Cut and paste: "FOXfact[s]" about GOP budget nearly identical to GOP Rep. Ryan's op-ed
SUMMARY: While interviewing Rep. Paul Ryan, Fox News aired "FOXfact[s]" purporting to describe facts about the House Republican budget. However, all of the seven on-screen "FOXfact[s]" were nearly identical to portions of an op-ed Ryan published in that day's Wall Street Journal.
During the April 1 edition of Fox News' Happening Now, while co-host Jon Scott interviewed Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Fox News aired "FOXfact[s]" purporting to describe facts about the House Republican budget. However, all of the seven on-screen "FOXfact[s]" were nearly identical to portions of an op-ed Ryan published in that day's Wall Street Journal. For example, using nearly identical language, Fox News and Ryan's op-ed both characterized President Obama's cap-and-trade proposal as a "scheme." Ryan wrote, "We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme"; the "FOXfact" stated that the "GOP budget rejects the president's cap-and-trade scheme."
Media Matters for America previously noted that Scott passed off a GOP press release as Fox News' own research, even reproducing a typo contained in the Republican press release.
Below are the relevant portions of Ryan's Wall Street Journal op-ed, followed by screen captures of the "FOXfact[s]."
1. From Ryan's op-ed:
"The Republican budget achieves lower deficits than the Democratic plan in every year."
2. From Ryan's op-ed:
"Under our plan, debt held by the public is $3.6 trillion less during the budget period."
3. From Ryan's op-ed:
"Our budget gives priority to national defense and veterans' health care."
4. From Ryan's op-ed:
"We do these things by rejecting the president's cap-and-trade scheme."
5. From Ryan's op-ed:
"Our budget does not raise taxes, and makes permanent the 2001 and 2003 tax laws."
6. From Ryan's op-ed:
"Capital gains and dividends are taxed at 15%, and the death tax is repealed."
7. From Ryan's op-ed:
"The budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate."
What -
No old family recipes from Cindy McCain?
This is the only substantive difference.
"The budget permanently cuts the uncompetitive corporate income tax rate."
The Slide Show leaves off the "uncompetitive" part.
If I was MMfA, I would have said "identical in nearly every aspect". I came into this thinking that there was going to be some differences. Leaving off 'the' and abbreviating 'veterans' doesn't stop it from being virtually identical.
Yup, nice, right? And these get presented as "FACTS" without any checking, homework or balance.
hypocritical Republicans. They spent like there was no tomorrow during Bush and now the are the party of fiscal discipline, and their graph on this budget goes out 7o years! it's no wonder they have no credibility.
I agree that the republicans spent irresponsibly...and I won't fall for their fancy schmancy charts.
The CBO has scored Pres.Obama's budget and it shows that his budget will quadruple the deficit spending of the Bush administration...$8 trillion more than it takes in over the next 8 years.
I want to see the CBO score the republican proposal...then we can lay them side by side and see what the difference is...if any.
i don't trust the phony Republicans on fiscaly discipline after their last 8 years, that is what power in Washington does to politicians, they get drunk on it and our money. all this spending is bound to increase taxes, deficits cannot sustain themselves, it always comes home to roost. And who is going to pay the texes, of course the rich. reminds of the famous Winston Churchill quote on taxes, "We contend that for a nation to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
-- like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle -- james
LOL...I agree with you and ole Winston.
Pres.Bush's bucket was a despicable $2 trillion bucket...the Pres.Obama bucket is a whopping $8 trillion bucket...which even Hercules could not hoist.
Despite all the noise from both aisles of congress...and the generic partisan whining on this site...the real issue is that spending is OUT OF CONTROL.
8 years of croaking about the miserable spending habits of Bush and the congress...and now those same frogs are proposing to increase that deplorable spending record by 400%.
It's lunacy.
croaking frogs, perfect. great post.
Despite all the noise from both aisles of congress...and the generic partisan whining on this site...the real issue is that spending is OUT OF CONTROL.
Wrong. While I think it's kinda nice you have a place you can come and whine about government spending, that's not the real issue here. Sorry.
was a reply to wesley
Spendng is a problem, but this budget is flat out ridiculous. It is merely an attempt to perpetuate the farce of supply side economics. I can't help but wonder if you guys on the right won't be happy until everyone who is wealthy pays no income taxes at all. If you take the supply side argument to its logical conclusion: the poor in this country will never be better off until the rich pay no income taxes. When will you guys understand that the rich don't pay any more overall taxes than your average middle class joe shmoe on the street? There is one inescapable fact about these massive income tax cuts for the wealthy......the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. How on God's green earth has the GOP succeeded in convincing middle class Americans to support a party who espouses this type of economic policy is beyond me.
Back to spending, I do agree that more responsibility is needed, but you guys have to remember: this nation now has over 300 million people, a massive infrastructure, and complex social problems. This isn't 1796 and to do as the Constitution tells us to do i.e. "promote the general welfare" money must be spent.
What always baffles me is that you guys on the right never have a problem with extra spending on war toys though. You would rather spend money on things that kill people instead of things that help people. Sad.
-- This isn't 1796 -- chrispage
You're dead bang right about that...and I'm waiting for you or someone else to support the president's budget proposal to spend $8 trillion more than we take in.
If you think that over spending our revenue by $8 trillion is the right thing to do...then put your stamp of approval on Pres.Obama's budget....and skip all the partisan semantics.
Obama’s budget invests heavily in average Americans [for a change] and it'll pay off in the end. We can’t keep neglecting our societal responsibilities.
I'll count that as a vote for over spending our revenue by 400% more than under the 8 years of the Bush administration...
I have no problem whatsoever with spending money to improve the lives of average Americans for a change. The previous administration with the support of congressional republicans threw our money down a black hole.
If Bush hadn't left us in such a hole, the deficit wouldn't grow nearly so quickly. If Bush had not led us into a war that Obama has to keep fighting and funding in Iraq, then the deficit wouldn't grow so large either. Hmmm, so far, Obama hasn't done anything wrong. Let's see. If the economy wasn't in the tank, Obama wouldn't need to be spending the stimulus money. Again, not his fault. If speculators hadn't ruined our financial markets, Obama wouldn't be putting us further into the hole by rescuing them. Not Obama's fault either.
Hmmmmm. Solving the problems that he didn't cause? Priceless.
-- Obama wouldn't be putting us further into the hole -- lulu
You're catching on.
I support it. Here is why...the Republicans just came out with a bat $h!t crazy budget which uses numbers from projections of the Bush Budget to criticize the Obama budget. I read it yesterday and it stinks. Next, neither them or YOU have offerred any alternatives. I listened to the President explain his budget and the spending issue at his press conference. I trust his words. Now, when you can explain to me exactly how his projection to cut the deficit in half in 5 years is wrong, you will have my ears concerning your charge of spending 8 trillion more than we take in. Until then, leave the right wing talking points at the door and come up with you own damn3d plan or shut up.
-- when you can explain to me exactly how his projection to cut the deficit in half in 5 years is wrong, you will have my ears concerning your charge of spending 8 trillion more than we take in. -- chrispage
The $8 trillion deficit is not my charge...it's documented by the CBO.
On cutting the deficit in half...here's what Politifacts says:
-- So technically, Obama is correct. But it's a bit misleading.
When Obama says he will halve the deficit, he's comparing it to a 2009 deficit that is massive and far, far above the norm. It's a deficit fueled by a major recession (translation: lost tax revenue) and boosted by costly recession-fixers like the bailouts last fall and the economic stimulus package passed in February. For comparison purposes, we note that the deficit in 2008 was $459 billion (and less than half that the year before). So the deficit is expected to nearly quadruple in 2009...
Obama is not saying he will be cutting the national debt by half in four or five years. To the contrary, the CBO projects the running total of the country's national debt — which was around $7 trillion when Obama took office — will increase to nearly $12 trillion in four years...
In summary, Obama is correct when he says the CBO predicts that under Obama's budget plan, the deficit would be cut in half in five year. But he's comparing it to a year we all hope is a major anomaly, which makes the dramatic-sounding achievement much easier. So we rule his statement Mostly True. --
JamesB it spot on, Wesley. Croaking frogs is correct! Good job!
Please let us know what you learn the next time you pull the cord on your See-N-Say
Very interesting math you're using there, wesley.
When Bush took power on 20 January 2001, the debt was at about 5.7 Trillion.
When Bush left power on 20 January 2009, the debt was at about 10.6 Trillion.
Bush policies added about 5 Trillion debt. Obama's projected addition is only 60% higher.........but thanks for playing, wes!
Source:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
You'll understand the math better when you learn the difference between the national debt and yearly deficit spending.
On the deficit spending...the CBO published their report on Pres.Obama's budget. With simple third grade skills of addition and subtraction...it shows that Obama's budget is projected to spend $8 trillion more than the govt. takes in.
On the national debt:
-- the CBO projects the running total of the country's national debt — which was around $7 trillion when Obama took office — will increase to nearly $12 trillion in four years. -- Politifact
I suggest you go to Krugman's website and learn the difference between national debt and deficit spending.
Only because it truthfully puts on the budget all the expenses that Bush lied about and kept off the budget. Quite a bit of that spending is to maintain the troops that Bush ignored in the iraq War and tried to keep off the books. Obama is putting those numbers on the books so they can be seen and reviewed, and since those numbers was all zero in the Bush budget, the spending will appear to be higher.
You're wrong again.
The budgets and spending of the Bush administration are now fully accounted for...and they spent $2 trillion more than they took in...it no longer has anything to do with off or on budget spending.
The budget of Pres.Obama...scored by the CBO will over spend the federal revenue by $8 trillion over the next 8 years.
Live in the present and say you're for Pres.Obama spending $8 trillion more than we have...which is 400 percent more than the irresponsible spending of Pres.Bush...or continue to wallow in partisan blather.
How did the deficit double?
Read the CBO report...it's all there.
Pres.Bush spent $2 trillion more than the govt. took in...and now Pres.Obama wants to increase that silliness by 400%...by spending $8 trillion more than we take in over the next 8 years.
If you're for that...let's hear you say it.
How did the deficit double?
One other thing: Where did you get that 8 trillion dollar number from?
The CBO report card on Pres.Obama's budget proposal.
Post a link.
Congressional Budget Office.
mmfa posted the link last Friday.
They can project anything. The number could be higher or lower depending on the state of the economy.
Wesley what you fail to realize is that running a deficit is not always bad. It depends on the types of things your deficit is attributed to. If it is running up trillions of dollars on unwarranted wars ... that's bad debt. However, if someone is asking me to sign up for a deficit that includes programs for healthcare, education and alternative sources of energy....then sign me up. Those programs are expensive and may run the deficit up now however they will help us (the people, not multi-national corporations or private defense contractors) in the long run.
-- Those programs are expensive and may run the deficit up now however they will help us (the people, not multi-national corporations or private defense contractors) in the long run. -- toddkephart
Fire away todd...I'm all ears.
Tell me how the $8 trillion deficit spending proposed by Pres.Obama will help the people...and it's 400% more than Pres.Bush over spent.
I don't need generic platitudes (unless that's all you have)...but I'd like a little detailed info on the benefits of Obama's spending spree.
I like how you skipped over the part about using the budget for wars that aren't helpful to us and went right to the "platitudes" lol.
Platitudes like education? Gee I don't know maybe the fact that the Obama budget redirects subsidies for student loans from banks straight to the students. A GAO report showed that each loan sent to Direct Loans (part of the US Dept of Educ.) costs $1.70 per $100 in loans. This is compared to the bank backed system which costs $9.20 per $100 in loans. Pell grants increase for each student from $4,731 to $5,350. It also turns those Pell Grants into entitlement programs that will makes sure those grants are increased every year. As opposed to universities raising tuition each year and grants staying at the same rates.
In addition to that you've got the $2,500 tax credit for families' college spending that can go towards books, computers, supplies, etc. This was also part of the stimulus plan.
Point is ... all of this helps encourage people that may not be looking at going to college because they can't afford it, that high education is a viable option. That help? Unless you think high education is just a trite subject.
And besdies that why is is only when a Dem is in office to we hear complaining about a deficit or budget? especially when Rep presidents in the past 25 years have run up nearly 90 percent of our deficit? Kindy ironic huh?
FOXfact? Republican talking point?
What's the difference...? Why does FOX even bother anymore hiding the fact that it's the propaganda wing of the Republican Party? Why not just put a big Republican Party banner on the screen? Would any of its viewers be surprised? No...they would probably cheer FOX for standing up for them.
I agree completely Irony. I would certianly respect Fox is they would simply label themselves as a conservative news outlet. Everybody pretty much knows it and for them to continue to label themselves as fair and balanced is disingenious at best. Look at their new blog site Foxnation. It specifically says "Finally a place to call home." It operates under the Fox News banner and is admittingly and obviously a conservative site. I have no problem with that besides the fact that they continue to try to portray themselves as an unbiased news source. Will they ever come out fo the closet?
Correct. To speak for them, the Republicans are relying upon a plumber called Joe who is neither a plumber nor named Joe, and a Governor called Bobby who isn't named Bobby.
To be fair, they really have a drug addicted country club elitist talking for them; Rush Limbaugh.
Isn't there some way to legislatively stop FakeNews? Aren't there any conflict of interest law or Equal Time Rule preventing the GOP from broadcasting its talking points verbatim without a counterargument?
We can't let them lose these small wars, just because we are in power again. I'm a firm believer in the Power of Small-- and so is Karl Rove, which is how he won so much elections we should have trounced them in. Let's not forget we can nitpick them into irrelevance, take away their ability to lie and be one-sided. Let's get these bastards.
Obviously, the budget should be handed over to FOX. Their methods for prediction are so powerful that estimates can be labeled as facts.
The republican budget brings in massively less revenue than Obama's. So which programs are getting the massively deep cuts?
Wow. I had no idea the answer is "all of them". http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_04/017548.php
Spending freeze? Really? I keep forgetting that the reactionary quadrant is all that's left of the party. Everyone else was voted out.
it will be business as usual.the republicans will contiue to protect the priviliged,that got us into this mess.the priviliged were reckless.always feeling that the bluecollar worker will bail us out.the blue collar worker has nothing to manufacture.our ships leave our ports empty,and return full.the free trade agreement,has cut off the invisible hand of adam smith.the borders are opened so that union and non union american workers wages are shrunk.that was the plan all along,to make us a service country.walmart and mcdonalds become the covetted job's.while,the pacific rim,and central america become the industrial base.be bold gop.make an effort to make a fair trade agreement.that all parties can flourish.