I started writing this blog with the idea that I would help to educate America, one uninformed liberal at a time. I, and other conservatives, made some progress this election, but we clearly didn't make enough progress.
I would like to share a couple of anecdotes that may help to explain why Barack Obama was elected to a second term.
Several weeks ago I wrote a post on Facebook, to which one of my liberal friends responded. This 20-something replied that the economy had turned around significantly and that America had created 4.5 million new jobs under this President. Clearly, my friend had listened to the talking points from the Democratic National Convention and believed they were 100% true.
Instead of arguing with him, I posted a link to a fact check article, one which explained that the Administration had created 4.5 million jobs, but only if one looked at the statistics from a timeline most advantageous to the Administration. If you looked at the total number of jobs in America when Obama took office and compared it to the number of jobs at the time my Facebook post was published, America actually had fewer jobs.
My friend thanked me for pointing him to the facts. He realized that he had succumbed to the political spin often found in Presidential campaigns. He was amazed that America had fewer jobs than when the President took office, after hearing so many times that 4.5 million jobs had been created. That mantra was probably repeated 100 times at the Convention.
Earlier this week, I had a Facebook exchange with this same friend. He pointed out how the President had saved the U.S. car industry by keeping GM from bankruptcy. This friend insinuated that Mitt Romney and I wanted GM to fail.
I took the time to explain that GM actually went through a bankruptcy, but that this was controlled and decided by the federal government, not an impartial bankruptcy judge. I also pointed out that the union was essentially made whole during this structured bankruptcy, while investors received pennies on the dollar. I also shared with him that thousands of employees at Delphi, a non-union parts company owned by GM, received little or nothing, unlike their union brethren. I also communicated that according to many experts, GM may be racing toward another bankruptcy because it didn't rid itself of unprofitable assets and outrageous union contracts as would have been done in a typical bankruptcy. Lastly, I pointed out that the two most "American" cars today are the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry, based on where they are assembled and the percentage of parts that are made in America. As a result, the American car industry saved by the President is so much more than just GM and Chrysler.
Once again, this friend was astounded to discover the truth. He couldn't believe that he did not know all of the facts and thanked me for taking the time to explain them to him. I'm certain that he voted for Obama yesterday, but I'm also sure that he began to have some second thoughts about his choice and the truthfulness of what he's been spoonfed by the Democratic Party.
The problem isn't that my friend is stupid or that he doesn't want to learn the truth. The problem is that my friend hasn't been provided with the facts by a mainstream news media that have spent all of their time publicizing President Obama instead of reporting on him. To sway this one voter, I would have had to spend hundreds of hours reprogramming him from the thousands of hours of biased media coverage.
Our news media have done a horrendous job. The economy was reported on at a very high level, without the context that makes data meaningful. For example, a jobs report showing 90,000 new jobs in one month sounds as though we're making real progress, until one learns that America needs to create between 125,000 and 200,000 new jobs each month just to keep pace with population growth. I watched newscast after newscast essentially ignore the economy, or spin the data in a way that was most advantageous to the President.
Even such issues as the growth in our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was spun much differently when reported by the news media the past couple of years, compared to how it was reported during previous administrations. Three percent growth under Bush was often reported as "disappointing." Under Obama, growth half that amount was reported as "slow and steady" by the news media, trying their best to put a positive spin on the slowest economic recovery in history.
Benghazi should have been the topic that dominated news coverage the past two months, but other than Fox News, you really haven't heard much about it. The American people were clearly lied to by this President and the Administration for at least two weeks following the deaths of four Americans. Serious mistakes in judgement and communications were made before, during and after the attacks and these mistakes should have been investigated and explained to the American peoople. More video of an interview President Obama did with "60 Minutes" was released quietly in the days before the election. This video showed that the President lied during his debate when he said that he had labeled the violence in Benghazi as a terrorist attack the day after the attack. One of Steve Croft's questions pointedly stated that the President had avoided calling the attack a terrorist attack, to which the President did not object. Where was this video when the issues of what the President said and what he believed were being discussed immediately after the debate when voters were most interested and still making their decisions about how to cast their votes? Clearly, a decision was made at the highest levels of major news organizations to not investigate this issue until after the election.
Frankly, I'm sickened by the results of the election, the number of uninformed Americans who voted for Obama and the bias of the news media. I thought I would set a trap for liberals. In a Facebook post earlier today, I wrote the following:
Congratulations to Barack Obama, who ran a very positive campaign, focusing on the issues of the time, not attempting to just tear down his opponent, but striving to delineate his detailed plan to put Americans back to work, to tackle the enormous debt our nation faces and to address the looming bankruptcy of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. I also commend the news media, which focused its attention on the economy, on asking hard-hitting questions that allowed Americans to discover the truth about Benghazi, and whose unbiased reporting gave Americans a clear view of this election.
The trap was set, and it didn't take long. My friend responded snarkily, indicating that my post showed a true lack of class.
I responded, of course, indicating that if my post weren't true and it were sarcastic, then Americans made a serious mistake in electing someone who hasn't laid out his plans for a better future, and that the news media was complicit in helping to mislead the American people into voting for this man. I also explained to him that his belief that my post was sarcastic actually proved my point.
(Believe it or not, this liberal actually wote in an e mail to me that he wished the President had spent more time explaining his plan for the future. If you don't know what someone is planning to do in the future, why in the world would you vote for that person?)
Once more, I educated America, one uninformed liberal at a time.
It's the only solace I have today as our country moves ever more closely to becoming a socialist nation of mediocrity.
Showing posts with label news media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label news media. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Without Media Slant, Romney Wins Hands Down
I remember reading about an education study that illustrated how we treat someone and the expectations we have for that person is patterned after what we hear about that person. In the study, teachers were given erroneous information to trick them into thinking that the top-performing students in the class were the worst-performing students and vice versa. As a result, the teachers treated the top-performing students poorly and their grades suffered, while the low-performers were treated well and actually ended up with the top grades in the class.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
The mainstream news media have essentially tried the same type of social experiment on the American people, telling them for months what to believe about each of the Presidential candidates. Television newscasts and newspaper coverage have hammered home the media's perceptions of each candidate's attributes. For Republican nominee Mitt Romney, the news media have reiterated that he is an uncaring business person who is losing the election because he isn't forceful enough, he only wants to look out for millionaires and is an ineffective communicator. For President Barack Obama, the news media have delivered continuous messaging that he connects well with the American people, is a strong leader and effecive communicator who is focusing on programs for the poor and middle class and will win the election.
Last night during the debate, the American people were able to make their own judgments about the candidates without the media filters of lliberal news coverage or the slant of political advertisements. They were able to compare and contrast the Republican nominee and his Democratic opponent while they were standing together on one stage.
What they saw wasn't pretty -- one of the worst beatings in American political debate history. What they saw was a complete disconnect with the perceptions of the candidates they have been spoon fed by the news media for months on end.
Romney showed a level of compassion that was the complete opposite of what Americans have been led to believe. He talked again and again about how Americans have been devastated by our current President's policies and that he would address these challenges as our President. Romney also showed that he was able to stand toe to toe with the President and forcefully make his points, even if it meant he had to essentially call the President a liar. Romney also emphasized throughout the evening how he wants to cut the tax rates for everyone, especially the middle class, but wants to limit deductions so that millionaires will continue to contribute the same amount of revenue. As for communication, Romney was able to present his case coherently and concisely, often using bullet-point-like descriptions of his plans that were easy for viewers to follow and understand. His communication style fit the format of the debate to a T.
On the other hand, the President rarely used examples that allowed him to connect with the average American and spent more energy looking down at the stage than staring at Romney, the American people watching their televisions or the audience. Every time the President attempted to tie Romney to promoting "tax cuts for the rich" with a flailing punch, the Republican would counter with a sharp jab that knocked the President back on his heels. The President's responses were often rambling, nearly incoherent phrases and sentences coupled together without any of the same clarity provided by his opponent.
At several points during the evening, moderator Jim Lehrer seemingly offered the President a lifeline, asking questions in a way that actually started to make the President's points for him. But the President continued to drown in his ocean of words -- separated by numerous uhs and ums -- that the American people could not follow and often could not fully comprehend. Although the moderator allowed the President to ramble on for minutes longer than his competitor, the more the President talked the less sense he made. More was not better.
Unlike what Americans have been led to believe the past several months by the news media, Romney looked and sounded Presidential, while the President sounded and acted like a third-rate, unprepared candidate still developing his pitch in the primary season. And while Romney was able to show Americans through examples and data that he has proven experience growing jobs, improving education, cutting taxes and working with members of the opposition party to pass legislation, the President was only able to ask the American people for another chance because he would like to do those things in a second term.
When even the most left-leaning news organizations reported that Romney clearly won the debate, you know that it had to have been a complete rout. NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw may have had the harshest criticism of the President of anyone, saying, "If it had been Romney performing like the President last night, it (the campaign) would have been over." I happen to agree. Even MSNBC couldn't spin the President's clear ineptitude into some false explanation of brilliance. The debate was so lopsided that I fully expected Rosie O'Donnell to jump out of the audience onto the stage and begin singing from "La Boheme."
I strongly believe that what we witnessed yesterday evening was the beginning of the end of the Obama Presidency. It can't come quickly enough for the American people, who are clearly struggling under this President's failed policies.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
The Voice of Reason: News Media Report News They Want You to Know
The Obama PR Machine, also known as the mainstream news media, has done a wonderful job spinning the news to reelect the President.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
If a poll shows the President with a three-point lead, the story is that the President is gaining an even larger lead, even though the difference between the top candidates is within the margin of error. One recent story about polls showed that nationally the race is essentially tied, but that the President is building upon his lead in the key battleground states. Nevermind that the polling showing this growing lead was based on the survey of a grand total of 169 people in those states. Yes, I typed that number correctly -- 169.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/01/wapo-crafts-headline-out-of-poll-with-8-margin-of-error
If Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney makes a gaffe or something less-than-flattering comes out about his campaign, it will be the lead story on every evening newscast and an above-the-fold, front page story in every major newspaper. But when the President makes a mistake or news is revealed that puts his Presidency in a negative light, you will be lucky to find it covered with a 15-second piece at the 20-minute mark of the evening news or on page 17D of any major newspaper. The media bias has deteriorated so far that it should be clear to every American.
I usually don't use profanity in my blog, but it's gotten so bad that I will make an exception this time. The mainstream media have their heads so far up our President's ass that they're using his cheeks for earmuffs. It's hard to describe this obvious bias any other way.
The news media are doing the American people a great disservice. Millions of Americans will be making their choices at the polls on November 6 based largely on what information has been provided by the news media. Unfortunately,Americans haven't been privy to a lot of important issues and news, because the news media decided that much of this coverage would damage the President's chances of reelection.
I would venture a guess that 90% of the American people know that Romney was secretly taped talking about how 47% of the public are being dependent on government and probably won't vote for him. But I would bet you that fewer than 10% know that under President Obama the use of warrantless wiretaps has quadrupled, which means that our right to unreasonable search and seizures is being whittled away.
http://nation.foxnews.com/wiretapping/2012/09/28/aclu-obama-has-quadrupled-warrantless-wiretaps
I would bet that 90% of voters know that the Romneys own an expensive horse, which Mrs. Romney rides regularly. But I would bet almost anyone $100 that the vast majority of voters do not know that the same President who promised transparency oversees an administration in which 19 of 20 agencies have not lived up to the Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) laws.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-28/obama-cabinet-flunks-disclosure-test-with-19-in-20-ignoring-law.html
I would also say that 90% of Americans have heard something about how Romney likes to fire people (he was talking about firing people who don't provide him with quality service). But it's funny how little coverage Vice President Joe Biden received when he said today that the middle class has been "buried the last four years." Essentially, with that one statement, Biden admitted that the Obama Administration's policies have not worked for the middle class and that they are not better off than they were four years ago. If this gaffe were covered as extensively by the news media and in the same manner as any of Romney's minor gaffes have been, this would probably sink the President's campaign, and the news media would report that Romney has won the race with Biden's single blunder.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOnbhdw9mLcs4XIBXl4xCMrTQILg?docId=afc1a1575f77421bae7873cecce07420
Almost everyone in America now knows that Romney is a Morman or that he supposedly bullied a classmate while in high school, thanks to extensive coverage of these issues. But do you think that the majority of Americans know that our President attended socialist conferences and listened intently to communist professors in college, or that some of his key influences growing up had Marxist leanings? Of course not, because the news media did not dig into the President's background with the same enthusiasm as they have probed into Romney's background. The sad part is that they didn't even have to dig at all to report this negative information, because the President admitted all of this and much, much more in his autobiography.
http://visionary102.wordpress.com/2012/08/27/frank-marshall-davis-cpusa-47544/
I would say that almost every American has heard that Romney said something about betting another Republican candidate $10,000, which made him look out of touch with the average American. Sadly, though, few Americans heard the President describe the recent attacks on our embassies in the Middle East, which included the deaths of four Americans, as mere "bumps in the road." The news media also failed to report that in the hours after the deaths of four Americans in a terrorist attack, the President attended a fundraiser in Las Vegas. If former President George W. Bush had attended a fundraiser after such an attack, he would have been vilified in the mainstream news media as uncaring and out of touch with Americans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamas-60-minutes-wipeout/2012/09/24/acdcf2aa-063f-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html
The news media were all over Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's unfounded allegations about Romney being a tax cheat. Democratic operatives also strongly insinuated that Romney is a felon. These stories consumed the news for several weeks. But have you heard much about how the Obama Administration is telling defense contractors to ignore existing law by not informing employees who may be laid off because of budget cuts. Not only is the administration ignoring a law that the President strongly supported as a Senator, but it is also promising to pay the legal bills for those companies who comply with the administration's requests. The President and his henchmen would rather break the law than have millions of notices of impending pink slips sent to employees in states such as Virginia, which, coincidentally is one of the key battlegrounds. Do you think this decison to pay off defense contractors was done for political reasons?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/at-white-house-request-lockheed-martin-drops-plan-to-issue-layoff-notices/
It's almost laughable when you look at what the news media had an opportunity to cover and what they covered extensively. The choices included a frank discussion of the growing entitlement society vs. infringement of the rights of tens of thousands of Americans, an expensive horse vs. ignoring transparency laws, a statement about getting rid of people who don't provide you with good service vs. an admission by the Vice President of four years of failed policies, coverage of a person's religious beliefs and allegations of pranks in high school vs. admitted interest and activities with communists and socialists while in college, an off-hand wager that most Americans can't afford vs. calling American deaths "bumps in the road," and unfounded allegations about tax avoidance vs. clearly breaking the law and paying off defense contractors to avoid bad news right immediately before the election.
Sadly, quality, unbiased journalism has died in America, and, as a result, Americans no longer can rely on most media outlets for their news. Today, Americans must rely on bloggers such as this one, Fox News and sources such as breitbart.com to learn all of the news, and not just that which the mainstream news media wants you to know.
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Under Obama, Families Have Lost One Month's Salary
You won't read this on the front pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post. You certainly won't see this on NBC News or CNN, and you definitely won't see this mentioned at this week's Democratic Convention in Charlotte, but it is probably the most telling statistic of this failed Presidency:
Under our current President, the average American household has seen its income drop by the equivalent of nearly one month's salary, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Here are the facts. In January 2009, the month Barack Obama became our President, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, the median household income had plummeted to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing nearly one month’s income.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/ This decrease represents a drop in income by 7.3%.
Are Americans better off they they were four years ago? Unequivocally, no. It isn't even close.
President Obama likes to blame the economy on his predecessor, George W. Bush. But if you look at the numbers, they show a different story. During the Bush Recession, which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, the income of the average American household decreased by 2.6%, about one third of the drop we've seen since Obama took office.
The data show that the Obama recovery has been far worse for the American middle class than the Bush recession.
But there's more to this story.
As Americans have watched their incomes drop under this President, they've also seen costs increase dramatically. Gasoline has doubled since the day he took office, electric rates have increased and we all know that food is significantly more expensive than it was three years ago. Unless you pay close attention to what you're buying and how much you're buying, though, you may not see the full impact of the increases in prices.
Here's an example. Earlier this weekend, I purchased a large bag of Purina dogfood. After I brought it home, I noticed that it contained 31.1 pounds of dog food, instead of the 35 pounds the bag used to contain. I've noticed similar "downsizing" in quantities, which is probably a way for manufacturers to pass on rising costs to consumers without them feeling the pinch.
Unfortunately, the mainstream news media will not inform the American public about how bad the Obama Presidency has been for their bank accounts. This inconvenient truth would not help the media's cultural hero receive votes from uninformed voters.
It is up to Americans like us, who search for the truth, to let Americans know the facts about this President and the impact his policies have had on our economy and our pocketbooks.
Under our current President, the average American household has seen its income drop by the equivalent of nearly one month's salary, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
Here are the facts. In January 2009, the month Barack Obama became our President, median household income was $54,983. By June, 2012, the median household income had plummeted to $50,964. That’s a loss of $4,019 per family, the equivalent of losing nearly one month’s income.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/09/02/obamas-accelerating-downward-spiral-for-america/ This decrease represents a drop in income by 7.3%.
Are Americans better off they they were four years ago? Unequivocally, no. It isn't even close.
President Obama likes to blame the economy on his predecessor, George W. Bush. But if you look at the numbers, they show a different story. During the Bush Recession, which began in December 2007 and ended in June 2009, the income of the average American household decreased by 2.6%, about one third of the drop we've seen since Obama took office.
The data show that the Obama recovery has been far worse for the American middle class than the Bush recession.
But there's more to this story.
As Americans have watched their incomes drop under this President, they've also seen costs increase dramatically. Gasoline has doubled since the day he took office, electric rates have increased and we all know that food is significantly more expensive than it was three years ago. Unless you pay close attention to what you're buying and how much you're buying, though, you may not see the full impact of the increases in prices.
Here's an example. Earlier this weekend, I purchased a large bag of Purina dogfood. After I brought it home, I noticed that it contained 31.1 pounds of dog food, instead of the 35 pounds the bag used to contain. I've noticed similar "downsizing" in quantities, which is probably a way for manufacturers to pass on rising costs to consumers without them feeling the pinch.
Unfortunately, the mainstream news media will not inform the American public about how bad the Obama Presidency has been for their bank accounts. This inconvenient truth would not help the media's cultural hero receive votes from uninformed voters.
It is up to Americans like us, who search for the truth, to let Americans know the facts about this President and the impact his policies have had on our economy and our pocketbooks.
Please share with your friends, co-workers, neighbors and family members.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
The Voice of Reason: Helping Mainstream News Media Do Their Jobs
My blog on Thursday centered around watching the NBC evening newscast and being amazed at the anti-Republicant slant to the news.
Almost any impartial organization researching the quality of the news coverage in the 2008 and 2012 elections has noticed that the coverage of Barack Obama as a candidate in 2008 and as the incumbent in 2012 has been overwhelmingly positive. Conversely, the coverage of Republican nominee John McCain was extremely negative in 2008 and the coverage of the 2012 presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has also been negative.
Last week, President Obama held his first news conference in months. Despite their dearth of opportunities to ask him questions in recent months, the reporters attending this news conference seemingly could not think of tough questions to ask a President who has presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and over an economy in which 23 million Americans are out of work, underemployed or have simply given up looking for a job.
Amazing.
I know that they're busy, so I thought I would help them out by suggesting a few questions that they might ask the President at their next opportunity. Here are just a few that I believe the American people would like answered:
Maybe the mainstream new media aren't as informed as they would like us to think they are, or perhaps the media is so far in the President's corner that they are unwilling to ask any question of substance. I sincerely believe it's more of the latter than the former, given their biased coverage of the candidates in 2008 and 2012.
This should disgust any American. Americans expect the Fourth Estate to play a vital role in keeping the three branches of government honest by asking tough questions the American people want answered and by investigating the words and deeds of our government.
Clearly, the Fourth Estate hasn't been doing its job. Americans deserve better.
Almost any impartial organization researching the quality of the news coverage in the 2008 and 2012 elections has noticed that the coverage of Barack Obama as a candidate in 2008 and as the incumbent in 2012 has been overwhelmingly positive. Conversely, the coverage of Republican nominee John McCain was extremely negative in 2008 and the coverage of the 2012 presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, has also been negative.
Last week, President Obama held his first news conference in months. Despite their dearth of opportunities to ask him questions in recent months, the reporters attending this news conference seemingly could not think of tough questions to ask a President who has presided over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression and over an economy in which 23 million Americans are out of work, underemployed or have simply given up looking for a job.
Amazing.
I know that they're busy, so I thought I would help them out by suggesting a few questions that they might ask the President at their next opportunity. Here are just a few that I believe the American people would like answered:
- Mr. President, while answering a question about the tone of your campaign in your recent news conference, you said that no one had called Mitt Romney a felon. However, your own deputy campaign director, Stephanie Clutter, strongly insinuated that Governor Romney had committed a felony? Would you like to clarify your position?
- Mr. President, a super PAC headed by former members of your staff and administration have run an advertisement strongly suggesting that Governor Romney was responsible for a woman's cancer death. However, after checking into the facts, one learns that Governor Romney had left Bain Capital before the company in question went bankrupt and that the woman had her own health insurance anyway, which she lost after an accident at her work. Considering the misleading nature of this advertisement, and although your campaign didn't pay for it, would you like to repudiate this advertisement as false and/or misleading?
- Mr. President, over the past three and a half years, you have presided over the economy, yet the vast majority of economic indicators have not improved. Considering that what you have tried so far hasn't created the type of results you predicted, what would you do differently in a second term to revive the economy?
- Mr. President, you and your campaign have criticized Governor Romney and Representative Paul Ryan for their plans to address the growth of entitlement programs, yet you have not offered your own plan. What is your plan to slow the growth of entitlement programs so that they not only cover today's seniors, but also are available to the next generation of Americans?
- Mr. President, your campaign has run advertisements indicating that Representative Ryan's plan to address the rising cost of Medicare would end the current program for seniors. Mr. Ryan's current plan does not change the existing Medicare program for anyone 55 and over. Isn't it misleading to scare the American people by telling them that Representative Ryan would end Medicare for today's seniors?
- Mr. President, you have called Governor Romney and Representative Ryan "radicals" and "extremists" for their plans to cut the growth of entitlement programs and to cut the federal budget so that America's debt can be reduced. What is your plan to cut the federal budget and to reduce America's debt?
- Mr. President, America has not operated under a budget passed by Congress since the last budget of the Bush Administration. What would you tell the average American who has to live within his or her budget, but realizes that our leaders haven't passed a budget in over three years and essentially are operating with an open checkbook?
- Mr. President, your campaign is running an advertisement in Ohio and Pennsylvania touting your support of the coal industry, yet your own EPA has proposed new regulations that according to experts would mean there would be no new coal-fired power stations built in the U.S. after those currently in the works are completed. Can you explain your position and record on coal?
- Mr. President, with dozens of coal-fired power stations closing because of EPA regulations, experts are predicting that electricity rates will increase dramatically for customers across the U.S. In fact, you said while campaigning in 2008 that electricity rates would "necessarily skyrocket" based on what you planned to do with coal. What do you tell the American family that is having trouble making ends meet, but will soon be facing even higher electric bills?
- Mr. President, according to some sources, your Harvard yearbook cites you as being "Kenyan-born," and the biography used by your book publisher indicated for over a decade that you were "Kenyan-born." Did you claim on your college entrance paperwork that you were foreign born in order to take advantage of scholarship and entrance opportunites that would not have been afforded to you if you had indicated you were American-born? Would you mind authorizing Harvard, Occidental or Columbia to release those documents?
- Mr. President, your deputy campaign manager, Stephanie Clutter, recently said that more jobs have been created in the past 27 months than following the recessions faced by President Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. Numerous experts researching the facts have said that this is incorrect, that 200,000 more jobs were created during the Bush Administration and that nearly twice as many jobs were created during the Reagan Administration. Would you like to clarify comments made by Ms. Clutter?
- Mr. President, you and members of your staff continue to tout the fact that 4.5 million jobs have been created during your administration. However, fewer Americans are working today than in 2000, although our population has grown by 31 million and our labor force has increased by over 11 million. Isn't it misleading to continue to publicize the number of jobs created, when we're clearly losing ground and not enough jobs are being created month after month to meet the needs of our growing population?
- Mr. President, you have blamed your predecessor much of your first term for the state of the eocnomy. At what point does the economy becomes yours and you take full responsibility for its results?
- Mr. President, you promised to cut the deficit in half by the end of your first term, and you also said that if you were unable to turn around this economy that your Presidency would be a one-term proposition. Mr. President, do you deserve to be reelected, given you have not met the level of expectations you set for yourself in order to be elected to a second term?
- Mr. President, what is the difference between a venture capitalist such as Bain Capital investing in companies and the government investing in companies like Solyndra?
- You often criticize Governor Romney and Bain Capital for trying to make a profit. What is wrong with a private company working to make a profit? If Bain Capital were unable to make a profit, wouldn't it put all the companies they owned and managed in jeopardy, putting hundreds of thousands of jobs at risk?
- Mr. President, when campaigning for the Affordable Care Act, you told Americans that they would see their health care premiums decrease by $2,500, and that they would be able to keep their same doctor and their same health care plan. Instead, Americans have seen their health care premiums increase by $2,500 in the past year, businesses are no longer sponsoring health care insurance because it will be cheaper to pay the penalty than to purchase insurance, and patients are having to switch doctors because of the health care plans to which they are being switched. What would you say to the American people about these changes in their health care coverage that they did not anticipate -- that you apparently did not anticipate?
Maybe the mainstream new media aren't as informed as they would like us to think they are, or perhaps the media is so far in the President's corner that they are unwilling to ask any question of substance. I sincerely believe it's more of the latter than the former, given their biased coverage of the candidates in 2008 and 2012.
This should disgust any American. Americans expect the Fourth Estate to play a vital role in keeping the three branches of government honest by asking tough questions the American people want answered and by investigating the words and deeds of our government.
Clearly, the Fourth Estate hasn't been doing its job. Americans deserve better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)