How often do posters here blast the New York Times for being a lefty, progressive, solely left-wing supporting newspaper?

Read this cover article from the popular Sunday Review section. It's enticed, "What Happened To Obama?". After you read it, come back and tell us that the Times always supports the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...=1&ref=opinion

I read it and it is filled with left-wing nonsense. It said that everybody across the political spectrum wants the "wealthy" to pay more. It also says that there is global warming because of our fuel.

Average people know that the wealthy will not hire if they are burdened with government taxes and regulations. Most American are happy that people make it in life. Most Americans are striving to get ahead and make something of themselves. Look what class envy has done to England.
The American way is to work hard and get ahead, not sit back and collect food stamps.


Surprised you haven't made a post in my
Looming Catastrophe thread.

Village,as usual your response is total fabrication. In all polls even Fox polls Americans want the wealthy to pay more. And this nonsense that the wealthy create jobs is really not true. I don't think you read the article at all,you saw ir was about Obama and so it must be lies. I do think someone without a built in prejudice would have seen the article for what it was.......a theory on the failures of the President and why he has failed to live up to the expectations of the people who voted for him.

Originally Posted by waynet

Village,as usual your response is total fabrication. In all polls even Fox polls Americans want the wealthy to pay more. And this nonsense that the wealthy create jobs is really not true. I don't think you read the article at all,you saw ir was about Obama and so it must be lies. I do think someone without a built in prejudice would have seen the article for what it was.......a theory on the failures of the President and why he has failed to live up to the expectations of the people who voted for him.

I do say. I suggest you go read it again. It is full of lies and hearsays.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

How often do posters here blast the New York Times for being a lefty, progressive, solely left-wing supporting newspaper?

Read this cover article from the popular Sunday Review section. It's enticed, "What Happened To Obama?". After you read it, come back and tell us that the Times always supports the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...=1&ref=opinion

I read the New York Times at least 4/5 days a week and while some things are covered with a bit of a twist, I find no fault with the paper. I dont read the editorial page, now but the news coverage is great for the most part

I thought that op-ed piece was as negative towards Obama as any thoughtful article I've read anywhere. My point was that even the NYT is capable of publishing articles that are decidedly anti-Obama.

Amazing that some people sift thru a long article to find something they don't like or don't agree with and focus their comments only on those words.

Buy hey, why am I not surprised?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I thought that op-ed piece was as negative towards Obama as any thoughtful article I've read anywhere. My point was that even the NYT is capable of publishing articles that are decidedly anti-Obama.

Amazing that some people sift thru a long article to find something they don't like or don't agree with and focus their comments only on those words.

Buy hey, why am I not surprised?

While I agree with your take on the NYT...which I read just about every day, but it is no different than those who always attack Fox...if you dig deep enough you will find something to rile you.

Having said that, I do have a problem with the media in general..they missed the boat or ignored it in 2008 and have not caught up yet.

It is not full of lies and hearsays......usually it is you who fill these pages with that stuff. Read it again.

Originally Posted by waynet

It is not full of lies and hearsays......usually it is you who fill these pages with that stuff. Read it again.

Ah, sticks and stones will break my bones.........

So anyway, the topic:

The commentary was interesting because it accurately presented the situation in 2008, as well as the power and destructive force of "the villain".
History has repeated itself to an extent and, like FDR, one would like to imagine Obama declaring war on the robber barons and putting everybody back to work.

But things are quite different now. Compared to the situation when Obama began, the 30's depression had had a far deeper impact on a higher percentage of Americans when FDR took office. More people were far more desperate than they are now, willing to work at anything, even difficult, physical and 'messy' jobs. It was much more feasible to put millions to work in infrastructure building and related manufacturing industries than it is now. Remember, we aren't manufacturing anymore. Bridge, road and courthouse building doesn't use an unskilled workforce army anymore. The infusion of government cash, which was far more available to FDR than to Obama, allowed millions to rise out of poverty and become full-fledged consumers, which really did turn things around, because the stuff consumed was all made here. Talk about bang for the buck.

Twenty/twenty hindsight says the new Obama could have been ruthless with Wall Street and demanded the rich increase their contributions to society. My belief is the media would have roasted him unmercifully for this extremist position, and he would have immediately created enormous opposition, interfering with his ability to do anything. The media did not have that power to sensationalize FDR's agenda. Instead, Obama tried to check corporate greed more subtilely and take a shot at the unreachable goal, health care. In the years to come we will see how the template of the new health care system will benefit us as a nation.

The intransigent Republicans, especially the tea party newbies have changed the game. Their myth about the wealthy providing jobs has been exposed. The necessity to require new revenue streams from the wealthy is finally gaining momentum. It's easy to say that even though additional revenue from the wealthy has been part of Obama's plan from the beginning, he has not insisted on it until now. But I think he finally has the support to lead a movement to significant tax reform. I imagine him stewing, planning to find ways to compel S&P to reconsider - while Congress rests.

Let's wait a little longer for a final judgement on what the President has accomplished.

Originally Posted by ijusluvit

So anyway, the topic:

The commentary was interesting because it accurately presented the situation in 2008, as well as the power and destructive force of "the villain".
History has repeated itself to an extent and, like FDR, one would like to imagine Obama declaring war on the robber barons and putting everybody back to work.

But things are quite different now. Compared to the situation when Obama began, the 30's depression had had a far deeper impact on a higher percentage of Americans when FDR took office. More people were far more desperate than they are now, willing to work at anything, even difficult, physical and 'messy' jobs. It was much more feasible to put millions to work in infrastructure building and related manufacturing industries than it is now. Remember, we aren't manufacturing anymore. Bridge, road and courthouse building doesn't use an unskilled workforce army anymore. The infusion of government cash, which was far more available to FDR than to Obama, allowed millions to rise out of poverty and become full-fledged consumers, which really did turn things around, because the stuff consumed was all made here. Talk about bang for the buck.

Twenty/twenty hindsight says the new Obama could have been ruthless with Wall Street and demanded the rich increase their contributions to society. My belief is the media would have roasted him unmercifully for this extremist position, and he would have immediately created enormous opposition, interfering with his ability to do anything. The media did not have that power to sensationalize FDR's agenda. Instead, Obama tried to check corporate greed more subtilely and take a shot at the unreachable goal, health care. In the years to come we will see how the template of the new health care system will benefit us as a nation.

The intransigent Republicans, especially the tea party newbies have changed the game. Their myth about the wealthy providing jobs has been exposed. The necessity to require new revenue streams from the wealthy is finally gaining momentum. It's easy to say that even though additional revenue from the wealthy has been part of Obama's plan from the beginning, he has not insisted on it until now. But I think he finally has the support to lead a movement to significant tax reform. I imagine him stewing, planning to find ways to compel S&P to reconsider - while Congress rests.

Let's wait a little longer for a final judgement on what the President has accomplished.

So, the poor create the jobs? Really. What this President has done will take decades to recover from!!!

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

How often do posters here blast the New York Times for being a lefty, progressive, solely left-wing supporting newspaper?

Read this cover article from the popular Sunday Review section. It's enticed, "What Happened To Obama?". After you read it, come back and tell us that the Times always supports the left.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...=1&ref=opinion

Ummmm.....NYT does not "always" support the left, but this guest columnist's first 3.5 pages point out how Obama has not been leftist enough!!

I think the most useful portion of the column is this part, where the psychologist poses explanations for the total flop this presidency is:

"........A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history. Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues......."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...=2&ref=opinion

Originally Posted by ilovetv

...I think the most useful portion of the column is this part, where the psychologist poses explanations for the total flop this presidency is:

"........A second possibility is that he is simply not up to the task by virtue of his lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history....

That's what I was talking about when I said that this was the most negative anti-Obama article I've ever read in the Times.

But I did laugh when some readers here somehow found the article to be pro-left and pro-Obama. Maybe we were reading different articles!

Originally Posted by ilovetv

Ummmm.....NYT does not "always" support the left, but this guest columnist's first 3.5 pages point out how Obama has not been leftist enough!!

I think the most useful portion of the column is this part, where the psychologist poses explanations for the total flop this presidency is:

"........Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography; and that, before joining the United States Senate, he had voted "present" (instead of "yea" or "nay") 130 times, sometimes dodging difficult issues......."
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/op...=2&ref=opinion

Those of us who saw thru his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to pay attention to all the disquieting aspects of his biography......

Those who were bewitched by his eloquence will be right there to vote him back in for another 4 years.

On a few rare occasions I've read something on the Op-ed pages of the NY Times that are not the usual views expressed on the Editorial page which really reflect the liberal philosophy of the paper and this may just be one of those rare cases. This does not in my opinion, mean that the Times has become "Fair and Balanced".