"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Rich media, poor debates
During last night's Democratic presidential debate, the journalists conducting the questioning asked Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton about how they would "pay for" their health care proposals.
Los Angeles Times Washington bureau chief Doyle McManus began the discussion by asking:
McMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending, and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot of Americans to pay for that and for other proposals. Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past. How are you going to counter that charge?
Obama responded: "I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they've added $4 or $5 trillion worth of national debt. You know, I am happy to have that argument."
Indeed, one wonders why debate moderators don't ask the Republican candidates how they will respond to Democratic charges that they have run up massive deficits through grotesque fiscal mismanagement.
Obama then said that his health-care plan would be "paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent" and explained that "I will give tax cuts to people making $75,000 a year or less by offsetting their payroll tax."
CNN's Wolf Blitzer then followed up by asking Clinton: "Senator Clinton, your health-care plan is estimated it will cost $110 billion annually. You want to tax the rich to pay for that; is that what you're saying?" Clinton responded: "Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year."
When Clinton was finished, Blitzer followed up: "I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans."
Blitzer said, "I just want to be precise" -- but he was the opposite of precise. Clinton and Obama had given precise answers; Blitzer then restated their positions in less precise terms.
Here, let's look at all three statements again, in the order in which they were made:
OBAMA: "Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent."
CLINTON: "Well, let me say that the way I would pay for this is to take the Bush tax cuts that are set to expire on people making more than $250,000 a year."
BLITZER: "I just want to be precise. When you let -- if you become president, either one of you -- let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans."
Both Obama and Clinton had been precise about their plans: Obama spoke specifically of "rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 1 percent" and Clinton spoke specifically of allowing the "Bush tax cuts" for "people making more than $250,000 a year" to expire. Both candidates were precise in their descriptions of who would lose their tax cuts; both candidates precisely described those people.
Wolf Blitzer, claiming to want to bring precision to the discussion, then characterized the candidates' positions in more vague language -- vague language that just happens to mirror the likely conservative attacks on the candidates that McManus had previewed: "[T]here will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans." That is a less precise formulation than Clinton and Obama offered: Blitzer didn't specify who the "millions of Americans" are. Many viewers watching Blitzer likely assumed they would be among the "millions of Americans" Blitzer was talking about.
Claiming to "want to be precise," Blitzer restated the candidates' positions in less precise terms. He essentially adopted the Republican National Committee's preferred (but less accurate) description of the candidates' proposals, and, in doing so, made the candidates' positions less clear and misled his audience.
McManus had begun the line of questioning by telling Obama: "[Y]ou know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you 'tax-and-spend' liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past."
But the Republicans won't have to; not when they have Wolf Blitzer doing the job for them.
Blitzer's misleading performance came just a few weeks after ABC's Charlie Gibson similarly bungled a question about taxes during the Democratic debate he moderated in New Hampshire.
"You're all talking about letting some of the Bush tax cuts lapse," Gibson told the Democratic candidates. When Clinton interrupted to point out that the candidates were, in fact, talking about "the tax cuts on the wealthiest of Americans; not the middle-class tax cuts," Gibson responded: "If you take a family of two professors, here at Saint Anselm, they're going to be in the $200,000 category that you're talking about lifting the taxes on."
At that point, the audience laughed at Charlie Gibson. He was so wrong -- so out of touch -- that the audience laughed at him. And for good reason: As Media Matters documented, a full professor at St. Anselm has an average salary of about $77,000 -- meaning that Gibson inflated the average salary of two such professors by 30 percent.
After John Edwards responded to the crowd's laughter by telling Gibson, "Oh, I don't think they agree with you," the ABC News anchor tried to recover: "Two public schoolteachers in New York?"
No.
According to the National Education Association, the average teacher in the state of New York makes about $57,000 a year. Charlie Gibson thought two public school teachers in New York make a combined $200,000; in fact, it would take four teachers earning the state average to reach that level. Even in affluent Westchester County, home to the highest public school teacher salaries in the state, teachers earn an average of about $81,000 -- significantly less than Gibson thought. (And that data isn't from the NEA; it's from a website dedicated to the notion that teachers make too much money.)
