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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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?

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."

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

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

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

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

-David

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

:)

-David

Michale
0287

Which beliefs would those be?

-David

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

Looks to me like what happens is denial.

Or ...

http://creationmuseum.org/

:)

-David

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

Michale
0286

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

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

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

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!

Now THAT's funny!!! :D

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

Michale.....
0283

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Michale
0280

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

Michale
0279

There's a different viewpoint.. :D

Michale
0278

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

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

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

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

Michale
0276

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!

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, Michale.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Order a new one.. :^/

:D

Michale
0267

No???

Didna think so... :D

Michale
0266

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!)

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

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

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

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

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.

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?

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...

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

Michale
0259

Duuuhhhhhhhhh

Michale
0258

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

Admit it, michty..

You were wrong...

Michale
0257

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

I say again..

Bullshit... :D

Michale
0256

Bullshit...

Pure unadulterated bullshit.. :D

Michale
0255

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!'

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

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.

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

"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

Now THERE is a TRUE Modern Liberal...

Michale
0244

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

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

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

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

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?

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