East Valley resident Linda Turley-Hansen
(email@example.com) is a syndicated columnist and former
Phoenix veteran TV anchor.
Current users sign in here.
"Biased media on the team of a candidate clothe the story in their agendas,"Linda, just how stupid do you think we are? What have you just done, but exhibit extreme bias on behalf of your Mormon brethren who would be emperor.He has radically changed his stance on many things in his quest to be king.The cult leaders have even gone so far as to change "church" doctrine in order to make Mitt seem more palatable to the thinking public.Does somebody from the Romney campaign write this stuff for you, or do you come up with it all by yourself????Linda, you are a hypocrite!
The greatest American journalism consists of writers with an agenda: Lincoln Steffens, Ida Tarbell, Ray Stannard Baker, H. L. Menchen, Samuel Hopkins Adams, George Jean Nathan, Heywood Broun (just a small sample). The myth of a balanced, unprejudiced media was a a PR ploy used by Pulitzer in his circulation wars with Hearst, and was only true for a few local media for a short time before it was found unsuccessful at building or maintaining an audience. When someone tells you they remember an unprejudiced media, they are either lying or taking drugs, it's an old PR ploy, nothing more.
mormons will vote for him only because he is mormon. they don't want to even see the truth. since obama took office, the economy has been stagnate. what benefit is there to put a man who put millions of people out of work in charge of the country? this man took out huge loans to buy out the majority of a company's stock, then let the loans go into default, pocketing the cash. and how is that business experience going to create jobs?
This might be her worst column yet, and that's saying something. So when the "biased media" rips Obama for his performance or rips the administration for its handling of the Benghazi fiasco, where does that fit into her narrative?
As Rich above points out, good luck trying to find unbiased media. She should know that -- she was an local TV anchor, and she knows full well that someone on that staff chose which stories to run and when on the broadcast to run them and which ones got the most coverage.
Anymore, much of that is solely ratings/readers driven, but it's also an editorial decision.
Linda's disingenuous here, at best.
And laughable: Her Emperor quote that begins her column comes from one of the most slanted, biased "mainstream media" sources in our country, the Manchester Union-Leader in New Hampshire.
Rich,What a crock! You must be very young or very dim.The fodder that Linda spews isn't journalism, it's propaganda. Transparent, but propaganda, none the less.Then there's reporting, which at least contains some truth and not just what the sponsor (or Mitt's handlers) wants to spread as "truth".I hope we can agree that the trash Linda spreads isn't even disguised as the truth.Finally, I wonder how many actually watched the debates and drew their own conclusions, instead of listening to a talking head with a hidden agenda?Linda proves with every column she produces that she knows nothing about journalism.
Why is the Arizona Republic even giving Linda a regular column? I mean, really?
I understand they have to fill space but why fill it up with this dull nonsense. Linda regularly exhibits the same dreary paranoid anti-intellectualism that has become a right-wing staple in this country. This self-righteous malarkey isn't interesting or accurate at any level - either intellectually, politically or historically. And the lack of any critical effort at balance on her part just makes the column a particularly long and verbose bumper-sticker.
Can we get something a little more interesting from the Republic? I'll even take Pat Buchanan or George Will over this noxious bilge.
Linda - you OFTEN assert false and/or distorted "facts" in your opinion columns. You might say, well, it's just my "opinion" so I can spin the "facts" however I want. But you really are not one to be talking about the rest of the media, given how obscenely biased your columns are.
Linda, Your article must be right on target and true. The liberal/progressives are going wild with rage against you. Bravo!!! Ever since Walter Cronkite took off his glasses during his nightly news report and proclaimed his objection to the Vietam war the media has fallen into a state of political bias. Most media professionals are graduates of journalism schools which tend to be some of the most liberal philosophically. So there is a reason that the media is so heavily tilted to the liberal side. It's just that the liberal/progressives don't want to admit it. This state of political bias has progressed to a point where most news comes with a bias automatically attached or implied. Once in a while some actual unbiased news gets through. I read every news story with a jaundiced eye. When you learn the biased tecniques of writing then it's easy to filter out the bias. And yes I can filter both the liberal and conservative bias.
Ever hear of the Dunning-Krueger effect?
Linda Turley-Hansen wrote: “Obama has had this advantage or, as one might say in regard to the debate, disadvantage for years. Old media have been his P.R. team. They hide the ugly stuff and promote hype then seek to destroy any who oppose him.”
According to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), President Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney will tangle over foreign and domestic policy in the next second presidential debate next Tuesday. And the debate, live from Hempstead, New York, will be a town-hall format debate in which citizens will ask questions of the candidates on the issues. CNN's Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley, will moderate the debate. And we know the CNN media, which has absolutely no quality or state of being complete or undivided, will not allow citizens to ask any direct questions about; The looming problem of a world-wide economic recession – And since Spain is collapsing, what is Obama's plans to contain the damage it will cause to Europe and eventually to our economy. That the United States national debt has increased by a trillion dollars each year that Obama has been president. The birth rate in America fell to its lowest point in our history during President Obama’s administration. While Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said he would govern as a pro-life president, de-fund the nation’s largest abortion company, and reinstate a policy preventing taxpayer funding of international abortion promotion efforts on the part of Planned Parenthood.
So you've predetermined what questions have to be asked in the debate by the audience to prove the embedded assumption that CNN is biased and if no one in the audience asks those questions then CNN is biased?
Does the logic of this escape you or doesn't it matter?
Last I checked the President's mandate didn't extend to Spain or the European Union. I know you folks on the right like to think everyone who voted for Obama worships the President but it's who you give the impression that you believe Obama is all-powerful, omniscient and omnipotent whose nefarious hand controls all.
C'mon cinn, you're above playing small with chat. I know what Dunning-Kruger effect is and that sort of sideswipe is why nothing gets done in Washington.
There are legitimate reasons people hold their beliefs and even if I don't agree it doesn't make the other person's position stupid. Besides, I tend to agree with chat. And accuracy when he says the media hides the ugly stuff (about Obama) and promotes hype then seeks to destroy any who oppose him.”
If your vote is for Obama, you're not going to see what you don't want to see.
No, mnj, some positions are truly simply stupid and illegitimate. And if you're looking for something to boost your sense of rightness you can always find it somewhere in the media - presumably you know something about "confirmation bias".
I'll vote for Obama but it won't be because he's perfect or even that I agree with his agenda. It's because the choices you guys offer are so deeply and incredibly awful.
Speaking of an emperor with no clothes. Mitts 47% comment didn't include tax dodgers like himself who use the loopholes to pay little or no taxes. What percentage of our population hides their assets offshore while running for the highest office in the land? Then, there is the 2.62 million dollars last year donated to the Mormon church. That definitely should not be allowed.
Mitts comments along with his boy on Roe v Wade were enough to turn me against voting for them. Sadly, the republicans claim to support and uphold our laws but when they disagree with a Supreme Court decision, they immediately clamor to change it citing activist judges. They also claim their religious and personal freedoms are being eroded yet they have no qualms about trampling all over our rights in the process of pushing laws that are in agreement with their warped ideologies.
PS: Linda: when I see the Mormons clamoring for a tithe reduction, then I will think they are serious about their tax reduction efforts.
What's the secret samkat? I could absolutely love being one of the 47%. I really don't like enough of you that I want to contribute to your support, I've paid something every year since I was sixteen. How do I get there? Get something back besides a government that tried to kill me from 18 to 27. A government that goes further in debt year by year, and I owe it. I want in your group. Worked all my life, 8hrs a day, that's for wimps. I'd really like to be left alone, not know I have a government, that's all I paid for, didn't get it. They owe me a fortune, just indexed for inflation. Hey, you're a success, the 1% can't match you, they risked all, you risked nothing, bupkis, stress didn't eat you, shorten your life. Easy, nine to five, now everybody pays for you. That's a club I want into, what did I do to get left out? Worked too hard? too long? The CPAs, the lawyers say I have to pay, can't profit. You've done it babe, we all pay for you. If I want that, it's another eighteen hour day with no guarantees, nothing.
Obama messed up big time. He's done a terrible job. And you'll vote for him because you are part of the 47% he pays to. Hey, show me how to join and vote for him too.
It is only human to develop opinions based on what we hear or see. The main point of this article is to understand that there are two sides to every story and we are free to choose what we want to beleive. We can make biased choices based on just one fact or opinion. If people don't educate themselves about various facts in any given situation, biases are going to occur. Reporters are no exception. This is America, and we still have the freedom of choice. We can discount everything Linda Turley-Hansen has written about as all hogwash, or we can realize that she has a right to make an opinion. We, as individuals, can educate ourselves and make our own opinions, so why can't a reporter? One thing Turley-Hansen said is that the media chooses what we see. In my opinion, and it is only my opinion, is that she's correct. The media can and does limit what we hear and see, and to think otherwise that this never occurs is downright gullible.
And cinn you're right. It is stupid & illegitimate to reinforce and support a candidate with as pathetic a record as the incumbent. The 47% comment samkat? I work in the tax field, and I understand what Mitt's saying perfectly. You unfortunately don't. It has nothing to do with the small ball thinking that you and many others believe. It's a mentality that's pervasive in society - brought on exclusively by Obama - that the government owes you something. Mitt paid everything the law requires and gave over 30% to charity. What more do liberals want? Should he just turn all of his earnings over?
That stupid argument doesn't work on this voter.
Stay on point.
The notion that there is some vast left-wing conspiracy abetted by the "liberal media" out to get virtuous conservative politicians has a history. I'm old enough to remember when Nixon trotted that one out before he was impeached and when Mike Deaver picked it up during the Reagan Administration to club the Press into submission. The Mike Deaver who later said, "Ronald Reagan enjoyed the most generous treatment by the press of any president in the postwar era.". And the Right has been using that club with great effect ever since.
This is a very successful canard that is continually being used by the Right to bully and browbeat a Press that is fearful of losing access or corporate profits since they were transformed from a public service outlet into profit centers . What you call the "liberal media" is infotainment on the order of dancing bears and circus acts. The Right successfully complains about a non-existent liberal mainstream media in order to delegitimate any critical voices that might challenge their revisions of history and reality and then they give you your marching orders on FOX and Hannity and Limbaugh.
The idea that a good segment of the population has been taken in by this "big lie" is what drives much of the polarization in this country. The Right has figured out how to "work the refs" and you and Linda and a good segment of the country have fallen for it. No referees so facts don't matter anymore(Linda displays that trait in abundance) and that was the whole point.
BTW - Walter Cronkite made that remark about Vietnam during the administration of one of the most liberal Democratic administrations since FDR eventually causing LBJ to not seek a second term in office.
samkat - Whenever you have freedom, you're going to have freeloaders. The Obama phone people. The illegals that take 7 billion each year in the form of credits in the tax system. Not the hard worker like you. That's what the 47% is about. I suspect Mitt will explain that better on Tuesday when he doesn't have the criminal liberal media filtering his message.
Abortion? The first lady recently said that will be what she will spend her time on after politics. That's incredibly sad that is what you want to be known for. Funding radical, later term abortions is nothing more than promoting murder.
Okay cinn -
The main media channels (ABC, NBC, CNN, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post) are as in the tank for Obama as I've ever seen but they no longer have a monopoly on the conversation so it's opened the conversation. I and many others don't agree with Obama's policies and don't need cheerleaders telling me how wonderful he is.
Twin1 says it well. I appreciate your point of view, but I emphatically disagree.
Well, if you're main source of information is FOX what else would you think? Isn't that their central message? Trust us and not those other guys? We're "fair and balanced"?
Listen, I could care less how you vote or why. I'm just trying to get people to understand they don't have to uncritically chow down on whatever ideological main course is delivered to them by FOX or MSNBC. People have brains. They need to use them. They can't rely on the same people who are serving the meal to deliver the facts.
Cinn - I find it amusing that when someone disagrees with Obama's policies, that somehow they're some kind of mindless drone that educates themselves on Fox. That's the same effrontery that defines liberal politics.
It's nothing more than I disagree with the left's policies. Everything from economic, tax, ridiculous foreign policy, and unwillingness to support the real energy industry. If Obama had taken cue from the fall 2010 elections and come to the center like Clinton did, we would have more to discuss.but he has shown zero compunction to negotiate. His record gives me nothing to support and I won't listen to a media outlet that attempts to disguise it for anything other than the failure that it is. I'll take an experienced business owner, with his own money on the line, that has turned failing businesses around any day of the week.
I never said you have to agree with Obama's policies. I didn't agree with many of Reagan's or both Bush's policies but I did agree with some. However, you're opposition to Obama's polices - regardless of any facts - are so reflexively absolute as to be mindless. You're critique may as well have been manufactured by the RNC so utterly devoid of any real underlying authenticity or critical examination. But if you want to be nothing more than a bumper-sticker that's your choice.
By the way that's the same "effrontery" that the Right makes against the Left so you've competed the circle of invincible ignorance that now constitutes contemporary American politics. Congratulations.
But that's the point cinn.
Obama had the opportunity to be the Martin Luther King of our generation, a leader that changes culture. But the culture he sold me that he wanted to change isn't the change I've experienced and I'm registered independent. It's been radically left of what I felt he was obligated to deliver upon. That's not indifferent, nor is it lacking in critical thought. Like Twin1 spoke about, we share different belief systems. But it was Obama's job as a leader to bring those two together, and in that job, he has failed miserably in this writer's opinion.
By way of example is the current situation in Libya. Four Americans are dead - left unprotected and murdered, and the media barely covered the story for two weeks and supported that video tape bs early on rather than doing their job. This is exactly what I'm communicating about the media is complicit in Obama's reelection. Sorry you can't see that.
You name me any policy this President has pursued that differs radically from past Presidents?
cinn - you asked that I stay on point about the media protecting Obama.
The media's reporting of the Libya situation MORE than makes my point of their complicit resolve to get Obama reelected by protecting him.
Ah, the freeloaders of the 47%, like the 68,000 American combat troops in Afghanistan, who don't pay federal taxes on their income.
From the Military Hub website: "Generally, military enlistees up to warrant officers (including commissioned warrant officers) can exclude all their military pay received for military service in a combat zone from the tax man."
