So we shouldn't cut spending?

So they don't mind deficit spending half a trillion dollars a year on the military, but they shit bricks when congress spends anything to help anything outside the military-industrial complex.

Obama literally bent over backwards to facilitate the GOP and then they claim he was being partisan. Didn't they also agree to the bill beforehand and then start bitching about it when they saw they could create a political thing out of it? Fuckers.

>> ^shuac:
So we shouldn't cut spending?


Not in response to a recession, no.

In 8 years, Republicans failed in every possible way that could have been imagined (not to mention several ways that could have never been imagined). Now they want to block efforts to fix the mess that they created in order to save face. Idiots.

Jobs vs "Work": The argument that I've seen about this (to the best of my remembrance) is that since this is deficit spending, the government is basically taking a little money from everyone to pay specific people. While those people who get those jobs have more money to spend, the population as a whole does not gain more buying power. I think reasonable people could disagree on that point.

Also, Maddow seemed to take the idea of "work = short term" and "job = long term" and say that meant "work != job, huh?". It is funny because of the way he worded it, but I think she's attacking his wording rather than his point (that doesn't mean he's right or wrong necessarily).


GDP: I've heard several economists talk about debt artificially increasing GDP. My memory on this one is a little more fuzzy though. If the money people are spending to increase GDP is borrowed money, is it fair to say that this is increasing the health of the economy? I've seen a lot of fiscal conservatives (that doesn't mean republican btw) say that consumer debt and national debt are large issues that aren't being addressed by this stimulus.


Bipartisanship: I think both parties are guilty of this. Both sides seem to define bipartisanship as "the other side agreeing with our ideas." There are, of course, those who won't even listen to the other side unfortunately, but just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that are being anti-bipartisan.



I'm not taking sides on these issues, but I do like to listen to people on both sides. Maddow likes to jab at the low hanging fruit (and is usually pretty funny about it), but she also seems to do so in a way that oversimplifies the issues she is speaking of. She, like many here as well, uses the terms "republican" and "democrat" as if everyone within those parties agree with each other.

The stimulus just passed in the Senate anyway, so we'll see how things turn out (I'm hoping for the best).

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^shuac:
So we shouldn't cut spending?

Not in response to a recession, no.


This is the same as saying, when you lose your job, you should go out and splurge until you fill up your credit card.

This is "just spending" wtf is this crap going to buy anyhow? I have no interest in this crap.

BTW, I AM PROGRESSIVE. So don't call me republican or anything. I'm against tax cuts, but why the hell are we going into debt just to buy some snot nosed kid a textbook, or to fix a damn pothole.

The recession is a fact because of overspending. Obama can't see this. Obama FAIL.

That Rachel Maddow is a little spark-plug.

BTW, I AM PROGRESSIVE. So don't call me republican or anything. I'm against tax cuts, but why the hell are we going into debt just to buy some snot nosed kid a textbook, or to fix a damn pothole.



^ Perhaps I am a little biased about spending on education, but I doubt I could pay for college on my own with a job that doesn't require a college degree.


Also, I can drive around a pothole, but a collapsed bridge may be a bit more difficult. The road doesn't have to be pristine, but my old honda accord won't cross rivers.

Anyone else disgusted with these partisan pundits? When I turn on the news, I'd like to think everything I was hearing was unbiased and fair, but between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly news is nothing more than theater.

>> ^marinara:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^shuac:
So we shouldn't cut spending?

Not in response to a recession, no.

This is the same as saying, when you lose your job, you should go out and splurge until you fill up your credit card.
This is "just spending" wtf is this crap going to buy anyhow? I have no interest in this crap.
BTW, I AM PROGRESSIVE. So don't call me republican or anything. I'm against tax cuts, but why the hell are we going into debt just to buy some snot nosed kid a textbook, or to fix a damn pothole.

You are seeing it the wrong way around. A sound government policy would be to pay off the deficit in good economic times and borrow in the bad. To use your analogy it would be more like building savings when you have a job and using those savings when you are in trouble or lose your job.

>> ^cybrbeast:
You are seeing it the wrong way around. A sound government policy would be to pay off the deficit in good economic times and borrow in the bad. To use your analogy it would be more like building savings when you have a job and using those savings when you are in trouble or lose your job.


I think what he was saying (in the context of your statement) is that if you max out all of your credit cards during good times then you shouldn't choose to spend even more money during bad times.

Families generally have to reduce their spending when their income drops, especially if they were already spending more than they were making. The question is whether or not that applies to the US government.

The Republicans are working the WWIII angle to fix the economic issues.

>> ^vaporlock:
The Republicans are working the WWIII angle to fix the economic issues.


What you reckon if Obama was wanting to spend the money on invading Iran the GOP would be bending over backwards to approve the costs.

I think it's time for some truly partisan legislation from the Dems, lets make it illegal to be a shithead Republican lawmaker.

it would never matter what he wanted to spend the money on. if he wanted to spend the money to do exactly whatever the fuck it is they want him to do, theyll still bitch, because its a democrat doing it. politics does not equal principle.

The economy will be helped by the Scamulus Bailout about as much as starving children are helped by watching a competitive eating contest.

Then again, when you vote for a communist, you get what you deserve.

You'll be wishing for the Bush Years again when inflation hits.

At this point, GOP senators are just trying to sabotage the economy so that they can blame Obama for any future problems. Anyone who knows anything about economics would realize that cutting back on food stamps would worsen a deflationary recession caused by lack of demand for goods.

>> ^quantumushroom:
You'll be wishing for the Bush Years again when inflation hits.

Do you think China and other countries will start dumping dollar assets? I'm starting to wonder if they see it as a viable alternative.
America is a large part of the world's consumption. I don't think China "needs" US consumption to stay afloat, but it would sure as hell take a big chunk out of their economy if they dumped their dollars and sent the US currency into free fall. China may fear the unhappiness and controllability of their own populace in that case.
That's just a guess though, I don't know what they're thinking.

>> ^Psychologic:
I think what he was saying (in the context of your statement) is that if you max out all of your credit cards during good times then you shouldn't choose to spend even more money during bad times.
Families generally have to reduce their spending when their income drops, especially if they were already spending more than they were making. The question is whether or not that applies to the US government.


I'm thinking that's the wrong analogy. It's more like a restaurant that has been slowly losing money for years. They've let the building fall to pieces, with leaks in the roof, failing electrical wiring, and an old rotary phone. New management comes in, and rather than trying to cut back on hours, or drop the quality of the food to try to make ends meet, they take out a loan, fix the roof and wiring, buy new appliances, remodel the dining room, and hire themselves a good chef to spice up the menu, and then advertise their all-new status.

That's what we're looking to do. Invest in our future to try to turn around a downward losing spiral.

>> ^blankfist:
Anyone else disgusted with these partisan pundits? When I turn on the news, I'd like to think everything I was hearing was unbiased and fair, but between Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly news is nothing more than theater.


This is unbiased and fair. No numbers were massaged, and no one is being misquoted. There's no "if you question the war, you hate the troops" kind of propagandist leaps of logic.

It makes a concluding judgment, but only after walking through a completely open deductive argument.

What to you would be unbiased? If she spent equal time making the case that Democrats are wrong? That's your bias, I suppose.

When one party says it's raining outside, and the other says it's sunny, it's okay for the press to look out the window and report who's right, without trying to make the case that both are right and both are wrong.

That said, yes, I want an impartial press. Rachel isn't impartial in her views on things, but she does strive to objectively explore her positions, knowing that there could just be something she doesn't get. That's more than most TV reporters of any stripe do. If you want someone who's the left's Bill O'Reilly, Olbermann is a much better fit (he does those propagandist leaps, cherrypicks facts, and doesn't do any objective exploration of whether he might be wrong).

Is there anyone, in any form of media who's going to be able to report on the argument going on in the Senate floor in any detail that wouldn't come off as partisan to one of us?

For that matter, what's the objective, non-biased answer to "did the New Deal end the Great Depression?" Could you and I agree to the same yes/no answer to that question?

Is Rachel biased because she thinks it did?

>> ^Psychologic:
>>^quantumushroom:
You'll be wishing for the Bush Years again when inflation hits.

Do you think China and other countries will start dumping dollar assets? I'm starting to wonder if they see it as a viable alternative.
America is a large part of the world's consumption. I don't think China "needs" US consumption to stay afloat, but it would sure as hell take a big chunk out of their economy if they dumped their dollars and sent the US currency into free fall. China may fear the unhappiness and controllability of their own populace in that case.
That's just a guess though, I don't know what they're thinking.


I read an article in Bloomberg back in October I believe that the US had worked out some kind of agreement with Japan and China (the largest holders of our debt) that they would not sell dollars. October seems like decades ago though, things could have changed by then.

The last treasury auction last week didn't go so well. An anonymous buyer, most likely the Fed, came in at the last minute and saved the day. Not a good sign considering that we haven't even begun getting to Obama's spending plans yet.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Psychologic:
I think what he was saying (in the context of your statement) is that if you max out all of your credit cards during good times then you shouldn't choose to spend even more money during bad times.
Families generally have to reduce their spending when their income drops, especially if they were already spending more than they were making. The question is whether or not that applies to the US government.

I'm thinking that's the wrong analogy. It's more like a restaurant that has been slowly losing money for years. They've let the building fall to pieces, with leaks in the roof, failing electrical wiring, and an old rotary phone. New management comes in, and rather than trying to cut back on hours, or drop the quality of the food to try to make ends meet, they take out a loan, fix the roof and wiring, buy new appliances, remodel the dining room, and hire themselves a good chef to spice up the menu, and then advertise their all-new status.
That's what we're looking to do. Invest in our future to try to turn around a downward losing spiral.


I wish i could promote a comment

>> ^NetRunner:
>>^Psychologic:
I think what he was saying (in the context of your statement) is that if you max out all of your credit cards during good times then you shouldn't choose to spend even more money during bad times.
Families generally have to reduce their spending when their income drops, especially if they were already spending more than they were making. The question is whether or not that applies to the US government.

I'm thinking that's the wrong analogy. It's more like a restaurant that has been slowly losing money for years. They've let the building fall to pieces, with leaks in the roof, failing electrical wiring, and an old rotary phone. New management comes in, and rather than trying to cut back on hours, or drop the quality of the food to try to make ends meet, they take out a loan, fix the roof and wiring, buy new appliances, remodel the dining room, and hire themselves a good chef to spice up the menu, and then advertise their all-new status.
That's what we're looking to do. Invest in our future to try to turn around a downward losing spiral.


The problem is our bank is China and they may cut us off before we even get started.

Doing nothing is a stupid idea. Such a stupid idea that NO other country in the world is even considering it. ALL other countries in the world are factoring in stimulous spending packages.

Why? Consuming makes money to pay people. If people don't spend people don't get paid and get unemployed. Unemployed people can't spend.

Do nothing - those with money don't spend or invest. And the poor and the unemployed can't. People who are idle stay idle. Why would it fix the economy? what magic is this? will people suddenly one day have confidence to hire/invest/employ? Who's going to go out on this limb during the downhill slide?

Make "work"
a) Employed people have a way to "get money" which they can "spend"
b) Stuff that needs to get done gets done by otherwise idle hands.
c) that "stuff" is productive and can be owned and invested in.

>> ^NetRunner:
This is unbiased and fair.


Is it? Why because she uses facts to bolster her stuffy, superior anti-GOP rhetoric? And that's all it takes to make things fair and unbiased? The fact that there are facts present is enough? Interesting.

I say it's theater and smug, indignant partisan hackary whether you approve of her message or not. Everything from the GOP IN EXILE animation of the elephant making camp in an igloo to her smarmy holier-than-thou quips like "What happened in 1937? Oh yeah, that's when FDR put it on hold which is exactly what the Republicans want to do now." Etc. etc. etc.

For me, fair and unbiased news isn't smugly laden with partisan teeth thumbing. When it is, then it's unfairly biased and certainly not news, but instead nothing more than an opinion column or a comedy show. The fact that what she's saying is agreeable to you doesn't qualify it as news.

^And, just in case anyone gets confused, I'm not defending the Republicans and I am NOT one. I simply disagree with shameless hypocrisy whether it comes from a right-winger or a leftist.

I'll have to agree with Blankfist on this one. Maddow doesn't bother me as much as she bothers him, and in fact I think she's usually pretty funny, but I could in no way call her unbiased (not that anyone else necessarily is).


I don't think she is there to be unbiased though. By the time her show comes on most people already know what has happened that day. Her goal is entertainment and opinion, and she does lean a bit to the left.

I thought Rachel was a commentator, not a newsreader or journalist.

