• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fox and Friends airs 4-minute anti-Obama video

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,912
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Well my co-workers say that everything on this Google doc fact check is wrong and lies and that everything on the Fox video is correct and factual.

Both can't be right.

Looking at the facts and figures looks to me like more Republican Revisionist history.

The prediction numbers Fox and Bush are using are based on if a disaster did not happen under Bush. A disaster did in fact happen.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Well my co-workers say that everything on this Google doc fact check is wrong and lies and that everything on the Fox video is correct and factual.

Both can't be right.

Looking at the facts and figures looks to me like more Republican Revisionist history.

The prediction numbers Fox and Bush are using are based on if a disaster did not happen under Bush. A disaster did in fact happen.
Actually both can be right. The facts in the original video (going only by the Google article, haven't seen the video) are true. The Google refutation is pointing out that many of the same accusations could have just as well been said of Bush, and making excuses for the others. Whether or not you find the excuses compelling, they don't stop the facts from being correct, but merely lessen or negate the impact of those facts. As an example, say I go through a red light and strike your car. If I did so because a garbage truck rear ended my legally stopped car, then clearly the fact that I went through a red light and struck your car was due to factors beyond my control. If I did so because I was busy yelling at the kid in the next car who cut me off, then clearly the fact that I ran a red light and struck your car was due to factors that should not have been beyond my control had I been acting responsibly. In both cases the basic fact that I went through a red light and struck your car remains a fact. If I point out that a third party also once went through a red light and struck your car, that is deflection, germane only if I can show (which the mere assertion does not) that we both went through the red light due to factors beyond our control.

Personally I see no reason to even have an opinion on the facts or the Google excuses and counter facts. Those of us who have watched Obama and paid attention know his performance and the many factors that influenced that performance. Contrary to Jarrett, a President does not rule, and looking to place blame fully on Obama or fully on Bush, or completely exonerate one or the other, is a silly exercise.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Jan 25, 2011
16,104
7,610
146
They are really saying the deficit went down compared to GDP? Why not just say it went down compared to the amount of rust spots on my truck?

"US unemployment went to record heights under Bush"? LOL. I guess they don't keep too good of records. Unemplyment was 7.8%.

Countering with Lies of their own doesn't help.
How dishonest. Unemployment lags by two quarters typically. You really think it's accurate to pin every job lost after January 20th on Obama?

Who am I kidding, of course you do.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
How dishonest. Unemployment lags by two quarters typically. You really think it's accurate to pin every job lost after January 20th on Obama?

Who am I kidding, of course you do.
New jobs of course are a different matter. President Obama was hard at work creating new jobs while former President Bush was destroying them.

Once you figure out that good things go in the 'D' column and bad things go in the 'R' column, economics is easy!
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
Once you figure out that good things go in the 'D' column and bad things go in the 'R' column, economics is easy!
Sorry, but there's been quite a lot more of the opposite of that going on over the last four years.

The same people who insist that Bush should not be blamed for a terrorist attack that occurred 10 months after he took office routinely blame Obama for job losses that occurred as part of a steep downward slope that was underway months before he took office.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Sorry, but there's been quite a lot more of the opposite of that going on over the last four years.

The same people who insist that Bush should not be blamed for a terrorist attack that occurred 10 months after he took office routinely blame Obama for job losses that occurred as part of a steep downward slope that was underway months before he took office.
True. I was smacking down MomentofSanity in particular, not trying to make a larger point. In reality, Presidents get credit and blame for whatever happens on their watch, even though for most of it they have little or no control.

We should all realize that the crash and the slow death spiral of a recovery are not the exclusive result of any one policy, party, or individual. I also think our country has persistent underlying structural issues which prevent any party or President from causing or enjoying the roaring recoveries to which we're accustomed. 60% of our economy is consumer spending and roughly two thirds of that is foreign-manufactured goods. Artificially boosting demand won't work because much of that money goes right out of our economy, returning only in loans or in buying out American companies and property. Cutting taxes on job providers won't work because increasingly, more jobs can be outsourced out of the country and it will remain much more profitable to create new jobs out of the country, for labor costs, health care costs, regulatory restrictions, and taxes. Frankly I don't see any real recovery until we fix this, and I don't see any politically palatable and even marginally painless way to fix this. But until we figure out how to consume less than we create, I suspect we'll continue to argue over a few percentage points either way. It won't be Romney's 4% unemployment versus Obama's 8% unemployment, it will be Romney's 8.2% unemployment versus Obama's 8.4% unemployment. (Or if you prefer, vice versa; since we can never examine both alternatives enacted and there are myriad factors, it can be argued either way.