Oh, and how about the richest in our country? Of the 400 wealthiest Americans, six paid no federal taxes in 2009, 27 paid less than 10% and none paid the 35% of their alleged tax rate.
And those working poor, who pay federal payroll taxes but don't make enough to pay federal income taxes.
Now, which group seems to be sponging off the rest of us: The soldiers fighting in a godawful war? The working poor who just don't make enough money to pay income taxes but still pay federal payroll taxes? Or the 400 richest Americans who don't even pay the marginal tax rate they're supposed to fork over?
No Mike, the people that I described both legal & illegal who choose not to work because its far more advantageous not to. The tax system should be reformed, but that's a different topic.
Is Centrist right after all? When challenged you can't deliver? Are you, when all is said and done, just a walking bumper-sticker - a series of talking points?
Linda Turley-Hansen: “With Joe Biden and Paul Ryan’s debate behind us, the nation is still asking, “what happened to Obama in the first debate?” and “can he fix it in the next round?”
During the only vice-presidential debate of the 2012 election season, Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan sparred over Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, abortion, social security, health care, tax cuts, and more.
Joe Biden was openly disrespectful to Paul Ryan throughout the debate. Analysts criticized Biden for what they called his disrespectful demeanor, and CNN political commentator Gloria Borger noted that Biden "was condescending at times to Paul Ryan."
Biden also took issue with Mitt Romney's initial response to the attack on Libya and the recent deaths of four Americans at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, saying Romney politicized it.
But Democrats are hoping the vice presidential debate will slow the momentum of the Romney campaign after President Barack Obama's weak showing in the first debate.
Not sure what you're talking about cinn. We were discussing the media. Challenged with what?
So, mnjcpa, just how many of the 47% "choose not to work," as you say?
Half? Two-thirds? Seventy-five percent?
Are you including the elderly, who make up half of that 47%?
Are they the ones you say find it "advantageous" "to choose not to work"?
Are you including the physically disabled kids, the 18 million who receive government benefits?
Just who are you talking about? You claim to be versed in this, so give us the evidence you have to back up your claims.
I have a feeling, though, we won't find you responding any time soon.
I understand your concern for people that are disadvantaged Mike, and completely agree but I don't believe the 47% comment was meant in the way you do. It's a metaphor to describe a victim-like personality, not a group. No different than when Obama said 'you didn't build that'. I know what he was trying to say but it just didn't come out right. What backs up my claim? Easy - rapid increase in food stamps and you don't have to look past the earned income credit to prove my point.
I know you're in the bag for Obama and respect your opinion so let's dispense with the snark.
Well, mn, just who are these people with "victim-like personalities"?
And your evidence is an "rapid increase in food stamps"? Those are the ones with "victim-like personalities"?
Do you know any folks who work at food banks? Have they told you of the new poor, the folks who were both employed and now maybe one of them is, and maybe underemployed at that, and have to resort to food stamps and food banks?
Those are your victim-like personalities?
Mike - I don't put people in groups, by the color of their skin, how much they earn, or who they are. I think of people as Americans. I could connect as easily with that `you didn't build that` statement as adamantly as you do with the 47% comment, but I don't because both of these candidates are human and are bound to say things that don't come out right. .
Maybe it's something as simple as you connect with being a victim. Otherwise, not sure why you're still going at it other than maybe you've got a touch of Joe Biden syndrome.
So you can't really identify who you're talking about, these people who have "victim-like personalities."
You're just sure they're out there somewhere.
Yep, you have a narrative and you'll stick to it, not matter what. You can't really explain who you're speaking of, but you're certain they exist. You don't even have an idea of their numbers, but they're out there somewhere.
In an earlier post above, you say these people are "pervasive in our society."
"Pervasive" and yet you can't clearly define them. But you're certain they're everywhere.
Right wingers are the people with " victim - like personalities ".Right wingers think no one works for their money -- but them.Right wingers think they work harder than anyone else.Right wingers think anyone who gets help from social programs is LAZY and COULD work but doesn't want to ... they would rather live off the taxes paid by right wingers.Right wingers believe taxes are theft and THEY should not have to pay one dime to help anyone.If you analyze the language of right wing posts you will quickly see the language of anger and hate and miserliness ( sp -- even a word? ).The language used by right wingers make it obvious they are totally self -centered greedy people.Conservatism is a mental illness.
You kept wandering off point on the "liberal" media canard so I just followed.
You keep claiming how radical this president is then you have to explain what policies he has pursued that are so radically different than previous Presidents?
Benghazi situation is a wreck. And I've seen plenty of coverage about the ensuing fall-out in the main-stream media so I don't know what you're referring to unless you expect that - like FOX - they're going to throw Benghazi "gotcha" parties all day long.
Mike (aka Joe Biden) - the 47% is an attitude not a group.
The people that think just because they're in America that someone else owes them something. Or those that do achieve success are vilified. It's an upside down world Mike.
The illegals that take billions out of our tax system each year via the earned income credit (I've witnessed this up close and personal), feedback I hear from my business owner clients of people that refuse to work because they can make more from the subsidies they're getting, free phones, free housing, free food. The list goes on.
I'm all for helping the helpless but have a big problem helping the clueless.
Hi cinn - agreed that the media is FINALLY on point about the Libya tragedy as they should have been three weeks ago. It will be interesting to see who throws who under the bus - Hillary or Obama.
Radical policies? Try Obama's energy policy. There's no reason to believe that gas prices won't go to $10 a gallon because of his radical views. Or billions more will be wasted in taxpayer dollars to unproven energy companies. You should do some research on the back story of the Keystone pipeline and Buffett's connection and you'll have a different understanding of the `Buffett rule`.
By the way, I enjoy discussing issues with you.
Of course, mn, Romney wasn't talking about "illegals" when he made that comment, but good try.
There's nothing radical about those views. They've been pretty common since the Carter Administration and the energy crisis(see Carter energy speech April 18, 1977). We're about 30 years too late getting a handle on the problem and the urgency of the problem becomes greater every year not just in terms of strategic security but environmental impacts.
The facts are that domestic oil production is at it's highest in eight years. It's also a fact that oil is a global commodity and no US President has very much influence on the price of gasoline. But every election year some politico or talking head comes out and blames the price of gas on whatever sitting President we have.
You aren't telling me anything that I can't glean from watching 10 minutes of FOX news or listening to right-wing radio. You're simply repeating ideological talking points - not seriously considered positions with any empirical data to back them up.
Again, what radical policies has this President pursued that differ from previous Presidents?
And of course Obama wasn't talking about the small business owners that make $250-$300,000 a year that provide jobs for half of the country when he said `you didn't build that' or that they're `rich` and need to pay their fair share and will see their taxes increase by 60% in January if Obama is reelected. What do you suppose that will do to unemployment? These people don't have windfall union pensions that enable them to retire in their 50's.
You're in the bag for Obama so not sure what your point is other than to impersonate Biden.
Many of my clients are in the energy business cinn, and they would emphatically disagree with you in drilling, permits, or energy independence policy. I tend to listen to experts in the field.
And you glazed right by the billions lost in defunct alternative energy companies as if that's not important or should be discussed. But it you're going to resort to insults like others on this column then I'm over and out.
We both know who we're voting for.
