Cynical Nation

What was the ministry called that Winston Smith worked in? I forget.

What was the ministry called that Winston Smith worked in? I forget.

The BBC.

Is it true?

Oh what a casualty!

And I thought that Barry and the "media" were just so close. To hear Barry now question the media's credibility... oh so sad.

Forget the party that once held both the legislative and executive branch (just two years ago) losing six seats in the Senate, 20 seats in the house, and the White House.

THE BIGGEST CASUALTY OF THIS ELECTION WAS FAR AND AWAY THE MEDIA'S CREDIBILITY.
THE BIGGEST CASUALTY OF THIS ELECTION WAS FAR AND AWAY THE MEDIA'S CREDIBILITY.

Rinse and repeat.

Great post!

Would you like a Link Exchange with our new site COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??

http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

"THE BIGGEST CASUALTY OF THIS ELECTION WAS FAR AND AWAY THE MEDIA'S CREDIBILITY." (PE)


Atually, the biggest "casualty" was the economic truth - the credit crisis was not a "bipartisan failure" (even though many Republicans DID help block the called for reforms and oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003 and AGAIN in 2005). That crisis is almost entirely the fault of Rep Frank, Sen Dodd, Franklin Raines, Tim Johnson, etc.

The MSM has been in the tank for Liberals for decades. An independent survey showed that ABC and CBS ran appx 58% negative stories on McCain compared to 22% negative on Obama and 20% neutral stories, while far-Left MSNBC ran 78% negative on McCain and 13% negative on Obama and 9% neutral.

By comparison, the "hated FoxNews" reportedly ran 40% negative on McCain, 40% negative on Obama and 20% neutral.

Ironically enough, the MSM hasn't be able to convert many Americans - gay marriage again went down to defeat, even in CALIFORNIA, which went for Obama by 24 points! Race/gender-based preferences also barred on a number of ballot initiatives....PLEASE....PLEASE don't think that the likes of Limbaugh and Hannity "had more influence than the entire MSM." That's utter BS. The American people merely thought for themselves on those issues and voted their Center-Right predilictions.


As for the economy, ironically enough, we've had a Democratic Congress since 2007 and they've moved the country onto a very definite Keynesian path.

The Spring "stimulus package," the recent "$700 BILLION bank bailout" and the 2007 SHAMnesty Bill were all Democratic creations, originating in Congress.

It's no coincidence that the economy has taken a nose dive since 2007.

The Misery Index will tell the story going forward. If 2009's Misery Index tops double digits and 2010's (when the last vestige of Supply Side policy, the Bush "across the board" income tax cuts expire) gets worse, then we'll be on a four year negative Keynesian track.

But we'll see.

Obama ran on a platform built on tax cuts, on supporting the NSA surveillance program and on gun rights...he even touted lowering the Corporate tax, which is really just a stealth sales tax, as its passed on to all of us, as consumers.

If he follows through on that agenda, I'll be fine with much, if not most of it.

Bottomline, the Misery Index will tell the story on the economy.

I think you’re conveniently overlooking FoxNews’ decidedly conservative commentary line-up.

I’ve never been able to understand why MSNC, with its very liberal commentary line-up doesn’t garner greater ratings, but then again, I was one of those surprised that Air America Radio wasn’t able to do much better than it did.

And yes, many of the votes on the various ballot referendums – race and gender-based preferences going down to defeat in Michigan in 2006, gay marriage going down to defeat in California this year and the raft of states that have greatly restricted the use of Eminent Domain since 2006, all seem to point to a decidedly socially conservative streak among many voters.

Still, I’m surprised when I hear things like “Over 40% of FoxNews viewers are Democrats,” and how few committed liberals actually listened to and supported Air America Radio.

As to the economy, you’d have to agree that the Bush administration has itself embraced Keynesian economic policies, at least in its second term and certainly over the past two years. It not only signed onto, but fought for the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill and they also fought for the spring stimulus package and the current credit crisis bailout package.

As you yourself note, many Republicans joined the likes of Senator Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank in blocking the 2003 and 2005 reforms for Fannie and Freddie, so I don’t know why you’d claim to see it “primarily as a liberal Democratic crisis.”

At this point, I don’t think we can lay the blame for a worsening economy on those Keynesian policies. McCain-Kennedy was defeated and both the spring stimulus package and the current bailout haven’t had enough time to work, yet.

While Barack Obama’s campaign did seem to deliberately seek to appeal to center-right voters, many people remain troubled by his general support for the NSA surveillance program, but while he did run a few ads in favor of gun rights and “self defense,” he also supported D.C.’s total gun ban. I am somewhat more troubled by his choice for Chief-of-Staff, a former Clinton staffer, who is staunchly hawkish, extremely anti-Palestinian and the man who helped engineer the wave of “New”, mostly conservative Democratic Congressional candidates since 2006, but I remain cautiously optimistic going forward.

Still, his tax plan really is a “tax cut” directed primarily at those in the bottom 50% of income earners, who currently pay about 1% of the income tax, in short, it seems to be an anti-poverty program (delivering more money to the poorest Americans), called a “tax cut,” instead of a “social program.”

Personally, I like the idea very much. Not only might it be more palatable to more Americans, it may create a different kind of economic stimulus, one that is driven by lower-income generated consumer spending, not higher-income generated investment and jobs creation. I think it’s a bold plan and one that deserves to be considered.

I have a sickening feeling that you’re right, that a worsening economy will doom Keynesian liberalism unfairly. My fear is that the American people are as impatient as you believe they are.

Of course, there is the other view that a worsening economy could actually make many more Americans so desperate that they’ll be willing to accept anything, up to and including the full-blown command economy of socialism...something I do not support, even though I’ve long argued that “the command economy can work.”

I believe the regulated market-based economy works better and I believe the Obama administration believes that as well.

I believe that the regulated-market needs to be far more effectively and efficiently regulated than it has been to date.

I expect that Ayers and Rezko will continue to be what they always were -- nothing. I predict that wingnuts will continue to squawk about them, and will soon be accusing Obama of rape, murder, and everything else they accused the Clintons of doing.

Why? Because wingnuts are religiously Republican. The Republican Party isn't the GOP, but GOD. The Democratic Party is Satan.

Look at the childish and nitwitted way JMK tries to ascribe Clinton's great leadership as belonging to Newt Gingrich, while simultaneously putting forth that President Chimpboy's devastation of American is really the fault of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, and it all happened in the last two years.

Like all religious fanatics, terrorists, and fascists, it is futile to argue with them. They aren't having a conversation, they are at war. Lies aren't lies, they are brilliant tactics being used against the evil enemy who threatens everything good in the world.

Hannity was bringing up Rev. Wright and playing "God DAMN America!" every thirty seconds right before the election. It was sad.

It isn't the mainstream media that has lost credibility, it is Fox News and its mentally ill line up of commentators. They still give airtime to Ann "the Man" Coulter!

So nice to see them all denounced by America, and scaled back to the little sideshow of head-bopping political puppets they truly are.

i am not so sure they will do much "walking back". I heard an interview where a media guy ( i forget his name) said that it was his job as a journalist to make sure Obama succeeds. The liberal illuminati own the media, that is no way around it. that's not going to change. They will burry anything negative about Obama for as long as they can.

"Personally, I like the idea very much. Not only might it be more palatable to more Americans, it may create a different kind of economic stimulus, one that is driven by lower-income generated consumer spending, not higher-income generated investment and jobs creation. I think it’s a bold plan and one that deserves to be considered."

The problem I see with that type of spending is that the economy continues to spin its wheels without any long term progress. People spend - where I live I am stunned by the number of women with $400 Coach handbags and ipods (the real deal, not the $30 Walmart things) and blackberry phones. Just consuming products, esp with the $500 "stimulus" package is extremely short term and is easily gone within a week. With a Coach purse, it's within 20 minutes. Therefore, the gain is virtually nonexistent.

I know I'm gonna sound like de Sade, but America has to feel some pain in order to deal with real long term growth and big money; not this piddling 5Cs that dissapear and quickly as it came. and that requires 1)education in vocational/specialized fields which will increase the ability of American workers.
2)We also need to stop this economic stimulus poopy. I'll admit I will use mine, but it could become too commonplace and people will just encorporate it in their debt.

(anonymous): "Look at the childish and nitwitted way JMK tries to ascribe Clinton's great leadership as belonging to Newt Gingrich, while simultaneously putting forth that President Chimpboy's devastation of American is really the fault of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank, and it all happened in the last two years.”

Well, it’s nice to see that JC/JMK is as frustrating for blog posters as he has been to economics professors.

Actually, JC is right in asserting that Congress controls the federal budget, tax policy and is indeed credited with being “the purse strings of the federal government.”

Beyond that, I've acknowledged, that in retrospect, I was wrong about the deep federal spending cuts that the Gingrich Congress forced on then President Clinton, but so were Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Bill Clinton, so that’s some pretty good company.

Indeed Rep. Frank and Sen. Dodd were the point-men for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but in theirs and the many Republicans who opposed the “reforms” defense, those "reforms" advanced by Bush-McCain and others were thought, by many, to be a prelude to eventually eradicating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Not only were Liberals opposed to that, but many “Ronald Reagan-Jack Kemp-styled Republicans” opposed it as well.

While it can be tediously argued that financial vehicles like the Credit Default Swaps and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations were re-defined by things like the Gramm-Leach-Bailey Act and the Commodities Modernization Act; (1) most people are neither interested in, nor much understand things like derivatives trading and (2) the re-defined Community Reinvestment Act was indeed primarily responsible for forcing banks into making an astounding amount of high risk, subprime loans.

While it’s absolutely true that since 2007 the Pelosi-Reid Congress has taken this country on a decidedly Keynesian path, one which I approve of, the defenses are; (1) if Keynesianism is so bad, why has the Bush administration signed onto virtually every piece of Keynesian legislation since 2007 and why did many Republicans fight along with Congressional Democrats to block the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reforms, and (2) considering the redefined CRA was such a bi-partisan Keynesian effort, how can the current credit crisis be blamed entirely on one Party?

The irony, for me, is that when I first met JC, in the mid-1970s, he was very much, what he'd now call "a Liberal extremist." He bought into the idea of "work as wage slavery," supported a guaranteed income, expanded welfare rights, wage and price controls, etc. He was majoring in Physiological Psyhchology and was very influenced by the late B F Skinner ("Beyond Freedom and Dignity") - JC was taken with the idea of one day being able to target "likely violent offenders" at an early age and keep them from offending by, among other things, implanting electrodes in their brains.

He took a dual major in economics, seeing it primarily as a "behavioral science."

JC was one of the few, one of the very few people I've ever met, who seemed to change their core beliefs while in University. Many people become more conservative as they grow older, JC seemed to reconsider his and B F Skinner's belief system at about 20 years of age!

Very rare.

I did not agree with many of JC's stated beliefs back then, as I've never believed the human race must advance "beyond freedom and dignity," as I don't agree with many of his stated hyper-individualism and extreme personal-Liberty oriented views since, depsite the seizmic shift.

I greatly respect JC's probing intellect and his ability to make people think differently. I've stayed in contact with him to this day because he is one of the few people who's actually changed my POV on at least a few issues, as frustrating, arrogant and insufferable as he all too often is.

I should add that I don't understand the Bush hatred from the Left at this point.

He did a number of terrible things during his first term, but he's actually done far more to anger Conservatives and appeal to liberals/Keynesians over his second term.

G W Bush has actually run a very sound, very Keynesian second term. He made it clear to the Hastert Congress that he wouldn’t sign onto eliminating the AMT, early on, than he fought vigorously throughout that term to get a comprehensive immigration reform Bill passed and over the final two years has worked very cooperatively with the Pelosi-Reid Congress, pushing through a very Keynesian stimulus package last spring and the current bailout program, designed by the Pelosi-Reid Congress.

With Bush, they were even able to rebuff the conservative Congressional members who brought in John McCain to try and mandate that all bailout monies be used specifically for lending purposes, something that most Keynesians and almost all Congressional liberals opposed.

At any rate, vexing as JC often is, he is correct that Congress controls the federal budget, tax policy, etc. and he’s right that the Pelosi-Reid Congress has been able to move the country onto a more Keynesian path since 2007.

What JC tends to omit, is that G W Bush administration has been a full partner in that Keynesian shift.

Rachel: "The problem I see with that type of spending is that the economy continues to spin its wheels without any long term progress. People spend - where I live I am stunned by the number of women with $400 Coach handbags and ipods (the real deal, not the $30 Walmart things) and blackberry phones. Just consuming products, esp with the $500 "stimulus" package is extremely short term and is easily gone within a week. With a Coach purse, it's within 20 minutes. Therefore, the gain is virtually nonexistent."

Well, that sounds like exactly the kind of economic argument that JC...or JMK around here, would make. In effect, "Consumer spending may spike demand, but that, in and of itself, doesn't create new businesses and new jobs."

Now, I agree that education, job training and re-training are vital, but I'd consider those a part of our country's infrastructure that has been sorely neglected.

From an economic standpoint, it can't be argued that Supply Side policies don't deliver widespread growth and prosperity - they do.

But it can be argued that a completely unregulated or free market delivers far greater amounts of innovation, opportunity and prosperity as well.

It's the social impact of those systems that are of concern to both social scientists and socially responsible economists.

Economic liberty sounds great in theory, but it tends to amount to those born poorer, less well-educated and less ambitious - the have-nots - being taken advantage of by the haves.

That's what Keynesianism seeks to do, to level that playing field, as much as possible, to help those born less well-connected, less avaricious, be able to compete with those born to more privilege.

One of the problems I have with the current political landscape is that, I'm troubled by liberalism/Keynesianism's so-called liberals seem motivated by extreme animus, bordering on hate. They seem to revile "conservatives," religious people and others they disagree with, when they should be trying to help such people - helping to convert them, by making sound arguments and looking to help these people have more opportunities, a better quality of life, more freedom from unwanted outside control over their lives. I'd wish for all those things for those I disagree with. That's the only way we have of convincing and converting those we disagree with.

I really do worry about the impact of such people on what should be a very positive social and economic viewpoint.

"That's what Keynesianism seeks to do, to level that playing field, as much as possible, to help those born less well-connected, less avaricious, be able to compete with those born to more privilege."


Level the playing field?

I'd like to see a far more "level" economic structure, as well.

The top 10% of U.S. income earners (beginning at $108.904/year in family income) pay 70.79% of the income taxes, while they account for just 47.3% of the total adjusted gross income (AGI)!

By comparison, the bottom 50% of U.S. income earners account for 12.51% of the AGI and pay just under 3% (2.99%) of the income taxes!

SEE: http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

As we're about to find out once again, bottom tier spending DOES NOT create businesses and generate investment income, or create new jobs.

Moreover, when the private sector catches cold, the public sector winds up on its back. Major Municipalities are looking at layoffs (Philadelphia is in the midst of serious public sector layoffs, New York is looking at a staggering $4 BILLION deficit next fiscal year. So, as private sector generated tax revenues fall, one of the few benefits is that the public sector is often forced to CUT BACK! Unfortunately, those cut backs merely expand the economic pain and spread it out.


"One of the problems I have with the current political landscape is that, I'm troubled by liberalism/Keynesianism's so-called liberals seem motivated by extreme animus, bordering on hate." (G Barandt)

Taht's just more proof of what I used to say back in the 1970s, "A disporportionate number of Leftists come from abusive and negeleted households."

Sites like MoveOn, MediaMatters, the Daily Kos are menageries of emotionally disturbed people...online gathering places for the mentally and emotionally dysfunctional.

I can very well understand why that would bother you.