[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I’ll tell you that I work in journalism and within the industry, [/quote]
Any insight into why the modern media and 24 news cycle sucks balls, and basically panders to one side or the other?
Also, who or what is concidered quality independant news these days? (I’m thinking along the lines of blogs and other type non-mega-corporate owned and baised media outlets.)[/quote]
Good observation there is no more impartial corporate media. None.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I’ll tell you that I work in journalism and within the industry, [/quote]
Any insight into why the modern media and 24 news cycle sucks balls, and basically panders to one side or the other?
Also, who or what is concidered quality independant news these days? (I’m thinking along the lines of blogs and other type non-mega-corporate owned and baised media outlets.)[/quote]
The toxic political climate itself hasn’t helped, and neither has the fact that Fox’s strategy has proved to be the most successful one since the days of Murrow and Cronkite.
I would have to say that at the bottom of it, it may just be human nature to spin things one way or another–some primeval urge to paint your face, dance around the fire chanting, and crack the skulls of people who don’t look or act or think like you do.
As far as where to go for news, conventional wisdom in the industry goes like this: every morning, read the news pages of the New York Times and Politico, the editorial pages of both the NYT and the WSJ, and read the Washington Post when something of note is written in it. On weekends read the Economist and the New Yorker (the latter of which I fucking hate doing, and rarely if ever do). Conservatives in the industry swear by Drudge, but the WSJ is usually much better.
When it comes to things outside of the mega-corporate circle, the best bet is hands down the New York Review of Books. On TV, it’s PBS NewsHour. Both are unsexy, serious, and can get a little boring sometimes. But both are straight shooters (NewsHour’s soundbites are usually like 3 minutes long, just so that nothing comes out of context).
Sorry, don’t read a single blog but I’ll ask around because I think I might be the only one.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
But I’ll tell you that I work in journalism and within the industry, [/quote]
Any insight into why the modern media and 24 news cycle sucks balls, and basically panders to one side or the other?
Also, who or what is concidered quality independant news these days? (I’m thinking along the lines of blogs and other type non-mega-corporate owned and baised media outlets.)[/quote]
The toxic political climate itself hasn’t helped, and neither has the fact that Fox’s strategy has proved to be the most successful one since the days of Murrow and Cronkite.
I would have to say that at the bottom of it, it may just be human nature to spin things one way or another–some primeval urge to paint your face, dance around the fire chanting, and crack the skulls of people who don’t look or act or think like you do.
As far as where to go for news, conventional wisdom in the industry goes like this: every morning, read the news pages of the New York Times and Politico, the editorial pages of both the NYT and the WSJ, and read the Washington Post when something of note is written in it. On weekends read the Economist and the New Yorker (the latter of which I fucking hate doing, and rarely if ever do). Conservatives in the industry swear by Drudge, but the WSJ is usually much better.
When it comes to things outside of the mega-corporate circle, the best bet is hands down the New York Review of Books. On TV, it’s PBS NewsHour. Both are unsexy, serious, and can get a little boring sometimes. But both are straight shooters (NewsHour’s soundbites are usually like 3 minutes long, just so that nothing comes out of context).
Sorry, don’t read a single blog but I’ll ask around because I think I might be the only one.[/quote]
Thanks. I am big on the Journal. Good to see my instincts aren’t total shit.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
smh23 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one. And keep in mind that for the first two years he had a democratic house and senate. There is really no excuse for his poor performance.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.[/quote]
You and I won’t agree on the details. We may not even agree on the facts. Such is the nature of contemporary politics.
Suffice it to say that conservatives probably give Obama too little credit and liberals too much. You probably attribute too much of the current state of the economy to his incompetence, and liberals probably attribute too much of it to Bush’s legacy and Republican obstructionism.
I will say that this: thank God Obama and not Romney was faced with the collapse of Chrysler and GM (given the Romney has said he’d have let them fail, which, of course, we can never know is actually true). Loss of the Big Three would have meant the loss of: 2 million jobs, both directly and through the deathblow that would have been dealt to peripheral industries; $400 billion in personal income over three years; $156 billion to state and federal welfare; and $25 billion to foreign rather than domestic markets because of the rise of imports.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.[/quote]
You and I won’t agree on the details. We may not even agree on the facts. Such is the nature of contemporary politics.
