DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 17, 2007, 01:27:56 PM
-
Perhaps a segment for Michael Savage? Dennis Prager? What about ol Rushbo? Don't hold your breath. Tee and knute should be deliriously happy with this news though
NBC Denies Liberal Bias As It Elevates Olbermann to Nightly News
NBC News on Thursday announced that the network has extended its contract with Keith Olbermann, host of MSNBC's Countdown, for four years. As part of the deal with the vitriolic journalist who, the AP's David Bauder reported, "has become a liberal hero" and who "has seen his ratings increase since launching a series of anti-President Bush commentaries late last summer," he will be elevated to the broadcast network which will air two Countdown specials a year and he will contribute "occasional essays" on NBC Nightly News. In announcing the deal on his program, Olbermann said the frequency of the "essays" will be "periodic" and during an afternoon interview on MSNBC he suggested he'd do about a dozen a year.
Reciting a February 15 conference call held by NBC News President Steve Capus to make the announcement, Bauder relayed how "the news chief also said he saw no problem giving a more prominent role on NBC News to someone with clearly stated political opinions." Capus asserted: "I think the viewers are sophisticated enough to welcome all viewpoints." But only one kind of viewpoint, that of the far-left, conservative-hating Olbermann is getting two hours in NBC prime time and monthly commentaries on the NBC Nightly News.
As for the popularity of Olbermann's liberal rantings, Bauder recited how though "Olbermann's viewership in January was up 85 percent over January 2006, according to Nielsen Media Research," he's "still in O'Reilly's shadow: the Fox show has averaged 2.4 million viewers so far this year while Olbermann, in the same time slot, has averaged 672,000."
For Bauder's February 15 AP dispatch: news.yahoo.com
In the original MSNBC.com posting about the contract extension, Capus rejected Bill O'Reilly's claim that NBC News is a liberal network, calling that "really kind of sad and pathetic." As Stephen Spruiell of National Review Online's "Media Blog" observed: "Uh, Steve, you just made the most vitriolic left-wing ranter on television a featured player on your flagship news broadcast. That does very little to disconfirm O'Reilly's 'sad and pathetic' criticism."
no bias here (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070216.asp#1)
-
If NBC is willing to give up market share just to be liberal , this is their right .
-
I think it important that more people get to know Olbermanns thought patterns. Being on a broadcast network should do it.
-
Perhaps a segment for Michael Savage? Dennis Prager? What about ol Rushbo? Don't hold your breath. Tee and knute should be deliriously happy with this news though
My thought is that if the above-mentioned conservatives were given the spot, then we would have Tee and Knute posting the reserve complaint - proof of the conservative-leaning media. ;D
-
Perhaps a segment for Michael Savage? Dennis Prager? What about ol Rushbo? Don't hold your breath. Tee and knute should be deliriously happy with this news though
My thought is that if the above-mentioned conservatives were given the spot, then we would have Tee and Knute posting the reserve complaint - proof of the conservative-leaning media. ;D
LOL...you have a point Miss Henny. Even with Olbermann on board, such an allowance for "obvious" hateful and intolerant thoughts, would "obviously" be proof positive of a RW media. ;) I do have to agree with BT here though as well. The more the lunatic left can be shown for what it is, the greater appreciation for common sense and logic that should occur, as a repercussion
-
> I do have to agree with BT here though as well. The more the lunatic left can be shown for what it is, the greater appreciation for common sense and logic that should occur, as a repercussion<
Despite your lunatic RW fantasies, there has never been someone quite as liberal on the national TV as Olberman regularly. You think that exposure will harm his position because exposure to the RW lies propogated by Bush and his idolators at FAux News and nonsense talk radio has destroyed your credibility completely. Olberman will tell the truth as he sees it and 7)% if the US already agree with him that Bush is a lying incompetent.
-
Olbermann will screw up on national TV.
In a bigger arena, with higher stakes, and a brighter spotlight and the ensuing pressure , it's bound to happen.
-
Olbermann has gone the way of all the used and neck-jerked performers on the journalistic stage. He served well, and is now not needed to perform the task he did so well.
What task, you ask?
