Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiRich Media, Poor Debates
During last night's [Jan. 31st] Democratic presidential debate, the journalists conducting the questioning asked Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about how they would "pay for" their health care proposals.Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus began the discussion by asking:
McMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending, and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot of Americans to pay for that and for other proposals. Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past. How are you going to counter that charge?
Obama responded: "I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they've added $4 or $5 trillion worth of national debt. You know, I am happy to have that argument."
Indeed, one wonders why debate moderators don't ask the Republican candidates how they will respond to Democratic charges that they have run up massive deficits through grotesque fiscal mismanagement.
Obama then said that his health-care plan would be "paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent" and explained that "I will give tax cuts to people making $75,000 a year or less by offsetting their payroll tax."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer then followed up by asking Clinton: "Senator Clinton, your health-care plan is estimated it will cost $110 billion annually. You want to tax the rich to pay for that; is that what you're saying?" Clinton responded: "Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year."
When Clinton was finished, Blitzer followed up: "I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans."
Blitzer said, "I just want to be precise" -- but he was the opposite of precise. Clinton and Obama had given precise answers; Blitzer then restated their positions in less precise terms.
Here, let's look at all three statements again, in the order in which they were made:
OBAMA: "Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent."
CLINTON: "Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year."
BLITZER: "I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans."
Both Obama and Clinton had been precise about their plans: Obama spoke specifically of "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent" and Clinton spoke specifically of allowing the "Bush tax cuts" for "people making more than $250,000 a year" to expire. Both candidates were precise in their descriptions of who would lose their tax cuts; both candidates precisely described those people.
Wolf Blitzer, claiming to want to bring precision to the discussion, then characterized the candidates' positions in more vague language -- vague language that just happens to mirror the likely conservative attacks on the candidates that McManus had previewed: "[T]here will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans." That is a less precise formulation than Clinton and Obama offered: Blitzer didn't specify who the "millions of Americans" are. Many viewers watching Blitzer likely assumed they would be among the "millions of Americans" Blitzer was talking about.
Claiming to "want to be precise," Blitzer restated the candidates' positions in less precise terms. He essentially adopted the Republican National Committee's preferred (but less accurate) description of the candidates' proposals, and, in doing so, made the candidates' positions less clear and misled his audience.
McManus had begun the line of questioning by telling Obama: "[Y]ou know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you 'tax-and-spend' liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past."
But the Republicans won't have to; not when they have Wolf Blitzer doing the job for them.
Blitzer's misleading performance came just a few weeks after ABC's Charlie Gibson similarly bungled a question about taxes during the Democratic debate he moderated in New Hampshire.
"You're all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse," Gibson told the Democratic candidates. When Clinton interrupted to point out that the candidates were, in fact, talking about "the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans; not the middle-class tax cuts," Gibson responded: "If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on."
At that point, the audience laughed at Charlie Gibson. He was so wrong -- so out of touch -- that the audience laughed at him. And for good reason: As Media Matters documented, a full professor at St. Anselm has an average salary of about $77,000 -- meaning that Gibson inflated the average salary of two such professors by 30 percent.
After John Edwards responded to the crowd's laughter by telling Gibson, "Oh, I don't think they agree with you," the ABC News anchor tried to recover: "Two public schoolteachers in New York?"
No.
According to the National Education Association, the average teacher in the state of New York makes about $57,000 a year. Charlie Gibson thought two public school teachers in New York make a combined $200,000; in fact, it would take four teachers earning the state average to reach that level. Even in affluent Westchester County, home to the highest public school teacher salaries in the state, teachers earn an average of about $81,000 -- significantly less than Gibson thought. (And that data isn't from the NEA; it's from a website dedicated to the notion that teachers make too much money.)
But Gibson wasn't really talking about professors at St. Anselm or public school teachers in New York. As wrong and out of touch as he was on those specific examples, his broader implication -- that the typical American family would see their taxes go up under the Democrats' plan to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire -- was even more wrong and even more out of touch.
As Media Matters for America documented, fewer than four percent of U.S. households have annual incomes of $200,000 or more. The median household income is less than $50,000, and the mean is $65,000.
Fewer than four out of every 100 households have the kind of income that Charlie Gibson suggested was common.
You have to wonder how media stars like Blitzer and Gibson have lost touch with their viewers so badly that they think $200,000 incomes are typical.
Charlie Gibson reportedly makes $8 million a year and is paid less than his counterparts at CBS and NBC.
Might that have something to do with his lack of perspective? How could it not?
Charlie Gibson would see his taxes go up under the Democrats' plan. So would Wolf Blitzer. And, coincidentally, they suggest that their viewers' taxes would go up, too -- even though for the vast majority of viewers, that isn't true.
When the Republicans debate and promise to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and cut various other taxes, the star reporters who moderate those debates rarely ask the GOP candidates a simple question: What government services would you cut to pay for those tax cuts?
The double standard is so glaring, it's hard not to wonder if it has something to do with the fact that, while Charlie Gibson would likely see his taxes go up under the Democrats' plans and down under the Republicans', he probably already has health insurance. Whatever programs the Republicans would cut to pay for tax cuts for rich people like Charlie Gibson probably won't directly affect rich people like Charlie Gibson.
Over the past year, as journalists mocked John Edwards for getting an expensive haircut and having a big house, they constantly justified their behavior by claiming Edwards is a "hypocrite" for being rich while pursuing policies that would help those who aren't. This is total nonsense, of course. As an Altercation reader noted this week, asking how Edwards can care about the poor while being rich is like asking a doctor: "How can you care about sick people when you're so healthy?"
And yet, again and again, journalists justified their relentless focus on Edwards' wealth by pointing to his policy positions.
And they ignore -- absolutely ignore -- the personal wealth of conservative candidates who pursue policies that would line their own pockets.
For all the news reports you saw about Edwards' supposed hypocrisy, how many have you seen that tell you how big a tax cut Mitt Romney or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani -- wealthy men all -- would get if their policies became law? Probably somewhere around "none."
This is not merely an obvious double-standard; it's a completely backwards double-standard: one that rewards politicians who pursue policies that are consistent with their narrow self-interest at the expense of the greater good; one that penalizes politicians who act out of concern for the greater good rather than narrow self-interest.
It's a media double-standard that greatly undermined Edwards' presidential campaign. And it continues to undermine progressive economic policies. It continues to play out in debates and interviews and news reports. Conservative proponents of tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich are not asked how they would pay for those tax cuts. Progressive proponents of universal health care are accused of planning to raise taxes broadly, even after they specifically say that they would only repeal tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 or $250,000.
When media coverage of economic issues is so skewed in favor of conservative candidates and policies that favor the wealthy, it's hard not to wonder how much someone like Charlie Gibson would benefit from those policies.
Jamison Foser has extensive experience in progressive research, communications, and strategy, having worked for nearly a decade in national politics. Most recently he served as Research Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) for the 2002 cycle. Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
© 2008 Media Matters for America
37 Comments so far
Show AllI suppose Jay Leno has much to be grateful for.
Say about $6.5 million a year in tax rebates so he can grow his personal rare auto collection beyond the staggering size it already is...Jay Leno has gotten his and sings hosannahs to the nazis that enriched him beyond his wildest dreams while plunging America into debt for generations for an illegal war with loans from their enemies, Communist China and Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 attackers.
Jay: Fuck you
Time for the "politness" to stop. Everytime someone speaks their mind they turn around and apologize. I want to see a candidate argue with these "mediators"
As far as Leno, who the hell has the money for a cross country trip? I have two jobs and I am looking for a third. Why do you think energy drinks are selling so well. We are killing ourselves trying to survive.
WolfenBlitzer made that bonehead statement. However, what irked just as much was that Hillary and Obama didn't push back. Why didn't one of them say "Hey Wolf why are you trying to make it appear it's a tax increase on average incomes? Let me repeat, any tax increases will be on the rich. If it's means millions of rich people, so be it. The middleclass has been taking the brunt for too long. It's time for the wealthy to pay for the free ride Bush gave them." I didn't hear anything like that from either candidate. yeah, Wolfy tried to sneak one in there, but I didn't hear the kind of response that should have been made.
Isn't it something that the rich are always telling the poor how grateful they should be for the crumbs they receive; say it enough and idiots begin to believe it. By comparison with other industrialized countries is it still true? Additionally, how can one not be disturbed when their tax dollars are being used to bring misery and mayhem (a la the military) to other countries. Perhaps the rich are more paranoid because they have more to lose.
Tax Shleters need to go back to school and find out just what taxes HAVE done for us, when applied properly. Like during FDR's time, when they build the roads, bridges, dams, schools, hospitals and the like that helped to make this a country worth living in and made this the bright spot in the world we used to be.
As to the comment attributed to Leno, isn't it amazing to read things written by those who have a steady job that pays them in the tens of millions complaining about how miserably spoiled those of us who don't are. Newsflash to him: Tens of millions have seen their jobs offshored, the factories that used to take care of whole towns in this country shipped off to China and NOTHING replacing them that would take up the slack. Tens of millions in this country can't afford even basic health care. Those plasma screen tv's you talk about? I've never even SEEN one (nor do I care to, BTW).
We don't live in the same world you do, and that's made very clear when we read that you can afford to pay the salaries of your writers by yourself, and we can't afford to keep our houses. We live in a country that doesn't even ask us what we want our gov't to do for us, it just screws us for thousands a year while getting us into wars by IGNORING over 80 warnings that we are going to be attacked on our own soil. We live in a country where people like YOU get tax breaks for HAVING, and we get tax increases in the form of higher gas prices that we can't afford just to get to a job that doesn't even pay the mortgage. We live in a country where we are lucky if we can even FIND a job, anymore, that doesn't involve asking about supersizing. We live in a country where we used to believe in our greatness, and have seen that squandered by a madman whose whole goal was to be a "wartime president" for his own ego gratification.
You have NO idea how the vast majority of us live, and it's not as wonderful as you think. We have been bad mouthed by our own gov't for nearly 3 decades, and have been treated us with contempt for that long as well. Yeah, things are great if you're YOU, but for the vast majority of us, it's a much harder place to live in than you think. And BTW, the cops protect YOU far more than they do anything but arrest and harrass us. In case you haven't noticed, "9-11 changed everything", and we are now the biggest suspects in the country. And all we want is a decent job that afords us the ability to live in our own homes and be left alone by the gov't whenever possible. But now that seems to be the reason we are the biggest problem in the country: all we want is a fair shot, and we sure aren't getting it now. YOU are the one who is spoiled beyond belief, to the point where you don't even recognize that there are those with less than you. FAR less.
What do you expect from Blitzer given his background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer
Blitzer's main assertion is that there will "be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.", by "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent".
...
What are the real raw numbers? It would really help to have a quantitative figure. Is it millions? thousands? hundreds?
...
I am assuming Blitzer, like Gibson is off. Therefore a quantitative figure would help dispel the lie.
This is precisely why I do not watch the "debates" of either party: journalists ask trivial, irrelevant or softball questions, and candidates respond with canned answers that rehash their main talking points.
Let Ralph Nader ask the questions and then I'd watch--just to see the candidates squirm.
Estimated 250,000! (Press Release... interestingly NOT picked up by the mainstream press at all.)
I guess they were too busy talking about which candidates ran ads during the Superbowl???
***************************************************
Estimated 250,000 Log On For Hillary's Voices Across America: A National Town Hall
Hillary details real solutions during a conversation about making a difference in people's lives
An estimated quarter million Americans logged on to www.hillaryclinton.com Monday evening to watch the unprecedented national town hall, Voices Across America, hosted by the Clinton campaign. Many more watched the live broadcast on Hallmark channel and attended events around the country. Hillary anchored the town hall at a studio in New York and answered questions from voters in the audience and at satellite events in 21 cities across America.
Moderated by veteran journalist Carole Simpson, Hillary detailed real solutions to the nation's challenges and demonstrated she is ready to deliver change on day one. Enthusiastic crowds applauded when Hillary outlined her comprehensive plans to fix our economy, provide universal health care, and end the war in Iraq.
President Bill Clinton attended a satellite event in San Francisco, California, while Chelsea Clinton hosted an event in Hartford, Connecticut and award-winning actress America Ferrera hosted a town hall in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Among the voters asking Hillary a question was 11-year old Liya Wizevich of West Hartford, Connecticut. Liya and her mom Karen's question was selected from tens of thousands of questions submitted online to be asked in-person at the forum. During the town hall, Karen mentioned that she and Liya had met Hillary several times since 2000 and Liya asked how Hillary would improve the future for the next generation.
Clinton responded by saying "...we need to be thinking about the next generation and that is how I think about what I'm doing, because I see an America that once again offers an unlimited potential to you - that gives you the opportunities that many of us took for granted when we were growing up which seem to be receding. The American Dream looks like it's moving away instead of forward toward our young people."
In Birmingham, Alabama, John Atkins asked Hillary about our troubled economy and how to keep jobs in the Untied States. Hillary responded by talking about the importance of reforming the tax code to discourage companies from moving jobs overseas. To fix our economy, Hillary would also end the housing crisis and rebuild our middle class.
Additional questions dealt with LGBT rights, fixing the national infrastructure, and education.
Soccer used to have this problem so they had to change the rules. Every team was trying to noit lose rather than win so games were scoreless bores. The debates are the same. Say as little as possible so you don't say the wrong thing. That's politics and it is very pointless.
if in fact leno said all that, he's just as sorry an excuse of humanity as is wolf blitzer. whether the president is causing me personal pain or a my dog personal pain is not the issue, buttwipe. it's about the dying friend in iraq receiving more personal pain than he ever imagined. it's about the personal grief this idiot of a leader has wreaked upon the whole planet, including its inhabitants. you mr. leno, along with intellectually stimulating wolf blitzer,most likely aren't paying three bucks a gallon for gasoline. nor, i doubt very seriously, are either of you having to sleep under a bridge at nite, nor are you, i'm quite certain, worried about your veteran benefits being taken away. perhaps in all fairness, you should now face reality, and tell us about the real issues of the day. about how many millions of people have been affected by your commander-in-chief's actions. why not tell us about how many in this "no draft" military are from the upper crust? or how we luxuriously move cross-continent, how many of us are subject to police profiling? or how after the ems crew shows up at our wreck, the helicopter whisks us up up and away to the nearest care facility, we then receive the lace-wrapped with pink bow bill for said wreck, even if said wreck wasn't our fault. you wanna know why we're unhappy? come get your sick white asses from in front of the cameras and spend an hour in the real world.
long gone are the days of walter cronkite and dan rather. even red skelton.
This article just shows, how the masses let themselves be manipulated, and allow the media to plane little seeds in that empty area between their ears. As has already been stated, the majority of people are struggling - probably 85-90% of us - not just people who have been unfortunate, or haven't worked hard to pass exams, but professionals in every sphere. It amazed me how the wages in the US are so comparable with the UK. Our teachers, nurses, police, firemen, soldiers, paramedics, scientists, are all earning less than $60000 per year (converted at 2 dollars to the pound). Here in the UK, our third party, the Liberal Democrats, have promised to reform tax so that the rich are taxed more, in order for the poor to simply exist. The problem is, that every time there is a debate, the old question comes out "so you are going to raise peoples taxes". When this is answered in precise terms, the reponse is always the same "so, people are going to be taxed more under the Liberal Democrats".
I just find it so hard to believe, that sufficient numbers of people are taken in by the media and tabloid press, that they ignore something which is going to benefit them. Why are the general populace so worried about the rich having to pay tax at a fair rate (bearing in mind that a lot of the super rich do not pay tax at all), why do we respect these leeches who steal and cheat?
Taxshelters, what we really need to do is bring back child labor a la Dickens! We've already got poor houses (prisons).
In the last two presidential elections, the democratic candidate with the most money won the nomination.
Other than CEOs, the only people getting regular raises and benefits are members of Congress. Yet another reason why laws support wealth and big business.
Tax Shelters___ It is a pity that you were not living 150 years ago in the wild west. where everyone had a six shooter on his hip, and there were no services but the pony express, with practically no taxation. You would have been very happy then and could have lived the good life out on the prairie. No Superbowls, but there was the saloon with some ladies upstairs.
The media talking heads are members of the nation's elite. They favor candidates who represent wealth interests but do have to talk to the interests of working folks. The mechanism is elitism using populism. The elites vet candidates before any votes are taken from Joe Six Pack.
They approve them by showering them with 2300 dollar checks. This enables these select few candidates to dominate news coverage and more importantly tv ad space where most voters get their views on the candidates.
It's no wonder candidates like John Edwards have no chance in this media publicity enviroment shaped by corporate interests and principles.
The election is already over: big money won again, going away.
There will be no change, whether its either of the political twins, Obama or Hillary.
This is the delusional mind set we are dealing with.
How many logical inconsistencies, ad hominum attacks,
straw dog, slippery slope, inane, mind boggling fallacies can you spot? Boycott Leno
Attributed to Jay Leno
"The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true, given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed, and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence, 2/3's of the citizenry just isn't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, ''What are we so unhappy about?''
Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?
Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time, and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
Maybe it is the ability to drive from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough.
Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all, and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler or intrudes , an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90 percent of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67 percent of you folks unhappy.
Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen. No wonder the world loves the U..S., yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the President who took us in to war and has no plan to get us out? The President who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same President who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The President that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks?
The Commander-In Chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me? Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad?
Think about it...are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the "Media" told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day.
Make no mistake about it. The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteer ed to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go.
They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an ''other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans? Say what you want, but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds, it leads; and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells , and when criticized, try to defend their actions by "justifying" them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about "how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way"...Insane!
Stop buying the negativism you are fed everyday by the media. Shut off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as a country. There is exponentially more good than bad.
We are among the most blessed people on Earth, and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.
Jay Leno
2007
BARF SPRITZER---CNN's news-puppet who paid his dues (none) as part of the Jerusalem (Israel) media. If only he were clever! He's simply stupid---a complete and CNN-deliberate OBSTACLE to real discussion. Bart Spritzer's idea of journalism is to sit in his cubicle touching up his distinguished spray-on facial hair and collecting today's outrageous schoolyard garbage ("Wait till you hear what she/he SAID! How do you respond, and could you do it wildly, so I can sell that, too?") He really seems to think he's in a "Situation Room" instead of a fuckin' TV studio. (If he says that much more I'm gonna have to hunt him down.) The dead bodies he brings on as "the best political team on television" (what an achievement): William (fart) Bennett, Donna (Clinton is God) Brasile, Jack (I need an enema) Cafferty, on and on. And what would you think if a public speaker told you every three minutes in performance that he/she was "the best," rather than just doing/being it? I'm pulling the WHOLE FUCKING PLUG on cable before they force me to buy the same shit mixed with commercials in high rez---Besides, I've just been forced by Romney to buy health insurance and can't afford all new TVs....
Instead of squandering our tax money to promote High Deaf Garbage perhaps congress should cover the disposal of our unwatchable idiot boxes.
The Corner Stone of Fascism.
Is control of the Media.
Through that vehicle they exercise
Brutal, demonic, absolute control.
Brainwashing, Programming and Conditioning
From
Birth to Grave.
They were never Honest, Pure or Brave.
Just easily fooled or heavily paid.
Aristocrats, Mercenaries and Prostitutes!
The worst money can buy.
One by one
The Rats are leaving the floundering ship.
Mission Admonished!
Truth be known.
Accountability will begin.
As another Zio-Nazi runs for cover
While the organ Grinder grinds on.
Pied Piping a slightly different tune.
A hypnotic lullaby.
Pulling everybody back to sleep.
The Cor'pirate' system that spawned these evil shills.
Rides to their rescue
Singing Hi Ho Silver!
And away.
And away goes:
Your Freedom and Liberty.
Down the Drain.
Replaced by a play.
A charade
Written for one.
One Corporate Nation
World Domination
Read it and weep.
A lot happens while you sleep.
Wake UP!
Wake Up!
Please.
The Game is a foot.
Jamison Foser,
thank you for truth squading Wolf Blitzer and the mean scheme media.
VERN, SHAKKER & GREENER THAN THOU: Excellent points!
You liberals don't know a thing about taxes. Here's the truth from my blog on MySopace http://www.myspace.com/texshelters
Taxes are the devils creation, and taxes have never done anything good for us. As Billy Holiday once sang, "God bless the child who's got his own." If every child worked for a living, we wouldn't have to pay taxes for their schooling.
Liberals, who want to snatch those guns out of your cold dead hands, favor taxes that pay for police departments. If liberals would just admit that we'd be safer if everyone was forced to own a gun and carry it everywhere, much like we carry our driver's licenses, we'd all be safer.
We certainly don't need meat inspectors, highway safety agents, or product safety departments. We can inspect our own products thank you, and we don't need the government telling us what we can and can't buy.
Taxes are immoral, and the only politicians truly against taxes are the Republicans because they are the only people who know what is moral.
The only thing we need taxes for is the military, because as I've said before, it costs money to kill people, especially if they live far away in the Middle East.
Now you know the truth.
Tex Shelters
Turn off your damn TV's---it's a wasteland folks! We all know what they're sellin and what they're sayin and we ain't buyin. Save yourself some grief by ignoring the MSM. They couldn't care less if you vilify them as long as you keep on watchin em.
I stopped watching TV 12 years ago---amazing how much less of a consumer I am as a result, and how much more clearly I can think about the issues.
chessgames, that's the beauty of the ruling class propaganda. They have managed to convince people to deny their own interests in order to screw those worse off.
The welfare system not only keeps people from starving and rebelling, it creates scapegoats. Instead of being angry at the "idle rich" the way American workers used to be, they're now angry at the idle poor.
The idle poor are much more visible to the average American than the idle rich. Who vacations in Aspen or Jackson Hole? But the poor are all around us.
People need to remember the old axiom "You cannot believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see". It is hard to combat ignorance with truth, as lies actually seem to work better on so many of the populace. Most of the radio and TV pundits and commentators appear to have that figured out.
Another effect of media consolidation is that a handful of highly compensated amoral jackasses can dominate the entire media.
How about we insist on Kieth Olberman running the Repug debates? Not that the Dims are all that much better at this point but Olberman would be satifying.
Jay Leno---I agree that the population of this country has been blest beyond our wildest dreams, and for that we should be grateful, but you lost me entirely when you started singing the praises of GWB who has kept us spoiled brats safe????
BushCo makes most of us very unhappy and not because we are ungrateful---he makes us unhappy because he is a war criminal who has dragged our national ideals through offal and has betrayed our trust and who is making the world an incredibly more dangerous place than when he took office. I will never be grateful for this pack of lying theives and war criminals. Be grateful for everything good in our land, but BushCo does not even come close to qualifying.
Makes me wonder if people think roads just get built, or schools repaired by themselves. Perhaps a big part of why people resent paying taxes is because such a large portion goes toward military spending. The rich enjoy the benefits of infrastructure and protection of their wealth (a la police and military) to a much greater extent than do the poor, and yet they keep complaining about being taxed too much. That's understandable, given the greed factor though. What's not understandable is why the middle class and poor are so willing to vote against their better interests. It's hard to believe that the majority cannot see through this hoax. If they haven't by now, they probably never will. The next election should be quite telling in that regard.
Media whores and political whores pimping themselves for corporate America.
Hoa binh
Yep! The bastards are bought and paid for, and they get to decide who is a serious candidate and who is not because its all about exposure and big money for TV ads that don't explain anything. This is what so many people prefer (we are told) to public financing of elections. John Edwards had the best chance of defeating the radical Republicans by a substantial margin, and now we have Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Clinton is a Republican in sheep's clothing and Obama (a decent guy to be sure)is almost as much of a lightning rod in the election as she is.
It's scary that they don't know how much money people actually make. What on earth qualifies them to report issues of social interest when they are so blatantly clueless? If they can't picture the life of a teacher, how could they begin to imagine the life of a school custodian or busdriver? We need a remake of the series where a la Paris Hilton, Wolf Blitzer goes and lives somewhere "real". But let's not even go for the poverty example. Just put him in an average home in an average subdivision with an average household budget; with insurance, but with high premiums and copays coming out of that average budget. Now that would be an interesting show; the writers could stay on strike another month while we sit and laugh.
I wouldn't degrade whores by saying fuzzy face Blitzer fits into their catagory of our work force. I've had long conversations with some really decent whores. Blitzer is more liken to a jive-ass, water front pimp.
Nothing new here.
The conventional wisdom is always framed this way and then broadcast near and far until it becomes the consensus view. All power is with the class that owns the mouthpiece and this puts the truth always at a disadvantage. Do you think they will continue to project fairytales on the walls until the well runs dry? The pattern now is to prop it up with another illusion. Increasingly there is little allegiance to country--not a bad thing unless exploiting country to dominate the globe. If the US consumer can no longer buy the goods--like during the depression, there is always new emerging markets seeking the symbols of a higher standard of living.
"Wolf Blitzer...characterized the candidates' positions in...language that just happens to mirror the likely conservative attacks on the candidates..."
You've got that right. His whole reason for "restating" was obviously to replace "Americans making over 250,000 a year" with "millions of Americans" in the listener's brain in order to give Joe and Jane Average the idea that under a Democrat, their taxes would go up. Nice.
Wolf Blitzer is a whore.
Wolf Blitzer is a very clever, double talking asshole.
If Pogo were still here, he'd likely modify his famous 1949 quote and now say, "We have met the enemy, and it is our media and press."