Suffice it to say that conservatives probably give Obama too little credit and liberals too much. You probably attribute too much of the current state of the economy to his incompetence, and liberals probably attribute too much of it to Bush’s legacy and Republican obstructionism.
I will say that this: thank God Obama and not Romney was faced with the collapse of Chrysler and GM (given the Romney has said he’d have let them fail, which, of course, we can never know is actually true). Loss of the Big Three would have meant the loss of: 2 million jobs, both directly and through the deathblow that would have been dealt to peripheral industries; $400 billion in personal income over three years; $156 billion to state and federal welfare; and $25 billion to foreign rather than domestic markets because of the rise of imports.[/quote]
So some companies cannot opperate in a way to insure their survival, and the answer is to prop them up to fail another day, kicking the problems down the road to our kids?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.[/quote]
You and I won’t agree on the details. We may not even agree on the facts. Such is the nature of contemporary politics.
Suffice it to say that conservatives probably give Obama too little credit and liberals too much. You probably attribute too much of the current state of the economy to his incompetence, and liberals probably attribute too much of it to Bush’s legacy and Republican obstructionism.
I will say that this: thank God Obama and not Romney was faced with the collapse of Chrysler and GM (given the Romney has said he’d have let them fail, which, of course, we can never know is actually true). Loss of the Big Three would have meant the loss of: 2 million jobs, both directly and through the deathblow that would have been dealt to peripheral industries; $400 billion in personal income over three years; $156 billion to state and federal welfare; and $25 billion to foreign rather than domestic markets because of the rise of imports.[/quote]
So some companies cannot opperate in a way to insure their survival, and the answer is to prop them up to fail another day, kicking the problems down the road to our kids?
[/quote]
I don’t disagree with you, and inflating zombie companies with unearned and undeserved cash to keep them bloated and barely alive is a recipe for eventual disaster. Japan did it in the 90s and it almost threatened their regional economic primacy at the time.
But that kind of shock, at that time, would have been utterly devastating. There is a very good chance that most of our lives would be different right now had it been allowed to happen–and not in a good way. I don’t know as much about economics as I’d like to, but I’ve read a good amount on this, from various ideological perspectives, and I honestly believe that Obama avoided calamity there.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t disagree with you, and inflating zombie companies with unearned and undeserved cash to keep them bloated and barely alive is a recipe for eventual disaster. Japan did it in the 90s and it almost threatened their regional economic primacy at the time.
But that kind of shock, at that time, would have been utterly devastating. There is a very good chance that most of our lives would be different right now had it been allowed to happen–and not in a good way. I don’t know as much about economics as I’d like to, but I’ve read a good amount on this, from various ideological perspectives, and I honestly believe that Obama avoided calamity there.[/quote]
I tend to agree with the devastating, and on a lot of levels that we (rememeber, if you didn’t build that, Obama didn’t save that;)) did avoid a calamity.
I just can’t get past the fact there seems to be nothing done to correct the situation that got those companies where they were. It seems like the policy was: here is some cash, have a good day. When it should have been: here is some cash, how do you propose to keep this from happening, and oh yeah, you are repaying every cent of it.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t disagree with you, and inflating zombie companies with unearned and undeserved cash to keep them bloated and barely alive is a recipe for eventual disaster. Japan did it in the 90s and it almost threatened their regional economic primacy at the time.
But that kind of shock, at that time, would have been utterly devastating. There is a very good chance that most of our lives would be different right now had it been allowed to happen–and not in a good way. I don’t know as much about economics as I’d like to, but I’ve read a good amount on this, from various ideological perspectives, and I honestly believe that Obama avoided calamity there.[/quote]
I tend to agree with the devastating, and on a lot of levels that we (rememeber, if you didn’t build that, Obama didn’t save that;)) did avoid a calamity.
I just can’t get past the fact there seems to be nothing done to correct the situation that got those companies where they were. It seems like the policy was: here is some cash, have a good day. When it should have been: here is some cash, how do you propose to keep this from happening, and oh yeah, you are repaying every cent of it. [/quote]
Word to that.
Okay, crazy prediction time:
Soros dumped a lot of his stocks and bought gold, so either the new world order is kicking in (hahah had to) or he sees more easing from the Fed and more uncertainty if not another crash. I see another crash as well.
Obama wins, and every knows the tax rates are going up up and away. So, people fearing upwards of 24% on LT gains and 44% on short term gains, will dump their gainers before 1/1/13. We are talking about huge sell off here. This will cause massive panic, and gold to go up.
Then, these same people will buy back in, and hold until the socialist is out of office, we elect a capitist and all is right in the world. But when they buy back in, it will be at teh deflated prices from the sell off, so they will have more gains on the back end.
This is why the Fed is going to do QE3. Investor confidence blows, and QE3 will pump up the markets enough to sheild the pain of an Obama election from becoming another melt down.
eh… I don’t know. Maybe this is crazy talk.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
One need only think back to the way they attacked George Bush for high gas prices (remember the comments about his oil pals getting rich?). Gas prices were at that time $1.82 per gallon. That same gallon of gasoline now costs $3.85 and we can hear crickets chirping when it comes to the press speaking out. [/quote]
You are a sharp guy ZEB; I always look forward to your responses. You are right about the media playing fast & loose with the facts, butyou are doing the same thing here. There is plenty to criticize about the current administration without working the edges. No reason to claim a sub three-hour marathon.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
So some companies cannot opperate in a way to insure their survival, and the answer is to prop them up to fail another day, kicking the problems down the road to our kids?
[/quote]
Amen…same goes for the banks!
.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.[/quote]
You and I won’t agree on the details. We may not even agree on the facts. Such is the nature of contemporary politics.
Suffice it to say that conservatives probably give Obama too little credit and liberals too much. You probably attribute too much of the current state of the economy to his incompetence, and liberals probably attribute too much of it to Bush’s legacy and Republican obstructionism.
I will say that this: thank God Obama and not Romney was faced with the collapse of Chrysler and GM (given the Romney has said he’d have let them fail, which, of course, we can never know is actually true). Loss of the Big Three would have meant the loss of: 2 million jobs, both directly and through the deathblow that would have been dealt to peripheral industries; $400 billion in personal income over three years; $156 billion to state and federal welfare; and $25 billion to foreign rather than domestic markets because of the rise of imports.[/quote]
I am aware that Obama inherited a bad economy and that the world wide economy is not doing well. But, I am also aware that Obama is tone deaf when it comes to business, large and small. And for a President to push health care as hard as he did when he had the luxury of both the senate and house being democrat for two full years is inexcusable!
Yes, he’s done some good things. At the top of the list was to take out Bin Laden. I gave him plenty of credit for that right here on this board when other conservatives were saying it was the Bush security team that began the trailing of Bin Laden.
But when it comes to the economy he has been a total failure!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Okay, crazy prediction time:
Soros dumped a lot of his stocks and bought gold, so either the new world order is kicking in (hahah had to) or he sees more easing from the Fed and more uncertainty if not another crash. I see another crash as well.
Obama wins, and every knows the tax rates are going up up and away. So, people fearing upwards of 24% on LT gains and 44% on short term gains, will dump their gainers before 1/1/13. We are talking about huge sell off here. This will cause massive panic, and gold to go up.
Then, these same people will buy back in, and hold until the socialist is out of office, we elect a capitist and all is right in the world. But when they buy back in, it will be at teh deflated prices from the sell off, so they will have more gains on the back end.
This is why the Fed is going to do QE3. Investor confidence blows, and QE3 will pump up the markets enough to sheild the pain of an Obama election from becoming another melt down.
eh… I don’t know. Maybe this is crazy talk. [/quote]
Interesting scenario. If what you say is true Glenn Beck is not too far off. He has predicted from day one that Obama will wreck the economy on purpose so that he can have his “fundamental change” and rebuild it European style.
No one can say that he doesn’t have a good start on this if you want to believe that particular prediction.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I have always said some version of what I wrote above–anyone who thinks him an utter failure is as deluded as anyone who thinks him a triumphant success. He has done some right and some wrong.[/quote]
This is true but the wrong far, far out weighs the right. And the press would be pointing out all of the wrong if the President were not a democrat named Barack Obama.[/quote]
I’m split about half and half.[/quote]
Why don’t you name all of the rights and I’ll give you two wrongs for each one.[/quote]
You and I won’t agree on the details. We may not even agree on the facts. Such is the nature of contemporary politics.
Suffice it to say that conservatives probably give Obama too little credit and liberals too much. You probably attribute too much of the current state of the economy to his incompetence, and liberals probably attribute too much of it to Bush’s legacy and Republican obstructionism.
I will say that this: thank God Obama and not Romney was faced with the collapse of Chrysler and GM (given the Romney has said he’d have let them fail, which, of course, we can never know is actually true). Loss of the Big Three would have meant the loss of: 2 million jobs, both directly and through the deathblow that would have been dealt to peripheral industries; $400 billion in personal income over three years; $156 billion to state and federal welfare; and $25 billion to foreign rather than domestic markets because of the rise of imports.[/quote]
I am aware that Obama inherited a bad economy and that the world wide economy is not doing well. But, I am also aware that Obama is tone deaf when it comes to business, large and small. And for a President to push health care as hard as he did when he had the luxury of both the senate and house being democrat for two full years is inexcusable!
Yes, he’s done some good things. At the top of the list was to take out Bin Laden. I gave him plenty of credit for that right here on this board when other conservatives were saying it was the Bush security team that began the trailing of Bin Laden.
But when it comes to the economy he has been a total failure![/quote]
I don’t disagree. Though I think that the intention behind health care reform was pure and that what was actually passed in actually not bad, I think it was a huge failure to focus on the dream of universal health care rather than the reality of economic woe.
That said, I stand by my earlier assertion that Obama’s handling of the auto bailout, while imperfect, averted disaster when Romney’s professed solution would have embraced it.
And while you have a point about gas prices, it isn’t too much of a stretch to say that Bush was complicit in raising the price of oil in a way that most other presidents have not been. I’m referring to the Iraq war.
I do have a question for Romney supporters. What do you make of his threat to brand China a currency manipulator on his first day in office? It seems to me that symbolic, no-win chest-puffing is not an appropriate way to begin relations with an economic powerhouse on whom we rely for our own stability.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Okay, crazy prediction time:
Soros dumped a lot of his stocks and bought gold, so either the new world order is kicking in (hahah had to) or he sees more easing from the Fed and more uncertainty if not another crash. I see another crash as well.
Obama wins, and every knows the tax rates are going up up and away. So, people fearing upwards of 24% on LT gains and 44% on short term gains, will dump their gainers before 1/1/13. We are talking about huge sell off here. This will cause massive panic, and gold to go up.
Then, these same people will buy back in, and hold until the socialist is out of office, we elect a capitist and all is right in the world. But when they buy back in, it will be at teh deflated prices from the sell off, so they will have more gains on the back end.
This is why the Fed is going to do QE3. Investor confidence blows, and QE3 will pump up the markets enough to sheild the pain of an Obama election from becoming another melt down.
eh… I don’t know. Maybe this is crazy talk. [/quote]
Interesting scenario. If what you say is true Glenn Beck is not too far off. He has predicted from day one that Obama will wreck the economy on purpose so that he can have his “fundamental change” and rebuild it European style.
No one can say that he doesn’t have a good start on this if you want to believe that particular prediction.[/quote]
Yeah, it is the whole Cloward-Piven thing.
I’ll be honest, it scares the shit out of me. Mainly because I like to look around social media and see just how crazy some people are today.
Now, do I really think he is doing this on purpose in my heart of hearts? No. Do I think it is possible? Yes. Do I honestly believe the youth and ignorant in this nation would like to see a shift to a more european type government controled world? Yes.
It is the last part that scares the hell out of me.
When you have anyone in the lower 90% of tax payers calling for a flat tax you should worry, because our education system has failed. A flat tax would have a vast majority of the population begging to it to be the way it was, Mitt paying his rate and all. That doesn’t take a CPA to see, just critical thinking.
My only hope are the Ron Paul bots, and the hope more of todays youth and college age kids move towards that, than towards “progressive” (which is the name of the communist party in America I believe). Paul is nuts in some of his views, but really, I’ll take that over state control any day of the week.