He constructed a bit more extreme format than his parent bosses in order to make the points about the administration, confront through his show's schtick the personal behaviors of Bush, and especially in this venue to confront the arrogance and elitist stances of the Administration in general. He did this quite well. His criticism and well-tuned responces to Bush personally were electric. I would have paid the rent to see Rove pace and rant, hissing in foamy spittle like he does.
He did for NBC what Murtha did for the Pentagon. He was used, was deemed competent, and was quickly retired.
He served well those top dogs who were still licking their wounds incurred when they laid down flat for the Neocon administration, and indirectly, those the Neocons serve--top level big corporations. The Bush Administration is about Cheney, but the Neocons are more about Halliburton than the expendable Cheney.
From my perspective, the country owes NBC and Olbermann a great gratitude.
They confronted the Neocons like Welsh confronted Joe McCarthy--a face to face call down, interrupting and smashing the lock on the long, confusing oppression.
Hurrah for Olbermann.
Then there's CBS, who left Rather hanging like Kerry left the Democrats hanging, and placed a ***CELEBRITY*** in the top chair, and if you are not already gagging, placed her on Sixty Minutes as well. Talk about a whore in church. Maybe CBS will make the next Idol winner their White House correspondent. They could seat her between NBC's awesome David and the highest knight in that roundtable--Helen. It will be as close to journalism as she or Katie will ever be.
-
Olbermann will screw up on national TV.
In a bigger arena, with higher stakes, and a brighter spotlight and the ensuing pressure , it's bound to happen.
You obviously have Olberman confused with Limbaugh who did self destruct due to his bombastic racism & lies . Olberman has bombastic truth on his side. He will succeed .
-
Olberman has bombastic truth on his side. He will succeed .
Time will tell. He is on the center stage now. His words will be examined much more closely.
And when he does dance too close to the flame, will he suddenly demand more compassion and understanding than he was willing to give his targets?
-
But there's no bias
Romney Is No Obama: CBS Devotes 54 Times More Time to Democrat
Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney formally announced Tuesday that he would seek the Republican nomination for President, but one would hardly know it from watching CBS's Early Show. Romney's candidacy received exactly ten seconds worth of coverage Tuesday, following stories on a Utah mall shooting, winter storms, and the ongoing soap opera of Anna Nicole Smith's demise. However, on Saturday, when Illinois Senator Barack Obama announced his candidacy as a Democrat, CBS's Saturday Early Show previewed it by devoting 9 minutes and 9 seconds (549 seconds) to his decision -- a greater than 54:1 advantage.
On the Saturday Early Show, CBS aired at least one story on Barack Obama in each of the first three half hours. Yet, the ten seconds they allotted to Governor Romney on Tuesday's program, was buried in the 7:30 half hour at 7:37. Unlike CBS, both ABC and NBC on Tuesday devoted a full story to Governor Romney's announcement, and NBC added an additional anchor brief, roughly comparable to the coverage they gave Obama on Saturday.
Polls indicate that both Senator Obama and Governor Romney are top tier candidates for their respective party nominations and while NBC and ABC attempted to provide similar coverage, at least when it came to the official campaign announcements, CBS provided Barack Obama with almost 55 times as much coverage as Mitt Romney.
Yep, no bias here (http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070214.asp#2)
-
<<Yep no bias here.>>
Barak Obama is about as much a threat to the military-industrial complex and their Zionist allies as Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton or John Kerry. I don't know why you're so upset about "bias" when the beneficiary still plays fof your team
-
Olberman has bombastic truth on his side. He will succeed .
Time will tell. He is on the center stage now. His words will be examined much more closely.
And when he does dance too close to the flame, will he suddenly demand more compassion and understanding than he was willing to give his targets?
Why should Keith show any compassion to the evil & lying pricks like Bush & Cheney? The poor booboos!
-
Why should Keith show any compassion to the evil & lying pricks like Bush & Cheney? The poor booboos!
It's a golden rule thing. I doubt you would understand.
-
Why should Keith show any compassion to the evil & lying pricks like Bush & Cheney? The poor booboos!
It's a golden rule thing. I doubt you would understand.
They obviously dont.
-
They obviously dont.
They are not the subject of the conversation. You and Olbermann are.
And while we are at it, do you think Bush and or Cheney have expressed as much hate towards you as you have expressed towards them, and if so could you provide examples?
-
They obviously dont.
They are not the subject of the conversation. You and Olbermann are.
And while we are at it, do you think Bush and or Cheney have expressed as much hate towards you as you have expressed towards them, and if so could you provide examples?
You know that isnt a fair question (not that that ever bothered you before). Bush & Cheney dont even know I exist , but I am totally aware of their evil existence. Those two losers have had an effect on me as a middle class American whose livelihood was lessened by their greedy & idiotic pandering to large , global corporation ie manufacturing is nearly gone from US and that is what my field of over 30 years revolves around.
There are innumerable other examples of the Bushidiot's hate of the middle class .
http://www.google.com/search?ie=utf8&oe=utf8&q=Bush+hates+the+middle+class
-
Those two losers have had an effect on me as a middle class American whose livelihood was lessened by their greedy & idiotic pandering to large , global corporation ie manufacturing is nearly gone from US and that is what my field of over 30 years revolves around.
I think outsourcing of manufacturing has as much to do with Bush as it does with me or you.
When you think about it - outsourcing manufacturing , exporting pollution, if you will, has more to do with the environmental movement than it does with any overt govt policy.
Adaptation is key to the survival of the species. Sounds like you are having difficulty evolving.
-
Those two losers have had an effect on me as a middle class American whose livelihood was lessened by their greedy & idiotic pandering to large , global corporation ie manufacturing is nearly gone from US and that is what my field of over 30 years revolves around.
You told us that you were getting rich from suckering upper class right wing loonies.
Is that not true?
-
Those two losers have had an effect on me as a middle class American whose livelihood was lessened by their greedy & idiotic pandering to large , global corporation ie manufacturing is nearly gone from US and that is what my field of over 30 years revolves around.
(http://www.alldeaf.com/images/smilies/barf.gif)
I think outsourcing of manufacturing has as much to do with Bush as it does with me or you.
When you think about it - outsourcing manufacturing , exporting pollution, if you will, has more to do with the environmental movement than it does with any overt govt policy.
Adaptation is key to the survival of the species. Sounds like you are having difficulty evolving.
Do you really believe these moronic lies you keep regurgitating?
-
Do you really believe these moronic lies you keep regurgitating?
A case could easily be made for outsourcing being a by product of the environmental movement.
A case could hardly be made for the majority of your positions.
Which is probably why you don't even attempt to do so.
-
Do you really believe these moronic lies you keep regurgitating?
A case could easily be made for outsourcing being a by product of the environmental movement.
A case could hardly be made for the majority of your positions.
Which is probably why you don't even attempt to do so.
Because it would fall on deaf ears with you loonies anyway.
I have supported most of my assertions either with fact or considered opinions and you prefer to ignore the facts and attack the sources instead of making any real case for your shallow & empty repeating of radio & TV talking heads.
-
I have supported most of my assertions either with fact or considered opinions and you prefer to ignore the facts and attack the sources instead of making any real case for your shallow & empty repeating of radio & TV talking heads.
I guess somewhere in between the bile and insults you might have slipped something closely resembling the truth into the mix. Perhaps it was just lost in the clutter. They say presentation is important. What say you?
-
I have supported most of my assertions either with fact or considered opinions and you prefer to ignore the facts and attack the sources instead of making any real case for your shallow & empty repeating of radio & TV talking heads.
I guess somewhere in between the bile and insults you might have slipped something closely resembling the truth into the mix. Perhaps it was just lost in the clutter. They say presentation is important. What say you?
You have always mistaken my honesty for insults. I say what I really think of the stupidity , greed and incompetence that define the Bush right .
-
So honesty is now defined as flinging feces without providing documentation for those same charges.
For example you say the Bush right is stupid, greedy and incompetent.
Could you give an example of my greed? or Planes? or Sirs?
The same goes for incompetence and stupidity.
Don't you think it fair to back up your charges?
If they are true it shouldn't be hard to prove. If they are false then you aren't being honest.
Back to you.
-
"bombastic truth".
Hehehehehehehehehe
-
So honesty is now defined as flinging feces without providing documentation for those same charges.
For example you say the Bush right is stupid, greedy and incompetent.
Could you give an example of my greed? or Planes? or Sirs?
The same goes for incompetence and stupidity.
Don't you think it fair to back up your charges?
If they are true it shouldn't be hard to prove. If they are false then you aren't being honest.
Back to you.
It isnt the least bit difficult to prove:
1) Greed - The only thing you really care about is tax-cuts on whatever pittance you might have
2) Incompetence- You vote & support incompetents in high office- Bush , Cheney, ad infinitum
3) Stupidity - You continue to support a war(in Iraq) that is proven to be based on lies and a lost cause. AND you even are so stupid as to deny that there were lies which is clear to nearly everyone else in the world now.
There is no need to single out each of you because you are all lockstep in your greedy, incompetent stupidity. Not even a penny worth of difference.
-
I don't see the tax issue as revolving around greed. I see it revolving around fairness and the proper role of the federal government.
I don't see the current administration as incompetent. I see them as dealing with national issues in good faith and with good effort.
And i don't think the war in Iraq is stupid, nor do i consider myself stupid for supporting it. It makes perfect sense to for us to expend energy in trying to help build a more stable middle east.
-
I don't see the tax issue as revolving around greed. I see it revolving around fairness and the proper role of the federal government.
I don't see the current administration as incompetent. I see them as dealing with national issues in good faith and with good effort.
And i don't think the war in Iraq is stupid, nor do i consider myself stupid for supporting it. It makes perfect sense to for us to expend energy in trying to help build a more stable middle east.
As you RW nutcases like to say: "thank you for making my point"
Fairness my ass, you want to keep all your loot and rip folks off for more
The current Admin has bankrupted our moral and mon etary treasure
If this fucked war is l bringing stability , I hate to see your idea of chaos.
-
Fairness my ass, you want to keep all your loot and rip folks off for more
Might want to keep our loot, bu you and your ilk are the ones wanting to separate others from theirs.
-
I don't see the tax issue as revolving around greed. I see it revolving around fairness and the proper role of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Juniorbush was 'selected', the US has become a less equitable society: the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer, partly because of the repeal of the inheritence and other taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the current administration as incompetent. I see them as dealing with national issues in good faith and with good effort.
They have started a huge, unwinnable war and poured billions into it with no success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And i don't think the war in Iraq is stupid, nor do i consider myself stupid for supporting it. It makes perfect sense to for us to expend energy in trying to help build a more stable middle east.
But it IS stupid. The Middle East is far LESS stable than previously. Now no one runs Iraq; no one controls Afghanistan. Israel is not any safer, either. The war was a waste of soldiers' lives and vast amounts of money, and was waged incompetently. No one denies that more Iraqis die on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis than under Saddam Hussein.
Afghanistan was invaded and its government deposed, but bin Laden is still at large, and Al Qaeda has invaded Iraq, which it did not previously use as any sort of base.
The thing is, you are just dead WRONG.
-
I don't see the tax issue as revolving around greed. I see it revolving around fairness and the proper role of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Juniorbush was 'selected', the US has become a less equitable society: the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer, partly because of the repeal of the inheritence and other taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see the current administration as incompetent. I see them as dealing with national issues in good faith and with good effort.
They have started a huge, unwinnable war and poured billions into it with no success.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And i don't think the war in Iraq is stupid, nor do i consider myself stupid for supporting it. It makes perfect sense to for us to expend energy in trying to help build a more stable middle east.
But it IS stupid. The Middle East is far LESS stable than previously. Now no one runs Iraq; no one controls Afghanistan. Israel is not any safer, either. The war was a waste of soldiers' lives and vast amounts of money, and was waged incompetently. No one denies that more Iraqis die on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly basis than under Saddam Hussein.
Afghanistan was invaded and its government deposed, but bin Laden is still at large, and Al Qaeda has invaded Iraq, which it did not previously use as any sort of base.
The thing is, you are just dead WRONG.
Why do you think that the por have gotten poorer?
I don't think you are right about that.
-
the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer,
You say that like it is a bad thing.
-
-------------------------
Why do you think that the por have gotten poorer?
I don't think you are right about that.
