DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 24, 2011, 02:23:33 PM
-
Hey, occupiers: Wealth isn't a civil right
Posted: November 23, 2011
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. Everything demanded by the Occupy Wall Streeters – whether "free" health care, a "world-class education" or a "guaranteed living-wage income regardless of employment" status – costs money.
When a CEO makes a lot of money in the private sector, it is because his company – rightly or wrongly – values that CEO's services at that price. To say it is "not right" that a CEO makes (fill in the blank) times more than the janitor is to say it is not right for the marketplace to set wages. If the marketplace ought not set wages, then who or what should?
Most people work for the private sector, which cannot exist without profit.
Is the OWS objection to bank bailouts on the grounds that government should not protect businesses from the consequences of their actions?
Or is the objection that bailouts should be for everybody?
We already have a huge welfare state, with entitlements – Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid – the biggest expenditure of the federal budget. Europe's welfare state is larger, with a slightly smaller "gap" between the rich and the poor. Yet its citizens also take to the street to denounce inequality. Puzzling, isn't it?
No one can legally ask about the immigration status of a public-school student, so Americans and non-Americans, including illegal aliens, receive a K-12 public education at taxpayers' expense.
Per-pupil spending for public education increased 49 percent from 1985 to 2005. Community colleges are cheap, and many states guarantee a junior college graduate admission to a public four-year college.
The physical advantage that men possess over women is an increasingly small advantage – given the decline of labor-intensive jobs and the technology that makes it easier for machines to do hard, dangerous, repetitive work.
There are more tenants than landlords, which thus exemplifies the stupidity of "rent-control" laws. Rent-control laws disproportionately benefit the non-poor because the elite pull strings, work the system and are better connected than the non-poor. All of this matters when items of scarcity (in this case, apartments) are dispensed by government dictates rather than through prices.
Government possesses no money of its own. It raises money by taxing, by borrowing or by printing.
The bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.
Individuals can spend their money more wisely, efficiently and more humanely than can government.
People value and spend their money more wisely when they acquire it by their own efforts – also known as work. There are real-world, direct consequences on you for squandering your own money, as opposed to when government squanders the money of its people.
Government employees enjoy job security unknown in the private sector and are often paid more than their private-sector counterparts. Greed?
People spend their money more humanely because they won't waste as much of it. Consider that to deal with "the poor," the federal government has a vast array of agencies, programs and policies. But only about 30 cents of each dollar designated for the poor actually gets in the hands of the recipient. Contrast this with the United Way, Salvation Army and other private charities where 90 cents of each dollar donated gets to a beneficiary.
Americans agree that some people – whether faultless or irresponsible – need assistance, if only occasionally. The only issue is how they will be helped.
Americans are the most generous people of any industrial nation. We give more of our time and money than do the Germans, British and Japanese. Note that those states have a bigger public sector than we do. Maybe they feel they gave at the office.
The U.S. Constitution isn't just any ordinary document. It is the contract between the government and its people, the ones who empower government and who – once upon a time – expected the Constitution to restrain government, not empower it.
Government's involvement in housing caused the meltdown – not greedy Wall Street bankers. The same Occupy mindset caused the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, placed on human growth hormones by President Clinton, who pushed banks into lending to poor credit risks and allowed Wall Street to play with taxpayers' money.
There is no bad guy. It's not the Koch brothers, Grover Norquist or the Maltese Falcon. There is no evil entity, snorting steam from his nose, standing in an office full of Nazi memorabilia, staring out the window with the cityscape view, laughing: "Ha! Ha! Ha! Pretty soon, all this will be mine. Mine, I say!"
Life has never been so good, with so many choices, with so many more conveniences, so much less danger of dying from disease, with so many choices for entertainment and affordable travel.
When you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul. But at some point Peter begins to feel taken advantage of (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=370757).
-
When 1% of the population controls 40% of the wealth, Peter knows it's time to kick Paul in the butt.
-
When 1% of the population is PAYING for the services that the other 99% use, and is being TAXED HIGHER already, Peter best be thanking Paul
-
There is no 1% and there is no 99%. We are ALL Americans. If The Federal Govt needs a bailout based on bad decisions they have made and the people agree to that bailout then taxes should be raised on everyone.
Period.
End of story.
Do not buy into divisive rhetoric. Do not defend one group over the other. That is a distraction.
-
I concur about the divisiveness. It's what's currently fueling Obama's pre-campaign attack rhetoric, and the whole basis to the apparently hugely jealous OWS twits.
Now, one could argue my above comments are divisive as well, however criticism is what it is. And if we're not allowed to criticize, then we're no longer Americans living in America
-
Criticize all you want.
But if the debt and deficit are that big a problem then the way to solve it is to cut spending and raise revenue. And cuts and revenue raising should affect everyone, because we are all in this together.
unless we aren't ......in which case the shit will surely hit the fan.
-
Being is that we won't get any
tax increases, oops "revenue raising" on "everyone" (the poor will be portrayed as how they can't possibly handle any increase in taxes), and it will continued to be lamented by the left, and parroted by the MSM, in that the only ones who can afford any tax increases, oops, sorry, "revenue raising" are "the rich"
And IIRC, a recent report I read had that if Obama had gotten his tax increases, oops, "revenue raising" passed on the top 1%, the difference in the debt would have been noting more than a rounding down %. In other words, not even a remote change in our debt
Once again, its not a revenue problem, its a SPENDING problem. But the more the left keeps the debate on taxes, who should vs who shouldn't pay, the real problem goes unchecked. And if folks also noted the rhetoric coming out of DC dems is strikingly similar to that of the Palestinians, when it comes to Israel. Israel is to acquiesce to giving up more land, for a "promise of peace". They gave up land, and got more war. Here we have the Dems claiming that the GOP acquiesce to higher taxes , oops, my bad, increased revenues, for a "Promise to cut spending". and the last 2 GOP Presidents who agreed to higher taxes, they got MORE spending out of congress.
The left's track record on their promises, as it relates to cutting spending, is ridiculously lacking. No need for the GOP to get hit over the head again. Let's see the spending cuts 1st, THEN we can entertain the notion of tax increases
-
I just don't understand this defeatist attitude. Why play their game.
Fuck the poor.
If taxes are raised they get raised on everyone. Immediately. No bullshit over 10 years increase. Same with spending cuts. Immediate cuts.
That is the deal on the table. And let Obama run on that record.
If the Bush tax cuts were the largest in history, let Obama get the credit for the largest tax increase in history. And then let the people decide if they want 4 more years of the SCoaMF.
-
Nothing defeatist, in acknowledging that no politician, especially on the Democrat side of the isle is going to raise taxes on "everyone". Just won't happen. And if its just about letting Bush's tax cuts expire, so be it, but watch the left push to extend those cuts for "the poor", and we're right back where we started
And not to belabor the point either, but this is NOT a revenue problem
Let's see the spending cuts 1st, THEN we can consider raising taxes on everyone, which of course won't happen, but we can promise to do it
-
lol
I`m showing my age now. this article reminds me of older folks who complained people lived better in the fifties. claiming they were better. never mentioning those same people today have failed businesses.
-
If the dems want to take the credit for the failure of this country it is on them. Let the Bush Tax cuts expire for everyone if revenues are what is needed and cut spending by whatever percentage is needed to bring spending to 18% of GDP.
That's what Obama wants. Let he and his Senate majority have ownership and the consequences of the results.
I just find it ridiculous to call for raising taxes on the 1% if you aren't part of that 1% and just as ridiculous to defend the 1% if you aren't a 1%er. If taxes need to be raised raise them on everyone, just like everyone got a cut when Bush gave them.
-
I agree with the ridiculousness of raising taxes on the 1% by the 99%, when it will barely nudge the deficit. I also agree that if the Dems are decrying the need for raising taxes, then let them advocate the need for the Bush tax cuts to expire (then watch as they quickly push legislation to exempt "the poor" from those cuts)
What I disagree with is the notion that Obama is saddled with the repercussions, since again, all this energy is being raised on taxes, when that's not the problem. So, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will not only not help anything, but Republicans will be hoisted on MSM sticks as to "see, the GOP not only helped raise your taxes, but they're continuing to obstruct Obama's efforts to fix the economy"
So, I'd rather put my energy that is far more necessary to the salvation of this economy, and has precisious little to do with "increasing revenues", as that's merely the politically expedient out. Let's see the spending cuts 1st, THEN we can entertain the notion of raising taxes on everyone.........that would never happen of course, but we can promise to do so
-
The dems say they will not fix the economy without letting the tax cuts expire. Take them literally.
The deal on the table is that if the Bush Cuts must expire the expire for everyone. Then let the cutting begin.
That is the hand you bet on. That the dems will not let them expire unless they only target the rich and the house won't let them expire unless the expire completely for everyone.
And who cares what Norquist thinks about that.
-
.......and if legislation is presented at the last minute, to extend them to "the poor", and the GOP says "no"??
Naaaa, let's see the spending cuts 1st, then we'll entertain "revenue increases". I'm of the mindset ot fix the problem, not keep punting it to the next generation. Revenue is not the problem
-
The bill which the house would generate would expire the tax cuts for everyone. If the Senate under the dems says only the rich or Obama threatens a veto if it is not for the rich only then the dems are the obstructionists and the dems have nothing zero zip to run on in 2012. They certainly can't run on Obama's record.
-
Are you sure this will work?The Democrats are adept at doing stuff and blaming results on someone elese.
-
It's got a good chance. Either the Senate passes it without modification or it has to go back to the house for reconciliation.
The house sits on it while the cuts are hammered out.
The revenue increase is in place waiting on the do nothing dems.
-
The problem is currently it already is a do nothing Dems, with all the bills passed by the House and sitting on Senator Reid's desk, yet the ongoing portrait, with the help of the MSM, presents it as being a do nothing GOP "congress". Not to mention the political ammo the Dems would have at excoriating the GOP for daring to not support an extension of their own Bush cuts for the poor with Obama getting to sit in the bleachers, laughing all the way
Spending Cuts 1st, then we can entertain tax cuts for "everyone"
-
Naaaa, let's see the spending cuts 1st, then we'll entertain "revenue increases". I'm of the mindset ot fix the problem, not keep punting it to the next generation. Revenue is not the problem
===================================================
This will never happen. The Republicans will catch the blame for defending the mega rich.
I see a three person race between Obama, Romney and Paul as a Libertarian, and Obama will be triumphant.
-
Naaaa, let's see the spending cuts 1st, then we'll entertain "revenue increases". I'm of the mindset ot fix the problem, not keep punting it to the next generation. Revenue is not the problem
===================================================
This will never happen. The Republicans will catch the blame for defending the mega rich.
Of course, that'll be the spin. Has been since Obama and the left launched into this class warfare garbage
I see a three person race between Obama, Romney and Paul as a Libertarian, and Obama will be triumphant.
You wish
-
So you are in favor of giving Obama the right to claim the GOP as obstructionists and being correct in that assertion?
Interesting tactic. Stupid, but quite interesting.
-
Stupid would be accepting your premise, since its 180degrees from what I just referenced ::)
-
Actually it isn't, you are advocating that the GOP not address the revenue issue at this time. Obama can then claim that his jobs program is being stopped by the GOP because they will not pass his millionaires tax.
What part of Obama's statement would be incorrect?
-
Actually it is, because I'm advocating the GOP address the problem, (which they have been) and not play the political game of who and how much to raises taxes on, since its not a revenue problem, not to mention that the MSM is going to paint them as the obstructionists regardless of what they do
-
Then we just disagree.
