(10-25-2022, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You mean politicians are being disingenuous? I am shocked. Shocked, I say.
Hardly a shock, I know, it's just amazing that it's not instantly called out by people whose entire job is reporting facts to the public.
(10-25-2022, 12:46 PM)jmccracky Wrote: "then claiming credit for lowering prices when they started to fall"
Exactly my point brotha! It's unnerving. Every time I see an add talking about gas prices going down, I wanna punch someone lol. Like....really?
It's the blatantly obvious lie that's honestly the most insulting. It's such a blatant contradiction/lie that anyone with a functioning brain should see it for what it is. That so many do not is horribly depressing.
(10-25-2022, 02:51 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: To be fair, the President is capable of changing gas prices. If a president plunges us into a recession or ignores a pandemic such that it destroys thousands of jobs and forces millions to work from home, it will lead to fewer people going to work and traveling and that will lead to the price of gas going down. Likewise, if a president passes laws that help job creation, paired with a response to the pandemic that leads to people returning to work and returning to the office, the price of gas will go back up :) .
The problem is many people seem to think you can raise or lower gas prices by signing an executive order or something.
Of course the actions of the POTUS can have indirect effects on the market all the time. An off hand insult to China, or a declaration of military support for Taiwan can send markets reeling. But this is true of anyone with sufficient clout, take Elon Musk for instance. He can send stocks into the toilet, or sky high, with just a tweet. Since we apparently completely agree here I won't belabor the point.
(10-25-2022, 04:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly a shock, I know, it's just amazing that it's not instantly called out by people whose entire job is reporting facts to the public.
Honest question here, but who has the actual job description/requirements of reporting facts to the public?
(10-25-2022, 12:33 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I’m no economist how does not passing stimulus bills lower the deficit? Wouldn’t that just mean we are spending less money than previous years? But how does that lower the deficit unless we are putting more money towards lowering it?
I don't see how not passing stimulus bills lowers the deficit. But it stops Dem momentum. If they can't get things done, then you vote for "change" -- the guys who don't want things done, or want taxes undone. Cutting taxes will raise the deficit.
Just a couple comments.
I got a check from Trump which I spent. So did my wife. We spent value without creating any. Not sure why Trump handouts are not included as a cause of inflation, if that sort of spending causes it.
I'm thinking stimulus spending may cause inflation, but the U.S. would be worse off if it hadn't enabled businesses to continue operating and households to keep up consumer demand.
I'm not an economist, but it seems possible that for some people at least, inflation meant they kept a job, even if they are now paying more for consumer items.
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.
(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.
Not sure how you could infer that, given there is a large amount of information left out of your example. Two dead, who? What were those people doing there, if known? When did the incident occur, e.g. time of day? Where is this street located and is that area known for anything? Why were those people shot, if known?
"Analysis and commentary" are the job of the reader, after being given the facts, or the purview of the editorial board, whose job is to give opinion.
(10-25-2022, 05:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure how you could infer that, given there is a large amount of information left out of your example. Two dead, who? What were those people doing there, if known? When did the incident occur, e.g. time of day? Where is this street located and is that area known for anything? Why were those people shot, if known?
"Analysis and commentary" are the job of the reader, after being given the facts, or the purview of the editorial board, whose job is to give opinion.
Well then maybe it's the nature of the viewers that I can easily picture people dismissing or arguing many of the things in your post. So maybe I'm just arguing more that even if people have a job of reporting facts that job is practically irrelevant today since we've seen people debate and dismiss any of the examples you've provided.
So I guess we're talking about two different things here. You are saying a reporter reported the facts that X amount of people/kids died at Sandy Hook while the commentators and viewers were free to decide what those facts actually meant.
(10-25-2022, 05:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well then maybe it's the nature of the viewers that I can easily picture people dismissing or arguing many of the things in your post. So maybe I'm just arguing more that even if people have a job of reporting facts that job is practically irrelevant today since we've seen people debate and dismiss any of the examples you've provided.
So I guess we're talking about two different things here. You are saying a reporter reported the facts that X amount of people/kids died at Sandy Hook while the commentators and viewers were free to decide what those facts actually meant.
Of course, that's the nature of human discourse. There will always be people, of every political stripe, who choose to ignore information they find unpalatable, or to twist it to serve their needs. That absolutely does not mean that reporters should abdicate their responsibility to report actual facts simply because some will choose to ignore or manipulate them. Basically, you're saying that firefighters shouldn't put out fires because someone will always start another one. The job is the job, how people react to the properly produced product is up to them. Is that not the essence of personal freedom?
(10-25-2022, 06:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course, that's the nature of human discourse. There will always be people, of every political stripe, who choose to ignore information they find unpalatable, or to twist it to serve their needs. That absolutely does not mean that reporters should abdicate their responsibility to report actual facts simply because some will choose to ignore or manipulate them. Basically, you're saying that firefighters shouldn't put out fires because someone will always start another one. The job is the job, how people react to the properly produced product is up to them. Is that not the essence of personal freedom?
And is not moisture the essence of wetness?
I have to say, you're laying a lot on the reporters. The majority of the bias we see on the reporting side of media comes from editorial biases, not those of the reporters. That's one of the frustrations of this whole situation.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(10-25-2022, 06:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have to say, you're laying a lot on the reporters. The majority of the bias we see on the reporting side of media comes from editorial biases, not those of the reporters. That's one of the frustrations of this whole situation.
You may very well be correct, but I've seen nothing solid that would indicate that, but am, of course, open to seeing it. Also, the editorial board, traditionally, trends more conservative than the reporter bullpen. Regardless though, we are, in the end, complaining about the poor reporting coming from sources that should be reporting facts. Why is this not a huge issue for anyone at all concerned with objective fact?
(10-25-2022, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You may very well be correct, but I've seen nothing solid that would indicate that, but am, of course, open to seeing it. Also, the editorial board, traditionally, trends more conservative than the reporter bullpen. Regardless though, we are, in the end, complaining about the poor reporting coming from sources that should be reporting facts. Why is this not a huge issue for anyone at all concerned with objective fact?
Same reason Pizza Hut no longer has anchovies on the toppings menu...not enough people want it.
(10-25-2022, 06:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You may very well be correct, but I've seen nothing solid that would indicate that, but am, of course, open to seeing it. Also, the editorial board, traditionally, trends more conservative than the reporter bullpen. Regardless though, we are, in the end, complaining about the poor reporting coming from sources that should be reporting facts. Why is this not a huge issue for anyone at all concerned with objective fact?
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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(10-25-2022, 06:30 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Same reason Pizza Hut no longer has anchovies on the toppings menu...not enough people want it.
Possibly. At the end of the day, you're either making a pizza or you're not. You're either reporting or you're not. At some point you have to acknowledge that the job you claim to be doing is not the actual job you're doing. You either report facts or you don't. If you don't, then you're not a reporter, you're an editorial activist. Your analogy would be completely appropriate if, instead of not putting anchovies on pizza they served you raw dough with cold marinara sauce and shredded mozzarella. It's got all the ingredients of a pizza, but it damned sure isn't a pizza.
(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.
On this I completely agree. Sadly, the vast majority of people do not digest news in this fashion.
(10-25-2022, 06:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Possibly. At the end of the day, you're either making a pizza or you're not. You're either reporting or you're not. At some point you have to acknowledge that the job you claim to be doing is not the actual job you're doing. You either report facts or you don't. If you don't, then you're not a reporter, you're an editorial activist. Your analogy would be completely appropriate if, instead of not putting anchovies on pizza they served you raw dough with cold marinara sauce and shredded mozzarella. It's got all the ingredients of a pizza, but it damned sure isn't a pizza.
Well i just buy a tin of anchovies and pit them on cheese pizzas I buy, so I'm way off base with the example i guess.
(10-25-2022, 06:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well i just buy a tin of anchovies and pit them on cheese pizzas I buy, so I'm way off base with the example i guess.
(10-25-2022, 04:49 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The deficit did not decrease, i.e. the government made more money than it spent, the amount we went into debt decreased, i.e. the government spent more than it made but at a lower rate than the previous year. We did not have the type of budget surplus that W. squandered buying votes in 2000. To put it in personal terms, let's say I make 100k a year and last year I went nuts and spent 200k, my net loss that year was 100k. Now this year I curb some of my spending and only spent 120k this year, I'm still in the red, just less so than the year before.
See this shit doesn’t make sense to me. If you didn’t pay your 100k debt off then in my mind you increased your debt another 20k. You decreased how much debt you added but to me that wouldn’t be decreasing your deficit as I see it. You just increased it less than the year before which is not much of an accomplishment.
(10-25-2022, 10:48 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: See this shit doesn’t make sense to me. If you didn’t pay your 100k debt off then in my mind you increased your debt another 20k. You decreased how much debt you added but to me that wouldn’t be decreasing your deficit as I see it. You just increased it less than the year before which is not much of an accomplishment.
Precisely correct. It's especially unimpressive when you consider that the person crowing about it was the same person in charge (ostensibly) the year before.
(10-25-2022, 11:40 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you're aware of why the deficit is lower then you're aware that it's nothing to crow about.
But aren't the Dems responsible for out of control government spending?
I realize that Clinton having a surplus, Obama reigning in W's destroyed economy, and Biden regaining control of the economy 2 years removed from a global pandemic just destroys the conservative argument of fiscal responsibility, but I don't....nevermind, answered my own question.
(10-25-2022, 10:48 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: See this shit doesn’t make sense to me. If you didn’t pay your 100k debt off then in my mind you increased your debt another 20k. You decreased how much debt you added but to me that wouldn’t be decreasing your deficit as I see it. You just increased it less than the year before which is not much of an accomplishment.
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.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