He most certainly is right. The fact that you dont agree shows the level of denial all you RWers suffer.
ZNet | Activism
Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under President Bush
by Gene C. Gerard; September 19, 2005
The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.†In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush’s assertion last month that, “Americans have more money in their pockets,†many people aren’t faring as well as they once did.
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.
Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau’s report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.
Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.
Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.
Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty.
There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.
The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.
The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.
Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.
Although we haven’t heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed “compassionate conservative.†But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn’t seen much of that compassion in the last five years. Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It’s easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8767§ionID=1
-
I did not say that there were no poor , and I do not see this article containing any evidence that the poor are worse off than an earlyer period.
-------------------------
Why do you think that the por have gotten poorer?
I don't think you are right about that.
He most certainly is right. The fact that you dont agree shows the level of denial all you RWers suffer.
ZNet | Activism
Poverty Increases as Incomes Decline Under President Bush
by Gene C. Gerard; September 19, 2005
The day after Hurricane Katrina hit, exposing much of the public to the tragic conditions of poverty in America, the Census Bureau quietly released its annual report entitled, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States.†In some respects, it provided a demonstrable backdrop to the pockets of poverty common to New Orleans and other cities. It also explained why, despite President Bush’s assertion last month that, “Americans have more money in their pockets,†many people aren’t faring as well as they once did.
The report indicates that in 2004 there was no increase in average annual household incomes for black, white, or Hispanic families. In fact, this marks the first time since the Census Bureau began keeping records that household incomes failed to increase for five consecutive years. Since President Bush took office, the average annual household family income has declined by $2,572, approximately 4.8 percent.
Black families had the lowest average income last year, at $30,134. By comparison, the average income for white families was $48,977. The average pretax family income for all racial groups combined was $44,389, which is the lowest it has been since 1997. The South had the lowest average family income in 2004.
Interestingly enough, as the Economic Policy Institute notes in their analysis of the Census Bureau’s report, not all families did poorly last year. Although the portion of the total national income going to the bottom 60 percent of families did not increase last year, the portion going to the wealthiest five percent of families rose by 0.4 percent. And while the average inflation-adjusted family income of middle-class Americans declined by 0.7 percent in 2004, the wealthiest five percent of families enjoyed a 1.7 percent increase.
Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.
Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.
Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty.
There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.
The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.
The Census Bureau report also demonstrated that health insurance coverage remains elusive for many Americans. Those covered by employer-sponsored health insurance declined from 60.4 percent in 2003 to 59.8 percent in 2004. Approximately 800,000 more workers found themselves without health insurance last year. The percentage of people covered by governmental health programs in 2004 rose to 27.2 percent, in part because as poverty increased, more Americans were forced to seek coverage through Medicaid. The percentage of the public with Medicaid coverage rose by 0.5 percent in 2004.
Last year was the fourth consecutive year in which employer-sponsored health insurance coverage declined. A total of 45.8 million Americans are now without health insurance. The uninsured rate in 2004 was 11.3 percent for whites, 19.7 percent for blacks, and 32.7 percent for Hispanics. Not surprisingly, the South had the highest portion of the uninsured population, at 18.3 percent.
Although we haven’t heard President Bush say it much lately, he came into office as a self-professed “compassionate conservative.†But as the report by the Census Bureau suggests, which was sadly symbolized by the plight of many poor residents of New Orleans, the country hasn’t seen much of that compassion in the last five years. Many Americans are working harder, earning less, and without the benefit of health insurance. It’s easy to understand why the report was released a day after the largest natural disaster in a century, when much of the country was distracted.
http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=8767§ionID=1
-
You really only see what you want to , dont you?
Earnings also declined last year. This is despite the fact that Americans are working harder. Since 2000, worker output per hour has increased by 15 percent. Yet for men working full-time, their annual incomes declined 2.3 percent in 2004, down to an average of $40,798. This decrease was the largest one-year decline in 14 years for men. Women saw their earnings decrease by 1 percent, with an average income of $31,223, the largest one-year decline for women in nine years.
Women earned only 77 cents for every dollar earned by men last year. Clearly, the gender gap remains real and pervasive. In all major industry sectors, women earned less than men. In the management of companies, women earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by men; 57 cents in finance and industry; and 60 cents in scientific and technical services.
Not surprisingly, the report revealed that poverty increased last year. There were 37 million (12.7 percent) people living in poverty, an increase of 1.1 million people since 2003. This was the fourth consecutive year in which poverty has increased. In fact, since President Bush took office, 5.4 million more people, including 1.4 million children, have found themselves living in poverty.
There were 7.9 million families living below the poverty level in 2004, an increase of 300,000 families since 2003.
The average income last year for a poverty-stricken family of four was $19,307; for a family of three it was $15,067, and for a couple it was $12,334. The poverty rate increased for people 18 to 64 last year by 0.5 percent. The South experienced the highest poverty rate of all regions.
-
Is it weasel wordy to say that poverty has increased , when the population has increased more?
-
the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer,
You say that like it is a bad thing.
I realise this is fun time with knute, but do you really believe that?
-
the rich have gotten richer, and the poor have gotten poorer,
You say that like it is a bad thing.
I realise this is fun time with knute, but do you really believe that?
There is a big part of me that conditionally does.
-
There is a big part of me that conditionally does.
Would you elaborate on that?
-
Would you elaborate on that?
Sure
One condition would have the rich getting richer because they continue to be successful in what they do and are rewarded accordingly.
Another condition would have the poor getting poorer because they continue to be unsuccessful in what they do and are thus not rewarded.
-
Another condition would have the poor getting poorer because they continue to be unsuccessful in what they do and are thus not rewarded.
Why should that matter?
-
Why should that matter?
We should reward unsuccessful behaviors?
-
Why should that matter?
We should reward unsuccessful behaviors?
The perpetuation of failure. Done all the time by well inentioned enablers, and then via the application of guilt get large throngs of folks to support it as well, including Governments
-
Why should that matter?
Not sure what you are asking. Please explain or expand on the question.
-
The rich do not always get rich because they are more productive. Quite often, they get richer because they have positioned themselves closer to the money, or to those who decide how they should be compensated.
Roger Smith pretty much spent the 80's as president of GM in a period in which they made increasingly worse automobiles, worse because of the designs and cost-cutting measures made by Roger and his cronies, not because of the workers who assembled them. One cannot make anything but a Vega out of Vega parts, for example.
The Vega and the GM diesel V8 COULD have been great cars, but measures to economize their production caused them to be among the worst cars GM has ever turned out.
And yet Roger got a fat raise each year, as GM lost market share and made some of the dumbest decisions in industry history.
Many US CEOs are hideously overpaid. The line workers increase their productivity each year, but their raises are mostly at the rate of inflation or actually lower. As a rule, the CEO is paid more because he has positioned himself closer to the money, rather than improving his productivity.
I teach about 15% more students this year than last year, but none of the professors at my university got a raise. The administration didn't get one, either. The enrollment of Freshmen and Sophomores is up, but not enough to make up for the Juniors and Seniors who have transferred out, mostly because student aid has not kept up with inflation.
-
Not sure what you are asking. Please explain or expand on the question.
Why should success matter as a condition to whether the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?
-
The perpetuation of failure. Done all the time by well inentioned enablers, and then via the application of guilt get large throngs of folks to support it as well, including Governments
So, you consider Joseph and Mary to have been failures? Did the quote above come from Christ?
-
The rich getting richer because they somehow work harder or better is one of the most laughable of all RW fantasies. From my years of experience in dealing with capitalist pigs, the only thing that they might do more or better than most is play golf.
-
The perpetuation of failure. Done all the time by well inentioned enablers, and then via the application of guilt get large throngs of folks to support it as well, including Governments
So, you consider Joseph and Mary to have been failures? Did the quote above come from Christ?
Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures. perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure. I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure. A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?
-
Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures. perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure. I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure. A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?
So you think some of the poor have been unsuccesful, but not all? You said rewarding unsuccesful behavior is equal to rewarding failure.
So how should the poor be helped? Which of the poor are not unsuccesful?
-
Not sure what field, that came out of, but ok...no, I don't consider the mother of christ as Failures. perhaps you can deomonstrate how I claimed that simply being poor = failure. I think what I claimed was in reference to facilitating failure. A pretty disinct difference, doncha think?
So you think some of the poor have been unsuccesful, but not all?
Umm, yes
You said rewarding unsuccesful behavior is equal to rewarding failure.
Slightly taken out of context. Perpetuating failure can easily be attached to rewarding failure and vice versa. However, simply being poor does NOT automatically equal being a failure. That's your illogical leap
So how should the poor be helped?
By facilitating and promoting the most optimal circumstances that the poor can use to step out of being poor. Simply taking money from "the rich" and giving it to "the poor" does in no way facilitate the poor to make better choices and be more responsible, in their lives. Many can just sit back and keep getting money that been taken from "the rich", since there's no incentive to stop being poor. <Enter the government and well intentioned enablers>
Which of the poor are not unsuccesful?
Double negative, huh? Those that are moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes. We always seem to forget those follks, and instead keep implying that the "the poor" is this one big mass of the same folks that never change in any way, never allowed to exit their poor ranls. They just sit there and be poor, insidiously stomped on and taken advantage of by "the rich"
-
Those that are moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes.
So, to be a succesful "poor" individual you need to be moving from the poor classes into the middle and upper classes?
How do you balance that with this statement?
However, simply being poor does NOT automatically equal being a failure.
What if one is poor and shows no sign of "moving out of the poor ranks, and into the middle and upper classes?"
By facilitating and promoting the most optimal circumstances that the poor can use to step out of being poor. Simply taking money from "the rich" and giving it to "the poor" does in no way facilitate the poor to make better choices and be more responsible, in their lives. Many can just sit back and keep getting money that been taken from "the rich", since there's no incentive to stop being poor.
So, by your estimation the poor in nations with large welfare programs like Denmark and Sweden should live very irresponsibly? Have you ever wondered if this is true? Just as an assumption, do you think those below poverty in Denmark and Sweden are far more irresponsible than Americans (who have a much smaller welfare state and lower benefits)?
We always seem to forget those follks, and instead keep implying that the "the poor" is this one big mass of the same folks that never change in any way, never allowed to exit their poor ranls. They just sit there and be poor, insidiously stomped on and taken advantage of by "the rich"
We do?
-
Js, you seem to be under the illusion that everything is static. That there are poor, and it's the same poor. Then there's everyone else (middle & upper classes) and they remain that. The middle and upper class always keeping the poor in their place, no one transitioning 1 way or the other.
The problem is it's all fluid. Poor are poor for whatever reason they are. "NOT because their failures, but for whatever circumstances have put them there. "Failuers" in how I'm using it are in refernce to the acts of those who are poor. Failures are those who don't try to better themselves, who sit on their arase and just keep getting handouts by those well intentioned enablers. Those who are poor, but trying to better themselves, perhaps even *gasp* declining Governmental assistance, are not the failures I reference. And before you ask, just because folks receive governmental assistance, doesn't make them "failures" either. It's what they do with themselves, that determines if they're failures or not.
And might I add, failures are not limited to "the poor". There are plenty of failures in the middle and upper classes as well, somtimes even turning into "the poor".
Getting the jist of this yet?
-
Sirs,
What I see is you not answering my questions. Now, will you answer my questions, or not?
We can discuss economic fluidity between classes if you desire, but not without actual statistics.
You gripe a great deal when people won't answer questions, will you answer mine?
-
Sirs, What I see is you not answering my questions. Now, will you answer my questions, or not?
I'm not planning on answer a false representation of my position, by taking my statement out of context. I made it clear what I'm referring to as "failures" If you care to acknowledge what I reference as failures and not some nebulus poor = failure, then perhaps we can go from there.
Providing that acknowledgment, you may ask your semantically laden question from that point
-
Not sure what you are asking. Please explain or expand on the question.
Why should success matter as a condition to whether the poor get poorer and the rich get richer?
Success is the yardstick on which compensation is often based.
BTW if a poor person were successful at an endeavor they could very well no longer be poor, relatively speaking.
-
Ben does not address the role of luck in this essay.
Ben Stein
http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/yourlife/24513
My little brain simply can't stop putting things into categories and seeking to find the patterns in life.
One of the many patterns I've noticed is that some people in the United States are much richer than others. We have a nation filled with opportunity: free education, easy investing, and cheap interest rates. And yet there's stunning financial inequality.
Disparity by the Numbers
According to my wonderful pal, Phil DeMuth, the top 1 percent of all wealth-holders in the U.S. own about 44 percent of the financial assets of the country, mostly in stocks and bonds. The top 10 percent own about 80 percent of the financial assets of the nation.
The top one-tenth of 1 percent of earners in the nation earn about as much as the bottom 40 percent. That is, about 130,000 high-income Americans earn as much as the bottom 120 million Americans combined.
To me, this is stunning -- almost frightening. But the real question it poses is, how did the ones at the top get there? Obviously, some do it through inheritance, and some have spectacular athletic or musical abilities. But what about the others? How did they get to the pinnacle of wealth?
Think First, Get Rich Later
I'll to offer some homely speculation. First, as the genius financial planner Ray Lucia would say, the first step is to have a plan to save. Without equilibrating assets and liabilities by accumulating lots of stocks, REITs, and cash, you won't get there
But I'm looking for something more basic here. How do you get the income to start saving meaningful sums?
Here's a clue: think. In 1996, when I started shooting "Win Ben Stein's Money," I was assigned a bodyguard named Yaniv. He was a former Israeli soldier, and as tough as old boots. We worked together happily for about 900 shows, and then we worked on "Star Search" together, after which we went our separate ways.
Occasionally, Yaniv would help me set up electronics equipment. He always did a great job because he read the instructions and then followed them.
Up the Ladder
Not long ago, I bought some new stereo equipment for my house and I called Yaniv to come over to install it. He showed up in an immense truck and told me what he'd been doing for the past few years.
He'd become a construction foreman on a jobsite building condos. He was so good at reading instructions that he became a contractor. He was so good at that, investors hired him to build still bigger buildings and paid him a good chunk of the profits.
Now he's building large developments and gets an even bigger share of the startlingly large profits. If a unit costs $300,000 to build, it's not unusual for it to sell for $600,000 to $800,000. Of course, you have to factor in the cost of the land, permits and legal issues, advertising, and the time value of money. But all in all, the profits are consistently immense.
Yaniv, a 32-year-old who still gets a thrill out of his Ford truck, is well on his way to being in the top 1 percent and, after that, the top one-tenth of 1 percent.
Outstanding in Your Field
How did he do it? He reads instructions. Yaniv reads building plans very carefully, then he reads permit applications carefully, and soon a building is done.
Beyond that, he reads life's instructions carefully, too. People make a lot of money building condos in Los Angeles even in an economic slowdown, so Yaniv entered a field that leads to making money.
If he'd continued on as a bodyguard he would've had fun, but he never would've gotten rich. And here his experience proves the great advice of Warren E. Buffett: It's better to be medium-good in a great field than great in a medium field. There are some fields where a lot of money can be made, and real estate development is one of them.
Law is another one, at private firms. Medicine -- if you're a surgeon -- is another, and finance is the highest-paid one. Starting a restaurant isn't a moneymaking field. Teaching and writing, except in the rarest of cases, aren't either. Acting is almost never highly paid, and police work never is highly paid.
Making the Choice for Wealth
Please notice a pattern: the most interesting and psychologically rewarding work is rarely the best-paid. So choices must be made.
If your goal is to be in that top 1 percent of wealth-holders, you have to do what Yaniv did. Follow the instructions to where the money is, and to where it isn't.
There's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- about people who have money that's better than people who don't. But if you want it anyway, simply follow the instructions as to where to find it. It's not that complicated.
-
Sent to me in an e-Mail
A
Japanese company and an American company decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Japanese team won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A management team made up of senior executives was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Japanese team had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the American team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. So, American management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion.
They advised that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing. To prevent another loss to the Japanese, the American rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 Steering Supervisors, 3 Area Steering Superintendents and 1 Assistant Superintendent Steering Manager.
They also implemented a new performance system that would give the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to work harder. It was called the "Rowing Quality First Program," with meetings and dinners for management and a free pen for the rower. There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses.
The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the rower for poor performance, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to India.