Reputable sources for news in the US.

[Hyve]

BBC News.

While they do have their slant on things, they're not as bad as some of the American services.

[Payday]

But it was passed before the inauguration right????

Submitted by GWB, final resolution approved by the House June 5 2008. Signed into law by President Obama Mar 11 2009.

Also from the wikipedia article you referenced:

"Decreased tax revenue and high spending resulted in an unusually large budget deficit of about $1.4 trillion, well above the $407 billion projected in the FY 2009 budget. A 2009 CBO report indicated that $245 billion, about half of the excess spending, was a result of the 2008 TARP bailouts. Tax cuts resulting from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 accounted for nearly half of the lost revenue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

[oblivionx]

Why the fuck did Bush not sign it for 7 fucking months he had it? Too busy at Crawford I reckon.

It's typical to allow a new president to sign their own budget. In this case they added like 400 billion + in spending to it before it was signed. Which made it 400 billion more than the CBO projected on top of the fact they blindly chose to ignore the prospect of lower tax receipts.

[Felya]

I guess this is the perfect example of how people come to believe things that aren't true.

It usually has to do with those who know the 'truth', choosing to slander, instead of correct. I will give you yet another opportunity to correct or insult me. Were Bush tax cut, 2 wars and TARP on that budget?

[Payday]

It's typical to allow a new president to sign their own budget. In this case they added like 400 billion + in spending to it before it was signed. Which made it 400 billion more than the CBO projected on top of the fact they blindly chose to ignore the prospect of lower tax receipts.

Do you attribute the FY2001 budget to Bush?

[Felya]

It's typical to allow a new president to sign their own budget. In this case they added like 400 billion + in spending to it before it was signed. Which made it 400 billion more than the CBO projected on top of the fact they blindly chose to ignore the prospect of lower tax receipts.

The tax receipt was already lower than the budget. It has been so, from Bushes first budget. Clinton handed over a budget that spent less than the tax receipt. Obama would have had to roll back Bush tax cuts, to return to at least the tax rate we had when tax receipts were higher than spending.

[Kujako]

Do you attribute the FY2001 budget to Bush?

Of course not. Bush stopped being President in '93. It goes Bush, Clinton, [deleted], Obama.

[chadwix]

BBC News.

While they do have their slant on things, they're not as bad as some of the American services.

They just refuse to run stories that go against their editors beliefs while polarizing on stories that do.

[Kasierith]

They just refuse to run stories that go against their editors beliefs while polarizing on stories that do.

Can you come up with a specific example where personal bias, and specifically personal bias, has kept them from telling a story? Outside of news relating directly to the UK; their slant in that area is fairly well known.

[Reeve]

I guess this is the perfect example of how people come to believe things that aren't true.

Can you agree that a HUGE portion of that deficit is the result of revenue shortfalls from the financial collapse of the US?

In 2009, revenues generated were 600 billion lower than expected while expenses were 400 billion greater than expected. About half those additional expenses were from TARP, and about half the reduced revenue was from the Stimulus tax cuts.

[Daelak]

Can you agree that a HUGE portion of that deficit is the result of revenue shortfalls from the financial collapse of the US?

In 2009, revenues generated were 600 billion lower than expected while expenses were 400 billion greater than expected. About half those additional expenses were from TARP, and about half the reduced revenue was from the Stimulus tax cuts.

Boom shaka-laka boom. Obivionx for Prezzz

Infracted: Please post more constructively and contribute to the thread with every post.

[Wells]

I'm still trying to figure out if Oblivion thinks O'Keefe is a credible news source as he seems to.

[ringpriest]

Since Obama has been in office they have prosecuted five (5) whistle-blower's, all five were in engaged in sensitive information with the military or law enforcement in some way. "Unprecedented" because they were all serving during the Bush administration and the only reason they were prosecuted when he left is just serendipity, if they were caught earlier they would of been prosecuted by the Bush DOJ.

The links I provided were from all the articles and on-air discussions NPR had regarding the DOJ's policy on whistle-blowing, and the background of each whistle-blower. In my opinion, any administration, whether it be Clinton's, Bush's, or Obama's, would have done the exact same thing. The articles go back to 2007, and in the case of Manning, they have over 1700 articles and discussions, ranging from the DOJ plea deal, to his treatment while in custody. Some are articles, some are on-air discussions from "Talk of the Nation" and "On point".

It is considered an "unheard degree" because they all were caught and prosecuted under one administration, not because the administration wanted to actively target federal servants who were giving away state secrets, that has always been a huge deal.

If the number was larger than five, and five mind you is larger than the cumulative total of the last two presidents before him, then it would of been a lot larger of story because it would seem there is a serious breach of a public servant's oath, and there probably some really shady shit going, more so than usual.

I agree, Obama is a center right president, and he hails from a nationally center-right party, Democrats. The federal government, mainly the high levels of our agencies, executive departments, and our Congress are stuck in a perpetual revolving door of big business and government.

I was certain it had been more than five, but I spent a while digging today, and you're right. I'm still no fan of Obama, and I do think NPR and PBS present their own slant to the news, but in this case, you're right and I'm wrong. I'm arguing a distinction without a difference here - I'm not going to demonstrate what I wanted, even if I was right (which I'm not).

In a way, that's actually a good thing - I do personally like NPR, and I'm glad to be convinced that they're being more evenhanded than I thought they were.

[Hypasonic]

I doubt there are any reputable sources of news in any country, as they all seem to be financed and controlled by their respective governments to keep the masses controlled.

Ye, I'm a total lunatic me.