Log In | Register
Type Your Article Here ...In an article on MSNBC written by Lori Montgomery for the Washington Post on Sat. June 19, 2010 is another good example of the incompetence of the news media in telling the story and how both the politicians and the news media refuse to deal with the facts of the subject. The news reporter constantly avoids any criticism of the Presidents idea about how to deal with the economic crisis that was created by the gov't and how the gov't is extending the crisis with it's inept explanation of how to fix the economic problem that the gov't created in the first place. The solution according to the reporter and the gov't is more gov't spending even though the evidence is in that the spending so far has made things worse and not better and yet the gov't and it's supporters including the press wants more of the same. Before the economic stimulus package was initiated the unemployment rate in America was around 8.5% after the stimulus package was passed and the money was used in the economy the unemployment rate is over 9.5%, so how did the stimulus package work when the unemployment rate went up over 1%? One statement in the article states,"If Congress doesn't provide additional stimulus spending, economists inside and outside the administration WARN (my emphasis) that the nation RISKS (my emphasis) a prolonged period of high unemployment or, MORE FRIGHTENING, a descent back (?) (my emphasis) into recession." Since when is America out of recession in the first place when the unemployment rate went up over 1%? The additional stimulus is only $266 billion dollars in a $14 trillion dollar economy that amount of money only adds up to less than 2% of the entire economy how does less than 2% of the entire economy "stimulate" the economy enough to make a difference in the unemployment rates? It can't, even the original $862 billion dollar package is less than 10% of the entire economy and it can't stimulate the whole economy to make a difference it was important in the sense that it was used to support the financial institutions but they needed that support because the gov't undermined it in the first place. The other thing about both amounts to be taken into consideration is that the gov't takes (according to what the news media has told me) 30-40% out of every tax dollar that it receives to pay for civil servants and the support they need. So the money for stimulus is even less again for instance 30% of $862 billion is a little less than $255 billion and 40% is a little less than $345 billion leaving between approx. $608- $520 billion for the economy. Then the other problem is the problem with pork which the news media never looks into and never explains and this is a significant loss for the economy because it's money that is going into work that isn't contributing any lasting impact for the economy. So we are talking even less money that goes into the economy that only slows the economy down more and again neither the politicians nor the news media ever mentions it, why is that? So the whole stimulus package has more to do with expanding the gov'ts role at controlling the economy than it has to do with helping the economy, the image of helping the economy has to be continued because you don't want the electorate to find out what is going on. The more the gov't invades the economy with this sort of stimulus the more money it takes out of the economy making the economy worse and not better because the one thing you need more than anything is MONEY and that is what the gov't is taking out of the economy when the economy can least afford it. The other thing that makes all this work next to useless is that all the jobs the gov't is saving are only temporary jobs, none of these jobs will be around once the stimulus money is spent. We are not talking about creating new prosperous business's that will go out and hire people for brand new jobs created by brand new business's so the amount of the support that the economy is getting is superficial at best, and self destructive at the worst.
The news media doesn't seem to be aware of these facts and thus doesn't ask questions of the politicians along these lines, why? Isn't the news medias role in this issue (as well as all others) to investigate these issues and to question those people who make unsubstantiated statements? Where is the news media when the issue is such a huge and significant concern for so many people and yet the news media lets all these comments go completely unchallenged? Why? My belief is that the news media have the same political point of view as the politicians that is they are control freaks and con men just like the politicians they report on. They want to deceive the general public along the same lines as the politicians they report about , for instance White House senior rep. David Axelrod states, "But it's fool hardy to suggest that we should walk away from the things we need to do to continue recovery efforts as a way to deal with our fiscal problem." Well how "fool hardy" is it to continue a policy that has led to a more than 1% increase in the unemployment rate, and how does he continue his recovery efforts when his effort is only between 5% and 10% of the economy? And why isn't the news media asking these questions? The CBO states that the stimulus package helped to perserve 2.8 million jobs through March, aside from the fact that I sincerely doubt that statistic what is going to happen after March. After March all 2.8 million jobs are gone? If that is the case what was the point? Does the gov't have to go out there and borrow another $862 billion to prop up all those jobs and what do you do when that money runs out, borrow more money? And when does all this borrowing end? Why can't the news media raise these questions? Why is the news media so indifferent to the gross irresponsibility of the gov't that caused this problem in the first place and why is the news media so indifferent to the plight of business's and employees in America that allows them to let the politicians create false hope over and over again?