Small businesses that make between $250k and $300k make up less than 12% of small businesses so NO - they do not provide half the country's jobs. The average annual revenue of small businesses is between $3 - $5 million. And no one's taxes are increasing by 60% - where do you even get that number? (Stats from SBA and IDC)
The President and Congress have passed about 14 small business tax cuts since he was in office. I know the small business I used to work for benefitted from at least one of more of them.
Even the most superficial research would disprove what you are saying so why do you continually make statements that are transparently untrue?
And you still haven't answered the question.
This whole "in the bag" ad hominem is really tired as if you're not "in the bag"?
All of a sudden you no longer enjoy our conversation? You're bailing just when things get interesting? What happened?
Has it ever occurred to you that you invite insults? That there is a reason so many find your mode of argumentation so maddening and frustrating? Or do you simply dismiss everyone as being "in the bag"? Is that your go-to catch-all excuse?
Mike McClellan is not letting the issue of Mitt Romney's comments about the 47% go away.........
Even President Obama's campaign ad slams Romney for "47%" . . . It refers to Romney's comments in a secretly recorded video about the "47 percent" of Americans who he said are government-dependent victims. The ad says "Mitt Romney attacked 47% of Americans who pay no income tax, including veterans, the elderly and disabled."
For sure, when President Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney face off on Tuesday in their second debate, Obama will bring up Romney's comments about the 47% during the debate. And Romney will come prepared with a rebuttal of his own, and with statistics on the large number of people who are out of work.
I don't know a businessman on the planet that doesn't complain about government regulation on a daily basis. At least until an industry lobbyist passes some tax-break or special subsidy for them and then it stops for about 10 seconds and they begin again the next day.
As for your oil and gas clients? You want me to feel sorry for them? Really? How much do we spend subsidizing the energy industry? They can't be doing too bad because they're the best performing stocks in my portfolio.
cinn - You're retired, right? With all due respect cinn, I'm not sure how that puts you in a place of expertise about small businesses. I am one and work for those small business owners. The bandaid credits you're referring to did nothing to restore the lost market value business owners have experienced the last four years. (Pepperdine Univ, Univ. of Chicago, RMA. Why is that important to know?
There are over 15 million small business owners that will be retiring over the next 10-15 years that depend upon their business to fund their retirement. They don't have windfall union pensions to retire in their 50's. (same sources+ Inv.BankingDaily, WSJ, CCH) Yet these people are lumped in to the same group that Obama attacks as the `rich` by virtue of their income.
I've got a masters degree in tax so my expertise is hardly shallow. If Obama is reelected, anyone that earns over $217k tax rate is going from 33 - 36%. Then add 0.9% levy on top of the 2.9% Medicare tax for those earning more than $200,000, and a new 2.9% surcharge on investment income buried inside Obamacare, including interest income. If I sell investments (which I regularly do), the rate goes from 15-20%. Any combination of those numbers will increase my taxes as a small business owner 60%. Unless you work in the field cinn, you're not going to put the pieces together.
What I'm advising them to do is to kick up their charitable contributions. But even that won't work if Obama is reelected. Obama has on four different occasions included in bills to the tax committee to REDUCE the charitable deduction for these same taxpayers by 8%. Obama positions himself as all-compassionate and cares for all but he's a hypocrite. To support that claim compare Obama, Biden, or Romney's charitable donations. Obama is charitable and compassionate, as long as it's other people's money.
I just don't see the point cinn- we both know who we're voting for.
I'm retired until I find a job. As for the rest, the tax breaks I've enjoyed under this administration have done nothing to restore the market value of my portfolio in the last four years!!! That doesn't make them band-aids. That's a non sequitur.
Ever since corporations discovered they could eliminate pension costs and improve their bottom line using a little known 401k provision HARDLY ANYONE HAS A PENSION ANYMORE. So now, Joe Blow who doesn't know an expense ration from a load is expected to swim with the same sharks that gave us the financial collapse.Please give me a break!
Being rich by virtue of income is pretty much the standard definition of being rich. And Mitt Romney gives primarily to his church - not charity - that is a critical difference as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not a tax expert but so far you haven't inspired a lot of confidence in the claims you've made. I'm not qualified to examine you're thesis without doing a lot more research but maybe someone else on this board is. That's a discussion I'd like to hear.
But generally my response would be that we currently have the lowest tax rates in decades and a ballooning debt. We have a middle-class that is being gutted while the vast proportion of income goes to the upper percentile. Corporate America has been gouging and extorting income - read The Fine Print or Who Stole the American Dream - from the average consumer at a pace not seen since the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age so my sympathy is limited.
If you thought you were going to change my vote you'd better come up with better arguments.
You may be surprised cinn, but I agree with you on most all accounts about the middle class being gutted.
The only place we disagree is charitable - it's no one's business who someone wants to be charitable towards. I consider it a privilege to help people and if my church is the catalyst, then great. They support causes that I support.
Tax rates are easily researched on the IRS website.
Never looked to change your vote, nor will you change mine.
If you agree with my analysis of the economics of the middle-class then I'm puzzled by your support of a candidate that wants to extend more privileges to upper-income and wealthy and promote further de-regulation of business? Economic growth, even at the unrealistic levels that Romney et al predict, aren't going to solve that problem.
BTW- it's not tax rates that give me a headache it's tax regulations that make me want to drive knitting needles through my ears.
My wife handles the tax stuff - I don't have the patience for it.
cinn - I hear you o the regulations.
The reason we can agree about the gutting of the middle class is I haven't bought in to the democrat narrative regarding taxes and deregulation.
The `rich` include those small business owners I described earlier because someone that makes $250-$300k a year will have the tax increase I described. They're lumped in to same group as the oil companies and Buffett.
I think the tax system needs to be gutted and start over again. All the subsidies removed, oil, farmer's, families, everything.
Do you really believe that regulation has helped the financial services industry and protected you and I? Hardly. Take a look at Goldman Sachs profitability over the last four years. They fleeced America at the profits they made off of the middle class with the stimulus, etc. All under Obama's watch.
Romney at least has a plan and he's brilliant at turning troubled companies around. Can you say the same thing about Obama?
A country is not a business and Congress is not a board of directors so let's dispense with the notion that a businessman is better at running the country.
Of course regulation didn't protect us from the financial industry. They wrote the regulations!! Who do you think pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagall?
The whole point I've been trying to make is that corporations are writing our legislation - that's what's gutting the middle class. Read "Who Will Tell The People" by Greider - old book but relevant. Legislators are taking bills to Congress that are verbatim transcripts of industry wish-lists and are as anti-consumer as you can possibly get. Take a look at your cable/phone bill some time.
Agreed on everything cinn - except having a businessman run the country. As opposed to an academic that never held a real job in his life? Sorry, can't buy that logic. The same principles apply to running a country as they do in a business of which first you don't spend more than you take in.
I'll check out that book - sounds interesting.
You might want to read the Tax Policy Center study of the Romney plan before you go all in on the businessman is better idea. They are about as independent and unbiased as you can get.
Rich said: " What's the secret samkat? I could absolutely love being one of the 47%. I really don't like enough of you that I want to contribute to your support, I've paid something every year since I was sixteen. How do I get there? Get something back besides a government that tried to kill me from 18 to 27. A government that goes further in debt year by year, and I owe it. I want in your group. Worked all my life, 8hrs a day, that's for wimps. I'd really like to be left alone, not know I have a government, that's all I paid for, didn't get it. They owe me a fortune, just indexed for inflation. Hey, you're a success, the 1% can't match you, they risked all, you risked nothing, bupkis, stress didn't eat you, shorten your life. Easy, nine to five, now everybody pays for you. That's a club I want into, what did I do to get left out? Worked too hard? too long? The CPAs, the lawyers say I have to pay, can't profit. You've done it babe, we all pay for you. If I want that, it's another eighteen hour day with no guarantees, nothing.
Sorry Rich but I went back and read my post again and nowhere did I see where i included myself in the 47%. Now, for clarification, you spent approximately 9 years in the military I assume based on your comments. I spent over 20 before, during, and after the Vietnam conflict. In fact, I was in on the ground floor for the big event. Now, for your comment on the 1%: they risked all and I risked nothing? That's something I find interesting. My health is shot due to Agent orange exposure as well as other chemicals. I still have friends they haven't found yet. Yep, I risked nothing. My first bit of advice is that if you want to succeed like me is to go back and finish another 11 or so years. You have been working since age 16, I started at 14 so I guess I have you on both points. I spent many a day in the military deployed when I had a family at home so Rich do me a favor and get off your high horse. You may not like me and perhaps the feeling could be considered mutual based on your personal attack on me. It is true that I am retired but I cannot be part of the 47% club since my wife and I pay a bundle in taxes every year for the penalty of having scrimped, saved, made the right investments and finally settled into a comfortable retired life. Now, as to your last comment, who said i was voting for Obama? Frankly, I have no love nor respect for either of them.
MNJ: My question to you is simple. How many unwanted children in the CPS system have you personally either taken in as a foster child or adopted, or both? Heck, you can take your pick since there are over 13,000 to choose from. My issue with the pro life folks is that they lack conviction to follow through on their ideology.
Thank you Linda for another,well-rounded, column. Facts, are in the eyes of the beholder. They have a propensity to be proven, or not. Even our beloved history books, being taught to our most vulnerable, need to be revised due to "newly found" facts. Spin and agendas will always be a part of the "true factual discoveries". Even in the black & white world of physics are new discoveries being made turning well-established facts on their heads. In the political realm, the reporting of "facts" is in constant flux, benefiting one or the other, when the "need" arises. That is why this reader allows for the presentation of facts from all sides before a reasonable conclusion is applied. Center, left, right, we all have our opinions, but to deny trends is delusional. That's a fact.
I sincerely hope that's sarcasm?
You want me to reconsider my choice? The tax policy group’s analysis is far from perfect. The premise was on certain points picked out, not the underlying nature of Romney's plan. I’ve already outlined (see post 10/15 at 11:21 am for the math - rate schedules IRS website) how my taxes are going up 60% next year if Obama is reelected so why in the world would I vote for that?
What I find most interesting is that Romney is treated as the incumbent when it’s Obama that has a record. Maybe you could explain to me how exactly jobs are created by taking even more from high income taxpayers? And what policies is Obama going to do differently that he’s already had four years to accomplish that will put people back to work? Or is it just more hope and change and roads and bridges.
No, the way you improve economic performance is by lowering marginal tax rates. Throw out the tax code that raises the same amount of revenue which broadens the tax base and maintains the distribution of the tax burden across ALL income levels.
I’ll take a business man that’s brilliant in turnarounds any day of the week than a Harvard academic.
Here we go again with the single cause fallacy:
See, these guys like mnjcpa like to believe that lower taxes are the engine of our economy.
But then try a few things with them:
Have them explain how Clinton raised taxes and the economy didn't sputter but grew.
Have them explain how Arizona raised its sales tax and the economy didn't sputter but grew
Have them cite any reputable study that shows that lower taxes = stronger economies.
Have them explain why the economy didn't stagnate after 1982, when Reagan had raised some of the taxes he initially lowered.
Have them explain how Eisenhower had an annual job growth of 1% with a 91% top marginal rate and Bush had an annual job growth of under .6% with a 35% top rate.
Their low taxes house of cards falls apart when you actually ask them to prove their argument.
There's no discussion of single cause Mike. Cinn and I were having a discussion about taxes. Obama isn't Clinton in demeanor or leadership and my questions were first. Cinn's been asking me reconsider my vote so I would really like to know.
My questions:Explain to me how exactly jobs are created by taking even more from high income taxpayers? What policies is Obama going to do differently that he’s already had four years to accomplish that will put people back to work?What is Obama's plan specifically? Or is it just more hope and change and roads and bridges?
Yeah, I saw you're analysis and I don't see a 60% rise in your effective tax rate or anything near it. That 3% hike is on your marginal tax rate and not on the first $250k or $200k(if you're unmarried) you make. So you pay an extra 3 cents on every dollar you make above your base rate. Wasn't a problem when Clinton was President. I'm sure 90% of the country wishes it had your tax problems.
As for your point about the "underlying nature of Romney's plan that sounds more like metaphysics than it does economics. I haven't seen any convincing empirical evidence(none) that indicates changes in the marginal tax rate on high income earners generates growth. As Mike points out, the historical data is all over the place in that regard. I learned very early on that the correct answer to any economic question is "It depends". In economics, context is everything. And I don't see in this context how Romney's plan works without making some assumptions that are pie-in-the-sky. If we had some more detail we could make a judgement but I suspect there's a very good reason that we're not getting that detail.
Context is important and I'm a little tired of the Republican Party behaving like the 2008 crash was just a normal bump in the business cycle. It was catastrophic and it took 20 years of bad policy and criminal greed to get us there. It was never going to be solved overnight and I never believed for one minute Obama could solve it in four years.
Collectively those rate changes equal that cinn. Just do the division on the increases. There's certainly nothing for me to gain to make it up.
You were trying to convince me to reconsider my vote so I would really like to know your thoughts on my previous questions. They have nothing to do with Romney.
that last "I haven't seen any convincing empirical evidence(none) that indicates changes in the marginal tax rate on high income earners generates or inhibits growth."
So you have a hike of 3 cents on every dollar above $200k(we'lll use that since you mentioned $217k and then another 2.9 cent marginal hike on every dollar over $200k plus another 9/10th's of a cent on the Medicare front which adds up to 6.8 cents on every dollar above $200k. Then you're capital gains rate goes from 15% to 20% on income from investments and capital gains(or non-productive work) which is a 5% increase on whatever percentage of your income is derived from investments. Is that correct?
Actually, I don't believe either Romney or Obama are going to create any jobs with their policies. And if they were both honest they'd say so.
I tend to agree with Republicans that the government doesn't create jobs - the market creates jobs. I think that between technological innovation and globalization we're in for a long haul of chronic and sporadic periods of high unemployment. The private sector appears either unwilling or unable to provide that employment and more than willing to migrate those jobs overseas and the public sector can only create temporary employment and make some public-private partnership bets on certain industries(in Obama's case it's energy). In the meantime, until we can reach some global equilibrium in the cost of labor, what do we do with the unemployed and what do we do about the loss in consumption demand? I don't see Romney's plan addressing that and as painful as it might be to hear the government will have to step in provide a safety net, support in education, training and infrastructure spending until we reach that point. There are no silver bullets or easy answers.
When you go from 15% to 20% and add 3.8% tax from Obamacare that's going from 15% to 23.8%. Divide 15 by 23.8 and you get a 60% increase in tax rate. And that doesn't even include the bump in the marginal rate from 33-36% so it's actually larger than a 60% increase. And Obama's claim that taxes won't affect the middle class is a bold faced lie. Along with the murders in Libya which is another topic altogether.
Neither you or Mike can answer my question of exactly how jobs are created by taking more from high income taxpayers. Or what policies is Obama going to do differently that he’s already had four years to accomplish that will put people back to work? Obama can't explain that because he doesn't have a plan - it's all about character assassination of Romney.
Agreed the government doesn't create jobs. My take on the private sector and their unwillingness to create jobs is that they're scared to death of Obama and what his agenda will do to their business. With the tax increases they're facing, I don't blame them.
Your last paragraph is excellent. I don't believe Romney can cure the problem and he needs a Republican congress to stop the bleeding. But a vote for Obama is a vote for the monetary system to collapse and even more of what we've had the last four years. You simply can't keep printing more and spending more and expect a good result. The average American doesn't realize what this means to them, but I can assure you it's not good.
That's on the already lower capital gains rate - not on regular income AND investment income. It matters what the mix is.
It really does your entire argument no good to throw in hyperbolic statements on unrelated topics. It just makes you look like you live in a right-wing echo chamber.
Neither Mike or I ever claimed that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on upper income is going to create jobs. That's not their purpose. The middle-class has been losing ground for 30 years while income and wealth have been driven increasingly towards high-income and wealthy individuals. At the same time corporations have written themselves legislation that makes it easier and easier to turn the average consumer into feed stock every time they need a bump in revenue - see telecom or banking or finance or any number of industries. It's the difference between an "extractive" economy where rewards and opportunities are confined to the wealthy and an "inclusive" economy in which everyone is rewarded. (See "The Self Destruction of the One-Percent).
Tax rates on upper income have been the lowest they have ever been - beginning with the Bush tax cuts in 2000. Have we seen an explosion of economic growth? No. Economic growth has been anemic and even negative and the consequence of giving the wealthy and corporations the run of the house has been inefficiency, corruption, greed and speculation.
The private sector isn't creating jobs because the middle-class has been hollowed out and they are uncertain whether they can sell enough of their products overseas to make up for the loss of domestic demand. It has nothing to with Obama and everything to do with the shifting of economic rewards to the top for the last 30 years and the destruction of household wealth caused by the financial crisis and the de-leveraging that followed. The private sector should be scared but they put this gun to their own head.
Why split hairs cinn? A 60% increase in taxes is still a 60% tax rate increase that hits my family's pocketbook.
Still agree with you about the gutting of the middle class, but I completely disagree about your thoughts on the private sector. Their decisions to invest and grow their businesses have nothing to do with the hollowing out of the middle class but with their confidence to take risks and invest in their companies. That confidence is lower than anytime I've experienced in my career under Obama. I talk to hundreds of business owners every year - from those that have food franchises to manufacturing and the consensus is the same.
But back again to persuading me - you and Mike still haven't answered my questions. I> Explain to me how exactly jobs are created by taking even more from high income taxpayers? > What policies is Obama going to do differently that he’s already had four years to accomplish that will put people back to work?
If you can't explain it there's nothing further to discuss.
They are not hairs. It matters if you take a 20% hit on 10% of your investment income as opposed to 50% of your investment income. The distribution of where you derive your income determines your effective rate - it's not just additive. If you're income is any where near $217k you're will into the top 5% of income earners in this country. Congratulations. And again, nice problem to have.
And if you read my previous post I said: "Neither Mike or I ever claimed that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire on upper income is going to create jobs. That's not their purpose." It's not about job creation it's about the danger democracies face when inequality becomes an embedded structural property. I could give a hoot about income inequality if it wasn't so destructive of democracy.
I've already explained why I think Obama's policies are better in previous posts.
And you need to pick a priority!! Do you want to create jobs or deal with the debt?Which is more important? Because you're going to have to give up some of one to deal with the other. This "supply-side Peter Pan BS that Romney want's us to buy into is simply not going to happen. After four years of the Republicans waging a political civil war against this President do you seriously think for a minute that the Democrats first priority isn't going to be to delay, obstruct and deny every policy Romney and the Republicans put forward? Actions have consequences and the consequence of the last four years is that no matter who's elected nothing gets done. And I'd rather have a President who has my back then one whose only agenda is to grease the skids towards a corporate oligarchy.
"Facts, are in the eyes of the beholder."Saracasm? Or religious mindset?
Either way, you are, in this country, entitled to your own personal opinions and beliefs.You are NOT entitled to your own facts.Facts stand on their own evidenciary merits...if they don't have any, then they aren't facts.
I voted for Obama in 2008 but there's nothing to give me confidence in him or his policies cinn.
Brushing off a 60% rate hike may seem fine to you, but it's not for me or my family.
I'm still convinced the monetary system is going to default because even if the Republicans win, they must sweep congress to stop the bleeding. And that doesn't stop what I believe is the greatest threat to our freedom and democracy which is the liberal media as shown on full display at the debate last night. Their influence on setting the narrative to support Obama, rather than reporting the narrative is beyond reprehensible.
Your discussion doesn't explain HOW Obama is going to create jobs or do anything different than he's had four years to accomplish. Or how increasing the tax burden on people like myself is going to grow the economy. That's a non-starter in my world.
You can't explain it because Obama doesn't have a plan. So you're taking someone at their word that they're going to look out for you.....why?
had another thought cinn.
How can you explain that Obama/Democrats care about the average guy when on Obama’s watch the average household income dropped more than $4,000, 15-16 million more people are on food stamps, and 15% of Americans are for the first time living in poverty? I haven’t seen any plan from Obama that communicates how he’s going to change that.
Taking more money from people like myself will increase unemployment, not decrease it. Do you think I’ll be hiring anytime soon when my tax rates have gone up 60%?
Agreed that overall the monetary system is bleak. But I would far rather have a businessman that’s brilliant in turnarounds guiding the helm than an Harvard academic without a shred of business experience.
The "liberal" media again? If you're going to engage in that kind of brain-dead nonsense crabbed from whatever spin-room you wandered into then there really is nothing to talk about. Turn off the radio and the TV and read some books and some serious studies.
As for your question why we have the levels of income and dependency? It's called the severest recession since the Great Depression. What is it about the catastrophic consequences of a worldwide financial collapse, credit collapse and devastating real estate bubble that you don't understand? We're not digging out of a normal business cycle so quit pretending we are. The reason things aren't normal is because this time it WAS different.
What should we do with those folks you seem so concerned about? You don't want to create infrastructure jobs, you don't want to extend food stamps, you don 't want to provide any safety net of any consequence for the 47% with regards to healthcare. You want reduce the debt but you don't want to pay any taxes? And it doesn't seem to bother you that in the richest country in the world 47% of the population makes so little income that we don't even tax them!!! Think of that last sentence - nearly half the working people in this country don't make enough to be taxed. You want a $5 trillion tax cut and $2 trillion in government spending that is touted as revenue neutral that every economist both on the left and right( including Reagan's former budget director) says doesn't add up - that's voodoo but as long as you keep your tax cuts you don't care?
The problem you have is you don't know what Mitt Romney you're going to get -liberal Massachusetts Mitt, severely conservative Mitt or "debate" Mitt or some other undiscovered Mitt we know nothing about. I've been watching the guy bounce from position to position for the last four years and I have no idea what principles he stands for other than he wants to be President.
Hey cinn- Just because we disagree doesn't mean either one of us is less informed. Thought we were past all that ...... And because you're smart, it's odd that you can't see the danger of the press taking sides which they clearly have. Romney was cut-off 28 to Obama's 9 times and Obama had the last opportunity to speak 8 out of 11 times with 3 more minutes of time which is an eternity in debates. That’s simple fact checking cinn. How is it possibly not problematic for freedom and democracy when the referee is also the fan?
We're in agreement about the middle class and the monetary system. I enjoyed your outline and it’s all true but my questions didn't discuss levels of income, food stamps, dependency or in what shape the economy was in.
I asked specifically what was Obama going to do to fix the economy that he hasn't done in the last four years. And how does taking even more in taxes from people like myself create jobs? I've asked those questions now four times and that’s my point - Obama doesn't have a plan. You've placed a blind faith on someone just because the argument is that things were so bad?
His response on gas prices last night was jaw dropping his command of basic economics. Of course he inherited a mess. But regardless of the shape we're in, I expected Obama to communicate a vision for America and he hasn’t. Obama's entire reelection strategy is character assassination of Romney which turned me off months ago. And that's why this independent voter won't be casting a ballot for Obama a second time.
using republican logic: your social security benefit is not going to be cut, your social security benefit will not go up as much as last year.
using republican logic: if president obama is re-elected, i won't get as large a tax refund as last year. if president obama is re-elected, i will pay more in taxes.
Read my last on the so-called "liberal" media on my post from 10AM Oct 14. You're being duped and using "confirmation bias" to remain duped.
And I've said at least twice now that the purpose of allowing tax cuts on upper incomes to expire is NOT to create jobs but to help deal with growing debt, take the pressure off the middle-class and begin to return to some semblence of income equality.
Obama got healthcare and financial reform done and he'll pursue entitlement reform only because he has to - but he is playing small-bore politics and from what I can see he will continue to pursue the same policies he has been. The economy will improve incrementally and achieve a steeper growth trajectory once housing returns to normal rates of growth. But the unemployment numbers will remain weak for some time because of global and technological structural macro properties. And any large programs to help increase employment will be held hostage by a dysfunctional Congress and a polarized electorate. The latter won't change no matter who is elected.
I'm disappointed in this President but not because he didn't perform miracles but because he turned out to be such a bad politician - unable or unwilling to perform the back-slapping, arm-twisting, horse-trading and retail glad-handing that are required. He spent too much time in his formative years reading Alinsky when he should have been reading Machiavelli. The default to his Presidency is not to select someone who appears to have no core political principles beside protecting the wealthy and powerful and whose economic plan is composed of bad math and fairy dust.
I don't have blind faith in anything or anyone except my family and the certainty that Einstein was right; that only the universe and human stupidity are infinite and I'm not that certain about the former.
Cinn - My entire career has been in the private sector and with all due respect `central planning` and academics running the country isn't what it's going to take to turn the economy around cinn. And while I appreciate your vision of what you think will happen to the economy, I don't believe Obama's crew can make that happen. And without a plan or any compunction to work with the Republicans, I can't support him. Clinton knew how to lead, but Obama isn't Clinton by any stretch.
I completely disagree with you about the media. I suppose it's natural that when you support their views, you'll brush it off by telling me I've been duped. For someone that votes for as many Democrats as I do Republicans, I expect unbiased handling of each candidate.
Appreciate your point of view but I"m still going Romney.
So what? Whose entire career HASN'T been in the private sector? WIth the exception of the military and a brief stint as a researcher so has mine. No one's advocating central planning no matter how many times FOX repeats it and if we're not going to rely on academics( the same one's I read in every business or industry journal of any importance) then who do we rely on? Gomer the mechanic? Sarah Palin? Go tell the Chinese that central planning and academics are useless while they're chowing down on your lunch.
So the Press has an agenda promoting a liberal bias? Murrow? Cronkite? Climate scientists too? How about academics? How about evolutionary biologists? Tell me who doesn't have a bias?
Fact-checking organizations organized around checking verifiable facts are now being called biased. And presumably the fact-checkers of the fact-checkers of the fact-checkers will be called biased? And so on ad infinitum. That's not lack of bias, that's a strange form of epistemological anarchism or nihilism. The Press isn't biased - it's lazy, which is why we now have fact-checkers. Like the Bible, you can search in the Press for whatever point of view you want confirmed and you'll find something to hang your hat on.
Mjn & Cin,
Interesting dialogue--thank you two. I, like the two of you, have not been swayed by the debates, or your arguements. Although I don't have much of a command of economics, or tax code, I do have a working brain, and have been taking time out of my usual literary pursuits, in seeking to understand what has been happenining, in the last few years, politically speaking. I am reading "The New, New Deal", by Michael Grunwald. It describes what Obama was greeted with, upon taking office, and how he, and his staff, had to quickly pull off not only Bush's stimulus, but another one, while still not certain just how bad the economic meltdown was...as described in the book, it was quite a miraculous combination of leadership, arm-twisting, and unprecedented red tape cutting. I'm not all the way through it, (it's quite dry, and boring to me, so it takes longer), but it certainly is the best explanation I've seen, for why we are where we are now, as well as why the Republicans are entrenched. It does have a Liberal slant, but I'm convinced that's because the last truly articulate conservative was William F. Buckley, and there's been an almost total vacuum of thoughtful centrist conservatives since...
Anyway, I think it's worth a read, for anyone who is looking for a little more insight into Washington politics, beyond the usual sound bites...
Obama for one hasn't been in the private sector and that's why his utopian views don't work. His explanation of gas prices alone was pathetically misinformed.
Again, I can't support someone whose entire strategy is tearing down the other person rather than articulating their own vision. I don't resent Romney's success - I admire it. I've worked with turnaround guys like Romney, and they're brilliant at turning disasters in to those that work again. Do a little research and you'll find Obama is as deep into Wall Street's pockets as anyone before him. If these things weren't enough to not vote again for Obama, a non-starter for my family are his positions on certain social issues that I would rather not discuss.
I have a problem with the media taking sides cinn, that's all, and they clearly have.
Enjoyed our discussion cinn, and thank you for that, but you haven't persuaded me.
I'd only take exception to the manner in which Obama outsourced much of the very public sausage-making to Reid and Pelosi. Reid and Pelosi deserve as much contempt as Boehner and McConnell. But then the entire Congress has an approval rating just below that of pedophiles.
I was fond of Buckley, enjoy reading Russell Kirk. Gary Wills - no longer considered a conservative - for that matter no one of any intellect is considered conservative. We're going through one of the cycles that Richard Hofstadter described so brilliantly in "The Paranoid Style.." and "Anti-intellectualism in American Life". But all the old guard are RINOs now thanks to the Tea Party. Norm Ornstein and Thomas Mann, the deans of congressional politics, wrote a strong rebuke of the present Republican Congress in their last book - not absolving the Democrats of their sins.
Book sounds interesting. I'd recommend Mann and Ornstein, Hedrick Smith's latest book and Cay-Johnston's "The Fine Print" - take your blood pressure medication before reading the last. From what I've read of it Woodward's latest book, The Price Of Politics, is dispiriting but pretty objective.
Again with the hyperbole? The only sure experience that counts in being President of the United States is being President of the United States. If business experience were that critically important then Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would be our last two Presidents. The last few Presidents that were businessmen were Andrew Johnson, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover and Harry Truman. Businessmen as Presidents batting 1 out of 4 - not such a good idea.
As for the tone of the campaign? Romney's been running a positive campaign filled with sunshine and Skittles? You might want to check with Santorum or Gingrich on that.
So you're not only an economic conservative but a social conservative? I doubt very much that you ever voted for Obama or any Democrats for that matter - at least not without wearing a paper bag over your head - so you're claim to independence is extremely suspect at this point.
Now you're calling me a liar cinn & continuing to hyperbole insult when we've had such a good discussion. Already told you I"m registered Independent, voting for who I think is best to fill the job - nothing more. Voted for Clinton twice and Obama in 2008.
Sounds like bluepoet and you have a nice exchange of ideas going. I've enjoyed it - talk to you next time and thanks for further book recommendations - I love to read.
When tax rates on the wealthy were higher they had more incentive to expand their businesses and create new ones in order to make up for the money they paid in taxes.For the last 30 years ever since Reagan, we have been giving the wealthy tax cut after tax cut but the number of jobs has dwindled lower and lower instead of going up as the Republicans promised it would.Why has no one ever demanded they answer why their promises were not fulfilled?When we give the wealthy more and more money so they can sit on big piles of cash in their accounts, they have little incentive to expand their businesses and hire more people. They have plenty of money for their new yacht.
Not calling you a liar but I have a pretty good nose for where someone falls on the ideological spectrum and so far you've been a straight hard-line right-winger ticking off Republican and FOX News talking points at every turn - so unless you're suffering from multiple personality disorder I don't know what you're independent from. If it walks like a duck...
If you don't like being labeled 'hyperbolic' then don't engage in hyperbole.
Brilliant point!!! When you give the rich money they have no incentive to work. Where have I heard that point made before? O yes, Romney on the 47% - I guess he must have been talking about the people in the room.
I'll leave you with something from David Stockman - Reagan's budget director on the great turn-around artist Mitt Romney.
Cinn - at your post at 12:59 today you said, ` for that matter no one of any intellect is considered conservative'. Or that you smell me? A little over the top wouldn't you say.......
I like to read ALL points of view both liberal and conservative and really enjoy studying the monetary system and the interplay with the federal reserve and the government. We had a great discussion. It's your prerogative to walk a party line, but I don't. Thanks for the article and I've already ordered a few of the book recommendations. Any others, let me know.
cinn - at 12:59 today you said `no one of any intellect is considered conservative` and then later that `you smell me`? A little over the top wouldn't you say........I like to read and listen to ALL points of view, not just those I agree with.
It's your prerogative to walk a party line but I don't. We had a nice discussion cinn. I'll check out the article and already ordered some of the books from Amazon. I particularly enjoy studying the monetary system, federal reserve, and interplay with government. I know it's dry, but very interesting.
Sorry about that cinn. I posted and the copy disappeared, so I posted again. Not sure what happened.
Dear Engaged: Time for you to "reset your mind" on the definition of "facts". Evidenciary merits-----how quaint an approach to the issue. Are you one of those the believes the political spin? Is the omnipotent, all-inspiring federal govt your source of comfort in a storm? Where do you set the bar on the merits? Are gray areas of facts left for the experts to sort out? Expand your horizons----do the research and when all reasonable avenues have been exhausted, then you may on the right track. I, for one, take nothing for granted. Scratch the surface, dig deeper, so you may reveal for yourself that the "facts' are sometimes not what they seem to be.
Dear Mike McC.: No amount of reasonable logic would sway your "love affair" with what has now become------"The Communist Democratic Party". In life, balance is required to keep the ebb and flow in check to prevent chaos. It is unfortunate you chose "evil" as your guidepost. It's a dirty job, but someone has to rise to the occasion-------"hats-off" to your mis-guided convictions.
AZWillie rooting on raising taxes on the `rich` while you sit on a pension that other people paid for that's like a lottery annuity retiring in your early 50's. Classic.For me to save sufficient resources to even closely simulate your windfall with a 60% tax increase in January I'm pushed back another decade to retirement. What a joke.
You're hardly in a position to be rooting on higher taxes for small business owners when you sit on such an unreasonable benefit. I'm all for gutting the tax code removing ALL of the loopholes because the top end DO need to pay more. But what you don't understand is those tax hikes impact ordinary people and families that own small businesses.
All you have to know about Mike k33j88 is he's a retired teacher that depends upon the Dept. of Education to keep up their ruse of the American taxpayer. That says it all. He'll NEVER see a different point of view - it's party line Democrat every time.
Cinn,Thanks for the recommended books/authors. Not sure if I'll get to them, anytime soon, as non-fiction is a pretty low priority, for me, in general. However, blood pressure notwithstanding, I may take a look at "The Fine Print", even though it's title points to the bane of my existence...! [beam]
"Evidenciary merits-----how quaint an approach to the issue."Requiring evidence for a factual claim is "quaint"? Perhaps to the willfully ignorant, but not to the rest of us.
"Where do you set the bar on the merits?"Bar? Empirical evidence is empirical evidence. If it doesn't meet the "bar", it's not empirical evidence, and thus irrelevant.
"Are gray areas of facts left for the experts to sort out?"Now you sound like a religious nut. There is no "gray area" when dealing with a strictly factual claim.
"Expand your horizons----do the research "I always do - this is why the claims I make are backed by evidence. ;)
"Scratch the surface, dig deeper, so you may reveal for yourself that the "facts' are sometimes not what they seem to be. "Might I suggest you do the same? Start with your religious beliefs.
I read that article on The Daily Beast by David Stockman. Here’s my take.
First, Stockman was well-known for falling out of favor with Reagan, so I wouldn’t put too much stock in an article on his opinion. Next up The Daily Beast is as liberal as Fox is conservative so that layers credibility problems with the article. But the most important problem is his argument.
While he’s a proponent of raising taxes and cutting defense spending – he’s also a champion of debt reduction, jacking up interest rates, and even more quantitative easing by the Fed. This describes Keynesian economics – Obama’s economic approach to managing the economy.
Stockman recommends investing in anything the Bernanke can’t destroy – gold, silver, commodities. The biggest problem the middle class is experiencing is the depreciation of the dollar from out of control spending that’s never reviewed, reduced, or otherwise reconsidered and eliminated.
My impression of the article is it doesn’t change my mind a bit that Romney’s got a better take on the economy.
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications