Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 151

Thread: Obama's Turn

  1. #41
    Did not read article yet, but you do know who owns the Wall Street Journal, correct?

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fountain Valley, CA
    Posts
    517
    Images
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Did not read article yet, but you do know who owns the Wall Street Journal, correct?
    So what your saying is, there is no real truth out there till a president get's elected? Cause I'm sure the sites that say he really is giving a tax cut are democratic sites.
    Signature

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    1,282
    Images
    1
    It obviously depends who you are. Top .1%: Huge increase. Top 1%: Big increase. Top 5%: Nominal increase. Bottom 95%: Small to large decrease, with the lowest tax brackets getting the biggest percentage decrease. The article doesn't even attack that (i just read it) it just disagrees with it.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by x[codered] View Post
    So what your saying is, there is no real truth out there till a president get's elected? Cause I'm sure the sites that say he really is giving a tax cut are democratic sites.
    No, in this case the credibility of the paper has nothing to do with the election. WSJ was a Murdoch-owned conservative publication before the general, and will continue to be a Murdoch-owned conservative publication after the election concludes. I would take any of their reporting with a heavy dose of skepticism.

    To preempt a "Well NYT is totally liberal" response: I'm not suggesting that you'll find sources out there that are completely bias-free, but you seem, code, to pay way too much attention to fringe-right media as if they've got any credibility and have got some great scoop that the mainstream media is just trying to hide. It's just not true.

    I have progressive views but I choose not to get all my 'news' from the Jed Report and Huffington Post because only a certain percentage of their posts really hold up under scrutiny.

    Fringe media in general is useful for getting a clue as to what news might be coming down the pipeline, but I wouldn't give any of these outlets' findings credibility on face value. This is one instance where the mainstream media (the major networks, sans Fox) is still useful. If one of these fringe-reported stories gets picked up and not immediately debunked by a CBS or an ABC or a CNN, it might be time to pay attention. Until then keep your BS Detector on Ultra-Sensitive mode and don't chase every bit of "Ayers wrote Obama's first book!" nonsense.

    Just suggesting, code, that you learn to practice some honest skepticism. I'm all for people being informed and I applaud you for making the effort, but please realize that not all stories are created equal.

    FAKE EDIT: dnr article yet

  5. #45
    According to Obama, those top 2% are going to return, in essence, to Clinton-era tax levels. The only reason they're "going to see a huge increase" is because Bush gave them huge cuts.

    Quote Originally Posted by barackobama.com
    Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
    And really, we were doing pretty good economically in the 1990s regardless of the tax code.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by x[codered] View Post
    A question to you guys... Is this true? Obama will actually raise taxes?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html
    This is all some pretty dense reading, but I came across some blogs/articles debunking/responding to the WSJ article:

    http://economistsview.typepad.com/ec...-tax-plan.html
    http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/...bamas-tax.html
    http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/...ax-policy.html
    http://economistmom.com/2008/08/bril...bama-tax-plan/

    The gist, from what I can understand:

    - The WSJ piece was written by WSJ opinion editors (remember, Murdoch-owned)
    - The graph that WSJ uses is based on a very specific instance (2-earner family with 2 children -- one a college freshman, one exactly 12 and receiving after-school care -- plus "some specific assumptions" which are unnamed)
    - The figures they're using are apparently not properly sourced in the first place
    - If this very specific family were actually affected as WSJ says they would be, it's only like a 3% overall hike and it would only last as long as the family meets these very specific criteria (i.e. not long at all)


    Now, I'm no econ major so I can't really speak to the validity of the original article or these rebuttals or my interpretation of them, but I'm sure someone like flamer can give you a more informed opinion.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Vista, CA
    Posts
    2,134
    Images
    2
    Cosyg would you agree that most of media leans left?
    Much of the time it is subtle unlike most of the right leaning media.

    I say this because your first reaction was to discredit the source without reading the article.
    x[dmitri]
    Why are we here?
    Because we are here.
    Roll the bones.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by x[dmitri]
    Cosyg would you agree that most of media leans left?
    No.

    Media is so wide-ranging now (blogs, 24hr cable news, network news, national papers, local papers, YouTube, magazines, specialty print, etc. etc.) that I don't think it'd be possible to determine the leanings of "most media".

    That said, I feel like most of the mainstream media has been right-leaning for at least the past 7 years or so, most likely due to Fox News' success and 9/11.

    CNN, which was once likely the actual "Most Trusted Name in News" is now Fox-lite, subscribing to the ridiculous notion of Fox's everyone's-opinion-matters-equally-no-matter-how-deceitful-or-ridiculous, "Fair and Balanced" mantra. CNN is a shell of its former self and has had a distinct right lean since at least primary season this cycle.

    In the run-up to the Iraq war, every mainstream TV outlet was in full-steam-ahead, beat the war drums mode. There was zero critical analysis of the president's assertions. The MSM was afraid to question the president after 9/11 and thus was forced into a right lean.

    During the 2004 election, John Kerry was absolutely killed in the mainstream press. Bush admin talking points ("flip-flopper!") were co-opted and adopted into 'straight' reporting. Still afraid to question a sitting president in wartime -- despite the unpopularity of the war itself -- the '04 election turned into a referendum on John Kerry.

    Just now are we starting to see some signs of things getting back to an equilibrium. 9/11 is far enough behind us and the president's approval ratings are low enough that his administration's disastrous policies are now fair game, and Fox News, while still successful, no longer seems to have such an influence on mainstream thought that other networks feel they need to temper their reporting with a requisite conservative voice. MSNBC's success, mainly Olbermann and Maddow, have served to counteract the overblown influence of O'Reilly, Rush, and Hannity.

    When you get down to it, though, big-budget TV media in particular is likely driven more by financial decisions than ideological ones. 9/11 profoundly affected the population and got them rallied behind their president; throwing a wet blanket on that enthusiasm would have hurt ratings. Bush was a sitting president during wartime and still relatively popular in 2004; taking him to task for even his most criminal mistakes would have hurt ratings, especially if Fox could turn public opinion against you. Fox News' success, illegitimate as their 'journalists' may be, was real; being more like them made good business sense.

    Whether driven by ideology or financial considerations, the mainstream media has been right-learning in no less than these major issues of our time. The big problem is that journalists lost their nerve.

    I say this because your first reaction was to discredit the source without reading the article.
    Thats my first reaction here because I want code to be aware of where he's choosing to seek out information. This thread was kicked off with a declaration that he couldn't vote for Obama because of what he saw in a YouTube hit piece. It's become clear that codered, and a few others around here, don't understand, or don't care about, the difference between real journalism and smear. I would just like code to look at his information sources with a bit more critical eye, and nothing really warrants a critical eye like the influence of Rupert Murdoch.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Just a word of caution for all you Obama fans. Be careful of what you wish for. It just might come true.

    Republicans said "anyone but Hillary." They got Obama.

    People complained about high oil prices. Oil price is down now.

    people complained about high housing prices. It's down. Way down.

    All you people who are desperate to replace Bush with Obama just might be surprised at yourself some day when you wish for the return of Bush.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  10. #50
    Thanks con, I'll be sure to think very carefully before dropping my ballot.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Thanks con, I'll be sure to think very carefully before dropping my ballot.
    Hey, I did my part. I will do my best to refrain from a big "I TOLD YOU SO" should the need arise.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Irvine, Cali
    Posts
    2,176
    Images
    22
    And when Obama does infinitely better than McCain would have? Will you eat your foot?

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post

    All you people who are desperate to replace Bush with Obama just might be surprised at yourself some day when you wish for the return of Bush.
    It's pretty shocking that you think this is possible.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by x[raider134] View Post
    And when Obama does infinitely better than McCain would have?
    I have difficulty comprehending this string of words.
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by x[method] View Post
    It's pretty shocking that you think this is possible.
    Please refer to "anyone but Hilary."
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post
    Please refer to "anyone but Hilary."
    Dunno what that has to do with me wishing for the 2nd worst president in history to make a return

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, ca
    Posts
    2,426
    Images
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by cosyg View Post
    Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
    hahahah when has the government ever asked you to give money back?
    "....everyone wants to come to my house to RAGE."

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    DPRK, Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    4,297
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by x[method] View Post
    Dunno what that has to do with me wishing for the 2nd worst president in history to make a return
    Jimmy Carter?
    Trust me. I know what I am doing.

    -- Sledge Hammer

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    1,922
    Quote Originally Posted by x[con] View Post
    Jimmy Carter?

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Fountain Valley, CA
    Posts
    517
    Images
    14
    I want to know wtf this is about..

    Now don't jump on me, cause I don't know to believe it or not. not taking sides on this one.


    http://www.clipsyndicate.com/publish...t_obama?wpid=0


    If this is true... then shame on him.
    Signature

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Turn around!
    By x[aries] in forum Media Mayhem
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-22-2005, 09:51 PM
  2. How To Turn Off Your Woman...
    By MeatMan in forum Media Mayhem
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-20-2004, 04:55 PM
  3. AC?? Warning! Might turn you on!
    By [HungHing]SanGai in forum Media Mayhem
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-24-2004, 07:54 PM
  4. as the aliases turn...
    By in forum Random Thoughts
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-01-2001, 01:59 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •