Biden - Approval

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(10-26-2022, 07:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ah, I see your confusion. You seem to not understand the terminology. Surplus and deficit are terms based on the yearly budget. So in a fiscal year, if your revenues outpace expenses you run a surplus, and if the expenses outpace revenues you run a deficit. Or, you could somehow pull off a balanced budget which never really happens where they are equal.

If you run a deficit, you have to get that money from somewhere, and that is where the debt comes into play. The debt is the accumulation of deficits over the years. So when you run a deficit, you are adding to the debt by the amount of the deficit. For the government, this is done through bond issuances primarily (many of which are purchased by Social Security and some by foreign entities, but most of our debt is held by the US). If you run a surplus, you could use it to pay down debt. Or, more typically from the fed and the states, they will just spend it on something else. Sometimes states put it into a "rainy day fund," or they may give money back to the people (Virginia did that this year), it all depends.

A lot of focus is put on the debt but the reality is that our national debt is not as big of an issue as a lot of people think it is. This is one of those things where "running government like a business" just doesn't work out. Because of our economic capacity our debt is absolutely fine and deficit spending is not a huge boogeyman, or at least not as much as the narrative would have us believe. As long as we don't default because of political games in Congress, which has come close to happening, we're good. We are capable of paying our bills. However, that doesn't mean we should just spend whatever we like because there is a limit and our spending habits will determine what that is as it can impact our bond ratings and other things that allow us to borrow. We have been continually deficit spending for decades, which is a problem.

Anyway, you are correct that a lower deficit this year than last just means that we added less to the debt this year. But that's just because that's what our politicians focus on. It's a shorter term measure that is honestly more important in the grand scheme of things than the overall debt.

Well considering how much was spent during Covid I’m not sure it’s much of an accomplishment unless it’s lower than pre Covid spending?

[Dill]

(10-25-2022, 06:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Editorial boards do what the ones that sign their paychecks want. Editorial decisions are usually rooted in the corporate ownership decisions.

I think the evidence of this is based on how many reporters I have seen that post news in other ways, now. Outside of their current, or former, employers. I follow AP and Reuters, but aside from that I pretty much exclusively follow the reporters themselves because what they post elsewhere online is so much better than what their employers would let them write.

This doesn't sound right to me, Bels.  

I could see it happening in "crisis" moments, when reporting some news event could pose an existential threat to owners/parent corp., e.g., through a lawsuit. And one could argue the Murdoch organization works like that somewhat.

But I think the corporate news organizations who form our MSM have much more autonomy about what to print than you suggest here. They are not at all like state controlled news in China or Russia. Rather they have a great deal of autonomy. They may be losing it gradually, but they still have it to a great degree. And in part that autonomy results from the conversion of news to a commodity. That delinks it to some degree from party/gov./corporate control, in that desire for profits may regularly trump ideology or class interest.

As someone steeped in critical theory, I'm happy to agree that corporate media support/reproduce the kind of world in which corporations can continue to profit. They exclude news and reporting which might undermine their legitimacy. But that happens largely because, from shareholders to CEO to editors to reporters, most share a similar ideology, as well as assumptions about professional standards, and they are embedded in the same culture and state.  It's not because orders come down from on top. 

They can all easily see the threat to their common interest now raised by the prospect of a GOP controlled House, with McCarthy beholden to the Trump/Qanon caucus, but no danger now or in the future if there is starvation in Yemen or a massacre in East Timor--unless it threatens sea lanes in the region and a larger regional balance of power. MSM news consumers would probably agree with the bulk of their editorial decisions.

Could be my knowledge is dated and things have changed over the last decade of buyouts and mergers, but I'd want to see more evidence of the direct or "command-style" control you are suggesting (if I understand you correctly) to see things differently.

[Dill]

(10-25-2022, 05:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ok, so we're talking like the bare basics "Two dead at so and so street" where the absolute bare minimum without any sort of analysis or commentary is provided.  Ehhh, even then I feel like their main purpose is to lead viewers/readers towards a parent source in regards to things where commentary/spin is the commodity being peddled.

I'm probably being overly cynical, but I just don't see it being anyone's chief duty to inform and provide facts.

Well, reporters are paid to do that. Democracies require informed citizens and transparent government. The job of the free press is to provide for that. 

I share your skepticism of the "bare basics" reporting. I call that the "Dragnet model" and have criticized it elsewhere in the forum.
(# 64 http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-12-7-Terrorist-attack?pid=1118894&highlight=dragnet#pid1118894.)

There aren't pristine facts over there that  just select themselves and that anyone could see and report "honestly" if he wanted to, and then over here on the other side of the facts just commentary, opinion, and "bias."   To think that invites confirmation bias on the consumer side and manipulation through "facts" on the producer side. "We report, you deicide" is already the motto of one news organization--with questionable results.

I think of reporting much the way I think of doing history. What happened in the U.S. colonies on July 4, 1776? Probably a lot of things. Someone's cow died in Boston, a slave ship set out from Rhode Island. Joe and Jane Doe were married in Charleston, SC. We tend to remember a certain political event, though, not all those other things, because historians selected it for remembering because of its consequences. That is a value judgment and a historical "editorial" decision. Those values are always grounded in some notion of the common good and professional standards.

Reporters have to operate the same way. They report facts they think a free citizenry should know, but there are always many facts and one has to select among them, based on value judgements. There is no selection WITHOUT value judgements, which give reporters, and then editors, a means of prioritizing stories and what "facts" will be in them. Our job is not to "trust" reporters, but to read and compare their accounts with reporting from other vantage points.

[Arturo Bandini]

I guess it's the second time Biden have been understimated.

[*Nately120*]

(11-11-2022, 05:34 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: I guess it's the second time Biden have been understimated.

I think he lucked out more than anything.  The 2022 midterms were to democrats what the 2016 election was to republicans.  The polling underestimated a significant demographic and the party that was supposed to win let an unpopular candidate dictate the strategy.  

2016 - Sure Hillary isn't popular, but this country would NEVER elect a guy like Trump!
2022 - Sure Trump isn't popular, but this country would NEVER vote for democrats while Biden is so unpopular and the economy is blah blah blah.

BAM!  Plans shattered by a demographic you overlooked.


If Trump followed his loss in 2020 by dropping dead, or getting abducted by aliens or otherwise not being the focal point of GOP then the GOP gets their red wave in 2022.  Trump has a slim victory in 2016 and non stop losses since then and right now the left is crossing their fingers that he's going to screw the GOP in 2024, as well.  Keep in mind too that democrats vote early and by mail and the GOP has stupidly convinced their supporters to completely refuse this benefit, thanks to Trump and his narratives.

Lordy, if Trump buys the Buffalo Bills in 2014 who knows where we are right now.  Maybe Biden gets a term from 2016-2020 on Obama's coattails and we're currently in term 1 of another republican right now. 

[*pally*]

(11-11-2022, 11:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I think he lucked out more than anything.  The 2022 midterms were to democrats what the 2016 election was to republicans.  The polling underestimated a significant demographic and the party that was supposed to win let an unpopular candidate dictate the strategy.  

2016 - Sure Hillary isn't popular, but this country would NEVER elect a guy like Trump!
2022 - Sure Trump isn't popular, but this country would NEVER vote for democrats while Biden is so unpopular and the economy is blah blah blah.

BAM!  Plans shattered by a demographic you overlooked.


If Trump followed his loss in 2020 by dropping dead, or getting abducted by aliens or otherwise not being the focal point of GOP then the GOP gets their red wave in 2022.  Trump has a slim victory in 2016 and non stop losses since then and right now the left is crossing their fingers that he's going to screw the GOP in 2024, as well.  Keep in mind too that democrats vote early and by mail and the GOP has stupidly convinced their supporters to completely refuse this benefit, thanks to Trump and his narratives.

Lordy, if Trump buys the Buffalo Bills in 2014 who knows where we are right now.  Maybe Biden gets a term from 2016-2020 on Obama's coattails and we're currently in term 1 of another republican right now. 

It wasn’t as much luck in the past election as bad politicking by the Republicans. Since 2016, despite losing the popular vote, they decided they ONLY people they need to win an election is the increasingly right wing Republican base. And to campaign to the base all they had to do was “own the libs”. What the succeeded in doing was to fail to continue to expand their base, failed to look to the future, and failed to provide solutions. Non affiliated voters want answers and a functioning government. Republicans weren’t offering that…and Republicans didn’t care enough to pay attention to that

[samhain]

(11-12-2022, 09:14 AM)pally Wrote: It wasn’t as much luck in the past election as bad politicking by the Republicans.  Since 2016, despite losing the popular vote, they decided they ONLY people they need to win an election is the increasingly right wing Republican base.  And to campaign to the base all they had to do was “own the libs”. What the succeeded in doing was to fail to continue to expand their base, failed to look to the future,  and failed to provide solutions. Non affiliated voters want answers and a functioning government.  Republicans weren’t offering that…and Republicans didn’t care enough to pay attention to that

I think blame falls less on the GOP leadership itself and more on the base.  The experienced leaders in the party know full well how difficult it is to win a general election or true swing state with a hard right authoritarian-style candidate.  Their dilemma lies in the party primaries when they have to face only Republican voters.  The base still largely supports Trump and his policies.  Most of them really do feel that the 2020 election was stolen and that the Jan 6th insurrectionists are heroes.  We've seen over the last 6 years that they will indeed throw out previous democratic norms to gain power over the libs.  

Not many primaries favor a moderate Republican over a rabid Trump lackey in the last half decade.  The powers that be in GOP have little choice but to go to the freakshow to find candidates to appease the mob.  It's all fun, games, and lib owning until they have to go up against, well, any semi-reasonable Dem in the actual general or remotely in-play House seat contest.  

If I were McConnell or McCarthy, I'd more or less tell the base to get bent.  Pick strong conservatives without attachments to MAGA and focus on the economy and policy.  The Dems do it all the time.  Practically no Democratic candidate comes off as inspiring or overly exciting.  They're just better than what the average registered Dem sees running for the GOP, which is enough.  

The right should take out the MAGA trash.  Tell the nutbags in the base to suck it up.  Are they really going to get mad enough to vote for a dem candidate?  I doubt it.  Somebody has to be the adult in the party and tell the unruly children that eating ice cream for breakfast, lunch , and dinner isn't good for little insurrectionist Jonny, even if he throws a tantrum when they don't give in to his petulant demands and hysterics.

Until this happens, even weak Dem candidates will have a fighting chance in close races.