Yet these people never seem to care about deficits when Republicans cause or grow them.

Talk about deficits with regard to Dem policies but never mention deficits when talking about Repub policies. It is a long-standing rinse and repeat cycle which DUers should not support or encourage but some, nevertheless, do.

posting "republican talking points".

Still not working.

And what's this stuff about "schedules"? Journalist Kit Norton seems like an objective local reporter based on his stories.

https://vtdigger.org/author/kit-norton/

Although some politicians might have a problem with honest, hard-hitting coverage by the local press, that's no reason to diminish and demonize honest journalism.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/02/26/ive-reported-bernie-sanders-years-free-press-cant-give-him-what-he-wants/

Granted, none of VT’s three federally elected officials are Republicans. Still, neither local or national press members, blogs, etc. seem to care about deficits when it comes to Republican policies. It’s always those on the left who face that criticism.

What exactly is "dishonest" about that? The story gives an honest outline of the candidate's positions over the years and provides links to reliable sources, including the CBO, the Urban Institute, the New Yorker, WaPo, and BS's own official .gov page and his official YouTube channel.

Local talk radio hosts do it all of the time, so why do you think local journalists don’t do it?

is a reliable news source that is committed to journalistic best practices.

https://ja3ga476chj1nc6csy2j81c7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/VTDigger-2018-Annual-Report-1.pdf

Mischaracterizing a fact-based informative news article as an "attack" does not make it one.

Fairness is reviewing positions on the left and the right with the same critical eye. Only positions on the left are ever subjected to these deficit concerns. This is common practice for much of the media and press. They question left wing positions with regard to the deficit but they (except for Krugman of The New York Times) never question right wing positions in the same manner. When one side is subjected to a critical review while the other side is given a free pass, that’s an attack or a right wing talking point, in this instance. These one sided critiques are all performed for the same purpose - to diminish support for the position. The motive behind the critique is as serious a problem as the one sidedness of the critique. I am amazed how so few DUers are able to recognize this right wing strategy and the willing (hapless?) participants who push this strategy for them.

Accusing journalists of being "hapless participants" in the dissemination of objective information from a variety of reliable sources with the purpose of educating voters (as if the motive is somehow suspect because the data fails to confirm someone's biases) seems problematic at best.

How many times do I have to repeat that criticizing only left wing positions with deficit concerns is a highly partisan and right wing propaganda tactic or attack?

Think of it this way. Let’s say you witness someone stealing a pack of gum from a check out line. Then you see a second person doing the same thing. However, you inform the clerk or the manager about only one of the incidents and you let the other one slide without mentioning a word. That is akin to what the press or the media does when they review left wing policies for deficit concerns but they never review right wing positions for the same deficit concerns. Again, why is this double standard so difficult for DUers to recognize?

on that!

2020!

seems like correct math. No real-world savings are evident.

I certainly don’t think austerity should be the guideline.

All candidates should be.

And she was forced to perform her latest projection because no one believed what she was saying.

Sanders, at least, says our taxes will go up. Warren says only the wealthy will pay for all her promises. Ain't gonna happen, not to mention she will need a lot of million/billionaires to fund everything.

As for being "forced to perform her latest projection because no one believed what she was saying" ...

Well, that certainly is an interesting characterization.

She tried to bamboozle everyone with rediculous numbers. She only updated them when people showed that they were completely unrealistic. If she was such a brilliant economist, why were her numbers so far off in the first place?

numbers" is such an interesting (albeit unsupported) aspersion.

or reality.. too bad

K&R!

And are even a bit detached from reality.

so he can't get away with making these false promises of magically doing all these things and fooling people into voting for him. This is what hurt Warren when the media started asking her for the numbers behind her Medicare for All. For some reason, Bernie never gets asked to show his math.