About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Special Report takes a "fair and balanced look" at whether the recovery plan is "socialism"

February 17, 2009 7:12 pm ET

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by jjamele2880 (February 17, 2009 7:22 pm ET)
         

      And what if it is?  It should not be enough for these idiots to yell "SOCIALISM!" as a way to trash the stimulus package.  Tell us WHY it's Socialism and then tell us why that is bad.  

      Christ, McCarthy has been dead for fifty years   When are we going to stop listening to morons who try to scare us with Cold War buzzwords?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by snoopy (February 17, 2009 7:52 pm ET)
           
        I guess republicans are all for democracy and letting the people decide - as long as they decide the way republicans want! So much for letting the people decide what they want...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by rick.ruskin (February 17, 2009 11:56 pm ET)
           
        Had you paid attention to the report, you would have realized that no one yelled socialism, the report questioned the criticism of the stimulus package and the cries of socialism and asked "is it valid" You just LOVE to bash Fox even when you are dead wrong in your premise!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by foghornleghorn (February 18, 2009 3:34 pm ET)
             

          cries of socialism and asked "is it valid"

          More of the "some people say" crap.  Real good reporting there, Bret, and not so good defense, rusky.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 5:35 pm ET)
               
            Hey Foggy----appropriate moniker I might add, I can only suggest you listen carefully to the report and what it actually says , not what you think or want it to say. Then quote back the full sentences that you are in disagreement with.  Think you can handle that. Or read on to the end of the thread and see how adults discuss an issue.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by brucek1102 (February 17, 2009 7:59 pm ET)
         
      the funniest line?  After the CAP analyst saying it's not socialism for the government to spend money, the reporter continues, "Semantics aside..."   perfect!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by sigtek44bc1345 (February 17, 2009 8:47 pm ET)
         
      I wonder if Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Reid and Obamanocchio are watching the stock market. Investors are sharing their confidence in the "stimulus" package. Another big drop today! Thanks to the three nancies.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (February 17, 2009 8:55 pm ET)
           
        Unless, you haven't been paying attention (and it appears that you haven't been), the stock market has been dropping like a rock for quite some time now, aside from the stimulus being passed. Take a look at what the market has been doing for say, oh, the last 4-6 months. In case you haven't noticed, the money from the stimulus hasn't been injected into the country, yet, and, we are in a deep recession at this point in time. You're going to have to look at the market at about, oh, a year from now to determine what the stimulus has, or has not done.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by funnymanpants (February 17, 2009 9:20 pm ET)
             

          >>You're going to have to look at the market at about, oh, a year from now to determine what the stimulus has, or has not done.

          That's just dumb. If I look out my window and it is cold today, that proves global warming is not happening. If I see the stock market doing bad, it means Obama is doing a bad job. It is really simple. Do I really need to look at the long term trend?

          Now if I look out my window and it is unseasonably warm, that is just natural variation in the weather. And if the stock market does well under Obama then it is because the free markets are rebounding. It is so simple, but you libtards just don't get it.  

          Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (February 18, 2009 3:36 pm ET)
           

        Another big drop today!

        And if you bothered to look into this further, analysts said the market dropped due to the stimulus not being TOO SMALL.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by rick.ruskin (February 19, 2009 12:41 am ET)
             
          Appparently the analysts you listen too do not know what they are talking about.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by sigtek44bc1345 (February 17, 2009 9:23 pm ET)
         
      In the stock market, magnolia, anticipation is everything, in case you haven't noticed,(and it appears you haven't). The stock market falling,in the last two quarters, was in anticipation of democrat leadership.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by funnymanpants (February 17, 2009 9:26 pm ET)
           
        Yea, that's it! You tell those libtards how it is! It was the Dems fault, I knew it, Rush told me. Thanks for reminding me.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 17, 2009 11:46 pm ET)
           
        So you readily admit that Clinton was the greatest president of all time. If stocks are your measure, that is...
        Report Abuse
      • Author by fairliberal (February 19, 2009 3:43 pm ET)
           
        You are correct to a degree, anticipation is extremely important to the stock market, however in this case it was a crumbling economic system that precipitated the decline.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rick.ruskin (February 17, 2009 10:05 pm ET)
         
       I would love to know what the specific objections to this report is. Lets review the report, the Fox moderator reports the fact that there has been criticism of the stimulus package and points out that some are saying that it is a move towards socialism.  He then asks the question "is it valid". He has not expressed an opinion either way.  He then brings on an economist who essentially supports the view and then a progressive who does not. Equal time for both sides and the reporter says "semantics aside". I see nothing wrong up to here. It was also stated that people on the left AND the right will use a crisis to further their agendas. Again, nothing biased there either and very true.  It was pointed out that we are drifting to the kind of social democracy practiced in Europe and statistics were shown to support that view. The report concluded with the reporter saying that we will just have to wait and see what happens.  I would suggest that people who have a problem with that report have no sense of objectivity what so ever, am I wrong? Media Matters is just attempting to stoke the fire with this report. And there will be plenty of readers who will fall for it.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (February 17, 2009 11:54 pm ET)
           
        Fox is promoting a useless inflammatory buzzword.

        Better to offer a discussion of the bill on its merits and keep the rube-running on the shelf.

        And what would be even better is to not allow the people who are always wrong and who just got done failing spectacularly to have any say in the discussion.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 12:00 am ET)
             
          The discussion centered around the opinion of a Univ of Maryland economist and a rep from the Center of American Progress. Did you even listen to the report? You are obviously blinded by ideology, facts be damned, who needs facts!
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 12:08 am ET)
               
            And in case you have forgotten Steeve, you use the same buzzword in the next post
            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (February 18, 2009 7:05 pm ET)
                 
              Thanks for spurring me to click the play button and discover that the Fox anchor, as advertised, did indeed promote socialism as a scare word.

              My later post was specifically designed to take the fear out of the word.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 8:14 pm ET)
                   
                And can you quote the statement, the whole statement, not just a short snippet , that he makes to support your claim. He cites the claims of others and asks if it is valid, does he not? He makes no editorial comment what so ever, you are hearing what you want to hear. Quote him, go ahead, you cannot and you know it.
                Report Abuse
          • Author by Übermensch (February 18, 2009 12:42 am ET)
               
            I believe what would have made this truly "fair and balancedâ„¢" is to have an opposing view of the stimulus plan by another economist, rather than someone who appears to be from the Center of American Progress. The "semantic aside" was a total blow-off of what Heather Bouchey had to say anyway (and by the way she is from the Center for Economic and Policy Research which the average viewer would not and could not have known that).

            So was it really equal time? or just painting a strong person with credibility in the segment for our side (like say an Economist from the University of Maryland ) and putting someone for the other side that seemed weak and with no credibility (like the views from the Center of American Progress represenative.)

            Is it valid? I'll let you decide.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 1:05 am ET)
                 
              Wikipedia identifies her as a senior economist with the Centeer of American Progress, formerly of the organization you refer to. She has a PHD in economics from the New School of Social Research. That seems pretty credible to me and I would guess others too. And regardless of her credentials, I still think it was a far more credible report than I see on MSNBC, the network that is so adored by many on this site. That is just my opinion, you and everyone else are entitled to your own, I just wish that you make it based on the facts.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by Übermensch (February 18, 2009 9:50 am ET)
                   
                But thats more or less my point.

                Fox didn't identify her as having a PHD in economics from the New School of Social Research. or holding office in the Center for Economic and Policy Research. They did however get the Economist from the University of Maryland credit correct, while blowing off hers. She may seem credible to you now, but not identifying a persons title and THEN saying "semantic aside" is misleading the viewer allowing them the opportunity to judge that her view in the segment was indeed...semantics

                If it truly is Fox' job to educate people and let the audience decide on the reporting than this example fails on that criteria.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 11:58 am ET)
                     
                  While I see the nuance in your opinion I think you are splitting hairs to a degree. Perhaps Fox should have said she was an economist from CAP like they identified the U of M guy as an economist. They did not elaborate on his credentials however. My point is that they brought in 2 equally credentialed guests to address the questions being posed, that is , are the claims of socialism valid. Fox did not comment as to the validity of the claims but raised the questions and let the experts speak. As they say, we report you decide.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by rick.ruskin (February 18, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
                       
                    One last thing, thanks for the discussion!
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by Übermensch (February 18, 2009 1:24 pm ET)
                         
                      Well the biggest problem in viewing the FNC for me is that equal weighed credentials are not always present. True, the two interviewed have, after doing some researched for ourselves, are found to have exponential knowledge about most thing economic related so their opinions are worth something. I stress again that the last segment that was shown with an opposing opinion was blown off as "semantics"

                      While this particular segment has balanced experts this is not always the case, more often than not I see Experts or primary sources for one side (pro-Fox view if you will) and representatives or tertiary sources for the opposing view (non-Fox view).

                      The News is in its place to perform a public service and to educate those who watch and listen to its content. Calling one opinion semantics whilst agreeing with another is not objective reporting for us to decide, they just decided for us.

                      And yes thank you for the discussion
                      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (February 17, 2009 11:47 pm ET)
         
      In case anyone doesn't know --

      We've done socialism. It works great. Let's do it some more.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mk3872 (February 18, 2009 10:01 am ET)
         

      So, based on the arguments of the right-wingies here in this thread ... If MSNBC were to do run a piece called, "Is the GOP leadership really that dumb?" you would consider that fair & balanced, too?

      Making an inflammatory statement, no matter who made the claim in the first place, such as Socialist, Communist or Terrorist, is not being fair & balanced.

      It should not take a PHD to realize that we are a capitalist society that is putting into place some new regulations and temporary measures to avoid a friggin depression.

      If FNC and the right wingies would take your heads out of your butts for a few minutes you would realize that and stop playing games.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by rick.ruskin (February 19, 2009 12:51 am ET)
           
        Your comment makes no sense, first off the word socialist is not inflamatory and reporting that someone said we are getting more socialist is nothing more than accurate. And bringing on 2 experts of differing views is the fair part or don't you get that. Try actually listening to the report and try to actually listen to the words, they are not to difficult to comprehend. You are hearing what you have been brainwashed to hear, not what is actually being said.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by sigtek44bc1345 (February 18, 2009 5:18 pm ET)
         
      In response to steeve asking me to admit that Clinton was the greatest president of all time using the dow/jones as a yardstick. Mr. Clinton's fiscal policies were extraordinary and helped build a surplus, however the stock market wasn't his best friend. The dow, under Clinton hovered between 5-7,000, if I remember correctly. As far as the greatest president of all time, I was raised to believe the president was a role model in all facetes of life. Mr. Clinton's moral philosophies failed every litmus test available, therefore rendering him a good president but a poor role model.
      Report Abuse