Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
Media's Presidential Bias and Decline
I watched with disbelief as the nation's leading newspapers, many of whom I'd written for in the past, slowly let opinion pieces creep into the news section, and from there onto the front page. Personal opinions and comments that, had they appeared in my stories in 1979, would have gotten my butt kicked by the nearest copy editor, were now standard operating procedure at the New York Times, the Washington Post, and soon after in almost every small town paper in the U.S.
Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those people who think the media has been too hard on, say, Republican vice presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin, by rushing reportorial SWAT teams to her home state of Alaska to rifle through her garbage. This is the big leagues, and if she wants to suit up and take the field, then Gov. Palin better be ready to play.
The few instances where I think the press has gone too far -- such as the Times reporter talking to prospective first lady Cindy McCain's daughter's MySpace friends -- can easily be solved with a few newsroom smackdowns and temporary repostings to the Omaha bureau.
No, what I object to (and I think most other Americans do as well) is the lack of equivalent hardball coverage of the other side -- or worse, actively serving as attack dogs for the presidential ticket of Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Joe Biden, D-Del.
If the current polls are correct, we are about to elect as president of the United States a man who is essentially a cipher, who has left almost no paper trail, seems to have few friends (that at least will talk) and has entire years missing out of his biography.
Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media? So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?
The editors. The men and women you don't see; the people who not only decide what goes in the paper, but what doesn't; the managers who give the reporters their assignments and lay out the editorial pages. They are the real culprits.
[SIZE="2"]
Michael S. Malone is one of the nation's best-known technology writers. He has covered Silicon Valley and high-tech for more than 25 years, beginning with the San Jose Mercury News as the nation's first daily high-tech reporter. His articles and editorials have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, the Economist and Fortune, and for two years he was a columnist for The New York Times.[/SIZE]
Except that TV news has way more impact than the newspaper press and there seems to be plenty of anti-Obama stuff on there.
Hardly! Please cite. He is the media darling.
I just hope he is all they made him out to be.
Fox news.
I hear it has quite a high viewing audience.
Fox news is shit, to be sure, but as a portion of the total volume of crap out there they are only a small part. The rest of the media does seem infatuated with Obama.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist
By Meg Sullivan| 12/14/2005 5:36:31 PM
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664
Although we expected to find that most media lean left, we were astounded by the degree. A norm among journalists is to present “both sides of the issue.” Consequently, while we expected members of Congress to cite primarily think tanks that are on the same side of the ideological spectrum as they are, we expected journalists to practice a much more balanced citation practice, even if the journalist’s own ideology opposed the think tanks that he or she is sometimes citing. This was not always the case. Most of the mainstream media outlets that we examined (ie all those besides Drudge Report and Fox News’ Special Report) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than they were to the median member of the House.
http://mason.gmu.edu/~atabarro/MediaBias.docAnd at some Palin ralleys people are shouting "terrorist" or "kill him" when Obama's name came up. Obama was accused of going to extremist Islamic school, was constantly railed for his last and middle name, was said to have the same views as Reverend Wright and Ayers, and had his wife's love for America questioned. All of this was done by THE MEDIA.
Attacks come and have came from both sides.
The reason Obama is the "media's darling" is because he will get ratings. Obama-fever has swept America so it is natural for the media to talk him up. He is younger, fresher, more charismatic, better looking, black (or half-black), and very popular. Of course he will get more attention.
The same media was viciously promoting the Iraq War and greatly helped Clinton get impeached. It works both ways.
And at some Palin ralleys people are shouting "terrorist" or "kill him" when Obama's name came up.
And she hushed them. As did McCain. As did Obama. Biden, well maybe not. None of the rest of your post changes the fact that the media is, has been, and will most likely always be, left leaning. It is their nature. I think it is also a product of who goes into the business.
I don't agree that the media has always been left leaning although at the moment it seems to be in the US and also in Australia.
eta: Trends come and go. The media is only doing what's going to get it ratings. At the moment, that's to be nice about liberal politicians. At other times in history, that has not been the case.
My theory is that since George was elected, he's given the media so much to play with, not only with is war on terror, but also with all the stupid things he says. Combine the two and you're going to get media taking the piss out of the man and his politics. If he'd been a better President, I think you'd find the media would have been much kinder to the McCain/Palin camp.
My theory is that since George was elected, he's given the media so much to play with, not only with is war on terror, but also with all the stupid things he says...
Oh, yeah? Name one!
(that's a joke, ali. I am a rather fond, if cringing, collector of Bushisms--only Yogi Berra comes close in sheer quantity of WTF-isms)
oh, good. Not too sure how the ol' hormones are holding up with you now! I recall being a bit hormonal during my pregnancies and then again last year when it allllllllllll went away!!! :) No worries!
Hormones are pretty good at the moment, although I think I've had a boost of serotonin since dazza got home, so my humour bone might be working better than other times. ;)
My personal favourite Bushism:
The French have no word for entrepeneur.
Either he's genuinely thick as pig shit, or he's a fucking genius.
Hormones are pretty good at the moment, although I think I've had a boost of serotonin since dazza got home, so my humour bone might be working better than other times. ;)
I'll say...you've been bouncing about the Cellar like a christmas elf on a pogo stick *grins*
Yes well, you could not have used a better analogy than the pogo stick that's for sure. lol
The rest of the media does seem infatuated with Obama.
News is reported based on fundamental facts. Obama is running a clean and well organized campaign. McCain's campaign has suffered from schizophrenia ever since it inherited right wing Republican extremists on the staff. McCain's campaign was lead by moderates; voted for by moderate Republicans and independents. The same campaign was changed weeks before the Republican convention as it inherited right wing extremist Republicans. The campaign that earned McCain a Republican nomination would have never considered or selected Sarah Palin. His campaign now suffers from schizophrenia. As a result, McCain had to personally condemn his own supporters for promoting hate and racism. And that is what is properly reported in the news.
You can view that as bias. But the bottom line is that McCain was the adversary of and has condemned the same people who blindly support George Jr. Now McCain must ask for their support when their extremist agenda is difficult for McCain to accept.
On the day that AIG was crashing, McCain's speech writers wrote what they had written for George Jr. "The fundamentals of our economy are sound." Just another example of the schizophrenia since even McCain knew that was not true. Now McCain’s campaign must throw dirt and lies rather than deal with fundamental issues.
How does McCain claim to represent the interests of America without also condemning “Mission Accomplished”, the all but protect bin Laden action, this economic meltdown directly traceable to Republican party welfare to the rich and outright government corruption (K Street), destruction of the Oslo Accords, the foolish and embarrassing Middle East conference in Annapolis, and even how a silly spy plane incident was handled. How does McCain show he would never be that stupid and yet still get votes from wacko extremist George Jr supporters? McCain’s problem is apparent in the news stories – that some call bias.
Unhelpful is George Jr who calls for more corporate welfare. George Jr is now offering GM some of the $700billion TARP only intended to thaw credit markets. It’s no accident that George Jr would protect anti-American GM and its corrupt management - just as George Jr also enriched Haliburton. If McCain was running a McCain campaign, then he would have lead the charge against continuous George Jr corruption. The McCain whose campaign now contains wacko extremists cannot properly criticize George Jr. Just another reason why McCain is losing moderate and indepdent support – the people who nominated McCain to oppose those extremists.
Schizophrenia is a fact that belongs in the news. Schizophrenia because McCain had so often been critical of what Urbane Guerrilla, TheMercenary, classicman, and lookout123 have so often posted.
Actually that paper is a pretty well known left leaner, and Anchorage is a pretty liberal town. No surprise there. The Daily Miner (Fairbanks) or the Juneau paper, it would have been a bigger deal.
My personal favourite Bushism:
The French have no word for entrepeneur.
Either he's genuinely thick as pig shit, or he's a fucking genius.
But at least they spell it correctly :P
Oh and he's certainly NOT a fucking genius.
Why, for example to quote the lawyer for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., haven't we seen an interview with Sen. Obama's grad school drug dealer -- when we know all about Mrs. McCain's addiction? Are Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko that hard to interview? All those phony voter registrations that hard to scrutinize? And why are Sen. Biden's endless gaffes almost always covered up, or rationalized, by the traditional media? So why weren't those legions of hungry reporters set loose on the Obama campaign? Who are the real villains in this story of mainstream media betrayal?
From someone who is extremely well respected and has been in the business for decades. I'll take his word for it. Those of you who, for the most part agree, certainly won't see it that way. I understand that. What will be interesting is how he is treated over the next 4-8 years.
Thing is, this left leaning press had absoluely no impact over the last 8 years. So even if the bias exists - and not reading the American papers or watching the American news I honestly can't say - it does not influence the way people vote.
So what's the problem, apart from making you tut and sigh and roll your eyes? I do that when I read our right wing press (and there are more right than left wing papers in the UK). But at least it challenges my perceptions.
I disagree. I think the press has a great deal of power. In many respects they are virtually the only source of information. Many people still look to the media and take what they offer as impartial - the way it should be. That just isn't the way it is anymore. I'm not sure thats possible either - unfortunately. I see the media one way or the other. They seem to be campaigning for "their" candidate usually in very subtle ways, yet as of late very blatant.
There is also the danger of not believing anything they say, and assuming the opposite is true... like reading a UG post.;)
There is also the danger of not believing anything they say, and assuming the opposite is true... like reading a UG post.;)
*shakes head* no, that would require that UG's views exist in some small way along the same spectrum as the rest of us...can't just go with the opposite of what he says, have to jump off those mental rails entirely and find a whole other track.
I look at it like this. Everyone get to be represented in a democracy, right? Now their level of representation all depends on their desire to be heard. He is being heard and thats a good thing.
I look at it like this. Everyone get to be represented in a democracy, right? Now their level of representation all depends on their desire to be heard. He is being heard and thats a good thing.
Ahhhh, yes, but the squeaky wheel getting the grease and a minority special interest group rasing a fuss to get their way are two different things. Not always good.
I agree, but they still need to be able to have their say. Whether they get anything or not is up to the powers that be- not me or you. Stifling their opportunity to be heard would be even worse.
I don't want every special interest group to get whatever it is they want, no. I do however want a country where they can express their opinions. (ie. KKK) In my world they wouldn't exist, I don't think they get shit from the gov't other than the right to express their [COLOR="Silver"](totally fucked up) [/COLOR]views.
The one serious difference between thee and me, DanaC, is that I have no faith in socialism and never have. The rest is just education.
The one serious difference between thee and me, DanaC, is that I have no faith in socialism and never have. The rest is just education.
Then I bow to your superior education.
Don't do that Dana. he'll start thinking he's smarter than you. lol ;)
UG thinks he's smarter than everyone. That doesn't mean he actually is. ;)
(don't tell UG I said that though. Let him keep his illusion for a bit longer)
UG is clearly a high intellect and a political heavyweight.
My education is clearly not sufficient to enable me to compete with him in a debate.
Socialism? Whats that?
$8billion to airlines. $billions to Halliburton. $25billion to GM. $85billion to AIG. Untold billions to Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, etc so that $6billion in bonuses could be awarded to key employees. $billions to drug companies by protecting their 40% higher drug prices. $700billion to all other favored rich companies. This is not socialism? No, this is the 'new contract with America' democracy version 2 complete with a 2% reduction in the average American's income while the rich have income increases on the order of 100 times. Sounds like the perfect society: free market tyranny. Why would anyone want income redistribution when the above government solution is even better than socialism.
Now if we could only fix Social Security by privatizing it.
UG is clearly a high intellect and a political heavyweight.
My education is clearly not sufficient to enable me to compete with him in a debate.
That sounds so defeatist. lol I'd much prefer to see you go at it hammer and tongs. :)
Dana is too smart to waste her time on him. ;)
Last week on This Week with George Stephano..stephana...steph...that guy, even George Will said that the "socialism" slant is stupid. He said that redistributing the money is what the government does!
Here's the quote:
"95% of what the government does is redistribute the wealth. It operates on the principal of concentrated benefits & dispersed costs. Case in point, we have sugar subsidies. costs the american people billions of dollars but they don't notice it, it is in such small increments. But the sugar growers get very rich on this. Now we have socialism for the strong, that is the well represented & organized in Washington, like sugar growers, but it is socialism none the less, and it is not new."
So what? Everyone knows that, we just don't want them to take MORE.
How bout instead of them taking more, they just take it from a different place and give it to the little guy instead of big business?
If that was the plan I might agree with it, but his definition of big business is not one I subscribe to. Multi-million dollar corps, go ahead. But then don't be surprised when they pull up root and move to Dubai.
Except there will no longer be tax cuts for companies that send jobs overseas.
Except there will no longer be tax cuts for companies that send jobs overseas.
Says who? You?
Here is the problem with your line of thinking. The election has not happened yet. And any promise that he makes you is total and utter bull shit. Nothing can be done without Congress. Obama can't do shit without the approval of Congress. Do you think Congress is going to role with that? All those guys have been getting elected by those big corps for years. Give me a break.
Nothing any of those fools promise you can be done without Congress.
Still, it's happened. Explain to me, o wise and wondrous man of knowledge, where did those breaks come from originally? I really don't know, and would like to.
Big corps and demos? Seriously, on which planet do you live?
Says who? You?
Here is the problem with your line of thinking. Nothing can be done without Congress. All those guys have been getting elected by those big corps for years.
Nothing any of those fools promise you can be done without Congress.
The D's will have control in all three. There will be no checks nor balances. The R's will be steamrolled repeatedly. Virtually anything the D's want, they will be able to get/pass/enact.
I just hope they make the right decisions.
As far as the taxing big corps... Some is better than none. There must be a balance. We cannot hammer them with huge tax increases. They will move overseas, then paying ZERO taxes, reducing the revenue stream that the tax was intended to increase.
That will also close facilities, creating an increase in unemployment, further reducing the tax revenue stream.... Same thing goes with taxing the "rich". If you are at the lower end of the tax scale, it sounds great, but the money has to come from somewhere and if you drive off those paying...Who is gonna pay the bills? This snowball theory is what I'm concerned about.
The D's will have control in all three. There will be no checks nor balances.
Well, there's still the filibuster, which is a brake. But I agree that one party rule is bad.
People complain when power is shared between the parties, because it results in gridlock. The alternative is a monopoly on power, hubris, bad government, and voting the bums out. Rinse repeat.
Personally, as a Dem., my ideal would be for a Dem Pres, a Dem majority in the House, and a Repub. majority in the senate. With a Supreme Court full of libertarian leaning moderates who routinely cross back and forth over traditional party lines as they rule.
Well, there's still the filibuster, which is a brake. But I agree that one party rule is bad.
The D's are VERY close to gaining the 60 necessary to overcome a filibuster.
McCain campaign accuses L.A. Times of 'suppressing' Obama video
John McCain's presidential campaign Tuesday accused the Los Angeles Times of "intentionally suppressing" a videotape it obtained of a 2003 banquet where then-state Sen. Barack Obama spoke of his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian scholar and activist.
The Times first reported on the videotape in an April 2008 story about Obama's ties with Palestinians and Jews as he navigated the politics of Chicago. The report included a detailed description of the tape, but the newspaper did not make the video public.
"A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi," said McCain campaign spokesman Michael Goldfarb. " . . . The election is one week away, and it's unfortunate that the press so obviously favors Barack Obama that this campaign must publicly request that the Los Angeles Times do its job -- make information public."
The Times on Tuesday issued a statement about its decision not to post the tape.
"The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it," said the newspaper's editor, Russ Stanton. "The Times keeps its promises to sources."
Jamie Gold, the newspaper's readers' representative, said in a statement: "More than six months ago the Los Angeles Times published a detailed account of the events shown on the videotape. The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite -- the L.A. Times brought the matter to light."
The original article said that Obama's friendships with Palestinian Americans in Chicago and his presence at Palestinian community events had led some to think he was sympathetic to the Palestinian viewpoint on Middle East politics. Obama publicly expresses a pro-Israel viewpoint that pleases many Jewish leaders.
In reporting on Obama's presence at the dinner for Khalidi, the article noted that some speakers expressed anger at Israel and at U.S. foreign policy, but that Obama in his comments called for finding common ground.
It said that Khalidi in the 1970s often spoke to reporters on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi later lived near Obama while teaching at the University of Chicago. He is now a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University in New York.
Explain to me, o wise and wondrous man of knowledge, where did those breaks come from originally? I really don't know, and would like to.
Out of respect I will ignore your totally patronizing comment, but yea the breaks came from the same fucking Congress that sucked up to the corps to get elected. The businesses may change, but don't think for one fucking minute that the rules have changed, they have not. Please tell me who has had the majority for the last two years and have had consistantly LOWER FUCKING APPROVAL Ratings than BUSH? Who? They are in charge, they get the blame for failure to negotiate and do what is right for the country. Wise one... :rolleyes:
I'll drop this here since it is somewhat related.
When is someone in the media going to seriously going to explore Obama's middle class tax cut claims? I keep hearing we need to raise taxes on the rich because the poor are paying too much but I don't see any support for the claim.
The reason I ask today is I spent the day working with a couple of accountants on a project and we landed on the subject. We were looking at actual tax returns and here is what I found.
Family of four with $50,000 Net of deductions paid <$500 in federal income tax.
Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.
Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.
No one wants to pay any taxes and I understand that, but even at the $100,000 the tax payer is paying less than 10% of their income. They're middle class - should they pay less? $50,000 is certainly middle class - how could they pay any less?
I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?
Well, given he has set the limits at $250k per year (no tax rise) and $200k per year (tax cut) I am guessing he's talking about the people whose incomes sit between $50k - $200k per year.
They broke the two tax plans down on the world news last night. At some incomes, there is virtually no difference in tax liability, compared to what we have now.
Yes, when you get above 250,000 you pay more under Obama's plan. Approximately 600 bucks more, on a tax bill that's already about 40 grand.
I argued with my friend who is a grand regurgitator, and she said "what about the children? 600 bucks could mean the difference between getting the children health care."
My reply was that if you can't take care of your children on 250 grand a year, ur doin' it wrong. Sell the RV or the motorboat.
I'll drop this here since it is somewhat related.
When is someone in the media going to seriously going to explore Obama's middle class tax cut claims? I keep hearing we need to raise taxes on the rich because the poor are paying too much but I don't see any support for the claim.
The reason I ask today is I spent the day working with a couple of accountants on a project and we landed on the subject. We were looking at actual tax returns and here is what I found.
Family of four with $50,000 Net of deductions paid <$500 in federal income tax.
Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.
Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.
No one wants to pay any taxes and I understand that, but even at the $100,000 the tax payer is paying less than 10% of their income. They're middle class - should they pay less? $50,000 is certainly middle class - how could they pay any less?
I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?
I think, that as most politicians assume, the average voter is not smart enough to figure that out. It is all pandering. Smoke and Mirrors. I stand by the statement, Be careful what you wish for. It will not come without cost.
This is too rich.
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
MORE
Some told the DRUDGE REPORT that the reporters are being ousted to bring on documentary film-makers to record the final days; others expect to see on board more sympathetic members of the media, including the NY TIMES' Maureen Dowd, who once complained that she was barred from McCain's Straight Talk Express airplane.
After a week of quiet but desperate behind-the-scenes negotiations, the reporters of the three papers heard last night that they were definitely off for the final swing. They are already planning how to cover the final days by flying commercial or driving from event to event.
Developing...
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashopp.htm
Family of four with $80,000 Net paid <$1,800 in federal income tax.
Family of four with $100,000 Net paid @$6800 in federal income tax.
If I make an additional $20,000 then my taxes increase by $5000??
I really don't get it. I've seen different figures stating between 40-50% of the US population pays zero federal income tax so who is Obama talking about when he says the middle class needs a break at the expense of the rich?
Good question - One no one seems to be asking, I wonder why?
This is too rich.
PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET
**Exclusive**
The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!
The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.
Yeh powerhouses they are! The fact that the three all endorsed McCain has nothing to do with it, I'm sure :headshake
So what happens when these top contributors are no longer around?
Adam Lerrick's "Obama and The Tax Tipping Point" (op-ed, Oct. 22) notes that we are fast approaching the point at which those who don't pay any federal income tax will be a majority of the electorate and have the electoral muscle to affect programs paid for by taxes from the other half of the society.
A rallying cry in the founding of our nation was "no taxation without representation." But when the tax structure is so progressive that half the population can create programs that are paid for by taxing the other half, we have reached the point of "representation without taxation" and turned our founding principles on their head.
We are currently witnessing a polarizing presidential campaign that promises to confiscate the earnings of 5% of the population to buy the votes of the other 95%. Am I the only member of the 95% who is offended by the idea that it is acceptable in America to confiscate another's earnings for my own comfort?
What irony to criticize the "greed" of Wall Street bankers while voting for easy money taken from others.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524034781878381.htmlSpeaking of media bias... (not the systemic kind, just one really, absurdly horrific example someone sent me last night: )
[youtube]jxT0ELP7az0[/youtube]
We are currently witnessing a polarizing presidential campaign that promises to confiscate the earnings of 5% of the population to buy the votes of the other 95%. Am I the only member of the 95% who is offended by the idea that it is acceptable in America to confiscate another's earnings for my own comfort?
Nope
Lookout, where did you get your figures from??? They dont match my family of four's reality.
In the last two years, we have paid roughly, on average, $5,000 tax on $50,000 net income. And, on top of that, we have paid roughly $8,000 a year in other taxes. AND, I dont even consider myself middle class, or maybe just barely.... we dont have a lot of money to buy toys or other 'extras' in life...if we do, we have to do it on credit.
And another thing...those 40-50% who dont pay taxes (if accurate) are the working poor! Families trying to make it on minimum wage. There are an awful lot of them.
Ok so you all say that the "richest 5%" are going to pay about $600 a year more on average under Obama's plan and "redistribute this to the other 95%. Lets forget the tax cuts for he lower end for a moment. Simple math says that comes out to about +$31.58 per taxpayer for the "other 95%"? Is that correct?
"Confiscate"
"Redistribute"
"For my own comfort"
Tell me this isn't polarization, in itself. When I hear words like these I totally lose interest in anything the speaker has to say.
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes
This supports the notion put forth by the WSJ article.
Conclusion
These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers. As Congress considers tax reform proposals during the coming year, this is an issue lawmakers should begin to debate.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html
The WSJ article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524034781878381.html "Confiscate"
"Redistribute"
"For my own comfort"
Tell me this isn't polarization, in itself. When I hear words like these I totally lose interest in anything the speaker has to say.
You don't like the way Obama talks about his plan for America?!?! You might want to try to figure it out.
NOT mentioned in those articles is that the top 1-5% of income earners are making their money off the labors of the bottom 95%.
You don't like the way Obama talks about his plan for America?!?! You might want to try to figure it out.
Any polarization that is happening is coming from the right. O'bama's message is getting twisted and transformed in order to strike fear in the hearts of those who arent even going to be affected by any of it.
NOT mentioned in those articles is that the top 1-5% of income earners are making their money off the labors of the bottom 95%.
And that they pay the salaries of those 95% so they can actually feed their families and pay the mortgage. But yea, we call it capitalism.
Any polarization that is happening is coming from the right. O'bama's message is getting twisted and transformed in order to strike fear in the hearts of those who arent even going to be affected by any of it.
I can't believe you really think that is true. But you entitled to your opinion. Both sides of this have extremists who have contributed to the polarization. There is no evidence to support that one side is worse than the other.
And that they pay the salaries of those 95% so they can actually feed their families and pay the mortgage. But yea, we call it capitalism.
What about the 40-50% of the working poor. That is an incredibally huge number. These people barely make a living, but their efforts are supporting the top 10% of people in this county who are living high off the hog and who are now whining that their taxes are too high.
What about the 40-50% of the working poor. That is an incredibally huge number. These people barely make a living, but their efforts are supporting the top 10% of people in this county who are living high off the hog and who are now whining that their taxes are too high.
Just because the top 5% contribute to the social welfare does not mean they are all paying for it, due to globalization many people in this country work for earners who do not live in this country. Your thinking is exactly what I am questioning. There is some idea that because there is working poor the top 5% of income earners are somehow responsible for that situation. It is certainly much more complicated than that. We have a significantly complicated integrated society that puts people into socioeconomic classes for numerous reasons, not related to what or because there is a group who make more than others. To blame the top 5% of the income earners in this country for the plight and socioeconomic situation of those at the bottom is totally ridiculous. But that group sure makes a great target by Obama and the left to exploit to the simple minded people, "Look how much they have! You should have some of what they have! They don't deserve it or need that much! Let's take it away from them and give it to you!".
I'm not afraid or in fear. I simply don't understand how it is supposed to work with real numbers. If post 66 is right, then it comes out to less than $3.00 a month - WTF? I can't believe thats correct.
Merc, I'm not blaming. Let people make their money. However, there has been a significant disparity in just the last few decades. So, the wealth has already been 'redistributed' from the regular working class over to the owner class. This is only naturally going to cause a lot of problems. Especially when the working class can barely take care of itself (considering health care and cost of living). If those who are making the money are not properly compensating those who are helping to make it for them...you have problems.
Merc, I'm not blaming. Let people make their money. However, there has been a significant disparity in just the last few decades. So, the wealth has already been 'redistributed' from the regular working class over to the owner class. This is only naturally going to cause a lot of problems. Especially when the working class can barely take care of itself (considering health care and cost of living). If those who are making the money are not properly compensating those who are helping to make it for them...you have problems.
I don't disagree with your basic premise, but in the last sentance you describe what I believe to be the mindset of those who think the top 5% should burden the pain of tax. Now mind you, if you are in the top 5% you should do your part, but lets be clear, it is not the top 5% that are the problem among the rich. Let's narrow that to the top 0.5% the uber rich. These are the people who have less tax to pay. The Warren Buffets and Bill Gates. They are not much different than the problem with Corprate Tax breaks. What Obama and Biden have done is they have polarized the tax payers into two groups and are trying to tell the lower 95% that the problem is with the 5% and that is patently false.
And of course we can look at life choice and personal responsiblity, choices people have made in life as young people, and even young adults, which have put themselves into situations that they are often now locked into. But we can't let personal responsibility get in the way of an election and the emotional hot buttons of have's and have not's.
Well, will families making less than $250,000 get a tax cut under President Obama, or not? Senator Obama has been saying this for months, but on Monday Joe Biden put the tax-cut income threshold at $150,000 in an interview with a TV station in his beloved Scranton, Pennsylvania. The Biden campaign later clarified -- or at least tried to clarify -- the matter by saying that anyone making between $150,000 and $250,000 wouldn't get a tax cut but also wouldn't pay higher taxes.
We suspect what's going on here is more than Mr. Biden's normal gift of gaffe. As with his admission that a President Obama would quickly be tested by our enemies, the Delaware rambler was stumbling into the truth. An Obama Administration couldn't possibly pay for a tax cut for 95% of Americans by raising taxes on a mere 5%. Those 5% don't make enough money, or at least they won't after they find ways to shelter more of their income when their tax rates rise.
Just as Bill Clinton promised a "middle-class tax cut" in 1992 only to raise taxes on the middle class in 1993, Mr. Obama will quickly find that his tax-revenue math doesn't add up. Add in the demands on Capitol Hill to spend more and to offset the Alternative Minimum Tax, and our bet is that even $150,000 would soon prove to be a moving tax target. Remember when the AMT was only supposed to hit 21 millionaires? Next year, without relief, it could hit 26 million taxpayers. Tax increases always hit the middle class because that's where the money is.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523819032678157.htmlNOT mentioned in those articles is that the top 1-5% of income earners are making their money off the labors of the bottom 95%.
They make their money off the labors of another? uh, ok. then is it fair to say the bottom 95% are leaching off the top 5% because they don't provide the financing and structure for their own jobs?
that is a seriously ridiculous statement.
and BTW - my numbers came from actual tax returns I held in my hands and saw with my own eyes. The accountants I was working with said that is about normal. I don't know your specifics.
They make their money off the labors of another? uh, ok. then is it fair to say the bottom 95% are leaching off the top 5% because they don't provide the financing and structure for their own jobs?
that is a seriously ridiculous statement.
and BTW - my numbers came from actual tax returns I held in my hands and saw with my own eyes. The accountants I was working with said that is about normal. I don't know your specifics.
I would like to see those same numbers in increasingly graduated amounts of 50k up to 500k, just for grins. It will not be a linear progression.
and BTW - my numbers came from actual tax returns I held in my hands and saw with my own eyes. The accountants I was working with said that is about normal. I don't know your specifics.
Lookout, I suspect that someone whose finances are complicated enough to require an accountant in the first place also have loopholes available to them (the kind you've discussed wanting to eliminate with a flat tax, and I happen to agree with you,) even if their net income is only in the $50,000 range instead of the $500,000. I don't think "people who hire accountants" is a representative sample. Our household's income-to-tax-liability ratio doesn't come close to matching up with your numbers either.
I use an accountant. One persons loophole is another persons legal deduction.
And do your total tax liability numbers match up with what lookout's accountants are used to seeing?
I could not tell from the numbers posted. My liability is a bit higher.
Let's narrow that to the top 0.5% the uber rich. These are the people who have less tax to pay. The Warren Buffets and Bill Gates. They are not much different than the problem with Corprate Tax breaks. What Obama and Biden have done is they have polarized the tax payers into two groups and are trying to tell the lower 95% that the problem is with the 5% and that is patently false.
Your uber rich even disagree with you. People such as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and a long list of other uber rich have complained that their tax rates are too low.
Warren Buffet even uses specific examples to be blunt about it. Buffet says he is paying a low tax rate than even his receptionist.
Which rich people complain about taxes too high? Let's see. The same people who make $millions on Wall Street by playing money games AND who claim they still deserve their bonuses because their salary is only 10% of those bonuses. These same people who claim taxes are too high also claim they have a right to bonuses even when the company is no longer profitable and taking money from the government.
Americans pay some of the lowest taxes in the world. And Americans will still pay some of the lowest taxes in the world if tax rates are simply put back to where they were ten years ago. There is a fact that is not disputable. Tax cuts were provided only to the richest income earners. Even the uber rich have complained about these tax cuts.
We all should be complaining about tax games that have tax accountants and tax software necessary. In the year of tax simplification, I filed 13 Federal tax forms. What also makes taxes unfair? Tax laws written by people who never do their own taxes. Their taxes are done by a government paid employee. Even mistakes mean no tax penalties. No wonder taxes have become so much more complex every ten years. That tax software and accountants - just another hidden tax.
If the rich paid the same 22% or 23% taxes that the average American paid, then the rich would suffer a major tax increase. The uber rich also approve of that solution.
Your uber rich even disagree with you. People such as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and a long list of other uber rich have complained that their tax rates are too low.
Warren Buffet even uses specific examples to be blunt about it. Buffet says he is paying a low tax rate than even his receptionist.
That is what I said. Do you ever read before you post?
That is what I said. Do you ever read before you post?
What you wrote was not stated if you agreed with Buffet, et al. You never state that agreement. Read what your wrote. One must assume you agree with Buffet - what you do not state - to understand that you agree with me.
You stated " if you are in the top 5% you should do your part, but lets be clear, it is not the top 5% that are the problem among the rich." So you don't agree with Buffet? Of course it is. That is where tax cuts existed. The richer and better positioned mean tax cuts got even bigger.
If you are going to disagree with administration propaganda and agree with Buffet, then please state that.
AMT applies to anyone above $100,000. Those at the $100,000 level do AMT calculations but pay nothing. AMT is a complex entity to guarantee that the rich pay some taxes because the government has given the rich so many tax breaks. Solution begins by getting rid of the tax breaks (which creates other problems). Alongside a tax structure distorted to favor the rich is a tax system that has become so ridiculously complex that even IRS people no longer can undestand it.
Distorted laws are welfare to tax accountants and another tax on the taxpayer. Tax laws so complex that the average taxpayer actually believed he had a tax cut when no such tax cut existed.
If you are going to agree with the uber rich and disagree with an administration you always agree with, then it helps to say so. You did not. It helps if you decide to be unambiguous.
What you wrote was not stated if you agreed with Buffet, et al. You never state that agreement.
Are you always a dick or do you just play one on the internet? Please Ted go bomb some Judge somewhere. This exchange does not suit you.