EDIT: One minor correction: 9/11 was eight months into Bush's term, not ten. I'll accept your point though; Bush ran at least in small part against the wall Clinton elected between CIA and FBI to protect his illegal donors, then in eight months did fuck-all to fix it. Had he the courage of his campaign issue, 9/11 might well have been stopped. As it happened, only political correctness, bumbling government inaction, and some bad luck prevented us from breaking the cells prior to the attack.
 
Last edited:

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
0
0
In reality, Presidents get credit and blame for whatever happens on their watch, even though for most of it they have little or no control.
Yes. Even worse: they get credit or blame for things that happen on their watch even if due to their nature there is no way they could have control over them. Gas prices is a classic example.

We should all realize that the crash and the slow death spiral of a recovery are not the exclusive result of any one policy, party, or individual.
I agree that all parties share some of the blame. But I do think the party that constantly argues in favor of abolishing government oversight of the financial sector is due more blame for this particular mess.

Frankly I don't see any real recovery until we fix this, and I don't see any politically palatable and even marginally painless way to fix this.
Wish I could disagree with you on this, but I can't. I've been mostly saying the same things for the last 20 years.

People don't get wealthy by purchasing cheap crap made 10,000 miles away and serving each other overpriced lattes.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,148
1
76
Fox =/= "conservative"

Fox = "conzervative"

I am so tired of hearing about selective regressive revisionists being touted as "conservatives". They aren't. You want to CHANGE things, it means you are an ACTIVIST. The Fox programming bent is an activist regressionary revisionist doctrine that cherry picks vague statements based on what people THOUGHT things were like "in the good old days".

As the Tea Party has shown, it is VERY difficult to actually DO anything with this mantra, as it is discovered that many of the things they actually outline (rather than vaguely define) pisses off one faction or another WITHIN THEIR OWN SUPPORT BASE.

It is common to do this sort of slanting in many news sources these days, and a shame that the NPR and others are somehow labeled as biased simply because they are so different from the crowd pleasing infotainment programs we now subscribe to in our public "news" media.

If you are continuously told what you want to hear, you never find out what is really happening.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
How dishonest. Unemployment lags by two quarters typically. You really think it's accurate to pin every job lost after January 20th on Obama?

Who am I kidding, of course you do.
I never even mentioned Obama, just pointed out that there was no "Record Unemployment" but you are free to take from that whatever you wish.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
Yes. Even worse: they get credit or blame for things that happen on their watch even if due to their nature there is no way they could have control over them. Gas prices is a classic example.



I agree that all parties share some of the blame. But I do think the party that constantly argues in favor of abolishing government oversight of the financial sector is due more blame for this particular mess.



Wish I could disagree with you on this, but I can't. I've been mostly saying the same things for the last 20 years.

People don't get wealthy by purchasing cheap crap made 10,000 miles away and serving each other overpriced lattes.
I think Democrats have more of the blame for the initial collapse, being the ones that pushed HUD into starting the whole idea of loaning money to people who can't or won't pay it back by removing the protections. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd in particular led the charge, fighting successfully to prevent the system from being fixed even though it was clear even to Bush that we were headed for a crash. It's not a question of removing government oversight, government actually led in removing such "outdated metrics" as income and job verification and credit history. By removing the penalties for making shaky loans whilst preserving the government as buyer of and guarantor for those loans, government set up the system. Then natural human greed took over and extended the practice beyond even what the government caused. The Republicans get slightly more of the blame from me for allowing this practice to be extended into derivatives. That should have sounded giant alarm bells everywhere. And of course the Republicans get much more of the blame for allowing this problem to take down our whole financial system. Had even the tattered remains of Glass-Steagall remained in place, the whole mortgage crash would have been limited to one sector of banking. Instead, we ensured that the toxic assets could be spread throughout our entire financial sector, including the financial interests of corporations and even pension funds completely outside the nominal financial sector.

But really, both parties are so similar and so intertwined in the whole situation that assigning blame to one side or the other doesn't carry a lot of weight. Suffice it to say that the irony is strong that less than a decade after repeal of the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall, the very collapse it was designed to prevent happened. Whether or not one agrees that repealing the affiliation clause was a significant cause of the overall collapse, or that the essence of Glass-Steagall had already been destroyed, it's undeniable that Glass-Steagall was engineered to prevent exactly what happened.

By the way, Glass-Steagall also offers a striking example of Presidents getting credit or blame for whatever happens on their watches. From the Glass-Steagall wiki:

By the time the affiliation restrictions in the Glass–Steagall Act were repealed through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999 by President Bill Clinton, many commentators argued Glass-Steagall was already “dead.”
When most people thought Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a net good thing, President Clinton received the credit for enacting it even though it was principally a Republican bill with strong enough bipartisan support to override a veto. Now that most people think Gramm-Leach-Bliley was a net bad thing, President Clinton receives the blame for enacting it even though it was principally a Republican bill with strong enough bipartisan support to override a veto.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY