Topic: the networks.
started by: the breeze
Posted by the breeze on Sep. 02 2010,9:56 am
Meanwhile, the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts combined for a dubious record last week: the average of 18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows last week was the smallest audience those three telecasts have reached collectively on record, since the infancy of television, Nielsen said. During the slow news period of late August, the broadcasts broke their previous record — set just last week.
Little did I know that my post last week (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog) also covered a negative record-breaker.
The news actually got worse from there, Media Bistro's Chris Ariens separately reported:
Read more: < http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz0yNsWn0uc >
Posted by gijoeman on Sep. 02 2010,12:20 pm
Well, the dwindling audience must be due to the fact that these companies are on the wrong side of the political fence, ys suppose?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 03 2010,10:13 am
What good is "news" if it is slanted? 
Who read Pravda and Tass, or listened to Russian State-run radio or television?
People are "voting" with their remote controls--and it doesn't look good for ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN.
Fox News, in the meantime, is INCREASING viewers. Time Magazine and Newsweek are failing--Newsweek sold for $1. The Wall Street Journal has replaced the NY Times as the most-read newspaper in the U.S.
Is it any wonder that liberals want to get rid of the companies that have become popular with the people, and force them back into watching the government line?
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 03 2010,12:57 pm
So, you think people are turning to Fox and the Wall Street Journal because... They're tired of slanted news? 
That's like me saying I'm tired of unhealthy, high fat foods, so I think I'll start eating all my meals at KFC & Burger King.Eminem is the best selling artist of the past decade, not just in rap, but of all music. Does that mean that what he says is more relevant or reliable than country or gospel music? No, it's entertainment. And even Bernard Goldberg in his book on media bias acknowledged that as soon as ratings & money became the priority of news, the content would suffer.
Idiocracy-
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 03 2010,2:04 pm
QUOTE
18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows
QUOTE
People are "voting" with their remote controls--and it doesn't look good for ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN.
Just under 19 million watched the "government line", how many watched the kookery on FOX?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 03 2010,3:04 pm
Irish QUOTE
So, you think people are turning to Fox and the Wall Street Journal because... They're tired of slanted news?
All right, why don't YOU tell us why Fox and WSJ have thrived and increasingly taken market share from the others, while the dog-washers for Obambi have not only declined, but have ACCELERATED that decline?
Fox and WSJ have garnered a larger and larger share of the market. Their gains have been at the expense of the former "mainstream" media networks. CNN USED TO BE the powerhouse in news--until Fox came along. Now they are an also-ran.
I know it has to hurt, watching what you believe in being rejected by the rest of the country, but you just have to get used to it--November is coming!
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 03 2010,3:14 pm
From our resident liberal QUOTE
Just under 19 million watched the "government line", how many watched the kookery on FOX?
That was for late-night entertainment--not news. Don't worry, there are plenty of people like you that ENJOY watchng "Dancing with the Stars", "Deal or no Deal", or Oprah!
If you want NEWS, most people turn to Fox--or read the WSJ.
Libbies can continue to get their news from Colbert. 
Here's the Cable News Ratings for Sept. 1, from TV by the numbers:
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,286,000 viewers
CNN – 439,000 viewers
MSNBC – 440,000 viewers
CNBC – 163,000 viewers
HLN – 258,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,469,000 viewers
CNN – 593,000 viewers
MSNBC –998,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/113,000 viewers
HLN – 405,000 viewers
For people that got their news for the DAY, Fox nearly matched all of the rest combined--1,286,000 to 1,300,000.
For PRIME TIME, Fox wiped the floor with the competition--2,469,000 to 2,109,000 for all of the rest COMBINED.
Why do YOU suppose so many viewers, listeners, and readers have deserted the lamestream media and turned to Fox and WSJ?
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 03 2010,8:13 pm
(jimhanson @ Sep. 03 2010,3:04 pm)
QUOTE
All right, why don't YOU tell us why Fox and WSJ have thrived and increasingly taken market share from the others, while the dog-washers for Obambi have not only declined, but have ACCELERATED that decline?
Fox and WSJ have garnered a larger and larger share of the market. Their gains have been at the expense of the former "mainstream" media networks. CNN USED TO BE the powerhouse in news--until Fox came along. Now they are an also-ran.
Fox and WSJ have garnered a larger and larger share of the market. Their gains have been at the expense of the former "mainstream" media networks. CNN USED TO BE the powerhouse in news--until Fox came along. Now they are an also-ran.
Conservatives hate polling data, unless it says what they like. That's why I never see any threads discussing Sunday morning ratings.
Fox has always been the most biased on TV, but they became extreme more recently. The best proof of this is that O'Reilly's popularity has declined because he's just not conservative enough. But most people who vote aren't entertained as easily with chalkboards and theatrics. Hearing Karl Rove, Sarah Palin, or conservative talk show hosts put their spin on current events might be entertaining, but it's not news. That's like saying I get my news from Rush Limbaugh.
Sorry to digress, back to your question. Have you seen the ratings for Meet the Press or This Week? The networks are getting 2 or 3 million for each show, while Fox is hovering around 1 million. They've got about 10 million for the networks in that time slot, and where is Fox?
Either way, I don't know why conservatives think that popularity equals reliability. I watch C-Span more than anything else for news, precisely because they're the most reliable I've seen. But I don't think they're very popular.
QUOTE
I know it has to hurt, watching what you believe in being rejected by the rest of the country, but you just have to get used to it--November is coming!
Doesn't hurt me. Repubs lost big last time. It's natural for the pendulum to swing the other way as the independents shift from one side to another. But we didn't need that much time to reform healthcare & Wall Street. And tax cuts to the rich will expire without us having to do anything. Things are actually pretty good for the donks, we should be celebrating.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 04 2010,2:04 pm
Irish-- QUOTE
Doesn't hurt me. Repubs lost big last time. It's natural for the pendulum to swing the other way as the independents shift from one side to another.
"Repubs lost big"--but that's OK, because the Donks are going to lose even BIGGER?
QUOTE
But we didn't need that much time to reform healthcare & Wall Street
Why do you suppose that Obummer/Reid/Pelosi are so unpopular? Do you suppose that most people were unhappy with the stench from the health care debacle? QUOTE
And tax cuts to the rich will expire without us having to do anything.
Maybe your liberal news source hasn't told you, but those tax cuts aren't just for "the rich"--they will ALL be going up. Maybe when Donks see their taxes going up (at least, those Donks that are WORKING! 
) they'll finally see that the tax cuts weren't for "the rich!" Face it--it will amount to a tax INCREASE for everybody--and you're PROUD of that? And you wonder why the people are anti-incumbent? It just goes to show how out of touch liberals have become 
Yes, the pendulum does swing--the party out of power usually loses 15 seats or so--but NOTHING like the coming bloodbath.
Obummer/Pelosi/Reid have enraged the voters THAT MUCH--and in only 18 months!
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 06 2010,7:59 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 04 2010,2:04 pm)
QUOTE
Irish--
"Repubs lost big"--but that's OK, because the Donks are going to lose even BIGGER?
QUOTE
Doesn't hurt me. Repubs lost big last time. It's natural for the pendulum to swing the other way as the independents shift from one side to another.
"Repubs lost big"--but that's OK, because the Donks are going to lose even BIGGER?
I don't know. But we can compare the lost and gained seats to the 2008 election to this mid-term election in November. But don't you always think the Donks are going to lose big?
Have you paid attention to the party of no's plans? I realize that "republican plan" has become an oxymoron, but how are they going to balance the budget?
QUOTE
QUOTE
But we didn't need that much time to reform healthcare & Wall Street
Why do you suppose that Obummer/Reid/Pelosi are so unpopular? Do you suppose that most people were unhappy with the stench from the health care debacle?They said they'd reform these things, and they did. I guess in this country the only thing worse than breaking a campaign promise, is if you actually KEEP your promise!
QUOTE
QUOTE
And tax cuts to the rich will expire without us having to do anything.
Maybe your liberal news source hasn't told you, but those tax cuts aren't just for "the rich"--they will ALL be going up.The news source I said I viewed the most is C-Span, and you call that a liberal news source?
QUOTE
Maybe when Donks see their taxes going up (at least, those Donks that are WORKING! ) they'll finally see that the tax cuts weren't for "the rich!"
) they'll finally see that the tax cuts weren't for "the rich!"Well, I consider those making over a quarter-million to be rich. I know plenty conservatives are claiming that those making over $250,000 a year are middle-class somehow, but even the median income in Palm Beach is half of that. So yes, tax cuts for the rich will expire, those below that are planned to be continued.
QUOTE
Face it--it will amount to a tax INCREASE for everybody--and you're PROUD of that? And you wonder why the people are anti-incumbent? It just goes to show how out of touch liberals have become
First off, INCREASE taxes for those over $250k (the rich), to bring it back to levels before the Bush tax cuts. Still far below the levels of taxes before they decided to borrow money to "spread democracy".
Second, you're starting to sound like Tom Emmer. You keep faulting everyone else's plan, but how do you want to fund the wars or tax cuts?
I can respect someone having a REAL fiscally conservative opinion. But then you have to accept that it would mean deep defense cuts. Bases closing, cuts in VA funding, eliminating the wars. Cut social programs just as much as defense if you like, but the math has to add up. You can't advocate HUGE increases to defense spending (already the biggest cost of government), wars, and nation building and then say we want low taxes.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 06 2010,12:22 pm
QUOTE
Why do you suppose that Obummer/Reid/Pelosi are so unpopular? Do you suppose that most people were unhappy with the stench from the health care debacle?
QUOTE
They said they'd reform these things, and they did. I guess in this country the only thing worse than breaking a campaign promise, is if you actually KEEP your promise!
No-the question was why they are so unpopular. It is because they have passed legislation that the people don't WANT--healthcare being the biggest example. And you call that GOOD GOVERNMENT? Irisheyes still believes that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were "only for the rich."
Irish
QUOTE
The news source I said I viewed the most is C-Span, and you call that a liberal news source?
You have to do more than WATCH TV, you have to understand what's ON TV. A dog can watch TV and figure out that SOMETHING is going on, but doesn't understand WHAT. QUOTE
Maybe when Donks see their taxes going up (at least, those Donks that are WORKING! ) they'll finally see that the tax cuts weren't for "the rich!"
Well, I consider those making over a quarter-million to be rich. I know plenty conservatives are claiming that those making over $250,000 a year are middle-class somehow, but even the median income in Palm Beach is half of that. So yes, tax cuts for the rich will expire, those below that are planned to be continued.
When the tax cuts expire, EVERYONE will be paying more taxes, and it will put to rest the libbie lie that only "the rich" got tax cuts--unfortunately, too late. "Those below that are planned to continue?" Do you not understand that the expiration of the CUTS will raise taxes to where they were before? Well, I consider those making over a quarter-million to be rich. I know plenty conservatives are claiming that those making over $250,000 a year are middle-class somehow, but even the median income in Palm Beach is half of that. So yes, tax cuts for the rich will expire, those below that are planned to be continued.
QUOTE
First off, INCREASE taxes for those over $250k (the rich), to bring it back to levels before the Bush tax cuts.
And that works SO WELL anywhere it's been tried--people are FLOCKING to Socialist countries to start businesses there! It was a disaster during the Great Depression, but libbies keep HOPING Keynesian economics will come back in style.Irish
QUOTE
You keep faulting everyone else's plan, but how do you want to fund the wars or tax cuts?
You just don't get it--tax CUTS have ALWAYS ended up INCREASING government revenues. Unfortunately, libbies also increase spending. QUOTE
But then you have to accept that it would mean deep defense cuts. Bases closing, cuts in VA funding, eliminating the wars.
Yes--defense spending would have to be re-prioritized. There are a lot of bases that are held open as political pork. The Federal government has a lot of land held by DOD that should be sold and the money used to reduce debt.QUOTE
Cut social programs just as much as defense if you like, but the math has to add up. You can't advocate HUGE increases to defense spending (already the biggest cost of government), wars, and nation building and then say we want low taxes.
Once again, liberals attacking defense as the boogeyman in Federal spending. It is large, but it is a FRACTION of the spending for "entitlements." If you eliminated defense spending in its entirety, it STILL wouldn't balance the budget.
null< My Webpage >
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 06 2010,12:39 pm
Back to the topic--Fox News even waxed the lib channels when the libbies own boy was on. From TV By the Numbers:QUOTE
Here are the ratings just for the Presidential address period:
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS (8:00-8:19PM)
FNC: 2,888,000 in total viewers (694,000 in 25-54)
MSNBC: 1,311,000 in total viewers (373,000 in 25-54)
CNN: 988,000 in total viewers (300,000 in 25-54)
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS (8:00-8:19PM)
FNC: 2,888,000 in total viewers (694,000 in 25-54)
MSNBC: 1,311,000 in total viewers (373,000 in 25-54)
CNN: 988,000 in total viewers (300,000 in 25-54)
More people watched Barry Soeto on FOX than watched on the lib channels combined. What an embarrassment for the lib channels--they have so few viewers that they can't even turn out the flaming libs to watch their Messiah!
Maybe it's because so many people have defected from the Donk party.
Maybe it's because of Barry's limited vocabulary--"I", "We", "The past 8 years" (somebody tell him that 2 of the last 8 years have been HIS!)
"Hope" "Change"....Or maybe the Fox viewers tuned in for a laugh--to see what gaffe Obummer as going to make THIS time!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 06 2010,1:22 pm
QUOTE
More people watched Barry Soeto on FOX than watched on the lib channels combined. What an embarrassment for the lib channels--they have so few viewers that they can't even turn out the flaming libs to watch their Messiah!
I thought you republican kooks claimed that ABC, CBS, and NBC were "libbie" channels? A couple posts back it says 18million people watched the news on just those 3 "libbie" channels? Because of your advanced age, and years of low oxygen levels you thought that post was referencing primetime shows but it was clearly stated that it was the number of people that watched the news.
You see it's not enough to just read something, you have to comprehend what you read. Maybe reading slower would help you follow along with the younger posters.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 06 2010,1:56 pm
QUOTE
I thought you republican kooks claimed that ABC, CBS, and NBC were "libbie" channels?
It's YOU that needs to pay attention, Libbie. Here's my quote from Sept. 3.--
QUOTE
Here's the Cable News Ratings for Sept. 1, from TV by the numbers:
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,286,000 viewers
CNN – 439,000 viewers
MSNBC – 440,000 viewers
CNBC – 163,000 viewers
HLN – 258,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,469,000 viewers
CNN – 593,000 viewers
MSNBC –998,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/113,000 viewers
HLN – 405,000 viewers
I even highlighted the CABLE for you.
Why do you suppose Obummer's ratings recently reached a new low? Not only INDEPENDENTS have disowned him, but DONKS ARE DEFECTING! The truth is, Barry doesn't send a "tingle up his leg" for anyone but Chris Mathews, and a few OTHER flaming liberals!
He KNOWS he can count on you, though!
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 06 2010,2:02 pm
QUOTE
Meanwhile, the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts combined for a dubious record last week: the average of 18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows last week was the smallest audience those three telecasts have reached collectively on record, since the infancy of television, Nielsen said.
See if you can find a "libbie" to read it, and explain it to you.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 06 2010,3:26 pm
(Liberal @ Sep. 06 2010,2:02 pm)
QUOTE
QUOTE
Meanwhile, the NBC, ABC and CBS evening newscasts combined for a dubious record last week: the average of 18.7 million people who watched one of the three shows last week was the smallest audience those three telecasts have reached collectively on record, since the infancy of television, Nielsen said.
See if you can find a "libbie" to read it, and explain it to you.
I don't know what the point is that you are trying to make.
Did I say that?
Was that from a part of TV By The Numbers--one that I DIDN'T quote?
Is it NOT true that ABC, NBC, and CBS had the LOWEST ratings on record for their collective "newscasts"?
Are you disputing the fact that these former "mainstream" outlets are in a precipitous decline?
Keep blaming Fox, keep your head in the sand, and keep your blinders on. It will all be over in 2 months.
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 06 2010,4:14 pm
QUOTE
Did I say that?
It was from the first post in the topic, if you can't follow along better than that maybe you should check out the AARP forum. Might be a little easier to keep up.
QUOTE
Was that from a part of TV By The Numbers--one that I DIDN'T quote?
It was part of the first post, it's pretty much what the whole topic was started for.
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that ABC, NBC, and CBS had the LOWEST ratings on record for their collective "newscasts"?
Is it not true that the number of "libbie" viewers blows FOX out of the water? What does that tell you about your Grand Old teabaggin Party?
QUOTE
Are you disputing the fact that these former "mainstream" outlets are in a precipitous decline?
Are you disputing the fact that your whole argument makes no sense when you consider the number of "libbie" viewers watching the network news?
QUOTE
Keep blaming Fox, keep your head in the sand, and keep your blinders on. It will all be over in 2 months.
Just keep blindly repeating your Fox/GOP/talk radio talking points and don't bother trying to think for yourself, that shipped sailed a long time ago.
"Keep your head in the sand" coming from the person that said that Health Reform wouldn't make it out of committee?
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 07 2010,10:25 am
QUOTE
Did I say that?
It was from the first post in the topic, if you can't follow along better than that maybe you should check out the AARP forum. Might be a little easier to keep up.
Then I guess you're acknowledging I DIDN'T say that.
QUOTE
Is it NOT true that ABC, NBC, and CBS had the LOWEST ratings on record for their collective "newscasts"?
Is it not true that the number of "libbie" viewers blows FOX out of the water? What does that tell you about your Grand Old teabaggin Party?
Is it not true that the number of "libbie" viewers blows FOX out of the water? What does that tell you about your Grand Old teabaggin Party?
Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the precipitous decline in broadcast "news". Sounds a like like Joe Biden and Obummer telling everyone that this is the "
QUOTE
Are you disputing the fact that these former "mainstream" outlets are in a precipitous decline?
Are you disputing the fact that your whole argument makes no sense when you consider the number of "libbie" viewers watching the network news?
QUOTE
Keep blaming Fox, keep your head in the sand, and keep your blinders on. It will all be over in 2 months.
Just keep blindly repeating your Fox/GOP/talk radio talking points and don't bother trying to think for yourself, that shipped sailed a long time ago.
Since you seem to think that the networks are THRIVING, maybe you'd like to buy some Disney/ABC stock? You'd better look at this first, the head of ABC News "resigned" over the weekend! From the NY Slimes null< My Webpage >
QUOTE
"Keep your head in the sand" coming from the person that said that Health Reform wouldn't make it out of committee?
You've got me on this one. Even I didn't think that the Donks would stoop so low as to try to blantantly buy votes, like the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback." That was a new low, but one of the big reasons that most people are against Obamacare.I would hardly be bragging about passing an act that not only did the majority of people not WANT it passed, but 60% of the people find so distasteful that they want it repealed.
That exposes liberalism for what it is--people that want to govern DESPITE the will of the people, because THEY believe that they "know what's best for the country".
Posted by Liberal on Sep. 07 2010,3:47 pm
QUOTE
QUOTE
Did I say that?
It was from the first post in the topic, if you can't follow along better than that maybe you should check out the AARP forum. Might be a little easier to keep up.
Then I guess you're acknowledging I DIDN'T say that.
Who ever said you did? I've said multiple times that it's from the O.P. Have you considered the AARP forum, it might be easier to keep up.
QUOTE
Once again, you refuse to acknowledge the precipitous decline in broadcast "news". Sounds a like like Joe Biden and Obummer telling everyone that this is the "Summer Bummer of Recovery!
I'm not agreeing with you, I'm pointing out that your claim of the FOX ratings proving people are "voting with their remotes" is retarded at best considering there are nearly 10x the number of fox viewers watching the "free" news.
QUOTE
You've got me on this one. Even I didn't think that the Donks would stoop so low as to try to blantantly buy votes, like the "Louisiana Purchase" and the "Cornhusker Kickback." That was a new low, but one of the big reasons that most people are against Obamacare.
Actually your claim was that it wouldn't make it out of committee, the myths you reference was a Rush Limbaugh episode where he got you guys in the Ben Gay/Depends crowd to believe that there were votes bought after it made it out of committee.
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 08 2010,7:09 am
(jimhanson @ Sep. 06 2010,12:22 pm)
QUOTE
No-the question was why they are so unpopular. It is because they have passed legislation that the people don't WANT--healthcare being the biggest example. And you call that GOOD GOVERNMENT?
You're putting words in my mouth, what I called it was keeping campaign promises. You can talk about healthcare, but I hardly ever hear that brought up anymore except for republican talking points. It's the economy that people are talking about most, and that wasn't something you can blame on the democrats. That snowball was rolling for a long time.
As for your insistence on leadership through poll data, that's not real leadership. But then again, Obama hasn't had God's geese on his side.
QUOTE
Irisheyes still believes that the "Bush Tax Cuts" were "only for the rich."
Nope, I'm well aware that it went from the top to the bottom, including payments to those that don't pay taxes. A "redistribution of wealth" if you will. But they don't call it that when a republican does it.
QUOTE
When the tax cuts expire, EVERYONE will be paying more taxes, and it will put to rest the libbie lie that only "the rich" got tax cuts--unfortunately, too late. "Those below that are planned to continue?" Do you not understand that the expiration of the CUTS will raise taxes to where they were before?
Not all of the tax cuts will expire. We'll keep PART of what Bush had done. I mean, the conservatives would normally like that proposal to continue the tax cuts to most. But I'm guessing Dick Armey and Sarah Palin will tell them not to like it. Soon after a bunch of birds will take a dump on the crowd, and this will be a sign of the God's blessing.
QUOTE
And that works SO WELL anywhere it's been tried--people are FLOCKING to Socialist countries to start businesses there!
And yet, the rich that received tax cuts keep sending more jobs to a communist country.
Yeah, tax cuts have worked great in the last decade.
QUOTE
You just don't get it--tax CUTS have ALWAYS ended up INCREASING government revenues. Unfortunately, libbies also increase spending.
And yet, the deficit exploded under Reagan and Bush. Revenues did increase dramatically under Reagan, but we can thank him for the "deficits don't matter" logic also. You can try to blame the Congress, but spending increases are consistent regardless of Congressional leadership.
As for economic growth, if you really think that taxes have that much influence over the economy, how do you explain Clinton raising taxes and it creating an economy everyone envies today?
QUOTE
The Federal government has a lot of land held by DOD that should be sold and the money used to reduce debt.
You won't get much for that land now, but either way how do you figure you're going to pay off debt with that. You have to balance the budget (including interest) before you can touch the principal.
QUOTE
Once again, liberals attacking defense as the boogeyman in Federal spending. It is large, but it is a FRACTION of the spending for "entitlements." If you eliminated defense spending in its entirety, it STILL wouldn't balance the budget.
You often point to Congress on spending, and discretionary spending is what Congress and the President negotiates every year. You can get rid of the entitlement programs you speak of, as soon as you're willing to tell people who paid into it that they're getting the shaft thanks to redistributing their money to the rich in the form of voodoo economics.
I've looked at both discretionary and total budgets. Look at your graph again, defense is still the LARGEST part. A fraction, and yet, the LARGEST fraction.
Posted by jimhanson on Sep. 12 2010,3:53 pm
Irish QUOTE
I've looked at both discretionary and total budgets. Look at your graph again, defense is still the LARGEST part. A fraction, and yet, the LARGEST fraction.
Here are the originial statements:
Irish
QUOTE
Cut social programs just as much as defense if you like, but the math has to add up. You can't advocate HUGE increases to defense spending (already the biggest cost of government), wars, and nation building and then say we want low taxes.
Jim
QUOTE
Once again, liberals attacking defense as the boogeyman in Federal spending. It is large, but it is a FRACTION of the spending for "entitlements." If you eliminated defense spending in its entirety, it STILL wouldn't balance the budget.
What part of that statement don't you understand? LOOK at the huge spending for social programs--the so-called "entitlements". Do they NOT dwarf defense spending?
Would the budget BALANCE if defense spending was eliminated in its entirety?
You say to "Look at the Graph"--let's LOOK at it. Defense spending was 23% of the budget. Compare that with the "entitlements"--Social security at 20%, Medicare at 19%, other MANDATES at 17%. That's 56% of the Federal Budget--TWICE Defense spending--and we haven't even gotten to Obamacare yet!
Reality check--cutting defense alone won't balance the budget. Cuts must be made in the "entitlements". At SOME point, libbies will have to face reality and admit that these programs are as ineffective as MOST Federal programs. We've come to the point where you can't raise taxes any more.
That's the libbie whine--"If ONLY we could eliminate defense spending, we could do SO MUCH MORE!"
REALITY CHECK for liberals--there isn't enough money in the COUNTRY to enact the social spending they want to implement. Have you EVER heard a libbie say "That's enough spending"?
Posted by irisheyes on Sep. 13 2010,2:50 pm
(jimhanson @ Sep. 12 2010,3:53 pm)
QUOTE
Would the budget BALANCE if defense spending was eliminated in its entirety?
Hard to balance a budget when the economy is in the tank. Only one balanced budget in my lifetime, and that was under a democrat with a thriving economy (and no wars).
QUOTE
Reality check--cutting defense alone won't balance the budget. Cuts must be made in the "entitlements". At SOME point, libbies will have to face reality and admit that these programs are as ineffective as MOST Federal programs.
This post had me thinking about something I remember reading last year after you reached retirement age... So I did a quick search for it, and voila!
QUOTE
QUOTE
Social Security just kicked in, huh?
You bet! At 11:15 local time (12:15 Eastern) on January 20, I punched the "send" button to file--just as Obama was taking the oath of office. I'm convinced that he will "means test" or otherwise cut benefits--so I want to be "grandfathered" to TRY to get some of my own money back!Why is it last year you were worried about Obama cutting entitlements, and yet you are now strongly encouraging cuts to entitlements?
The democrats drastically cut spending for Medicare in the healthcare reform bill. A move that republicans would normally love, except it was money that went into the pocket of insurance companies.
I guess the donks can't please the conservatives no matter which way they go. If they don't cut entitlements, people are upset. If they DO cut entitlements, people are even more upset.
QUOTE
We've come to the point where you can't raise taxes any more.
Have you seen the IRS tax rates for the last century? In 1917 the top tax rate was 67%. In 1936 it was 79%, and the end of WWII it was 94% for top earners.
Now... It's 33%. That's quite a stark contrast, but conservatives and their media friends continue to say that they're higher than ever. The result: Tax burdens are shifted to other means. Property taxes, sales taxes, fees, and "sin" taxes all skyrocket. We shift the burden to the people who are least able to pay for it. Retired people and what's left of the middle class.
QUOTE
REALITY CHECK for liberals--there isn't enough money in the COUNTRY to enact the social spending they want to implement. Have you EVER heard a libbie say "That's enough spending"?
That's a great question, Jim. How about we forget about what the politicians say, and focus on what they DO.