Regarding the stimulus package, bank bailouts, etc., no one really knows what will work, because, I think, no one is really sure of what the variables are, nor are they assured that the supposed paradigms of the past are actually viable today. I say "supposed paradigms" to refer to "free market capitalism," "government spending," etc. There is so much hanky panky going on financially and monetarily, does ANYONE really know what to do with any degree of certainty? I know one thing: if Obama's Administration somehow makes this work, the Republicans won't be in control in Washington for a generation, and that's got to scare them absolutely shitless. If they don't have control of the White House or Congress, they won't be riding high on the lobbyist hog and the reapportionment after the 2010 census will really hose them. They need Obama to fail and fail big, but if he does, this country will descend into bankruptcy, chaos and destruction. I guess, though, they are willing to roll them bones. They'd rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, sorta kinda.

>> ^Raverman:
Those with money don't spend or invest. And the poor and the unemployed can't. People who are idle stay idle. Why would it fix the economy? what magic is this? will people suddenly one day have confidence to hire/invest/employ? Who's going to go out on this limb during the downhill slide?

You're right. Everyone is a manic depressive and we're all trapped in a downward spiral of despair. Who in their right mind would want to try to make money at a time like this? The stock market is lower than it has been in years, but gosh, it would be stupid for me to invest now, I'm going to wait until it is really high again. </sarcasm>

There is no magic involved. Yes, people will regain confidence once the bad companies fail and go away. Those people who go out on the limb first will benefit the most from the ride to the top.

Ask yourself this question. Pick a stock or two, look at its price, look at its price over the past four years, then ask yourself, what do you think the price will be in 10 years? 20 years? Higher than it is now? How much higher? So are you waiting to invest because A) no money B) waiting for it to go lower so I can reap a larger gain, C) waiting to see what companies are the failing ones, or D) thought there was magic involved in making money.

The first two arguments aren't bizarre at all.

The GOP chairman's distinction between jobs and work makes perfect sense, as long as you're willing to accept the implied meaning and not play the fool. Digging ditches for the purpose of filling them up is simply work, but not a job because it subtracts wealth from the economy (assuming that the ditch digger gets paid). An activity which adds value is a job. It may not be the dictionary definition (or may be, I haven't checked), but it's what the chairman wants to say.

The second argument is perfectly acceptable. Maddow's rebuttal is ridiculous, because she shows a graph and argues that correlation implies causation.

Maddow could've chosen something better out of all the stupid shit said by GOP members.

The jobs in the stimulus aren't digging ditches to fill them back up. If they were, then Steele may have a point. But they're not, and he doesn't.

What he's doing would be similar to calling JFK's idea to go to the moon a one-off, temporary job with no long-term employment opportunities. (digging a ditch on the moon just to fill it back up again).

But then NASA happened, and JPL, and velcro n shit.


And Blanky: Maddow is undoubtedly partisan. But in no way is she a hack. It's pretty ridiculous to attack her as such. She's an extremely smart woman with a pretty wicked sense of humor.

• degree in public policy from Stanford University
• Rhodes scholar
• postgrad at Lincoln
• phd @ Oxford - political science

>> ^marinara:
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^shuac:
So we shouldn't cut spending?

Not in response to a recession, no.

This is the same as saying, when you lose your job, you should go out and splurge until you fill up your credit card.
This is "just spending" wtf is this crap going to buy anyhow? I have no interest in this crap.
BTW, I AM PROGRESSIVE. So don't call me republican or anything. I'm against tax cuts, but why the hell are we going into debt just to buy some snot nosed kid a textbook, or to fix a damn pothole.

You can't really use an analogy for one's personal finances to describe what's going on here. It'd be better to compare a corporation's situation. Sometimes they've got to invest money to get out of the red. Even this is a shorthanded answer.

>> ^flavioribeiro:
The first two arguments aren't bizarre at all.
The GOP chairman's distinction between jobs and work makes perfect sense, as long as you're willing to accept the implied meaning and not play the fool.


Correct or not, it's moot.

I think if you went up to a family who's primary 'bread winner' is out of work, they are several months behind on their mortgage and are having trouble feeding their family, and said;

'Heres your choice. We can put you to work in the next month or two. It may not last more then a year, and it may be in a field your not very experienced in. Or we can work on creating long term employment in a field you might be better suited in, only that will take at least 6 months and more likely a year.'

