Just Lookin' For A Little Honesty...

I am not sure what you mean that he said it, or hes being held to it?

Both.

so, you feel its perfectly alright if the media to treat one pres. or admiin. differently than another?

This is going to be my final comment on this topic, because I've already wasted too much time on it. As I said in an earlier post, that particular "issue" (it isn't an "issue" in the first place) was all over the news; otherwise, I would not have known about it myself because I NEVER watch Fox. The fact that the "liberal" media didn't spend 24/7 on it isn't surprising. The fact that Fox did also isn't surprising.

Bye.
 
who manufactures, distributes and ships the prosthesis MM?

IWalk, a new company. Obviously one of their biggest purchasers will be the VA, though. I think I heard from the TV story that the 'foot' is currently in production, but they only have protocols at this time. Seeing it demonstrated was amazing. The soldier said it didn't even feel like it was fake, little or no "practice" necessary, and it sure didn't look fake either. A regular shoe fits over it and bends accordingly with normal foot movement.

http://www.iwalkpro.com/iwalkstory/managementteam.html

exactly. so how is the gov. involved in any of that? because they are a purchaser? that just confirms the overall point.

okay they paid good money for the research to invent it, great, how does it get from the drawing board to someones leg?

Do your own research, please.

Iwalkpro.com - Google Search
 

so, you feel its perfectly alright if the media to treat one pres. or admiin. differently than another?

This is going to be my final comment on this topic, because I've already wasted too much time on it. As I said in an earlier post, that particular "issue" (it isn't an "issue" in the first place) was all over the news; otherwise, I would not have known about it myself because I NEVER watch Fox. The fact that the "liberal" media didn't spend 24/7 on it isn't surprising. The fact that Fox did also isn't surprising.

Bye.


You liked. See your post right below the one I quoted.
 
Boooosh promised the Iraq invasion would only cost $3 billion, total, and we'd be outta there by December 2003. Presidents make predictions all the time based on projections at the time.

and they have been called on it...I think thats the point of the thread...:eusa_eh:
So you agree that backtracking on old news is just folly?

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion? :eusa_eh:


I think I have said; the point of OP is, that the media appears to display an imbalance, they have applied themselves to supplying a great deal more coverage as to one admin. on basically the same subject matter over another. I think that's worth discussing.



Look at the time spent on this topic. Shouldn't it be spent on what might be rather than what already was an issue? There's plenty of current crap coming out of Washington that people can legitimately start a topic about, but the 8% projection of over two years ago is downright silly. It's also silly to continue to carp over media bias in general. We all know it happens, but we also know how to sort out fact from fiction (I hope), plus there isn't a damned thing we, as individuals, can do about it unless we sit on the Board of Directors of those news outlets who do it.

because the issue is ongoing, thats what makes it a matter of importance imho. I don't think its silly at all.
 
1. "As The New York Times reported on Oct. 22, 2009, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

A big promise to be sure and a claim that proved false as unemployment climbed higher and higher reaching 10.2 percent at its peak. Yet, ABC, CBS, and NBC referenced this promise just nine times in two years in stimulus stories mentioning unemployment.

2. Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

3. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) analyzed network evening news reports that mentioned "stimulus" and "unemployment" from Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, to Dec. 21, 2010. BMI found that the networks almost completely ignored Obama's 8 percent unemployment promise and the failure of the stimulus to prevent rising unemployment.

4. Where Were Stories about the 8 Percent Promise? Just nine stories out of 589 (less than 2 percent) referred to the unemployment prediction in two years of network news coverage.

5. Networks Instead Promoted More Stimulus: When the effects of the stimulus plan were discussed, network news shows promoted even more stimulus. ABC's Bianna Golodryga asked Warren Buffet if he thought unemployment would hit 11 percent to which he said yes. Then, instead of noting that the stimulus failed, she asked if a second stimulus was needed. To this Buffet replied it may be necessary because the first bill "was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra."

a. ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

6. Bush Forced to Defend 5 Percent Unemployment: Under the administration of President George W. Bush, negative economic stories were pushed when unemployment was below 5 percent - less than half the number reached after the stimulus passed. CBS' Dan Rather on Oct. 8, 2004, asked "Tonight, where are the jobs?" yet few stimulus stories have even mentioned Obama's unemployment prediction."
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

Stipulating that you're not stupid I have to wonder why you felt the need to start this thread. Do you 'think' it would be wise for this president, or any president, facing economic uncertainty to promise unemployment would grow?

Prophecies can be self-fulfilliing as we observed when Bush&Cheney walked arm-in-arm to meet the press after the Supreme Court declared them president and VP elect, and stated the economy was in trouble and only a tax cut would prevent a recession. The result, a recession. The result of the recession, another round of tax cuts, and deeper in debt.
 
IWalk, a new company. Obviously one of their biggest purchasers will be the VA, though. I think I heard from the TV story that the 'foot' is currently in production, but they only have protocols at this time. Seeing it demonstrated was amazing. The soldier said it didn't even feel like it was fake, little or no "practice" necessary, and it sure didn't look fake either. A regular shoe fits over it and bends accordingly with normal foot movement.

http://www.iwalkpro.com/iwalkstory/managementteam.html

exactly. so how is the gov. involved in any of that? because they are a purchaser? that just confirms the overall point.

okay they paid good money for the research to invent it, great, how does it get from the drawing board to someones leg?

Do your own research, please.

Iwalkpro.com - Google Search


I didn't bring them up MM you did in answering a point as to the gov. 'creating' jobs( see below). I asked "how", the point was the co. a private one makes the devices and does what they have to do as a private concern to get them from drawing board to leg. NOT the gov.. the jobs are created by Timothy A. McCarthy – President and CEO and his team.



For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.
 
exactly. so how is the gov. involved in any of that? because they are a purchaser? that just confirms the overall point.

okay they paid good money for the research to invent it, great, how does it get from the drawing board to someones leg?

Do your own research, please.

Iwalkpro.com - Google Search


I didn't bring them up MM you did in answering a point as to the gov. 'creating' jobs( see below). I asked "how", the point was the co. a private one makes the devices and does what they have to do as a private concern to get them from drawing board to leg. NOT the gov.. the jobs are created by Timothy A. McCarthy – President and CEO and his team.



For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

What part of that don't you get? The government provided the funding for the first Saturn V mission, which produced tens of thousands if not millions of jobs in the private sector.. Quite simply, the federal government has jump-started many industries in its long history, which ultimately became the driving force for employment in the private sector.
 
Trajan said:
I didn't bring them up MM you did in answering a point as to the gov. 'creating' jobs( see below). I asked "how", the point was the co. a private one makes the devices and does what they have to do as a private concern to get them from drawing board to leg. NOT the gov.. the jobs are created by Timothy A. McCarthy – President and CEO and his team.

On that point, I started a new thread, more on topic:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/156242-boosting-capitalism-or-not.html#post3346526
 
Do your own research, please.

Iwalkpro.com - Google Search


I didn't bring them up MM you did in answering a point as to the gov. 'creating' jobs( see below). I asked "how", the point was the co. a private one makes the devices and does what they have to do as a private concern to get them from drawing board to leg. NOT the gov.. the jobs are created by Timothy A. McCarthy – President and CEO and his team.



For everyone who thinks "the government doesn't create jobs," this stunning new invention is proof positive that it does. If it weren't for a $10 million grant by the Veterans Administration and the U.S. Army to develop the foot prothesis, it never would have gotten off the ground. Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.

MIT spin-out iWalk, bringing to market prosthetic foot, raises $15 million from General Catalyst and Sigma Partners - Innovation Economy - Boston.com

Just one of literally hundreds of examples of seed money provided by the government helping move free market industries.

What part of that don't you get? The government provided the funding for the first Saturn V mission, which produced tens of thousands if not millions of jobs in the private sector.. Quite simply, the federal government has jump-started many industries in its long history, which ultimately became the driving force for employment in the private sector.

well, I will have to turn that remark back on you MM, and what part of this don't you get;

Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.


I have said; I agree that the gov. provided seed money for the invention and or development or idea behind of the device.( q who holds the relevant patents btw?)



so, How many people does he employ? how much marketing ( there by creating employment via billings) how many in his supply chain? who employs them, who pays their paychecks, who says how many he employed and at what salarys etc. The gov. has absolutely no power in that area because they don't create the jobs they create a 'thing'.


lets take it in reverse, what if the private market said you know what? no we don't see promise in that? what then? no device.

If his company fails, what does the gov. lose? nothing ..why? because they don't create the co. nor the jobs they have funded a creation a drawing and funded prototypical devices built supplied and delivered by... ....a private co.
 
Trajan you are talking to people who do not realize that a budget that is increasing in size is not being cut and you are talking about mass-media outlets that are used as electronic valium. Do you possibly see that combination as problematic?
 
Trajan you are talking to people who do not realize that a budget that is increasing in size is not being cut and you are talking about mass-media outlets that are used as electronic valium. Do you possibly see that combination as problematic?

I have not heard a single media reporter/journalist/pundit say that the budget (and deficit) didn't need to be drastically cut. Not one. If you want to go there, however, let's see how much and where the Republicans have proposed cutting. For starters, they spent an entire day cutting funding from Planned Parenthood. Wow. That's a biggie, eh? To they intend to cut FUNDS or just cut programs based on faux morality? And now they're on vacation for another week. I wonder what their first agenda item will be when they return. Gay marriage? Yeah, that's always got enough steam for some headlines.
 
We all know the unemployment rate is high. And most of us realize that it's prob'ly going to climb yet higher. It's sign of the times we're living in and no big surprise. If we aren't careful, we will be headlong into another depression. That, of which, we aren't far from now. :eek:
 
We all know the unemployment rate is high. And most of us realize that it's prob'ly going to climb yet higher. It's sign of the times we're living in and no big surprise. If we aren't careful, we will be headlong into another depression. That, of which, we aren't far from now. :eek:
When state, county and municipal layoffs start in earnest, the support system is going to crash. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
1. "As The New York Times reported on Oct. 22, 2009, "The Obama administration's forecast at the start of the year, which predicted that unemployment would not climb much above 8 percent."

A big promise to be sure and a claim that proved false as unemployment climbed higher and higher reaching 10.2 percent at its peak. Yet, ABC, CBS, and NBC referenced this promise just nine times in two years in stimulus stories mentioning unemployment.

2. Unemployment still exceeds the Obama-guaranteed 8 percent unemployment rate two years after the bill's passage. In the same time period, network news barely reported that the stimulus failed to halt the sharp rise in unemployment. ABC 'World News,' CBS 'Evening News' and NBC 'Nightly News' all paid plenty of attention to the stimulus and its accomplishments, but more than 98 percent of those evening broadcast stories skipped over the administration's failed prediction.

3. The Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute (BMI) analyzed network evening news reports that mentioned "stimulus" and "unemployment" from Obama's inauguration on Jan. 20, 2009, to Dec. 21, 2010. BMI found that the networks almost completely ignored Obama's 8 percent unemployment promise and the failure of the stimulus to prevent rising unemployment.

4. Where Were Stories about the 8 Percent Promise? Just nine stories out of 589 (less than 2 percent) referred to the unemployment prediction in two years of network news coverage.

5. Networks Instead Promoted More Stimulus: When the effects of the stimulus plan were discussed, network news shows promoted even more stimulus. ABC's Bianna Golodryga asked Warren Buffet if he thought unemployment would hit 11 percent to which he said yes. Then, instead of noting that the stimulus failed, she asked if a second stimulus was needed. To this Buffet replied it may be necessary because the first bill "was sort of like taking half a tablet of Viagra."

a. ABC "World News" only mentioned the 8 percent prediction one time in nearly two years of coverage, making it the worst of the three networks. Instead ABC credited the stimulus with lower unemployment as reporter Betsy Stark claimed Dec. 4, 2009, when unemployment dropped to 10 percent: "Economists credit the government's massive stimulus spending with getting the job market to this point."

6. Bush Forced to Defend 5 Percent Unemployment: Under the administration of President George W. Bush, negative economic stories were pushed when unemployment was below 5 percent - less than half the number reached after the stimulus passed. CBS' Dan Rather on Oct. 8, 2004, asked "Tonight, where are the jobs?" yet few stimulus stories have even mentioned Obama's unemployment prediction."
Stimulus Two Years Later, Networks Ignore Obama's Failed Job Promise

Stipulating that you're not stupid I have to wonder why you felt the need to start this thread. Do you 'think' it would be wise for this president, or any president, facing economic uncertainty to promise unemployment would grow?

Prophecies can be self-fulfilliing as we observed when Bush&Cheney walked arm-in-arm to meet the press after the Supreme Court declared them president and VP elect, and stated the economy was in trouble and only a tax cut would prevent a recession. The result, a recession. The result of the recession, another round of tax cuts, and deeper in debt.

Actually, the first tax cut came about because we had too much money!! Bush decided he should give it back to the taxpayers rather than save it for a rainy day and plan for contingencies, like a surprise attack on the country or a major hurricane.
 
I didn't bring them up MM you did in answering a point as to the gov. 'creating' jobs( see below). I asked "how", the point was the co. a private one makes the devices and does what they have to do as a private concern to get them from drawing board to leg. NOT the gov.. the jobs are created by Timothy A. McCarthy – President and CEO and his team.

What part of that don't you get? The government provided the funding for the first Saturn V mission, which produced tens of thousands if not millions of jobs in the private sector.. Quite simply, the federal government has jump-started many industries in its long history, which ultimately became the driving force for employment in the private sector.

well, I will have to turn that remark back on you MM, and what part of this don't you get;

Now this new product is in the hands of private investors who will take over the manufacture and sale of the prothesis which allows people who have lost that appendage to actually walk like a normal person.


I have said; I agree that the gov. provided seed money for the invention and or development or idea behind of the device.( q who holds the relevant patents btw?)



so, How many people does he employ? how much marketing ( there by creating employment via billings) how many in his supply chain? who employs them, who pays their paychecks, who says how many he employed and at what salarys etc. The gov. has absolutely no power in that area because they don't create the jobs they create a 'thing'.


lets take it in reverse, what if the private market said you know what? no we don't see promise in that? what then? no device.

If his company fails, what does the gov. lose? nothing ..why? because they don't create the co. nor the jobs they have funded a creation a drawing and funded prototypical devices built supplied and delivered by... ....a private co.

Your points are ignorant of the fact that ANY private business takes risks that the product will be sustainable. Hello?
 
Oh, I see, he 'projected' or 'forecast ' it, he didn't "guarantee" it....the chart he used to sell it, IF he got the stimulus really doesn't count....my god.

Oh, so you're claiming he 'sold' it with a 'promise', and that counts? And then you're claiming I was off topic by proving that he didn't need to 'sell' it,

unless you can prove that 2 of the 3 Republicans who voted for it only did so because they were PROMISED 8% unemployment.

WERE THEY? Link please.


the topic is, one admin basically getting comparative, massively unequal media scrutiny for economic malaise and built upon a plan for a bill, whose sppt was carried by a plan he and his staff out forth and forecast as; do A, get B......thats the topic and the basis of my question despite meandering ala who build or invest what which fully admit is not germane btw.

you want to uber parse guarantee project promise to what gain? he bears no more responsibility hence scrutiny than the op spelled out ala another admin.s economic shortcomings (and what were far better conditions, which is beside the point really vis a vis the larger point). ?

No, the topic is complaining that the media did not devote more airtime to lying about what the administration did.

And to only mention ABC, CBS, and NBC is a common tactic in this ruse, since they are NOT 24 hour news channels they would hardly be devoting dozens and dozens of spots to 1 incident of an inaccurate forecast by an economist.
 

Forum List

Back
Top