Another part of the same article talks about the plight of state gov'ts budget and how they need more money for the next year's budgets and how Congress has to provide more money for them. Again the overwhelming concern for gov't spending and nothing being mentioned in the article about the private sector or how all this money being spent by the gov't is going to be paid for in the future. State gov'ts have the same responsibility as the federal gov't and that is to take the burden of gov't off the economy and to scale back the demands on ALL aspects of the gov't to create as much money in the economy to stimulate growth that the gov't destroyed in the first place. The article also brings in expert (?) testimony by White House economic adviser Lawerence H. Summers saying that not following through on gov't spending would jeopardize the recovery and delay when the recovery will happen. Well we've already seen how the stimulus that has already been spent on the economy has led to an increase of over 1% in the unemployment rate, and again there is no way that the money the gov't has spent (less than 10% of $14 trillion dollars) can support the economy to what he says it will. Again she doesn't ask how this is possible, why? She does allow one statement by House Minority Leader John A. Bockner (Ohio) who presented a letter signed by 100 economists stating that 95% of the jobs created in May are temporary and related to the U.S. census. Another thing stated in the article is that fiscal stimulus"is not particularly effective strategy. So lets just stop." said Douglas-Eakin, a former CBO director. Again there is no question by the reporter to explain this statement and there is no attempt to use this information in the article to balance and explain the issue so that all people can better understand the situation that we are in,why? Isn't it the responsibility of the news media to inform us of both sides of the issue? Here is the other side of the issue and yet it is reduced to only a few lines about 3/4 of the way through the article and then ignored, not only ignored but then is countered by another statement supporting gov't spending. She talks to an economist Mark Zandi who supports Obama's call for more state aid saying the budget of the states is"a significant impediment to economic growth." Well yeah, when gov't keeps taking more and more money out of the economy whether it be federal or state or both then they can and will cripple an economy. But that's not what we're talking about we are talking again how gov't money and only gov't money can help the economy and if the federal gov't can only muster only 5-10% at most to stimulate the economy and it doesn't work how could the even smaller budgets of state gov'ts be a significant stimulus to their respective economies? Again there are no questions from the reporter about this sort of statement, she allows (and so does her editor, her boss) to all these statements to go un-challenged and unexplained. She is drowning any dissent to the main story about gov't stimulation by using the majority of the article to have people who only have good things to say about gov't spending say as much as they want, they don't have to explain themselves because she never asks them any questions. And this is acceptable performance from her editor? She takes the only dissenting voice in the article and all but ignores it and again doesn't ask any questions so that the rest of us can understand the whole content of the issue that should be in the article and isn't.
We all have to become more aware of the incompetence of the news media and the incompetence of the politicians and that this isn't so much incompetence as it is a con. Both parties are control freaks, that makes both of them political radicals which means in order to hide their radical ideals they have to con you into thinking that what they are telling you is reasonable when in fact it is unreasonable. That's where the con comes in, that's why they call themselves Liberal because it makes them sound like they support liberty when the only liberty they support is the liberty where the gov't has control of all the freedom and rights of all the people. This kind of liberal gov't will be "liberal" with your freedom and rights and ALLOW you to have your freedom and rights but only if you are good to the gov't, but the gov't also has the power to be arbitrary with your freedom and rights. The gov't does not recognize that your freedom and rights are INDEPENDENT of gov't it only recognizes that your freedom and rights are DEPENDENT on gov't. So that gov't can at any time under any circumstance decide who can be free and who can't. We have to understand the under lying philosophy that this article and others are hiding, this hidden idea has been around for a very long time but it's time to see it and understand what this means to all of us not to mention our children and grand children. What will it be America will you work to understand this scam, spend the time and make the effort to get up to the speed that the news media/politicians are at or not, if you don't then your life will be lost and so will America.
