Sunday, February 8, 2009

Required Viewing For Congress


Anonymous said...

"Crap" reporting like that is why no one, I guess except you watches MSNBC.

Sid Schwab said...

Incisive. In well-chosen words you have addressed the data regarding return on investments and refuted them with precision. It's an excellent response, which has informed us all. Thank you for taking the time.

Anonymous said...

Thanks! I did as well as Rachel. Perhaps if I were as sarcastic and odious as she I would get higher marks from you.

Anonymous said...

I believe what Y'all both did is called "Attacking the Messenger"..and I like Rachel Maddow, reminds me of that Lesbo in the 11th grade that would kick your a** if she caught you smirkin at her, and I've got it on good authority shes a registered Reagan Republican, the liberal disguise is just to make a buck, Anne Coulter's got that side of the aisle already....

Anonymous said...

To be fair, now, Maddow is a commentator, not a reporter. And this is the Matthews/Olbermann network.

It's specious for Maddow to say, "this is a fact" on the need to hurry the spending. Check the CBO analysis:

The recession should end mid-year, assuming no stimulus. Unemployment will peak in 2010 at a lower number than in 1981.

Also--her description of the bill's goal of "giving money to people who will spend it in this economy"--isn't that also achieved with a tax cut? Tell us no one's paying taxes this year and you will see spending through the roof.


Sid Schwab said...

Among the many things I find interesting in all this is that the R's said not a word as the national debt doubled, adding 5 trillion, under Bush, and now are all balancy now.

And the most anonymous of the anonymi has still failed to address the facts -- yes, actual facts -- that Rachel raised. I'd accept sarcasm -- heck, it's even possible I'd use some -- if it were fact-based. Anonymous Bill, at least, provides some -- if subject to interpretation.

And I agree MSNBC is, on the left, similar to FOX, on the right. Except for a couple of things: they have several conservative commentators and one with his own show. And their talking heads, as in the Maddow clip above, base their opinions on facts. Nor, with the exception of Olbermann, do they rant and rave, yell and scream. Rachel, for example, is obviously opinionated, but often has people of opposing views to whom she addresses thoughtful and respectful questions. Unlike, O'Reilly, Hannity, et al., who simply substitute bluster and bad manners for intelligence.

On FOX, the number of flagrant ranters is WAY more: O'R, H, Beck, Sistern, the morning idiocracy, and others; and they regularly give voice to such spewers as Coulter, Limbaugh, Ingraham, Stein, all of whom have been spectacularly wrong, over and again. I give some credit to Wallace.

On MSNBC the usual suspects are trotted out time and again as well; but there's no comparison in tone, referring to such as Gene Robinson, EJ Dionne, etc. You may disagree with what they say; but they are factual, thoughtful, and generally respectful.

The problem is that viewers of Fox have been led to believe that the sort of discourse "Anonymous" provides here is the norm; that arguing based on fact is only to be disparaged. And so it is that we sink slowly below water.

Anonymous said...

I don't watch much of these networks. The MSNBC indictment, I think, is the use of Matthews and Olbermann covering the conventions and such. No insistence that they were reporters, but they were in a reporter's role, and definitely are "homers."

"Anonymous Bill"? Do I need a blog to have a little respect?

The budget balance, thing--that's really the shuttlecock in politics. Whoever's out of power knocks the ones in power for these things. Dems were in power, never worried about balancing the budget, until they were out of power. If you read much conservative blogs (why do I think maybe you don't?) you would see that the majority have been railing against the spendthrift ways of the the Republicans and GWB. But it is more fun to do now.

I can't take the smug nature of Maddow. She makes everything looks like she knows way more than everyone else. It's all kind of amusing to her superior intellect. I have seen her (mildly) scolding libs--it's the same act, but I didn't like it any more then.

Thinking up a non-coprophilic blog name

Sid Schwab said...

Bill: you get a blog, I'll read it. And comment. Respectfully. "Anonymous Bill" was my way of distinguishing you (gratefully) from those who post with no distinguishing moniker. I believe Matthews and Olbermann were taken off the "anchor" role as the season progressed. Not that anchors on Fox were impartial.

I don't really like Rachel's snarkiness, either. But I've seen her do interviews that were among the best I've seen. There's one posted here, in which she held Obama's feet to the fire. For her intelligence and thoughtfulness, and her ability to get serious, I overlook the other. I can't think of anyone on that other network who has her thoughtfulness, and openness to input.

Leigh said...

Well, jeez, if this CF isn't an occasion for snark, just what in hell would be? Rachel's got the right idea . . . and at least she's got some evidence to go with her "bullhockey".

Bill, I think you're seriously misunderstanding the CBO report. The report recommends a stimulus package, ASAP.

It emphatically does NOT imply that all will be well by the end of 2009 without it. It in fact predicts a very slow, and weak, recovery in 2010, with unemployment at 9.2% and GDP dropping by 2.2% in 2009 and rising by 1.5% in 2010 (thus, still far below two years ago). It also contains a big caveat at the end of the forecast section that implies its own numbers could be optimistic because of uncertainty about the recovery of the financial market and constraints on the model due to turbulence induced by the novel financial instruments in use in the last few years.

Frank, you're a jerk, but at least you're consistent.

Bill said...

Leigh, if you'd read the whole report, you'd know that it predicts the GDP will be worse for it. If you'd made it to page 5, you'd see that I was right.

"If only Republicans cared about the country..." Nope we don't. We hate it. But at least we pay our taxes.


Leigh said...

Bill, wrong again. Page 5 is still talking about the CURRENT situation, absent a stimulus package. It explicitly states that it's factoring in the bank bailout package (insofar as its model can), but not a stimulus package, which it doesn't even begin to talk about until page 31.

And while on page 5 the CBO states that it "does not attempt to predict cyclical movements beyond the new term -- that is, in the current projection, beyond 2010 -- but instead attempts to describe an average path on which the country's actual output converges with its potential output". "In these projections, the anticipated GDP gap . . . will not close until 2015."

Bill said...


"Bill, wrong again. Page 5 is still talking about the CURRENT situation, absent a stimulus package."

Right. That's why I wrote:

"... assuming no stimulus."

You realize most of the "stimulus" doesn't spend any money in 2009, right? It's mostly money spent on Dem projects for the foreseeable future. Are these good things? Up for debate. But they should be debated openly, not thrown at us in an "emergency" spending bill.


Popular posts