didn't mean himself?
it's a completely illogical argument. and it really represents how lazy journalists have become. it's sad.
real journalists are a lot like scientists. they use their evidence gathering skills to inform an issue.
these fuckers are lazy terds with little demonstrated evidence gathering skills other than throwing up someone from the Brookings Institute and someone from the Heritage Foundation and calling it a day.
the audience is left to choose a side. which breeds ignorance and we already have WAY too much of that.
i think Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly in his sonning of Tucker and Paul on Crossfire. Worth another look.
Comments
Do we have any economists in the house? (Not like you can get two of 'em to agree on anything anyway).
In the meantime, running up record spending isn't exactly helping either, right? Bush and Congress haven't had the cojones to put the stomp on blatant pork barrel spending on either side of the aisle. Shit is sad.
Comptroller General to Federal Government: Stop Digging
David Walker calls America's fiscal condition "worse than advertised"
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The federal government is overextending itself in promises, Comptroller General David Walker said at the closing session of the National Conference of State Legislatures' Spring Forum.
Five years ago the nation's total liabilities and unfunded commitments totaled $20.4 trillion. In the past five years, Walker said, that has ballooned to $46 trillion. The comptroller blames Medicare for most of the increase, $8.7 trillion of which is attributable to the new Part D prescription drug benefit. That in itself, Walker said, is more than the nation's accumulated debt since its inception in 1789.
"If that's not imprudent, I don't know what is," Walker said. "The difficulty is that we have not learned the first rule of holes: When you're in a hole, stop digging. The most imprudent thing you can do is to expand entitlement programs. And that's exactly what was done."
Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are the main programs that are causing the federal fiscal imbalance. In 1965, Walker said, 43 percent of the federal budget was spent on defense. In 2005, that was down to 20 percent. These three health and social service programs have sucked up the balance, and then some.
The 2004-2004 federal budget had a 35 percent negative bottom line, Walker said. Its accrual-based deficit was a record-high $765 billion. And a relatively small portion of that--$100 billion--was spent on Iraq, Afghanistan and homeland security. Medicare spending, by contrast, is growing five times faster than the economy.
Walker called for leaders to step forward and get this nation on track. He recommends:
Re-imposing pay-as-you-go and spending cap federal budget controls that served the nation well through the 1990s;
Improving accounting and reporting metrics so that lawmakers and the general public will know how much money must be invested today to deliver on tomorrow's promises; and
Drastically restructuring Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.
"The status quo is an unacceptable and unsustainable path," Walker said. "There's no way we can grow our way out of this problem. It's simple math. ???
"Is this only a federal problem?" he asked. "The answer is, "no." Bad news flows downhill, to state and local governments, and eventually, to American families."
Marti Harkness, criminal justice director with the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, says this is already happening today, at least at the state level.
"The federal deficit has a direct impact on state finances," Harkness said. "When the federal government can't balance its books, the states have to pick up the tab. Everywhere, we're seeing more and more reductions in federal funds to states."
The latest update to NCSL???s Mandate Monitor shows Congress has shifted close to $75 billion in costs to states over the past three fiscal years. That figure could grow to more than $100 billion if the president???s FY 2007 budget is enacted. New NCSL data shows state budgets are stable for now, but they face their own challenges in the coming years. Nineteen states expect structural imbalances to show themselves by FY '08.
Delaware Representative Donna Stone, NCSL's vice president, heard Walker's call to action. "It is incumbent upon federal and state governments to start working together as partners, and not be at odds with each other, because our constituents are all the same. We need to solve these problems."
NCSL is the bipartisan organization that serves the legislators and staffs of the states, commonwealths and territories. It provides research, technical assistance and opportunities for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues and is an effective and respected advocate for the interests of the states in the American federal system.
Bush Administration
O'Neill was appointed Secretary of the Treasury by George W. Bush. He selected Mark Weinberger to be the assistant secretary for tax policy. O'Neill was a somewhat outspoken member of the administration, often saying things to the press that went against the administration's party line, and doing unusual things like taking a tour of Africa with singer Bono.
A report commissioned in 2002 by O'Neill while Treasury Secretary suggested the United States faced future federal budget deficits of more than US$ 500 billion. The report also suggested that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts, or both would be unavoidable if the United States were to meet benefit promises to its future generations. The study estimated that closing the budget gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase. The Bush administration left the findings out of the 2004 annual budget report published in February 2003.
O'Neill's private feuds with Bush's tax cut policies as well as his push to investigate al-Qaeda funding coming from the United Arab Emirates led to his resignation in 2002 and replacement with John W. Snow.>>
I watched his whole speech on CSPAN where he also talked about taxes but I can't find a copy of the entire speech, just that small blurb. If I remember correctly he talked about how government spending is increasing under mandatory increases, Bush has made it worse by making his own spending increases, and then on top of it he's cutting revenues, all of which have led to an explosion in the deficit.
If the Democrats want new programs like national healthcare or anything else they need to find ways to pay for it, via taxes or other fees because nobody in Congress of either party is really going to cut that many existing programs.
here is an article from CNN on O'Neil seeking acceleration of the tax cuts, but the Simpsons is on so I'm out. Gotta have priorities. Its the one where they take the crayon out of Homers nose and he gets smart.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/16/bush.economy/index.html
Here is an article on the racial make up of the military. The most significant thing in the article is that urban and rural areas make up the bulk of the military and suburbs are barely represented at all.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=359261
Opps, is this the economy thread.
Since the economy was better under Clinton after all his tax increases than it is now we could argue that tax increases are better for the economy than cuts.
But that would be stupid.
I think we can all agree that a massive deficit like the one we currently have will spell disaster. I think we can also agree that an out of control Republican congress, senate and White House is the cause of the deficit. If you are going to make massive tax cuts you can't make massive increases in things like corporate welfare, agriculture pay outs, highway bills and other pork.
well sabadaba you're a smart guy so I don't have to tell you that correlation does not equal causation. in response to my question as to what the administration has accomplished you mention one "act" on the part of the administration (cutting taxes) and then a list of (unsubstantiated) events/occurences that transpired during the administration (the bulk of which can be attributed to business cycles, demographic shifts, etc. and not necessarily to policy).
the only actual "accomplishment" that you mention -- the only event that can be attributed wholly to the administration -- is tax cuts. you mention it first. i have no doubt it was the first thing that came to your mind. and that you thought long and hard for other things to add to that list.
and that says a lot, since that's basically all Bush has "done" (besides the admittedly admirable but ultimately bungled defeat of the Taliban).
and by the way, if you were positively impacted by the tax cuts, good for you. i don't hate on rich people. however, please recognize that you are in the EXTREME minority that can say that. forgive me for wanting a president to actually accomplish something positive for the nation and not just for his friends/corporate backers.
but you cannot deny the very serious dillemnas this country faces. in our disasterous military engagements abroad, in our economy's doomed dependence on fossil fuels, in our failing public schools, etc. the list goes on. and let's not stop at domestic crises. as the world's sole superpower, we have a moral obligation to at least acknowledge if not address the proscecution of genocide in Sudan, the growing threat to global stability posed by rogue states such as North Korea, human trafficking, erosion of democracy in Eastern Europe, etc. etc. etc....
so what course have the great minds assembled in the white house charted? what strategy has the administration designed to tackle these crises? what wise policy has the administration devised as the world looks to the US for help and guidance on issues of global import? what does this illustrious administration do to address these pressing issues?
bashes gays with a phony constitutional amendment. fucking pathetic.
funniest thing I've heard all year.
more evidence of slippage
i.e. deafening silence.....
Please to define "booming"? As in "headlights breakin cos your batteries drain" or "the trunk full of amps, there ain't no room for a spare"?
I also like how he threw that "minorty" shit in there. Assuming he's talking about white terds like himself...the statement is correct.
You have to be pushing 50, so how can you still be such an idiot?
Odub,
i would never think in a million years that a journalist....especially a liberal journalist would have this opinion. the mainstream media is CONTROLLED by the right. its not even up for debate. this is a fact. whether there are liberal writers, tv and radio personalities is entirely different.
starting with the obvious - fox news, there is also Clear Channel (the biggest radio conglomerate). these two major news sources serve as complete republican propaganda. people who are educated and follow the news understand this but its not like for everyone else they put up a disclaimer saying "be advised that this news is spun entirely in favor of the right wing". the liberals have nothing. air america is tiny and poorly funded. that is all we got, a talk radio station that is only available through the internet (for a fee).
looking past the 1984-type brainwashing stations, the rest of the mainstream media is controlled by big business...which is of course, bush's bread and butter. there are some liberal writers at the times, the post and mags like the new yorker, but they are a rare breed. not to say that journalists are generally republicans, but take a look at the major news shows and see who is actually getting heard.
meet the press- russert has become a poster boy for the gop. there are websites that have "russert watches" which detail all the soft-balls he gives to republican guests. also, when you look at his roundtable, it is ALWAYS a majority of republicans.
