KG loves FOX News...

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox News Forgets That GOP Supported The Sequester

Fox News ignored previous Republican praise for the law that created the upcoming sequester -- across-the-board government spending cuts -- to blame President Obama for potential negative effects if the cuts occur as scheduled on March 1.

The 2011 Budget Control Act created the sequester as an incentive for Congress to agree on deficit reduction measures. If Congress didn't pass those reductions above a certain threshold, the spending cuts in the sequester would automatically take place. A deal at the beginning of the year delayed the start of those cuts, which are now scheduled to take effect March 1.

Despite prior GOP praise for the law that created the sequester, Fox News is blaming Obama for its negative consequences. Responding to the president's request that Congress find a way to avoid the sequester, a Fox Nation headline on Wednesday declared: "Obama Seeks to Void Cuts He Signed Into Law." That same day, Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy called the sequester "the invention of the White House." On Tuesday's edition of America Live, Fox's Chris Stirewalt said of the sequester: "remember, this was [Obama's] idea."

After the 2011 Budget Control Act passed, however, senior House Republicans hailed it as a potential game-changer on spending cuts -- a fact that Fox News has been hiding as the network blames Obama for the creation of the sequester. After it passed, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said the law "will finally begin to change the way Washington spends taxpayer dollars." Speaker of the House John Boehner touted the law as "a positive step forward that begins to rein in federal spending." House Budget Committee Chairman and former Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan said:

The Budget Control Act represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending and growing our economy. I applaud Speaker Boehner's leadership in stopping tax increases on job creators, rejecting President Obama's demands for a blank check to keep borrowing, and advancing real spending cuts and controls.

But the sequester contains spending cuts that will seriously weaken the economic recovery. MarketWatch reported that the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the sequester would halve U.S. economic growth this year, and the Bipartisan Policy Center estimated that it would cut one million jobs if it took effect. Recognizing these harmful effects, Obama is now urging Congress to find a way to further delay the sequester to find a permanent replacement to it.

[_subgenius]

though i appreciate your undying recognition of being "zinged" as a FOX-news-viewer-clone-deployed-at-MSNBC, your desperation has reached boring..

[_Kevin Graham]

Again thanks for starting this thread, sub. It will be updated regularly with examples that refute your nonsense. I know you'd like to think you gave me a "zing," but all you did was show how desperate you are to make a point.

Again, you're the same guy who called the First Lady a "female Patrick Ewing" and the same guy who, in this very thread, tried to use Phil Donahue's termination for being to Liberal, as evidence that MSNBC has a liberal agenda!

You don't exactly have all your ducks in a row, which is what you'll need before having a chance in a debate with me. Let me know when you're ready to be an adult.

[_subgenius]

Again thanks for starting this thread, sub. It will be updated regularly with examples that refute your nonsense. I know you'd like to think you gave me a "zing," but all you did was show how desperate you are to make a point.

you could have simply exclaimed "i know you are ,but what am i?"

Again, you're the same guy who called the First Lady a "female Patrick Ewing"

clearly she is....

and the same guy who, in this very thread, tried to use Phil Donahue's termination for being to Liberal, as evidence that MSNBC has a liberal agenda!

evidence of news being a commodity, nothing more nothing less...and on that point there is no difference between FOX and MSNBC, which is ultimately what you are unable to admit about yourself. While you claim FOX viewers are lemmings, being led about by the nose, you deny that the same is true with MSNBC viewers. You fail to recognize that both of these television outlets simply tailor their presentations to their audience...an unbias report is not available from either - however, you still insist that it is not that way.
You have a belly full of MSNBC Kool-Aid, and as you continue with your futile crusade against FOX it merely accentuates that fact.

You don't exactly have all your ducks in a row, which is what you'll need before having a chance in a debate with me. Let me know when you're ready to be an adult.

honestly, you have no interest in a debate...your only interest is an argument.
furthermore...
what ducks?
and
what adult?

[_Kevin Graham]

I'm still waiting for you to produce some examples of MSNBC engaging in the kinds of shamelessness that occurs at FOX on a daily basis. Your inability to come up with anything other than some unsophisticated, reductionist assertion that "all news networks are the same," remains humorous.

MSNBC is slamming Obama day and night over the drone issue which is first reported. Fact. It hires highly educated people to host its shows, which in and of itself is a huge departure from FOX. You just can't seem to wrap your mind around the fact that FOX is a whole new animal entirely. Since when did News stations have to defend their right to lie, in court?

In February 2004, Fox news won a legal appeal that declared the entity has no legal obligation to be truthful in its reporting.

The court agreed that Fox had indeed been untruthful, but ultimately agreed with Fox's argument that the FCC's policy against intentional falsification of the news is not a legal mandate, requirement or regulation and that Fox may falsify news reports

Welcome to the new age of integrity free "News", brought to you by none other than FOX News.

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox News opened a discussion on potential defense budget cuts with a graph which tracked changes in the United States' defense spending, pushing the distortion that the U.S. is lagging behind China and Russia. But Fox neglected to acknowledge the actual amount these countries expend on defense; in reality, U.S. defense spending is greater than the next 12 top-spending countries combined.

On the February 12 edition of America's Newsroom, host Bill Hemmer displayed a graph comparing the growth in the defense budgets of China, Russia, and the United States from 2007 - 2011. The chart, which assumed that sequester cuts to the U.S.'s defense budget will take effect, projected the change in these countries' defense budgets through 2015.



Hemmer explained that, "We just wanted to give viewers at home an idea about what countries are doing over the past four years and the coming four years from here," and that for the current year on defense spending, "China goes up, Russia goes up, and the U.S. remains flat when compared to these other two countries." In the next four years, Hemmer claimed, "on the percentage they will contribute on their defense budget, China is about 300 percent increase, Russia's not too far behind, [and] the United States is not only flat, but it's trailing now as we move toward the year 2015." The graph segued into a discussion with Fox military analyst Major General Robert Scales on how cuts to the U.S. defense budget will harm our military capacity.

Fox's chart, focused exclusively on growth in defense spending across a specific period of time compared to 2004 budgets, suggests China and Russia are far out-scaling the U.S. on defense spending. But date constraints and percentage change in budgets are meaningless outside the context of actual expenditure. Hemmer conveniently disregarded the actual dollar amount the U.S. spends on defense compared to China and Russia.

The U.S. spends more on defense than the next 12 top-spending countries combined. PolitiFact examined data by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), both "considered to be leading authorities on worldwide military spending numbers," and determined that, "In 2011 -- the most recent year available -- the United States led the world in military spending at $711 billion ... The next top 12 spending nations accounted for a combined total of $670.9 billion." IISS data discovered that the U.S spends $252.6 billion more on defense than the next top nine nations.

SIPRI also found that U.S. military spending accounted for 41 percent of the world's total military spending in 2011. The U.S.'s expenditure is about five times more than the second-highest spender, China, which accounted for 8.2 percent of the world total. Russia's military spending is in third place with 4.1 percent.

The United States' defense spending compared to the rest of the world looks something like this, from George Washington University's School of Media Public Affairs:



When weighing the percentage of GDP a country dedicates to defense spending, the U.S. still leads China and Russia. The World Bank charts military expenditures from the U.S, Russia, and China as a percentage of their GDP from 2003 - 2011:



If sequester cuts take effect, however, the Pentagon's budget will be reduced by $42.7 billion. But no serious discussion of changes to the U.S. defense budget is legitimate without disclosing the realities of where America's defense spending currently stands compared to the rest of the world.

[_subgenius]

So sad
You are so confused
Hemmer did not lie, just seasoned the story for the audience...
Meanwhile you deny that examples have already been given you...
MSNBC lied about
The sandy hook heckler
Romney rally comments
Romney Wawa audio
when Phil Griffin contradicted Mika Brzezinski about White House talking points
Chris Matthews lied about unemployment when he was on Real Time
...and so on

But hey, what does Pew research have to say?
http://m.now.msn.com/msnbc-more-biased- ... nter-study

Cable channel MSNBC has shown more bias in its political news than Fox’s TV coverage, according to a study by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism

Ouch, that is good science

So, while you try to frame a lesser than two evils argument, the rest of us are buddy thinking for ourselves and not drinking the Kool Aid from either of the brainwashing news shows that you apparently.....love.

