Why The "Recovery" Is A LIE! (Reagan, downturn, biased)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most of your objective news about the US comes from other countries.
MSM here is bought and paid for.
And since we are living in a global economy, what is there to say news from other countries is NOT bought and paid for?
Or could it be that ALL news is objective and you simply disagree with some of it? Or that some news agencies are more objective than others, and you only agree with those that are tailored to your beliefs?
The figures on the recovery are accurate. Accuracy is vital, as much of the government's money that goes to the states depends on high accuracy.
If Obama had the power to alter the accuracy of the numbers concerning the state of the economy, why didn't he create a much more positive picture years ago? Why would any politician want to paint a gloomy picture that would put his job in jeopardy?
You just bought in to the far right alternate reality, Happy. The MSM sure isn't perfect, but it's nowhere close to the fantasy you believe it to be.
And since we are living in a global economy, what is there to say news from other countries is NOT bought and paid for?
Or could it be that ALL news is objective and you simply disagree with some of it? Or that some news agencies are more objective than others, and you only agree with those that are tailored to your beliefs?
The figures on the recovery are accurate. Accuracy is vital, as much of the government's money that goes to the states depends on high accuracy.
If Obama had the power to alter the accuracy of the numbers concerning the state of the economy, why didn't he create a much more positive picture years ago? Why would any politician want to paint a gloomy picture that would put his job in jeopardy?
You just bought in to the far right alternate reality, Happy. The MSM sure isn't perfect, but it's nowhere close to the fantasy you believe it to be.
There are MANY credible studies that prove there is a definite bias in the American media.
We'd all be SO much better off today if Clinton would have vetoed the Republican Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act back in 1999, avoiding the deregulation that allowed Wall St to pay themselves outrageous bonuses while concentrating risk and "developing" ever more bogus investments that eventually crashed the economy.
Deregulation, the mantra promoted by the Republicans since the 1980s is behind the 2008 economic meltdown. After numerous bank failures during the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and introduced banking reforms like separation of banking and other financial companies. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, allowing a bank to offer investment, commercial banking, and insurance services. The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed firms like Citigroup and Bank of America to offer investment and insurance services apart from banking after their acquisition and merger with other financial firms which would have been illegal before.
Would have also been nice if Clinton hadn't taken advice from Rubin and Summers to leave derivatives unregulated.
"I asked former President Bill Clinton if he thought he got bad advice on regulating complex financial instruments known as derivatives from his former Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers. He acknowledged that he was wrong to take the advice of those advising him against regulating derivatives."
And since we are living in a global economy, what is there to say news from other countries is NOT bought and paid for?
Or could it be that ALL news is objective and you simply disagree with some of it? Or that some news agencies are more objective than others, and you only agree with those that are tailored to your beliefs?
The figures on the recovery are accurate. Accuracy is vital, as much of the government's money that goes to the states depends on high accuracy.
If Obama had the power to alter the accuracy of the numbers concerning the state of the economy, why didn't he create a much more positive picture years ago? Why would any politician want to paint a gloomy picture that would put his job in jeopardy?
You just bought in to the far right alternate reality, Happy. The MSM sure isn't perfect, but it's nowhere close to the fantasy you believe it to be.
No news is objective. Yes probably most all of it is bought and paid for, even elsewhere. Just look at the ownership.
Mostly government. The Big Six is shareholder controlled by government. (MSM) http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart
As to accuracy. Cannot be proven and certainly there is evidence of "discrepancies". The govt has more to gain with particular narratives, not necessarily accuracy. The only real accuracy they are concerned with is in the investment pools. They have well paid accountants and fund managers for that.
I was close to retirement so looking for a new job after 20+ years at the same company was just not in my playbook. There were several that did jump ship though and got jobs quite easily with their skills..AMD, Apple, etc. all in the Austin area. Company lost a good group of talent there (chip development, embedded graphics, multimedia) when those guys left (about 8 of them in a 2 month span).
This may be so, but again your personal experience with a long career in one company and unwillingness to put your in the waters of the job market don't the tech field the pits, anymore than my experience of jobs coming easy and my company having difficulties keeping good talent because of poaching makes it perfect.
No news is objective. Yes probably most all of it is bought and paid for, even elsewhere. Just look at the ownership.
Mostly government. The Big Six is shareholder controlled by government. (MSM) Who Owns the Media? | Free Press
As to accuracy. Cannot be proven and certainly there is evidence of "discrepancies". The govt has more to gain with particular narratives, not necessarily accuracy. The only real accuracy they are concerned with is in the investment pools. They have well paid accountants and fund managers for that.
So, then, who you gonna trust? Or are you just not getting any news at all?
Either the vast bulk of the news is verifiable and fairly accurate or it is not. Since major stories are all reported in much the same manner with much the same information, who are you gonna trust?
Is all reportage somehow rigged in unison? Is all video rigged? Is live reportage all rigged? If so, who are you gonna trust? What are you gonna trust?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
