Political coverage of President Obama can be odd sometimes. We've reached the point at which media professionals no longer evaluate the president's comments at a press conference, for example, but rather evaluate how the comments might be used against him later.
What matters isn't the substance, then, but whether the substance has the potential to be wrenched from context in future attack ads.
Take this morning, for example. Obama hosted a press conference at the White House, starting with a seven-minute opening statement on the economy and the need for Congress to act on pending job legislation. Then he opened the floor to questions, most of which dealt with the Eurozone crisis.
At one point, a reporter asked, "What about the Republicans saying that you're blaming the Europeans for the failure of your own policies?" Obama responded:
"The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we've created 4.3 million jobs over the last two, 27 months -- over 800,000 just this year alone. The private sector is doing fine. Where we're seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government, oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don't have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in."
Reporters figured Republicans would seize of the notion of the private sector "doing fine," so pretty much every other word uttered during the press conference has been deemed irrelevant. Now, the "gaffe" is what matters -- include Obama's important explanation of the policies needed to improve the economy and the damage done by austerity-like measures in the public sector.
Sigh.
As gaffes go, this strikes me as extremely weak tea. The choice of words probably could have been slightly better, but really, to treat this as some kind of breakthrough moment in the campaign is pretty silly. Indeed, what Obama said, in context, is largely correct -- compared to the public sector, the private sector really is doing fine.
This isn't complicated. Corporate profits have soared, the stock market is up, and private sector job growth has fueled the recovery entirely on its own. In fact, private sector job growth last year was the second best year we've seen since the late 1990s, and 2012 is on track to be even stronger.
The public sector, meanwhile, continues to be a drag on the economy, laying off workers and cutting budgets. Comparing the two sectors, there's nothing shocking about saying one is "fine" and the other isn't.
If the media pushback is that the current growth rates aren't yet good enough, that's certainly fair -- but I think everyone realizes Obama has said the same thing several thousand times. Republicans and reporters may enjoy being opportunistic with these comments, but that doesn't make the story legitimate.
For his part, Mitt Romney quickly learned of the media reports and told voters that the president is "out of touch." Yes, Mr. Elevator For My Cars who isn't concerned about the poor and who enjoys firing people wants to talk about which presidential candidate is "out of touch."
The election is 150 days away. It's only going to get sillier.
Leave a Comment:
I can not help but think the main stream (corporate owned) media is actually once again trying to help the right. Mitt has no chance at all but then neither did Walker.
Well, you know, the media is owned by the 1%.
Media: dumb
This is what you get when the majority of people responsible for delivering an honest portrayal of reality in the body politic were journalism majors and have no technical expertise in economics, science, etc.
and to that, I would add...
Media: arrogant, in the wrong field
So many journalism majors have little interest in reporting news. no, they want to "change the world." but since they don't have the guts to do real hard work (like join the peace corps), or run for office, they become party cheerleaders (overwhelmingly left-leaning) who simply cannot resist adding their opinions to the news they are supposed to be reporting.
not too long ago, some arrogant news caster, appalled that a gop member of congress disagreed with an obama policy, challenged his economic credentials. whoever it was (can't recall right now), had an MBA, cum laude, in economics.
that pretty much summed up both of our points: dumb AND arrogant. the conflation of ignorance and arrogance is a very dangerous thing.
You've got it wrong, joe.
The problem with the media not painting an honest picture of reality is not where you think it's coming from. The false equivalence is because the true picture would reveal the toxic malignancy of the Republican party and its policies and the fake even-handedness from the media is because managing and executive editors don't want to upset subscriptions and advertising money from its customers on the right.
The technical incompetence is a result of individual training but it serves the destructive force called the Republican party very, very well. There would be no other way that Useful Idiots in this country would be able to keep believing the stupid mhit they do (tax cuts pay for themselves, climate change is a hoax, deregulation costs businesses, the ACA costs jobs, the ACA will balloon the debt of the country, Obama is a big spender, regulations have gone up under Obama, confidence is keeping business from investing) when ALL the evidence is that the stupid mhit they believe is 100% completely and utterly wrong.
Take that weak crap you just wrote somewhere else.
Oh, and an MBA is, objectively, a worthless piece of paper. The sad thing is that some stooges -- businessmen -- respect that worthless nonsense. Those people know nothing. Similarly for most economists. Most economists couldn't pass Econ 101. Like famous economists at Chicago, the Austrians, the RBA folks, etc who got everything wrong about the Great Recession and who continue to get it wrong (and they do this without embarrassment).
Correct on all points, D..WithItAll.
IF we had real FREE press, the country would be far better informed. As it is now, the ad $$ are more important than doing the prescribed job of reporting "news" as in the fact based events of the day.
Thomas Jefferson and Edward R Murrow are somewhere screaming....
The MSM is what it is because it is infested with corporate wh0res and moral cowards. Those on the right know that and do not hesitate to do whatever they think they can get away with (which is a lot) to take advantage of the sorry situation. There are a few semi-exceptions in the MSM, but even they usually seem to be afflicted with Liberal Guilt and unnecessarily provide those on the right with a forum (and do other unfortunate things).
You and I seem to think alike Entropy. I should brush up on my thermodynamics.
If I'm not mistaken, DWIA, you seem to be getting at the notion that the majority of, ahem, journalists do not lean left.
How does one respond to such an abject denial of reality? It isn't all-or-nothing, not by any stretch, but to ignore the obvious like this is hard to comprehend.
"the fake even-handedness from the media" -- huh? are you serious?
"...don't want to upset subscriptions and advertising money from its customers on the right."
but they do want to upset the left? laughable. this old canard about corporate ownership of media and protecting subs and ads is the very definition of "weak crap."
someone has to tell you this, so it might as well be me: both parties suck. both lie relentlessly, and both have played their part in damaging the country. both are bought-and-paid-for whores for corporate and (in only one case) union money. to think there is something even close to a profound difference between the two reveals something I'd rather not speculate on, but it isn't good.
"Take that weak crap you just wrote somewhere else." -- IOW, "leave my echo chamber alone!!!"
is this kind of open-minded intellect you intended to portray? diversity in everything but thought, right?
"Oh, and an MBA is, objectively, a worthless piece of paper."
now you're just reaching. the point clearly had nothing to do with you or my opinion on what an MBA is worth. the point clearly had to do with the arrogance and silly assumptions of a typical journalist who had nowhere else to go in an interview with someone who wasn't saying what she wanted to hear. if the pol didn't have the degree, is there any doubt you'd have cheered her truth-to-power efforts? of course not.
"The sad thing is that some stooges -- businessmen -- respect that worthless nonsense. Those people know nothing."
nice whitewash. all businessmen are stooges who know nothing. do you bring that same open-mindedness to race issues, too?
and you expect to be taken seriously?
totally unhinged.
Looneytarian alert! And Paulistas expect to be taken seriously. Lol!
One way to look at whether or not the corporate owned media is in the tank for the left is to look at the coverage. I suggest you google Pew Research and Obama vs. Romney coverage and see what it has to say. (I would go to the trouble to find you all the links, but at this point, it's not worth my time.)
As for MBA's, economists, yadda, yadda, yadda. I know lots of them. And none of them surpass the scientists, engineers, etc. in terms of not only intelligence but in their ability to make judicious decisions. This is because to complete an MBA is basically no more technical than some easy accounting and lots of buzz words. I think we saw what sort of intelligence is required for an MBA when the country got a good look at W, you know, "The Decider." That MBA really taught that boy how to decide things didn't it? And that's part of what's wrong with the country. It takes people who know things, e.g., scientists, engineers, mathematicians, etc., and, in most cases, subordinates them to the "Deciders" who don't know things. Like MBA's, those kings of managment. Know Nothings.
@DisgustedWithItAll
A week ago, on Friday Jun1, you replied to one of my posts - which I just now read.
My post was about how in April 2012 - for the first time since September 2008 - the Federal budget report shows a surplus (receipts greater than outlays).
You replied - "There's always a surplus in April. It's tax month you know."
Yes it is tax month, but - seriously - check out the data yourself:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html
April 2008 +159,282 (What one would expect)
April 2009 -20,907
April 2010 -82,689
April 2011 -40,387
April 2012 +59,117
:)
What the heck does he mean here? What kind of "flexibility" is he talking about? Printing more money? Just letting the debt rise? Taking out the China credit card?
Well - - yes. Except for the China credit card part. What do you think Treasury Bonds are for?
Short term stimulus with long term deficit reduction.
Thanks for once again demonstrating what someone who can flunk the IQ test low enough to be a Republican sounds like. You should have no trouble getting a job as a reporter, asking questions as moronically stupid and ignorant as these.
The Fed has flexibility indeed.