Obama can claim the GOP is responsible for his JOBs program not moving forward and he would be correct, since he wants to pay for it with the millionaires tax and the GOP won't give him that.
And it is a revenue problem when 40 cents of every dollar spent is borrowed. It is a revenue and spending problem. And 10 year plans simply will not fix the problem.
-
Why We Are In Political Gridlock: The Private Sector Is Dying
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/21/why-we-are-in-political-gridlock-the-private-sector-is-dying/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/21/why-we-are-in-political-gridlock-the-private-sector-is-dying/)
-
If you raise taxes, just for example, by 1 1/2% on the working poor, and near poor, and by 3% on the top 1%, who gets hit harder? The working poor, and near poor, that's who, even though their tax increase is half that of the wealthiest Americans. Obviously ever tiny little bit is going to effect the poor more.
This country isn't about, I got mine fuck you. And if you think it is you're dead wrong. This country is about letting people flourish to the best of their abilities, and good fortune. And it is also about sacrificing according to your abilities, and good fortune. Again, using the prior example, a 1 1/2% tax hike on the working poor, and near poor, is a sacrifice according to their abilities, and good fortune, just as great as a 3% hike on the ablest, and most fortunate, among us.
The idea is to keep the pump going. If you're getting more water from the pump, you're nuts if you don't oil it a little more than those who aren't.
If you don't like that, move to North Korea where they treat everyone the same, except for high ranking commies, and no one has anything.
BSB
-
If you let the Bush tax cuts expire then in effect you have the Clinton tax rates.
I would like the dems to explain how that would be disadvantageous to the poor
I would also like the dems to explain how when they were talking about the Bush tax cuts only the rich benefited and the poor got a negligible cut, reverting back to the Clinton rates certainly would not be onerous.
-
Obama's going to claim the GOP are obstructionists, no matter what, and the MSM is going parrot it. You're the one that started off about not playing games, and this whole notion about taxes is just a game. It does practically squat to address the deficit, reinforces the class warfare garbage, which then gets punctuated by the Dems pulling a last minute provision to exclude "the poor" from any tax increase, which puts the GOP in a no win corner.
It's a SPENDING problem, 1st, formost, and almost. We deal with that 1st, which the GOP has tried to do. The GOP has passed countless legislation to deal with jobs & job creation, that sit on the Senate Dems table, but the GOP still gets branded the obstructionist
-
How does letting the largest tax cut in history expire not put a dent in the deficit?
How does letting the cuts expire reverting to the Clinton tax rate generate class warfare unless the dems are saying the Clinton rates punished the poor?
Inquiring mind want to know.
-
We don't really know that our economy would not collapse under a significant tax increase, havent we been near collapse for a while now?
I would expect a reduced economy to produce reduced tax revenue no matter what the reason was for the reduction.
..............................................
As a correction let me point out that the poor are not affected either way when income taxes are raised or cut. Anyone who is below the poverty line is not paying any income tax. Shall we offer to cut their Social Security contribution?
-
How does letting the largest tax cut in history expire not put a dent in the deficit?
How does letting the cuts expire reverting to the Clinton tax rate generate class warfare unless the dems are saying the Clinton rates punished the poor?
Inquiring mind want to know.
Because the cuts that went IN to effect, helped pull us out of 911 recession, that no tax increase could ever have. Because the worse thing businesses and the private sector could be saddled with right now, is higher taxes
Hoped that helped
-
How does letting the largest tax cut in history expire not put a dent in the deficit?
How does letting the cuts expire reverting to the Clinton tax rate generate class warfare unless the dems are saying the Clinton rates punished the poor?
Inquiring mind want to know.
Because the cuts that went IN to effect, helped pull us out of 911 recession, that no tax increase could ever have. Because the worse thing businesses and the private sector could be saddled with right now, is higher taxes
Hoped that helped
It didn't. Because the Bush Tax Cuts are still in effect as well as the payroll tax holiday and both of those have not pulled us out of the recession, so in the meantime the fed is printing money like its Black Friday flyers and the inflation that will come from that is worse than any small tax hike that would happen for our precious poor.
raise revenues+cut spending = reduce debt/deficit and that will raise the worth of the dollar.
So unless the GOP is truly the party that protects the 1% even though the majority of GOP voters are not in that 1%, it makes sense to recommend measures that put the govts books in order. And this is not all that needs to be done.
-
There will NEVER come a time when the super rich say "Okay, we have enough, you can raise our taxes now".
In bad times they will say "this is the worst time to raise our taxes: we can't hire anyone if you raise out taxes."
In the best of times they say "this is a terrible time to raise our taxes, we will be forced to fire people."
The one thing about the greedheads that never changes is this: they NEVER have enough. seven houses, fifteen cars, private jet, his and hers matching private jets. They will NEVER say "enough!"
-
There will NEVER come a time when the super rich say "Okay, we have enough, you can raise our taxes now".
In bad times they will say "this is the worst time to raise our taxes: we can't hire anyone if you raise out taxes."
In the best of times they say "this is a terrible time to raise our taxes, we will be forced to fire people."
The one thing about the greedheads that never changes is this: they NEVER have enough. seven houses, fifteen cars, private jet, his and hers matching private jets. They will NEVER say "enough!"
All your post does is legitimize and extend class warfare.
It doesn't matter what the rich say about their taxes. What matters is what will get the federal house in order.
What needs to happen with entitlements is that funding for ss and medicare be moved to a separate account from the general fund and adjust contributions so that those programs can stand on their own and also not be a temptation for raiding by politicians who only think about today.
-
How does letting the largest tax cut in history expire not put a dent in the deficit?
How does letting the cuts expire reverting to the Clinton tax rate generate class warfare unless the dems are saying the Clinton rates punished the poor?
Inquiring mind want to know.
Because the cuts that went IN to effect, helped pull us out of 911 recession, that no tax increase could ever have. Because the worse thing businesses and the private sector could be saddled with right now, is higher taxes
Hoped that helped
It didn't. Because the Bush Tax Cuts are still in effect as well as the payroll tax holiday and both of those have not pulled us out of the recession, so in the meantime the fed is printing money like its Black Friday flyers and the inflation that will come from that is worse than any small tax hike that would happen for our precious poor.
So unless the GOP is truly the party that protects the 1% even though the majority of GOP voters are not in that 1%, it makes sense to recommend measures that put the govts books in order. And this is not all that needs to be done.
They pulled us out of the 911 recession. It was the spending by both Bush and Obama that threw us right back into one, and the worst thing we can do to the economy, is raise taxes on everyone. Sorry, not going to play this game, the stakes are too damn serious to spend all this time and energy over an issue that's not going to even dent our economic/unemployment abyss. Putting the government's books in order has to start with cutting spending
raise revenues+cut spending = reduce debt/deficit and that will raise the worth of the dollar.
Cut spending and cut taxes = increase employent <--> decreased unemployment & will reduce the debt/deficit as the increase tax revenues start exponentially flowing in once again, that will raise the worth of the dollar
A win/win
-
My guess is that cutting federal spending will add to the unemployment roles, because if programs are cut staffing would likely also be cut and i don't see where the private sector will be hiring that staff as they walk out the door. Did you think about that?
You really aren't proposing anything more than mouthing partisan platitudes that do nothing but maintain the status quo and protect groups you may or may not have affinity with.
-
You must have missed this part:
Cut spending and cut taxes = increase employent <--> decreased unemployment & will reduce the debt/deficit as the increase tax revenues start exponentially flowing in once again, that will raise the worth of the dollar
A win/win
Hardly mouthing platitudes, as it's got a track record of working. And maintaing the status quo is at least better then throwing gasoline on the fire, with higher taxes
-
are you considering that the federal debt/deficit problem is different than the current unemployment problem?
and that what fixes one might not also fix the other?
None of your posts thus far indicate that you have.
-
MY equation fixes both, but starts with cutting spending
-
How so?
-
Cut spending and cut taxes = increase employent <--> decreased unemployment & will reduce the debt/deficit as the increase tax revenues start exponentially flowing in once again, that will raise the worth of the dollar
-
I thought the Bush Tax cuts implemented the lowest tax rates in decades. Companies like GE pay no taxes. How many people have they hired since 2008?
Cutting spending is important and i have no problem with doing that intelligently, but in the meantime borrowing 40 cents on the dollar to pay current expenses doesn't make sense.
-
We learned during the Reagan administration that making a deal to cut spending is very tough. Reagan was trying to get spending cuts and make deals for tax increases.
The Spending cuts never came to the scale they should have.
Clinton used a very convienient boom time to raise taxes , which represents a massive missed oppurtunity. If spending had been reduced then the deficit might have been substantially reduced. What Clinton did was mark time while the boom came and went.
Bush number one, or 41 as you might count, learned the hard way that promises can be remembered. Obama needs us to forget a few promises .
Bush number two, or president number 43 , had a war to fight , so there was little oppurtunity to cut spending.
Does anyone remember the "peace dividend"?
Our military is more than 30% reducecd since 1989 , this era is over , the peace dividend has come and gone , the tech boom that came and went at the same time isn't comeing back either.
I my opinion history will call these years a lost oppurtunity.
-
We learned during the Reagan administration that making a deal to cut spending is very tough. Reagan was trying to get spending cuts and make deals for tax increases.
The Spending cuts never came to the scale they should have.
IIRC, they never came at all
-
Cut spending and cut taxes = increase employment <--> decreased unemployment & will reduce the debt/deficit as the increase tax revenues start exponentially flowing in once again, that will raise the worth of the dollar
A win/win
====================================================
Raising the worth of the dollar means deflation. It means that the dollars required to pay back a loan are worth more than the amount borrowed, and of course, there is interest involved in any loan.
That is NOT what any economist calls a "win/win".
To lower the debt, I agree that SS and Medicare need to be placed in a separate category. THEN taxes need to be raised, especially on the uberrich, because the grotesque maldistribution of wealth in this country is unhealthy and sure to cause all manner of problems. I'd say raise the income tax 5% on all incomes above a million and restore the inheritance tax on estates of 10 million or more at the 20% level. A ½¢ tax on all stock, stock options and commodities options transactions of over $10,000 would also be useful.
-
Gotta just love that jealous class warfare rhetoric. Let's just throw an even heavier wet blanket (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/index.php?topic=16228.0)over the entire economy. Yea, that's the ticket
-
During the debt ceiling negotiations in the face of a Standard&Poor downgrade, how much were the GOP led by Boehner able to come up with in real cuts? Couple billion?
-
Yea, it was pretty piddley, when it came down to the rubber hitting the road. Congress critter Ryan was at least on the right track, with his budget proposal and spending cuts, though his was far short of the needed cuts as well, but at least had a sound blue print to follow
-
So your plan is to continue to allow these clowns to fiddle around the edges and basically do nothing?
-
Not sure what power you think I possess. I assure you, I have had no training in the Imperius curse...I'm just a muggle. My power is in advocating that which would work, which includes the track record to back it up, vs playing political taxing games, at the cost of more economic distress.
Hint, raising taxes on everyone isn't going to help, nor is it going to give Obama some political black eye, like you think, since the blame will rest on the so called "Republican Congress" (yea, I know the Dems run the Senate, but when's the last time you saw any MSM article taking the Senate to task for not bringing any of the House bills to a vote, much less their failure to pass their own budget, now......how many days late again??)
Nope, start with spending cuts, then we go from there
-
Companies like GE pay no taxes. How many people have they hired since 2008?
Actually, GE had a large tax bill, but they also had numerous (many one time) credits that were applied against those earnings. GE latest reporting was basically a fluke, being able to take all those credits in one year.
Even without tax increases or spending cuts, eliminating credits and deductions would balance the budget instantly. Our entire deficit this year was pretty much equal to the total of credit and deductions taken last year.
-
Hint, raising taxes on everyone isn't going to help, nor is it going to give Obama some political black eye, like you think, since the blame will rest on the so called "Republican Congress" (yea, I know the Dems run the Senate, but when's the last time you saw any MSM article taking the Senate to task for not bringing any of the House bills to a vote, much less their failure to pass their own budget, now......how many days late again??)
Depends on how the idea is implemented and what means of informing the public of the why's and wherefore's for such a program is communicated. The GOP has an expanded audience with the debates. Such a plan should be explained in that venue. And when the clowns at msnbc misrepresent the plan the american public will know them for the liars they are.
-
If only the MSM would cooperate. If you get a chance, perhaps a search on what was the highest viewer rating for any of the GOP debates, and how that translated into how many viewers were watching. Then we can compare that to the daily viewership of the primetime news network shows, and add that to the amount of news paper subscriptions that messers NYTimes, Washington Post, and LA times have
-
Companies like GE pay no taxes. How many people have they hired since 2008?
Actually, GE had a large tax bill, but they also had numerous (many one time) credits that were applied against those earnings. GE latest reporting was basically a fluke, being able to take all those credits in one year.
Even without tax increases or spending cuts, eliminating credits and deductions would balance the budget instantly. Our entire deficit this year was pretty much equal to the total of credit and deductions taken last year.
This is a neat idea.
Would you want a gradual or a quick change from the many availible deductions to the few?
-
Ratings don't matter when word of mouth is involved. As long as there is an internet and a link the liars can be held accountable. The odds are the MSM would ridicule the idea, which also means that the GOP presented it.
It's kind of like when msnbc took Megyn Kelly to task for claiming that the active ingredient in pepper spray was a food product. Fact is everytime you eat a chicken wing you are tasting the active ingredient in pepper spray.
-
This is a neat idea.
Would you want a gradual or a quick change from the many availible deductions to the few?
Pick a year in the next few. As of that tax year, everyone uses the 1040-EZ form. Pull the rotten tooth.
-
If only the MSM would cooperate. If you get a chance, perhaps a search on what was the highest viewer rating for any of the GOP debates, and how that translated into how many viewers were watching. Then we can compare that to the daily viewership of the primetime news network shows, and add that to the amount of news paper subscriptions that messers NYTimes, Washington Post, and LA times have
===========================================================================
Now that is dumb.
Reading a newspaper does not mean a person AGREES with a newspaper.
Subscribing to a newspaper, which people do for many reasons, does not mean that they read that paper regularly.
People normally subscribe to a newspaper and get it every day.
People do NOT normally watch the same TV channel day after day in the same manner.
It is not possible to subscribe only to Fox or MSNBC
If I tune into hear a GOP debate, I am probably going to pay attention to at least some of what is said, but it does not mean that I will necessarily agree with anything that is said.
The print media and the broadcast media are essentially quite different.
You might as well compare oatmeal and champagne.
-
Good thing I wasn't then
-
You never are....anything.
Always right, never wrong.
Master of your domain.
There should be an award of some kind for your ilk.
-
You'd be wrong in such an assumption, but at least you're consistent
-
Okay, perhaps the award was not deserved.
-
Didn't you get the memo?.....that wasn't the only thing you were wrong about. But not surprising you'd get that wrong as well 8)
-
I was definitely wrong about your deserving any award, except the Snottiness Trophy.
I can't recall your ever being right about anything.
-
LOL......show's you how wrong you consistently are.
-
(http://images.onset.freedom.com/ocregister/gallery/lv4ujr-b78882233z.120111123132250000g3913o701.1.jpg)