In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm honestly afraid that we are beyond learning lessons from other countries. The liberal constituency and more importantly, the majority of the press, has it in their minds that raising taxes, not cutting spending is the answer. Until the press decides otherwise, we are going that road as Harry Reid told us the other day. The fiscal cliff: no cuts, all tax. The budget deal: Obama/Reid basically saying they want more taxes. Hasn't mentioned cuts.
If we can't even learn lessons from the states in our country, we are definitely not going to learn lessons from other countries, see California.
Interesting argument in this article regarding the conservative media. The argument is basically, the conservative media isn't good at holding Obama accountable for broken promises etc. because they essentially agree with the most controversial positions he's taken during the presidency, namely in the war on terror:
"...when it comes to holding Obama accountable for those unusually consequential, unchecked acts, the conservative media is far inferior, partly because of the time it wastes on birtherism, Kenyan anti-colonialism, and a National Review contributor's theory that Obama is allied with our Islamist enemy in a "grand jihad" against America; but mostly because much of the conservative movement behaves as if the War on Terrorism confers unlimited power to spy without warrants, to violate the War Powers Resolution, to extra-judicially kill American citizens, and to treat even the legal justification for executive branch actions as if they're state secrets. On all those questions, they defer to the Obama Administration."
Many conservatives think its evidence of liberal bias. But is it even true that the right is more willing to be adversarial on important topics?
in terms of media bias I largely agree with Jon Stewart that their first bias is towards laziness and sensationalism (Obama a muslim, Are Your Children Safe??!?, etc). He also cites a few stories the New Yorker, NY Times and others have written which were critical of the president without mentioning any that Fox News, The Weekly Standard or other right leaning outlets have surely done. We're just supposed to take his word that they haven't, or if they did, they only dealt with silly issues like birtherism.
Also, let's be honest: most people don't read magazines like the Atlantic or the New Yorker, they largely get their news from CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and network news. And if you watched even 5 seconds of innauguration coverage where news anchors fawned over Obama like pre-teen girls at a Justin Beiber concert, it isn't that much of a stretch to conclude that most are in the tank for him.
The "media" (to the extent such a thing exists) also is overly obsessed with making everything into a Democrat vs Republican issue. So issues like the war on terror, or climate, or whatever, that don't fit into the neat right vs left box get ignored. That's true of all of the cable news folks especially, but also most of the newspaper political journalists.
A good (but long) article from James Fallows from a while back on the issue: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/02/why-americans-hate-the-media/305060/
May the best policies win...surely neither side has all the answers, but we'll at least be able to judge results:
If successful, the combined tax cuts and pared government spending could reignite slumbering state economies and draw in new residents, while positioning Mr. Brownback and governors such as Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal and Indiana’s Mike Pence for potential White House bids.
But if they fall short, the policies could leave Kansas and other states scrambling to fill big budget holes for education and social services, while driving investors to other states.
The tax gambles under way in the red states contrast sharply with proposals put forward by some Democratic governors. The governors of Minnesota and Massachusetts have proposed raising income taxes while cutting the sales tax. The trend promises to create unusually stark divisions between conservative and liberal states.
Republicans nationally are holding up Kansas and other GOP-dominated states that are sharply cutting taxes and government spending as examples of what the party might accomplish.
This post was edited by frode 17 months ago
Agreed. Would like to see more of this type of experimentation on both sides.
I think you make some good points, and I certainly don't agree with everything that article says. To me, there is almost a bit of of the boy who cried wolf. If you are critical of everything President Obama does, then no one cares as much when you make a new criticism. Benghazi is a good example. Republicans/conservatives have been critical of everything Obama has done in the Middle East. Literally, I've documented this in previous posts but a good representation is that he is criticized for being too agressive because he went after Qaddafi, and he for not being aggressive enough by not going after Assad.
With Benghazi, he was attacked immediately after the attack by the Romney campaign for inviting the attack because he was apologizing for America in a statement that was released from the Egyptian embassy the day before. The fact that he had to backtrack a little bit on that statement, and then try to get the outrage machine going again for not calling it a "terrorist attack" mitigated the effectiveness of his attack. When the conservative media apparatus went into outrage overdrive, it was met largely with a yawn, not because the mainstream media is liberal and trying to help Obama, but because the conservative media apparatus had been in outrage overdrive since probably Palin's "palls around with terrorists" comment. If you've already made the accusations that O "palls around with terrorists" and that he "apologizes to terrorists", "not calling a terrorist attack a terrorist attack " doesn't really rank that high up there in the scheme of things.
IMO, if the outrage machine were at like a 2 for the Presidency and went to an 8 during Benghazi, it would have been treated like a legit scandal. Instead, since the outrage machine was at 7 for the Presidency, and moved to an 8 for Benghazi, it didn't move the needle as much as it otherwise would have.
Trying to make it all about the budget, I guess.
Yup. I remember when Obama was around 48-50% approval last summer that he was in good shape, and people saying oh no, it will go down when Romney begins attacking him. And I argued it wouldn't, because there's nothing that Romney could say that hasn't been said and worse over the last 3 years. Same concept here. Outrage machine on full power for so long nobody can tell the difference when they really try to turn up the heat.
Kinda hard to reach an agreement on anything, given the lack of dialog, and/or a plan by the president.
So, we'll kick the can down the road again. It's only 12B a month to continue to procastinate.
And if we turned back the clock to say 2005, the exact same thing could be said about the liberal media's attacks on Bush. Heck, Olbermann calling Bush the worst person in the world was as predictable as the sun coming up. Both sides do this. This is nothing new or unique to Obama.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Bradleyfan 17 months ago
I'm sure the 46 people that watched Olbermann were overjoyed.
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
Michael Steele, on MSNBC, is showing off his sports cred by wearing a Ravens hat, a purple tie, and enthusiastically cheering "Go B-Town!" ...
Which budget was that, Paul?
Budget nerdery from the CBO.
Economic growth will remain slow this year, CBO anticipates, as gradual improvement in many of the forces that drive the economy is offset by the effects of budgetary changes that are scheduled to occur under current law.
Oh it'll get there eventually. Congress has little room to complain, they're 4 months behind on FY 2013 appropriations!
Probably more about avoiding the effects of sequester than anything else, which tells me that whatever Obama is going to propose as his offer to delay it will consist of smaller cuts, if any, to spending. Kinda misses the whole point of why the sequester was passed, so I'm not sure how this is supposed to be a better idea.
So it comes down, really, to which spending cuts are less desirable...defense or domestic? I know many in the GOP are willing to apply sequestration to DoD spending, but from what I understand, Dems are a lot less willing to cut domestic spending.
Advantage GOP, IMO...what could the Dems possibly offer here to make it attractive for the GOP to agree to delay sequester?
Michael Steele is the Alan Colmes of MSNBC
haha, nice work.
President Obamas health care law will push 7 million people out of their job-based insurance coverage — nearly twice the previous estimate, according to the latest estimates from the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
Not surprising as he really wants/the end game is a single payer system
Thank god we were able to take care of these deficit problems by "asking the wealthy to pay a little more."
New budget estimates Tuesday reflect an improved economy and slower growth in per capita health care costs but still stubbornly high deficits adding roughly between $6 trillion to $9 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. The government is predicted to end this fiscal year $845 billion in the red. Deficits will fall for the next few years but then...
Go away, KA!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports