Joe Biden Now Leads Donald Trump in Ten Polls

MSNBC should have been permanently shut down and sued into oblivion for doctoring the George Zimmerman 911 call, which lead to billions of dollars of destruction and multiple people dead. But ho hum, it was an 'honest mistake' I guess

 

Link?

 

1. What is this "pre-covid" crap?

2. No, Trump was ****ing it all up even though he'd inherited a strong economy:

https://www.epi.org/blog/the-trump-...pre-covid-19-19-economy-too-just-more-slowly/

You don’t have to be an economist to know how the U.S. economy is doing today: It’s an utter shambles, with tens of millions of workers unable to find the work they need to get by, and with tens of millions of families facing extreme hardship and anxiety. These terrible conditions are mostly the result of the failure to manage and contain the COVID-19 outbreak, and the failure to appropriately respond in the economic policymaking realm.

President Trump, however, clearly wants voters to see the COVID-19 outbreak and fallout as nobody’s fault, and further wants to be graded on how the economy was doing pre-COVID-19. This is obviously absurd; the administration didn’t cause COVID-19, but it is responsible for the botched response to it.

Even besides this, however, it is far from clear that the pre-COVID-19 U.S. economy was evidence of good management or policy, a fact that voters seem increasingly aware of. In fact, Trump administration policies were squandering the pockets of strength in the U.S. economy that they inherited from their predecessors by using them to disguise the rapid erosion their policies were causing to U.S. families’ economic security.


This might seem like an odd claim, given that the stock market grew sharply before the COVID-19 shock, and that the unemployment rate sat at 3.5% at the beginning of 2020. But the stock market is a mostly meaningless indicator of economic security for the vast majority of Americans. The bottom 90% of households, for example, hold just 12% of corporate equities (directly or indirectly). Low unemployment, conversely, is a useful signal of broad-based economic health, but low unemployment is only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one, to declare an economy is working well for typical families.

An economy’s overall health, and how well it is serving its basic function of improving human happiness, is mostly a function of three facets: supply, demand, and distribution.

The economy’s supply side is its underlying productive capacity: how much income it could produce if all available labor and capital were fully utilized. This should grow over time as the workforce and the capital stock get bigger and more efficient, and this hopefully translates into broad-based income growth over time.

The economy’s demand side is the desired spending of households, businesses, and governments. These spending demands provide the spur to employers to hire people and to make sure that the economy’s potential capacity is put into use and generates actual income for people.

The economy’s distributive side is the set of institutions and policies that give (at least some) workers leverage and bargaining power to claim a fair share of overall income growth. Collective bargaining is historically the most important such institution.

These three facets of the economy’s health—demand, supply, and distribution—obviously interact. When demand is strong, employers are spurred to hire, which in turn makes available workers scarcer and provides them some leverage to achieve wage gains, affecting distribution. When demand is weak, the resulting glut of workers and depressed wage demands saps the incentive of firms to invest in labor-saving technologies and so growth in the supply side suffers. When distributive policy leads to concentration of income at the top of the distribution, where households save more than they spend of any additional dollar, demand predictably suffers. In short, an economy that reliably delivers the goods to typical families has to be working well in all three areas.

What has the Trump administration done to strengthen these three facets of economic health? Almost nothing, but it has often undermined them.

The strongest facet of the U.S. economy pre-COVID-19 was demand—spending was strong enough to keep employers robustly hiring and to drive unemployment to its lowest level in decades. Yet Trump administration policies had very little to do with this. The Federal Reserve was unusually supportive of this strong demand growth, and a bipartisan congressional deal in 2018 finally relieved some of the fiscal austerity that had constrained growth before. The main contribution from the Trump administration was their 2017 tax cut, which was extraordinarily inefficient in spurring demand growth, given just how much it cost in terms of fiscal resources. The reason for this inefficiency was obvious: The lion’s share of the tax cut went to already-rich corporations and households, who tend to save rather than spend most of any extra dollar they’re given.

On the supply side, the Trump administration would claim that this same tax cut boosted incentives for firms to invest in the economy’s capital stock. The data show pretty conclusively that this is wrong—business investment was absolutely plummeting well before COVID-19 had even appeared in China, let alone the United States.

On the distributive side, the administration was extraordinarily active in cramming through regulations and rules that undercut typical workers’ leverage and bargaining power. For decades, policy efforts to undercut workers’ bargaining power had redistributed trillions of dollars upward, and made workers dependent on ever-lower levels of unemployment just to see any wage increases at all. Trump administration policies put this into overdrive.

This distributive assault might explain an odd finding in the data on household income that has characterized the Trump administration: Measured correctly, income growth during the Trump administration has been slower than it was for the second Obama administration, even with unemployment lower in the more-recent years. Between 2013 and 2016, income growth averaged 2.6% per year, but in the first three years of the Trump administration, it has averaged just 2.1%. Besides unemployment being slightly lower in the Trump administration, productivity growth has also been slightly more rapid (as employers responded to tightening labor markets by trying to economize on labor costs), and yet median household income still has grown more slowly in the Trump administration.

This poor income growth during the Trump administration could be a statistical fluke. But it’s also exactly what one would expect from an incompetent economic manager squandering the pockets of strength it inherited from its predecessors. We should all realize now that the economic shock of COVID-19 didn’t just cause economic damage; it also exposed the damage that had been done for decades—and accelerated by the Trump administration—by policymakers who had undermined typical U.S. families’ access to economic security.

 

Some of us consider the primary purpose of an economy to prepare for the next war

 

That's not quite right.

Let's center on the world 'edit' versus 'doctor'.

Your use of 'doctoring' implies intentional deception, but there was a lawsuit and it was determined that NBC edited the tape, but didn't mean to imply Zimmerman was racist. NBC admitted their error which inadvertently implied Zimmerman was racist, and apologized. So 'doctoring' hasn't been proven in court.

More detail:

In 2012, NBC faced criticism for editing the 911 call made by George Zimmerman, who was involved in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch member who called the police to report Martin’s suspicious activities

During the call, Zimmerman described Martin as “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.” However, NBC edited the call, omitting the dispatcher’s question about Martin’s race, which led to misleading implications

NBC later apologized for the error, attributing it to a mistake in the production process and promising steps to prevent such incidents in the future.

While the editing of the 911 call was indeed problematic, it did not directly lead to “billions of dollars of destruction” or multiple deaths

The controversy surrounding the case did spark protests and discussions about racial profiling, gun laws, and media responsibility. However, attributing widespread destruction and loss of life solely to this incident would be an exaggeration.

George Zimmerman himself filed a lawsuit against NBC Universal, alleging defamation due to the edited 911 call. The lawsuit claimed that the misleading editing harmed his reputation and portrayed him unfairly

However, the legal outcome was not that MSNBC should be “permanently shut down and sued into oblivion.” Instead, the case was settled out of court in 2013, with the terms remaining confidential.

So, while the editing of the 911 call was a serious journalistic error, the consequences were not as extreme as you imply.

Now, of course, you could be entirely correct, it's just that your contention hasn't been proven in court.

Frankly, I don't like Zimmerman, I think he is a racist, and he was biased against a man wearing a hood, black man wearing a hood in a predominately gated white neighborhood and he was itching to play cop -- had a bone up his butt and a chip on his shoulder and was trigger happy. That is a recipe for a dead man waiting to happen. I think he should be put away for murder. No man with chip on his shoulder should be allowed to brandish a gun.

 

Thank you.

 

That's kind of sad, don't you think?

 

I'm not sure that I trust polls much, but it would be more useful to just look at swing states. Being even more popular in California, or even less popular in Idaho, isn't going to change anything. Those states are baked in regardless of margins.

 

Nemesis, make sure you use the quote tags, or italics (or both) when you quote, i thought that you had written all of that.

Thanks for the informative post.

 

Sure thing.

 

NBC Apologizes to George Zimmerman for Editing a 911 Call to Make Him Sound Really Racist (businessinsider.com)
NBC Apologizes For Doctoring 911 Call To Make Zimmerman Sound Racist | IBTimes

That took all of 3 seconds. Maybe your memory isn't as good as mine

 

I know. I'm sure it was just an honest mistake.

Link Zimmerman had a chip on his shoulder? From what I recall, he was hispanic (not white as the liberal media portrayed), dated a black girl, was on neighborhood watch due to a rash of break ins, and got jumped from behind by St. Trayvon.

The saddest thing I remember, is how NASA lost a future astronaut...

 

At least I remember Covid.

 

See, pre covid was the time before every state was shut down, and every democrat governor kept their states that way for far too long.

As for the BLOG you posted. There are little facts and a lot of opinion from the liberal writer. Imagine that

 

Doesn't seem like you remember much of anything, at least having to do with reality.

 

It’s informative and bears a passing resemblance to real world economics. If you believe that it’s wrong, have at it instead of doing nothing but pointing out that it’s a blog. Give it a try.

 

OK, the projection is soooo off the charts there.

When was MSNBC or NPR for that matter, every fined for lying to the public ? You claim Democrats "want to be lied to", yet it is those crazy lefties that pointed out that Fox was lying. Fox was fined a BILLION $$$ for lying. When was MSNBC fined again ? Lemme guess, you still watch Fox, OAN and/or Newsmax right ?

My god man, you know nothing about Germany in the 20's and 30's because if you did you would know that Hitlers rise to power came from the the disenchanted CONSERVATIVES who felt they were being oppressed. Hindenburg was the president then, and he helped empower Hitler via Heinrich Brüning. Both Hindenburg and Bruning were CONSERVATIVES!!!

 

I don't need a liberal blog to spin why low gas, low cost of food, low unemployment, etc etc was a bad thing.

 

So when FOX WAS fined a billion $$ for lying, did you stop watching ?

The problem is that you think that the "leaving out the dispatchers comments from the call" caused the riots, and not Zimmerman following Martin, when told NOT TO BY THE DISPATCHER, and shooting an unarmed 17 year old boy ?

Thats some serious stretch Armstrong sir.....

 

I haven't watched Fox since election night, so yes. It's garbage, just like CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of them.

I believe leaving out the dispatchers comments, along with portraying Zimmerman as a white man, portraying Trayvon as a future astronaut, and Obama portraying him as his 'son', all worked to set off the riots.

And when someone is slamming the back of your head into the pavement, they are no longer 'unarmed'. If Trayvon would have snuck up behind him and hit him in the head with a concrete slab or a brick, would he still have been considered 'unarmed'?

 

So everything is garbage, except what you think the truth is ? When was CNN or MSNBC for that matter, every fined for lying in their news coverage.

All the networks lie in their "talk shows" but the news is a different story

So it was everything BUT Zimmerman shooting him ?

OK, then do you think that any of the other networks contributed to Zimmermens fear by consistently publicizing black crime ? (see how dumb that sounds ?)

ummmm, red herring anyone.......George Zimmermen put himself in that position, not Travon. Had Trevon gone into Georges house, or had approached him directly, you might have a case there. But since the exact opposite happened, Zimmerman was the aggressor by definition

 

What fine are you talking about? Are you referring to the 'settlement' with Dominion? I believe NBC had an undisclosed settlement with Zimmerman.

What networks publicize black crime? lol. If anything, they complete dismiss black crime. But one hispanic guy kills a black guy and it's 24/7 national news, protests and riots are organized, the president weighs in, etc, etc.

You're right, if Trayvon approached Zimmerman directly, things likely would have ended differently. Instead, Trayvon jumped him from behind

 

Your right, Trevon attacked him from behind because a man with a gun was following him, and he needed to protect himself from that. SO you expect and unarmed person to walk up to the nutbag with a gun following him ?

FFS man.

Yeah, it was all about one "hispanic man"...........

 

I think Zimmerman was a clown. But was he openly chasing Trayvon through the streets waving his gun around? That's news to me.

Nope, it was all about the liberal media whipping the gullible rubes into a frenzy long before any facts came out. Just like always

 

Yeah, Covid was awesome for inflation. And Trump did such a great job pulling the levers and pushing the buttons of “the economy” from dawn to dusk in the Oval Office! How did he do that again?