About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Beck's Orlando revival brings the (fiscal) pain

March 28, 2010 9:19 pm ET by Will Bunch

Glenn Beck came to Orlando this weekend and staged a day-long American Revival for 8,000 die-hard fanatics that was intended to focus on the themes of "faith, hope, and charity" but made clear that the right-wing media icon's upcoming much-ballyhooed plan for America involves something else: Pain.

The Fox News Channel host - who's called his American Revival tour a run-up to a massive rally at the Lincoln Memorial in August and a book with a "100-year plan" for the nation this fall - told the nearly sold-out University of Central Florida basketball arena that in about two weeks he'll unveil an expert-devised "budget for the United States of America."

And that plan, Beck added, would have two major components, starting with what he admitted would be a "massive" cut in federal spending, on the order of 40-50 percent. But while most conservative political chatter since the start of the Obama administration has focused on deficit reduction, Beck said the flip side of his scheme would be large-scale tax reductions to a rate of about 12 percent - which he claimed would encourage investment and growth.

"We're going to develop the way out for the United States of America," Beck said to loud whoops. "Before you clap, realize that I'm going to piss of almost every single person in America. Because we can't afford all the stuff and that means all of us are going to lose something that we love."

The fact that a talk-show host is unveiling his own budget proposal is quite a commentary on the state of conservative politics in 2010 -- and it wasn't the only news that Beck made at the seven-hour arena event, where the self-proclaimed "Howard Beale" wannabe wept on several occasions and repeatedly called for injecting God into the political arena.

Frequently accused of relying on apocalyptic fear-mongering to build ratings and get attention, Beck provided details of the fictional political thriller that he's planning to publish in June -- called The Overton Window, according to online catalogue listings -- that will do little to dispel those complaints, as the tome will portray America sliding into a civil war.

"It's a story of America at time much like today where the people are confused and they're being lied to and they're not sure what's right-side-up and upside-down," Beck said. "And there's one part...there's a group of people that plays a role called the Founders Keepers...This leads to a battle and a civil war, and life is upside down planet-wide. There's a group of people that just won't give up."

On Saturday, Beck continued to weave his characteristic apocalyptic warnings in between a series of self-help-flavored anecdotes and repeated appeals to religious faith.

"If we don't face the truth right now, we'll be dead in five years -- this country can't survive," he said at one point. During his keynote speech, Beck also advised his fans to stockpile food. "I am incredibly prepared," he said.

The audience was typical of a large Beck fan gathering -- predominantly over 50 and white and heavy on retirees, the jobless and military veterans, or the kind of people who now often receive government benefits like Medicare or unemployment checks that would likely get hammered if policymakers actually listened to Beck's budget scheme. In an odd appeal to the heavily middle-class gathering -- many of whom spent $120 for lower-level seats -- the FNC host confided that some of his fiscal ideas come with conversations with friends who are billionaires.

Said Beck in explaining the rationale for massive tax cuts on top of spending reductions:

What's happening right now at the global level is I have friends who are billionaires who say I don't know what to do with their money to preserve the wealth. 'I don't know what to do with it. Do I buy gold or do I not buy gold? Do I buy inflation protected treasury bonds?' These are people who deal in billions of dollars and they have no idea.... There are billions and billions and billions of dollars looking for the answer. The answer is and always has been America, but we have to convince them and the rest of the world that we're serious about our debt and spitting ourselves out of this system.

Clearly stung by a wave of accusations that right-wing radio and Fox News are ginning up death threats and potential violence against members of Congress and progressives, Beck also expanded on a new theme that resistance to what he claims is growing socialism in America must be non-violent -- again invoking Gandhi as well as Martin Luther King.

"Get God on your side, and then pick up a hammer," Beck said. Quoting Gandhi, he took the hammer to an anvil onstage and said "with non-violence, take your hammer and POUND that truth every day and everything that doesn't fit, toss it out! We have the truth...[W]ith non-violence, be the anvil of truth every single day!"

Most of the attendees were eager to voice their resentments at the portrayal of Beck fans as either racist or as capable of violence -- but many of them clearly feel rage toward the Obama administration.

Perhaps none more so than 71-year-old Phillis Kluft, who raised four kids as a single mom in East Haven, Connecticut, and moved six years ago to The Villages, Fla., a retiree-laden epicenter of Beckmania where she now is a leader of the Tri-County Tea Party of Florida. Kluft said she believes that supporters of President Barack Obama want Washington are mainly seeking handouts.

"I saved money for my old age and didn't go on a vacation or buy a new car," she said, her voice rising in intensity. "It really galls me that these people sit on their ass and expect other people to take care of them!," the grandmother said, then adding to whoops of approval in Section 107, "I am so disgusted with this Obama bullshit!"

Indeed, much of Beck's American Revival was just plain revival, with Beck playing the role of Billy Graham or the fictional Elmer Gantry, depending on your view of the divisive political entertainer.

"Faith gives us an opportunity to start all over again," said Beck, who at one point spoke sprawled out on the floor of the stage, reenacting his lowest moment with the bottle. Before the lunch break, a fan -- later reported to be OK -- in the upper deck fell and required medical attention, and as doctors in the house raced to the spot, Beck and economic commentator David Buckner led the throng in a softly sung "Amazing Grace." It was a moment he reenacted when he took the stage for his keynote, choking back copious tears as he said, "I love you guys."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by MagCynic (March 28, 2010 9:33 pm ET)
      4 51
      Let me first say that I'm not a big religious guy so I generally ignore everything Beck says about religion. With that aside he IS absolutely correct about the debt problem.

      There are two things we can do. One, pretend there is no problem, continue to grow the debt, and hope that we don't end up like Spain or Greece. Two, we realize the folly of continual debt growth and do something to pay it down. The ONLY WAY TO PAY IT DOWN is something like Beck is suggesting. Pain. The things that are necessary to pay down the debt will take great sacrifice from everybody in this country. There is no other way to solve the debt problem. Period. And if you don't solve the debt problem then we will eventually be finished as a country.

      Now, despite the reality of what I just said, go ahead and bring on the insults and thumbs down.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 28, 2010 9:47 pm ET)
        30 1
        It's amusing that you don't merely reject tax increases on the rich, you aren't even aware it's an option.

        If you don't like that option, remember what Beck taught about pain.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 28, 2010 10:04 pm ET)
        23 3
        "Now, despite the reality of what I just said, go ahead and bring on the insults and thumbs down."
        In other words, you're just trolling, and I don't make accusations of trolling unless there's form of admission, such as your last sentence.

        Pain? With large-scale tax reductions to a rate of about 12 percent? Sounds more like Becky's trying to sell relief, albeit in the form of snake oil.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by sodium (March 29, 2010 10:05 am ET)
          14  

          "magCynic said: " Now, despite the reality of what I just said, go ahead and bring on the insults and thumbs down."


          pete5921 said; "In other words, you're just trolling, and I don't make accusations of trolling unless there's form of admission, such as your last sentence."


          LOL! Damn straight Pete! Kudos on a great post, I was about to say the exact same thing but you beat me to the post!
          Report Abuse
      • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (March 28, 2010 11:39 pm ET)
        15  
        I have never doubted that deficit reduction would be a painful process.
        I believe that it will include spending cuts and tax increases. The same would apply to entitlement program reforms to make them solvent. It is a reality. I would pay more in taxes towards deficit reduction. Spending cuts are more complicated as they will inflict pain that is more specific and devastating to individuals and harder to spread out their impact. Sooner or later the words need to come from our leaders. And they likely will be punished for it when they do.
        The private sector that does the bulk of business with the government (contractors) are going to have to sacrifice some profits too. Is any company or corporation willing to share the pain? Will our neo-liberal economics be able to adapt?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (March 28, 2010 11:50 pm ET)
          9 1
          Before anybody jumps in my sh!t, please Google or Wiki neoliberalism
          If you follow my link, you must read "The Washington Consensus" near the bottom. It is the template for the 2008 financial crisis.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 29, 2010 6:49 pm ET)
          9 1
          Personally, I have no objection to paying higher taxes, but it's well known that many Americans want to maintain the same level of services without paying more in taxes. This is unrealistic, but it is a common attitude here in GA. Any politician here who even mentions the words "tax" and "increase" together immediately comes underfire. Many Americans don't understand that tax increases, when used properly, can help to reduce the deficit. What Beck is proposing is a complete collapse of the American economy that will have a very negative effect on the global economy. We know that he's a clown, so whatever in the world would lead anyone to think he has even a basic understanding of economics?
          Report Abuse
      • Author by RKAllen (March 28, 2010 11:46 pm ET)
        13  
        Tell me how a representative is suppose to go back to his community and tell people in his district, who may already be suffering, that future suffering is coming. Greater suffering. Intentional suffering.

        Tell me how a person who is trying to get elected sells this product to his constituents.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by oscar the grouch (March 29, 2010 12:19 am ET)
          3 8
          The problem is that they are afraid they can't be re-elected if they "tell the truth" so we'll just get more of the same. The country has too many politicians and too few statespersons at this time.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by MsYellowDog (March 29, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
            7 1
            Glenn Beck is a "statesperson?" That's the funniest thing I've seen today on the Internet Tubes.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by brodiman (March 29, 2010 12:24 am ET)
        10  
        In a way you're right. The debt must be paid down and to do that the costs of entitlements must go down. The other issue, the larger one, and the one I feel will ultimately bring our country to its knees, is the Iron Triangle that is military spending, 'defense' spending. A trillion dollars a year on a service employing millions (soldiers, defense contractors, factory workers) that could be done more efficiently and far more cheaply by just one or two million. The truth is that with the firepower we have, the nukes, the aircraft carriers, what have you, there is no real chance of a conventional war. Not even if we halve our military spending. Which won't happen because of vested interests. A little cut, maybe 5% at the most, in the next few years. A pittance and a pity considering that the only way this country will move forward is if we take that money currently being lavishly wasted on the armed forces and invest it back in our own pockets, education, health care and R&D. As it is we're screwed. And yet Beck never, ever mentions cutting military spending. Never even mentions how much is spent on the military. Because maybe he knows that some of his fans will be able to see the hypocrisy of calling for cuts, calling for pain, but not from the institution costing us the most pain of all.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by emjayay (March 29, 2010 1:32 pm ET)
             
          Uh, what was it that General Ike said about the Military Industrial (Congressional - he dropped that part on recommendation of his advisors) Complex?
          It will be interesting to see (yeah, I know this is nut job Beck we're talking about) how you cut 40 or 50% of the federal budget without a 40 or 50% cut of defense, because if you leave defense alone obviously there's NOTHING left. That's not how Ron Paul (also nuts) would do it.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by Jeremy Danials (March 29, 2010 2:26 am ET)
        7 2
        [http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c358/Byt3Man/WTFs/troll.jpg]
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (March 29, 2010 10:34 am ET)
          4 2
          Not really. They just keep coming back under other screen names. They don't go away.

          Besides, by this definition, one of the leading "troll hunters" here is a "troll."
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DellDolly (March 29, 2010 2:21 pm ET)
            1 4
            Yeah, thanks for again proving how closeminded you are.

            The problem is the TROLL POSTS that are replied to. The fact that they might come back under another screen name and continue to make troll posts doesn't mean anything - it's their POSTS that need to be ignored.

            How is it that this has been explained to you countless times yet you still don't get it?

            I don't flood this site with excessive posts. Replying to someone is not the same as flooding a site. I only "attack" behavior. I don't attack ANY posters, so you're wrong there too. And I don't make myself the saviour. I make my BEHAVIOR, behavior that others can and DO emulate, the saving grace of ignoring trolls.

            So, no, these characteristics don't fit me. But thanks for again providing evidence that your kneejerk reactions and personal animus don't allow you to be a fair person WRT me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by captain_mike (March 29, 2010 4:23 pm ET)
              4 1
              [http://img532.imageshack.us/img532/4594/kf88fmln.jpg]

              There IS no problem except the fact that you and one or two other self styled (and self important) "troll busters" would prefer that the only comments made in these comment threads were of the me-too me-too variety. Some people disagree, some more intelligently than others. Because you disagree with someone or don't think their disagreement is well considered or thought out, does not make them a troll. This is NOT a fourth grade classroom where someone who is disagreeing or disagreeable needs to be slapped down and quieted so they don't waste the limited amount of classroom time available. If people want to engage others in discussion generated from the original articles, even if that discussion moves in a natural way and often morphs from the original narrowly focused beginnings, then so be it and who on Earth do you think you are to limit that discussion to what YOU deem is appropriate.

              If you don't like a post, or the thread that it splits off from the original discussion, then for heaven's sakes exercise a little self control and just don't read it.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (March 29, 2010 4:51 pm ET)
                2  
                But that's so hard to do when the OCD disorder compels a person to react to something that simply isn't the way it's supposed to be. So when caught red handed acting as a self appointed hall monitor, the person must then proclaim that they aren't doing what everybody sees them doing. Or they simply claim that what they are doing is a mere service. A service being done for the common good. I mean, without certain posters here, who would protect us from "bad behavior?"
                Report Abuse
              • Author by mrhebert74 (March 29, 2010 11:33 pm ET)
                2  
                This is NOT a fourth grade classroom where someone who is disagreeing or disagreeable needs to be slapped down and quieted
                Slapped down, yes. With argument, of course. Quieted, no. They can decide for themselves when to stop demonstrating their foolishness. But I feel compelled to point out that when it comes to certain wingnuts' spelling, sometimes it is a fourth-grade classroom.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by mrhebert74 (March 29, 2010 11:04 pm ET)
              3  
              The problem is the TROLL POSTS that are replied to.
              No, DellDolly. That's what makes MMFA's comments section SO MUCH FUN! But you know how to kill the buzz, don't you.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by achrispage6992 (March 30, 2010 7:01 am ET)
                1  
                Of course not, it's so much more fun to get a bunch of people together (who agree with each other) and then have them openly agree on various subjects. Seriously, who likes debating issues with people?
                Report Abuse
            • Author by OTP (March 30, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
                2
              are you out of your mind, dully? that cartoon fits you to the tee??? hahahahahaha
              Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 30, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
            2
          Hmmmm dully must have a new moniker....
          Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 29, 2010 8:57 am ET)
        14  
        Lowering taxes will increase the deficit. Cutting spending will harm the economy. This plan is b*llsh!t and you're as ignorant of fiscal matters as Beck is.

        Do we need to cut spending? Sure. Curtail it, at least. But we'll need to RAISE taxes as well. And doing those together WILL hamper the economy (doubly so) and thus should not be done until the economy is on some damned strong footing. In the meantime, deficit spending is what's going to get it there.

        You can't fix the deficit without harming the economy, and anything the government does to help the economy will increase the deficit. This is a ECONOMIC and FISCAL FACT and anyone who says otherwise has no idea what they're talking about. What's more, lowering both taxes and spending IN UNISON will still cause net HARM to the economy. So Beck's plan will HARM the economy and be DEFICIT NEUTRAL at best.

        Nice plan, poindexter. Why don't you just try praying. THAT might help. </sarcasm> This "plan" is about rich people grabbing and keeping more money, nothing more. It won't help the country one, miscroscopic, bit.

        ------------------------------------------------------------
        Sincerley,
        Niceguy Eddie
        MBA, U of M, with honors.


        (I've stated that just to contrast to Mr. Beck who graduted from Immaculate Conception Catholic School - with a HS Dimploma.)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fishgirl26 (March 29, 2010 10:20 am ET)
          8  
          Well duh! While Beck accuses FDR of being a nazi his policies still apply today. Strong gov't spending will get our footing back and then we raise taxes to help bring down the deficit. Surely Mr. Beck remembers the Clinton balance budget act that Mr. Boehner said would bring the country to it's knees (Mr. Boehner needs to get out of the soothsaying business because he SUCKS at it) and those policies balanced the budget. Oh right, Glenn was too busy being a shock jock w/ his brains gone due to drug use..maybe he doesn't thought on second thought. I don't have a college degree but I'm smart enough to know that Mr. Beck's policies go the wrong way.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 29, 2010 1:41 pm ET)
            9  
            Actually I LOVE Representative Boehner! He's like the gift that keeps on giving! (To the Democrats, anyway.)

            Is it just me, or does he look and sound like he'd smell like Scotch? It's like he always just came from the bar! Plus, every time he opens his mouth, he actually makes his own party and positions and policies sound WORSE.

            I LOVE THAT GUY!

            ----------------------------------------------------
            LOL
            Report Abuse
        • Author by poproxx77 (March 29, 2010 11:53 am ET)
          1 16
          George W Bush
          MBA, Harvard Business School

          John W Snow
          PH.D Economics
          Univ of Virginia

          Henry Paulson
          MBA, HArvard Business School

          So you are implying a college degree makes you smarter and more capable than Glen Beck. Well in that case, George Bush, John Snow, and Henry PAulson are all smarter than YOU. Harvard is a far better school than the U of M. Your creditials don't mean a thing. College degrees are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and they certainly don't imply you are smarter than someone else because you have one. Liberal Elitism-a college education makes you better than someone else, you are delusional.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 29, 2010 12:13 pm ET)
            13 1
            Excuse me, but listing George W. Bush does not give your pontificating any credibility.

            Furthermore, this is an article about Glenn Beck, who has no known economic training at all. Why are you straying from the topic, only to point out the horrible example of Bush?
            Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (March 29, 2010 7:13 pm ET)
                6
              Niceguy used his education credentials as evidence of his superior understanding of economics. Beck's lack of formal education, by Niceguy's estimation disqualifies him from an equal understanding of economics.

              I was simply pointing out that by Niceguy's own comparison, each of those I listed, are smarter than Niceguy, including George W Bush. Thanks for your comment though.

              Report Abuse
              • Author by political_left-religious_right (March 30, 2010 9:36 am ET)
                1  
                Fair enough, but we only have it on your say-so that Harvard Business School is better than UM's. Furthermore, Eddie graduated with honors, which even Bush's most ardent admirers wouldn't try to claim for him.

                The records show that Bush was not possessed of a great, or even average, intellect (at least compared to other presidents), in economics or anything else. When Eddie puts together coherent sentences, he's already demonstrated he's smarter than Bush.

                If it makes you feel any better, I believe you're smarter than Bush as well, not that that's saying very much.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (March 30, 2010 10:56 am ET)
                    2
                  Here is U.S News ranking of top Universities in the WORLD.

                  I'm not sure which U of M nice was talking about. But if you notice HArvard is considered #1.

                  This is from the Financial Times ranking of MBA programs.

                  In this case, Harvard was ranked 3rd. Despite president Bush's father, it is still quite the accomplishment.

                  Like I said, I'm not sure what U of M Nice went to, but Harvard is still the best of the best. I can't disregard Bush's constant propensity to look a fool in the public spotlight. However, Niceguy wasn't comparing public speaking or conveying a message to an audience, he was comparing education credentials, and in his own humble opinion, Bush is smarter than him.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 30, 2010 10:31 am ET)
                3  
                You're putting words in my mouth. 'Round here we call that a strawman.

                I don't have to be "smarter" than Beck to know he's WRONG.

                But, yes, I WILL take the word of a PhD or Master's Degree holder over the word of the average HS Graduate ANY DAY. It's not about being "smarter" it's about being "educated."

                Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. My Degree only suggests that I have been taught, and my Grades only imply that I learned a thing or two from it. Beck's position, OTOH, is one of ignorance. Whether his ignorance is the result of circumstance or choice matters very little to me, because the point remians: he's wrong on his basic facts.

                PhD's can be proven wrong, as can I - both in fact happen all the time. But that takes more WORK, and more KNOWLEDGE, than is required to disproove the raving of a nimrod like Beck. His understanding of economics is about that of your average high schooler. And the last time I checked, Macroeconomics was not a required course for a HS diploma. The words he says and the policies he espouse are crafted by others who are far more knowledgible, yet no more altruistic, than he is.

                He didn't get a TV show because of his vast wealth of knowledge. He was given the show because powerful people with a certain agenda found that he could be PERSUASIVE. And while that made him useful, it doesn't make him RIGHT. You're a good example of this: He has pursuaded you to believe that which is, in fact, WRONG. (And can, in fact, be proven thus.) And he has done this because it serves the purpose of the people who sign his paycheck.

                ----------------------------------------------
                It's that simple.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (March 30, 2010 11:56 am ET)
                    4
                  Oh the strawman rebuttal.

                  "You're putting words in my mouth. 'Round here we call that a strawman."

                  Not at all, your lack of clarification left one to interpret your point. (However, a nimrod, is definitely considered as a stupid person. So you are still sending mixed messages.)

                  As far as Beck being wrong on "HIS BASIC FACTS", his Ideas are not new, nor are they fanciful creations of his own mind. They are based on the basic priciples of capatilism, Friedman, Adam Smith, Say, Ricardo, and Mills.
                  Beck hasn't suggested anything that hasn't been suggested before, he has not introduced any new philosophy, or any incorrect philosophy. What he has prosed is a radical fix to what he sees as the greatest calamity facing the United States.

                  Perhaps it would work, perhaps it won't. I can tell yo for a fact that what we are doing now is completely unsustainable. Depsite Geithner's proclamation that the U.S. economy is invincible. (That is stpudity, not ignorance.)

                  "You can't fix the deficit without harming the economy, and anything the government does to help the economy will increase the deficit."

                  Beck understands that cutbacks and reduced government intervention will be difficult and the economy would retract and has said as much. He agrees with you, and you with him actually. He wants the government to stop trying to fix the economy and increasing the deficit.

                  You seem to think that putting everything on a credit card until we get a better job is better than, cutting expenses. Keep the cable, keep the internet, keep the cell phone, keep the Mercedes, we still have AMEX, Discover, and Visa lending us money. Unfortunately there isn't likely to be a job that will pay enough to ever pay back the bills.

                  Beck and I would agree that deficit spending is necessary sometimes. That time has now passed.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 30, 2010 5:58 pm ET)
                    2  
                    Here's the problem: We were perfectly sustainable under Clinton, and on a path to actually paying off the DEBT, let alone the DEFICIT. And the economy was doing just fine despite the higher level of taxation (and even a lower level fo spending!) And that's the key point where Beck and I disagree. I'll give you the spending cuts, but if you CUT TAXES as well:

                    1) You reduce your deficit reduction to almost nothing. So... what's the point?

                    2) The ecocnomy will still not GROW as a result unless the tax reduction is larger than the spending reduction, and THAT will INCREASE the deficit. So, again... WHAT'S THE POINT?

                    THAT'S what makes it WRONG, and what makes all the pain he's proposing POINTLESS.

                    Why do you people never wnat to consider going back to a Clinton-era level of taxation? I don't recal the economy being stifeld then

                    Why not end the two wars we're in? Bring the troops home? Why not cut DEFENSE spending? You could save billions there whilest sausing far less economic harm, and having far less impact of large numbers of people's lives, than cutting other things would.

                    And what's WRONG with the Gov't investing in the economy? Why is cutting taxes for econmic stimulus reason any less of a vice than spending for the same reason? (Aside for the fact that you get more bang for your buck with spending, that is!) Green Energy could be as tranformative for Obama's economy as the Internet was for Clintons. You don't get anywhere if you do nothing but serve the entrenched interests and the status quo.

                    So you're right: Beck's ideas are not new. (Which is pretty much as I said.) They're the same ineffective RW garbage that's been kicked around for awhile now.

                    There's a REASON the gov't doesn't want to cut spending - or raise taxes, for that matter: They're not in the CAUSING PAIN business. Are we sustainable? No way. I agree iwth you 100% there. But cutting spending and CUTTING taxes won't help anything. If you want to cut spending and RAISE taxes? FINE. That will cause MORE PAIN, but at least it will accomplish something, in terms of the deficit and debt.

                    But... as I said: get the economy on REALLY SOLID FOOTING first. (Which is the LAST THING the Republicans want to have happen, BTW!)

                    ----------------------------------------
                    Clinton had it all figured out and Bush screwed it all up. I'm sorry, but it's pretty hard to dispute that.
                    Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 29, 2010 1:38 pm ET)
            11  
            If you'd like to elaborate on Doctor Snow's or Mister Paulson's economic plans (and I, for one, understand why the tarp was necessary, so while Mr. Paulson could have been more diplomatic and politically astute in how he presented it, he was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in his postion) I'd love to hear how YOU think they'd work. These two men may indeed be smarter than me, but I'm not arguing with them, I'm arguing with YOU and with MISTER BECK - both of whom have shown that they have little to no grasp of economic and fiscal reality.

            As for President BUSH? Puh-lease. If my daddy was a U.S. Senator, CIA Director, Diplomat, Future VICE-PRESIDENT and FUTURE PRESIDENT, etc... I would have gone to Harvard and Yale as well. Unlike Bush, I had to EARN my way, and WORK for it. Also unlike like Bush I graduated at the top of my class. C's from Harvard are NOT worth more than A's from U-Mich. They just COST more. If Bush (or his economic theories) was worth a damn, would you mind explaining what the hell happened to the economy during his eight years in office? The 'good times' didn't even make it halfway through his second term. Real "long term" visionary, that one!

            And BTW, that's not a "college degree," it's a GRADUATE (MASTER'S) DEGREE. If you think that's been so devalued that it's somehow worth no more that Glenn Beck's HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA...? Well... I wish you lots of luck in whatever entrepreneurial venutres you pursue, becuase you sure as hell won't get very far working for anyone else for a living!

            ------------------------------------------------------
            "Liberal / Elite / Education" Bashing = Typical Conservative celebration of ignorance.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by anon91 (March 29, 2010 2:32 pm ET)
                 
              Sir, you are as arogant as you are ignorant. About Harvard MBA program. That program is not typical of any other college MBA program. The grades are based off of the best grade in the class and they only issue so many of each grade. In other words, an A at the Harvard MBA program is much, much harder to get than an A at any other school. Your A is comparable to a C at Harvard. That is why the fail rate is so high. A large number start the program and only a small number actually get the MBA. So stop insulting a Harvard MBA grad. There is a reason why Harvard is the number 1 MBA program in 2009 rated by Forbes.

              What he was saying is don't think just because you are college educated that your smarter than others. After all, it is people with attitudes just like yours that put the USA in the spot that it's in today. What a great job they all did. Our founders on the other hand, self educated for the most part. Mostly farmers that liked to read. And I would argue that they created the best form of government the world has ever seen. They at least created the longest and most stable government in world history.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by poproxx77 (March 29, 2010 7:38 pm ET)
                5
              I don't need to elaborate on either John Snow or Henry PAulson's economic plans, or views. There is a clear historical precedent illustrating the views of each. Both are clear fiscal conservatives. John Snow was an advocate of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which reduced taxes to increase employment. Henry Paulson had similar views, and still beleives the deficit is the most important problem facing the nation today.

              Market Watch on Paulson. Paulson may have been key in the bailout of big banks, but it was a last resort. Paulson's bailout was much different than Obama's.

              "I'm arguing with YOU and with MISTER BECK - both of whom have shown that they have little to no grasp of economic and fiscal reality."

              Really now? Do you work for Ford Eddie?





              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (March 30, 2010 7:31 am ET)
                1  
                Really now? Do you work for Ford Eddie?

                Huh? WTH is that supposed to mean?

                -------------------------------------------
                ???
                Report Abuse
                • Author by poproxx77 (March 30, 2010 11:57 am ET)
                    1
                  Sorry, I think i responded above.

                  I was curious, you say you work for the Auto industry, and I wanted to know if it was for Ford.
                  Report Abuse
      • Author by ptluzzi59 (March 29, 2010 9:58 am ET)
        6  
        ya his plan is cut SS, medc/medc ,public schools he wants only to fund def spending. he made his money so he doesn't want to pay taxes now so the rest of us have to suffer so that he doesn't have to give any of his money for taxes. i dont understand why people cant see right through him
        Report Abuse
      • Author by doggeddem (March 29, 2010 10:19 am ET)
        11  
        We have a debt problem because of deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy. When Ronald Ray-gun came in, he deregulated banking and cut taxes. The results were that the national debt tripled and the government had to spend $500 billion to bail out the Savings and Loan industry which had engaged in risky investments that were never intended to be part of their business models. Sound familiar? Bush comes in with a budget surplus of $250 billion surplus before his first fiscal year begins and what does he do? He goes to work immediately to give tax cuts to the wealthy. He tripled the national debt, deregulated the banks even more and we wind up with another recession, nearly depression and have to spend $750 billion on banks who had engaged in risky investments that were never intended to be part of their business model. And what is the repubschmuckian response to fiscal reform for the banks? We can't do that, because that is just not what their Wall St. benefactors want.

        Beck's maniacal appeal for absolute power is based on the same old snake oil Ray-gun used. Trickle down economics that have proved time and again not to work at all. The real solution is not to cut taxes by using this regressive form of taxation, which only rewards the wealthiest and punishes the poorest. Rather the solution is to repeal the Ray-gun tax cuts. Increase the tax rates to at least 50% for the top income earners. Those who make over $3 million per year should pay that rate, and the loop-holes that allow billionaires like Donald Trump to claim he only makes $20,000 per year, should be eliminated. Raise the revenues to fund the government and pay down the debt and then you have a healthy and thriving economy. That was how it was in the 50's and 60's.

        When Clinton raised taxes in the early 90's, he set the country on a track that created the longest peace-time expansion in history, created 23 million new jobs, reduced crime and poverty, and began a sustained decline in the deficits until for the last three years of his second administration the national debt was not only going down, but on a path that would have eliminated it entirely by 2016. Had that been done, we would have saved $300 billion per year in interest payments to foreign banks. If you feel as though you have been insulted, that's probably because sometimes the truth just hurts.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by anon91 (March 29, 2010 2:40 pm ET)
             
          you fail to mention that the expansion of the econonmy was due to the dot com explosion in the 90's. You also fail to mention the raising of taxes by Bush senior that cost him his reelection. And you also left out the crash of the economy in the late 90's early 00's due to the crash of the dot com. I'm not saying that Clinton didn't also do some stuff right but he was as lucky as he was smart in his policies. You should really provide the whole picture.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by erock33 (March 29, 2010 11:13 am ET)
          18
        I find the comments by everyone on this site, and just the site in general, to be hilarious and pathetic (makes good entertainment). On the slightly left side you have those saying that spending is out of control and that we need to raise taxes (although after Bush II cut taxes we had the largest revenue gains in history, look it up at the IRS website). Then on the extreme left we have those that say government is the only way, the saving grace of the country. Keep spending and raise taxes to finance that spending. My guess is that these are the same people with thousdands of dollars in debt on credit cards that keep the premium channels on the satellite service, highest options on their cell phone, and eat out for every meal while railing against their credit card providers for being heartless and not understanding they can't make the payments.

        Most comments are from people who support socialsim whether they believe it or not, or just do not understand the term.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by ptluzzi59 (March 29, 2010 11:21 am ET)
          7  
          i find you comments to be hilarious and pathetic (makes for good entertainment)yes the cc company's are saints and you and beckie have all the answers. you sir are pathetic.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Daryl McCullough (March 29, 2010 11:55 am ET)
             
          Yes, federal revenues went up as a result of the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts. But deficits skyrocketed. So what's your goal: to increase revenues, or to cut deficits?

          Cutting taxes without corresponding spending cuts is stimulative. That's good old Keynesian economics at work. It's not the most effective way to stimulate the economy, but it works.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 12:20 pm ET)
          8  
          "after Bush II cut taxes we had the largest revenue gains in history, look it up at the IRS website"

          This is a rare find -- a conservative that expresses an interest in reality. Being completely wrong is secondary.

          Bush's tax cuts cratered revenue at under 2 trillion until his second term, when revenue climbed to 2.5 trillion before Bush's economy cratered it again.

          By contrast, tax-raising Clinton's revenue climbed steadily from 1.1 trillion to 2 trillion throughout his presidency.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by doggeddem (March 29, 2010 1:20 pm ET)
          6  
          You posted no refutation of the facts posted in my reply to the Beckian idol worshipper. If revenues were so swell under bush, why was there a tripling of the national debt? What proof do you have that revenues were raised other than "look it up". Either prove your case or admit that you have nothing but generalities and stereotyping about who those who have something to say about this dangerous flamethrowing alcoholic on FAUX News, we distort, we crap all over democracy, to support your case. You don't know me or any of the others who are taking to task the absurd advocacy of already disproved failed economic theory that tax cuts for the wealthy lead to propserity, and deregulation will lead to streets paved with gold. Trickle down economics don't work. They in fact harm the country. And all you can do is make assumptions about people who want a return to a time when corporations weren't allowed to drive everyone else into the company store so they could get by on a bare subsistance. Screw the rich. Screw the sycophants who have been brainwashed by them. If that means you, then I guess you know what you can do.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by erock33 (March 29, 2010 11:58 pm ET)
              4
            "The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $410,096) earned approximately 22.8 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 40.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid more in federal individual income taxes than the bottom 95 percent of tax returns."

            Im not in this group, but I, like probably every single one of you, wish I was, my question is.. how much more do you want them to give?

            And those making AGI of 66K and above paid 86% of all income taxes. How do you people sleep at night knowing what horrendous parasites you have become to people who actually produce something in this country?

            And finally, I stand corrected 2004-2006 represented a 20 percent revenue increase, the largest since 1965, not the largest ever, but good enough to understand that tax cuts do not increase the deficit, spending does.
            Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (March 29, 2010 2:25 pm ET)
          7  
          Tax cuts have never increased revenue as you claim. That's a specious argument that has been debunked countless times.

          Trickle down economics don't work either.

          And deficit spending is sometimes necessary and prudent, and when Obama has done it so far, it has been.

          When Bush did it, it was stupid and illogical.

          So, where were the Tea Party people during Bush's campaign if it's really about irrational gov't spending?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by anon91 (March 29, 2010 2:52 pm ET)
               
            you say that trickle down does not work and that deficit spending is prudent. I can show you times in history when trickle down has worked and does work. Can you show me times in history when socialism has worked? Name me one country (and there are lots) that practice a form of socialism where it has worked and their budgets are strong and their unemployment is low. Just one... I know some of you say capitalism does not work but capitalism in it's true form has not been seen in this country since before the 1900's. Since that time it has been slowly changed to move it closer to a socialism. That is why it is not working now. Socialists have been so good at morphing it over the years that people actually believe we practice true capitalism in this country.

            The economy is actually a pretty easy thing to get. It's just that some people want to feel like they know more and get off on feeling bigger than others by using big words. This economy is largely a small business economy and if you do your research you will find that most are not college educated but yet they are what makes our economy go. I guess Mr. Gates is a HUGE failure.....
            Report Abuse
          • Author by mrhebert74 (March 29, 2010 11:39 pm ET)
            2  
            Well Bush is white and Christian, right?
            Report Abuse
          • Author by OTP (March 30, 2010 6:04 pm ET)
              4
            dully -

            PROVE that tax cuts have NEVER raised revenue.... You can't and you can't "debunk" it with anything but shill mmfa talking points... PROOF.

            When Bush did it, it WORKED, EXCEPT for the INCREASED SPENDING BY BOTH PARTIES.

            WELL you are RIGHT. It's about IRRATIONAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING, like the faux health care "reform"....
            Report Abuse
            • Author by Jase (March 31, 2010 12:23 am ET)
                 
              Prove that it has. Any time a republican has lowered taxes, the country went into debt. Your argument has been debunked time and time again. How many times do you have to bang your head against the wall before you realize that it hurts?
              Report Abuse
      • Author by angels4light (March 29, 2010 11:48 am ET)
        5  
        I gave you a thumbs up because you are correct - it is going to involve pain. What you don't mention is who will feel the pain - all Americans or just those who are in the lower income brackets. Lowering the tax rate to an effective (not marginal) 12% will cause pain, but not the kind you think - it will cause serious financial distress for our whole country. Cutting spending, now, that will definitely help. Increasing taxes, particularly the upper marginal rates, will also help - and won't REALLY hurt those in the upper brackets. Adding an upper bracket or two would also be realistic, since the brackets were adjusted a couple of decades ago, back when a million dollars still meant a lot of money. Since then, by the rule of 7s, that single million now means more like 8-16 - quite a bit more than the single million. In the time from 1998 to 2004, I made about half a million dollars, and I was not a doctor, lawyer or business executive - I worked in IT. I thought it ridiculous that I exceeded the FICA cap, and advocated then to eliminate it. I don't think I paid enough in taxes, even when half of my paychecks were taken with it. So cutting spending is not the only thing to do, and cutting taxes radically is a REALLY bad idea.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by friedbergboy1422 (March 29, 2010 2:50 pm ET)
        5  
        You absoutely do NOT ignore what Beck says about religion, Mag! You were a participant in almost every social justice thread that was on this board.

        How can you even rationalize yourself anymore?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by jrundin (March 29, 2010 3:50 pm ET)
           
        Surely, taxing the rich, who have made out like bandits over the last several decades is a relatively pain-free way. And it will probably stimulate economic growth, too. Higher tax rates on the wealthy are generally associated with economic growth in the U.S.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by mrhebert74 (March 29, 2010 11:17 pm ET)
        3  
        MagCynic in a nut's hell: "I'm just a simple caveman. I don't understand economics. I only know that if we don't stop taxing people who can afford it, and stop spending money on stupid stuff like poor people, we'll NEVER make it as a society."
        Report Abuse
    • Author by phredicles (March 28, 2010 9:40 pm ET)
      16 2
      According to the NY Times, it's pretty funny that teabaggers are accusing Obama supporters of being unemployed and sucking at the government teat.

      So, teabaggers, get a d@mn job and quit sponging off the rest of us...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by steeve (March 28, 2010 9:42 pm ET)
      16  
      "large-scale tax reductions to a rate of about 12 percent - which he claimed would encourage investment and growth."

      *groan* We did that already. Not to quite such a lunatic level, but we did that. Real recently, too. Where was all the investment and growth in 2003? Where the hell did it go? We also did the opposite, real recently. Unemployment fell through the floor.

      This is probably a Rush-esque boast, but if we try supply-side theory one more time, I'm leaving the country. Democracy doesn't work if everyone refuses to point an occasional brain cell towards the past.

      "a 'massive' cut in federal spending, on the order of 40-50 percent"

      Please, please, list those cuts in great detail. Perhaps then a few people will start to see why we can't balance the budget on spending cuts. Because millions of poor people actually need the stuff that government spends money on.

      "take your hammer and POUND that truth every day"

      Does that philosophy have five minutes to spare to take a quick glance at reality? You know, just to check if the truth is true or not? Or is that less important than the pounding?

      I can't take this.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by phredicles (March 28, 2010 10:02 pm ET)
        17  
        "a 'massive' cut in federal spending, on the order of 40-50 percent"

        Please, please, list those cuts in great detail. Perhaps then a few people will start to see why we can't balance the budget on spending cuts. Because millions of poor people actually need the stuff that government spends money on.


        You can be sure of one thing: It won't come out of the defense budget.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by pete592 (March 28, 2010 10:09 pm ET)
        10 1
        "Please, please, list those cuts in great detail."
        If he does, he'll probably just pay some corporate-shill flunky from the Cato Institute to cook something up.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (March 28, 2010 10:34 pm ET)
          12  
          Seriously, the Cato Institute has never done this. All this ranting about spending cuts, and not one think tank denizen has ever drawn them up. They can't.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by pete592 (March 28, 2010 11:07 pm ET)
            5  
            Agreed, and I didn't mean to give them more credit than they deserve. The key word was "cook."
            Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (March 28, 2010 10:09 pm ET)
        9 1
        Unfortunately we are in a position where we will not be able to balance a budget on spending cuts alone. not that there are cuts that could/should be made, beyond the military. And they may not necessarily all be cuts, but a decrease in rate of growth. However, government can not continue to grow and grow in relation to GDP, or we will reach a point where we will not be able to balance a budget with tax increases alone either (not that we could now, even). From figures I've seen bantered about, it would take a top marginal rate of around 70% to even come close to balancing the current Federal budget, let alone take care of what is facing us down the road. If, as an example, Lush Rumball moved his "empire" from NY to FL due to high State taxes in NY, what would keep him (and many others) from moving their "empires" off-shore in this age of globabl communications, global economics, etc to the point where there would start to be diminishing returns to the Federal coffers? Then there will be shared pain.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (March 28, 2010 10:28 pm ET)
          10 1
          If our military spending becomes similar to the rest of the world, and our health care spending becomes similar to the rest of the world, and we get to full employment, and we get the top rate to 50% (I want 60%, but 50 should do), I think we'll be running large surpluses. If not, let's get to that point (which is clearly more fiscally sound than where we are now) and see what's next.

          "what would keep him (and many others) from moving their 'empires' off-shore in this age of global communications, global economics, etc"

          I assume the same incentive exists with taxes at 40%, which they're going to be real soon.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by oscar the grouch (March 29, 2010 12:25 am ET)
            3  
            50% won't do without substantial cuts, at least until the debt is reduced and the interest payments can be applied to necessary spending.
            There will be some that move off-shore at 40% (depending on state and local tax burdens on top of that), but I feel the "incentive" to go off-shore will grow exponentially as the rates go up.
            We can talk about the 90% top marginal rates of the 60s, but there were few if any actual taxpayers paying those rates, for many reasons.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 7:36 am ET)
              4  
              Hopefully you agree that we should get to where I outlined. Then if substantial cuts turn out to be the only way forward, we'll see if someone can draw them up.

              But it'll be much easier to crunch the numbers after we're at a state of basic sanity than now.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by usp (March 29, 2010 10:00 am ET)
                4  
                i want to say clinton left us with a surplus. but i also think that the internet boom had a lot to do with that. salaries went way up and taxes took what they did- so i always think- just wait till the next boom. i'd sure like to imagine that this might come with green tech- like if the states started pumping out solar panels or some such thing- mastering the technology that make something like that efficient and cheap selling them to overseas partners---but that' just how i think it could go-
                Report Abuse
          • Author by doggeddem (March 29, 2010 1:30 pm ET)
            3  
            Here's a thought. If you send a job overseas, you will pay 95% of the income produced by that move in taxes. Let's see how many corporations would welcome a return of 5% on that kind of investment.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by OTP (March 30, 2010 6:06 pm ET)
          3
        Yup we did huge tax cuts, problem is we DIDN'T reduce spending.... it takes BOTH tax reduction and spending CUTS, REAL SPENDING CUTS.... not just a "reduction" of the spending INCREASES....

        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 28, 2010 9:49 pm ET)
      18 1
      Unveiling his plan...? Who appointed this MF'er President...? What a presumptuous A-Hole...

      Go back to school and get an education, Beck.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by leftofwhat (March 28, 2010 10:17 pm ET)
        13  
        False prophet out for real profit.Anyone who believes this puffery will get what they deserve..nothing
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 29, 2010 10:41 am ET)
        7  
        Exactly. I do not understand people who listen to a man who has compared himself to Prof. Harold Hill . . . the con man in "The Music Man." He is uneducated and spews absolute BS. He knows NOTHING about the crap he spews. He's dangerous.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 28, 2010 10:18 pm ET)
      12  
      "...said Beck, who at one point spoke sprawled out on the floor of the stage, reenacting his lowest moment with the bottle."

      Yea...I'm going to listen to a lecture about how to fix the economy from from some insane alcoholic sprawled out on the floor re-enacting his lowest moment. For Beck's child-like followers here's a good description of Beck:

      Tent show E N T E R T A I N E R...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jimieli (March 28, 2010 10:20 pm ET)
      15 1
      During FY 2008, the U.S. government spent nearly $800 billion on defense and homeland security, approximately 32% of tax receipts of $2.5 trillion. Wonder where to start cuts?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MidnightWriter (March 28, 2010 10:39 pm ET)
      7  
      There's a part of me that's sorta, kinda eager to see just what kind of cuts he's going to propose.

      We can be pretty damned certain he's not going to suggest making any cuts to Defense or Social Security--and those two items account for a little more than $1.3 trillion of the $3.5 trillion 2010 budget. So, to meet the 40% low end of his federal spending costs he'd have to pull $1.4 trillion from the remaining $2.1 trillion.

      So, what gets the axe, Glenny? Do tell.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by punkin (March 28, 2010 10:56 pm ET)
        6 1
        why.... money grows on trees in Glenny world - didn't you know that?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (March 28, 2010 11:01 pm ET)
        6  
        I'm thinking oversite and audits would simply disappear. EPA, FDA, Dept of Education, all gone. Going back to the Gold Standard will of course make any federal involvement with the money supply uneeded. &...

        He thinks he has teh Dream.
        I think he's just an adult baby with a bad case of the colic.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (March 28, 2010 11:13 pm ET)
          5  
          I'm thinking along those lines, too. If we did do that, wipe them all out completely, the EPA at $10.5 billion, the FDA at $3.2 billion, and the Department of Education at $46.7, that's only $60.4 billion--which leaves us a bit more than $1.3 trillion short of Glenn's Sweeny Todd budget act.

          Of course, I seriously doubt we'll see any actual numbers from Beck.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by usp (March 29, 2010 10:03 am ET)
        4  
        those two items are what most of his viewers have a vested interest in
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MidnightWriter (March 29, 2010 11:02 am ET)
          5  
          And my figures didn't include a few other items that I think would fall into the "sacred cow" category. Medicade at $290 billion. Medicare at $453 billion. The Department of Veterans Affairs at $52 billion.

          Granted, I'm no economist. My experience in that arena is limited to paying my bills and balancing my checkbook. And I, much like our country, have been hit hard by a decline in revenues coming in and an increase in expenses going out.

          But I think that grants me an insight that can be shared by just about everyone who does not fall into this nation's highest tax brackets. How many of us could possibly manage a 40% cut in the spending we do for ourselves and our families without losing essentials?

          Oh, I'm pretty certain this "plan" is more of Beck's brand of bluster and anticipate that it will, on paper, follow in the recently established Republican procedure of offering economic plans that have been cut and pasted from the business plans of the South Park Underwear Gnomes. Nevertheless, given how we've seen so many new Mad Hatters spring forth from a year of Tea Parties screaming about how Obama's taxing them to death after they've received tax cuts, I'm a tad concerned this might be seen as "legitimate" by far too many.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by whatIthink (March 28, 2010 11:09 pm ET)
      11  
      [http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/F/v/2/next-glenn-beck.jpg]
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dmhack (March 28, 2010 11:25 pm ET)
      9  
      Amazing.
      The self-described rodeo clown has bought into his own blather.
      No longer content to rake in millions by keeping the rubes entertained, this monumental dullard now thinks he's actually bright.

      And who do we see right on top, slavishly following the drooling idiot king... MagTwit (why am I not surprised).
      MagTwit, you are even more stupid than I thought.

      But here's the reality check---Becky can write all the books he wants, come up with all the moronic theories his flashbacking fried brain can conjure, but he has no power to make any of it real.

      But, as always, it's lovely to have a multi-millionaire pontificate on what others should do.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Unreality (March 29, 2010 2:52 am ET)
        8  
        My team can invent medical devices to extend, and often save, the lives of cancer patients, but since we aren't multi-millionaire TV pundits we don't have a slavish following.

        We are one messed up culture.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by bintx (March 29, 2010 10:39 am ET)
        7 1
        He's no rodeo clown. Rodeo clowns are honorable, selfless men who put their lives on the line for others. Beck is just a talk radio clown who looks out for himself.

        I am in total agreement with you regarding the Beck-clone.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtejon (March 28, 2010 11:52 pm ET)
      7  
      These people paid $120 and a day out of (the sunset of) their lives just to get themselves worked up over perceived fiscal irresponsibility?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by usp (March 29, 2010 10:05 am ET)
        5  
        they could have bought a partial season ticket pass for the local ball club- going to the park in the sun is way healthier than hanging around this loon
        Report Abuse
        • Author by rtejon (March 29, 2010 11:56 am ET)
          4  
          Especially with all the spring training games wrapping up this past weekend right there in Florida.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by vwcat (March 29, 2010 12:01 am ET)
      7  
      While most of the teabaggers and Beck cultists are living off government checks, they have the gall to point fingers to those who support Obama as expecting a handout?
      Excuse me?
      These people are looney. They believe a huckster like Beck and all that comes out of his mouth like he was God and do not question his insane ideas and 7hours of nonstop Beck ego.
      These people are simply nuts.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Guppies (March 29, 2010 8:47 am ET)
           
        Shows the idiocy of Tea Baggres, 90% or more of The Villages are retirees and collecting SSN and whatever the latest Med Plan is - and they are too stupid to realize their idol's biggest budget cutting target will most likely involve them. They deserve one another, just wish Glenda would move to The Villages for good.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by princeofwheels (March 29, 2010 12:27 am ET)
      6  
      Wasn't it last week when the Health Bill passed that Caterpillar and other profitable Corporations immediately started talking about layoffs to maintain their profit margins. We're not talking about companies that are losing money.

      Now if Corporations are like people when donating large amounts to candidates, I would expect Beck to recommend that these Peocorps sacrifice approx. 12%. Now what are the chances of that happening??? About 12%

      Beck, run for office and quit hiding behind Fox News. Come on Glenn, you can make a difference. Go to Washington and bring your chalk board and your little boys who laugh at your jokes. You know the guys you have laughing in the background on your shows..those little eraserboys.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by pbrauer (March 29, 2010 1:09 am ET)
      12  
      I like Thom Hartmann's solution to the debt - Roll back the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by doggeddem (March 29, 2010 1:28 pm ET)
        4  
        Exactly. Tax the wealthy at 50% and the economy would rock and roll. Thom has advocated 50% as a minimum and 70-90% as ideal. And here is my challenge to any right-wing flame thrower. I dare you to find any one who makes a quarter of a million a year who will pledge to earn less money because he is so afraid of earning enough money to move into a higher income tax bracket. I double dare you to find even one. Taxes are not the end of life as we know it. Yet, all we are hearing from the repubschmucks is that taxes are Satan.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Truth247 (March 29, 2010 1:13 am ET)
         
      Beck says his plan (thankfully he says he had some "experts" work it out) will be painful. I don't think his billionaire friends will find it very painful! Why is it when the right wing talks about people enduring pain to fix a financial mess it's always the lower- and middle=class who have to do the enduring? He's talking to a bunch of middle-class retirees about how confused his billionaire friends are about what to do with their investments. Just reading this makes me nauseous. Suggesting a 12% tax rate and cutting spending by 50% says let's get this Plutocracy started. These multi-millionaire entertainers telling lower-middle-income Americans to cut back because of the mess the billionaires on Wall Street made is sickening. He's an ahole and these poor people in the audience whooping it up while he tells them he's going to cut out their Medicare and Social Security is aggravating and sad. They don't even know he is talking about things that are NOT in THEIR best interest. He knows nothing about economics and his plan is nothing new. It's trickle down economics and the lower-middle-class is America always gets peed on when anyone talks about that.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Dradeeus (March 29, 2010 3:30 am ET)
      5  
      Even if they did enact many of Beck's ideas... Beck himself... I don't really think he'd feel any "pain". He's got a disproportionate amount of wealth, which is not to say it's exclusive to him, but that is a massive problem.

      Do these people know how much Beck makes while telling them he's an everyman? One of them?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by didi (March 29, 2010 8:55 am ET)
      7  
      "take your hammer and POUND that truth every day and everything that doesn't fit, toss it out! We have the truth"

      That line alone makes it impossible to talk any sense into Beck's followers.

      It's a wasted effort to try to educate the willfully ignorant.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mata ruach (March 29, 2010 10:57 am ET)
         
      Is a 100 Year Plan anything like a Thousand Year Reich?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (March 29, 2010 11:24 am ET)
      5  
      I get the distinct impression that he's working on the "me an' my mates have got ours so you loyal plebs can muck in and help us keep it" principle.

      Like many of his ilk, Glenn Beck speaks with all of the self assuredness of the truly ignorant.

      It takes a certain type of ignorance to think that you have all of the answers and that nobody else has a clue. Whilst ignorance may be bliss, that bliss is merely transitory until reality catches up in an undeniably brutal fashion e.g. Global Financial Crisis.

      As George Santayana wrote, "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

      Beck and co. have neither the retentiveness nor the wit and the wisdom to learn from the past.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ptluzzi59 (March 29, 2010 11:28 am ET)
        5  
        give larda$$ a break he needs to come up with something to keep his stupid followers something to think about
        Report Abuse
      • Author by guynamedjoe (March 29, 2010 12:47 pm ET)
          10
        I know what you mean, I drive to work and I pull up to a stoplight and next to me is a guy in a much nicer car than what I drive and I think about how that creep lied, cheated and stole to get that car and I want to punish him to make him give me that car, but, car theft is against the law and I'm sad, cause, I can't take that car from the creep, but, then I realize that Bush is gone and we have people running things now that will punish that creep and take his money for me and I too will have a nice car and never have to pay for it or the price of maintaining it. It's great to have people in power that believe as I do along with most of the people on this thread that the best thing to do in these economic times is for us all to take the creeps money and give it to the poor like me and that way everything will be equal and we'll all drive nice cars and have great healthcare and live in nice houses and life will be wonderful for everybody.
        It isn't theft if you have the government do it for you. What a great country! God bless the U.S.A.!!!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
          5  
          Your post was in response to people who think they should be given free cars. They aren't here.

          I want tax increases on the rich, but I don't want a free car. Is it logically possible for me to hold both those positions at the same time? Study hard.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (March 29, 2010 5:49 pm ET)
            5  
            guynamedjoe is awful funny.

            He's mad at the guy in the "nice" car next to him in traffic.

            What he doesn't understand is that the guy probably way overpaid for a P.O.S. car that spends more time in the shop than on the road, all to drive a car with a certain "name" on it.
            Worst of all he spends way more on the stupid car than what he can really afford in monthly payments and it gets crap for gas milage.

            Yeah, I'm jealous of him too. (not)

            Report Abuse
    • Author by poproxx77 (March 29, 2010 11:27 am ET)
        11
      "Most of the attendees were eager to voice their resentments at the portrayal of Beck fans as either racist or as capable of violence -- but many of them clearly feel rage toward the Obama administration."

      MMFA always insinuating racism. Rage towards Obama doesn't equate racism. Twisty.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by MaineiacMan (March 29, 2010 11:40 am ET)
        10
      I hate to break it to you but he's right.

      We are on the road to financial ruin. The 'income redistribution' or 'social justice' or 'robin hood' agenda of this administration is deepening, not reversing, the financial mess that Bush got us into.

      How do we fix it? All I hear from the left is 'tax the rich'. All I hear from the right is 'lower taxes to spur economic growth'.

      If we dont reverse course quickly...we are setting ourselves up for the end of America as we know it. From Medicade Part D, to stimulus packages, to social security to health care, to cash for clunkers to bailouts and now quickly moving on to immigration reforms foreclosure protections and ultra extended unemployment benefits, it isnt sustainable. Our debt is to high and by adding entitlements we are creating obligations that we can no longer afford. We do need to dramatically scale back entitlements, such as raising the minimum age for collecting social security. We do need to cut back on the size and scope of government. Did you know that DC is virtually the only city in America not enduring a recession?

      Report Abuse
      • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 1:58 pm ET)
        4  
        "All I hear from the left is 'tax the rich'. All I hear from the right is 'lower taxes to spur economic growth'."

        Does it make any difference to you that one of those is objectively better than the other?

        "We do need to cut back on the size and scope of government."

        In due time, but deficit reduction ideas need to be sorted in order of impact and desirability:

        1) fix the economy. All the hyperventilation about the deficit started with that giant meteor Bush lobbed against the economy a couple years ago.

        2) raise taxes on the rich. A giant impact on the deficit without the slightest downside. (Please cite reality when disagreeing with that.)

        3) stop paying double money for health care. It's a huge piece of the pie and the whole world gets it for half price.

        4) drastic slashing of the military budget, after republicans promise ahead of time, in writing, not to attack the patriotism of anyone making those cuts.

        5) eliminate government waste. Always a good thing to do, but near the bottom of the list since it has a very low overall impact.

        6) cut government spending that people need. If we end up here, so be it. But there's a lot to do between now and then.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by MaineiacMan (March 29, 2010 2:13 pm ET)
            8
          Steeve,

          #1 - Fix the economy - How? More government involvement or less?

          #2 - Tax the rich. I wouldnt lower taxes on them but if you think that we can solve our financial mess without some degree of personal sacrifice, I disagree with you.

          #3 - Health care. I'm just never going to agree with you on this.

          #4 - Go for it! Bring 'em home and defend our own borders.

          #5 - Eliminate Govt. waste. Again go for it. Only problem is that EVERY politician since Reagan has touted themselves as some sort of 'waste watcher'....and how much bigger (and more wasteful) is the government now as opposed to 20-40 years ago?

          #6 - STOP EXTENDING ADDITIONAL SUPPORTS....we have gotten to the point where government programs/entitlements are rewarding bad decisions and Americans have lost track of what the phrase 'personal consequences' means. Is this how Obama plans to get re-elected? Hand out as much money as possible to as many people as possible?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 2:43 pm ET)
            5  
            1) Assuming that you're not stupid enough to believe that large masses of people like sitting around getting their expiring minimum-wage-level unemployment checks, there are millions of people who want to work and can't, and the government has the power to change that.

            2) It's a major step on the road, not a solution. It's guaranteed to be a big help with no downside.

            3) The "double money" bit is not opinion.

            5) Bigger is not necessarily more wasteful.

            6) Any additional program should have the deficit squarely in mind. Small temporary programs that boost the economy, like cash for clunkers, are likely to pass the test. Big permanent programs that greatly change the spending dynamic for the better, like single-payer health care, are also likely to pass. Many other programs won't pass.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by bilbo_dies (March 29, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
            5  
            #2 - Tax the rich. I wouldnt lower taxes on them but if you think that we can solve our financial mess without some degree of personal sacrifice, I disagree with you.

            In the words of Warren Buffett: (a moderately wealthy individual)

            If you’re in the luckiest 1 per cent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 per cent.”

            Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.


            Gee, This year, after deductions, etc, I paid over 25% of my taxable income out in taxes. (including state, Soc. Sec, Medicaid)

            Now you won't hear me crying about this because I realize that I have to help pay for the services I receive in this country.

            How about the if top 5% of wage earners stop all the crying and start paying out on an equal level. Some how I think those top 5% will still have plenty left over to pay for that extra bottle of bubble or the extended vacation.

            Beck has made his and now he appears to be rabble rousing in an attempt to hang on to it by stirring up that underprivalaged mass of middle income wage earners.

            Report Abuse
            • Author by MaineiacMan (March 29, 2010 7:13 pm ET)
                3
              This is the battle cry (woops...was that hateful rhetoric?) of the left? Fix the country as long as you take it out of someone elses pocket and put it in mine?????
              Report Abuse
              • Author by EmacsRazor (March 29, 2010 8:00 pm ET)
                1  
                How Warrent Buffett feels about our tax system.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by bilbo_dies (March 29, 2010 8:31 pm ET)
                3  
                This is the battle cry (woops...was that hateful rhetoric?) of the left? Fix the country as long as you take it out of someone elses pocket and put it in mine?????


                  1. It is not a "battle cry" it is a statement.

                  2. I'n not a liberal, I'm a centrist. I have liberal and conservative views.

                  3. Please explain how "Pay your fair share" equals "take it out of someone elses pocket and put it in mine"?

                  4. Fixing the country will take more than tax reform but; it is a start.
                Report Abuse
              • Author by steeve (March 29, 2010 10:16 pm ET)
                2  
                Man, you must have gotten schooled to flee back to the ages-old "fairness" whine.

                We're fixing the national budget, not picking a pee-wee basketball team. Shove your fairness back up where you pulled it from.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by MaineiacMan (March 30, 2010 5:02 am ET)
                    2
                  Fairness whine...lol...you made me laugh because I HATE IT when our kids whine 'no fair'.

                  Steevie,

                  You sound like a "Big Government" guy. We have enough government. Lets REDUCE its size, scope and influence.

                  Just so you know where I come from, I work full time and have a side business of my own. My wife works full time and has a side business of her own. We live in a HIGH tax state. We work hard. We pay what we would consider to be more than our fair share of taxes. We see people (like our 2 kids in their early 20's) just starting out and getting BIG "tax refunds" when they do and earn so much less. As a country we are not only teaching dependence, we are REWARDING it. We wonder what the heck is happening to America.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by steeve (March 30, 2010 7:16 pm ET)
                    3  
                    You steadfastly refuse to act "does it work".

                    Should government be big? Answer the question "does big government work" to find out. You'll find that, among many other things, big government health insurance (medicare) creams private health insurance in cost, waste, bureaucracy, and outcome. (If you want to argue that, don't compare Medicare to the ideal. Compare Medicare to private insurance.)

                    Should punk kids get big tax refunds? Answer the question "do tax refunds for punk kids work" to find out. You'll find that those refunds are pure stimulus and that they provide a much-needed boost on the maxim that it takes money to make money.

                    Your mind turns reflexively to justice and theory. It never pauses for even a moment to look at practical effectiveness.

                    And about your own taxes, one of the following is true:

                    a) your taxes aren't going up, even under any of my plans let alone Obama's.

                    b) you are tremendously well-compensated for your work, you want for nothing, you have a very nice life, and that will remain true after the evilest of my tax hikes.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by MaineiacMan (March 31, 2010 10:37 am ET)
                        1
                      LOL...oh boy steevie.

                      Bog government DOES NOT work. There is no real way to pay for it. Se what Greece is dealing with? At its core is an overwhelming sense of entitlement and government/union jobs that cannot be supported by the taxed citizens of that country.

                      As for government run healthcare, you are going to tell me that the quality is just as good, right?

                      When your life is on the line....head to Canada.

                      As for your analogy on the refunds to punk kids, we are creating and rewarding government dependence and redistributing income from those who work and create to those who dont. Sounds like you like that system.....I dont.

                      Practical effectiveness.....lol...pa-leeze!

                      As for my taxes....I dont beleive "A" to be true so I guess I am forced to take "B" by default.

                      Only problem is, there are not enough 'evil rich people' in America for you to pay for the socialistic, redistributive plans of this administration.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by MaineiacMan (March 31, 2010 2:17 pm ET)
                          1
                        And no....I'm not a fan of Bush either. SO keep that tired arguement in your pocket to use on someone else. He turned out to be a BIG government guy and now Obama is BIGGER government guy. Neither is good.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by steeve (March 31, 2010 6:27 pm ET)
                          2  
                          You can go ahead and shove your morality system, because it doesn't work. Now respond to me by repeating your morality system, because that's the only thing you're able to do.

                          "There is no real way to pay for it." -- medicare is CHEAPER than private insurance, you doorknob.

                          I can tolerate people who don't know what reality is, but I can't tolerate people who can't even stand to look at it. You'll be getting the sharp end of my stick from now on.

                          "keep that tired argument in your pocket" -- you can't answer my real arguments, so you show me how you would handle some other argument. That's helpful.
                          Report Abuse
    • Author by skiploader1111 (March 29, 2010 11:49 am ET)
      6  
      Beck likes to say that America should be "allowed" to collapse economically so that we could build it back up.

      But that is not exactly what he is advocating. He actually want Republicans to get voted back in and CAUSE America's economy to collapse.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by j3161usa (March 29, 2010 12:29 pm ET)
         
      Mr Beck, like limbaugh, hannity, and the rest are like sports announcers overseeing a ball game. They talk a lot of crap, but nothing they say can be of any use to anyone except those of us who are stupid enough to take them seriously. Sure some of the things they say may make sense, but 99% of it is crap. The reason why he can talk sooo much is because he doesn't have to be held accountable for his words--he's not an elected official. None of them are. Until they run for office and get elected their words are crap. At least sports announcers actually played the game, but these guys are a bunch of cowards. Rush limbaugh has all kinds of excuses why he won't run. Look at the end of the day, they are all a bunch of millionaires who will go home better off than 99 percent of the american public. It's easy for him to talk crap cause if any of it were actually policy--it wouldn't affect him or his family not one bit. DON'T FORGET NEWT GINGRICH'S CONTRACT WITH AMERICA, LOOK WHAT A FAILURE THAT TURNED OUT TO BE. They're all talk, no competence.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by tfury (March 29, 2010 12:56 pm ET)
         
      I heard Warren Buffet describe paying taxes after he received the first of three GW cuts for the wealthy. The announcer asked Warren what he was going to do with the $650,000.00 tax dollars awarded to him by Bush back in '03. He responded by saying he would not even see the money and it would go into one of his many accounts. Asked what he thought of his new tax refund Warren stated it would be better to give 6500 people a thousand dollars each then to give him any tax breaks. He said the money would get back into the system quickly and this would generate spending and help the economy. "America is the greatest country club in the world " stated Mr Buffet,"and in order to belong to that club you have to pay dues. The dues are called taxes."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Randall Flagg (March 29, 2010 1:22 pm ET)
         
      Beck has no interest in "saving" America, just building his own fame and wealth. His plea to the people that they must experience pain, and give up things, while hawking a book for them to buy and make him rich, is pathetic.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by grrson (March 29, 2010 3:05 pm ET)
      6  
      I absolutely cannot wait for his book to come out. I bet it's going to be even better than "Those Who Trespass."

      Seriously, for a while I thought Glenn Beck had the potential to rally all the crazies together and do some serious damage come November.

      But the curtain has fallen and he's revealed himself to be some Tony Robbins-esqe motivational speaker who is just shilling for books, appearances that cost $120, and really bad Christmas specials.

      It's one big perpetual infomercial for hateful and confused religious fanatics who need a cause to latch on to.

      Personally, I can't wait for the mid-term elections. I think the GOP is on yet another downward spiral. And, honestly, I don't see that changing anytime soon. They seem to want to stick with what hasn't worked for decades. And their push to basically devolve American society rings so much more shallow and fraudulent in light of the Obama administration's positive policy decisions and achievements.

      Good luck in November, fellas. Pray hard.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by watershed (March 29, 2010 4:00 pm ET)
        4  
        HUGE win for Grrson. Thanks for this.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by cugagcmu805031 (March 29, 2010 7:06 pm ET)
        4  
        Good post. I don't think those on the right have stopped to ask themselves why polls consistently show that Americans trust the president on the economy more than they do members of his own party or the republicans.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by maggieb543 (March 30, 2010 4:16 am ET)
             
          Has anyone talked about Beck's strange obsessions and Mormon prophecy? A writer on a Mormon website gave an extensive review of Beck's predictions being based on scripture in the Book of Mormon - similar to the conservative Christian "end times" with mayhem, riots, and a real battle with an evil one of some kind. His message of getting prepared for this apocalypse in the near future is good for ratings and generating audience but I wonder if people are aware that Beck's theology is very different than that of most of his listeners. I'm a liberal, socal justice type of Christian and just don't get what so-called "Christians" in the conservative realm are thinking.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by OTP (March 30, 2010 6:11 pm ET)
          1 2
          right, show us the poll..... any reliable poll..... bho is down across the board, underwater....
          Report Abuse
    • Author by nick walker (March 29, 2010 3:16 pm ET)
         
      Has Glen brought up the military industrial complex ,as I
      understand , 50% our Government spending goes to this.
      After all It is the # 1 socialized program in the world ,
      as far as total dollars goes......

      Report Abuse
    • Author by jkayej (March 29, 2010 8:00 pm ET)
         
      I attended this event on Saturday. I am black, a woman , a small business owner who is married with 3 children. Attempting to marginalize us won't make us go away. To the contrary, more and more hard working Americans are waking up to the horrendous agenda of this administration. You may accuse of of racism,well, I guess you would look at the color of my skin and maybe have a difficult time doing that- although it hasn't stopped you yet- call us vile names, and yet we know what you don't. This country is failing because of the wreckless spending, the debt burden, the liberties being stolen from us- we instinctively know the truth- and Beck speaks the truth. Unfortunately, in the end, we will be right and you will be left standing not having a clue what or how or why this collapse happened. And your beloved government won't be there to save you with their handouts. You will have to rely on yourself and you won't have a clue as to how to do that. I always try to look at both sides of an issue and yet I can't find one positive thing to say about your site- just more of the same ugliness.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by LGS3 (March 30, 2010 8:45 am ET)
         
      Here's a thought, to get rid of all this party propaganda from both sides, its time to end the two party era. No really, with all our resources available, is worth costs to continue to keep both the House of Representatives and the Senate? I know these are two separate ideas I just threw out there, but consider this, if cut the House and actually gave the people the power to vote for themselves on new legislation, but kept the Senate for checks and balances, we would not have to deal with all this party garbage that organizations such as Media matters thrives on. I know that as long as the those with power have the power, that day will never come, but also consider this if there are 441 members of the house, each with staff salary expenditures of around $1 million each http://www.legistorm.com/browse_by_representative.html
      then the American people could be saving about $440 million a year. I mean if its okay for the American people to get laid off due to advancements in technology and global trade, it should be okay for our representatives to feel the same affliction as the rest of us, in my honest opinion. Thank you.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by R T Karle (March 30, 2010 2:47 pm ET)
         
      You have all missed Mr. Beck's intentions, here. He is seeking power. He is also a very disturbed man. His over dramatic and hyperbolic statements appeal straight to emotion over reason. I am reminded of Elmer Gantry as to his methods. Glenn Beck is a very dangerous man, who, if he does not self destruct, will continue as a demagogue until he is brought to heel. Joe McCarthy learned his lesson from Edward R. Murrow and disappeared into the scuppers of history.
      As to economics: you seem to have confused it with some sort of science. There are as many theories as there are economists. The only pattern that has emerged from history is that expanding economies are healthy -- declining ones are not. If we put a Moon Project level of effort into finding a cheap, reliable source of energy, we will climb back into the world's financial leadership. There are many other avenues that could be pursued, but all must focus on expanding our financial base.
      Report Abuse

my.MediaMatters.org

Login  Sign Up

About the Blog

Feed Icon
  • County Fair is a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web as well as original commentary, breaking news and rapid response updates to major media events from Media Matters senior fellows and other staff.