The Fed has essentially 3 ways of raising money
= Taxes + Bonds(issue new debt) + Printing money.
The China thing now;You should know that China holds less than or approximately 20% of our debt.Most of the debt,we owe them to ourselves in the form of SS,medicare etc.
I think you and many out there in the conservative sphere are having a hard time to distinguish between these two problems.
The high unemployment and debt.They are two distinct problems and shouldn't be mixed.
By spending now i.e providing money to the states and local gov,to keep people working(teachers,fire fighters etc) and spending on infrastructure.
These people would now be able to make money to pay taxes,their mortgages etc.Through these the Fed could be able to raise revenue and start to address the long term debt.This is essentially what Economists have be advocating,yet people like you are still confused.Please We have an UNEMPLOYMENT CRISIS!!!!
That would be the left answer, sure let's spend more...how about spend less? Is the "flexibility" to spend less not an option? If you have less coming in, until it grows, less has to go out? Is that concept simply not understood? TC are you not smart enough to understand if you only have one dollar, you can't spend two?
Treasury Bonds? So, yeah just Print the money? Why don't we just use treasury bond to pay for everything. We can bail out Europe, buy every one a hybrid, pay off our national debt, and down the line.
Why not just let everyone retire at the age of 55 and they can all live off Treasury Bonds.
Any problems with this?
That sounds pretty shallow and foolish.Fed has different responsibilities
like keeping an eye on inflation.
Eric says
So cutting spending,in a depressed economy will spur growth and employment will go up? Please explain to us how that works.
Honestly i don't think you have a clue of/understand what you're talking about.
It's really frightening,that our democracy relies in the hands of people like you.
It is a myth,that a country can live without debt.
The Useful Idiots are here. Eric, please, please go pick up an Econ 101 macro book. You would find the answer to your question of having a dollar and spending two in one. It's not what you think. But your question does expose your ignorance. You can avoid embarrassing yourself with some hard study that apparently you haven't already done. But that's just like you wingnuts.
Same for you , El Orn!@#$@, or whatever it is you're calling yourself.
The ignorance is why we -- as humans -- [economy is world wide and NOT wholly "run by governments" not even halfway!] have such trouble governing ourselves.
A point is the "my liberty" crowd. In a civilized, democratically run society they forget: The biggest affront to YOUR liberty is MY liberty.
I do, however, have facts to back up my opinions on the subject.
Tom and Ed still screaming...
Disgusted,
Those on the right are incapable of shame.
One economic concept that I learned in Econ 101 at the University of Alabama is something called a 'Mixed Economy' and that says if you don't have both a healthy public and private sector to have a fully functioning economy.
You are absolutely correct.And if i may add,the government creates the necessary condition for a Mixed Economy to function.
In a depressed Economy,the Public sector always leads the way to recovery,especially this one.
Finally, someone here is talking sense.
jeez, this topic is killing me. Take standard recognized economic theory of the past 50 years, flip it upside down, make unsupportable and unrealistic claims cause the "confidence" fairy told me to do it, and call it a Republican platform.
I could go thru each point a refute it one by one, but really, whats the point
As usual, the MSM seizing on the trivial, ignoring the substance. No wonder the public is so poorly informed and has so little ability to deal with issues that can't be summed up in a 30-second spot or on a bumper sticker.
"Blur: How to Know What's True in the Age of Information Overload" by BillKovach and Tom Rosenstiel
It used to be that major newspapers - and people like Walter Cronkite - could be relied on to do the editing - but no longer. This book gives excellent background and also a guide on how to process information.
Includes a section on "The Way of Skeptical Knowing...amounts to asking - and knowing how to answer - a series of systematic questions... including the following.
What if everyone - on both (all) sides - followed this?
Where are the ADULTS in this nation? WE have a corporate owned lamestream celebrity driven press corp (NOT all, but way too many) whose sole mission is to not objectively report the news but to confuse, confound, co-opt and be thoroughly disingenuous in their "reporting" to the American people!
Sad part is that the sheeple have bought the bs lock, stock, and barrel. Americans have been dumbed down and many of them don't even recognize it! How else can you explain sheeple voting for the GOP and against their own pocketbooks! Code words like liberty, freedom, G-d, guns et.al have been used, white people's fears of "other" have been manipulated against them and still the sheeple fail to see the truth of what is going on!
C'mon people, stop, think back to the free falling economy of 2007-2008, are you really saying that you want to go back to that - where the taxpayers are picking up the tab for the CEO's that made bad decisions and almost collapsed the economy?! Puhlease, gimme a break!
I agree.
Vote for Gary Johnson! He wouldn't have bailed them out like Presidents Bush and Obama. He wouldn't bail out Europe either. He will ACTUALLY end the Wars in the Middle East and the War On Drugs, protect a woman's right to choose, promote gay marriage, throw out the Patriot Act, and let us keep a more of our hard earned money.
Freedom and Opportunity! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarians are idiots. Sorry that that's all I have the patience for on that topic.
Maybe for some value of "idiot" they are, Disgusted..., but mainly they are aggressively malicious.
Agreed, Entropy. I'd add one word for most of them: unwittingly aggressively malicious or cluelessly aggressively malicious or stupidly aggressively malicious or ..., you get the picture.
Well, I for one am just glad the recession is over. I know because President Obama said so. Somehow my friends don't see it that way.
All we need to do now is spend a trillion or two on Europe every other year and we'll be fine. We don't have to borrow money because we can just print it. Why the hell did we borrow that money to begin with? We should have just printed it from the begining.
There's an old line about bad economic times: "When your neighbor is out of work, it's a recession. When you're out of work, it's a depression."
E. O. ... If you're hearing Obama breezily saying that everything is fine, you're hearing something the rest of us don't. He has been the mature and realistic presence in a room full of rhetorical children. The current mess wasn't of his making, and there's relatively little he--or any other president--can do to change it any time soon.
We had pretty good economic times because of two bubbles over the past 20 years. First, we had the tech bubble of the mid- to late-90s. Then, we had a housing bubble that provided people with lots of illusory "income." It didn't really exist, but people foolishly accessed it by taking out home equity loans. When that bubble burst in 2008, lots of greedy and stupid people were overextended and either lost their homes or had to find another way to pay back debts.
We we're left with what we really have: a badly structured economy. The shortsightedness of the past three decades is coming home to roost.
The manufacturing jobs that provide a reasonable standard of living are gone, and too many of those that remain pay poorly because productivity gains have gone to executives instead of workers. That's what happens when union membership declines. Far too much of our economy relies on pushing money back and forth and on creating questionable financial "products" that do little more than suck additional money from those outside the top 5% of wealth holders, in order to further enrich the financial sector.
Obama has been trying to tell people something they refuse to hear: that there's no quick fix. We're not going to create another bubble so we can bail people out. Until we get serious about creating REAL PRODUCTS, we're not returning to 3%-5% unemployment.
We can get a short term boost by building and repairing infrastructure so that we have a foundation for future growth. In the intermediate term, we should 1) improve educational technology and facilities; and 2) invest in the kinds of research and development that only the federal government can or would undertake, such as the kinds of things we've done through the space program, the NIH, or other collective efforts.
I've always thought that our best chance for prosperity is in two areas: 1) biotechnology and medical engineering, and 2) developing high speed individual and mass transportation. But even those will only work if we do what we didn't do with information technology--keep the jobs at home and pay people well to do them.
@mpguy
Yes!!! Exactly!!!
The deregulation has caused the manufacturing jobs away. They like to blame EPA for that, but now that the pollution in China/Asia is affecting us here, that is short sighted. It is the fact that manufacturing mostly gone and cutting things leaves no revenue coming into coffers, expanding the deficit caused mostly by tax cuts and then wars.
It is not going to come back fast, they blew up bubbles and there is very little to be done (that I can see) to fix it fast. What bubble scheme next? It is short term, if they find it. These drown government tax cutters forget that economy was booming while middle class was expanding and buying things, but they got greedy and CEOs wanted to keep more and more, but they had to show dividends also.
sandyc954 . . . Most of your points are good, but I disagree that deregulation caused jobs to go away. NAFTA and some other free trade agreements, and a lack of enforcement of the National Labor Relations Act played a part in offshoring. However, the main villain is the Harvard Business School mentality that puts a premium on cost cutting and profit maximization without regard to the long term social and economic effects on the nation.
Recovery will depend upon our ability to create new products, even new fields, that provide us with a competitive advantage. One big limiting factor is a Republican Party that too often doesn't seem to believe in science and its foundations. If we can't do effective research, we can't create and develop.
And, when we do, we have to keep those jobs here. Even if someone in China or India can do them more cheaply. Otherwise, there's not much incentive for us to do the kinds of basic research which sets the stage for discoveries with greater commercial potential--and that can only be done in a collective manner through the government.
You're right NAFTA and NLRB were the main culprits. I have always been opposed to global economy. We have very little control over what other countries do. Yes, the New World Order stuff, multinational corps do not care about the citizens or employees. I heard Ross Perot and Jerry Brown talking before the fact and GATT, NAFTA did suck away jobs.
I was thinking about the corps blaming EPA and "red tape" for leaving states and the country, seeking cheapest labor. I was also thinking about Tom Delay, et.al. praising Saipan (sweat shop) as a model for capitalism, etc. Regulating would mean to me EPA, OSHA, payroll & tax rates, etc. I would like to see manufacturing here, and agree that the resistance to science and education is not helping one bit.
The Republicans really support business and businesses are only interested in profit, nothing else. I would like to balance and restore a more "partner-like" relationship than the "kick the employees" relationship that is prevalent now.
I'm at the point where, if someone came up to me and said "Hi. I'm a reporter," I would punch him in the face, kick him between the legs and then when he's down kick him repeatedly. They're the scum they always were, other than a short time in the 1960s and early 1970s when they told the truth, and they have been living on that undeserved reputation ever since. Consider Bob Woodward as the prime example of what I am talking about.
The MSM is owned by big money corporate vultures. Reporters do what they are told, unless they want to join the lines of unemployed. Just take a look at your own MSNBC headlines. On many local stations the President is referred to as Mr. Obama and Mittens is referred to as Governor Romney.
It is the same big boss requirements for private sector workers. Many are told how they should vote, if they want to keep their job.
The MSM has been told to crush OBAMA and pander to the new right fundamentalists. We don't live in a democracy anymore, and there is nowhere to relocate in order to find jobs or freedom. "There's two kinds of scared, runin' scared and fightin scared". It is a sad state of affairs. Running is not an option. It's time to fight. GAME ON!
I like your spunk.
I appreciate your comments here too. I was raised to speak my mind without fear. I have raised my kids and grand kids the same way. When we have to choose between jobs or freedom, we will go for freedom. The favorite music album in our house now is "Wrecking Ball" by Bruce Springsteen, we like to turn it up and sing it loud. Sometimes we cry and sometimes we laugh, and we will get through this.
I'm beginning to see why some other countries have (or have had) state-run media. Of course, they normally are used against the people too, but I can see why leaders there wouldn't trust corporate-owned media.
Perhaps there is no solution strong enough to overcome monetary and authoritarian power over the media.
@daveweigel's definition on twitter is right on time:
On the bright side, maybe, some in the media won't be able to simply report those few words without evaluating whether the claim is true. Otherwise, how does the reading public know it's a gaffe? So perhaps these reports will grudgingly point out that, well, yes, corporate profits are high, the Dow broke records recently, and public sector layoffs orchestrated by Republican governors play a large role in holding the economy back. Or maybe Mitt Romney will learn how to radiate a human warmth.
By the way, isn't there some irony in Republicans expressing outrage over the idea that the private sector is doing fine? To say otherwise would be to say that government needs to intervene. So I'm going to do a favor for the MSM reporters who feel that Obama's statement of fact about private-sector job growth relative to public-sector job growth is the headline from the press conference, and I'm going to let them in on a little secret. The real gaffe is that "REPUBLICANS CALL FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN PRIVATE SECTOR TO BOOST ECONOMY."
STOP IT...I am SO sick of the MEDIA and their little garbage fights. It's not just the Republicans it's the MEDIA. Let's not talk about ISSUES let's talk minutia.
this post is so silly.
everyone here knows this kind of "gotcha" crap was done to bush as much as to obama, and to clinton and pappy bush and reagan before them. and to ford, and nixon, and lbj...
nothing new, and if this is appalling and it wasn't 3.5-11.5 years ago, you're a hypocrite.
don't forget: both parties SUCK
Thank you, Joe, for telling us that the equivalence is not false: there isn't a dime's worth of difference between red and blue, so we might as well just give up and stay home.
There is no such thing as THE public sector. It is a fiction invented by statists. The so-called public sector is a fiat creation of the government, and can be as large or small as the government desires. The "public sector" by definition cannot be fine or not fine, because it does not grow organically and spontaneously - it is an artificial creation and can be as fine as the government wants. Benen's comment is nonsensical.
Libertarian kook alert, everybody.
