Budget talks: This is getting nasty

Desk will think I'm paranoid, but I think it's interesting.

In a bad economy, confidence is a necessary component for a recovery.

It' always in the President's interest to talk up the economy and point to positive signs.

How the press reacts to this is crucial. They can do the same and join the President in talking up the economy and looking for signs of hope. And they can be "surprised" every time bad news comes out.

Or, they can ridicule the president for being out of touch. They can mock his sunny optimism. They can point to the dark clouds on the horizon and highlight any poor economic news.

Then, the President is trapped.

I'll let you figure out how the press has handled economic news over the last 10 years.

 

Something that has always bothered me about some liberals is that they can be intellectual snobs. Some, like Bill Maher, seem to think anybody who has a religion is an idiot.

However it doesn't take an intellectual snob to see the Tea Party as crazy. If you have any sympathies for the Tea Party, the historical and scientific "facts" spewed by its leaders has to bother you, even if the political "facts" they offer don't.

They've shown repeatedly that they don't have the educational base that you should expect from a civic leader, especially those given legislation responsibilities.

They weren't smarter in this negotiation, they were just more willing to be crazy.

 

We need to learn how to say the word: DEPRESSION.

"Double-dip" and "greater recession" are euphemisms.

It's a depression.

 

I agree with you about collective confidence being key to economic recovery, but you suggesting the media has an obligation to spin it positively makes you sound like a fan who suggests the local media is supposed to help State U sell football tickets.

 

Philosophy won't reward you for the hot stocks but you will also not be penalized if the tank.

It's a case of one size does not fit all. I prefer not to live and die based on every piece of economic news that comes out. I am comfortable with a balanced portfolio for the long haul. It allows me to sleep better.

There have been points in time when I have felt overall market is to high and have taken up a much bigger cash position in hopes getting buying opportunities.

Certainly from a capital gains tax standpoint long term investing is better. Record keeping is easier also and I am lazy when it comes to detail.

 

It's not the media's job to cheerlead. It's also not the media's job to ridicule.

It's the media's job to report the facts and point out when those facts contrast with the position being taken an elected official.

That can be done without ridiculing someone. Ridicule is personal. Reporting is not.

The ability to report on an issue in this way is one that appears to have been lost over the last 15-20 years.

 

If the other party in a negotiation believes you are crazy, and this strengthens your negotiating position, would you spend any time trying to convince them otherwise?

 

I'm not saying they are obligated to cheerlead. I just think they should be consistent. They are not.

They are currently looking for any sign of improvement and are constantly "surprised" when they see numbers showing the opposite.

I'm pretty sure we're in agreement here.

Under both Presidents with the last name of Bush, the press seemed very eager to point out how bad the economy was and to pain the President as out of touch when he tried to paint a rosy picture.

That's fine. But be consistent.

 

Point taken. I just assumed the crazy things people in that party have done -- just for quick example: suggest deadly gasses weren't bad because they are naturally occurring, say that the House, by itself can make laws, etc -- were well known here.

 

So do you think that the Tea Party really was concerned as most people about the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, but they knew that if they put that on the table that Democrats would see them as unstable and then they'd be in a power position?