Bad News For Republicans, Good News For America And The Kenyan Socialist In The White’s House

UNEMPLOYMENT FEB 2013No one is satisfied with these numbers, but imagine what they would be like if President Obama and the Democrats didn’t have to fight with Republicans over debt ceilings, fiscal cliffs, sequesters, and threats of government shutdowns.

Over at Fox “News,” they had their fair and balanced spin on the good news:

fox news headline

Unbelievably—no wait, believably—the story began this way:

Despite the Obama administration’s doomsday warnings about the impact of sequester, hiring picked up last month as the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level in four years. 

You see? Far from giving the President’s economic policies any credit for the good news, Fox says things got better in spite of the President.

Happy Fair and Balanced Day To You Too!

12 Comments

  1. RDG,

    This may well be the best synopsis yet of Fox News’ contribution to journalism:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/fox-newsiest-segment-in-fox-news-history.html

    BTW, looks like the Royals are playing good spring ball.

    Like

  2. John,

    Yeah, the Royals are the champions of Spring Baseball so far. But as I recall, they have had some pretty good springs followed by some pretty bad summers. I’m keeping my toes crossed that this time may be different.

    As for that O’Reilly video, I saw that originally, but I love that take on it by NY mag. So good I may clip it and post it later. Thanks for sending it on. What a jerk O’Reilly is.

    Duane

    Like

  3. hlgaskins

     /  March 8, 2013

    A republican worse case scenario is to do all that they can to harm the economy while it rebounds despite all their best efforts to kill it.

    Like

    • Ain’t it the truth, all those predictions from the right, urging austerity and predicting Armageddon if Obama were to win the White House – what happened to all that? Gone, gone with the wind. And then there’s Mittens, just aching that it can’t be him in the saddle. Duane, maybe you need to bring back your janitor caricature, it would fit so perfectly. All so bizarre.

      Like

    • And the mainstream press reports that “both sides” are to blame. What a mess.

      Like

  4. ansonburlingame

     /  March 10, 2013

    To all,

    Two big problems herein as I see it.

    First, we have no idea what unemployment would be right now if NO action had been taken by the Federal government OR only GOP actions had been taken. We just don’t know as of course neither of the two options took place. All we know for sure is that Obama in fact took some actions, despite GOP objections and unemployment is now 7.7%, still a number far too high some four years after a major recession hit us. It COULD have been higher or lower, but who knows at this point.

    Second the O’Reilly rant. He is objecting to the same issue that I have mentioned before (without calling someone a liar). Trying to legislate with speeches and press releases does not cut it today. Proposals need to be nailed down in legislative language, understandable and debatable by we the people. No more “we must pass the bill to find out what is in it”.

    If Obama wants to “cut Medicare” then say it in legislative language. Put it in writing and let’s all debate the SPECIFIC proposals. About as specific as Coulms could get was to reduce payments to doctors and hospitals. When asked “how much” by O’Reilly, Coulms had no answer and neither does anyone else, yet. Remember Medicare has a $250 Billion and rising deficit each year.

    By “losing it” O’Reilly loses ground with a lot of people. But he is angry that Obama is hard to pin down on specific cuts. It might be good PR or politics for Obama to do that but again, and you have heard me say it, it is lousy leadership.

    That is the whole problem with this mystical $2,5 Trillion in “cuts” enuciated by Reid and Obama. Bottom line, where are the cuts seen and felt by receipients? Are they merely restraints on rising costs of domestic programs or actual reductions in the amount of money spent each year on specific programs. Limiting SS pay increases to $50 instead of $100 is not a “cut in SS”. It is a reduction in a pay increase.

    Obama is treating the “obesity of the federal government” by letting the belt out slower, not actually making the belt smaller in girth. Now go try to actually lose weight that way if you are too fat. One year a guy weighs 300 and the next year he is at 325 pounds. But Dems are saying he “would have been 350 pounds”….. meaning yak, yak yak!!!

    The rest of the country wants the “man” to drop down to 275 pounds and keep heading in that direction until he is at a healthy weight which we can’t agree upon either!!!

    “Obama’s way” to get down to a healthy weight is NOT to actually lose weight. Nope, he is trying to make the “man” 10 feet tall instead so his weight is proportional, in a healthy way, to his height. Good luck with that approach!!

    Anson

    Like

    • Anson,

      Nope. You’re wrong. For the gazillionth time, we do know the stimulus lowered the unemployment rate, as well as increased GDP. There is no argument about that. None. Unless you don’t believe the non-partisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office, which conservatives love except when it doesn’t support their voodoo economics.

      You completely missed the point about O’Reilly. He was wrong and Colmes was right, in the context of the discussion they were having. And besides that, he was a raving lunatic. How can you defend that bullshit? He was wrong and maniacally so. It would be one thing to be maniacally correct, quite another to go all Manson on Colmes when Colmes was right. Jeeze.

      As for Obama and his specificity, he’s not an idiot, Anson. Republicans have been trying to get him to do their dirty work in cutting SS and Medicare for more than two years now. They want him to put it all in writing so they can beat him over the head with it, all the while not giving an inch on the issue of revenues. If they budge on taxes, he will, I am not happy to say, concede ground on SS and Medicare.

      Finally, it is bad enough you analogize the government’s budget to a household budget, but now you compare it to a fat man. Oh, boy.

      Duane

      Like

  5. ansonburlingame

     /  March 11, 2013

    To me the metaphor of a person threatening their own health by being too fat relates directly to a country threatening its economic health by holding too much debt is DIRECTLY applicable. But it is only a metaphor for sure.

    Your point, I suppose, is America in fact is not too “fat” (holds too much debt) I will certainly agree that economic science has not made that diagnosis, scientifically. That is the reason we can’t agree on any of this stuff as well I suppose. You call me now a “one note Johnny” with a focus on the level of debt in America and I say you ignore a real problem of “obesity”, too much debt.

    If we can’t even agree on the disease, well we will never agree on the treatment for sure.

    But I don’t comment herein to try to change your views either. I only try to inject a different point of view, crazy one or not being in the mind of readers and there own political views.

    Anson

    Like

    • King Beauregard

       /  March 11, 2013

      “crazy one or not being in the mind of readers and there own political views.”

      … Or, of course, if they contradict reliable and respected sources like the CBO.

      This isn’t “Family Feud”, where what matters is what 100 people surveyed think the answer is. If 99 of 100 people think the Prime Minister of Canada is “maple syrup”, that may be a winning answer on “Family Feud”, but it’s still wrong and it’s still crazy.

      Like

    • Anson,

      Part of the reason your fat man analogy doesn’t fit is because a good portion of the problem with the government’s finances is that they are being starved of revenue. Okay? It’s hard to make the case that a man is overweight because he is starving to death. The revenue to GDP ratio is very near a post WWII low.

      Duane

      Like

  6. ansonburlingame

     /  March 11, 2013

    Nope this is not “Family Feud”. It is rather “bare knuckle politics” of the verbal sort which has long been an American institution.

    Anson

    Like

%d bloggers like this: