Oh wow, you understand economics?

Please let's here your economic theory on how Obama grew the deficit a trillion dollars without spending a dime and exactly what he did to do that. At that, using your vast knowledge of economics to explain the difference between what the projected deficit would have been without the economic polices Obama put into place and exactly what those policies are that did make it grow.

Don't explain it to me, how about you explain it to the people on GFY wondering this as well. Let's help all of the GOP, right wing, tea baggers, and everyone else truly understand what Obama did from a highly educated brilliant individual as yourself.

However... I expect more excuses like above.

Ah, the beauty of teflonic two liners !!!

Here: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 (with sources)

No Obama love story here, they say some of his spending adds to the deficit, but with reason... It also lays out a huge amount of actual facts.

"By the time CBO issued its new projections on January 7, 2009 — two weeks before Inauguration Day — it had already put the 2009 deficit at well over $1 trillion."

Yeah, probably was Obama that did it..... probably in some lala land of stupidity.


"The key question is: where do we go from here? President Obama’s 2011 budget proposes to reduce anticipated deficits over the next ten years, chiefly by letting the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers expire on schedule, closing certain tax loopholes and reforming the international tax system, keeping estate taxes at their 2009 parameters, enacting health care reform, and freezing (in aggregate) most appropriations for non-security domestic programs for the next three years. The President also supports another round of temporary recovery measures that would boost the deficit in 2010 through 2012, a proposal that is appropriate in size and well targeted.[8] Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analyses have found that in aggregate, the President’s proposals would reduce deficits over the 2011-2020 period by an estimated $1.3 trillion.

Like most fiscal analysts, we believe that the Administration and Congress will need to take considerably larger steps. The President himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on a sustainable footing and has established a bipartisan fiscal commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions........"

But hey... Obama's polices are going to increase it by 20 trillion and Obama wants to grow the gov and spend us to death. Clearly it's true, fox news reported it and you believed it.

are you talking about the heavily complex editing for propaganda purposes?

we don't have a lot of that up here

sweet! lol

No offense meant at all Richard, but if you think that your, or anyones, news sources are not biased, slanted, and heavily edited in terms of what stories are presented, which are left out, and how they are presented; then you are being very naive.



:2 cents:.

as I said, halfwit. find facts, not leftist opinion.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791927/

WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's budget would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, an eye-popping figure that threatens his ambitious goals to overhaul health care and explore new energy sources, congressional auditors said.
The new Congressional Budget Office figures that emerged Friday offered a far more dire outlook for Obama's budget than the new administration predicted just last month ? a deficit $2.3 trillion worse. It's a prospect even the president's own budget director called unsustainable.
In his White House run, Obama assailed the economic policies of his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But the dismal deficit figures, if they prove to be accurate, would amount to more than four times the deficits of Bush's presidency and raise the prospect that Obama and his Democratic allies controlling Congress would have to consider raising taxes after the recession ends.
By the auditors' calculation, Obama's budget would generate deficits averaging almost $1 trillion a year of red ink over 2010-2019.
Worst of all, the budget office says the deficit under Obama's policies would never go below 4 percent of the size of the economy, figures that economists agree are unsustainable. By the end of the decade, the deficit would exceed 5 percent of gross domestic product, a dangerously high level.
White House budget chief Peter Orszag said that CBO's long-range economic projections are more pessimistic than those of the White House, private economists and the Federal Reserve, and that he remained confident that Obama's budget, if enacted, would produce smaller deficits.
Even so, Orszag acknowledged that if the CBO projections prove accurate, Obama's budget would produce deficits that could not be sustained.
------------------------------
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/deb...4/21/id/356486


America?s fiscal picture is even worse than it looks,? Altman writes. ?The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office just projected that over 10 years, cumulative deficits will reach $9.7 trillion and federal debt 90 percent of gross domestic product ? nearly equal to Italy?s.


