It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fox news and the 3yr budget issue.

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Watching FOX NEWS I couldn’t help but hear the overly biased piece on the budget.

'' Basically controlled by the Presidents party, hasn’t passed a US Spending budget for 3 YEARS ''

Says the commentator, referring to Obama and his inability to pass a budget.

Dont get me wrong, I believe a budget is crucial and yes this isnt good enough, but can we really pin the blame on one man? shouldnt it be spread to BOTH parties for the past 5YRS of policy?

this ''fair and balanced'' Murdoch centre piece is insinuating that OBAMA is purely to blame for the DEBT and spending policies, but it actually has the gal to suggest the republicans have a solution to the problem.

No mentioned of the republicans stopping key laws being passed that’s hindering any recovery, they aren’t stopping them because they believe it’s for the better of the people, they are stopping them because it hinders and hurts Obama and his party. Why?

Because this whole game is a music chairs between the Rockefellers, Bilderburgers, Bankers and Neocons


So I go back to the FOX news statement, '' basically controlled by the president ''

When the Bush backed republicans had control, like today’s president, they authorized a $700Billion fund, taken from the people’s wealth, to prop up their failing banker buddies. The banker buddies didn’t bother investing this money or using it to its ability, they pocketed it and gave you the finger, and by the finger I mean offshoring your jobs to minimize costs and increase profits.

This is the reason why Fox News are so vile, they actively promoted the Bush backed banker bailout, via Fox and Friends and the O'reily cr@p.. they watched while America suffered through 3-4years of unemployment, mortgagee sales, food stamps and homelessness. They never reported on it, they never investigated it, they never actually said it how it was, and they stayed in the republican/banker corner and destroyed Obama at every turn possible. The tone, the language the choice of words, you don’t need to be a brain surgeon to hear the direction they are going.

I don’t think Obama had the answers, but he had some idea's and they needed to be tried and tested, instead the republicans voted everything down.

And now, at the height of your election, Fox news has the nerve to actively accuse Obama of failing to improve the economy, they don’t offer any reason or mention of Bush, the Bankers and the 2008 bailout, all they talk about is how Romney has the answers, but they never talk about Obama and what the REPUBLICANS voted down.

It's so saturated with greed, has a cutting, poison tongue and is almost hypnotic in its believability.




posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Why is Obama STILL talking about Bush and Blaming Bush. Why? Because he's failed in his first and last term in Office. He's still blaming Bush in his latest campaign ad and his new slogan "forward" God forbid anyone look backward on his first three years Two of which Obama held the House and Senate with his Dem. allies.

Why has Obama failed to Hold Reid to the fire?


New slogan
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
Why is Obama STILL talking about Bush and Blaming Bush. Why? Because he's failed in his first and last term in Office. He's still blaming Bush in his latest campaign ad and his new slogan "forward" God forbid anyone look backward on his first three years Two of which Obama held the House and Senate with his Dem. allies.

Why has Obama failed to Hold Reid to the fire?


New slogan
www.abovetopsecret.com...


You must not have been around when Regan blamed Carter for everything for 8 years straight. Every President blames his predecessor when they have problems. You say it's his first and last term. Oh please. Paul is the only one with a chance beating him and the republicans won't give him the nomination.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Obama is doing way worse than any of his predecessors
Do you disagree with that OP or you just dislike the wording that Fox News used?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


The President doesn't pass a budget, congress does.

Politifact: Obama has failed to pass a budget. Mostly False.


"The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes."



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Obama is doing way worse than any of his predecessors
Do you disagree with that OP or you just dislike the wording that Fox News used?


I think the OP deserves the right to question bias or accuracy without having to wave a flag for either party?

Otherwise...whether or not anyone feels Obama is "worse than any of his predecessors" doesn't excuse false or extraordinarily biased statements.

That seems to be an issue in our national discourse...seperating facts from opinion. Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean being dishonest with the facts is acceptable.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
3 years really that is just so damned biased after all from 2008 to 2010 the congress house the senate and the presidency were control by the Democrats.

Let us just forget that little thing there. and let us also forget the fact that HR bills(budgets) goto the Senate where they have been sitting there for the past 3 years until the Senate decides to take a vote on it and let us also forget that all bill/budget has to be signed into a law/budget.

Yes that really is just a biased piece of reporting.


edit on 30-4-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Watching FOX NEWS ..


I think I know where you made your first mistake.



And what does the last president to leave office with a record surplus budget have to say???



edit on 30-4-2012 by ILikeStars because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by Agit8dChop
 


The President doesn't pass a budget, congress does.

Politifact: Obama has failed to pass a budget. Mostly False.


"The president has no role in passing a budget. The president can cajole Congress about passing a budget and advocate for positions and funding levels, but in the end, Congress approves the budget resolution for their own purposes."





Facts are wonderful things aren't they.

Not that anyone will pay attention to them...but they are wonderful for the honest and informed people.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I know that the past 3 years a budget has not been passed.

Has this ever happened before?

Ever?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Reid is a little leery of calling the vote. He's up for reelection too... and no pressure from the big cheese to call the vote either. It's all part of the ploy to keep the GOP on the target in order to play the blame game.

Here is the mentality. Who needs a "foolish" budget?


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it would be "foolish" for Democrats to propose their own federal budget for 2012, despite continued attacks from Republicans that the party is ducking its responsibility to put forward a solution to the nation's deficit problems.

"There's no need to have a Democratic budget in my opinion," Reid said in an interview Thursday. "It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage."

articles.latimes.com...


“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Majority Leader Harry Reid said of the 2013 federal budget in February.


Read more: dailycaller.com...



Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, told The Daily Caller that Senate Democrats’ obfuscation is to blame.

“This is a deliberate plan that the Democratic majority has executed for three years to avoid the responsibility of laying out a financial plan for America,” he said in an interview.

The Democratic majority in the Senate, Sessions said, “cannot lead.”

“When your party cannot coalesce around a plan that your members can support and the American people can support, then you’ve got a very deep, serious problem. And I think that is basically what it is,” he explained.

“So you’ve got to hide that by avoiding any public accountability. So you have secret meetings, the gang of six, and those kind of things — trying to move along without every having to lay out their vision.”


Read more: dailycaller.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
I know that the past 3 years a budget has not been passed.

Has this ever happened before?

Ever?


For fiscal 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and Senate did not pass a budget and the Republicans were in the majority in BOTH chambers of Congress at those times.

A budget is a healthy thing to have in place, but not required. It is an agreement between the senate and congress as well as both the Democrats and GOP how money will be allocated. Given the insanely partisan climate in DC it is not suprising that a budgtet hasn't passed. Absent a budget items can be more easily funded and defunded by Congress, which ironically works tot he GOPs advantage right now.

Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Thanks.

Appreciate that.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Thanks.

Appreciate that.


No problem. Other items to consider on the issue....a Budget resolution is not a law. Spending is allocated through comittees piece by piece, which isn't a bad thing as it allows for debate and discourse for every dime spent. Also...



There may not be a resolution every year; if none is established, the previous year's resolution stays in force

en.wikipedia.org...

Essentially a budget resolution is just that...a resolution..a declared position to be debated between the parties and theoretically agreed upon but not binding, which means I do believe it would be a waste of time in this climate and we are not operating "without a budget" only operating without a "resolution" of a budget. All the limits and caps remain in place and still need congressional approval before being spent.

Congress holds the purse-strings...



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Ah hah, my point exactly.

Fox NEWS with great emphasis would have you believe its Obama's fault.

As someone said im not waving a flag for either, personally, I think the WORLD has a good reason to lock GW and DC and demand answers MORE so than Obama, but Obama is no better he is of the same cabal and if he was decent he would have pulled the bankers inline from day1.

My point is that FOX News is like the rabid blind folk here on ATS.

It doesn't matter what ACTUALLY happened, as long as the tone, language, and stories all portray Obama as the sole reason why the world is in the shape it is today.



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Fox NEWS with great emphasis would have you believe its Obama's fault.

It doesn't matter what ACTUALLY happened, as long as the tone, language, and stories all portray Obama as the sole reason why the world is in the shape it is today.

Ah really????

Come on mannnn

What a cop out x 100000000
Disgusting


He increased the war on everything, expanded it instead of decreasing it
He MUST despise civil liberties despite being a constitutional lawyer but heyy..... it's not his fault
All faults go to the republican

What if his predecessor was a Dem?
You would all be singing a different story!!!!

No it DOES matter what ACTUALLY happened
But that's something that you refuse to acknowledge
That is something that you wish forget

No let's forget about the present
It's all the republican's fault, what 17 presidents do after him bears no accountability

No i'm sorry buddy, you can't pretend to be an intelligent participant in a debate with these responses


btw those capitalizations were for emphasis not mood
I'm not angry, but those in self-denial like you sadly makes me laugh
I shouldn't laugh though...... current events are not a joke



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Its not a cop out,
See, this battle of Republicans Vs Democrats centers around the media.
The facts behind what either party did, does or stands for matters little.
Now your right, Obama did EXPAND the wars with drone strikes and assistance to the Libya mission, etc etc.
but Personal I find it a lot more, significant that the president before him actually invaded and occupied two nations at a time when war WASN'T present.

Both are disgusting acts, but in the context of things Id say planning and executing two invasion is more significant than expanding wars already started before his time. But FOX News wont say anything like this, they will tip toe around the whole issue and emphasise the point OBAMA has not bought the troops home.

