ChrisWeigant.com

Massive Ideological Republican Hypocrisy

[ Posted Wednesday, December 5th, 2012 – 17:06 PST ]

While the entire political punditry world is caught up in yet another horserace -- this time around, the "who's up/who's down on the fiscal cliff talks" debate -- something astounding is happening within the ranks of the Republican Party. Because major tenets of the party's faith seem to be crumbling. The bedrock ideology of the party is revealing itself, in multiple ways, of having been built on sand all along. These are all rather polite ways of calling the Republicans enormous hypocrites, I realize. But when the shoe fits, the shoe fits, so I offer no apologies for doing so.

There are, of course, core hypocrisies... and then there are campaign promises which nobody really believed anyway. Take, for instance, the fact that Republicans just spent an entire campaign season ripping into Democrats for "cutting Medicare by $750 billion" only to immediately demand deep and significant cuts in Medicare after the election. That's the sort of garden-variety hypocrisy America expects from Republicans, during an election season. But we're going to give them a pass for such things, because everybody says things they later regret out on the campaign trail. We can afford to set this hypocrisy aside because there are so many other deep fissures in Republican dogma right now. Medicare hypocrisy (guess that "Mediscaring" was right, eh, GOP?) is small potatoes, ideologically, right now. Republicans have always been against Medicare, so it really isn't going to change their hymn book after the campaign promises are long forgotten, to put it another way. There are bigger fish to fry, here.

Republican orthodoxy has said, since Reagan's time, that tax cuts solve everything. The reason we are now at the fiscal cliff is that this is not correct. It's just flat-out wrong. Tax cuts do not "pay for themselves." If they did, then we wouldn't even be discussing not extending the Bush tax cuts, because the federal government would be so awash in money right now that it would be laughable to do so. This is not, to put it mildly, the situation we find ourselves in. The Bush tax cuts did not in fact pay for themselves, China paid for them.

When the Bush tax cuts were enacted, they had a ten-year sunset clause. They were supposed to run for ten years, and then expire. There's a reason for this, and a reason why the Republican-held Congress under George W. Bush never made them permanent (even though he begged them to do so, repeatedly). The reason is they were always designed to explode the budget, starting in the eleventh year (and beyond). All the tax cuts fully kicked in by the end of the period, and projecting out the decade which followed showed monster deficits as far as the eye could see. This is precisely where we are today. In fact, we're actually two years later than that, because the Bush tax cuts were all extended in 2010 until now. Again, this extension did not "pay for itself" at all.

Republicans have all but jettisoned the "tax cuts pay for themselves" rhetoric already, though, so this isn't as ground-shaking as it might earlier have been. What has replaced it is the single-minded obsession with the deficit and the national debt. The tune has changed to: "The deficit/debt is the enormous problem America has to solve, by any means necessary." But, once again, this major tenet of Republicanism is showing itself to be a house made of straw. Because Republicans have recently started pointing out that what the Democrats want to do won't solve the deficit/debt immediately (by next Tuesday, say), and therefore isn't even worth doing at all. Their logic seems to be "Raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to immediately solve the whole deficit problem forever, therefore we're not going to do it." Republicans are now arguing for a policy that is going to increase the deficit, to put this another way. This should be getting more media attention than it currently is, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

To see the next flaming ball of hypocrisy over in Republicanland, you have to separate out the taxes which are scheduled to rise (on the first of next year) into three groups. The first of these are the Bush tax cuts on the 98 percent of the workforce that doesn't rake in a cool quarter-million-dollar paycheck every year. The second are the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest workers (the top two percent). And the third group is the payroll tax holiday for all working Americans that Obama passed when he extended the Bush tax cuts for two years back in 2010. All of these tax cuts were temporary, when initially passed. The Bush tax cuts lasted a decade, until Obama extended them for two years. The payroll tax cut was initially only one year long, but got extended for a second year.

Republicans right now are arguing that the payroll tax cuts can expire, which will raise this tax rate by two percent on anyone making less than around $110,000 a year, and by a smaller percent on those with larger salaries (showing the regressive nature of the tax). The Republican line is that these were "temporary" tax cuts, therefore letting them expire by doing nothing is OK (even among Norquistians) because it's "not really raising taxes," somehow.

Both Democrats and Republicans are for extending the Bush tax cuts for the 98 percent of workers under the $250K line. However, Republicans are arguing against allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy two percent to expire. As far as they're concerned, this would be "raising tax rates" -- and doing so, of course, is rank heresy in the Church of Norquist.

So, to recap: allowing a temporary payroll tax rate cut to expire is fine, because it isn't really "raising taxes" due to its temporary nature; but allowing a temporary income tax rate cut to expire on the top two percent is definitely not fine, because it is really "raising taxes." Another pillar of the Republican credo shows cracks, and then bursts into a hypocritical pile of rubble, to put this another way. Is allowing a temporary tax cut to expire OK or not? Or is it just OK when it benefits the wealthiest, and not OK when it benefits everyone? Ideologically, you really can't have this both ways, but that is the current Republican position. Once again: mainstream media "journalists," perhaps there's a story here? Sigh.

The final ideological pretzel in the fiscal cliff debate is perhaps the head-scratchiest of the lot. This one is truly in the "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" category, folks. It's such blatant idiocy that even some Republicans are already revolting against the entire concept.

John Boehner has signaled his willingness to contemplate supporting additional federal "revenue." This is momentous, and I give him a lot of credit for even getting to this position. Think about it: the last time any Republican supported any tax increase of any type was when George H.W. Bush went back on his "Read my lips" pledge. Yes, it has indeed been over two decades since Republicans voted for a tax increase. How time flies, eh?

Historic as this is, however, Boehner is bending over backwards to fit his new position into orthodox Republican dogma. Boehner, so far, has fought hard against the idea that tax rates should go up for the wealthiest two percent, instead offering to "close loopholes and cap deductions." In more-normal times in Washington, this argument would only be of interest to the wonkiest political scientists and economists. But Boehner is justifying his hard stance against raising rates with complete and utter nonsense. Which nobody's really bothered to point out, much.

Unless Boehner is secretly trying to shift some of the new tax burden from the wealthiest two percent onto the upper middle class (which is indeed a real possibility, since we haven't seen his details yet), his logic holds water about as well as a sieve. Boehner states that raising tax rates would be horrendous for the economy, because all those "job-creators" would go off in a tiff and refuse to fund the American economy, leading to millions being thrown out of work and, I don't know, the Hunger Games, or something. If that sounds like mocking the Republican position, well, it's a pretty easy one to mock, so I sincerely apologize for that. But Boehner simply cannot square this stance with his offer to cut deductions and loopholes for the wealthy.

It's the same damn money, John. How many of us are going to behave differently because of which box on our tax forms we fill in? If raising a millionaire's taxes by $35,000 because the rates are figured differently is going to cause that millionaire to not hire people, then why should raising his taxes by $35,000 through limiting his deductions be any different? Some Republicans are already in revolt over this, because they (quite correctly) see both as the same thing. It's the same damn money, in other words. They've repeated the "raising taxes on job-creators is bad" refrain for so long that they cannot see any difference between changing the 1040 tax tables and changing the way you fill out Schedule A. If a millionaire's taxes go up, they go up -- it doesn't matter which box gets filled in on what form, the end result is the same: that millionaire sends in more money to the federal government.

This is the biggest hypocrisy of all, really, because it is the heart of the battle both the politicians and the media have focused on, and yet nobody's really taken the time yet to point out that the Emperor's new clothes don't seem to be there at all. John Boehner is caught in his own Republican doublethink, and is arguing both sides of an ideological question all by himself. It's not just doublethink, it's actually doubledebate. Boehner has to somehow convince his fellow Republicans that taking the same amount of money from a wealthy taxpayer is somehow orthodox Republican ideology when done one way, but a grievous sin if handled slightly differently. Six of one, Boehner will argue mightily, is not a half-dozen of the other.

Which is ridiculous, of course. The hypocrisy is so dense you can slice it up and sell chunks of it as souvenirs. Republicans are going through a much bigger shakeup than anyone in the punditocracy has so far realized. This is not just a matter of one faction against another on the Republican side of the aisle. We're instead at an monumental turning point in Republican orthodoxy -- a theological crisis on the order of Martin Luther nailing his blog post to the church door. Because it turns out that tax cuts don't actually pay for themselves. Temporary tax cuts can either expire or not, but arguing for one temporary tax cut to expire while keeping another one -- on ideological grounds -- is nothing more than having an argument with yourselves. Either the deficit is the overwhelming issue facing America, to be attacked with every tool available, or it's not. But it's hard to argue both at the same time. And finally, taxing millionaires one way is exactly the same thing as taxing them another way, ideologically. It's the same damn money, folks. But, increasingly among orthodox Republicans, these major ideological tenets are being both defended and attacked by the very same people, at the very same time.

It is, in fact, a profound crisis of faith among the true believers in the Republican Party. It will be interesting to see how it all works out, and it'd be a lot more interesting if the media would pick up on any of these bedrock contradictions in what the Republicans are standing for at the moment.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

91 Comments on “Massive Ideological Republican Hypocrisy”

  1. [1] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The bigger tragedy, Chris, is if you Google "payroll tax cut" under Google News, there is nary a peep of this anywhere in the "liberal media".

    *sigh*

    -David

  2. [2] 
    db wrote:

    Indeed. You are about the only author I've seen point out that we've been reduced to arguing over which line of the tax form is affected. At the risk of being insulting, the point seems simple. How come no one else has noticed?

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the payroll tax rate cut only affected the amount of tax withheld from each paycheck. It doesn't impact the amount of tax owed. Only the amount of refund received or further tax owed.

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    db -

    I've long since given up being amazed at the obvious stuff the inside-the-Beltway chattering class ignores.

    The payroll tax holiday is a reduction in Social Security (or FICA, on your paycheck) taxes. The rate is a flat 6.2%, up to the "cap" which is somewhere in the neighborhood of $110K right now. For the past two years, it has been 4.2% -- a mini-"raise" of 2% for everyone.

    SS tax doesn't even appear on your federal income tax return -- once it's gone, it's gone. So while this change won't affect your income taxes in any way, it will indeed make your paycheck smaller each week by 2% if the tax cut isn't extended. So far, it looks like both Republicans and Dems may be willing to sweep it under the rug, although I've heard some Dems saying they want to keep it. And I believe Obama kept it in his proposal, but that doesn't mean it won't get bargained away in the negotiations.

    Stay tuned, in other words...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    db wrote:

    CW,

    Thank you for the explanation.

    But doesn't that tax then go into the whole "Social Security is Insolvent" argument? Which, of course, goes back to your "Republican Hypocrisy" argument.

    Enlarging or eliminating the cap would do much to restore the SSI Trust Fund. Why haven't we heard more about that?

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans = hypocrites!!!????

    Say it ain't so!!!!

    Complaining about Republicans being hypocrites is like complaining about the sun rising..

    It's what they do.

    My point has always been that Republicans (by and large) don't make any excuses about being hypocrites...

    Which is why the larger portion of my disdain for politicians in general is reserved for Democrats specifically..

    Because Democrats are as big a hypocrites as Republicans. Their NO COMPROMISE attitude over the fiscal cliff issue is a perfect example..

    But Democrats like to put on aires that they are gods' gift to the poor and middle class...

    But when you shine the light on the cockroaches, Dem roaches scatter and hide just like Republican roaches...

    You can't tell one from the other...

    And that's the sad simple fact...

    Michale
    0233

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Obama and the Democrats are SERIOUS about their plan, why did Reid block the Senate from voting on it???

    Reid blocks Senate vote on Obama's deficit-reduction plan
    http://thehill.com/video/senate/271255-mcconnell-calls-for-vote-on-obamas-ridiculous-deficit-reduction-plan

    Everyone knows that NO SENATE Democrat would step forward and vote to support this ridiculous plan...

    I guess the ONLY people who support this ridiculous Obama plan are in the Leftist blogosphere..

    Michale
    0235

  7. [7] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Enlarging or eliminating the cap would do much to restore the SSI Trust Fund. Why haven't we heard more about that?

    db- The only place I've heard this from is ... believe it or not ... the Democrats. It's why I think they would be willing to see this go up. But neither are very much in the media.

    BTW, prepare for the well-financed media assault arguing that the President is "pushing us over the fiscal cliff of Armageddon and doom". Signs of its appearance are already beginning. I'm guessing if I turned on Fox it would be in non-stop rotation.

    -David

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    the President is "pushing us over the fiscal cliff of Armageddon and doom". Signs of its appearance are already beginning. I'm guessing if I turned on Fox it would be in non-stop rotation.

    Ignoring for the moment that IT'S fact, FNX is likely the ONLY MSM outlet that you will see it...

    All the other MSM are firmly in line with Obama and the Democrats and will go on and on about how it's all the Republicans fault...

    It's like Benghazi all over again.. One network putting out the facts and all the other networks falling all over themselves to protect Obama and the Democrats..

    Michale
    0241

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    "The Truth Is Everybody Needs To Pay More Taxes, Not Just The Rich"
    -Howard Dean

    Now THERE is a TRUE Modern Liberal...

    Michale
    0244

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    An even MORE apropos quote...

    "Think of the economy as a car and the rich man as the driver. If you don’t give the driver all the money, he’ll drive you over a cliff. It’s just common sense."
    -Montgomery Burns

    In the spirit of "equal time"... :D

    Michale
    0245

  11. [11] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "Think of the economy as a car and the rich man as the driver. If you don’t give the driver all the money, he’ll drive you over a cliff. It’s just common sense."
    -Montgomery Burns

    Hmmm ... Does Boehner get to say that line? Or McConnell? :)

    "Smithers... I don't believe in suicide, but if you'd like to try it, it might cheer me up to watch." - Montgomery Burns

    -David

  12. [12] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    Republicans are now arguing for a policy that is going to increase the deficit, to put this another way. This should be getting more media attention than it currently is, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

    It's just like how the 47% guy/Ryan budget plan actually SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASED the deficit, but that got little media attention too. The media is too scared by Fox into appearing 'biased' that they can't objectively analyse and compare 2 plans. It is pretty sad.

    Republicans right now are arguing that the payroll tax cuts can expire, which will raise this tax rate by two percent on anyone making less than around $110,000 a year, and by a smaller percent on those with larger salaries (showing the regressive nature of the tax)

    This needs to be repeated a million times. When Republicans argue 'we're not the party of the rich, we support tax cuts for everyone!'. OH. REALLY.

    It's the same damn money, John. How many of us are going to behave differently because of which box on our tax forms we fill in?

    I'm going to disagree with you. It's actually even worse than this. Without getting into too much detail, a lot of tax credits and deductions are intended to incentivise 'good' behaviour - generically speaking. So basically instead of cutting their taxes by cutting their rates, you are cutting their reward for GOOD behaviour that helps the country!

    An example: you cap deductions at $50k. So someone decides instead of donating $100k to charity as planned, they are only going to donate $50k because their tax incentive to donate this extra $50k is gone. What happens? The Government collects slightly more tax on the additional $50k they don't donate, but the 'good behaviour' in the system no longer occurs and charities see themselves $50k poorer.

    Michale,
    Everyone knows that NO SENATE Democrat would step forward and vote to support this ridiculous plan...

    Lololol this is nonsense of the highest degree, designed only for people like you to buy into the rhetoric. The Senate already voted on and passed almost the exact same Obama plan before the election - see link I posted in other discussion.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Lololol this is nonsense of the highest degree,

    If it were, then Reid would be pushing a Senate vote, to PROVE that Democrats were behind Obama's budget...

    He isn't because they are not..

    Obama's budget plans have NEVER garnered a SINGLE vote, Dem OR GOP...

    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale
    0249

  14. [14] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If it were, then Reid would be pushing a Senate vote, to PROVE that Democrats were behind Obama's budget...
    He isn't because they are not..
    Obama's budget plans have NEVER garnered a SINGLE vote, Dem OR GOP...
    "These are the facts. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    I'm calling you out on fact-abuse once more. Why on earth would he waste time doing this when the Senate already, before the election, passed an IDENTICAL BILL to what Obama's plan is?? Basically it is, again, another sign that Republicans just want to play games in Congress rather than pass ACTUAL LAWS THAT HAVE A CHANCE OF BEING SIGNED INTO LAW. Like 'why try and pass actual laws when we can waste millions of tax payers dollars passing a bill to repeal Obamacase 40 times... Let's see what other bills we can pass that have no chance of being passed into law - yaaaaaaaaaaaaaay fun!'

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm calling you out on fact-abuse once more. Why on earth would he waste time doing this when the Senate already, before the election, passed an IDENTICAL BILL to what Obama's plan is??

    Bullshit...

    Pure unadulterated bullshit.. :D

    Michale
    0255

  16. [16] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Rather than derailing with thread with more mind-numbing discussion, how about you produce your evidence as to why a bill passed by the Senate extending the Bush tax cuts for only those earning <$250k 6 months ago is different to Obama's current proposal of extending the Bush tax cuts for only those earning <$250k...

  17. [17] 
    michty6 wrote:

    * meant to say produce the evidence in the Friday talking points thread rather than derail this one...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:
  19. [19] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I say again: already passed, already rejected by House. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/with-vp-biden-presiding-senate-passes-democrats-tax-cut-plan/

    What is the point in doing so again? (Other than to make sure Congress really is a giant waste of time...)

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are not talking about the Obama plan that was just put forth within the last couple weeks..

    You are talking about a plan that was back in JULY...

    Admit it, michty..

    You were wrong...

    Michale
    0257

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    If that plan was rejected by the House back in July, WHY is Geinther going around presenting the plan in the here and now???

    Duuuhhhhhhhhh

    Michale
    0258

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unemployment back up..

    I am shocked!!! Shocked, I tell you!!!! :D

    Michale
    0259

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If that plan was rejected by the House back in July, WHY is Geinther going around presenting the plan in the here and now???

    Duuuhhhhhhhh

    Because they are negotiating a new budget that will avoid the fiscal cliff??? Lololol.

    Unemployment back up..

    Jobs numbers are out?? Where? I thought they were due tomorrow...

  24. [24] 
    db wrote:

    Michale #6

    When I was a young child, we were at a parade of the graduating cadets. I remember celarly, the woman next to me turned to her friend and said, "Look, they're all out of step. Except my Johnny."

    All the MSM is out of step. Except Fox?

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    DB,
    Don't you know that in Fox-land they are just waiting for President-elect Romney to take over and there is no way that Obama can get such a radical left-wing agenda through, especially after he just ran on the agenda and got crushed in the election...

    Haven't you heard that only 99.9% of Ohio results are in - CNN called it too early - there is no way you can call Ohio yet. THERE'S STILL TIME.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Because they are negotiating a new budget that will avoid the fiscal cliff??? Lololol.

    So it IS a new Budget....

