12 April 2008

Yarmuth Is Officially An Idiot

Congressman John Yarmuth of Kentucky says that the cost of the Iraq War, more than anything else, is to blame for the downturn in the economy.

The growing cost to the United States of fighting the war in Iraq "is not only linked to our economic skid, but is a leading cause of it," a Democratic congressman said Saturday.

Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky linked the costly, unpopular war with the growing economic troubles — some say recession — in this country.

Like how they slipped that mention of the word recession in there?  I've mentioned how much I hate the MSM, right?

He said "the cost of one month in Iraq could extend the Children's Health Insurance Program, which the president vetoed, to 10 million children of working families for a full year."

Of course, it wasn't vetoed because it wasn't affordable because our elected officials can always find money to spend.  It was vetoed because it's a bad program based on bad policy.  Maybe he should talk about the potential costs of not fighting terrorism?  It won't happen because it's not in the Democrat's interest.

He noted that Congress has passed an economic stimulus package, to send millions of Americans up to $1,200 that could provide a boost to the economy.

But Yarmuth isn't satisfied.

"We know we must do more," he said, adding that Democrats are pushing for a second economic stimulus package to aid workers, their families and businesses.

The White House said the first economic stimulus package should be given a chance to work before a second is passed.

Yarmuth doesn't want to wait and see if the first one works because no matter how it turns out, they're going to say it wasn't enough.  Until there is a Democrat in the White House, nothing done for the economy is going to be enough, so why pretend that the Democrats and the MSM are going to be honest about it?

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13:55:44 | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 3 kb.

1 History makes it clear that the best "stimulus" package is a tax cut but you won't see calls for that, which shows where their real agenda is.

Posted by: Machinist at 12 April 2008@14:01:13 (yFIK0)

2 It hit me tonight that when you say the MSM is biased, you're being too kind, too optimistic.  You're implying that they have leftist principles.  Now, while leftist principles are leftist, they at least are principles.

I think that's giving them too much credit.  The MSM is not motivated by wanting to put out a consistent version of reality, much less an honest one.  They just want to entertain--to get people's attention so people will buy their product and/or justify good rates charged to the advertisers.  That the result usually backs the leftist version is caused by the fact that most people actually share the leftist vision, so they're inclined to grab it.  But it's a characteristic of the audience which happens to be shared by the journalists.  Were the audience to be much more heavily conservative, the stories we hear now would not get the attention, and the MSM would tailor their reporting accordingly.  They don't care about the facts, nor the propaganda.  They just care about holding our attention so they can get our money.

Posted by: kishnevi at 12 April 2008@19:54:42 (XlB4F)

3 I agree, Kishnevi, but they want our money on their terms.  If they really wanted "only" money they would emulate Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.

As for Yarmuth, if we're going to start comparing apples and oranges, he should also consider how much it would have cost if the US had another couple of 9/11s in the past 6+ years.  How many jobs and how much CHIP money would those events have cost?

Posted by: DRJ at 12 April 2008@23:16:20 (wE7Og)

4 That the result usually backs the leftist version is caused by the fact that most people actually share the leftist vision, so they're inclined to grab it.

I don't think most people share the leftist vision, although most of the MSM does.  When you put conservatives, moderates, and libertarians together you have a large majority of the American people.  The MSM panders to the far left because they're sympathetic to that view, along with the far left being the loudest.

Look at the success of Fox News compared to the networks.  Fox is not really that conservative unless you compare them to the rest of the national outlets.  They try to be balanced and largely succeed, but they're still far more left than most people.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 12 April 2008@23:20:38 (nz1aS)

5 Exactly right DRJ, the costs of not fighting terrorism would be far more than what we've spent on Iraq and Afghanistan.  The problem is, Democrats contend that we haven't done anything to make the United States safer, despite no major attacks in over 6 years.  Far from it, they contend that we've made it more dangerous because we've made the terrorists mad at us.  Idiots.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 12 April 2008@23:42:53 (nz1aS)

6 That's a pet peeve of mine, Stash. Fox isn't a righty station, it's just less left-of-center than the others. After all, they get their news feeds from AP, like everybody else. I'd be delighted if our media were motivated solely by greed. Anybody seen Front Page? (The original; I can't vouch for any remakes. Actually, I think I saw it on-stage. Anyhow!) No, our current crop of journo's are post-Watergate activists who want to Shape the Narrative and Make a Difference. Reporting the news is way beneath them. The good news is, I doubt many kids are going into journalism these days. The jobs are too few and the brand is tarnished.

Posted by: S. Weasel at 13 April 2008@09:48:24 (Dy8+A)

7 I must agree with Gentle Weasel on this one. Only hardcore political bias would lead a major network to smear a president with forged documents before an election and make themselves a laughing stock with risible claims of fake but accurate when exposed. Major papers in New York, LA, and elsewhere have damaged themselves financially through there extreme partisan bias. The source, journalism schools, seem to be infecting those who pass through. This is what has led to the rise of talk radio and internet channels. Why would anyone interested in the truth look to MSM? It just carries predictable propaganda.

Posted by: Machinist at 13 April 2008@11:38:14 (yFIK0)

8 DRJ nailed the point earlier.  If they were only interested in making money, at least some of them would be emulating Rush Limbaugh because of how successful he's been.  It hasn't happened because it doesn't advance their own agenda (and too many of their liberal employees would be calling in sick, filing disability claims for Rush-traumatic Stress Disorder, etc...)

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 April 2008@23:24:39 (Q5ggV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008



26kb generated in CPU 0.04, elapsed 0.0696 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.0473 seconds, 106 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.