Austerity and Budgets explained
In support of Beverly’s latest post and all her past postings wanting for Obama (or the Dem’s in general I would say) to explain the truth about how a government’s money really flows, I present this video from the Watson Institute. (via Didby at Hullaaloo.) I happen to agree, it would be nice if our president would get it straight, but…
The Watson Institute presents Mark Blyth on Austerity from The Global Conversation on Vimeo.
Of course, my pet peeve is that no one is talking about our nation’s equity. I am confident that the American family would get that part of financing as it relates to borrowing and investing. Heck, how long was it before Amazon broke even yet they kept right on borrowing and growing?* Or lets put it closer to home. How many Americans purchased a home that was valued at and borrowed against for the purchase that was equal to their annual income? What was the old rule…3 times the median income was the average home price?
*incorporated 1994, 1st profit announced 2002
I too agree that the President, or at least someone in a position of publicly perceived authority, should explain government finance and budgets. I don’t happen to believe that the Big O has such an intention, though I do believe he understands the issue better than his current words and actions would imply. As I have said umpteen times I also believe that the media, and especially the journalist profession, should be taking a more fact based approach to explaining the various sides to the argument between the parties. That’s not happening in any effective manner and until such a time that it does happen don’t expect the political class to be concerned with the facts of the issue. Here is a good example, from today’s NY Times, of that oft seen phenomenon of the false equivalence presentation.
And this article is labeled as falling in the sphere of news analysis. Good grief. Just read the headline:
“Dispute Over a Balanced Budget Is Philosophical as Much as Fiscal”
Philosophical??? This debate is pure ideology and there is a big difference between philosophy, wherein the facts of an issue are studied and discussed, and ideology, which on the other hand may have no concern for the facts of an issue, but focuses only on a belief system. Better journalism is an important part of maintaining a democracy. When will we see some semblance of that level of professional journalism? “… and when the rich and the government cease bribing treacherous pens and tongues to deceive them; when their interests are identified with those of the people.”
Rather than identifying with the One Percent.
I think the author was just using a softer word instead of “ideology” to you know, be fair and balanced.
Gotta laugh at this one noted in the NY article you posted:
“Republicans accused the White House of “never” balancing the budget…”
“I think the author was just using a softer word instead of “ideology” to you know, be fair and balanced.”
That is exactly the point. Is this journalism or is it creative writing? Is the author seeking a position as Press Secretary in some future Republican White House? You’re being kind to suggest that the author was just softening the reference. It’s a distortion of the truth. There is no way to soften that.