The biggest loser? CNBC. They have been roundly criticized for their absurd questions. Here’s a bit of Ted Cruz on the subject
“Let me say something at the outset,” the Senator from Texas said. “The questions asked in this debate illustrate why the American people don’t trust the media.”
“This is not a cage match. And you look at the questions — Donald Trump, are you a comic book villain? Ben Carson, can you do math? John Kasich, will you insult two people over here? Marco Rubio, why don’t you resign? Jeb Bush, why have your numbers fallen? How about talking about the substantive issues,” Cruz said to commanding applause from the audience.
Moderator John Harwood was caught in a lie. Then there was this interaction between Donald Trump and Becky Quick
QUICK: You have been very critical of Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook who has wanted to increase these number of H1V —
TRUMP: I was not at all critical of him. In frank, he’s complaining that we’re losing some of the best people … I am all in favor of keeping these talented people here so they can go to work in Silicon Valley.
QUICK: So where did I read this and come up with this you’re —
TRUMP: Probably, I don’t know. You people write this stuff.
Got that? Quick was asking a question on something she “read somewhere”, and didn’t know where she actually read it, and was asking The Donald where she read it. Can it get much more asinine?
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza proclaims the winners as Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Trump, and Graham (though Graham was on the undercard).
The losers were Bush, Carson (I thought he did better, personally), Rand Paul, John Kasich, and CNBC.
CNN has the winners as Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Kasich (I don’t see it), and Christie.
The losers? Jeb Bush. And, surprise, CNBC. Ben Carson was given an “unclear”. I’d agree with that.
One more: The Hill has the winners as Cruz, Rubio, Christie, Carson, and Fiorina.
Trump, Kasich, and Huckabee were give a “mixed.”
The losers: Bush, Paul, and, surprise surprise, CNBC.
Conservative complaints about media coverage are nothing new, but criticisms of CNBC extended far and wide in the aftermath of the Wednesday’s debate. A general whiff of arrogance permeated several of the questions from the moderators. Within moments of the debate ending, even Vanity Fair magazine — hardly a redoubt of conservatism — had a story on its website headlined, “How CNBC lost its own G.O.P. debate.†Even the network’s pre-debate punditry was widely criticized.
Will the Left leaning media learn from this fiasco? We’ll see. One last comment highlighting CNBC’s idiocy, via Chris Christie
He burst out, “Are we really talking about getting the government involved in fantasy football? We have – wait a second – we have 19 trillion dollars in debt, we have people out of work, we have ISIS and al Qaeda attacking us, and we’re talking about fantasy football. Can we stop?”
The audience cheered, and he concluded, “Enough on fantasy football – let people play. Who cares?
When moderator John Harwood tried to interrupt him, Christie retorted, “Even in New Jersey what you’re doing is called rude.”
Boom.
Teach in Anerican politics playing the victim card is what losers do
American media is for profit and companies provide what customers want
It used to be that the rightwing had enough jam in their sacks to say the Jews control media
Per the Tax Foundation, the top one-percent has nearly twice as much gain in percentage terms.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/FF457-Charts_4.png
While there is no excuse for Quick to be unprepared, the fact is that Trump contradicted his own website.
http://fusion.net/story/223664/donald-trump-mark-zuckerberg-h1b-visa-gop-debate/
John wrote that ” playing the victim card is what losers do”
Absolutely John, And towards that we have:
Hillary Plays the Victim in CNN Interview, DailyBeast headline July 7th.
“Nobody plays the victim like Hillary.
She can wield that label like a wrecking ball.” Maureen Dowd NY Times
z,
Maybe you can explain this, what business is it of the government as to how much you make? I don’t understand that concept. Since the upper percentage pays almost all the tax and receives none of the benefits, then why do you go on about how much they do one way or the other? Our government spends far more than what it should, it regulates us to death, we have laws that don’t make a lick of sense, so why don’t we start trimming the government? Why don’t we get rid of most of the regulatory agencies and agencies like Homeland insecurity? In the 80’s we cut tax rates and regulations and the economy went crazy. That was after 8 years of horrible Democratic control. Now, you are clearly a younger guy and have been brain washed, so you aren’t aware of what happened. But we all benefited.
The 16th Amendment.
False premise. High earners benefit from a healthy economy, including a strong middle class. They also benefit from a stable and secure society.
With good government half the money is wasted, but no one agrees on which half. Consider that the debacle in Iraq cost trillions, and the economic meltdown cost trillions more.
What happened was that Carter and Volcker engineered an economic policy to squeeze inflation out of the system — which worked by the way. Once the system had stabilized, the Fed loosened controls, and the economy spurted forward.
Real GDP growth rate, annual average
Carter: 3.23%
Reagan: 3.61%
HW Bush: 2.25%
Clinton: 3.81%
W Bush: 1.78%
Obama: 2.04%
<strongWhat happened was that Carter and Volcker engineered an economic policy to squeeze inflation out of the system — which worked by the way.
The prime rate was 6.25% when Carter took office. It increased to 20% in April 1980. From there it dropped to 15.5% in November 1980. From there it shot up to an all-time high of 21.5% in December of 1980.
z,
Wrong. Carter had the economy on the ropes, he came up with new terms to describe the misery. When Reagan came in and instituted a portion of his policy, things began to happen. If he had been able to cut spending it would have been great, but the Dems stopped that action. I can’t believe someone would actually defend Carter. Are you even aware that you had to come up with thousands of dollars to get a letter of guarantee? That is how tight money was, I seriously doubt that you have an idea at all. Then the 16th amendment most certainly allows the government to subjugate us and they have made hay with that, but you didn’t answer the question, why are you so concerned with the income of hard working people? Why do you want to take away from those that work 24/7 to get ahead? And, no, the government actually works against you as you earn more, try it and see.
“Teach, in American politics playing the victim card is what losers do.” So, as liberals constantly portray blacks, Muslims, women, criminals, ect., as victims, then they’re all losers? Good one, John.
Precisely right. The prime rate is based on the federal funds rate which is set by the Federal Reserve. By putting limits on the money supply, the Federal Reserve put the brakes on inflation, and more important, showed that the Federal Reserve would do what needed to be done, even if it meant a high political price.
The rate of inflation was 5.2% in Jan. 1977 when Carter took office.
The rate of inflation peaked at 14.7% in April 1980
The rate of inflation was 13.5% in December 1980.
So please explain how Carter and Volcker lowered the inflation rate.
Then dropped to less than 4% by 1982, at which point the Fed eased up on the money supply, and inflation has stayed low ever since.
The problem with inflation at that period in history was expectations. People hedged the Fed would bow to political pressure, inflation would continue, and that behavior led to more inflation. The Fed demonstrated that they would take the actions required to rein in inflation without regard to political fallout, and that changed people’s expectations.
“You’re welcome.” — Paul Volcker
Then dropped to less than 4% by 1982, at which point the Fed eased up on the money supply, and inflation has stayed low ever since.
So the ‘tight’ money policy by the Fed lowered the rate of inflation?….
The policy was to constrain the growth of the money supply, with the primary aim to change inflationary expectations. Whether it was worth the economic disruption is debatable, nonetheless, the result was to tame inflation.