cnn- american morning (former host is now at fox news, current hosts are very conservative...i watch this every morning), lou dobbs (racist), anderson cooper (dem, but a pushover)
msnbc- imus' morning show (republican, but asks some hard questions), chris matthews (conservative republican), joe scarborough (right wing republican), keith olberman (only hard hitting dem on cable news!), tucker carlson (extreme right wing fox news type republican)
i could go on and on. your right that there are plenty of liberal journalists, but how many of them are really getting heard. people think of the ny times and wash post as liberal, however, the editorial page is really the only place you'd find an opinion. they get that rap because they are the only papers that don't stick to the news that that bush's press secretary hand delivers.
so basically - you think that the democratic party funds itself entirely from $5 and $10 donations from average joes just like you? And that no "big businesses" are run by liberals? The problem with many of your arguments, is that you base them on "facts" that are not facts at all but just liberal myths mostly left over from a generation ago. You need to start challenging your basic assumptions, and this is one of them.
what are you talking about? is there a counter-argument in there somewhere?
Aside from failing to cite any examples you are ignoring basic logic. Media entities are owned by whom? Corporations. And what ideology is more likely to be represented in corporations? Conservative. Why? Bush and the GOP are pro-business in every aspect and on every issue: taxes, the enviroinment, tort liability, anti-conglomerate laws. aren't you a lawyer? you should know how advantageous it is for a corporation to have a right wing federal judge. who do you think bush is appointing to the bench.
Of course that is Bush's problem. All the facts are against him. All his policies have failed.
Fortunatley during Clinton's administration the media focused only on the issues and never attacked him for his personal failings. It is a well known fact that the media ignored all the evidence of Clinton's wrong doing in regards to Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky. Instead the media focused on foriegn affairs, success in Kosovo and the Balkans, democratisation of central Europe, democratisation of Latin America, containment of Iraq. Balancing the budget. The booming economy and how Clinton's tax cuts were the cause was front page news day after day. Drug use and teen pregnancys dropped sharply during the Clinton years, as I am sure you heard over and over again on the nightly news.
I think it is so unfair that after being so kind to Clinton the news media focuses only on Bush's failures like ignoring warnings about 9/11, failure to finish off the Taliban or al Qaida. Failures in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Lybia, Haiti. Inflation, deficits, medicare drug plan, FEMA, NCLB, port security, raising poverty, stagnent wages, huge payouts to agri-business, the most pork ridden transportaion bill ever, energy policy.
They should concentrate more on his success; gay bashing and fear mongering.
Let me start by noting that you should really think of the media as something more than just cable news. Almost all your examples presume that the MSM (mainstream media) is somehow reflected by CNN/MSNBC/FOX News and whatever radio stations Clear Channel and Infinity own. Not surprisingly, I don't watch/listen to any of those sources to get my news. I read newspapers. Magazines. I listen to NPR.
Maybe that just means I'm disconnected from the Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reillys of the world and frankly, that suits me just fine.
This idea that because MSM = corporation = Right just doesn't make much sense to me, especially considering that, last time I checked, the MSM has always been largely based and funded by corporate interests. I mean, PBS is funded by the CORPORATION for Public Broadcasting, amongst other sources, no? Does that mean I can't trust PBS? Even Pacifica, the bastion of Left leaning radio, is based around a corporate model. Should I only get my news from pirate radio/video and blogs?
The idea that the entireity of the MSM is under the thumb of the Right is not just cynical, it's just plain removed from any reality that I live in. You claim this is a FACT - and I don't see how you can make that claim. A "fact" would have verifiable, objective, empirical evidence to support it. What you have is a "claim," and nothing you write below remotely supports a promotion of said claim to fact status.
Moreover, none of the journalists I know - and I know quite a few - would ever, ever, ever agree with the idea that somehow, the Right has the media on lock. Even the most left-leaning journalists I know would laugh at the suggestion.
Let me counter your cynicism with some naivete of my own:
I tend to think that the press naturally slants Left for this reason: if you are purportedly involved in media in the desire to report on the Truth, then you will value the freedom to do so above all other considerations, including political, economic and personal. To me, what I find troubling about Right-leaning journalism is that some - if not most - would put such ideals such a patriotism and loyalty ahead of the pursuit of the Truth, or that their desire to seem supportive of a President or his administration would outweigh the purpose (in my mind) of a free press to constantly challenge and investigate.
To me, this is precisely what the MSM - with a few exceptions (such as Fox) - has done. Sure, too many reporters and editors walked into the Iraq War without asking enough questions, but since then, from what I can see, the Right has treated the MSM as an anathema to their agenda, accused them of being biased, the White House has all but shut out the press corps except when they're leaking information to them to fuck over their opponents. But otherwise, MSM newspaper and magazines, to me, have been very critical about this current adminstration, about the rise of the Religious Right, about the changes around social morality. To put it another way, MSM is very much a secular institution and I think they are very protective of their secularism and this AUTOMATICALLY puts them more towards the left (or at the very least, center) than what I've seen as a rise in far Right ideology that's becoming part of that community's sense of media/press.