[_Kevin Graham]

Uh, no idiot, every "example" you have provided has backfired on you and that's why you're trying to squirrel away, hoping to somehow save face. But that endeavor is a lost cause. You've already ruined whatever credibility you thought you had before showing your true colors as a despicable person who is left with attacking someone's physical features. Just like your preferred "News" station has a history of attacking anyone who supports Obama.

Just yesterday FOX News mocked the 102 year old lady who had to wait hours in line to vote. Why? Well, that's just the kind of people they are. They're your kind of people.

Fox Mocks 102-Year-Old's Long Wait To Vote

But this is just par for the course. Their latest idiotic "coverage" involved another deception coupled with bad arithmetic.

Fox Claims That Declining Minimum Wage Is "Growing Exponentially"

Fox Business correspondent Nicole Petallides criticized President Obama's proposal to raise the minimum wage to $9 per hour with an exaggerated claim that ignores the decades-long declining trend in the real value of the minimum wage.

Petallides misleadingly claimed on Fox & Friends that the minimum wage "really has grown exponentially" by citing increases since 2007 and that business owners say raising the minimum wage "would probably hurt business and raise unemployment"

In fact, the minimum wage's purchasing power has seen decades of decline, and despite increases phased in from the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, is still below the value it had in the late 1960s. The New York Times reported that "the federal minimum wage has failed to keep pace with inflation in recent decades." And Bloomberg explained that the value of the federal minimum wage dropped from 1967 through 2010 even as its "nominal figure climbed to $7.25 an hour." The Bloomberg article included the below chart depicting the drop:



The Economic Policy Institute noted in its latest edition of The State of Working America that this decline in the value of the minimum wage meant that "low-wage workers, despite being older and better-educated than in the late 1960s, had a lower wage floor. The weakness of the minimum wage is more apparent when noting that in 2011 it was just 37 percent of the typical worker's hourly wage, while in the late 1960s it averaged about half the typical worker's hourly wage"

Additionally, contrary to Petallides' suggestion that it would lead to more job losses, economists have found that raising the minimum wage would not negatively affect employment.

And then of course, they continue to misinform their audience with lies about gasoline prices.

Why Fox's Bill Hemmer Shouldn't Report On Gasoline Prices

Fox News host Bill Hemmer highlighted a recent increase in gasoline prices to raise concerns about its "drag on the economy," then claimed that gas prices "rarely" decrease. But the very chart Hemmer used during the segment debunks his own claim -- and Hemmer has previously fearmongered over the economic impact of low gas prices as well.

During the February 14 edition of America's Newsroom, Hemmer followed Fox Business host Stuart Varney's assertion that gas is at "the highest price ever for a gallon of regular gas in the month of February" by pointing to a chart comparing gas prices in early 2012 with those in 2013:



Hemmer said that gas is currently "up 11 or 12 cents over the average where we were a year ago," then repeatedly emphasized the "drag" rising gas prices could have on the economy before concluding, "When these prices go up, rarely do they go back down."

But Hemmer's own chart debunks this claim. As Hemmer noted, average gas prices in January 2013 were "10, maybe even 15 cents" lower than those in January 2012.

Indeed, gas prices regularly fluctuate, as this chart of prices over the past year shows:



Various factors influence seasonal oil price fluctuations. The price of crude oil has recently increased due to the global increase in demand, and experts have noted that gas prices routinely increase at this time of year as refineries slow production to transition to summer-blend gasoline.

And although Hemmer's co-host Martha MacCallum said, "When you start to pay more for gas at this time of year, you start to wonder what it's going to be come May and June," AAA recently predicted that the national average price of gas "is likely to peak this spring at a lower price than in 2011 ... and 2012," due to fewer conflicts in oil-producing regions.

