REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Fiscal Cliff Fictions: Let’s All Agree to Pretend the GOP Isn’t Full of It

POSTED BY: NIKI2
UPDATED: Monday, December 3, 2012 11:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1094
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, December 2, 2012 6:44 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


It's heartening to see someone say it so plainly, and it's what I've observed as well.
Quote:

It’s really amazing to see political reporters dutifully passing along Republican complaints that President Obama’s opening offer in the fiscal cliff talks is just a recycled version of his old plan, when those same reporters spent the last year dutifully passing along Republican complaints that Obama had no plan. It’s even more amazing to see them pass along Republican outrage that Obama isn’t cutting Medicare enough, in the same matter-of-fact tone they used during the campaign to pass along Republican outrage that Obama was cutting Medicare.

This isn’t just cognitive dissonance. It’s irresponsible reporting. Mainstream media outlets don’t want to look partisan, so they ignore the BS hidden in plain sight, the hypocrisy and dishonesty that defines the modern Republican Party. I’m old enough to remember when Republicans insisted that anyone who said they wanted to cut Medicare was a demagogue, because I’m more than three weeks old.

I’ve written a lot about the GOP’s defiance of reality–its denial of climate science, its simultaneous denunciations of Medicare cuts and government health care, its insistence that debt-exploding tax cuts will somehow reduce the debt—so I often get accused of partisanship. But it’s simply a fact that Republicans controlled Washington during the fiscally irresponsible era when President Clinton’s budget surpluses were transformed into the trillion-dollar deficit that President Bush bequeathed to President Obama. (The deficit is now shrinking.) It’s simply a fact that the fiscal cliff was created in response to GOP threats to force the U.S. government to default on its obligations. The press can’t figure out how to weave those facts into the current narrative without sounding like it’s taking sides, so it simply pretends that yesterday never happened.

The next fight is likely to involve the $200 billion worth of stimulus that Obama included in his recycled fiscal cliff plan that somehow didn’t exist before Election Day. I’ve taken a rather keen interest in the topic of stimulus, so I’ll be interested to see how this is covered. Keynesian stimulus used to be uncontroversial in Washington; every 2008 presidential candidate had a stimulus plan, and Mitt Romney’s was the largest. But in early 2009, when Obama began pushing his $787 billion stimulus plan, the GOP began describing stimulus as an assault on free enterprise—even though House Republicans (including Paul Ryan) voted for a $715 billion stimulus alternative that was virtually indistinguishable from Obama’s socialist version. The current Republican position seems to be that the fiscal cliff’s instant austerity would destroy the economy, which is odd after four years of Republican clamoring for austerity, and that the cliff’s military spending cuts in particular would kill jobs, which is even odder after four years of Republican insistence that government spending can’t create jobs.

I guess it’s finally true that we all are Keynesians now. Republicans don’t even seem to be arguing that more stimulus wouldn’t boost the economy; they’ve suggested that Obama needs to give up “goodies” like extending unemployment insurance (which benefits laid-off workers) and payroll tax cuts (which benefit everyone) to show that he’s negotiating in good faith. At the same time, though, they also want Obama to propose bigger Medicare cuts, even though they spent the last campaign slamming Obama’s Medicare cuts and denying their interest in Medicare cuts. I live in Florida, so I had the pleasure of hearing a radio ad from Allen West, hero of the Tea Party, vowing to protect Medicare.

Whatever. I realize that the GOP’s up-is-downism puts news reporters in an awkward position. It would seem tendentious to point out Republican hypocrisy on deficits and Medicare and stimulus every time it comes up, because these days it comes up almost every time a Republican leader opens his mouth. But we’re not supposed to be stenographers. As long as the media let an entire political party invent a new reality every day, it will keep on doing it. Every day.

I would ask how DOES the GOP explain using Medicare to scare people into voting for them, then turning around and wanting to slash Medicare, and all the other irrationalities the author pointed out, but I know the answer is that they just don't TALK about it, so everyone forgets. Whatever happened to investigative journalism? Yeah, I know, it's "infotainment" now...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 2, 2012 3:43 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Niki, source for this?
Not that I disagree, but I like to check out the background of the author. Helps me decide whether or net he's believable or qualifies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 2, 2012 5:01 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Niki, source for this?
Not that I disagree, but I like to check out the background of the author. Helps me decide whether or net he's believable or qualifies.



It's from Time.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/30/fiscal-cliff-fictions-lets-all-ag
ree-to-pretend-the-gop-isnt-full-of-it
/

Here's a bio of the author.

Quote:

Michael Grunwald is TIME's senior national correspondent. Before coming to TIME, he spent nearly a decade at the Washington Post, where he served as a congressional correspondent, New York bureau chief, essayist and national investigative reporter. Grunwald has also written for the Boston Globe, The New Republic and Slate among many other publications, and is the recipient of the George Polk Award for national reporting, the Worth Bingham Prize for investigative reporting and the Society of Environmental Journalists award for in-depth reporting. Raised in Greenvale, N.Y., Grunwald holds a B.A. from Harvard College. He lives in Miami.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, December 2, 2012 5:11 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


thank you, Mr. G

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 3, 2012 8:30 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Anthony's doublethink quote comes to mind.

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 3, 2012 9:49 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Oh crap, that's TWICE I've forgotten the link! I'm really sorry, I'm going to have to be more careful. You can always (as I think? Geezer did) just copy the first ten or so words in the quote and Google it, but you shouldn't have to. Thank you, Geezer, for finding it for him.

He's right, it's from Time--I usually go to CNN first, then Time or Christian Science Monitor (they're surprisingly good!), after that Scientific America, Forbes, BBC, Bloomberg, and Fiscal Times. Most things I post are from one of those, unless it's a subject I've come up with on my own, then I Google. Obviously I get a lot of duplication, but frequently there's something on one of them I haven't seen elsewhere. Nonetheless, I do apologize...it bothers me that it's happened twice in a short time. Have to look to that.

I see from his bio that I would consider him pretty partisan. But then the article gave that away pretty clearly anyway, I didn't expect otherwise. It was an opinion piece, obviously.

Ahh, I went back and I see what happened. I put in the code for italics, then I go to the top of my post and put in the coding for color, font, etc., then go to the article and copy the link... All that copying and pasting ended up in this case with the coding for font, color, ending up in between the italics--if you hit "reply with quote" you can see how I screwed up. I'll check my post better in future.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 3, 2012 10:11 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Don't sweat it too much, Niki. I'm just a nit-picker on attribution-- I consider plaigarism the lowest of crimes, and the most insulting, so I like to get the original source as accurately as possible, then check the quote against the source if it seems out of line. But that's me, and only me.

Meanwhile you taught me a trick I'd never heard of, and wouldn't have thought of by myself: Googling the lead line or title of the article. I actually used the title, and that came up as all of the first 5 links.
Thanx for that...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, December 3, 2012 11:04 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I sweat it. It's a biggie for me; I want the links so I can go to the article and see what might have been left out, or, if I'm interested, read what more there is to the issue. It's important to me that quotes have l inks. I also want them because if they're from Breitbart or something I know not to bother...same reason I DON'T use articles from Salon, HuffPost or MSNBC 90% of the time. Even if they HAVE an article I find via Google, I'll take the next one down or read the name of the sources and avoid those I know aren't reliable...like rightwingwatch, for example. It's one reason I choose the sites I do to peruse...Christian Science Monitor is actually the best for neutrality AND good writing. Who'd-a thunk it?

I kinda figure when people see "Swampland.Time" they know it's an opinion piece, if nothing else, and will treat it as such.

I'm also a bug about attribution for the same reasons as you, and I also take care to post "more at" or "much more at" so hopefully people will go there and read the whole article, since I was informed that authors get paid via how many clicks they get. It's my form of "compromise" on that.

Yeah, the title might get a lot of stuff, and often brings several things which are all linked back to the original (or refer to same). Same happens with the first few words, or first line, but more often I get the original. I do that now rather than using the title.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL