Are you going to try and answer the question, or are you going to continue to insist that the only possible "compromise" is complete capitulation to the radical extremists?
Republicans shoot down tax on rich
- Thread starter FriendlyFire
- Start date
Are you going to try and answer the question, or are you going to continue to insist that the only possible "compromise" is complete capitulation to the radical extremists?
What is the "liberal mainstream media" anyway? Is it yet another of those right-wing buzz-phrases thrown out to cheapen debate and distract from what they're actually saying or does it actually have some basis in reason?
Farm Boy
run boy run
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 26,609
It's overstated by conservatives, but there is a liberal slant to many of the large network news sites. It usually seems to me to be less of a complaint about the coverage itself rather than a complaint about the selection of stories to cover.
It is a measure of our good fortune that we can call these guys "radical extremists" with a straight face.
It is a measure of our good fortune that we can call these guys "radical extremists" with a straight face.
Not even that. I get sick of all the specious "constitutional" arguments thrown around, mostly by the conservatives in this country. It's not so much the Constitution they seek to uphold, but a thin veneer for all their ordinary prejudices/attitudes/opinions/etc. that would otherwise be unconvincing.
People use very different definitions of the word "compromise" which range from give and take a little to complete capitulation.
I always thought there were more media biases than the simple left-right political bias that people attribute to it. While Fox News and some other hosts like Keith Olbermann are clearly pushing their political agendas, the average newscaster (not an opinion journalist) probably succumbs more to a sensationalist bias than a political one. In short: irrelevant of which party ideology they support, the media institutions themselves have a separate set of structural biases.
Here's a list of liberal media outlets, off the top of my head:
AntiWar.com
MotherJones
AdBusters
DemocracyNow!
Salon.com
CounterPunch
CommonDream
Notably absent is MSNBC. That's because it's primarily a centrist news outlet, with left-of-center editorial content. But that's a far cry from a 'liberal news outlet'. CNN is even further to the right of MSNBC.
How do I categorize things this way? When a news outlet challenges the traditional power structures (corporate/government/military) and questions the relationship between the seats of power and citizens. That's really all that left / right means in this context: should political and economic power reside among the Citizens or among the establishment.
CNN and MSNBC are definitely not liberal by that measure.
I don't think most self-proclaimed conservative americans would even recognize an honest-to-god liberal news outlet if they ever came across it.
EDIT:
AntiWar.com
MotherJones
AdBusters
DemocracyNow!
Salon.com
CounterPunch
CommonDream
Notably absent is MSNBC. That's because it's primarily a centrist news outlet, with left-of-center editorial content. But that's a far cry from a 'liberal news outlet'. CNN is even further to the right of MSNBC.
How do I categorize things this way? When a news outlet challenges the traditional power structures (corporate/government/military) and questions the relationship between the seats of power and citizens. That's really all that left / right means in this context: should political and economic power reside among the Citizens or among the establishment.
CNN and MSNBC are definitely not liberal by that measure.
I don't think most self-proclaimed conservative americans would even recognize an honest-to-god liberal news outlet if they ever came across it.
EDIT:
Noam Chomsky has a really great spiel where he talks about how there's self-selection working at every level of corporate media. Nobody can move up the chain without fitting the mold of what the media establishment determines a 'journalist' should look like. He cites the questions that journalists with integrity would ask at news conferences. It's fascinating. I'll see if I can find a link to the video on my lunch break.Anitlogic said:
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
Liberal News Bias is more a biproduct of the personal bias of the people deciding what to cover. If you look decently closely the gaffs made by Obama are much less news worthy than President Bush choking on a pretzel was. There are some pretty bad ones though. The AP has News writers using words like "divisive" to describe Republican politicians but I have never seen that word used to describe Obama who has fought black against white since the beer summit of 2009.
It is overstated by Conservative news outlets but it certain does exist. Not is the global outlook but in the tight left right spectrum of American politics.
It is overstated by Conservative news outlets but it certain does exist. Not is the global outlook but in the tight left right spectrum of American politics.
Once again conservatives decrying “liberal mainstream media” have successfully diverted attention away from the issue at hand.
He was one of the two authors I had in mind when writing my post, the other being Brooke Gladstone and her enlightening comic book.
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
Fine BSmith1068 I have heard from the Republican leaders that they recently attempted to compromise with the president. They claim to have been doing it in good faith and had thought that they had reached an agreement. Two days later before the agreement would've gone to a vote Obama came back with a large increase in his demands.
As for taxes on the rich well two small things to consider. 1. The rich are mobile they have the ability to leave the country if the demands become to much for them. 2. Capital Gains are taxed at a low level because they are already suppose to have been taxed at 35% corporate tax rate. The government gets an extra 15% of the money that is made through capital gains. This is double taxation and something that Americans for some reason try to avoid.
As for taxes on the rich well two small things to consider. 1. The rich are mobile they have the ability to leave the country if the demands become to much for them. 2. Capital Gains are taxed at a low level because they are already suppose to have been taxed at 35% corporate tax rate. The government gets an extra 15% of the money that is made through capital gains. This is double taxation and something that Americans for some reason try to avoid.
Dividends are taxed at the coprorate level - capital gains are not. As the value of a security holding increases, the tax on that value increase is deferred until the security is sold. So for capital gains, you are getting two benefits - deferral and the low rate.
Wouldn't something like that be big news? It seems that a prominent US politician can't sneeze without someone taking a pot shot at him for that.
cegman said:
Source?
And to be honest, any Congressman claiming that they were bargaining in good faith without backing that claim up with transcripts is about as convincing as a rapist claiming "she never said No."
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
I never said it was a fact that he was doing it in good faith but I cannot find a transcript. It was a radio interview with on of the local Conservative Radio hosts I thought there was podcast of it if you cared to listen but I cannot find the small cut it is somewhere in here http://www.620wtmj.com/podcasts/talk/charliesykes PS. peter grimes I can tell you what they claim all I want because these deals aren't in public view we can't know the truth.
Arakhor I can honestly say that no this wouldn't be big news. The things republican leaders say against Obama on local conservative talk radio isn't publicized in the Mainstream media (not because of the bias they just don't care). People have been claiming Obama does this for the last 3 years. I don't have anyway to prove one way or the other because it is one side against the other.
JollyRodger I love when you post it reminds me of all the awesome important pieces of information that I am never reminded of. I would love to edit my post to remove the false information but that would be disingenuous of me.
The point I was trying to attack was dividends because I was under the impression that most of the income that Obama is so mad about was dividend income. Am I wrong in this impression? (I got it from "his twitter")
Arakhor I can honestly say that no this wouldn't be big news. The things republican leaders say against Obama on local conservative talk radio isn't publicized in the Mainstream media (not because of the bias they just don't care). People have been claiming Obama does this for the last 3 years. I don't have anyway to prove one way or the other because it is one side against the other.
JollyRodger I love when you post it reminds me of all the awesome important pieces of information that I am never reminded of. I would love to edit my post to remove the false information but that would be disingenuous of me.
The point I was trying to attack was dividends because I was under the impression that most of the income that Obama is so mad about was dividend income. Am I wrong in this impression? (I got it from "his twitter")
Republican leaders have lied through their teeth every time they claimed to "compromise". They have never offered one that was half way between what they want and what Democrats want.
Other than that, 1) The rich did not leave when the tax rate was 90%. Why would they leave for 30%? 2) Corporations aren't taxed after loopholes. So the 15% is all the government gets.
I think that capital gains is the big factor. That's what allows someone like Romney or Buffett to not pay a significant effective tax rate.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
NGOs build infrastructure, provided work, do Hearts and Minds, provided Free Healthcare to Iraqi and Afghan civilians is ok. But NGOs providing Free healthcare to US citizens is unconsitutional?
Maybe the US should invade itself and then it can get free healthcare and infrastructure.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
I heard republicans get 98% of what they wanted and democrates got 2%. And all they had to do was bring the US government to the brink of collapse.
Now a few months later Republicans having gotten 98% of what they wanted are now reversing there position and sharfting their agreement.
I got to hand it to Republicans they know how to "compromise"
BasketCase
Username sez it all
It's working, isn't it? 
The only way to defeat this highly successful Republican strategy is to get the budget balanced so Republicans can't hold it hostage.
Further: I'm fine with the Buffet Rule getting the axe, for this reason: when an entity (person, government, doesn't matter) can't spend money responsibly, giving them more money is precisely the thing NOT to do. The U.S. government should get its credit cards figuratively snipped until they get the spending under control.
The only way to defeat this highly successful Republican strategy is to get the budget balanced so Republicans can't hold it hostage.
Further: I'm fine with the Buffet Rule getting the axe, for this reason: when an entity (person, government, doesn't matter) can't spend money responsibly, giving them more money is precisely the thing NOT to do. The U.S. government should get its credit cards figuratively snipped until they get the spending under control.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
It's working, isn't it?
The only way to defeat this highly successful Republican strategy is to get the budget balanced so Republicans can't hold it hostage.
Further: I'm fine with the Buffet Rule getting the axe, for this reason: when an entity (person, government, doesn't matter) can't spend money responsibly, giving them more money is precisely the thing NOT to do. The U.S. government should get its credit cards figuratively snipped until they get the spending under control.
Not only the government but also corporations and people.
They only way to defeat [insert terrorist, communist, socialist etc] is to give them what they want so it wont be held hostage anymore. ... wait isnt that like appeasement ?
We'll thats one way of getting a budget under control.
Similar threads
- Locked