Hemmer's current concerns over the impact of high gas prices are particularly interesting given that last May, Hemmer worried that low gas prices "could be a sign of a looming global economic crisis." Fox News has a history of using gas prices both high and low to attack President Obama -- even though experts agree that presidents can't control the price of gas.

All you have is an idiotic survey that found MSNBC had more "negative" coverage of Romney than FOX did during a short span. This in no way proves MSNBC is more "biased," all it says is that there is more negativity coming from Romney and FOX was unwilling to cover it, for obvious reasons. SO here you go. Two more examples from just TODAY. The pile is mounting quickly, and you've yet to produce a single comparable example from MSNBC, even in your stretch to find examples archived from years ago. LOL!

[_Droopy]

...almost as much as MSNBC, but MSNBC goes the extra mile....

On Martin Bashir's program on MSNBC, the edit makes it appear that Mr. Heslin was arbitrarily interrupted by members of the audience instead of them responding to his question.

Martin Bashir later went on to say that Heslin was "interrupted by the cries of a heckler".

Heslin spoke for a total of fifteen minutes, twenty-nine seconds and the audience response to a direct question from him lasted for less than six seconds of his time.

LINK to video comparison HERE

Liberal censorship and bias reporting?!?! wha??

Nawwww. That can't be Graham. Where's the Che Guavara T-shirt, the Little Red Book, and the lapel pin that says, "God is Dead."?

[_Kevin Graham]

Fox Deceptively Edits Obama Remarks On Sequestration To Manufacture Backtracking Claim

Fox News deceptively edited a video of remarks recently made by President Obama to falsely accuse him of backtracking from earlier warnings on the harmful effects of upcoming spending cuts.

On February 27, President Obama spoke at a Business Council dinner about the harmful economic effects of across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. Fox & Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade introduced a deceptively edited selection from these remarks, saying that the remarks were evidence that Obama "overstated a little bit" the effects of sequestration. After airing the deceptively edited video, co-host Gretchen Carlson said: "Now he has to backtrack on his strategy. Why? Because come Friday or Saturday, if suddenly the world didn't fall apart, his credibility would fall apart."

Fox also aired the following graphic during the edited video of Obama's remarks:



But Fox deceptively removed crucial context from its video of Obama's comments. The full context of Obama's remarks shows that he was saying that the effects of the spending cuts may not hit the wider economy right away [what Fox provided is in bold]:

OBAMA: I should point out, and I am sure you have heard from a number of experts and economists that this is not a cliff, but it is a tumble downward. It's conceivable that the first week, the first two weeks, the first three weeks, the first month, that unless your business is directly related to the defense department, unless you live in a town that is directly impacted by a military installation, unless you are a family that is trying to figure out where to keep your kids during the day because you just lost a Head Start slot, a lot of people may not notice the full impact of the sequester. But this is going to be a big hit on the economy, and both private sector as well as public sector economists are estimating that we could lose as much as six-tenths of a point, maybe a little bit more, of economic growth. And that means inevitably hundreds of thousands of people who are not going to get jobs that otherwise would get them. It means that you have fewer customers with money in their pockets ready to buy your business's -- your goods and services. It means that the global economy will be weaker, because although we obviously still have a long way to go in the recovery, we are doing significantly better than some of the other developed nations. And the worst part of it is, it's entirely unnecessary.

Fox & Friends removed Obama's assertion that it's possible that many Americans may not feel the effects of the cuts for several weeks to manufacture an accusation that Obama has backtracked from previous claims about the harmful effects of the sequestration.

As Obama mentioned in his remarks, economic forecasters agree that the sequestration cuts will harm both economic growth and job creation. The Bipartisan Policy Center's Steve Bell wrote that over one million jobs could be lost due to sequestration and that economic growth would be slower "because of the ripple effect of the sequester cuts on smaller businesses and on government personnel." Furthermore, The Wall Street Journal reported that a survey conducted by the National Association of Business Economists of 49 economists "found that 95% say the uncertain U.S. fiscal situation is a drag on the country's growth prospects. Those worries aren't limited to the budget slashing set to take place on Friday alone, but also include a possible late-March government shutdown and a spring debate over the debt ceiling."