But Gibson wasn't really talking about professors at St. Anselm or public school teachers in New York. As wrong and out of touch as he was on those specific examples, his broader implication -- that the typical American family would see their taxes go up under the Democrats' plan to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans expire -- was even more wrong and even more out of touch.
As Media Matters for America documented, fewer than four percent of U.S. households have annual incomes of $200,000 or more. The median household income is less than $50,000, and the mean is $65,000.
Fewer than four out of every 100 households have the kind of income that Charlie Gibson suggested was common.
You have to wonder how media stars like Blitzer and Gibson have lost touch with their viewers so badly that they think $200,000 incomes are typical.
Charlie Gibson reportedly makes $8 million a year and is paid less than his counterparts at CBS and NBC.
Might that have something to do with his lack of perspective? How could it not?
Charlie Gibson would see his taxes go up under the Democrats' plan. So would Wolf Blitzer. And, coincidentally, they suggest that their viewers' taxes would go up, too -- even though for the vast majority of viewers, that isn't true.
When the Republicans debate and promise to make Bush's tax cuts permanent and cut various other taxes, the star reporters who moderate those debates rarely ask the GOP candidates a simple question: What government services would you cut to pay for those tax cuts?
The double standard is so glaring, it's hard not to wonder if it has something to do with the fact that, while Charlie Gibson would likely see his taxes go up under the Democrats' plans and down under the Republicans', he probably already has health insurance. Whatever programs the Republicans would cut to pay for tax cuts for rich people like Charlie Gibson probably won't directly affect rich people like Charlie Gibson.
Over the past year, as journalists mocked John Edwards for getting an expensive haircut and having a big house, they constantly justified their behavior by claiming Edwards is a "hypocrite" for being rich while pursuing policies that would help those who aren't. This is total nonsense, of course. As an Altercation reader noted this week, asking how Edwards can care about the poor while being rich is like asking a doctor: "How can you care about sick people when you're so healthy?"
And yet, again and again, journalists justified their relentless focus on Edwards' wealth by pointing to his policy positions.
And they ignore -- absolutely ignore -- the personal wealth of conservative candidates who pursue policies that would line their own pockets.
For all the news reports you saw about Edwards' supposed hypocrisy, how many have you seen that tell you how big a tax cut Mitt Romney or John McCain or Rudy Giuliani -- wealthy men all -- would get if their policies became law? Probably somewhere around "none."
This is not merely an obvious double-standard; it's a completely backwards double-standard: one that rewards politicians who pursue policies that are consistent with their narrow self-interest at the expense of the greater good; one that penalizes politicians who act out of concern for the greater good rather than narrow self-interest.
It's a media double-standard that greatly undermined Edwards' presidential campaign. And it continues to undermine progressive economic policies. It continues to play out in debates and interviews and news reports. Conservative proponents of tax cuts that primarily benefit the rich are not asked how they would pay for those tax cuts. Progressive proponents of universal health care are accused of planning to raise taxes broadly, even after they specifically say that they would only repeal tax cuts for those making more than $200,000 or $250,000.
When media coverage of economic issues is so skewed in favor of conservative candidates and policies that favor the wealthy, it's hard not to wonder how much someone like Charlie Gibson would benefit from those policies.
It's amazing to me that the honest, hard working person who listens to Limbaugh cannot see what Limbaugh's real job is. He's there to convince working folks that their interests are the same as the Party of big business.
It's crazy how much loyalty a little, ok a ton of mockery, blame and vilification of liberalism will purchase.
This is actually GOOD. Blitzer and so many other high-profile erstwhile "news" guys are dutifully carrying the rightwing Republican water, posing questions with false premises and bogus narratives of rightwing talking points.
It's GOOD, because the same charges, accusations, distortions, and biased premising will be THE RULE for the months coming up to November. It's just as well the Democrats craft their answers now.
[From a "precision" standpoint, 1% of the 300 million population of Americans amounts to 3 million, the greatest recipients of Bush's largesse.So, it's true to say "millions of Americans' taxes WILL revert to higher levels" ... 3 millions, to be more exact. So, while being technically accurate, Wolf was striving mightily to deceive and mislead the American People ... actually SCARE them into thinking taxes will go up for EVERYONE.]
It takes great strength of character for a rich man to advocate political positions that will cost him money.
Err...don't expect that from these people. They didn't get these jobs by playing fair, educated, rational, or disinterested about themselves.
Great story J.F.! You about wrapped it all up in a nutshell. But of course it triggered my 2 cents...
The gap between the rich and middle class has made it impossible for the average American to relate to all that exists out in their artificial world - not only in politics, but most every other aspect of American culture. And the same is all the more true when you transpose that last sentence to address the inability of these cultural leaders to relate to the Average American. We are watching a disintegration of American politics and culture as we knew it – and it has happened so slowly and incrementally that we didn’t even see it coming.
From sports figures, to pop music stars, to actors, to politicians, to news anchors and pundits – they all have lost contact with their base. Is it any wonder so many of them seem to be going off the deep end – and so many of their “fans” have abandoned them? It all revolves around money.
Not to sound like I am promoting Socialism, Marxism, or Anarchism - but we have to come to grips with the downsides of capitalism. A balloon can only get so big before it bursts. The political fight is already beginning to help level the playing field, and it will only get worse should the gap widen much further. Concessions need to be made before the level of distrust and distain escalates to the point of mass protests strikes and demonstrations by the American working class - or worse yet, violence in the streets.
There is obviously some psychosomatic phenomenon that occurs when one’s head gets too big for their britches. When you start believing that the world revolves around you and your ideals (BillO?), and that anyone unwilling to see things your way are the ones at fault for the world’s evils – I believe you are teetering on the edge. And the element that fuels someone’s “big-headedness” most often is, of course, money. Our cultural heroes are a good example - Britney Spears, Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise?, … - I could go on. All were adored and respected as they rose to prominence, but were shot down like clay pigeons once they made it clear that their heads were a bit overinflated from life in their acquired fantasyland – or who fell into self-destruction once they had so much money they didn’t know what to do with it.
My point is that the exact same phenomenon is happening in both politicians and TV media personalities. What these people should realize, before they have to learn it the hard way, is that fame and (especially) money does not make you a happier or better person. In fact, all evidence I see seems to point in the opposite direction. To find peace with yourself means to be yourself – not something your peers are trying to make you out to be by fueling your ego with fame and your wallet with cash. If I could look at one of these pundits and feel he was “one of us”, I’d have a much easier time falling in line with this whole screwed up system. But when these people have become such “stars” that they can no longer walk down the street – and the only “real world” they know is the studio or their mansion – how can they be expected to relate to the TRUE realities of the people they are trying to reach?
So to all my conservative Republican friends out there who ask me “Why do you hate the rich?” – My answer is, I don’t! I just hate what money has done to most of them. And finally, I suppose I better make it clear that I don’t think all wealthy folks are evil – only the greedy, selfish ones – and I hope that that segment will at least ponder the truth in one of the oldest sayings around, “money is the root of all evil”. You’d think we’d have learned by now.
I agree – and thanks for correcting my quote (but it’s the one my mother always used).
As much as I despise the Microsoft Empire - their stranglehold on the computer industry and unfair tactics used to get there – I always admired Bill Gates for keeping a level head. He did it by keeping a low profile and not flaunting his wealth. He came from a wealthy family and a father who tried his best to disavow any appearance of elitism. These values were passed on to his children, but unfortunately, that is not always the case in wealthy families – Paris Hilton comes to mind here.
Like I said, I have nothing against wealthy people in general – just those who run around with their nose in the air thinking they are better than the rest of us and act as if they can’t be bothered with our struggles, or that we have no impact on their lives. It takes more than just money to make the world go ‘round.
Well, yes and no. They would see their tax rate return to the pre-Bush era tax rate. Small distinction I guess, but not inconsequential.
Your money wasn’t wasted. If it weren’t for the Kucinich’s and Edward’s of the nation to keep the rest of them on their toes, and remind them of the issues no one wants to talk about, and solutions no one dares to try, they might as well all fall in line with the Republicans.
These myths are so ingrained, the "High taxes Dems" who are going to punish the average working person.
At times in my life, living in the Republican loony bin that I do, I would give up on talking to people about reality.I don't like being a quitter, so I'm trying to save items like the one above, and statistics on taxes and income.
As I interact with people on a regular basis with a wide range on incomes (from the guys who work in the field at the company I work for, some making 25km or less, to Clients who make that in a week), and I know plenty on the lower end of that who vote Republican, or don't bother to vote, I've made it my mission to put up with the ridicule that comes from those who are defiantly uninformed.
I'm not delusional enough to think that I'm going to change any trends in my county, but even a few awakenings are nice.And for those who insist on voting to support their deified millionaires, when they whine about the state of things, I can remind them that I provided them with the information they needed. Then I can add "you f*cking idiot".
Hissy Buff uses the "extreme" to try to make a point. Ah, so take the American tax rate to ZERO ... see how long the nation exists.
[HB wishes to ONLY tax LABOR. Owners/wealthy "investors" should be free of any tax burden. Money handlers, Wall Street wizards, and the scion of the wealthy ... their "income" is classified differently than "income" ... as capital gains and dividends and bonuses and inheritance. These things should NOT be taxed. Only INCOME should be taxed! Workers should thus provide a "free ride" to their "betters" in this nation. That's the rightwing goal. And they see it as imminently FAIR.]
The question I have really wanted someone to ask the Republican candidates that are in love with the idea of making the tax cuts permanent is:
"When these tax cuts for the wealthiest people were originally proposed we were promised that this would add jobs and grow our economy. Since that tax cuts has passed we have added trillions to the national debt, cut programs, the rich have gotten richer, wages remain stagnant, jobs have continued to be lost, and now we are entering a recession. Do you still claim these tax cuts for the rich only will somehow "trickle down" to the middle class? Please site proof of your theory."
You ever hear the phrase, "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip"?
There are no negative values for measuring wealth. Once you have nothing - you have nothing. On the other hand, for the wealthy, the sky's the limit.
whenever I am in church with my wife, when they have the silent devotion, i clasp my hands and say silently, dear lord, please give congress the light to pass laws that will make me money and help me enslave those less fortunate than i so i may trod on their backs and oppress them and so gather more riches to my bosom. thy will be done, but especially for me.
MoveOn.org Pushes the Worst, Ignoring Gravel for President
Hi Eli, you and your organization are doing such a disservice to the American people. You and the people who control MoveOn.org are undermining efforts to end the war. MoveOn pushes candidates who ignore the US Constitution and International Law. Obama openly violates international law by threatening Iran with an attack. see video
I realize that this may be too complex for the media to understand but; another question concerning the massive additional debt bulit-up during the Bush years and would continue to grow under any of the Republican candidates, IF one of them is elected:
What would they cut to make-up for the interest on the debt item in the budget that contines to grow and would grow still further under a tax cutting administration.
Change The Ideology
Revive The Fourth Estate
F*@K The Debates
What is the point of watching two presidential candidates bickering about the details of political issues that they both essentially agree on? CNN and other mainstream media have created a spectator sport of dubious visceral appeal that distracts Americans from the root causes of what is destroying our country. A floundering economy, increased poverty, out of control immigration, inferior healthcare and school systems are only a few symptoms of our broken democracy.
The catalyst is a foreign policy that costs millions of lives, incurs massive debt and creates enemies around the world while suborning an ideology of militarism and corporatism. It is an ideology that permits unprecedented corporate influence in both foreign and domestic policies. It is an ideology where election fraud, dismantling the constitution, war profiteering, corruption, fear-mongering, the Iraqi debacle and forgotten war veterans are the accepted consequences of its power. It is an ideology that the American people did not want or vote for. President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s fear of the military industrial complex trampling our democracy has become reality
Now corporations have control of the government instead of the people. Lobbyists are heard while citizens are ignored. The CIA has reign to start wars or topple governments without the benefit of congressional oversight. Only six corporations control the mainstream media and the information the people need to make intelligent decisions about our country’s future.
The Fourth Estate is the most significant casualty of this militarism and corporatism. It is no longer the watchdog of government and business but an advocate for both. Professional journalism, where facts are neither Democratic nor Republican, is all but dead in America. News and information is largely sensationalized, hyperbolized and infused with subjective opinion while bereft of fact and, often, relevance. The guiding journalistic principle of “seek truth and report it” has been replaced with the profit-motivated faux news principle of “fair and balanced”. It is the result of an ideology that is destructive to public enlightenment.
The Blogosphere and grass roots Internet organizations have become the new communications frontier and the best hope for the salvation of our democracy. Public enlightenment is the foundation of democracy. The truth must supersede fairness or balance. One of today’s biggest enemies of professional journalism actually understood it ... long ago.
“Unless we can return to the principles of public service we will loose our claim to be the Fourth Estate. What right have we to speak in the public interest when, too often, we are motivated by personal gain?” --- Rupert Murdock, 1961 --- Reviving The Fourth Estate
You would appear to be someone interested enough to sign up in support of stopping the FCC slide away from net neutrality - they have most certainly stopped enforcing the concept, and have endorsed the telco notion that it is necessary to censor the internet in order to manage the networks. this is a live and current concern, involving a "public comment" pretense by that FCC - the same one that publishes the ideology of the Corporatist as "bi-partisan decision". Here is the link to the easiest way to register your opinion: Common Cause Net Neutrality
I have taken you to the opening, explanatory page, in case you are not aware of the threat that OUR 'net will be converted to a profit tool for the telcos, thus quashing the desire you express to use that 'net as a tool of information. In red, just before the "Read More" header, is the link to act on your desire to "tell the FCC" - which has been done and ingnored throughout the process of endowing the telcos with sole ownership of the internet, and the right to install toll-gates to charge us for our use.
Happy to help!
Sometimes I forget that not everyone here is an ancient culture-warrior, already acutely aware of the massive effort by the Corporations, to stifle us - our individuality, our independence, our franchise, our expression, even our information about the world in which we live - so as to convert us into a collective profit machine. In this case, perhaps, I did remember some of that. I do hope that Common Cause garnered a few additional signatures and comments for the FCC; and maybe even some donations.
"The system exploits everybody," John Miur.
Seemingly capitaism has been though enough occilations that some of its excesses have been blunted. The cycle that progresses from an initial product type or family. Commonly many different businesses suppy in part or are dedicated to the product wholly. Over time the number of businesses involved is reduced in number. There are normal business reasons for this. There are also uneithical actions bent on reducing the number of competitors. It, capitalism, loses it somewhere along this road. Monoply becomes the goal. Its not a good goal. Capitalism doesn't really self regulate to anyone's business advantage, in the end. To produce an regulation model that would discourage monoplies effectivily could be another step in the domestication of capitalism.
we are approaching a monopoly in the news business. huge corporations owning access to the very essence of what our society is about, the free exchange of ideas and the ability of the citizens to make an informed judgement. years ago, newspaper and broadcast companies were entities in themselves. now they are part of huge conglomerates that demand a higher profit, and if they can shill for the best interests of corporate america, all the better. i would hope we always have newspapers. they are an invaluable asset to any country. but a company owning television stations and print media in the same market guarantees a bland, don't rock the boat attitude, and if we need to cut staff to squeeze an extra penny for the stockholders, so be it.
I love all the ranting. It is difficult to take most of this stuff seriously.
However, some of it makes sense, and for this i refer you to someone you undoubtedly never heard of, smedley butler. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
as for the tax cuts, keep in mind we are only talking about taxes on capital gains and certain dividends. both should be taxed at zero.
by taxing capital gains you inhibit people from putting capital into the most productive assets of the economy. if it were zero, you would see capital flow freely from the least productive to the most productive companies.
as for qualified dividends, the corporations pay taxes on their gains, then when given to the shareholders, they are taxed again. this does not happen with s corporations (which are treated as partnerships and do not pay taxes), but it does happen with c corporations which do pay taxes.
the tax code often makes no sense. it grows like an onion. , layer upon layer (that was said to me by ruth bader ginsburg's husband who is a great tax lawyer) when i started practicing law the code took up two books, each about an inch wide. within a few years it was five books. how many now i cannot say.
Anyone who is a pacifist and against war-profiteering is an OK guy in my book. But really, how can the beliefs and teachings of someone who died almost 70 years ago be used in today’s economy and political climate? Even if I believed 100% in his philosophy, what did or would have worked then has little bearing in today’s environment. I’m sure even he would change his mind on a few ideas if he were alive today.
My belief is that capitalism is a great concept and works best when the market is small and growing – like 70 years ago – But the ballooning nature of the beast is such that sooner or later it has to burst or shrivel itself back down to size. This is inevitable and has to happen, so get over it.
I got news for you – You know all those low-life good-for-nothing less fortunate losers that you like to enslave so you may trod on their backs and oppress them? (It sounds better when I use a few of your own words) - You know, the ones you scorn for suggesting that the next President should let the tax break for the wealthy expire (the one that your hero, GW gave you)? Well, the big news is that those people make up a bigger voting bloc than the demographics you are in. Most of them don’t even know what capital gains and qualified dividends are – so why would you think that you could get them to go along with agreeing that money that you, or anyone makes, should be taxed at zero - regardless of how you made it?
I can agree with you on one thing. The tax code needs to be simplified. If a lawyer like you is complaining, you can imagine how perplexing it must be for us ignorant peasants.:)
i just want tax breaks for the economy. yes, I may benefit, but so will the nation.
Are you aware of the actual current economic climate in this country? Real wages have been stagnant for years now, all of our dollars are worht less and less each day and the concept of a credit based consumer economy is proving to be very wrong. That's with the supposed economic stimulus provided by the Bush "temporary" tax breaks.
Am I to somehow believe that without them things would be even worse?
Hissy Buff:
Do you know WHY the tax codes have become so complicated? I'll give you a hint: It's NOT so that working people will know how to handle their investments, portfolios, capital holdings, stocks, bonds, and depriciations. All that stuff is written into the TAX CODES by specific businesses, wanting special treatment (like "Oil Depletion Allowances").
Eliminate the "complexity", and who will howl loudest? Not the vast majority of workers with families who fill out their W-2 short form. It will be those top 10% earners and corporations who will be losing all those benefits they paid lobbiests so much money to have written into LAW for their specific profit.
We have here the odd prospect of a specific type of person complaining about that which they themselves have CREATED.
the tax code often makes no sense. it grows like an onion. , layer upon layer (that was said to me by ruth bader ginsburg's husband who is a great tax lawyer) when i started practicing law the code took up two books, each about an inch wide. within a few years it was five books. how many now i cannot say.
Speaking of making no sense, allow me to rewrite your paragraph so that it does:
The tax code often makes no sense. It grows like an onion, layer upon layer (that was said to me by Ruth Bader Ginsburg's husband, who is a great tax lawyer). When I started practicing law, the code took up two books, each about an inch wide. Within a few years it was five books. How many there are now I cannot say.
There now, that was just ten capitalizations, the addition or deletion of a few punctuation marks, and the addition of a couple of words to make it more readable.
Now, how on earth did you ever manage to practice law, when your basic writing is so poor?
I can only conclude with your own remark: It is difficult to take most of this stuff seriously.
" i made money, had my house remodeled, spent lavishly, providing work for dozens of people. isn't that the way it's supposed to work?"
Wow, keeping all those contractors busy adding value to your personal portfolio. How grand. Personally, I'd rather see that largess being expended on the commons, a physical and political reality that has become relative meaningless in these times of bloated self-interest, courtesy of the Republican party of St. Ronnie of Alzheimer's. I think your remodeling crew would have been just as happy working on facilities that we all could use, rather than your lavishly appointed home, aesthetically pleasing as I'm sure it is.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer then followed up by asking Clinton: "Senator Clinton?....
THAT WAS A CLEAR SWIP AT YOU!
Hillary said; OH! Really!
The huge audience said: Boooooooooooo Woolf!
Much to Blitzer's disappointment, Mrs Clinton and Mr. Obama had a friendly substantive debate and even traded compliments with each other. After the debate the two of them were hugging and whispering in each others ears. Then Hillary, with a big smile, shook her head at Obama as if to say NO or No Way!
I got the feeling he had whispered in her ear, "Will You Please Be My Vice President?"
Blitzer was desperate to get them fighting. He failed!
Beat Those Patriots in the Super Bowl Today!
Congratulations to the Pats for a perfect season. That was amazing... BUT...
They are not the best team of all time. Cowboys, 49ers, Steelers were better, not as consistent, but just better teams. If you don't agree that's OK with me. I like Jr Seau and Wes Welker but most of the Pats fans I know are very arrogant.
If the Pats win, and they most likely will, I'll congratulate my Pats friends cheerfully.
No, Sam, go pats. that way we won't have to put up with the dolphins hullabaloo anymore.
cleven, you mssed the point about smedley butler. he wrote a book called war is a racket. he felt used by the govt making the world safe for american businesses, like united fruit.
Mr. Buffy... I politely wished my Patriot friends good luck before the game had begun! They all arrogantly threw it back in my face... "We Don't Need Good Luck!" Our Pats are the greatest team of all time!
At that point I just wanted to get a Voodoo Doll of Tom Brady and some accupunture pins... But... instead I enjoyed the company of some Giant's Fans. In my heart I was praying for just a small dose of Justice in this Super Bowl Game!
I was rewarded with a GIANT Dose of Justice! Amazing Finish and a historical UpSet!
Way too complicated. How about "why are economies during higher taxes (90s, 50s,) better than economies during lower taxes?"
during the 50s marginal tax rates were very high, there were many ways to shelter income through investments in real estate, oil properties, etc. that ended under reagan. from the time of the great depression until 1950 the stock market was in the doldrums, but with a republcan administration people regained confidence in the economy and the stock market improved. the dow 30 in 1930 was around 250, it dropped in 1931 to below 100, in 1950 it was at 200 and rose during the eisenhower admin to 600 plus in 1959, or an increase of 300%.
from 1960-1969 under kennedy/johnson it increased to 900, or just 50%. in the following decade it got over 1000, but fell to 600 when Nixon resigned. Under Ford it rebounded to 1000, but under Carter fell to 800 in 1979, and then to 500 before the bozo left office.
Under Reagan, the dow rose from 500 to 2700 in 1989, even with the '87 crash, or more than 500%! Under GHWB it rose to 3000 (1990 recession), and that's were BC came in. Under BC it rose from 3000 to 11,500 or nearly 400%, but dropped to 11,000 by the time he left office.
In the wake of the attacks on 9/11 and the ensuing turmoil etc., the dow fell below 8000, but has recovered to more than 12000.
so it's increased 10 percent during bush2 administration?
The Dow under Reagan was never less than 750, making Clinton's economy the best of all time.
Of course only an idiot uses the Dow exclusively as an economic indicator, and the 50s and 60s was a better economy than Clinton's, but your rules don't hurt me any.
Supply-side theory says that the superior economies it generates brings in the revenue, but the economies aren't actually superior. Isn't it time for you to play scientist and abandon the theory?
Incidentally, you illustrate a common Reaganite lie by starting with the bottom of his crash rather than the beginning of his term, to make his numbers look better. The dow was in the 900s at the beginning of his term.
Pundits need an ew playbook on Latino vote and women -- check out this oped intoday's NY Sunday News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/02/03/2008-02-03_pundits_need_a_new_playbook_when_it_come.html