My criticism of this remark comes from a different direction.
Private sector <i>businesses</i> are 'fine' - the stock market is up from when Obama took office, profitability is okay, and there is hiring going on. But what does that mean for private sector <i>citizens</i>? What overall gains have us reg'lar Americans seen? For example, while private sector job numbers are (generally) going in the right direction, the jobs themselves aren't paying nearly the same as the ones that went away, or have a similar level of benefits. Combine this with the fact that almost everything seems to have become more expensive as businesses fabricate ways to charge you more for less and you still have the bulk of the population reeling from the recession. To us, that recession is still being felt with no letup in sight.
I mean, Obama was being factual and accurate with that remark, but it's papering over a fair amount of ugly reality. And no, it's not as if Romney has any legs to stand on in criticizing Obama in the same way I have; Romney's policy proposals show him to be even more myopic.
See, that's part of the problem. For some of us (and I'm not quite in the 1%) things lately have been pretty good. Oh, the crash cost me some pay for a while but the Company actually restored it and kicked in a fair bit besides for those of us who sweated it out.
And now I managed to buy a second house (preparing to move when I retire) at a very good price and smoking interest rate. Pay is growing about as much as it did before the crash (roughly rate of inflation) and the 401(k) is looking pretty good for retirement in a few years.
And I'm not unusual. 8% unemployment sucks bricks, no question -- among other things, it puts serious downward pressure on wages even for those of us with jobs. But 8% unemployment also means 92% employment -- and as a result, there are a lot of people who can keep their heads down and not notice how bad things are. Especially since a lot of Americans do a good bit of their socializing at the job, so when someone vanishes they're just out of mind.
It's easy to ignore the amount of suffering going on. Unless you actually take the time to look around and think about it [1].
As for all that slow degradation of living standards, ask the boiling frog. Especially when the cook tells the frog to blame it on some Others. You know: it's the fault of those damned government workers, with their lavish pay and benefits. They wouldn't be so well off it they didn't have unions forcing ordinary people like you and me to dig into the money we don't have to pay the confiscatory taxes that allow them to retire at 40 with full pay and benefits, you know?
[1] Even the Great Depression wasn't all that bad for most people. My mother's family cruised right through it (barring her mother dying of cancer). It was very interesting to compare her experience to my father's: Dust Bowl sharecroppers run off the land and heading West just looking for work picking in the fields. Yes, the last name might as well have been Joad rather than Sessions.
I just had a thought I'd like to share. Since "the media" cannot be trusted to report the whole context of the speech, how about if Obama selects a few of the reporters by name and the media they represent. He could then specifically address their false or misleading questions and "school" them on what he really means. What are they going to do with this? He could call out a Fox "reporter" and let him have it with both barrels. Since it won't matter to them to tell the whole truth, maybe another outlet will report the interaction. And, of course, Obama could make this the substance of an ad including the full context of the interaction. When I read comments here, I wonder why some of the people here aren't advisers to the campaigns of leading Democratic candidates. "We" sure seem to know better ways to run a campaign. But, we don't have the money to buy access, so we are left to talk amongst ourselves. So Sad.
All well and good if Obama hadn't given his hormone-producing parts to his testosterone-deficient advisers like Plouffe. But those parts are gone now.
Greatest Orator Ever = "Reverse Rotate Tag-a-roo" anagram. It's all about spin and deflecting attacks these days. I miss the Obama who ran in 2008. If something is not done soon, Conservatives will bring back the law of Prima Nocta.
What's the law of Prima Nocta?
the right of the first night --- the right of the lord to "deflower" brides
Oh yea, okay thanks. Mitt is promised that in Morman paridise, right?
People, please read this next level of attacks against President Obama, I'm not puzzled that no one has found the facts which support what he has stated, they are easily available. He stated the Private Sector is doing well and it's time to attack him as being out of touch. President Obama is absolutely correct. When you look at the loss the private sector was taking when the recession was cras...hing the economy was hurting them also. Today in 2012, when you look at the Bonuses, the continuous tax breaks and the fact most or all of them have gained back the money they had lost and then some. The perspective of President Obama is absolutely correct. When a billionaire did lose over 5 billion dollars in 2008-2009 and now has gained back 7 billion dollars between 2011-2012 or a rich person who loss about 10 million dollars when the recession was at its peak has now gained their 10 million dollars and another 3 million over the past year, yes the private sector is doing well. When corporate America has more than 3 trillion dollars in cash in their personal coffers and will not higher or invest in making things better of course it would appear things aren't going too good for the private sector but the reality is the rich always, again always do better when it comes to recovering from a recession. Check out the research in every economic turn around the poor, middle class got poorer and poorer each time while the rich and wealthy gained back their loss and then some. This attack is a bigger picture which is inherent in our media today in which they will jump on something that is not a story because they refuse to go get the facts. So I went and did a Google search around wealth disparity, private sector bonuses and income growth for the past two years and all research leads to the private sector, rich, wealthy doing much better than the poor and or middle class. I’m just too tired of this mess they call reporting. Take Care! Be Blessed!
I did appreciate Benen's chart on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) on the Ed Show last night. Since this is a demand recession/depression, I would be interested in comparing the GDP with the ADP (Autonomous Domestic Product). As econ theory 101 goes they must both rise in order to pull us out of this near depression.
A lot of the media seized on his no tolerance for leaks statement.
The rest seized on 'the private sector is doing fine' -- but for what??? Romney says that Obama is forgetting the lesson of Wisconsin, that the American people love firing people who serve them, too--firefighters, teachers, policemen. (He actually said this.)
My question is this: do the Media believe that NO ONE SHOULD BE WORKING AT PAYING JOBS--neither private nor public?
That's what the frenzy over this implies: that the media (with its unpaid laborers by the thousands) think not paying for labor is the way to go.
I'm pretty sick of their never questioning more deeply why it is they all go along with the Koch Brothers' sick agenda of overthrowing the working class.
Yes, cut ALL employment -- Bain was really good about doing away with workers, wasn't it? -- and offer no employment by the government. What's left?
Millionaires and billionaires living off what they ALREADY have, leaving the rest to starve or go into servitude to them...
yeesh .. this slipped in while i was typing ... does this mean those transmissions are getting in through my tin foil???
I just do not understand why an unemployed teacher (fireman, cop, etc., etc.) is so desirable. Do people not understand that unemployed public sector workers are counted in the jobs numbers ???
I think my internet is under attack. I have been having problems with this site all week. And my security keeps popping up to scan threats.
so guys ... i actually think the most amazing thing that romney said was the sentence after the one at issue in this post ---
to paraphrase --- "He (pbo) thinks we need more teachers and cops and firefighters!!! Didn't they learn their lesson in wisconsin???"
so there's that
Mitt Romney and the GOP need to tell the 5 million Americans hired in the last two years that those jobs "aren't enough." The American economy is moving in the right direction. Contrary to the lies and exaggerations of an out-of-touch Mitt , Obama has not made the jobs picture "worse." Millions of new jobs have been added over the last three years and the needle continues to point forward. But America will never be able to fully recover until conservative lawmakers and Republican politicians stop their strategy of jobs sabotage and get on the page of helping this country, not just their own political aspirations. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Well, then don't hold your breath.
:-(
One thing Obama could do to minimize the impact of this "misstatement" is to have his people go back into the CNBC archives and just pick out some of the thousands of interviews with CEOs about how their businesses are doing.
I'm always amused that folks like Larry Kudlow parrot the Repub talking points by moaning about how terrible things are and how dire the future looks. As though the economy is about to fall through the floor.
Then, almost to a man/woman, when CEOs and other titans of private industry are interviewed by regular CNBC hosts or come on a show like Jim Cramer's, they gush on about how splendidly their firms are doing, and how bright their prospects are.
That would seem to call much of the phony Republican "outrage" into question.
Yep, rooting for doom and gloom.. I'd say we are shooting at our own feet. The thing W said when recession hit was "go shopping" and "buy a home (and it doesn't have to be a crummy one)".
Repeating the stuff that keeps people from buying things is really awful.
I am seriously worried about some of this stuff that people hear to feel pessimistic. "I just want a President that Congress will work with so I can get a job". My friend said that… after I said congress wasn't cooperating. Reality check? There are folks that do not read or listen to what Republicans are doing, just reacting to the condition of needing a job. They do not follow procedures, filibusters and what bills are done or by whom. They do not know about Citizens United or that unions get pensions for workers and venture capitalists feed on them. They are gay, but not thinking about DoMA or SCOTUS. Reality.
Credit where credit is due. Gas Prices keep dropping because of an oil glut. This is a result of President Obama increasing US oil production and reduced demand as more people move to green energy sources. Thank You President Obama !!