If that was you.. what do you think the family would choose?

Correlation doesn't prove causation, but it suggests it when the there is a close temporal proximity between the action and the supposed consequence and a plausible mechanism of causation. Ignoring correlations is not advisable. If you took "correlation does not imply causation" to mean that all correlations are irrelevant, then you would have no inductive bias and therefore no ability to make predictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_bias

>> ^Xaielao:
I think if you went up to a family who's primary 'bread winner' is out of work, they are several months behind on their mortgage and are having trouble feeding their family, and said;
'Heres your choice. We can put you to work in the next month or two. It may not last more then a year, and it may be in a field your not very experienced in. Or we can work on creating long term employment in a field you might be better suited in, only that will take at least 6 months and more likely a year.'
If that was you.. what do you think the family would choose?


The question is not whether it helps the family, it is whether it helps the economy.

>> ^NetRunner:

I'm thinking that's the wrong analogy. It's more like a restaurant that has been slowly losing money for years. They've let the building fall to pieces, with leaks in the roof, failing electrical wiring, and an old rotary phone. New management comes in, and rather than trying to cut back on hours, or drop the quality of the food to try to make ends meet, they take out a loan, fix the roof and wiring, buy new appliances, remodel the dining room, and hire themselves a good chef to spice up the menu, and then advertise their all-new status.
That's what we're looking to do. Invest in our future to try to turn around a downward losing spiral.


Well, I hope the US under Obama spend their money better than the UK. We love to get in contractors and decorators in to fix the restaurant to only end up paying them way too much and having the project of getting the restaurant up and running delay for way too long so you end up in a place where you have spent more than you expected and still do not have an income in sight whilst paying huge interests on the loan. Also, would not be shocked if the work is a bit shoddy so that the rain stills comes through the roof and wreck all the electrical wiring...
Then the guy who took out the loan and was in charge of the whole shebang shrugs and takes no responsibility over the mess.

It doesn't matter now, the so called 'centrists' nullified some of the best parts of the bailout plan. Its going to be ineffective in the long run, since such fiscal adjustments take a long time to run their course through the economy.

The effect will be meek and hard to analyze, republicans will latch on to this and declare Obama a shill a few months later claiming that the 'socialist' plan failed and push for further tax cuts.

The American economy needed help now and the whole thing got mired in political horse trading and wheelin' and dealin'. I bet those GOP shills and centrists sleep like babies at night.

>> ^blankfist:
Why because she uses facts to bolster her stuffy, superior anti-GOP rhetoric?

So what you're saying is because of her tone, the case she makes must contain inaccurate (biased) factual content? Because she thinks that she has these guys dead to rights, it's unfair for her to say so?

Going back to my example (that you ignored, along with my question about the New Deal), even if the reporter looks out the window and declares that her preferred party was telling the truth, it's not unfair or biased for her to say so in a mocking tone, particularly if they're way off.

Whether it helps her credibility amongst people who don't like her favorite party or not is a whole other question.

What Fox does is qualitatively different. Often the facts they present are incorrect or at least unsourced, and the conclusions they reach are not supported by the facts, or even a reasonable reading of the situation (e.g. Obama's trip to visit his grandma in Hawaii is really to personally oversee the coverup involving his non-American birth certificate).

^ Steele was basically saying that the stimulus is creating short-term "work" rather than long-term "jobs", and that doing so doesn't help the economy. Disagreeing with that point would be fine, and I would have loved for her to do so. Steele has plenty of opinions that would be easy to pick apart.

But Maddow did not attack the point, she attacked the wording. She extended his wording to imply the he was saying that short-term work doesn't help those employed by it and that any job with an end-date is the same as being unemployed. She avoided his point to attack his wording, and she does not do the same with Democrats.

She did the same with the auto bailout. Some Republican Senator said that union jobs "cost the auto companies an average of ~$75/hour" (paraphrased) and Maddow said "show me the auto worker that takes home $75/hour." Workers cost companies more than their hourly wage and she knows that.


Maddow is too intelligent for me to believe she doesn't know the difference in these cases. Yes, Olbermann and O'Reilly are worse, but that doesn't mean Maddow is completely fair when she is talking about Republicans. She often avoids disagreeing with what people mean so she can take a funny jab at their word choice. If she did it to both sides then maybe I'd call it unbiased, but I've only seen her do it to Republicans.

Om nom nom. Thanks for those delicious words you just put in my mouth, NetRunner. Go back and reread what I wrote and tell me where I said, "because of her tone, the case she makes must contain inaccurate (biased) factual content?" I'm not sure which thesaurus you used to draw a parallel between "bias" and "inaccurate".

Reporting with a smug indignation against a party shows an unfair prejudice, because most people (obviously not you) like objectivity in their journalism. I'm not saying she's evil, just that she's a little better than political theater.

>> ^Psychologic:
^ Steele was basically saying that the stimulus is creating short-term "work" rather than long-term "jobs", and that doing so doesn't help the economy. Disagreeing with that point would be fine, and I would have loved for her to do so. Steele has plenty of opinions that would be easy to pick apart.
But Maddow did not attack the point, she attacked the wording.

Actually, she attacked the point. A job that pays you income is an economic stimulus. A full-time job that lasts for 2 years puts food on your family's table for that much longer. A job you get a paycheck for is a job, period.

It's not permanent demand in the system for employment, but the idea is that employing those people creates demand that spreads (or trickles) through the economy, encouraging more hiring throughout, and builds the confidence of investors who start believing that there are good bets to be made on our economy because sectors of the economy start improving.

It might not work out that way, but these histrionics about refusing to concede that jobs are being created by the stimulus bill are disingenuous.

She extended his wording to imply the he was saying that short-term work doesn't help those employed by it and that any job with an end-date is the same as being unemployed. She avoided his point to attack his wording, and she does not do the same with Democrats.

Yes, over time you can say Rachel exhibits a bias towards criticizing Republicans. It doesn't mean a particular instance of that criticism is biased and unfair, because she does it too often.

A lot of time what she says highlights my own confusion with Republicans, and why they think their ideas will work. Usually I understand what they're trying to convey, but with Steele, I had no fucking idea what his point was.

I think he was trying to echo the Keynesian quote about digging holes to fill them up again, but he'd have done better to actually use the quote (which is clear), than just try to make a semantic argument about whether jobs created to service government contracts are "jobs" or not.

To me, that argument is an attempt to assume your conclusion; the government can't create jobs because jobs created by government aren't jobs because government created them.

She did the same with the auto bailout. Some Republican Senator said that union jobs "cost the auto companies an average of ~$75/hour" (paraphrased) and Maddow said "show me the auto worker that takes home $75/hour." Workers cost companies more than their hourly wage and she knows that.

And so do the Republicans, yet they repeatedly phrased this data point as "Union workers are paid $75/hour" -- there wasn't just one, it was all of them, repeatedly. She was calling them out for trying to fudge facts to fit their political need, and explained how the $75/hour figure was reached in excruciating detail in order to try to counteract those misrepresentations being pushed by Republicans.

Maddow is too intelligent for me to believe she doesn't know the difference in these cases.

The reason you have that impression is because she's been explaining the difference between the words people are actually using, and the facts.

Yes, Olbermann and O'Reilly are worse, but that doesn't mean Maddow is completely fair when she is talking about Republicans. She often avoids disagreeing with what people mean so she can take a funny jab at their word choice. If she did it to both sides then maybe I'd call it unbiased, but I've only seen her do it to Republicans.

Why is it her job to try to divine a sensible explanation for people's ridiculous words that they themselves did not put forward? Steele's case and the $75/hour UAW thing are great examples; the Republicans put out these talking points, and don't try to explain a "real meaning" they just try to put out a soundbite for the uneducated and hope they don't have to defend it against any real scrutiny, because they have spent decades decrying such scrutiny as "bias".

When one party has been saying stupid things, it's not "bias" to report that what they're saying is more stupid than the things the other party is saying. Bias is trying to claim that the only objective report is the one that finds both parties equally wrong.

>> ^blankfist:
Om nom nom. Thanks for those delicious words you just put in my mouth, NetRunner. Go back and reread what I wrote and tell me where I said, "because of her tone, the case she makes must contain inaccurate (biased) factual content?" I'm not sure which thesaurus you used to draw a parallel between "bias" and "inaccurate".
Reporting with a smug indignation against a party shows an unfair prejudice, because most people (obviously not you) like objectivity in their journalism. I'm not saying she's evil, just that she's a little better than political theater.


In the first paragraph you challenge me to tell you where you said her tone makes her inaccurate; in your second you say because of her tone she's not an objective journalist and tantamount to being mere political theater.

If you concede that she's making an accurate, persuasive, objective argument with an irreverent tone, I would agree that her tone, and overall record amounts to a bias.

If you say her tone disqualifies her from being able to make an objective critique of things happening in the news, and therefore should not be treated as credible by anyone, even in excerpt, I think you're venturing off into the territory where the word "bias" is being used as a political weapon.

You say I don't like objectivity in journalism, I say I've never been able to find any such animal anywhere, even in aggregate. Humans color everything with their observation, and it shows. The dangerous ones aren't the ones who make their personal beliefs known, it's the people who claim to be unbiased objective observers of Truth -- those fuckers lie through their teeth.

What about this chick's goofy hair? Blech.

if you havin girl problems i feel bad for you son, i got 99 problems but a bitch aint one

re: "It was really WWII that pulled us out of the depression."

So what did WWII do? - caused a Massive Government Spending Program that employed millions of workers in factories making bombs and tanks and planes.

Thank you, Psychologic, for being a voice of reason, and a voice of ACTUAL economic sense. For everyone else getting angry, jumping on the bandwagon, and mindlessly blowing off their BS cannon, go read Psychologic's very first post.

For those of your raising a big stink about what Steele said, this looks like a classic case of him being cut off before he was able to make a sound argument; He was halfway through a point, the interviewer talked over him to make some other point, and then he countered the interviewer's point, [he was cut off], and then he likely continued on with his original point (provided that the interviewer wasn't too much of an aggressive ass). I'd like to see the original interview before I pass judgement.

The "it's creates work not jobs," statement is such an out of touch white collar statement. Not that I have a problem with 'white collar' work; before the republicans sent the economy into a shitstorm I had a 'white collar' job.

I didn't read the entire blankfist vs netrunner word salad, but I think blankfist's point is that Rachel Maddow isn't on TV to bring us the news; she's on TV to tell us what Republicans are doing wrong.

It doesn't make her wrong but it does make her a bit annoying and unprofessional.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I didn't read the entire blankfist vs netrunner word salad, but I think blankfist's point is that Rachel Maddow isn't on TV to bring us the news; she's on TV to tell us what Republicans are doing wrong.
It doesn't make her wrong but it does make her a bit annoying and unprofessional.


Thank you. You are right. I have a hard time translating English into Democrat for NetRunner.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I didn't read the entire blankfist vs netrunner word salad, but I think blankfist's point is that Rachel Maddow isn't on TV to bring us the news; she's on TV to tell us what Republicans are doing wrong.
It doesn't make her wrong but it does make her a bit annoying and unprofessional.


If she wasn't doing it, noone would be.

Well, ok, Olbermann would, but ugggh that guy is blech.

Doing nothing is a stupid idea. Such a stupid idea that NO other country in the world is even considering it. ALL other countries in the world are factoring in stimulous spending packages.

"Doing nothing" means the GOVERNMENT does nothing, takes a backseat and serves the people instead of the other way around. Obviously the govt. will still be running, spending money, etc., just not beyond its powers or means. MEANWHILE, you and I and everyone else still need food, shelter, etc. Other people also need those things, and so an economy grows as people attempt to provide other people with goods and services they need and want.

People don't invest or start businesses when taxes are too high, which then punishes incentive. People also refuse to invest when it is unknown what Obama's banana republic will do next.

That's the price you pay for electing a communist in a once-free country.

>> ^quantumushroom:
People don't invest or start businesses when taxes are too high, which then punishes incentive. People also refuse to invest when it is unknown what Obama's banana republic will do next.
That's the price you pay for electing a communist in a once-free country.


The stimulus bill includes tax cuts. Tax cuts given by Bush for the last few terms did not stimulate the economy at all. This approach simply doesn't work.

Obama is not a communist, both the sides agreed to the stimulus package before it got mired in politicization.

Your points lack any link to real world economics.

>> ^quantumushroom:
That's the price you pay for electing a communist in a once-free country.


You do this all the time and it really drives me nuts. You start off with a well put, well thought argument and then you throw it all away with a troll line at the end.

Why? Why can't you just make your point without trying to incite a battle?

*money

Adding video to channels (Money) - requested by MycroftHomlz.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by geo321.