    Make up your mind.. :D

    Jobs numbers are out?? Where? I thought they were due tomorrow...

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/159104/unadjusted-unemployment-shoots-back.aspx

    Michale
    0260

  27. [27] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Looooooooool Gallup. Have you learned NOTHING??

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looooooooool Gallup. Have you learned NOTHING??

    We shall see... :D

    We'll see if you'll admit you were wrong.. :D

    I bettin' not, but you might surprise me... :D

    Michale
    0262

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    db,

    Dunno if we have been introduced...

    "Welcome to the party, pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    Don't worry. You get used to it.. :D

    All the MSM is out of step. Except Fox?

    Not out of step... In the bag...

    It is simply undeniable by any rational person that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left in general.. In that order..

    There is simply too much empirical and factual evidence evidence to supports any other conclusion...

    Michale
    0263

  30. [30] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just to be clear, are you saying that you think tomorrow they will announce the unemployment rate is 7.8%, as Gallup states?

  31. [31] 
    michty6 wrote:

    (Or are you saying that the unemployment rate is going to shoot up by 0.9% in one month, which apparently according to Gallup it did looooooooool)

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The parsing of words behind the Republican attack on the Senate not passing a budget resolution ...

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2012/02/parliamentary-procedure

    Pretty good article from the Economist. FYI.

    Of course none of this really matters because the Senate or House passing anything doesn't really matter unless both sides can agree.

    This is why the attack seems like Republican Political Distraction Technique 101.

    -David

  33. [33] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    What can I say other than DUH! I'd imagine that if Democrats did pass their bill through the Senate Republicans would just accuse them of playing games and not taking the negotiations seriously. I mean I can imagine no dumber thing: in the middle of negotiations take your own plan/position and pass it through the Chamber you control, knowing that (like the last time you passed it through this Chamber) there is no chance the other Chamber is going to ratify it.

    It'd be like Democrats suggesting that Republicans not passing their deficit plan through the House is a sign that it doesn't have support either. Complete and utter nonsense of the highest right-wing-Fox-News-nonsense machine (brought on to this site by Michale of course!)

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ready to admit you were wrong when you claimed Obama's new budget was voted on back in July??

    No???

    Didna think so... :D

    Michale
    0266

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Totally and completely unrelated to anything..

    I have discovered the fastest and easiest way to find something you've lost...

    Order a new one.. :^/

    :D

    Michale
    0267

  36. [36] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It is simply undeniable by any rational person that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left in general.

    Sure, Michale. So let's take the conservative story on this issue. It goes something like this: Obama wants to drive the fiscal car off fiscal cliffmeggadon.

    Here's a title in the conservative vein written by a writer for the AP: Geithner: Obama Administration 'Absolutely' Willing to Go Off Fiscal Cliff

    Notice how "absolutely" is put in quotes and the rest of the sentence isn't? This means that Geithner never likely said "we're willing to go off the fiscal cliff". Absolutely could have been pulled from anywhere. So it looks like conservative spin.

    I tried to find where Geithner even said "absolutely" in the interview but the only clip I could find was here.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100281263

    Geithner doesn't sound anything like he wants to drive the fiscal country off fiscal cliffmeggadon.

    But the story reads this way. Lots of conflict in the title. Something to get Republicans or Democrats riled up. In this case, Republicans. They'll eat it up. Did you hear what Obama just said? He's willing to accept fiscal cliffmeggadon. We're all gonna die!

    Now if you go to Google and click on Google news and search for this scary title "white house absolutely willing to go off fiscal cliff," you will find that this is in 5155 news sources.

    In other words, the conservative spin is everywhere.

    Now, am I arguing that the media is conservative? No. I didn't say that. Most media leans much more corporate than conservative. Print the outrage. From either side. Entertain. Stir people up. Sell papers.

    But it's certainly not liberal.

    And you can do this over ... and over ... and over. Now where corporate media differs from Fox is that Fox News goes a step further in how far they're willing to go. Fox seems willing to make up outrage even when there isn't any.

    -David

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Once again, your analyzing a single molecule and trying to make a case on the entire ocean...

    Do some research into the amount of positive stories for Obama vs the positive stories for Romney.

    Do some research into the amount of NEGATIVE stories for Obama vs the NEGATIVE stories for Romney..

    Do some research into the amount of MSM stories over Abu Ghraib vs the amount of MSM stories over Afghani Kill Teams.

    Do some research into the amount of MSM stories on GITMO vs the amount of MSM stories on Benghazi..

    Do some HONEST research and then come tell me that the MSM sans FNC is not in the bag for Obama...

    If you want to isolate specific stories, I can do that til yer ears bleed..

    If you look at the trends?? It makes the case even better...

    There is only ONE logical conclusion that fits ALL the facts...

    The vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left in general.

    In THAT order....

    No amount of spin or ignoring the forest for a single tree will change that one simple fact..

    Michale
    0268

  38. [38] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Do some research ...

    But you've never believed in research before ... why would you now?

    Look, Michale, if you can't prove it's not true than obviously it's a FACT that it is TRUE.

    Also, because I put it in CAPITAL letters like you. Making it TRUIER.

    -David

  39. [39] 
    db wrote:

    Michale #29

    How do you do?

    Your statement, "It is simply undeniable by any rational person that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and the Left in general.. In that order.." is both conclusionary & demonstrably false. The alternative would be that Fox "News" is in the bag for Republicans and the Right. In that order. Mr. Weigant (above) has given several examples of Fox bias, influence, & impact.

    So everyone is out of step. Except Fox.

    I need to say that I agree with #35.

    michty6 #25

    I've heard that Anonymous had something to do with it. & it explains Rove's certainty that Ohio wasn't ready to go for President Obama. It also explains his surprise afterward when the result was confirmed.

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you've never believed in research before ... why would you now?

    That's because you never address these facts:

    The coverage frenzy of Abu Ghraib vs the comparatively ZERO coverage of the Afghani Kill Teams.

    The coverage frenzy of Gitmo vs the comparatively ZERO coverage of the Benghazi.

    Hell, just look at the Gitmo/torture/rendition coverage by the MSM under Bush vs Obama.

    You always fail to address these points because they PROVE that what I am saying is factual..

    Michale
    0269

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    DB,

    How do you do?

    Very well.. Or so I have been told. yuk yuk yuk :D

    is both conclusionary & demonstrably false.

    By all means, demonstrate it. :D

    Because in the post to David above and afore, I have demonstrated that the statement is dead on ballz accurate...

    "It's an industry term."
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale
    0270

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now if you go to Google and click on Google news and search for this scary title "white house absolutely willing to go off fiscal cliff," you will find that this is in 5155 news sources.

    OK, since we're relying on GOOGLE RESULTS, let's apply that to one instance of MSM-ITBFO syndrome..

    GOOGLE "Afghanistan Kill Teams", there are 50,000 results.

    GOOGLE "Abu Ghraib", there are 4,230,000 results..

    So, no matter HOW you slice it, no matter WHAT litmus test you use, no matter the dipstick, the ONLY logical conclusion is ALWAYS the same.

    The vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Democrats and The Left/Liberals...

    NO other conclusion fits all the facts..

    Michale
    0271

  43. [43] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's because you never address these facts

    You haven't addressed my claim, Michale ... Can you prove it's not true?

    Where's your research?

    :)

    -David

    p.s. And yes I'm being facetious here but mostly because I know nothing anyone says or does or any amount of logic or reason will matter. Despite how everyone has moved on from this Benghazi thing, kind of like everyone moved on from the birther thing, kind of like everyone moved on from the Reverend Wright thing, kind of like everyone moved on from the previous nutty conspiracy theory before that. I think what you don't realize is that at this point, the credibility of conservatives is pretty dinged up.

    So when you bring up a point of interest - like the news has focused far more on Abu Ghraib than Afghanistan kill teams - it gets lost in all the other noise.

    The issue, however, is what does this piece of information mean? Does it mean the news is liberal?

    You've made that argument but to me it seems just as likely that this information fits the explanation that the news is corporate. Abu Ghraib was much more of a spectacle than Afghani kill teams. That is, if it bleeds it leads. I would love to see more in the news about our wars that we continue to fight. If there were more news on them, maybe we wouldn't be fighting them. So I'm not sure how the fact that the news hasn't covered them as much fits in with the news being liberal.

    Who is it that typically doesn't want war coverage in the news? It's not liberals.

    Let me give you another example. Did you happen to notice that the military budget sailed through without any fuss? The military lobbyists got everything they wanted. I wish the news would have covered this more. But they don't cover it because a) There's no drama, and b) They'd be going up against the military contractor lobby, probably the most powerful lobby in America, dwarfing the NRA, unions, and anything else you can think of.

  44. [44] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So ... long story short ... there are other conclusions which fit the facts.

    Sorry, Michale.

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And ... I might add ... fit the facts better. Because your theory doesn't account for all of the conservative made up nuttiness which gets media play.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    So ... long story short ... there are other conclusions which fit the facts.

    There are some conclusions that fit SOME of the facts...

    But only one conclusion fits ALL the facts...

    Because your theory doesn't account for all of the conservative made up nuttiness which gets media play.

    If you know of any conservative nuttiness that gets media play from any other MSM outlet except FoxNews, by all means..

    Point it out.. :D

    Michale
    0272

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    So when you bring up a point of interest - like the news has focused far more on Abu Ghraib than Afghanistan kill teams - it gets lost in all the other noise.

    Then tune that noise out and address that one specific issue..

    There is absolutely NO other conclusion possible regarding the Abu Ghraib/Afghanistan Kill Teams other than the MSM is in the bag for Obama..

    It's like the Sanford FL shooting. The MSM (even FOX!!!) pushed the Dem racist agenda, even though there was NO EVIDENCE to support the claim. Hell, NBC even falsified evidence to push the racist agenda.. And are now being sued for it...

    NO other conclusion fits ALL of the facts...

    If you have another conclusion that fits ALL the facts, then by all means.. Let's examine it..

    But your normal "go to" conclusion that it's all about corporate money and ratings doesn't fit ALL of the facts. In the FL shooting case, putting out the FACTS would have resulted in racial riots up the wazoo and THAT would have been a ratings bonanza and the MSM would have cleaned up..

    But no... the MSM went with the same bullshit agenda that Dem Congress Critters was pushing.

    That's what I mean when I say that the only conclusion that fits ALL the facts is that the MSM is in the bag for Obama, Dems and the Left...

    Michale
    0273

  48. [48] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Abu Ghraib?

    Good lord. With those photos, that was the story of the year. If you didn't print it, all the traffic was going to go to other sites. Or other channels. Or other newspapers.

    Now if reporters were able to get pictures of Aghani kill teams ... then I bet you'd see some coverage. Which is, of course, why the military typically only allows friendly coverage to travel with them.

    -David

  49. [49] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Let's see if the media picks up the story of Mitch McConnell filibustering himself.

    Any bets?

    This is interesting because it could go either way. It's a tremendously entertaining story on the one hand. But on the other, the corporate media is pretty skittish when it comes to going after powerful politicians. Or going after the powerful in general.

    -David

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now if reporters were able to get pictures of Aghani kill teams ... then I bet you'd see some coverage. Which is, of course, why the military typically only allows friendly coverage to travel with them.

    Rolling Stone had PLENTY of pictures... Once RS broke the story, many MANY more pictures came to light..

    http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&safe=off&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=763&q=%22Afghanistan+Kill+Team%22&oq=%22Afghanistan+Kill+Team%22&gs_l=img.3...3445.8985.0.9285.23.23.0.0.0.0.260.2357.16j6j1.23.0...0.0...1ac.1.Sl2rm-jdTjI

    But no one in the MSM picked up on them so they were not widely distributed.....

    WHY do you think that is??

    What's different between the Afghanistan Kill Team (brutal vigilante style murders) and Abu Ghraib (College hazing)???

    Well, the biggest relevant difference is that Bush was POTUS during Abu Ghraib and Obama was POTUS during the Afghani Kill Team...

    Your claim is that Abu Ghraib was a bigger story than the AKT...

    Fine, I'll accept that..

    Now... *WHY* was it a bigger story???

    Because Bush was POTUS during Abu Ghraib and Obama was POTUS during the Afghani Kill Team.

    No other conclusion fits the facts...

    Michale
    0274

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me put it another way..

    Everyone here knows Abu Ghraib upside down, inside out and frontwards and backwards..

    NO ONE here knows a thing (or barely a thing) about the AKT..

    Now, WHY do you think that is?>??

    Because the MSM did not want to run with a story that would embarrass the Obama Administration.

    This is played out over and over and over again with each big story... The latest being Benghazi...

    If it had been a GOP President, the MSM would STILL be talking about Benghazi.. There would be nightly reports by the buttload from the MSM..

    You KNOW this to be true...

    But, because it's Obama, the MSM is doing their utmost to ignore it..

    More examples??

    Explain Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard Papers.. Compare and contrast that to the non-existent coverage of Obama and HIS paper trail...

    The problem ya'all have in recognoizing the bias is that ya'all share the SAME bias...

    "Equal perversion is NO perversion."
    -Commander Riker, QUANTUM LEAP
    (note: Not equating bias w/ perversion. The quote just fits.. :D)

    Since ya'all and the vast majority of the MSM share the same bias, for ya'all, the bias doesn't exist... For ya'all, the biased coverage is the norm...

    It's a sound psychological theory.

    Michale
    0275

  52. [52] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Explain Dan Rather and the Bush National Guard Papers.. Compare and contrast that to the non-existent coverage of Obama and HIS paper trail.

    Dan Rather was a huge story. I'm not sure what you're talking about. So was all the nonsense about Obama and his birth certificate and his high school records.

    Explain both of these. They were covered by far more than just Fox.

    Here in Ohio, two major companies (Diebold and American Greetings) who received huge tax breaks to build new headquarters here from our governor decided that nah, they didn't want to do it. $150 million in handouts to corporations to create jobs. And they just decide they don't want to do it.

    Guess how much press these stories have gotten?

    http://www.plunderbund.com/2012/11/30/after-90-million-in-incentives-from-kasich-american-greetings-delays-hq-move/

    Where's the liberal media? Answer: there isn't any. The media here is corporate and afraid of offending other large state corporations.

    Rolling Stone had PLENTY of pictures... Once RS broke the story, many MANY more pictures came to light.

    My point exactly. The pictures were published in Rolling Stone.

    But not the corporate media.

    And they won't be until there's enough push from somewhere else to get the corporate media to print. With Abu Ghraib, there was.

    You think that conservatives are the only ones who have to push on the mainstream media?

    Stories don't typically start in the mainstream media anymore. This is why I pretty much see it as irrelevant. The corporate media watches and reacts. They are very fearful of offending anyone, particularly anyone in power, or anyone who could affect their advertising dollars.

    Abu Ghraib hit a critical mass which I don't think could be ignored. Now this may have happened because Abu Ghraib struck a chord with people that somehow Afghanistan kill teams haven't. I think this is a shame.

    -David

  53. [53] 
    michty6 wrote:

    One thing is for sure: Fox is most excellent at convincing people there is 'bias' in the MSM and they are the unbiased ones (see any Michale comments) - and you won't convince these people otherwise (impossible - it is hammered home by Fox EVERY SINGLE DAY without fail, so trying to convince someone this is not the case is like trying to convince the Pope that God doesn't exist). Benghazi is the most recent spectacular example of this, but they do it in a laughable way constantly (I miss the 'mainstream bias' section they had on their main page pre-election, it was hilarious).

    If the rest of the MSM bothered to play this game or fight back (other than the occasional few that do, usually comedians) then MAYBE people might be able to see Fox for it is. Sadly, their reaction is instead to try to appear 'unbiased' which is often to the detriment of insightful and useful analysis...

  54. [54] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Posted in other thread, but it fits into this discussion pretty well:

    Fun game. Did you know that today the unemployment rate dropped to 7.7%, a 4 year low.

    CBS News front-page: Economy adds 146K jobs in Nov., jobless rate drops
    NBC News front-page: JOBLESS RATE HITS 4-YEAR LOW

    Now try and find this news on Fox's front page. You have 30 seconds. Go!

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Micthy,

    Apparently, I haven't learned my lesson... :D

    Michale
    0276

  56. [56] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol in fairness it is Gallup who haven't learned their lesson. I mean it is astonishing how bad they are! Not just their numbers, but they can't even get the TREND right and getting the trend correct should be a 33/33/33 (up/same/down) proposition if you were just purely guessing each month!

    Also most analysts were saying around 90k jobs with the rate remaining unchanged, so most people got this one wrong...

  57. [57] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Fox is most excellent at convincing people there is 'bias' in the MSM and they are the unbiased ones (see any Michale comments)

    michty- You never know. Often, Michale surprises me. For instance, I think his question about why there isn't more coverage of Afghanistan here in the U.S. is completely relevant. I just disagree with the conclusion he draws. But this type of thing is tremendously interesting.

    -David

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Corporate influence explains SOME of the facts..

    It doesn't come close to explaining ALL of the facts.

    The Sanford FL shooting for example..

    The *ONLY* conclusion that explains *ALL* of the facts is the inherent Obama/Democrat/Left bias of the majority of the MSM..

    I don't expect you to concede the point. I am also certain that you honestly don't SEE the bias. That's because their bias is your bias.

    Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..

    Michale
    0277

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:
  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/73-new-jobs-created-last-5-months-are-government

    Yea... No BIG GOVERNMENT there, eh??? :^/

    Michale
    0279

  61. [61] 
    michty6 wrote:

    You know that without Government shedding jobs over the last 4 years the unemployment rate would be 6.6%? Might want to consider this fact before you go on about 'Big Government'...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Once again, I am amazed at the difference between Liberals of the 60s and Modern Liberals today..

    The idea that GOVERNMENT is the solution rather than the problem would have provoked bursts of laughter from the 60s liberals.. :D

    Michale
    0280

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I am also certain that you honestly don't SEE the bias. That's because their bias is your bias.

    Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..

    Can you, at least, concede the possibility???

    Michale
    0281

  64. [64] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Sadly, their reaction is instead to try to appear 'unbiased' which is often to the detriment of insightful and useful analysis.

    Yes ... which is why the definition of news these days is simple an equal amount of Republican or Democratic talking points.

    No matter what the analysis is.

  65. [65] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias.

    I would disagree with this.

    An unbiased opinion is one which is based on proper analysis and logic.

    The best example of this is: Should our science curricula include equal time for evolution vs religion when it comes to the theory of how we became what we are?

    One theory is based on overwhelming scientific evidence while the other theory is based on a book written by ... well, people. BTW, I think it's fine to teach religion, but I think the point that is often missed is what happens when scientific fact disproves religion.

    In a view where we just present each side as politics, both views would be equally valid. Even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one.

    -David

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    One theory is based on overwhelming scientific evidence while the other theory is based on a book written by ... well, people. BTW, I think it's fine to teach religion, but I think the point that is often missed is what happens when scientific fact disproves religion.

    In a view where we just present each side as politics, both views would be equally valid. Even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of one.

    You just proved my point for me..

    Inadvertently, I am sure.. :D

    When religion is taught as fact, those who are biased towards religion don't see anything wrong with it..

    Since their bias is the same as the bias within the teaching, their perception is that there is NO bias...

    So it is with political ideology..

    Those who are biased towards a particular ideology don't see the inherent bias from those who are ALSO biased towards said ideology.

    That's why staunch conservatives don't see any bias in FoxNews...

    That's why staunch Democrats don't see any bias in MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NRP, etc etc etc

    Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias...

    Michale
    0282

  67. [67] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Those who are biased towards a particular ideology don't see the inherent bias from those who are ALSO biased towards said ideology.

    Made me think of this http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-religious-issue.gif

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Made me think of this http://www.balloon-juice.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/fiscal-cliff-religious-issue.gif

    Now THAT's funny!!! :D

    However, in the interests fairness, sticking it to the rich is the Democrat's religion.. :D

    Michale.....
    0283

  69. [69] 
    LewDan wrote:

    I've kicked-back enjoying the entertainment value of this thread!

    Until...

    "The idea that GOVERNMENT is the solution rather than the problem would have provoked bursts of laughter from the 60s liberals.. :D"

    'Fraid I gagged on that one, Michale! Ever heard of the Civil Rights Movement?

    Although... "Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..." is a close runner-up.

    So, two wrongs do make a right!

  70. [70] 
    akadjian wrote:

    So it is with political ideology.

    However, not so with the analysis underlying the political ideology.

    To paraphrase, you're entitled to your own opinions but you're not entitled to your own facts.

    So riddle me this, Michale.

    Part of "Democratic" or liberal ideology is a grounding in analysis and rational thought.

    Whereas much of conservative ideology is based on selfishness and religion.

    What happens when the ideology of selfishness and religion conflicts with the analysis?

    -David

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Part of "Democratic" or liberal ideology is a grounding in analysis and rational thought.

    I thought we were talking about FACTS... :)

    Where did ya come up with THAT little gem.. :D

    What happens when the ideology of selfishness and religion conflicts with the analysis?

    I dunno.. You would have to ask someone who has the ideology of selfishness and religion.. :D

    Michale
    0284

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    I've kicked-back enjoying the entertainment value of this thread!

    Mission accomplished!! :D

    'Fraid I gagged on that one, Michale! Ever heard of the Civil Rights Movement?

    Ya mean, the movement that the Democratic Party fought?? :D

    Yea, sure you can cherry pick a point or two... But if you are trying to convince me that the Liberals of yore were as gung-ho pro-government as Modern Liberals are today... ???

    Well, all I can say is ya better bring LOTS of beer!! :D

    "Homer. I want to be loved."
    "I see.. Well.... OK.... I'll need some beer."

    -The Simpsons

    :D

    Although... "Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..." is a close runner-up.

    If you have any evidence to back up your conclusion.....

    "I'm all ears!"
    -Ross Perot, 1992 Presidential Debates

    :D

    A two-fer!!! :D

    Michale
    0285

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although... "Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..."

    Remember, we're talking PERCEPTION, not reality...

    Michale
    0286

  74. [74] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I dunno.. You would have to ask someone who has the ideology of selfishness and religion.. :D

    Looks to me like what happens is denial.

    Or ...

    http://creationmuseum.org/

    :)

    -David

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks to me like what happens is denial.

    You might be right...

    I would be the LAST person to have any answers regarding religion..

    But you have to allow that THEY feel as strongly about their beliefs as you do about yours....

    Michale
    0286

  76. [76] 
    akadjian wrote:

    But you have to allow that THEY feel as strongly about their beliefs as you do about yours..

    Which beliefs would those be?

    -David

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whatever beliefs you say that they are in denial over...

    Michale
    0287

  78. [78] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Whatever beliefs you say that they are in denial over.

    I mean which Leftist communist beliefs are you suggesting I'm religious about?

    :)

    -David

  79. [79] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW- Note that the Mitch McConnell story about him filibustering himself did not make the corporate media.

    Where are those "liberal" media? You would think they'd of loved this story?

    -David

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean which Leftist communist beliefs are you suggesting I'm religious about?

    The rich should pay more in taxes than they already do... :D

    As for that being Leftist/Communist...???

    That's your characterization, not mine.. :D

    Michale
    0288

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    BTW- Note that the Mitch McConnell story about him filibustering himself did not make the corporate media.

    The filibustering himself was a Weigantian characterization...

    It really wasn't a self-filibuster, so much as a Democrat changing the rules to further the Democrat agenda...

    As such, it really wasn't such a big deal..

    On the other hand, the Nightly News has yet to roll, so you still might see it.. :D

    Michale
    0289

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the other hand, the Nightly News has yet to roll, so you still might see it.. :D

    If you DO see it, you'll have to let me know...

    We haven't watched network TV in over a decade... :D

    Michale
    0292

  83. [83] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Although... "Equal bias is, relatively speaking, NO bias..."

    Remember, we're talking PERCEPTION, not reality..."

    And here I thought this was the reality-based site! (Have you broken it to CW yet Michale?)

    BTW, even talking perception your logical dissonance is showing. If the same people who are influenced by right-leaning media are equally influenced by comparable left-leaning media then you'd have effectively no bias. But when conservative nut-jobs are influenced by right-leaning media and ignore left-leaning media while progressive loonies are influenced by left-leaning media ignoring right-leaning media, what we have (here in reality as well as perception) is a whole lot more crazies exhibiting irrational bias. Rather the opposite of "no bias."

  84. [84] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "It really wasn't a self-filibuster, so much as a Democrat changing the rules to further the Democrat agenda..."

    Where do you get this stuff? McConnell called for a vote. Reid said okay, let's vote. McConnell demanded any vote require a super-majority. That's called a "filibuster" Michale. Votes don't routinely require any more than a simple majority unless a Senator filibusters. Surely you're not that out of touch with reality?! Fun's fun, but, seriously are you abandoning any pretense of your claims making sense?

  85. [85] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The rich should pay more in taxes than they already do... :D

    The whole point of initially giving wealthy people tax breaks was that it would "trickle down" to the rest of us.

    The data shows it hasn't. It has simply redistributed money to the rich. It also hasn't created new jobs.

    http://www.thefinarts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Average-change-in-income.png

    Historically, if you look at income and wealth. It's pretty easy to see that these policies of the last 30 years are redistributing income upwards.

    I believe in ending this practice because the analysis shows that the goal was not achieved by the change. People may have at one time believed this to be true, but anyone believing it now is ignoring the analysis.

    If the analysis told me otherwise, I'd believe in trickle down.

    What analysis are you using for your argument that giving tax breaks to the wealthy creates jobs and trickles down?

    -David

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    And here I thought this was the reality-based site! (Have you broken it to CW yet Michale?)

    Oh quit being so obtuse. It doesn't become you..

    In THIS particular issue, perception is reality..

    But when conservative nut-jobs are influenced by right-leaning media and ignore left-leaning media while progressive loonies are influenced by left-leaning media ignoring right-leaning media, what we have (here in reality as well as perception) is a whole lot more crazies exhibiting irrational bias.

    Just like David (and I am sure, just as inadvertently :D) you prove my point for me..

    A Right Winger doesn't see FOX as biased because a Right Winger shares the same bias as FOX..

    Ergo, the Right Winger's *perception* is that there is no bias.

    Just like ya'all don't view NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, etc etc as biased because you SHARE the bias of those organizations..

    Ya'alls' PERCEPTION is that they are not biased...

    Ergo (my new word for the day ;D) equal bias is perceived as NO bias...

    "Simple logic"
    -Admiral James T Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home

    :D

    Michale
    0295

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    The whole point of initially giving wealthy people tax breaks was that it would "trickle down" to the rest of us.

    The data shows it hasn't. It has simply redistributed money to the rich. It also hasn't created new jobs.

    And a fanatical religious person would ALSO be able to give you a calm rational reason why the believe what they do...

    As I said above, whatever gets ya'all thru the day..

    Sticking it to the rich is the Left's religion...

    Along with a lot of other issues. Ya'all CLAIM to rely on science, but only when it suits ya'alls agenda and ONLY when the science agrees with that agenda..

    Castigating the Right for their devotion to their ideology is hypocritical when the Left is just as devoted to THEIR ideology...

    What analysis are you using for your argument that giving tax breaks to the wealthy creates jobs and trickles down?

    Com'on.. I am just a ground-pounding knuckle dragger.. What do I know of economic theory..

    All I know is what my eyes and ears tell me..

    And it's clear that the Democrats' way simply doesn't work..

    Your argument that the Republicans' way doesn't work has merit..

    Your claim that the Democrats' way DOES work is completely illogical considering ALL the evidence of the here and now...

    Michale
    0297

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ergo (my new word for the day ;D) equal bias is perceived as NO bias...

    Put another way...

    Imagine a world (gods forbid) that was ONLY made up of Democrats and the ONLY MSM (almost a reality) was NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, NPR etc etc..

    There would be NO political media bias in the world because everyone in the entire world would be all on the same page, politically speaking.

    All equal bias is NO bias whatsoever..

    Now, imagine First Contact from Alpha Repuplicanis...

    They would show up on Earth and high-tail it back to their own 3rd rock because of all the bias...

    It's like EVERYONE being "special"...

    If EVERYONE is "special" then NO ONE is special...

    If EVERYONE is biased-Left then there is NO bias...

    Get it??

    Michale
    0298

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And a fanatical religious person would ALSO be able to give you a calm rational reason why the believe what they do.

    Quite likely. But what they wouldn't be able to give you is a logical reason grounded in solid analysis.

    Com'on.. I am just a ground-pounding knuckle dragger.. What do I know of economic theory.

    I'm not buying that 'aw shucks' for a moment. Remember, I know you Michale and I know you're a sharp guy. I can tell because of how you couch your answers and how well you pull people's strings and fight.

    It doesn't take much economic theory to see that supply side economics has primarily benefited a small group of people.

    Now I don't care if Republicans fight against it. Democrats fight against it. Aliens fight against it. If the analysis shows it hasn't worked and doesn't benefit our country, we should work to change it.

    I'm not advocating for "redistributing wealth" either. But in the '60s, for example, we had a capitalist system where everyone was doing pretty well. There was a big middle class, etc.

    Then we started to buy into this supply-side economic idea. At first it seemed like it might be a good idea (at least this was my recollection during the 80s) because it freed up capital and everyone seemed to be a little better off than at the tail end of the 70s.

    However, over time, it's created a system where only those at the top really benefit. And this shift is not getting any better. Look around you. Everyone is working for more hours for less pay and less benefits. Except for those at the very top who haven't done this well since the '20s.

    The large middle class consumer base which drives our economy keeps eroding. And if it erodes far enough, it doesn't matter how much help we give to the producers (supply side), there won't be anyone buying.

    I think we've gone too far to the supply side and simply need to spend some time going back to demand side economics - to produce that system which benefits more people, not just those at the top.

    You don't have to be a Dem or a liberal to support this. I think if Republicans were smart, they'd start supporting it too. Right now, however, what I see them doing is trying to re-brand what they're doing. That is, it's still supply side economics, trickle down theory, and deregulation, but you will never hear them say any of this.

    -David

    p.s. That Mitch McConnell story never made the corporate media. Funny, all my liberal friends loved it. You'd think if the media were actually liberal, this story would have been everywhere.

    How does your 'liberal media' theory explain this?

  90. [90] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Here's another great statistical chart showing the effect of supply side economics ...

    http://rightleftwrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/us-wealth-distribution-mother-jones.jpg

    And ... quite likely ... the only reason it still exists. Because people don't know how skewed the system really has become.

    -David

  91. [91] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If EVERYONE is biased-Left then there is NO bias.

    This is exactly what I've been arguing for years, that there is no Left bias.

    Left/Right bias is a creation of conservatives who want to push through an unpopular agenda designed to benefit a very few wealthy individuals.

    Obviously, they can't do this simply by telling people their agenda. So they create the "Right". And then they say that everything which doesn't agree with their view is "Left".

    To paraphrase, "Everyone who isn't with us, is against us."

    And they fight this silly Left/Right battle over and over in the media because it makes good airplay.

    The problem is that there isn't really a "Left". And there isn't really a "Right".

    Mostly there's a bunch of average people who have to pick and choose between one of these brands.

    What people are starting to realize is that the "Right" brand is really fighting for this very small group of wealthy people.

    -David

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]