Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 16:49
    Let’s compare the press negativity towards previous Presidents



    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-finds-harsh-media-coverage-for-obama/


    President Obama "has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment" of all presidential candidates over the past five months, according to a study released Monday from the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.

    Pew found that Mr. Obama was the subject of negative assessments nearly four times as often as he was the subject of positive assessments. It found he received "positive" coverage nine percent of the time, "neutral" coverage 57 percent of the time and "negative" coverage 34 percent of the time.



    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/19/trump-press-coverage-sets-new-standard-for-negativity-study.html



    The study looked at Trump's first 100 days and examined coverage in the print editions of The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, as well as broadcast outlets CNN, CBS, Fox News and CNBC parent NBC, and European news outlets the Financial Times, BBC and ARD in Germany. Of the total news stories examined, 41 percent focused on Trump, which was triple the coverage for previous presidents for the same period And of that group, the tone was resoundingly negative — 80 percent of all stories, to be exact. That would be just shy of double the first 100 days of Barack Obama and significantly more than George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now consider the Trump administration vs. other administrations. Trump is the only one of the group not to start a war overseas. Also, Trump resides over the lowest unemployment rate in history with economic growth that Obama supporters are trying to take credit for. Why then is the press attacking him so? Do they want wars abroad? Do they like faltering economies?

    Essentially, what you have here is a President that called the press out on what we all knew already, and that is the press in general is biased towards the DNC. He is brash and fights back, sometimes in a way that he should not as a politician. Then you have the Left in general that is in a desperate fight to regain power and silence the success of the current administration.

    Case in point is his recent fight with McCain. McCain came out and said that Trump's supporters were "crazies". Naturally, Trump fought back by saying that he thought that the true military heroes were the ones that did not get captured. Again, this was not an advisable statement, but he was goaded into it by McCain who gleefully received the retort. Of course, the press makes next to no mention of the McCain attack, but only proceeds to cover the Trump retort 24/7. To add insult to injury, the press essentially ignored Left winged attacks on McCain's military service when running against Obama. One example was an article in the Huffington Post that told us that McCain's only reason for joining the military was to become an admiral like his daddy. There was never the intent to serve his country, no, it was only a career move to move up the ranks in the military. However, according to the article McCain was at the bottom of his class, but he was made a pilot anyway, with the implication that he probably got shot down during the war because he never should have been a pilot to begin with because of his grades. Then North Korea sends him home because his daddy was an admiral and was able to negotiate the prisoner swap. Others left behind just had to deal. But at the end of the day, no amount of political maneuvers by his daddy could make him an admiral, he was just that much of a screw up so he became a Congressman, again, all this according to the Left winged Huffington Post.

    Was any of this coverage put out there to the public in a negative light like we saw with Trump? No. It was just there for those to digest and vote Obama.

    And what of the other stories that try to trash Trump? He was said to have banned all Muslims from the US with his recent travel ban. Press agencies all over the country continued to call Trump a bigot and racist. However, the travel ban was never a ban on Muslims.. In fact, the ban did not effect about 90% of Muslims around the world. Instead, it only focused on banning entrance into the country from certain terrorist countries, just like Obama had done without a blink of the eye from the press.

    Then we had the whole media blitz about Trump locking up children in cages who were illegally coming across the border. Again, what you did not hear were that many of the pictures you saw regarding the story were taken while Obama was President. Again, the press did not seem to care about it when Obama was President, but then had the gall to lie about the picture and then blame Trump for them.

    I could go on but why?

    IF Americans fall for this media propaganda blitz, they will vote "D" this November, but if not, what will the powers that be think? They will only have to come to the sobering conclusion that their propaganda and the press have become powerless.
  2. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    03 Sep '18 17:51
    Have you considered the possibility that Trump received more negative press coverage because of the things he's done and said?
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14639
    03 Sep '18 19:44
    "Also, Trump resides over the lowest unemployment rate in history with economic growth that Obama supporters are trying to take credit for."

    Are you seriously suggesting the current economic climate is because of Trump, and not because of the actions of Obama and other world leaders and populations following the economic crash of 2008??

    Are you that absurd?
  4. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    03 Sep '18 20:11
    Is free press good for a sound democracy? Or bad?
  5. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 20:40
    Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
    Have you considered the possibility that Trump received more negative press coverage because of the things he's done and said?
    Of course.

    He has improved the economy and not started a war, two things that I think have made him a better President for some time now.

    The bar has been set so low, it really was not that hard.
  6. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 20:422 edits
    Originally posted by @great-king-rat
    "Also, Trump resides over the lowest unemployment rate in history with economic growth that Obama supporters are trying to take credit for."

    Are you seriously suggesting the current economic climate is because of Trump, and not because of the actions of Obama and other world leaders and populations following the economic crash of 2008??

    Are you that absurd?
    Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that.

    Reducing regulations on business and lowering taxes stimulated the economy as he said it would.

    Conversely, Obama promised X amount of jobs and the unemployment rate achieving a set number with his stimulus plan, which never happened.

    http://humanevents.com/2012/08/03/obama-promised-unemployment-rate-at-5-6-after-stimulus-today-its-at-8-3-instead/

    Back in February 2009, the Obama Administration promised the American public that after their nearly trillion dollar stimulus too effect, the unemployment rate would drop down to 5.3% at the end of his first term.

    Today it’s at 8.3%.




    What’s another trillion dollars among friends?





    Via Instapundit… JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: July jobs report: America’s labor market depression continues. Plus, once again, the damning graph comparing Obama’s stimulus promises with actual results. “Not only is the 8.3% unemployment rate way above the 5.6% unemployment rate that Team Obama predicted for July 2012 if Congress passed the $800 billion stimulus plan. It’s way above the 6.0% unemployment rate they predicted if no stimulus was passed.”

    They really believed they could spend their way out of recession.

    What idiots.

    The Wall Street Journal reported:


    The famed Rosy Scenario, coined in the early days of the Reagan White House when large tax cuts and higher defense spending were assumed to be paid for in part by strong economic growth, is a cornerstone of the Obama administration’s first multiyear budget.

    After contracting at a 1.2% rate in 2009, a more modest drop than the Congressional Budget Office and Blue Chip Consensus forecasts assume, the White House sees growth domestic product growth snapping back by 3.2% next year and then 4% or higher the three years after that.

    The last time the economy preformed that well was the New Economy heyday of the late 1990s.

    The 2010-2013 forecasts are slightly more optimistic than CBO but much rosier — in some cases by well over one percentage point — than what the Blue Chip Consensus calls for. A separate private-sector gauge, the Survey of Professional Forecasts, also projects a much weaker economy this year and next.

    The unemployment rate at the end of President Barack Obama‘s term in 2013 will be just 5.2%, according to the White House. The rate currently sits at 7.6%, and many economists expect it to climb past 9% before the recession ends. A report Thursday showing jobless claims at a 26-year high supports the more pessimistic forecasts, at least in the short run.

    If Obama was working in the private sector he would have been canned a long time ago.
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 20:471 edit
    Conversely, Trump promised a 4% GDP

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-4-gdp-growth-promise-2017-1

    As part of the inauguration of President Donald Trump, the new White House rolled out a number of policy promises on its new website.

    The position page on jobs and the economy makes a promise for the US economy that Trump may find pretty hard to keep.

    "To get the economy back on track, President Trump has outlined a bold plan to create 25 million new American jobs in the next decade and return to 4 percent annual economic growth," reads the White House site.

    The 4% GDP promise is one that Trump has made before, but now it is the official promise of the White House and the president.

    The only problem is delivering on this promise will be incredibly difficult.

    Currently, the US is stuck in a slow growth pattern since the financial crisis and has been unable to escape the 1.5% to 2.5% annual growth corridor over the past seven years. This is lower than the 3.1% percent average annual GDP growth we've been experiencing since 1950.

    While there are a number of reasons for this — sluggish corporate investment, Americans saving more of their income, low wage growth, and more — it would take a monumental task to return the US to nearly double its current annual growth rate.



    Reversing the course of this will be difficult, especially in just four years, as other problems are large-scale issues like declining productivity that have persisted for decades and will require more than quick policy fixes.

    Additionally, the president's policies can have a limited impact of the economy given the global nature of the inputs of the US economy. Currently, the IMF projects world GDP growth to be 3.1% for 2016 and 3.4% for 2017, it is unlikely given the US economy's global nature for it to outperform this by much.

    The rest of Trump's proposal outlines how 4% growth will be achieved by cutting the corporate tax rate and through deregulation.

    According to the world bank, the proposed cut in corporate taxes would add just 0.3% to GDP growth this year and 0.8% next year.

    On the flip side, Trump's hard-line rhetoric on international trade and desire for companies to make products in the US has been projected by most economists to be a net drag on GDP growth. According to reports, Trump's team is considering a 5% tariff across the board. Citi chief economist Willem Buiter projected these policies could lead to a 1% annual decrease in US GDP growth.




    An additional issue for Trump may be the Federal Reserve. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has changed her tone since Trump's election, anticipating additional rate increases and saying that the Fed will not allow the economy to run hot as some had believed.

    By increasing rates, this would mitigate some of the inflationary aspects of Trump's agenda but also stifle growth for some time. In fact, the Fed's own projection for GDP (which, sure, is just a projection) has it remaining well below 4% growth. This could imply that in order to keep inflation controlled, they expect to dampen economic growth.

    All in all, it would be great if the US hit 4% GDP growth, but the balance of Trump's agenda may make that promise difficult to deliver on.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 20:491 edit
    The GDP is now 4.2% for the second quarter of 2018.

    Trump delivered, Obama did not.

    https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

    Now who is the idiot?
  9. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 20:521 edit
    The same people in this video who said that Trump had zero chance of becoming President are the same ones that think Trump does not know what he is doing economically but that Obama and Bernie Sanders do.

    YouTube
  10. Standard memberLundos
    Back to basics
    About
    Joined
    11 Dec '04
    Moves
    68868
    03 Sep '18 20:53
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Yes, I'm seriously suggesting that.

    Reducing regulations on business and lowering taxes stimulated the economy as he said it would.

    Conversely, Obama promised X amount of jobs and the unemployment rate achieving a set number with his stimulus plan, which never happened.
    Trump is borrowing money for a short term bump in a fiscally sound period. It's no only stupid, it will cost the US severely in the long run if nothing is done.

    You do remember 2008? Well look where we are going.

    At least Powell understands this and are trying to slow the economy down.
  11. Standard memberLundos
    Back to basics
    About
    Joined
    11 Dec '04
    Moves
    68868
    03 Sep '18 20:58
    Originally posted by @whodey
    The GDP is now 4.2% for the second quarter of 2018.

    Trump delivered, Obama did not.

    https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product

    Now who is the idiot?
    So, from your own picture it's almost as high as in Q3 2014. But Obama didn't deliver?

    You really should look at what you are posting.

    Secondly, and I've tried to tell this forum this for a while. It matters how you get your growth rates.

    Trump is the idiot. Then again, so are a lot of people.
  12. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 21:011 edit
    Originally posted by @lundos
    So, from your own picture it's almost as high as in Q3 2014. But Obama didn't deliver?

    You really should look at what you are posting.

    Secondly, and I've tried to tell this forum this for a while. It matters how you get your growth rates.

    Trump is the idiot. Then again, so are a lot of people.
    Obama never promised that in 2014, but he did make promises about his stimulus package to help make the economy right again which fell through.

    Obama should never have given those numbers which indicates he is clueless about how the economy will respond.

    I think Trump also took a big risk, but he was shown to be right.

    I cannot do anything about your bias, but facts are facts.

    Also, Obama was the first President not to have an annual GDP 4% or above, and he had 8 years to do it.

    https://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
  13. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    03 Sep '18 21:052 edits
    And it's not just Trump promising to reach 4% GDP, it is all the "experts", including the CBO, who said it would not happen.

    https://money.cnn.com/2016/10/11/news/economy/trump-four-percent-growth-economists/index.html

    Donald Trump has a big promise for the U.S. economy: 4% growth.

    No chance, say 11 economists surveyed by CNNMoney. And a paper published Tuesday by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco backs them up.










    The Republican presidential nominee made the promise in a speech in New York in September. "I believe it's time to establish a national goal of reaching 4% economic growth," he said.

