This will end badly.
September 10, 2009 12:58 pm ET by Jamison Foser
To follow up on Eric's point about the media's failure to clearly state that Joe Wilson's claim last night that Barack Obama was lying was itself a lie (and my own post about MSNBC's obsessive coverage of Wilson) take a look at this New York Times article.
The entire article is about Wilson's outburst. Nearly 700 words devoted to Wilson's two-word claim that Obama was lying. But the article never gets around to telling readers who was right. The only hint it offered that maybe Wilson wasn't correct was this paragraph:
Other Democrats said they did not want to dwell on the outburst or allow it to overshadow what they saw as an effective address by the president. But they also said it bolstered their contention that some Republicans were not interested in constructive dialogue, and they noted that Democratic plans specifically barred coverage for illegal immigrants.
If you weren't reading closely, you may well miss that last bit. But even if you noticed it; even if you understood it to be a direct rebuttal to Wilson's comments -- not made clear in the article -- what are you left with? Wilson says Obama is lying; Democrats say Obama isn't lying. Who's right? The New York Times article doesn't say.
Again: The entire article was about Wilson's comment. And the Times couldn't shoe-horn in an assessment of its truthfulness.
Here's a prediction: in a week or two, some poll is going to show widespread belief that the Democratic health care plans cover illegal immigrants. And Howard Kurtz is going to write a column in which he expresses amazement that people believe this despite the thorough debunking that claim received from major media outlets. MSNBC will devote a segment -- or seven -- to the same topic.
UPDATE: Andrea Mitchell just led her MSNBC show with a lengthy segment on Wilson's comments. Not mentioned: The fact that Wilson was wrong.
UPDATE 2: Twenty-eight minutes into Mitchell's show, during what was at least the third segment that touched on Wilson's claim, Mitchell finally got around to more or less acknowledging that Obama was right.
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
They never pay for their lies.
And it is easier, and more fun, to tell them.
Tell me again, why do you expect them to stop? Because you've pointed out they are wrong?
Sorry, am a fan of your work.
As I understand the house bill, illegals are not qualified for subsidies towards insurance. I would assume if they do not need a subsidy, they could probably get insurance, but who cares as long as they pay their premiums. Considering that HHS has to set up the rules of the exchange I would assume at least a SS # would be needed and a tax ID number would probably not be good enough. If illegals have a bogus SS # that should be easy enough to identify during the application process.
A sales tax, like the 'Fair Tax' proposed elsewhere (a flat rate personal income tax), is regressive because it takes disproportionately higher percentages of money from the poorest tier of citizens.
Two people, one making $100,000 and one making $20,000 per year, may both have about the same outlays for living expenses such as rent, food, clothing, gas, utilities, etc. The difference is, the person with $20,000 per year is paying out all their money and saving not one penny because there is none left over. If the sales tax covers 25% of their spending, that would be $5,000, taxed at 5% would be $250. If the person making $100,000 decided to scrimp by, living in the apartment next door to Mr. 20k, he would have the same expenses. He would also pay the same $250 in national sales tax.
So, the person making $20k would pay 1.25% of their income in sales tax. The person making $100k would pay .25% of their income, plus having $80,000 a year left over to invest. It leaves the poor with no option, and the wealthy with no real burden.
This is just an example. I'm fully aware that it is unlikely that someone making $100,000 would live in an apartment next door to someone making $20,000. For the purpose of illustrating why a flat tax, such as a national sales tax, is regressive, though, I think it makes a good example.
Now there's a nice, clear explanation! Just don't tell too many libertarians--they get mad when you point out this obvious fact and might Ayn Rand you.
I'm not going to waste ink on either of you two, except to suggest that folks read the book, then they will see the bias in the comments.
Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, it doesn't matter -- facts are facts, and opinions are like ... {sorry}
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
With any other sales tax you are, of course, right. The FairTax is different. The FairTax monthly "prebate" reimburses the tax on all spending up to the poverty level. The prebate goes to every household but has the greatest effect on the poor because it effectively eliminates vitually all federal taxes on the poor (excise taxes are not changed). This prebate and the elimination of the highly regressive FICA payroll tax makes the FairTax more progressive than the income tax system and much better for the poor and the middle class. Additionally, existing wealth is taxed, when spent, unlike the current system and income and payroll tax costs "embedded" and hidden in the price of retail goods are eliminated. Eaxh element helps the poor and, indeed, the overall economy.
Any wacko claim by some dirtbag Republican must be handled with kid gloves by the media.
Wilson is just another distraction for the corporate media so they can get back to the lies and mud wrestling.
actually being proposed in the house, as compared to some other
bills that may exist in theory. That bill does not exclude any
illegals and Republicsn amendments to do so were voted down by
the Democrats. Are you referring to a version of the bill in the Senate, as a compromise with Republicans, which would not be there but for the Republican input.
That is not a Democratic plan, and it remains to be seen if it
makes it to the final bill and through the conference committee.
Can you cite any, "Democratic bill," that does explicitly bar
illegal aliens from receiving health care. Indeed, they receive
it now like everyone else in America. Now, if anyone goes to the
hospital they are taken of, whether or not they have insurance,
whether or not they are a citizen.
illegal aliens from receiving health care. Indeed, they receive
it now like everyone else in America.
Your comment is outright misleading. Factcheck, polifact,and cnn have all ruled that Wilson's claim is a false. Just because a bill does not explicitly deny something does not mean it supports it.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/wilson-calls-his-outburst-spontaneous/?hp
One step forward, two steps back!
This statement alone is a blatant lie. There is nothing in the bill that requires verification of eligibilty or legal status. In fact when the republicans suggested it the democrats shot it down. Obama lied and so did his democratic socialist co-conspirators.
Our current tax system is a blight upon the country, not too mention the wood pulp used to print the damn thing!