The Overwhelming Bias of the Mainstream Media

[Andrew D]

Let's not forget the inauguration-day anti-America meeting of leading Republicans.

The very day that Obama took office, leading Republicans gathered to plot their sabotage of the American economy.

That's what congressional Republicans do: Drive ordinary Americans into poverty for their own venal purposes.

And that is why the combined value of all the lives of all the congressional Republicans is less than the value of a dog turd molding in the gutter.

[Econoline]

Long Run - I have to say I've seen MUCH more evidence of intransigence and unwillingness to compromise on the part of congressional Republicans than on the part of the President...and the deal to keep tax cuts for the rich shows only that their REAL top priority (or maybe just a priority equal to the effort to make sure Obama serves only one term?) Is to cut taxes for the rich, and that they're willing to do absolutely ANYTHING--even compromise with Obama!--to achieve that goal.

[dgs49]

"...tax cuts for the rich..."

Do you have any idea how small it makes one seem to use such an idiotic, patently envious, expression?

The tax rates are what they are. They have been the same for about a decade. Keeping them the same is not a "tax cut."

This "issue" is a vacuous Democrat talking point, and not much more than that. The projections of increased revenue from a tax increase for the top brackets (which is what we are talking about, after all) are (1) wildly optimistic, (2) assume that those in the top brackets will not react to the increase in rates, which is quite naive, and (3) will not make a significant dent in the deficit over the next decade. Further, even Democrats recognize that increasing taxes on the highest earners in the midst of a severe recession is folly. It sends exactly the wrong signal to the markets and to the people whose economic activities are absolutely determinative of when we get out of the recession.

And in addition, this same population - mainly small businessmen - are at the same time being burdened with increased employee costs and increased (more onerous, not more numerous) regulations.

As with increases in the Minimum Wage, Democrats talk about these initiatives to win support from the ignorant, while knowing that they would be harmful to the economy if passed in the form presented.


It has been said a brazillion times but apparently not often enough, the Federal government doesn't have a problem with too little revenue - it has a problem with too much spending. And that is true in spades (no racial offense intended) in the states and local governments.

[Long Run]

Long Run - I have to say I've seen MUCH more evidence of intransigence and unwillingness to compromise on the part of congressional Republicans than on the part of the President...and the deal to keep tax cuts for the rich shows only that their REAL top priority (or maybe just a priority equal to the effort to make sure Obama serves only one term?) Is to cut taxes for the rich, and that they're willing to do absolutely ANYTHING--even compromise with Obama!--to achieve that goal.

And conservatives would say the exact opposite. fwiw, Bob Woodward who is generally a moderate type as a journalist who had pretty good access to the White House to write his book, blames both Obama and the Rs, but places greater blame on Obama for most of the inability to get things done.

[Econoline]

"...tax cuts for the rich..."

Do you have any idea how small it makes one seem to use such an idiotic, patently envious, expression?

The tax rates are what they are. They have been the same for about a decade. Keeping them the same is not a "tax cut."

And allowing a TEMPORARY tax cut to expire AS WRITTEN IN LAW is not a tax increase, unless you consider the original Bush-era tax cuts to also be tax increases. Regardless, Obama and the 111th Congress were clearly not responsible for that law. And I deliberately added the phrase "for the rich" not out of envy but out of accuracy: you'll recall that at the time of the 2010 compromise, tax cuts for the middle class ($200,000 individual/$250,000 joint taxable income) were uncontroversial for both parties and needed no compromise. (And of course the changes in the estate tax that were part of the compromise benefitted only the very rich--0.01% of taxpayers IIRC.)

It has been said a brazillion times but apparently not often enough, the Federal government doesn't have a problem with too little revenue - it has a problem with too much spending.

It has a problem with BOTH--and should not be unnecessarily cutting revenue.

[Rick]

Big Bird!

Big Bird!

Big Bird!

[Grim Reaper]

It has been said a brazillion times but apparently not often enough, the Federal government doesn't have a problem with too little revenue - it has a problem with too much spending. And that is true in spades (no racial offense intended) in the states and local governments.

Right. Then explain why the Republicans keep pointing their knives at relatively tiny programs, like PBS, that make up a microscopic fraction of the debt. While at the same time, we have congressmen trying to force the US Army to waste billions to keep a plant open when they don't need any more tanks that would be produced.

There are huge gaping holes that need to be plugged before we even think about slicing apart the small stuff.

[dgs49]

Oddly, I don't really disagree with your point here, Reaper.

But the reason why PBS keeps coming up is that it is a conspicuous example of a Federal government program that is (1) unconstitutional, (2) stupid, and (3) unnecessary. And if we can't get rid of something that so obviously needs pruning...

As I have written before on this BBS, DoD could cut hundreds of billions over the coming decade and it wouldn't compromise our security a bit. Between superfluous plane and weapons systems, unnecessary military bases, and our presence in countries where we are no longer needed, the savings could be vast.

But as we all know, entitlement reform is the only real way out of this, and on entitlement reform, the Dems are perpetually AWOL (to use a military expression).

[Econoline]

Long Run - I have to say I've seen MUCH more evidence of intransigence and unwillingness to compromise on the part of congressional Republicans than on the part of the President...and the deal to keep tax cuts for the rich shows only that their REAL top priority (or maybe just a priority equal to the effort to make sure Obama serves only one term?) Is to cut taxes for the rich, and that they're willing to do absolutely ANYTHING--even compromise with Obama!--to achieve that goal.

And conservatives would say the exact opposite. fwiw, Bob Woodward who is generally a moderate type as a journalist who had pretty good access to the White House to write his book, blames both Obama and the Rs, but places greater blame on Obama for most of the inability to get things done.

1000 words (for what it's worth--i.e., one picture) on this subject:
___________________________________________________________________________

[Long Run]

Econo, please explain. This graph seems to indicate there has been a growing number of attempts and successful votes to end filibusters, which allows the actual voting on a legislative proposal. This doesn't tell us how many filibusters there are, but my understanding is that they have increased over the past 20 years. Is your point that the Rs have increased filibusters or that the Ds are more willing now to put an end to the minority party right of filibuster than ever before, or both?

[Grim Reaper]

But the reason why PBS keeps coming up is that it is a conspicuous example of a Federal government program that is (1) unconstitutional, (2) stupid, and (3) unnecessary. And if we can't get rid of something that so obviously needs pruning...

It is not unconstitutional. It is not stupid. And it is very necessary. The funding goes toward the poorest areas, those that need PBS programming the most.

As I have written before on this BBS, DoD could cut hundreds of billions over the coming decade and it wouldn't compromise our security a bit. Between superfluous plane and weapons systems, unnecessary military bases, and our presence in countries where we are no longer needed, the savings could be vast.

Except Mr. Romney has promised to increase defense spending. Mr. Romney is going to trim tiny bits of fat while overall increasing spending.

But as we all know, entitlement reform is the only real way out of this, and on entitlement reform, the Dems are perpetually AWOL (to use a military expression).

Right. Except that won't solve a single thing because the Republican Party is going to increase spending while decreasing revenue and hoping it will magically work out this time.

[rubato]

"...tax cuts for the rich..."

Do you have any idea how small it makes one seem to use such an idiotic, patently envious, expression?

... "

I cannot be envious of myself, and frankly, we are rich. And as a rich person I have to say that the tax code fucks the middle into utter oblivion.

How stupid are you?

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

He actually expects us to believe that you know.....

[Lord Jim]

That's why he keeps repeating it...(though of course everyone here knows where the real bucks come from, and whose portion amounts sofa cushion change, so his oafish attempts to make himself sound like Daddy Warbucks always causes nothing but amusement....it's just one of the many aspects of that unintentional humor talent he has that makes him such a hoot )

[Econoline]

Econo, please explain. This graph seems to indicate there has been a growing number of attempts and successful votes to end filibusters, which allows the actual voting on a legislative proposal. This doesn't tell us how many filibusters there are, but my understanding is that they have increased over the past 20 years. Is your point that the Rs have increased filibusters or that the Ds are more willing now to put an end to the minority party right of filibuster than ever before, or both?

I think what it means is that since the Democrats won the Senate in 2006, the Republicans, as the minority party, have on more than 360 occasions forced a cloture vote--far more than at any previous time in American history--which means that for a bill even to come up for a vote there must be 60 Senators who will allow that to happen, even if the bill itself has the support of a majority of Senators. And on more than half of those occasions--again, far more than at any previous time in American history--the minority party succeeded in preventing a bill from coming up for a vote, even when a clear majority of the Senate favored the bill.

In the past, filibusters and the resulting cloture votes were rare; under the current crop of Republicans, they have become standard operating procedure.

(more here)

[dales]

He actually expects us to believe that you know.....

Down the rabbit hole............