NPR forced to issue apology to Trump Jr.

[tres borrachos]

NPR is actually quite reliable.

Which is why they offered a very fast and lengthy correction. I wish FOX would do that.

I wish I'd wake up tomorrow and find Sean Hannity laying next to me in bed. Neither one of those things will happen.

 

[Irwin Corey]

NPR forced to issue apology to Trump Jr. Fox News Published on Dec 1, 2018




Turns out Trump Jr. did not lie during testimony alleged to contradict Cohen's testimony about the Trump building project.

NPR rushed a story without verification of the facts, and the MSM ran with it.

Trump Jr. was talking about a different issue in his testimony, and said nothing to contradict (or support) the issue raised by Cohen's testimony.

Well! There you go again! They weren’t “FORCED”, they did so gracefully and of their own volition.

:roll:

 

[JasperL]

The quote I offered was accurate, and doesn't require any "context". The above you offered is not, and illustrates the belief by some on the left, including you apparently, that the government can and should control how private citizens spend their own money.

What I offered is where you got your quote.... It's in the linked passages, and provides the context.

And what "some on the left" believe is we have a government, it spends money, and that requires taxes. That was Clinton's point IN CONTEXT. He talked about entitlements, the deficits coming when the baby boomers retire (which has happened) and the need to responsibly budget for those foreseeable needs.

Those on "the right" spend just as much, they just like to bitch and whine and moan about taxes and theft, and cheer on tax cuts paid for by more borrowing. This last Congress was typical of the GOP. We're in an economic expansion, at the time 6 years or so straight of jobs growth, a booming stock market, unemployment at years' lows, and they spend more and cut taxes, and increase the deficit. Then conservatives like you whine about the last guy in the WH who appears to have actually given a **** about deficits, and who handed off a 'surplus' to Bush who promptly blew it up with tax cuts and a couple wars.... Classic stuff, and why I'm no longer a Republican.

 

[Divine_Wind]

I wish I'd wake up tomorrow and find Sean Hannity laying next to me in bed. Neither one of those things will happen.

I'm picturing a scene from the Godfather.

 

[humbolt]

What I offered is where you got your quote.... It's in the linked passages, and provides the context.

And what "some on the left" believe is we have a government, it spends money, and that requires taxes. That was Clinton's point IN CONTEXT. He talked about entitlements, the deficits coming when the baby boomers retire (which has happened) and the need to responsibly budget for those foreseeable needs.

Those on "the right" spend just as much, they just like to bitch and whine and moan about taxes and theft, and cheer on tax cuts paid for by more borrowing. This last Congress was typical of the GOP. We're in an economic expansion, at the time 6 years or so straight of jobs growth, a booming stock market, unemployment at years' lows, and they spend more and cut taxes, and increase the deficit. Then conservatives like you whine about the last guy in the WH who appears to have actually given a **** about deficits, and who handed off a 'surplus' to Bush who promptly blew it up with tax cuts and a couple wars.... Classic stuff, and why I'm no longer a Republican.

You can bitch and moan all you want. You believed I made up the claim, and I proved you were wrong. Context doesn't change the words Clinton uttered.

 

[chuckiechan]

Well! There you go again! They weren’t “FORCED”, they did so gracefully and of their own volition.

:roll:

It may have looked like that to you, but the Trumps have bigger lawyers than NPR does. They weren't told to wear sack cloth and ashes. Tell the truth, and retract and apologize when you are wrong. What's the fight about again?

The left is such a pissy bunch of babies.

 

[JasperL]

You can bitch and moan all you want. You believed I made up the claim, and I proved you were wrong. Context doesn't change the words Clinton uttered.

Correct, context provides context. :shrug:

In context, Clinton was making a long speech about being fiscally responsible. Bush II got elected and the GOP said, **** that! Let's cut taxes, twice, and then fight two wars, then pass a new entitlement! And they did, and a surplus turned into big deficits, even during the biggest bubble in generations.

So, what you're whining about is a Democratic President speaking like someone actually fiscally responsible, and that's not good apparently.

 

[tres borrachos]

I'm picturing a scene from the Godfather.

Someone got it.

 

[humbolt]

Correct, context provides context. :shrug:

In context, Clinton was making a long speech about being fiscally responsible. Bush II got elected and the GOP said, **** that! Let's cut taxes, twice, and then fight two wars, then pass a new entitlement! And they did, and a surplus turned into big deficits, even during the biggest bubble in generations.

So, what you're whining about is a Democratic President speaking like someone actually fiscally responsible, and that's not good apparently.

Clinton's touted surplus was largely the result of a Republican Congress and the peace dividend following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's reality. Not sure where you are, but it isn't real, where ever it is.

 

[JasperL]

Clinton's touted surplus was largely the result of a Republican Congress and the peace dividend following the collapse of the Soviet Union. That's reality. Not sure where you are, but it isn't real, where ever it is.

LOL, of course the surplus is because of Republicans, the same GOP Congress that once they got power in 2001 with a GOP President, cut taxes twice, fought two wars, passed a new drug entitlement, and blew up the surplus they created under Clinton!

Rule #1 for conservatives is it's always the Democrats' fault, and anything good is credit to the GOP!

The truth is that Clinton raised taxes, which the GOP bitterly opposed and ran against and won Congress running against in 1994. That caused revenues to hit a record under Clinton as a share of GDP, about 20% of GDP, up from about 17% pre-Clinton. And with the GOP's help, spending growth was slowed considerably, but Clinton didn't oppose the spending cuts, and of course Bush and Cheney ran against the "Clinton" defense cuts in 2000. But, sure, having the GOP in opposition no doubt kept a lid on spending, but you cannot ignore the role of the Clinton tax increases either.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ Table 1.3 has inflation adjusted numbers.

In inflation adjusted numbers, revenues increased from roughly $1.6T to $2.4T under Clinton, or about +50%. Expenditures only increased by about $200B from 2.0 to 2.2 Trillion.

With Bush, even at the top of the bubble with unsustainable collections, revenues only increased by $200B (<10%) and expenditures by $600B. That's what two rounds of tax cuts gets us - revenues barely move, even at the top of a massive bubble. With the 1 year exception of the peak bubble year of 2007, It took until 2013 to match collections in the last year of Clinton, 2001. Thanks GOP tax cuts!

 

[humbolt]

LOL, of course the surplus is because of Republicans, the same GOP Congress that once they got power in 2001 with a GOP President, cut taxes twice, fought two wars, passed a new drug entitlement, and blew up the surplus they created under Clinton!

Rule #1 for conservatives is it's always the Democrats' fault, and anything good is credit to the GOP!

The truth is that Clinton raised taxes, which the GOP bitterly opposed and ran against and won Congress running against in 1994. That caused revenues to hit a record under Clinton as a share of GDP, about 20% of GDP, up from about 17% pre-Clinton. And with the GOP's help, spending growth was slowed considerably, but Clinton didn't oppose the spending cuts, and of course Bush and Cheney ran against the "Clinton" defense cuts in 2000. But, sure, having the GOP in opposition no doubt kept a lid on spending, but you cannot ignore the role of the Clinton tax increases either.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ Table 1.3 has inflation adjusted numbers.

In inflation adjusted numbers, revenues increased from roughly $1.6T to $2.4T under Clinton, or about +50%. Expenditures only increased by about $200B from 2.0 to 2.2 Trillion.

With Bush, even at the top of the bubble with unsustainable collections, revenues only increased by $200B (<10%) and expenditures by $600B. That's what two rounds of tax cuts gets us - revenues barely move, even at the top of a massive bubble. With the 1 year exception of the peak bubble year of 2007, It took until 2013 to match collections in the last year of Clinton, 2001. Thanks GOP tax cuts!

Rule number one for you is to defend whatever democrat requires defending in your view, regardless if re-writing history is necessary to achieve it. I'm not all about trashing Bill Clinton, but you're attempting to re-write history here. As I said, the Congress and the peace dividend were largely responsible for financial performance during Clinton's tenure in the WH. Clinton did sign some significant legislation, but he hardly had a choice in the matter. That was the doings of Congress.

 

[JasperL]

Rule number one for you is to defend whatever democrat requires defending in your view, regardless if re-writing history is necessary to achieve it. I'm not all about trashing Bill Clinton, but you're attempting to re-write history here. As I said, the Congress and the peace dividend were largely responsible for financial performance during Clinton's tenure in the WH. Clinton did sign some significant legislation, but he hardly had a choice in the matter. That was the doings of Congress.

I provided evidence and cited my sources. Revenues went up thanks in large part to OBRA 1993 and the economy, to a record high. You've said the bulk of it was spending cuts imposed by a GOP Congress but haven't cited anything to back that up. If you want to accuse me of making up facts, present your evidence.

Here's an analysis by the Cleveland Fed that shows OBRA 1993, which got ZERO GOP votes, was projected to reduce deficits by $433 billion over 5 years, $192B of that was spending cuts. And we know, and I've shown you, the 50% increase in revenues, due at least in large part to the tax increases supported by no GOP votes, was a big driver in reducing deficits.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/~/medi...iliation act of 1993 a summary report pdf.pdf

Where's your evidence the GOP was primarily responsible?

 

[humbolt]

I provided evidence and cited my sources. Revenues went up thanks in large part to OBRA 1993 and the economy, to a record high. You've said the bulk of it was spending cuts imposed by a GOP Congress but haven't cited anything to back that up. If you want to accuse me of making up facts, present your evidence.

Here's an analysis by the Cleveland Fed that shows OBRA 1993, which got ZERO GOP votes, was projected to reduce deficits by $433 billion over 5 years, $192B of that was spending cuts. And we know, and I've shown you, the 50% increase in revenues, due at least in large part to the tax increases supported by no GOP votes, was a big driver in reducing deficits.

https://www.clevelandfed.org/~/medi...iliation act of 1993 a summary report pdf.pdf

Where's your evidence the GOP was primarily responsible?

You can read it yourself, if you somehow manage to find an inquisitive and open mind sometime. I already provided you with a direct quote for your original inquiry, and you refused to believe it, which is why you're still going on and on here. Why should I offer you more?

 

[JasperL]

You can read it yourself, if you somehow manage to find an inquisitive and open mind sometime. I already provided you with a direct quote for your original inquiry, and you refused to believe it, which is why you're still going on and on here. Why should I offer you more?

I responded directly to your last two points:

Clinton's touted surplus was largely the result of a Republican Congress and the peace dividend following the collapse of the Soviet Union

As I said, the Congress and the peace dividend were largely responsible for financial performance during Clinton's tenure in the WH. Clinton did sign some significant legislation, but he hardly had a choice in the matter. That was the doings of Congress.

That's a myth, a lie, untrue.

OBRA 1993 had a 5 year predicted impact of $433 billion (revenue outperformed projections every year, so give an assist to the economy). That bill passed with ZERO GOP votes, and raised income taxes, payroll taxes, increased the amount of SS taxed, and included about $200 billion in spending cuts while continuing the discretionary caps put in place by H.W. Bush.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 - $127 billion

Which number is higher? If you've got other evidence tying the surplus to the GOP Congress, show it.