NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The public backlash against the Bush administration’s proposal to use tax dollars to bailout Wall Street spilled into the streets Thursday.
“People all over the country are up in arms about
this,” said David Elliot, a spokesman for grassroots advocacy group UsAction. “Our members are livid, and they’re hitting the streets.”
Do you have a specific example of “thousands of people in the streets” that you feel wasn’t covered?
The Piggington thread you posted was a perfect example of what I’m talking about. The minute the Tea party got any traction it shifted to anti-tax and other predetermined causes which was its specific intent all along.
2. Now it’s “vested interests” and only sometimes the government? Before it was “the media is controlled by the government”.
Those people who tell reporters “what to say” are called editors. Do I need to explain the training, experience and education that is typical of a copy editor at a large paper?
Here is an example of the editorial direction provided at Zerohedge: “Despite holding itself out as a town crier for market angst, transcripts from Zero Hedge internal chat sessions provided by Lokey reveal a focus on Web traffic by the Durdens. Headlines are debated and a relentless publishing schedule maintained to keep readers sated. Lokey said the emphasis on profit—and what he considered political bias at the site—motivated him to quit.
Despite the compensation, he contends that he left because he disagreed with the site’s editorial vision. “Reality checks are great. But Zero Hedge ceased to serve that public service years ago,” Lokey wrote. “They care what generates page views. Clicks. Money.”
Lokey, who said he wrote much of the site’s political content, claimed there was pressure to frame issues in a way he felt was disingenuous. “I tried to inject as much truth as I could into my posts, but there’s no room for it. “Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry= dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft,”
IIRC it was the NYT that broke the NSA illegal wiretapping story. There are literally 1000’s of other examples of outlets like the Times and WSJ breaking stories that “threaten powerful interests”.
Journalists at real news outlets like the WSJ and NYT are not threatened with criminal charges if they report on certain topics. The NYT and WSJ are not biased in what they say.
3. That’s what the Fed did. It warned. It raised rates when the economy started to slow. .75 and 1.00 are not “tiny” increases. The consensus opinion about the cause of the housing bubble was lax lending standards. Not low rates.
4. Russia selectively released information to make HRC look bad. There is no argument about this. If you don’t see the issue here you are clearly deluded as to what Democracy is and what’s important.
Yes, HRC moved to the left because of Bernie in an attempt to gather those votes. Bernie certainly had some odd or unusual ideas which is why he wasn’t a serious candidate. By attempting to run as a Democrat against HRC and inject populist policies into the debate he likely harmed the party.
No one is trying to start a war with Russia. Russia has been the aggressor for the last several years in Eastern Europe. We are simply countering that.
5. Trumps victory was not obvious to anyone. If it had been it would have been widely reported on.
6. “Unprecedented….with the possible exception of NAFTA”. The TPP is far larger than NAFTA and has far more parties (countries) so the complexity and need for secrecy is far greater. Can you elaborate on the coverage of NAFTA vs. TPP? Or do you just not understand the proliferation of the internet and other mediums in the last 20 years? (Hint: whatever the next “free trade agreement” is the same types of people will tell you the secrecy is “unprecedented” – with absolutely no evidence to such, same as now – and you’ll believe it).
Corporations didn’t have more say in the TPP than politicians. Corps and politicians had negotiators appointed on their behalf. As also did labor unions, environmental groups and others. If the MSM had done this: “letting people know about the trade deal and how our own politicians weren’t allowed to participate in, or even know the details about, these negotiations until after the agreement was drawn up” they wouldn’t be doing their job of reporting facts as that is exactly how the deal was to be negotiated, as all other trade deals have been negotiated.
It is clear that you think your opinions are newsworthy and that if they aren’t being promoted there is some grand conspiracy.
As for fast track, do you think it’s prudent for something that was negotiated for several years with multiple other countries (with us as the lead) to be derailed by our (or any other countries) Congress over party lines or special interests? They could certainly deny it under fast track if they chose as any other countries government can do.
I really don’t want to digress here because I know it will draw another longwinded, non-factual rant from you but here goes anyway! The TPP, while nowhere near perfect, would have been a good deal for us by legitimizing and leveling the field for trade THAT ALREADY OCCURS between countries using the same principles that govern other trade agreements. The populist uprising keyed by Bernie and Trump will be bad for our economy and our place in the world in this regard. If you don’t understand this or just blanket think “free trade” is a bad thing you are uninformed.
7. I see you still don’t understand what actually occurred with that bill.