Just to reiterate: it's a lot easier to see this when you do more than watch cable news. I think cable news tends to slant Right if only because Right-wing personalities are usually a lot more entertaining to watch than Left-wing types. I would argue this is precisely why cable news seems to be more Right leaning: the Right have learned the importance of performance better than the Left have these days. But outside of the realm of side-by-side video debates and digital ticker tape updates, I think you'll find that the rest of the MSM is hardly as skewed as you think it is.
And just to note: my politics are most definitely left but I would never identify myself as a "liberal journalist" since I don't describe my interest in journalism through a lens of political affiliation. Does one influence the other? Of course it does, but that doesn't mean that I pursue stories based strictly on ideology.
No broadcast outlet has had the same success with an all out rah rah liberal agenda. Except comedy central of course. People listen to NPR not for their liberal bias, but because they do in depth factual reporting that generally leaves out a bias. I am thinking of ME and ATC when I say that. Fluffier programs like Terry Gross and Slate show their liberal bias more, but TG is the only place I have in depth interviews with people like the President of Patrick Henry University and the authors of the Left Behind series.
The difference between the not-for-profit-corporation that oversees Pacifica and the publicly traded company that owns ABC is enormous, and to compare the 2 is meaningless.
But the same token I think we can agree that big business loved Clinton and the way he opened world markets for them and encouraged technology.
of course the media is more than cable news and talk radio. that's not the point. most of the country, even the well-educated, get the majority of their news from soundbites. if a majority of americans read the nyt and listened to npr, bush would not be in office. his game of deception relies on our collective ignorance. if you think americans aren't persuaded by tv and radio, well, i beg to differ. also, you didn't mention nbc, abc and cbs, which are also heavily slanted. google the tim russert watch and you will get the picture as far as my comments about meet the press.
yes. we are living in the information age. the blogs often have the scoops before the mainstream media. furthermore, your right, they don't have the burden of a coroporate big brother monitoring what they write. if you truly want to stay informed, we have come a long way.
just about the entirety. if i was still in school, i'd write a paper about this, but i'm at work, and while i'd love to give you a list of sources for my argument, i don't have the time right now. however, i guarantee that if you google "conservative control of the media" the evidence will speak for itself. there have been several books written about this in the past year. i think one is titled "the so-called liberal media bias".
Not to discredit the rest of your post about your own opinion, but please do as you suggested above (and actually ask some of your journalist friends about their opinion) and let me know the response. remember, i never argued that there are a dominant number of right wing journalists. in fact, i would guess that the opposite is true. my point is that the conservatives control the corporations who own the media outlets and tthat hey are using this power to filter the news so that it conforms to their own interests.
Journalism is naturally more compatible witht the latter and proabably explains why left leaning individuals have been attracted to journalism through the years.
At the same time journalists have been critical of public officials since forever:
George Washington was a teabag dandy.
FDR owes everything to nepotism.
Up to recently...
Carter a dumb country bumpkin.
Reagan a dumb actor.
HWBush out of touch.
Clinton a slimy pimp. etc...
Unfortunately, the right wing has gamed the system by falsely proclaiming the media is liberal. So now their version of objectivity relies on the false premise of balance through a forced dichotomy of every issue. And too many journalists have caved in.
They need to all be fired.
This absolutely drives me up the fucking wall. The truth needs no counterbalance--it simply is. Which is probably why PBS pissed off the Bushies so much--it failed to be sufficiently conservative, so it needed to be "balanced," aka made more conservative. Pursuant to this, I saw a question asked once that I have yet to see answered:
When's the last time a conservative argued for balance or diversity and didn't mean himself?
it's a completely illogical argument. and it really represents how lazy journalists have become. it's sad.
real journalists are a lot like scientists. they use their evidence gathering skills to inform an issue.
these fuckers are lazy terds with little demonstrated evidence gathering skills other than throwing up someone from the Brookings Institute and someone from the Heritage Foundation and calling it a day.
the audience is left to choose a side. which breeds ignorance and we already have WAY too much of that.
i think Jon Stewart summed it up perfectly in his sonning of Tucker and Paul on Crossfire. Worth another look.
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2652831?htv=12
...and Colbert last month.
Keep in mind, these are COMEDIANS. Is it bad enough yet?