They spend all their efforts attacking the dems and making them appear to be covered in mud, sure they deserve im neither Romney or Obama but i am looking for BALANCED reporting so I can have both sides of the story.

Yes, Obama deserves what he's getting but i wont believe it unless they actually report some hard to swallow truths about the republican party behind the media empire backing them.

See, Bush and his men took out a massive 700$bil loan then left the whitehouse forcing Obama to finish the finer points. 3/4 yrs of Obama struggling to find a way to repair the economy after this $700bil loan the republicans come back and start screaming how Obama has stuffed up, how he has ruined the economy.

just what exactly would the republicans had of done between 2009 and now? do you honestly think the people who gave the banks $700billion dollars would turn the economy around and give it back to the people?



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Its not a cop out,

Oh yes it is
Let me read how you will contradict yourself below


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
See, this battle of Republicans Vs Democrats centers around the media.

But only conservative media right?
MSNBC isn't spewing the same garbage you are right?
They aren't saying Obama only inhereted this massive debt despite increasing it???


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The facts behind what either party did, does or stands for matters little.
Now your right, Obama did EXPAND the wars with drone strikes and assistance to the Libya mission, etc etc.
but Personal I find it a lot more, significant that the president before him actually invaded and occupied two nations at a time when war WASN'T present

Same thing is happening now
There was no war in Yemen or Libya
That's Obama's war


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Both are disgusting acts, but in the context of things Id say planning and executing two invasion is more significant than expanding wars already started before his time. But FOX News wont say anything like this, they will tip toe around the whole issue and emphasise the point OBAMA has not bought the troops home.

And why shouldn't they say anything like this?
You yourself shouldn't be saying anything like this
And you would be calling it a republican conspiracy of we had a republican in power right now wouldn't you?
The party is what makes the difference to you despite saying this is not about parties.

Oh yes it is, to you though not to me


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
See, Bush and his men took out a massive 700$bil loan then left the whitehouse forcing Obama to finish the finer points. 3/4 yrs of Obama struggling to find a way to repair the economy after this $700bil loan the republicans come back and start screaming how Obama has stuffed up, how he has ruined the economy.

$700BN loan?
I'm too scared to find out what Obama's loan was
You tell me????

Enough with the excuses
You are just anti-republican, you aren't a liberal or a thinker
Just an anti-republican

That nonsense just makes zero sense to me
I can't see how people like that even exist
edit on 30-4-2012 by ModernAcademia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


replaced why should they to why shouldn't they
that's what I meant, typo

Why shouldn't Fox News say this



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
But see Im neither repub or demo, the parties meant CRAP. Both leaders are in bed with the same higher powers.
also, Libya was a multi national assistance conflict, America didnt have much of a say or involvement, yes we assisted but from what I read european and arab nations did most of the fighting. I mean hell, the government fell and we are yet to really get involved on the ground, and Yemen was simply airstrikes. This is leaps and bounds from creating a false excuse for war, presenting false evidence, invading with a massive army, occupying, sacking and setting up a government and then taking over the oilfields. Its massively different.
Now, im not saying what Obama has done is RIGHT, but the media needs to keep it to scale.

As for MSNBC, CNN, they all have their political affiliations. But FOXNEWS is the corner stone of American News. Its prime time, its where all the éxperts'and ófficials'are. Its where government policy takes shape.
Its obvious to see its the mouth piece for the USA's imperial agenda.


Obama's Loan? Thats a good question, can you show me an example where the Banking cartel have blackmailed the US into opening the vault on $700billion dollars on Obamas watch?
dont get me wrong, I have no doubt Obama would do the same thing Bush did, and that would be to sit back and hand over the keys. However, IF Foxnews really were sticking to their '' fair and balanced '' approach they wouldnt be crucifying Obama because of the economic mess insinuating that the governments inability to pass a budget for 3years is to blame, they'd be explaining that the Bush era banking loans, Bush era wars are still having massive effects on the economy and that Obama hasnt done enough to stop the rot.

See if Fox news came out and said something like that ''Bush era banking loans, Bush era wars are still having massive effects on the economy and that Obama hasnt done enough to stop the rot.''

I would have a lot more respect for them, because its honest.

Im not trying to turn this into a Pro Obama or Anti Obama debate, personally they are both as bad as each other and Romney will just continue the Bush/Cheney policies.

What im trying to explain, is that Fox News is the modern era Goebbels. It has no intention of allowing the US public to view a fair fight, it has no desire to give Obama any kind of substance, it squarely tries to put the blame at Obama, when any realistic and educated person understands that todays problems were born in Bush's time and allowed to continue with Obama.

but they cant say this or even suggest this, because, as ive been trying to say from the start, Fox news is nothing but a Republican cesspool trying to do anything in its power to destroy Obama in the eyes of the American public. It couldn't be further from fair and balanced.

edit on 30-4-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join