    Since the Great Recession, growth has averaged 2%. Brusca and the other economists surveyed say that 4% growth is impossible, or at least highly unlikely. The reasons: Unemployment is already really low, lots of Baby Boomers are retiring, and there are far fewer manufacturing jobs today than in past decades.


    Trump's team says it will get to 4% growth with tax cuts, better trade deals and more manufacturing jobs.

    So what's realistic? The San Francisco Fed estimates the "new normal" for annual economic growth to be 1.5% to 1.75%. That's far lower than the period from World War II to 2004, when growth typically hovered between 3% and 4%.


    Related: Stocks would fall 8% if Trump wins, forecasting firm says


    One reason for slower growth is lower productivity -- for example, how many widgets an assembly line worker can produce in an hour.

    Another problem is that the example of the assembly line worker is increasingly outdated: America has shed about 5.6 million manufacturing jobs since 2000, mostly because of innovation and partly because of trade, studies show.

    Manufacturing jobs tend to have higher productivity -- and wages -- than jobs in other service industries like retail, education and health care, which have added lots of low-productivity jobs while manufacturing jobs have disappeared.

    Interestingly, American manufacturers are producing more than ever before -- in dollar terms. But as technology replaces jobs on the assembly line, more goods can be produced with fewer workers.

    On top of that, the economy is already near what economists consider full employment, meaning the unemployment rate can't go much lower.


    The unemployment rate is 5% and was as low as 4.7% earlier this year. It can't go much lower because there will always be people leaving jobs or searching for them.

    If the job market is already near capacity, the economy can't expand much more, economists say.

    Unemployment did go really low in 2000 -- as low as 3.8% -- and the economy was growing above a 4% pace. But the San Francisco Fed attributes those good times to the late 1990s internet revolution.

    There are solutions to boost growth, the Fed notes.

    Many economists call for more spending on building new roads, bridges and highways, as do both Trump and Hillary Clinton.

    After World War II, the creation of the Interstate Highway System was a major boost to productivity and growth. You could go much faster from point A to point B.


    Related: I survived: How many Americans feel these days


    Other solutions are a little more dreamy.

    Many experts say comprehensive immigration reform -- a path to citizenship -- would create more documented workers. Historically, documented workers tend to have higher productivity than undocumented workers because they generally have higher job skills and can take on jobs that produce more valuable goods. Productivity has nothing to do with work ethic.

    Outside of immigration reform and infrastructure spending, the Federal Reserve says America needs a game-changing invention, such as the IT innovation in the 1990s. New technology from fast-growing countries like China and India may also help too.

    "Another wave of the IT revolution from machine learning and robots could boost productivity growth," says Federal Reserve senior research adviser John Fernald.
  14. Behind the scenes
    Joined
    27 Jun '16
    Moves
    1407
    03 Sep '18 21:071 edit
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Let’s compare the press negativity towards previous Presidents



    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-finds-harsh-media-coverage-for-obama/


    President Obama "has suffered the most unrelentingly negative treatment" of all presidential candidates over the past five months, according to a study released Monday from the Pew Research Center's Project for ...[text shortened]... ve to come to the sobering conclusion that their propaganda and the press have become powerless.
    Earth to Whodey. ALL Presidents are subject to unfair attacks by the press, not only in the USA, but the world over. It goes with the job. If your golden boy in the White House can't deal with it, then he doesn't belong there! So, stop sniveling and deal with it. 😲
  15. Standard memberLundos
    Back to basics
    About
    Joined
    11 Dec '04
    Moves
    68868
    03 Sep '18 21:11
    Originally posted by @whodey
    Obama never promised that in 2014, but he did make promises about his stimulus package to help make the economy right again which fell through.

    Obama should never have given those numbers which indicates he is clueless about how the economy will respond.

    I think Trump also took a big risk, but he was shown to be right.

    I cannot do anything about you ...[text shortened]... s://www.politifact.com/illinois/statements/2017/mar/16/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-gdp-growth-obama/
    You do know the issues for Obama, right?

    Regarding Trump it'd only just beginning. Trump wants a huge growth period for his banking friends (and re-election). Is it good for the country? Yes, (very) short run. Long run? Probably not, which is why the Fed just increased interest rates (again).
Back to Top