|
Everything that is wrong about Rush thread (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
I'm sorry to say, but he loves AMerica and wants it to succeed. Maybe not in the way you want, but he isn't a man with hate in his heart. But it's easy to think that if you listen to the outlets and out of context sound bites that you do. Classic Rush (substitute Mr. Brunk for Clovis and it works out the same): |
It would be nice if this was a real sentiment, but soundbites and cheesy letters aside, he really does hate every single one of those groups I mentioned, he has consistently been against their interests and struggles and consistently put them down and degraded them.
"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Wait, supporting the Fairness Doctrine is a bad thing?
Oh. Bummer. |
Well, yeah because the irony is that it really isn't "fair." Unless it will also apply to print media, all of the cable news outlets, the internet blogosphere, etc.
It is specifically aimed at talk radio because that is the only one that is dominated by conservatives, therefore has a target. It's so obvious it's not even funny. Talk radio is a business, not owned by the government. It succeeds or fails like any other business based on cost and revanue and what the market wants. Air America was a miserable failure because nobody wants to listen to that doom and gloom liberal negativity all day. Government intervention forcing non government radio stations to give equal time to both political viewpoints is the opposite of "fair"... it's like, forcing McDonlads to advertise half of the time for Burger King to "level the playing field". |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Well, yeah because the irony is that it really isn't "fair." Unless it will also apply to print media, all of the cable news outlets, the internet blogosphere, etc.
It is specifically aimed at talk radio because that is the only one that is dominated by conservatives, therefore has a target. It's so obvious it's not even funny. |
Durrrrrrrrrrrrr...
| quote: | REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Democratic Lawmakers 2 To 1 In Stimulus Debate On Cable News»
As Media Matters has documented, during the Bush administration, the media consistently allowed conservatives to dominate their shows, booking them as guests far more often than progressives. The rationale was that Republicans were “in power.”
It appears that old habits die hard. Even though President Obama and his team are in control of the executive branch and Democrats are in the majority in Congress, the cable networks are still turning more often to Republicans and allowing them to set the agenda on major issues, most recently on the debate over the economic recovery package.
On Sunday, conservatives began an all-out assault on President Obama’s economic recovery plan, with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) both announcing that they would vote against the plan as it stood. Despite Obama’s efforts at good faith outreach, congressional conservatives have continued to attack the stimulus plan with a series of false and disingenuous arguments.
The media have been aiding their efforts. In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that the five cable news networks — CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business and CNBC — have hosted more Republican lawmakers to discuss the plan than Democrats by a 2 to 1 ratio this week:
In total, from 6 AM on Monday to 4 PM on Wednesday, the networks have hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 24 times. Surprisingly, Fox News came the closest to offering balance, hosting 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. CNN had only one Democrat compared to 7 Republicans.
The drastically imbalanced coverage isn’t the first time that the news networks have effectively supported attacks on the recovery plans. As ThinkProgress reported on Monday, the cable networks, the Sunday shows and the network newscasts promoted a controversial CBO non-report 81 times before the actual CBO analysis of the stimulus plan was released.
|
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/28...-news-stimulus/ |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
There's a flip side to that coin man... the democrats have not been bi-partisan at all either, and have voted the way they want because they want to win. It's all smoke and mirrors man; the illusion of bi-partisanship is in full bloom because Obama is inviting republicans to these meetings to "hear them out"... but he's obviously not going to take them seriously and still get passed what he wants passed. |
I'm sorry, but this made me lol all over again. You and Jon Kyl have a lot in common.
| quote: | A lot of attention has been paid lately to the idea of a "bipartisan" economic recovery bill. Clearly the House GOPers are happy to blame Dems while voting against the stimulus, but what about the Senate? Well, Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-AZ) just distilled his side's notion of cooperation during a press conference on the recovery legislation:
| quote: | How about the Senate? Well, there have been two committee meetings, the Appropriations Committee and the Finance Committee, in which I sit. Not a single one of our [Republican] amendments was voted up. Every one was rejected.
So essentially no changes as a result of those two markups on the bill that will come to the Senate floor next week. And if [the Ledbetter and SCHIP bills] are any indication, we'll get votes on amendments, they'll all lose, and the bill will then pass, and we end up with a totally partisan package. I don't think that's what the president had in mind when he talked about putting legislation together in a bipartisan way. |
Okay ... so "bipartisanship" means not an exchange of ideas from both parties, or a chance to vote on proposals from both parties, but Democratic agreement on approving the GOP agenda? Good luck with that.
|
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...ree-with-us.php |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
CNBC has been very negative on the stimulus this week (and not just the politicians).
That said, I'm still hoping this bill changes to cut more crap and implement more infrastructure projects. Tax cuts are BS, because while they're fast, they're still going to be spent on superfluous crap (porn did quite well after everyone got their $600 checks). At least with unemployment, the money goes to people who actually need the cash, so it's spent more on consumer staples.
Listening to this whole stimulus debate, I just want to hit everyone from Richard Shelby to Nancy Pelosi because neither side is doing what would be best for the situation, just what's best for their bases. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
I agree - the criticism from the left is far more convincing than that from the right. Tax cuts are not the answer, and I think everyone but the fringe right is acknowledging that now.
This was an interesting piece (by a conservative) in WashPo:
| quote: | An $800 Billion Mistake
By Martin Feldstein
Thursday, January 29, 2009; A19
As a conservative economist, I might be expected to oppose a stimulus plan. In fact, on this page in October, I declared my support for a stimulus. But the fiscal package now before Congress needs to be thoroughly revised. In its current form, it does too little to raise national spending and employment. It would be better for the Senate to delay legislation for a month, or even two, if that's what it takes to produce a much better bill. We cannot afford an $800 billion mistake.
Start with the tax side. The plan is to give a tax cut of $500 a year for two years to each employed person. That's not a good way to increase consumer spending. Experience shows that the money from such temporary, lump-sum tax cuts is largely saved or used to pay down debt. Only about 15 percent of last year's tax rebates led to additional spending.
The proposed business tax cuts are also likely to do little to increase business investment and employment. The extended loss "carrybacks" are primarily lump-sum payments to selected companies. The bonus depreciation plan would do little to raise capital spending in the current environment of weak demand because the tax benefits in the early years would be recaptured later.
Instead, the tax changes should focus on providing incentives to households and businesses to increase current spending. Why not a temporary refundable tax credit to households that purchase cars or other major consumer durables, analogous to the investment tax credit for businesses? Or a temporary tax credit for home improvements? In that way, the same total tax reduction could produce much more spending and employment.
Postponing the scheduled increase in the tax on dividends and capital gains would raise share prices, leading to increased consumer spending and, by lowering the cost of capital, more business investment.
On the spending side, the stimulus package is full of well-intended items that, unfortunately, are not likely to do much for employment. Computerizing the medical records of every American over the next five years is desirable, but it is not a cost-effective way to create jobs. Has anyone gone through the (long) list of proposed appropriations and asked how many jobs each would create per dollar of increased national debt?
The largest proposed outlays amount to just writing unrestricted checks to state governments. Nearly $100 billion would result from increasing the "Medicaid matching rate," a technique for reducing states' Medicaid costs to free up state money for spending on anything governors and state legislators want. An additional $80 billion would be given out for "state fiscal relief." Will these vast sums actually lead to additional spending, or will they merely finance state transfer payments or relieve state governments of the need for temporary tax hikes or bond issues?
The plan to finance health insurance premiums for the unemployed would actually increase unemployment by giving employers an incentive to lay off workers rather than pay health premiums during a time of weak demand. And this supposedly two-year program would create a precedent that could be hard to reverse.
A large fraction of the stimulus proposal is devoted to infrastructure projects that will spend out very slowly, not with the speed needed to help the economy in 2009 and 2010. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than one-fifth of the $50 billion of proposed spending on energy and water would occur by the end of 2010.
If rapid spending on things that need to be done is a criterion of choice, the plan should include higher defense outlays, including replacing and repairing supplies and equipment, needed after five years of fighting. The military can increase its level of procurement very rapidly. Yet the proposed spending plan includes less than $5 billion for defense, only about one-half of 1 percent of the total package.
Infrastructure spending on domestic military bases can also proceed more rapidly than infrastructure spending in the civilian economy. And military procurement overwhelmingly involves American-made products. Since much of this military spending will have to be done eventually, it makes sense to do it now, when there is substantial excess capacity in the manufacturing sector. In addition, a temporary increase in military recruiting and training would reduce unemployment directly, create a more skilled civilian workforce and expand the military reserves.
All new spending and tax changes should have explicit time limits that prevent ever-increasing additions to the national debt. Similarly, spending programs should not create political dynamics that will make them hard to end.
The problem with the current stimulus plan is not that it is too big but that it delivers too little extra employment and income for such a large fiscal deficit. It is worth taking the time to get it right.
The writer, an economics professor at Harvard University, is president emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
|
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...id=opinionsbox1
I agree with the premise - that the stimulus is needed and size isn't the issue - but there are a lot of items in the current bill that don't really do anything other than throw cash around the economy.
I don't agree, however, that defense spending is the answer. I would like to see more infrastructure that doesn't involve only long-term big projects. There are a lot of immediate infrastructure needs in this country that can be addressed within the next nine months and that don't need to wait for a 2010 groundbreaking. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Durrrrrrrrrrrrr.. |
give me a break...haha! You're saying, based on a Soros funded Media Matters study, that the news networks lean to the right? Even if they book republican guests, it isn't really to give them a fair shake... every time I watch MSNBC or NBC or CBS or CNN news shows, and there's a republican guest, they are more often than not treated with pure distain, contempt, sarcasm, etc... all so the conflicts get higher ratings and their left leaning audiences can cheer at the shreadding. Sadly, they don't understand that this still doesn't get them the higher ratings over Fox. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
CNBC has been very negative on the stimulus this week (and not just the politicians). |
As they should be... because everyone knows it won't really stimulate the economy as they read more and more about it.
| quote: | | At least with unemployment, the money goes to people who actually need the cash, so it's spent more on consumer staples. |
This is true, however, it only reinforces a sense of entitlement among most of those people and makes it less motivational to find work if they think free money is coming to them. |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I agree - the criticism from the left is far more convincing than that from the right. Tax cuts are not the answer, and I think everyone but the fringe right is acknowledging that now. |
why are you completely dismissing the study I posted yesterday showing an indisputable example of tax cuts working in 2003, and how it affected the economy? The numbers don't lie. Do you think it would slow economic growth if the corporate tax rate was dropped from 35% to 20%? Do you believe businesses hiring and investment would stay stagnant and not begin hiring people again?
What about in 1981 when Regan took office and inherited a 70% tax rate? It was down to 28% in 1989 when he left, and during that time a major boom of financial wealth swept the 80's.
Even in the middle of the 80's, during a small recession in 1986 when the GDP was down over 6%? What happened? Tax cuts and the economy took back off. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
give me a break...haha! You're saying, based on a Soros funded Media Matters study, that the news networks lean to the right? Even if they book republican guests, it isn't really to give them a fair shake... every time I watch MSNBC or NBC or CBS or CNN news shows, and there's a republican guest, they are more often than not treated with pure distain, contempt, sarcasm, etc... all so the conflicts get higher ratings and their left leaning audiences can cheer at the shreadding. Sadly, they don't understand that this still doesn't get them the higher ratings over Fox. |
Please. Your ad hominems to the source are cute but they do nothing to diminish the point that Republican Congressional lawmakers are giving a much higher ratio of appearances on the news networks, ALL news networks (not just your favorite Faux News channel) versus Democratic lawmakers. That gives them a much greater probability and propensity to state their side of the argument AGAINST the stimulus bill or any other bill than any given Democrat. And unless you can support this statement above with any credible evidence or statistics:
| quote: | | it isn't really to give them a fair shake... every time I watch MSNBC or NBC or CBS or CNN news shows, and there's a republican guest, they are more often than not treated with pure distain, contempt, sarcasm, etc... all so the conflicts get higher ratings and their left leaning audiences can cheer at the shreadding. |
Then your mere unsupported opinion on the matter holds little weight here. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
This is true, however, it only reinforces a sense of entitlement among most of those people and makes it less motivational to find work if they think free money is coming to them. |
Have you ever lived on unemployment (or lived in a house where that happened)? The paltry checks that most receive in proportion to what they made while working is enough to light a fire under their asses.
Given the layoff climate lately, it's rather insulting that you're comparing unemployment to welfare. I personally know a few very well-educated, competent people who have been laid off in these 10-15% staff trimmings. They'll find jobs eventually, but locked into NYC leases, the $405/week won't even pay your rent. And states are running out of unemployment insurance. New Jersey, having been hit hard by all the job losses in the financial industry and by those who commute into NY, is going to run out in less than 3 months at the current rates. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Well, yeah because the irony is that it really isn't "fair." Unless it will also apply to print media, all of the cable news outlets, the internet blogosphere, etc. |
I wasn't aware of the Fairness Doctrine going after other media outlets, but actually I'm not at all opposed to giving equal time to TV and newspaper networks. Not sure how that would work with the blogs, however.
| quote: | | It is specifically aimed at talk radio because that is the only one that is dominated by conservatives, therefore has a target. It's so obvious it's not even funny. |
And?
| quote: | | Talk radio is a business, not owned by the government. |
The airwaves are paid for by our tax dollars, are they not? They are regulated by government agencies, are they not?
| quote: | | It succeeds or fails like any other business based on cost and revanue and what the market wants. Air America was a miserable failure because nobody wants to listen to that doom and gloom liberal negativity all day. |
Well last I heard, it's still going. And "doom and gloom"? Christ, that epitomizes the Conservative hate radio to the "T". Air America also had difficulties in a market that was clearly dominated by Conservative listeners, rather than your unsupported drivel of "doom and gloom".
| quote: | | Government intervention forcing non government radio stations to give equal time to both political viewpoints is the opposite of "fair"... it's like, forcing McDonlads to advertise half of the time for Burger King to "level the playing field". |
Too bad that the Supreme Court upheld it as lawful, ain't it?:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/395/367/case.html
And I just get tickled pink hearing wingnutters like yourself talking about government intervention into non-government entities as if that's the most horrid thing on earth, so bad that we must avert our eyes and scream bloody murder. Gosh, that laisses faire worked ing swimmingly for us over the past 8 years, didn't it? True, that's a different topic than this one, but it goes to my point on how a little bit of government involvement won't destroy Middle Earth as much as you wingers love to proclaim. |
|
|
|
|