?Global capital markets are unlikely to accept that credit erosion,? Altman says. ?If they revolt, as in 1979, ugly changes in fiscal and monetary policy will be imposed on Washington. More than Afghanistan or unemployment, this is President Barack Obama?s greatest vulnerability.?

The financial outlook for the United States is frightening. The CBO projects the size of the federal debt to increase by nearly 250 percent over 10 years, from $7.5 trillion to a whopping $20 trillion.

The only remote comparison to such a debt load occurred during World War II, a global conflict that killed 50 million people, Altman and other analysts have written.

But there is no real comparison even in the 1940s and '50s for such a rise in indebtedness ? nothing remotely like it has occurred since record keeping began in 1792, Altman writes.


now I'm sure the CBO is lying:1orglaugh

no, I was talking about your inability to understand english.

of which 'nitch' were you referring?

An msnbc article isn't left? Sweet...

Clearly you're not able to understand what the topic is and how it relates to what you posted.

None of those things you posted state Obama increased the deficit to 20 trillion dollars. We already know the deficit is going to go up. That is why I said I want you to show what Obama, what changes Obama put in, that made it go up to 20 trillion.

As I was saying... this would be incorrect information. He isn't spending 20 trillion to fix anything, it's a projection of what it could cost us if nothing changed and as I quoted above "The President himself acknowledges that his proposals do not fully put the budget on a sustainable footing and has established a bipartisan fiscal commission to recommend more substantial deficit reductions........"

My god... get a clue.

no fear, i don't remotely think that at all

in the case of this video, however, i question why you're trying to compare bias in news to this obvious work of blind-stupid propaganda

cliffnotes-

12clicks is still a fucking dweeb

and the paper hat crowd begins to get home from work....

Cambaby's indoctrination is now complete, Fox could activate him at anytime now

I have seen many journalists from all sides of issues and from all types of news organizations from the BBC to CNN to whatever you want to name, over the decades, ask tough questions of a government official, who then spouts an obvious lie, then dances around the question.... and the journalist then proceeds to badger that official to back up what they are saying or to stop dancing around the issue and answer the question. This has always been considered good, hard-hitting journalism.... Why is it not so in this case? He claimed that Obama had said one thing, when he clearly had said the opposite, and she called him on it. If it was Bush you would have been cheering, right?


.

I think you're confused about what was said in the video... he without question answered the question. The part we could hear him speaking was 20 seconds, clearly it was cut off at the start. It's really clear as well, 20k troops would beef up security but as Obama said 20k troops won't accomplish any 'new' progress - and it wouldn't - but it would beef up security which is vastly different than new progress. It's really easy to understand.

Any other question she asked is of no political importance and not anything Americans should care about and stupid that she kept pushing them.

Indeed,

Every newspaper, News program or whatever have an agenda.

While I think she owns him because she asks him a pretty legit question and he just won't answer (clearly because the answer would be embarrassing), I will say this. Had that been Wolf Blitzer interviewing Sarah Palin in that way today she would be on the attack about how the "liberal elite media" can't interview her without filling the interview with "gotcha" questions.

Arguing that because Fox has good ratings means that more people in the country agree with their views is skewed logic.

If you are liberal or prefer your news with a liberal slant (or just don't care about how the news is slanted) you have a lot of different options. You can watch CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and pretty much all of major networks (NBC, ABC etc.). If you want your news with a conservative slant you only have one source, FOX.

If a city has 5 restaurants in it with 4 of them being pizza places and the 5th being a burger place you would expect the burger place to be busy all the time because the pizza places are going to split the pizza crowd. That doesn't mean that burger place is better than any of the pizza places, nor does it mean that the people of that town prefer burgers to pizza, it just means that this is the only burger joint in town.

Fox and Rush LOVE that Obama is the President!

They get the most haters, um, I mean, viewers, when the opposition is in power.

sure, sparky.
add the numbers of the other three cable networks together then.
your side still loses.:thumbsup

You are forgetting ABC, CBS and NBC. If you add those in it isn't even close.

people don't necessarily watch the networks because they prefer a liberal slant.
most watch because it happens to be the channel thats on, because the local news lead in is the news they grew up on, etc.

Or just the evening news... one of them often beats any of the shows in the fox news broadcasts.

There is no point in watching any other outlets besides Fox. All the other ones are liars, they only feed you what they want you to hear.

If you want to not include broadcast news then we can just look at the numbers. I'm not sure where you got your numbers, but here some from August 31st.

Here is the site
http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/r...ews/cable-news

P2+ Prime Time
FNC ? 2,631,000 viewers
CNN ? 731,000 viewers
MSNBC ?1,093,000 viewers
CNBC ? 186,000 viewers
HLN ? 428,000 viewers

So Fox has 2.61 million viewers and the other networks combined have 2.43. Yes, Fox wins, but it pretty damn close.

Here is something a little more telling.
Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for August 31, 2010
P2+ Total Day
FNC ? 1,258,000 viewers
CNN ? 391,000 viewers
MSNBC ? 409,000 viewers
CNBC ? 183,000 viewers
HLN ? 273,000 viewers

These are the ratings just from the live broadcasts and the daytime shows. When you add it all up Fox has 1.258 million viewers and the rest get 1.256 million. So it is a virtual tie. The difference maker is Fox's prime time shows like Hannity and O'Reilly that draw big numbers.

If you look on that page for Aug 30th, Fox wins by a little bigger margin, but over the weekend the numbers were almost even with Fox having 1.28million and the rest getting 1.24 million.

To me it looks a lot like this: If you take away the pundit shows they are pretty much even with conservative viewers watching Fox and the liberal viewers watching the other networks and the other 99.5% of the country watching broadcast news, using the internet or just not caring.

You should watch them all!

The Networks blow all the Cable news channels away the week of 8/23 18,710,000 watched the networks (same source as you cite 12clicks), thats what a factor of 3.5 or so more that all the cable channels

So with your logic does that mean that 2,631,000 FNC viewers were just to lazy to change the channel also? Or does it just mean 2.6 million prefer Fox for it is the closest they can get to titilating bouncy blondes and Hooter girls.

I dunno, they've (fNC) been #1 since bush was in office.. and they still have more than the other news stations combined. So your argument is as moot as a boot on the head.

fact is this country is and always has been "center right", the party in power seems to only matter on 2 things, how many of their supporters vote, how pissed off the opposite party is with the state of things. Center Right people will vote for what they think is a "moderate", or "moderate enough" if the Repubes fuck things up bad enough, and vice versa.

Politics and religious thread starters belong in a special section of hell. I thought this was a porn WM board?

no. what it means is that when you take away lead in programing and look at what people actually seek out when it comes to news, fox wins.
"oh shit, its the middle of the day and the networks are running soap operas. I need news. where do I go?"
the answer is fox

Is talking out of your ass the same as making money out of your ass? :1orglaugh

I wouldn't know and neither would you since we each don't do what the other is good at.
here's my facts:
FNC ? 1,258,000 viewers
CNN ? 391,000 viewers
MSNBC ? 409,000 viewers
CNBC ? 183,000 viewers
HLN ? 273,000 viewers

please have your anus start forming words :1orglaugh

https://youtube.com/watch?v=mlaZZ0pNb08

Awesome thread, nice work on destroying these jerkoffs 12clicks :thumbsup

she's a rude showboating bitch. She has no respect for people and treated him like a servant.

Looks to me like she hasn't been fucked in years. (at least by a man)

I wonder which 527 organization pays cambaby his checks.......

Fox babe? what babe? That look like a mean ugly bitch to me.

She was doing her job. He was not answering the question and trying to be cute about it. Gibbs is a servant to Obama.

Last time I checked he IS a servant, a government servant, guess who is boss is?