posted September 28, 2012 10:01 PM            

In fact, just the top 5 Fox News shows have more viewers than the rest of the cable news shows COMBINED.

Revoltin development for lefties, I know.

Of course, I threw in Comedy Daily and Comedy Colbert for those who get their news from comedians...and comic books.

CABLE NEWS RACE
SEPT. 27, 2012

posted September 29, 2012 11:22 PM            

Read em and weep leftists.

mercuranian, nothing personal. I kind of like your style...short and sweet. I'm Mercury in Virgo.

posted September 30, 2012 01:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Hahaha Fox News is the most trusted news source..by far among the network news new sources.

Read em and weep leftists.

mercuranian, nothing personal. I kind of like your style...short and sweet. I'm Mercury in Virgo.

---

posted September 30, 2012 02:07 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:

mercuranian, nothing personal. I kind of like your style...short and sweet. I'm Mercury in Virgo.

---

thanks!!! (mercury in aries here)

posted September 30, 2012 02:45 AM            

In addition to unprofessional behavior like calling Obama sarcastic names, Beck's crocodile tears meant to use emotion over reason, frequently failing to cite sources and FOX even admitting they lie (as it's their right, and unlike most psychics they don't have to put "for entertainment purposes only") they've run the most insane stories, from lesbian gangs overrunning the country to interviewing little children running a lemonade stand on Obama's policies & (grossly distorted) statements. When I was still getting familiar with it I was questioning if it was satire, similar to the Onion, but once I realized the station was serious I was stunned that other people weren't ashamed to be watching that.

I've heard others are forced to listen to it, too, including at work. I don't know if those viewers count as the audience or not.

And those who tune in to FOX know even less than people who watch no news at all:
http://www.businessinsider.com/study-watching-fox-news-makes -you-less-informed-than-watching-no-news-at-all-2012-5

Here's how well people answered questions when they got their source primarily from one (or no) news source, and it includes the Daily Show (Stewart):

And international questions:

But then I'm sure Mencken wouldn't be surprised by it at all simply calling them a channel of demagogues. The 2 things he said that applies here:

"The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."

&

posted September 30, 2012 08:39 AM            

NPR listeners are more informed.

posted October 02, 2012 01:14 PM            

mercuranian My Mars is in Aries.

As for the rest, utter stupidity. The chart assumes the person doing the grading actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

Marching in lockstep with O'Bomber, they sure as hell do not. Spending your way out of bankruptcy has been tried before. Spending your way to prosperity has been tried before and each time with disastrous results. In the 1930s Roosevelt tried it. After 8 years, his Treasury Sec had to admit there was nothing to show for all that public spending. Japan tried it and got the "Lost Decade" in Japan's economy.

I've actually read some fantasy from the so called "business insider". I wouldn't have been surprised to see them come out with the opinion oil prices are higher because a camel turd was found in the desert of Saudi Arabia and that caused oil prices to rise.

Do I need to tell you where you can stuff "business insider"?

As for NPR, my god, even Juan Williams, a certified Liberal isn't far enough left for those far left kooks...he's not a Marxist and got fired. NPR always toes the O'Bomber line and they're invariably wrong as O'Bomber is wrong and has be provably wrong.

For those who like comic book news there's the comedians. Go for it.

At least Fox News presents both sides of issues, has guests on from both sides of issues...most of the time, at the same time to give competing opinions. That's not so on other networks which are bound and determined to cram their viewpoints down viewer throats. That's the reason, few people trust them or ever turn them on.

posted October 02, 2012 01:27 PM            

quote:

---

Spending your way to prosperity has been tried before and each time with disastrous results.

---

That's a difficult claim to make. Isn't lowering taxes essentially government spending? If not, then it's ensuring that more spending can be done by citizens, right? Spending creates demand, which fuels the economy. I don't see what possible alternative you'd offer. Austerity surely doesn't foster an economy.

quote:

---

At least Fox News presents both sides of issues, has guests on from both sides of issues...most of the time, at the same time to give competing opinions. That's not so on other networks which are bound and determined to cram their viewpoints down viewer throats. That's the reason, few people trust them or ever turn them on.

---

This still isn't true, and is rather ignorant. The other networks have always had balanced positions from both sides of the aisle. I don't know what universe you'd have to live in to think otherwise. FoxNews gets high ratings for being entertaining. Not for being informative.

As I said previously, and have shown a few times now Fox News continues to be one of the least trusted news networks.

quote:

---

Continue with your delusions leftists but Fox rules.

---

posted October 03, 2012 11:46 AM            

This is exactly what the little Marxist Messiah, O'Bomber and the boobs surrounding him have done. He increased government spending as a percent of GDP by 5%. Oh and by the way, since you're not smart enough to figure this out, that's a 5% increase on $14 Trillion.

His budget deficits run as high as 3 times the size of the largest Bush budget deficit...about which leftist morons where wheezing, whining, shreeching, howling and shrieking.

There's absolutely no hope for you acoustic. None whatsoever that you'll ever be able to get anything right. You lack the basic ingredient.

Oh, and just in case you think I forgot.

Fox News rules. Number 1 and pulling away. Fair-Balanced-and Unafraid!

posted October 03, 2012 12:28 PM            

quote:

---

He increased government spending as a percent of GDP by 5%.

---

We're not morons here, Jwhop. Using GDP as the measurement is weasel-y. This is the kind of statistical manipulation that Ami used to like to cite as reason to distrust all statistics.

Obviously GDP has been down in the depressed economy, so it's quite easy for government spending as a percentage of GDP to look really out of whack. Still, Obama spends an average of 24.17% of GDP. Spending during Reagan's two terms averaged 22.4% GDP.

quote:

---

His budget deficits run as high as 3 times the size of the largest Bush budget deficit...about which leftist morons where wheezing, whining, shreeching, howling and shrieking.

---

Bush had record spending when there was no call for it. Now Obama has record spending, and there's actually MORE of a call for it, because it WOULD stimulate the economy. Reagan increased our government debt from $997 billion to $2.85 trillion. That's over 250% growth in spending. That was more than the previous 31 years had accomplished in terms of adding debt. If Obama had increased the debt by the same measure as Reagan, we'd be 10 trillion MORE in debt.

The math is 997 billion/2.85 trillion = 34%, meaning Reagan's starting point was 34% of what he drove debt up to.

In August 2008 the debt was at 9.6 trillion. 9.6 trillion [then]/16 trillion[/now] = 60%, meaning Obama's starting point was 60% of what he drove the debt up to.

If you look at that 34% in Reagan's calculation, it means Reagan nearly tripled the debt. If Obama had increased the debt by 2.8 times (280%), we'd be at $26 trillion right now. That's $10 trillion higher than we are.

But Reagan was the greatest President of modern times, right?

quote:

---

Fair-Balanced-and Unafraid!

---

posted October 06, 2012 10:13 AM            

Fair because they present both sides of issues.

Balanced because they book guests from both parties and let them make their case on issues directly to Fox viewers.

Unafraid because Fox will get on anyone when they get over the line...including presidents. This time, it's O'Bomber. But Fox was frequently all over Bush too.

Of course, the usual suspects wouldn't know that since they have their little noses buried in the butts of the drooling O'Bomber press activists.

Did I say Foxy News is pulling away? Wow, this report makes it look like the rest of the Cable News Networks are in a different race altogether. Or perhaps they're trying to distinguish themselves by competing for the dead last award.

CABLE NEWS RACE
THURS. OCT. 4, 2012

posted October 06, 2012 12:44 PM            

No point in the Bush spending? Are you nuts?

Bush had to rebuild the military. There were 2 wars in progress, there was the recovery from the Clinton recession, there was the recovery from the 9/11 attacks which flattened the economy again and still the economy boomed under Bush with far lower deficits, lower unemployment and roll up of national debt than under your little Marxist Messiah.

Are you in an alternate universe? Or, are you just randomly typing with your mind switched off without regard to what you're saying?...Your default condition!

One more thing acoustic.

O'Bomber and his sick-o-pants are forever saying he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's bullshiiit.

Reagan did.

Unemployment was higher, much
Interest rates were higher, much
Inflation was much higher, much
Stag-flation was in high gear
Economic activity was lower, much

Ronald Reagan had the right stuff to be President of the United States.

posted October 06, 2012 10:16 PM            

quote:

---

O'Bomber and his sick-o-pants are forever saying he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. That's bullshiiit.

---

It's not bullshiit. We've been over this. You wish it was. That's all. Reagan's recession was not worse.

Both Reagan and Obama took office when unemployment was considered fairly high. In February, 1981, Reagan’s first full month as president, unemployment was at 7.4% and was slowly improving. It dropped down to 7.2% by April, his third month in office.

In February, 2009, Obama’s first full month in office, unemployment was at 8.2% and rising rapidly. The economy was already losing 750,000 jobs per month before Obama was sworn in.

Look closely at what happened during each president’s first 2 years in office. By October, 2009, Obama’s 9th month in office, unemployment peaked at 10.1%. After that, we started to see job growth and the unemployment rate declined over the next 2 years. The longer his policies were in effect, the more the economy improved.

Compare that to what happened during Reagan’s first two years. Although unemployment was stable when he first took office, after about 7 months, it started rising. After his first full year, unemployment climbed to 8.5% and it continued to rise throughout his 2nd year. Nearly two full years after Reagan took office, unemployment was at 10.8%, higher than it ever reached under Obama. It wasn’t until nearly 2 ½ years into Reagan’s presidency that unemployment finally dropped below 10%.

There is a stark contrast between what happened with Reagan and what happened with Obama. Under Obama, unemployment briefly topped 10% during his first year and then began to go down. Under Reagan, unemployment remained above 10% for the better part of a year.

Most of the job losses that occurred during Obama’s presidency happened during the first few months as a result of the deep recession that began a year before he took office. Less than a year into his term, the economy showed steady improvement. By contrast, the job losses under Reagan didn’t begin until about six months after he became president and continued to get worse for the next 18 months.

The severity of the economic crisis that Obama inherited cannot be over-emphasized. Not since the Great Depression had we seen such massive job losses as were occurring at the time Obama was sworn in. It would be difficult to find any other time in our country’s history when 750,000 jobs were lost in a single month. Economists predicted that we would have 20% unemployment within a year. It is remarkable that unemployment peaked at only 10.1% and that the economy began improving as quickly as it did.

Obama clearly inherited a far worse economic situation than Reagan did. Yet he managed to turn around the economy in less than half the time it took Reagan. Obama’s policies resulted in a measurable improvement within a year of taking office, while Reagan’s policies resulted in a worsening of the unemployment situation for two years.

In reviewing Obama’s accomplishment, there are other factors that need to be considered in this comparison. When Reagan was president, Democrats in the House of Representatives who opposed him were willing to make compromises and to work with him in creating jobs. They didn’t see their role as simply to obstruct everything he did.

The Republicans who oppose President Obama have tried to prevent anything from getting done at all with regard to the economy. During the first 2 years, Republicans in the Senate filibustered virtually everything they could; including bills they previously supported, in order to prevent any legislation from coming up for a vote. After gaining control of the House of Representatives, Republicans refused to pass any job creation bills at all, even rejecting proposals that they had supported in previous years.

Despite Republican attempts to stifle job creation, President Obama has managed to have far greater success at pulling the country out of a recession than the sainted Ronald Reagan did during his first 3 years in office. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/12/reagan-would-envy-obamas-economic-record/

Comparing Obama and Reagan’s economic records

Posted by Ezra Klein at 03:32 PM ET, 01/29/2012

James Pethokoukis and Joe Weisenthal have been arguing over who presided over the more impressive recovery: Barack Obama or Ronald Reagan?

This is, I think, a mostly useless exercise. Obama and Reagan presided over different kinds of recessions that began at different times and ended in different ways. Imagine you had two doctors, one who had treated a patient for a drug overdose, and another who was treating a patient who recently suffered a heart attack. Would flatly comparing the speed of the two patients’ recoveries tell you anything about the doctors? Of course not. So too with Obama and Reagan. But if you do want to compare the two presidents, here are some things to keep in mind:

The 1982 recession and the 2008 financial crisis were not the same. In the early-1980s, the country was fighting a decade of stagflation. Paul Volcker, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, decided to wring inflation out of the economy by sharply raising interest rates. The medicine worked to cure inflation, but it threw the economy into a deep recession. Recovery came when the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates again and sparked an investment boom.

In contrast, the 2008 financial crisis was the result of a credit bubble. It came when the Federal Reserve was already trying to stimulate the economy with low interest rates. It was — and is — global in nature, and for the economy to recover, households need to dig themselves out of debt such that they can begin spending again. Unlike the Federal Reserve lowering interest rates, that takes time. A long time. To attach some numbers to this story, in 1982, household debt amounted to about 45 percent of GDP. In 2009, it was 100 percent. Those numbers imply very different recoveries.

The 1980s were not all about Reagan. The effect Volcker’s policies were having on the economy was well understood. Here’s the New York Times, in 1983: “As the recession deepened in 1982, the United States and the rest of the industrialized world focused on high interest rates as the cause - and on Paul A. Volcker as the culprit.” The House majority leader, Democrat Jim Wright, called for Volcker to resign. Reagan officials were unhappy, too. “A question that seems to be in the minds of many people in the Reagan Administration and the business community is whether the Federal Reserve should pull back a bit from its restrictive monetary policy and let the President’s economic recovery package have its intended stimulative effect on the economy.”

Be very skeptical of any discussion of the recession or recovery of the early-1980s in which Volcker — or at least the Federal Reserve -- is not a primary actor. You’re likely reading a piece that deifies Reagan rather than a piece of actual economic analysis.

The 2000s are not all about Obama. Key decisions about regulating financial derivatives were made under Clinton. The credit bubble built under Bush. The initial response to the financial crisis — which set us on a path that was hard to reverse after-the-fact — was made by Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke. The pace of recovery has been substantially slowed by the European debt crisis and the rise in oil prices that resulted from the Arab Spring.

Contrary to popular belief, taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Reagan. In 1983, when Reagan was trying to get the economy out of recession, revenues were 17.5 percent of GDP. In 2010, when Obama was trying to guide the economy into a recovery, revenues were 14.9 percent of GDP.

Taxes are so low under Obama in large part because of the Bush tax cuts and the effects of the financial crisis. But they’re also low because of the tax cuts passed by Obama in the stimulus bill. And remember — Obama’s number here is for 2010. In 2011, Obama further extended and enlarged the Bush tax cuts in the 2010 tax deal.

Nor are revenues resulting from Obama’s tax policies expected to rise above Reagan’s totals in the near future. In 1988, when Reagan left office, revenues were 18.2 percent of GDP. Under the Congressional Budget Office’s alternative-fiscal scenario -- which is their most realistic projection -- revenues only rise (pdf) to 18.4 percent of GDP by 2021. If Obama manages to pass his most consistent tax-policy demand and sunset the Bush tax cuts for income over $250,000, that would rise by less than half a percentage point. In other words, taxes were never as low under Reagan as they are under Obama, and Obama’s policies would not lead to a significantly different tax burden than Reagan’s policies did.

Obama’s recovery isn’t done. For reasons laid out above, I don’t think you can make an apples-to-apples comparison between Obama and Reagan. But it’s certainly worth keeping the obvious in mind: Obama’s recovery isn’t done. At this point in Reagan’s presidency, unemployment was eight percent — though it was falling quickly. There’s nothing in the economic data right now suggesting that unemployment will fall very quickly over the next year, but a world in which the unemployment rate is 7.5 percent in November will look better for Obama than a world in which unemployment is 8.2 percent — even if the difference was made by policymakers in Brussels.

Which isn’t to say that there aren’t useful comparisons to be made between the policies pursued by Obama and previous presidents. But the comparisons need to focus more tightly on the policies they pursued then the circumstances they faced. For instance:

Obama’s policies have temporarily increased deficits. Reagan’s policies permanently increased them. Reagan’s policies were notable for increasing structural deficits. That is to say, he passed permanent, deficit-financed tax cuts. Long after the recession was over, his tax cuts remained, necessitating the deficit-reduction bills passed by George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Obama’s major deficit-financed policies -- the stimulus and the 2010 tax deal -- have both been temporary. Obama has, in other words, been much more concerned with out-year deficits than Reagan ever was.

When Reagan entered office, taxes were unusually high. When Obama entered office, taxes were unusually low. In 1980, taxes were 19.6 percent of GDP. That was higher than they had ever been outside of wartime. When Obama entered office, taxes were below 15 percent of GDP -- lower than they had been since before the creation of Medicare and Medicaid. This helps explain why Reagan sought a long-term tax cut, while Obama is seeking a long-term tax increase.

That said, Obama wants lower taxes than Clinton. If Obama has his way, the majority of Bush’s tax cuts will be made permanent. That is to say, the long-term tax burden under Obama will be lower than it would have been if Clinton’s policies had been continued. I consider this as basically irresponsible: The coming retirement of the baby boomers requires a revenue base at least as large as Clinton envisioned. Nevertheless, the conservative nostalgia for Clinton and Clinton-era economic policies is, at least in terms of taxes, misplaced.

The political system is vastly more polarized today than it was in the 1980s. This rarely gets much attention, but it matters. Reagan negotiated his policies with the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill. Many Democrats voted with Reagan to cut taxes, and Reagan subsequently signed multiple pieces of legislation raising taxes to cut down on deficits. If the political system today was more similar to the political system of the 80s, it’s likely that we would have seen both more short-term stimulus and more long-term deficit reduction. Under both Keynesian and non-Keynesian models, that would have helped the recovery. It is hard to say what Reagan’s record would look like if he had faced a divided Congress in our more polarized moment. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/comparing-obama-and-reagans-economic-records/2011/08/25/gIQAHFJcaQ_blog.html

posted October 06, 2012 11:52 PM            

Reagan didn't raise taxes. Reagan lowered tax rates. Reagan closed some tax loopholes. Big difference which escapes leftist morons.

Oh, and all that nonsense about O'Bomber trying to work with Republicans but being rebuffed. Total bullshiiit.

Remember this acoustic?

I won, you lost! A line delivered to Republican leaders early on in the White House by the moronic egoist O'Bomber. So much for trying to find common ground with Republicans. His way or the highway.

There has been no recovery under O'Bomber.

Few Americans are working then when O'Bomber began infesting the White House.

23 million Americans are unemployed or under-employed.

Unemployment is higher than the highest report under Bush.

More Americans are on food stamps

More Americans are below the poverty line.

Budget deficits are much higher.

The national debt is much higher.

Budgets as a percent of the GDP are much higher.

Family incomes are down $5000 per family.

The value of the dollar has declined.

Gasoline prices have more than doubled.

Economic growth is going backward from even the anemic growth of last year at only 1.3% growth.

This is the reason O'Bomber isn't running on his econonic success. There isn't any.

Instead, O'Bomber's campaign consists of lying about Romney.

Oh, but thank you for stepping on your own argument and admitting that raising taxes on high income earners won't alter the government's revenue problem. Which is exactly what I've been telling you and the other ususal suspects for more than a year...ever since the economic dunce O'Bomber proposed it.

Raising taxes on high income earners will actually have a negative effect on government revenues because it will hit those people who create most of the jobs in the economy and they won't hire or will lay people off.

Romney has the right plan and that plan is the same thing I've told you in the past...which leftists can't seem to grasp.

Cut taxes on business, especially small businesses..cut corporate taxes, cut capital gains taxes, permit faster write-offs or expense capitol equipment and improvements and cut business regulation and businesses will expand and hire.

That will broaden the tax base...meaning more people will be paying taxes on higher incomes and revenues to the government will increase.

That works every time it's done.

What O'Bomber proposes fails every time it's done.

Just to be clear acoustic; Clinton went with the Republican model...after he lost the House in the 1992 election. He was forced to cut taxes, cut regulation and cut government spending. That worked.

Oh, and the rest of the cable news networks are sucking Fox News exhaust.

posted October 07, 2012 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

Reagan didn't raise taxes. Reagan lowered tax rates

---

He did both.

quote:

---

Remember this acoustic?

I won, you lost! A line delivered to Republican leaders early on in the White House by the moronic egoist O'Bomber. So much for trying to find common ground with Republicans. His way or the highway.

---

Remember this, Jwhop?
"Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care. Now is the time to deliver on health care." - President Obama, Sept. 9, 2009 http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-a-Joint-Session-of-Congress-on-Health-Care/

Three years later, he's still saying the same thing:
“There are still ways we can make (government) leaner and more efficient. I’m more than happy to work with Republicans,” he said, according to excerpts from an interview aired Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“I’m also willing, by the way, to make some adjustments to Medicare and Medicaid that would strengthen the programs,” he said. http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/09/obama-im-more-than-happy-to-work-with-republicans-134954.html

quote:

---

There has been no recovery under O'Bomber.

---

False. Obviously. Most of the things you posted are true, but there hasn't been a lack of recovery for most of Obama's tenure.

quote:

---

Instead, O'Bomber's campaign consists of lying about Romney.

---

The measurements seem to indicate that there's more lying coming from Romney's side than the President's.

quote:

---

Oh, but thank you for stepping on your own argument and admitting that raising taxes on high income earners won't alter the government's revenue problem.

---

I'm afraid that no one is going to believe you a genius here for stating what people have said all along. Despite the fact that raising taxes on the rich won't completely alleviate the problem, it will obviously generate more revenue, which will obviously in turn put the nation in a slightly better position to deal with deficits.

quote:

---

Raising taxes on high income earners will actually have a negative effect on government revenues because it will hit those people who create most of the jobs in the economy and they won't hire or will lay people off.

---

False. This myth has been exploded. It's utterly untrue. People create jobs based upon demand. They don't create jobs on the basis of having extra cash lying around.

quote:

---

Cut taxes on business, especially small businesses..cut corporate taxes, cut capital gains taxes, permit faster write-offs or expense capitol equipment and improvements and cut business regulation and businesses will expand and hire.

---

Also not inherently true. Demand is the only factor that drives hiring. If more consumers have more money to spend, hiring will increase. Once again, jobs aren't created simply from having money lying around. Our biggest companies are sitting on stockpiles of cash.

quote:

---

That will broaden the tax base...meaning more people will be paying taxes on higher incomes and revenues to the government will increase.

---

I can agree with that. However, there is one caveat, which is that there are already a range of corporate tax rates that vary from 15% to 35%. Lowering the top rate won't do anything for the bottom rate. Also, lowering the top rate when company's effective taxes are already so far below the actual 35% may prove to have negligible effect.

quote:

---

What O'Bomber proposes fails every time it's done.

---

False. We've been over this.

quote:

---

Clinton went with the Republican model.

---

No, Clinton went with the Clinton model. He wasn't forced into doing anything. This is yet another attempt at rewriting history.

In 1997, he cut taxes. Not right after the 1992 election. In 1993 he passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act. Every Republican, and some Democrats did not vote for it.

posted October 07, 2012 12:13 PM            

Clinton went with the Republican model of lowering tax rates, reducing government spending and reducing government regulation....because Clinton had absolutely no choice. Republicans had the votes to override his vetos of bills they sent up.

So acoustic, don't you attempt to revise history. I was there and even if you had been, you couldn't have analyzed your way out of a wet paper bag because you still can't.

O'Bomber's budgets are so extreme that not one demoscat has ever voted for one of O'Bomber's budgets. Not one!

He's got to go. He's in way over his head and he always was. He's attempted to do what FDR did...and failed. He's attempted to do what the Japaneese did...and failed. It always fails. You can't spend your way to national prosperty or spend your way out of national bankruptcy. Government is a consumer of wealth, not a producer of wealth.