Friday, October 15, 2010

@nprpolitics Sucks

Posted by JHW22

Slowly, many liberals have noticed that NPR isn't always free of spin to the right. Or spin to the fear. Or spin to the whatever is opposite of what they should be reporting.

Today I dropped @nprpolitics from my Twitter feed because of their choice of Tweet language in regards to the new deficit numbers.

First, notice how Mark Knoller, CBS News White House Radio Correspondent, Tweeted. He posted:

While Obama was speaking, Treasury Dept reported that federal deficit for the 2010 fiscal year just ended was $1.294-trillion.
He followed that with:
That's down from the 2009 deficit record high deficit of $1.416-trillion.

Here's how @nprpolitics reported the same information:
Federal Deficit Hits Near-Record $1.3 Trillion In 2010

The article in link in the @nprpolitics Tweet states [emphasis mine]:

The Obama administration says the federal deficit hit a near-record $1.3 trillion for the just-completed budget year.
That means the government had to borrow 37 cents out of every dollar it spent as tax revenues continued to lag while spending on food stamps and unemployment benefits went up as the economy slowly pulled out of recession.
The eye-popping deficit figures provide Republican critics of President Barack Obama's fiscal stewardship with fresh ammunition less than three weeks ahead of the midterm congressional elections. The deficit was $122 billion less than last year, a modest improvement.
That's right. The deficit is better this year than last. But @nprpolitics is spinning it as if it's the opposite. Massive fail. I no longer follow @nprpolitics on Twitter.


Broadway Carl said...

And let's not forget who was in charge of FY 2009. The fiscally conservative Republican administration of George W. Bush.

Classic hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

Nonsense. FI 2009 started in October. Tax revenue was down due to the slowing economy and uncertainty. Meanwhile, Government spending increased 18% and over half of the spending increase 245B was for the Financial bailouts and the Fannie and Freddie bailouts, a corruption plan of the Dem Congress. You DO KNOW that the Dem Congress has been in control for years, correct? Further, The spending increases and tax cuts included in the economic stimulus package approved in February added almost $200 billion to the 2009 deficit. Pathetic you don't deal in numbers and accuracy or even bother to quote the CBO. Even Barney Frank admitted he was wrong to insist Fannie and Freddie were "fine" while they were entirely responsible for the bogus housing bubble and collapse that HE HIMSELF pushed for for years. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

BTW are you 12? What does "in charge of" mean? LOL. The CONGRESS is "in charge" of spending and revenue, if you have to use a grade school term. The CONGRESS was Democrat majority. eyeroll.

Broadway Carl said...

No, Anonymous I am not 12, otherwise, I'd be using phrases like "Democrat majority" and "LOL" and "eyeroll."

FY 2009 started October... of 2008. That was Bush's budget, whether you want to admit it or not. You can blame the DemocratIC majority in Congress all you want, but Mr. Fiscal Conservative could have vetoed it or threatened to veto without some cuts.

You want numbers? You want quotes? Here you go:

January 7, 2009 CBO Report Confirms President Bush’s Fiscal Legacy (Bush still in office, "BTW"):

"Today the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its annual fiscal outlook, painting a bleak picture of the economy, the budget deficit, and growing debt. CBO reports a stunning $1.186 trillion budget deficit for fiscal year 2009 and large deficits for as far as the eye can see...

CBO’s report provides the penultimate chapter on this Administration’s dismal fiscal record. In January 2001, the Clinton Administration left office with a budget surplus projected to be $5.6 trillion over ten years. The Republican Administration has squandered that budget surplus, and now is leaving a projected deficit of well over $4 trillion for that same period (2002-2011). As bad as this record is, the final accounting of the Bush Administration’s fiscal legacy will grow worse as it is updated to reflect the cost of legislation to address the economic crisis and the deterioration of critical services that have foundered under eight years of neglect."

You can't have it both ways, Anonymous. You can't blame that crazy tax and spend Obama when his numbers are actually lower than Bush's last fiscal year.

Broadway Carl said...

And if you seriously think that Fannie and Freddie were the "entire" reason for the housing bubble, then you are the one dealing with fantasy.

TARP? Bush's plan. $700 BILLION! And if it weren't for the Obama Administration plans for repayment, we might never have seen any of that money back.

"When Mr. Obama took office, the financial system remained so weak that his first budget indicated the Treasury might need another $750 billion for TARP. The administration soon dropped that idea as Mr. Geithner overhauled the rescue program and the banking system stabilized. Still, by mid-2009, the administration projected that TARP could lose $341 billion, a figure that reflected new commitments to A.I.G. and the auto industry.

The Congressional Budget Office, which had a slightly higher loss estimate initially, in August reduced that to $66 billion.

Now Treasury reckons that taxpayers will lose less than $50 billion at worst, but at best could break even or even make money."

And even you must know that had it not been for the stimulus, we'd be much worse off than we are. Even the most conservative economists agree on that.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Analytics:

Critics have also objected to the fiscal stimulus as a case of government overreach and ineptitude. They could not be more wrong.

It is no coincidence that the recession ended when it did — about a year ago — just as the stimulus was providing its maximum economic benefit. Emergency unemployment-insurance benefits and tax cuts put cash into Americans’ pockets that they have largely spent, supporting sales and employment. And without help from the federal government, state and local governments would have slashed payrolls and raised taxes at just the wrong time. (Even with the stimulus, state and local governments have been cutting, and they will cut much more.)

Stimulus infrastructure spending is now kicking into high gear, and it will be a significant source of jobs through at least this time next year. And business-tax cuts have contributed to more investment and hiring.

Setting the record straight on the stimulus question is important because it will shape the current debate about how government should manage the still-fragile economic recovery. Last month, partly because of the misconception that the stimulus didn’t work, Congress was barely able to muster enough votes to pass another extension of emergency unemployment benefits. Not doing so would have been a serious error, putting the recovery in jeopardy.

The mistaken view that the stimulus failed also threatens to short-circuit federal assistance to hard-pressed state governments. That, too, would be a mistake.

Yes, the economy is still struggling, but not because the policy response failed. Our troubles persist, rather, because the problems at the root of the financial panic and the Great Recession ran so deep.
There have been missteps for sure, but government has served us well. We must not lose sight of that now, because the economy still needs help."

So please spare us the talking points and diatribes. I've shown you my research and linked them as well, now time to show yours.

jhw22 said...

I have to say that I love when someone tries to challenge Broadway Carl with a fluffy throw-away attempt at an insult by way of inaccuracies.

Broadway Carl can admit when he's wrong. But if you challenge him when he's right you better be prepared with a boatload of facts and more than just a lame comment supported by nada.

BTW, anonymous, Carl isn't 12. But I wonder, are you dumb?

Good times.


jhw22 said...

You know, I also think it's interesting how this seems to be the only recent thread Mr(s). Anonymous decided to comment on. Any comment by a Republican on the deficit is extra amusing to me. Somehow the deficit wasn't important until Obama became President. And if a Democrat reminds the Republicans who created it we hear whining about "blame". "Don't blame me, the dog ate the surplus." "I didn't do it, waaaaa." It's as if the party of personal responsibility doesn't want to take any. Instead they yell about Obama's policies. Yet, the initial post states, quite clearly, that under Obama's policies, the deficit is improving. Their policies created the deficit. Our policies are fixing it. You'd THINK they'd be grateful that our policies are doing the very thing they claim matters to them more than health care for all or unemployment for people who lost their jobs to workers in other countries, etc.

Now, how someone can completely avoid that reality simply to avoid admitting their own party's failures is laughable and, well, kind of sad really. Sad that anyone can be so stubborn that they can't admit that they weren't marching on DC or having Tea Parties when the deficit was created by one of their own. Heaven forbid the party of personal responsibility draw attention to how crappy their policies really are. Instead they try to pretend the deficit started on the Democrats' watch.

See how it's funny and sad? Funny that people are so out of touch. Sad that those people likely pass their false reality off as if it's valid.