By the numbers - PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-01-2011, 07:37 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
By the numbers

I want to know how many flaws are in this reporting? I lost count from the start! They are sugar coating the hell out this and trying to justify for Obama's sake, cause their Savior is in dire straights.

Go to: Nightline - ABC News

Then click on By the Numbers and watch the video. I was lets say more than appalled! I was laughing hysterically at my in laws when I saw this.

Cause then you can check out another main stream medias numbers and you will see how much they differ!

National Debt Up $3 Trillion on Obama's Watch - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

All I gotta say is "no wonder America is so buffaloed!"

I was watching Stossel two nights ago at midnight and I can't believe how many retards don't know what the debt crisis even is? Just unbelievable. This is what I can't stand, people piss and moan about things they don't even know nothing about.
Binderpower is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-01-2011, 10:06 PM
<-- it's like that
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 6,567
Re: By the numbers

Try actually linking the article. I followed your directions, clicked "By the Numbers", and got an article talking about poll opinions on the national debt, but no actual debt numbers quoted whatsoever. Also, no video. It's a completely different story than the second link you provided.

Not only that, but the second article is from October 18, 2010. So if you're trying to compare today's numbers with numbers from nearly a year ago.... some things are going to be different.

Curtis
2002 F-250 PSD
Gambling with 250/200's on PMR's.
478hp/851tq on Haller's dyno - 7/28/12
Your connection to the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Pocket is offline  
post #3 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-01-2011, 10:38 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
Re: By the numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket View Post
Try actually linking the article. I followed your directions, clicked "By the Numbers", and got an article talking about poll opinions on the national debt, but no actual debt numbers quoted whatsoever. Also, no video. It's a completely different story than the second link you provided.

Not only that, but the second article is from October 18, 2010. So if you're trying to compare today's numbers with numbers from nearly a year ago.... some things are going to be different.
Pocket, It won't let me link it. You have to go to the video. I'll look at it again. I could not link it up.

Pocket, you will be amazed by the differing numbers. Even CBS almost a year ago said under Obama we have accumulated 3.0 Trillion in debt, and ABC as of Friday 7-29-11 stated that we only accumulated 2.4 Trillion and trying to compare it to Bush's 6.1 trillion. Why is it we find this OK to keep raising the debt? It is as if we try to find excuses to ease our troubled minds.
Binderpower is offline  
 
post #4 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-01-2011, 10:40 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
Re: By the numbers

Pocket, just double click on "By the Numbers" and it wait for the video. Bill Weir compares Obama to Bush- witch right there should throw a red flag. Man the media can't get over Bush! Still blaming the last guy, get over it already.
Binderpower is offline  
post #5 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 12:45 AM
<-- it's like that
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 6,567
Re: By the numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Binderpower View Post
Pocket, just double click on "By the Numbers" and it wait for the video. Bill Weir compares Obama to Bush- witch right there should throw a red flag. Man the media can't get over Bush! Still blaming the last guy, get over it already.
Still no video.

Curtis
2002 F-250 PSD
Gambling with 250/200's on PMR's.
478hp/851tq on Haller's dyno - 7/28/12
Your connection to the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Pocket is offline  
post #6 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 12:34 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
Re: By the numbers

Try again, it is: By the Numbers: Debt Ceiling It is from Friday. I am trying to link the video, but I can't find a way to link it. I can put it to my facebook, but not here.
Binderpower is offline  
post #7 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-02-2011, 01:11 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
Re: By the numbers

I found it!

By the Numbers: Debt Ceiling | Video - ABC News
Binderpower is offline  
post #8 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-03-2011, 03:07 PM
<-- it's like that
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 6,567
Re: By the numbers

Ok, so I finally watched it, and I see the difference between the two articles.

Of course, the dates are different, as nearly a year has gone by. But that's not the issue that Binder is bringing up.

The article by CBS News states "The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms", and that "the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office".

Ok, I bolded, italicized, and underlined key words. We'll get to those later.

The ABC video states that the debt raised by "$6.1 trillion, the amount added under Bush". I also states "$2.4 trillion of that is the amount of debt added under Barak Obama".

Yet again I highlighted key words. So... why did I do that?

Here's the deal, there is a difference between stating numbers by the year, and stating numbers by the administration. You see, when Obama took office in January 2009, the budget (and the resulting deficit and increased debt) was "under" the spending policies of Bush. The government budget did not end until September 30, 2009. So from January to the end of September, the amount of debt added is technically "under" Bush, but is "during" Obama's administration.

That is the reason behind the different numbers. The CBS article is stating numbers by the year. The ABC video is stating numbers by the administration. Pretty simple. I don't see the big deal here, Binder. Technically, both articles are correct. People who understand how the government budget/spending works can clearly understand the difference. The only fault I see is that neither the article nor the video goes into lengthy detail explaining if their numbers are by the year or by the administration, or why they chose which set of numbers they used.

Curtis
2002 F-250 PSD
Gambling with 250/200's on PMR's.
478hp/851tq on Haller's dyno - 7/28/12
Your connection to the
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
Pocket is offline  
post #9 of 9 (permalink) Old 08-03-2011, 03:26 PM Thread Starter
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Plover WI
Posts: 345
Re: By the numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket View Post
Ok, so I finally watched it, and I see the difference between the two articles.

Of course, the dates are different, as nearly a year has gone by. But that's not the issue that Binder is bringing up.

The article by CBS News states "The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms", and that "the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office".

Ok, I bolded, italicized, and underlined key words. We'll get to those later.

The ABC video states that the debt raised by "$6.1 trillion, the amount added under Bush". I also states "$2.4 trillion of that is the amount of debt added under Barak Obama".

Yet again I highlighted key words. So... why did I do that?

Here's the deal, there is a difference between stating numbers by the year, and stating numbers by the administration. You see, when Obama took office in January 2009, the budget (and the resulting deficit and increased debt) was "under" the spending policies of Bush. The government budget did not end until September 30, 2009. So from January to the end of September, the amount of debt added is technically "under" Bush, but is "during" Obama's administration.

That is the reason behind the different numbers. The CBS article is stating numbers by the year. The ABC video is stating numbers by the administration. Pretty simple. I don't see the big deal here, Binder. Technically, both articles are correct. People who understand how the government budget/spending works can clearly understand the difference. The only fault I see is that neither the article nor the video goes into lengthy detail explaining if their numbers are by the year or by the administration, or why they chose which set of numbers they used.
It's called skewing the data, to make it conform to how you want it reported. But to simply compare Bush to Obama's spending is like comparing apples to oranges here. They clearly put the spin to make it sound like Obama is spending pennies compared to Bush. They are comparing 2.5 years to 8 years. If Obama continues as he has, he will surpass Bush by a longshot ~ $7.7 billion if he spends at the same rate ABC reported (if he gets re-elected). Why not report it that way, rather than sugar coat the hell out of it. It is because people are too friggin stupid to think beyond what they see in front of them. People all oooh and ahhh at this pres and then you have ABC giving them this comfy consolation that Obama is still the best thing we have, and he is so much better than Bush and or anything than we ever had. That is my point here. It is the way they report it. It goes back to reasoning.

Like O'Reilly reported, Obama is spending $460 billion a day, more than any other president, and I did not for one see any of that from either reports.
Binderpower is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the PowerStrokeNation : Ford Powerstroke Diesel Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome