The media is NOT pro-Democratic. This is a major Republican lie, repeated again and again along with the campaign to make the word "liberal" appear to be a bad thing. Fox is clearly ratwing, unfair and unbalanced. The tax cuts would only have favored the economy if the money were invested in growing new businesses. Investing in retailing Chinese products also does not serve to make the economy grow. The GOP claims that raising the minimum wage is inflationary, but eliminating some dumbass tax on Paris Hilton's inheritance is good for the economy. This is clearly bullkshit, just like all the rest of the Limbaugh crap that you constantly spew.
The media is NOT pro-Democratic. This is a major Republican lie
A new study from the Center for Media and Public Affairs shows an unprecedented bias in the network news coverage. Between September 5th and October 11th of this year, 77% of coverage regarding Democrats was favorable. But only 12% of coverage about Republicans was positive. The disparity is the most significant we have seen since these studies began.
Of course there is a bias against the Republicans lately.....What's your idea of an unbiased media?
One that provides BOTH sides of a story, OBJECTIVELY reports BOTH the good and bad events happening, and allows the viewer to make up their own mind
=====================================================================
I don't see where you have had any trouble making up your own mind. I haven't had any trouble at all, either. This "biased media" crap is old and tired. There are plenty of opinions and plenty of events reported for anyone wiht even half a brain to decide what the real facts are and evaluate them.
"Investing in retailing Chinese products also does not serve to make the economy grow."
What?
Should I sell my retail stocks because they are not really part of the US economy?
Do yuou just hate furreners or what?
===============================================================
I did not say that retail was not part of the US economy. I said that investing in Wal*Mart or some other retail purveyor of Chinese or other imported goods will not cause the economy of the US to grow.
If Wal*Mart were selling US-made products, then US workers would get paid for making these goods and if more of such goods were sold, the US company would nuild a bigger factory and more US jobs would be created. There is a multiplier effect at work here.
If, on the other hand, the goods sold are made in China, the multiplier benefits the CHINESE economy and not the US economy.
I am not against foreigners. I am merely stating that for the supposedly miracle-working US tax cuts to benefit the US economy, it is far better if the money spent goes to US workers.
If the government spends the money, it also has a multipler efect in the US. If the US government uses the money to pay the salary of someone to repair, test or schlep weapons about the Warner-Robbins AF Base, then you will spend your money mostly in the US and the US economy will benefit more than after the tax cut, when you are fired in a cost-cutting move and the tax savings go to say, Richard Mellon Scaife, who then invests in say, a factory in China.
For the US economy to benefit from the tax cut, the money must create more jobs than it loses as a result in cuts in government programs. You are more a part of the US economy that a guy who makes schlock in China to be sold in Wal*Mart. If the tax money is paid to you, then the US economy will benefit more than if it is sent to China to buy scholck. Even well-made schlock.
This is pretty complicated, and I doubt that RR or Rush or even O'Reilly actually has the statistics to prove that Juniortbush's tax cuts actually caused the current rise in the Stock Market.
And again, a rise in the stock market does not benefit even most Americans, though I have done pretty okay as a result.
Bush's tax cuts can have had no real effect on Brazil or the Czech Republic.
Why don't you explain how Juniorbush's tax cuts have caused businesses in Brazil and the Czech Republic to prosper.
What would seem most obvious is that you have no answer.
The argument is not whether you should or should not shop at Wal*Mart. The argument was originally about whether Juniorbush's tax cuts are responsible for the current boost in the stock market. I say that far more than the tax cuts, Wall Street has surged recently because the fear of the supposed Terrorist Jihadists is no longer giving the heebie-jeebies to even the most nervous of Nellies on the Street.
I say the tax cuts have very little to do with the current boom on Wall Street. About half of my investments are in other countries and they are mostly outperforming the domestic ones. Bush's tax cuts can have had no real effect on Brazil or the Czech Republic.
China will never manage to have a standard of living as great as the US. They may live as comfortably on their own terms (that is to say, really crowded, and travelling far less) as we do now, but there are not sufficient resources for this.
They produce manufactured goods, we ship them raw materials and agricultural supplies. That sort of makes us their colony, doesn't it?
I don't think Wyoming produces much cheese. Wisconsin outproduces Georgia and Wyoming together.
I shop at the Wal*Mart from time to time, because they sell some things that aren't available at even double the price in other places.
But the argument here was over the supposed benefits of Juniorbush's tax cuts.