Stevo
01-26-2001, 05:04 AM
Watching the news on countless networks including CNN The Clinton News Network, I've been constantly annoyed by the leftist bias that most reporters and commentators show. I get extremely pissed off when clinotn's reign is glorified by clear democratic supporters who believe every fucking word spoonfed to them. Now.. This is not a political thread bashing democrats or their supporters.. Oh how i wish it was.. But more a bash on mainstream news media. I've seen countless reports on the great clinton era with great economic prosperity... I don't buy this shit at all. Clinton was riding a wave set by republican presidents Reagan and bush Sr. The news will never seem to mention this. What are your thoughts on the news media? DO you feel that it's as biased as i say or can you see what i'm talking about.
just for fun here's the real fact behind clinton's wonderful economic leadership..
"If exaggerations and distortions are repeated often enough, they can
become conventional wisdom, which may eventually acquire the status of
historical truth. At least that's what the Clinton administration and
its admirers are hoping as they try to shape how present and future
Americans evaluate the 42nd president of the United States. Nowhere is
the distance between the claim and the reality greater than on the
subject of the federal budget.
During last year's campaign, Al Gore habitually claimed that the
administration was responsible for the biggest fiscal turnaround in
American history. In its official review of the last eight years, the
White House claims that thanks to "President Clinton's economic
leadership" and the "tough and sometimes unpopular choices" he has
made, "record budget deficits have become record surpluses."
Some people who should know better have been chanting similar
hosannas. Journalist James Fallows writes in the February issue of The
Atlantic Monthly that one of the president's biggest achievements came
early in his first term, when he "rammed through a tax-and-budget bill
that turned a chronic deficit into a surplus."
Turned a deficit into a surplus? Though it may surprise his fans,
Clinton never said his 1993 budget bill would do anything of the kind.
In fact, the budget he submitted the following February, after the
package was approved, envisioned a never-ending river of red ink.
It projected that the deficit would decline from $255 billion in 1993
to $173 billion in 1996--at which time it would stop shrinking and
resume growing. By 1999, according to Clinton's plan, the shortfall
would add up to more than $200 billion. That was as close as the
president cared to come to achieving a surplus.
But he soon reconsidered. In his next budget, Clinton forecast even
bigger deficits than he had the year before. No one watching him back
then--particularly among his friends--imagined that he had the
slightest intention of balancing the budget, much less paying down the
national debt.
To portray Clinton as the man who gave us the budget surplus, you have
to ignore someone equally important: Newt Gingrich. The real progress
on the deficit came only after the GOP won control of Congress in 1994
and Gingrich became speaker of the House. Congressional Republicans
were the ones who said that a parade of $200 deficits from here to
eternity wasn't good enough. Prodded by Gingrich, they insisted on
adopting a plan to finally bring expenditures into line with
revenues.
Clinton's initial response was to run screaming from the room. His
economic advisers not only denounced the GOP spending cuts as
unspeakably brutal but attacked the very notion of balancing the
budget. Alice Rivlin, the White House budget director, and Laura
D'Andrea Tyson, the head of Clinton's National Economic Council, both
warned that cutting the deficit to zero could bring on a recession.
But in May 1995, both houses of Congress approved the Republican plan.
At that point, seeing that he was losing the battle for public
opinion, Clinton abandoned his own position and embraced the dreary
goal of making the federal government live within its means.
Even then, though, he was in no hurry, putting off the historic
occasion for a full 10 years--meaning that the red ink wouldn't vanish
until 2005. "It took decades to run up this deficit," insisted the
president, "and it's going to take a decade to wipe it out." In fact,
it took less than three years to wipe it out--thanks to a stunning
combination of good luck, Alan Greenspan and a flood of tax receipts
that eliminated the need for spending austerity.
Does that mean Clinton had nothing to do with our current fiscal
health? Of course not. Certainly his 1993 budget plan, including a tax
increase opposed by every Republican in Congress, made a significant
difference. "I would give 25 percent of the credit to Clinton, 25
percent to the Republican Congress, and 50 percent to the Federal
Reserve and the economy in general," says Robert Bixby, executive
director of the bipartisan anti-deficit Concord Coalition.
Clinton, of course, may insist he's responsible for the long economic
expansion that generated the fiscal windfall. Actually, it dates back
to early 1991, when someone named Bush was president. Clinton's
biggest contribution was simply reappointing the Fed chairman who was
there when he arrived.
When it came to the deficit, Clinton was more lucky than good. And not
the least of his good fortune was to have opponents who saved him from
himself."
I forget where i got that but have comfort in knowing i didn't write it. i have horrible writing skills.
just for fun here's the real fact behind clinton's wonderful economic leadership..
"If exaggerations and distortions are repeated often enough, they can
become conventional wisdom, which may eventually acquire the status of
historical truth. At least that's what the Clinton administration and
its admirers are hoping as they try to shape how present and future
Americans evaluate the 42nd president of the United States. Nowhere is
the distance between the claim and the reality greater than on the
subject of the federal budget.
During last year's campaign, Al Gore habitually claimed that the
administration was responsible for the biggest fiscal turnaround in
American history. In its official review of the last eight years, the
White House claims that thanks to "President Clinton's economic
leadership" and the "tough and sometimes unpopular choices" he has
made, "record budget deficits have become record surpluses."
Some people who should know better have been chanting similar
hosannas. Journalist James Fallows writes in the February issue of The
Atlantic Monthly that one of the president's biggest achievements came
early in his first term, when he "rammed through a tax-and-budget bill
that turned a chronic deficit into a surplus."
Turned a deficit into a surplus? Though it may surprise his fans,
Clinton never said his 1993 budget bill would do anything of the kind.
In fact, the budget he submitted the following February, after the
package was approved, envisioned a never-ending river of red ink.
It projected that the deficit would decline from $255 billion in 1993
to $173 billion in 1996--at which time it would stop shrinking and
resume growing. By 1999, according to Clinton's plan, the shortfall
would add up to more than $200 billion. That was as close as the
president cared to come to achieving a surplus.
But he soon reconsidered. In his next budget, Clinton forecast even
bigger deficits than he had the year before. No one watching him back
then--particularly among his friends--imagined that he had the
slightest intention of balancing the budget, much less paying down the
national debt.
To portray Clinton as the man who gave us the budget surplus, you have
to ignore someone equally important: Newt Gingrich. The real progress
on the deficit came only after the GOP won control of Congress in 1994
and Gingrich became speaker of the House. Congressional Republicans
were the ones who said that a parade of $200 deficits from here to
eternity wasn't good enough. Prodded by Gingrich, they insisted on
adopting a plan to finally bring expenditures into line with
revenues.
Clinton's initial response was to run screaming from the room. His
economic advisers not only denounced the GOP spending cuts as
unspeakably brutal but attacked the very notion of balancing the
budget. Alice Rivlin, the White House budget director, and Laura
D'Andrea Tyson, the head of Clinton's National Economic Council, both
warned that cutting the deficit to zero could bring on a recession.
But in May 1995, both houses of Congress approved the Republican plan.
At that point, seeing that he was losing the battle for public
opinion, Clinton abandoned his own position and embraced the dreary
goal of making the federal government live within its means.
Even then, though, he was in no hurry, putting off the historic
occasion for a full 10 years--meaning that the red ink wouldn't vanish
until 2005. "It took decades to run up this deficit," insisted the
president, "and it's going to take a decade to wipe it out." In fact,
it took less than three years to wipe it out--thanks to a stunning
combination of good luck, Alan Greenspan and a flood of tax receipts
that eliminated the need for spending austerity.
Does that mean Clinton had nothing to do with our current fiscal
health? Of course not. Certainly his 1993 budget plan, including a tax
increase opposed by every Republican in Congress, made a significant
difference. "I would give 25 percent of the credit to Clinton, 25
percent to the Republican Congress, and 50 percent to the Federal
Reserve and the economy in general," says Robert Bixby, executive
director of the bipartisan anti-deficit Concord Coalition.
Clinton, of course, may insist he's responsible for the long economic
expansion that generated the fiscal windfall. Actually, it dates back
to early 1991, when someone named Bush was president. Clinton's
biggest contribution was simply reappointing the Fed chairman who was
there when he arrived.
When it came to the deficit, Clinton was more lucky than good. And not
the least of his good fortune was to have opponents who saved him from
himself."
I forget where i got that but have comfort in knowing i didn't write it. i have horrible writing skills.