The right-wing media react to Haiti
Tuesday's devastating earthquake in Haiti continues to bring grim news. Estimated death counts range from the tens of thousands to more than 100,000. Haiti's capital and largest city, Port-au-Prince, sustained massive damage: its hospitals -- all of them -- destroyed or rendered unusable, the presidential palace and a United Nations mission flattened. Damage to Haiti's airport, seaport, roads, power supplies, and other utilities has exacerbated the suffering and hindered relief efforts.
Public and media reaction to the tragedy has been swift and in many cases admirable. Record-setting donations have poured into the Red Cross -- $4 million via text message alone. Some 30,000 people contributed another $2.6 million to Clinton Foundation relief efforts in just 24 hours. Much of this support can be attributed to the quick and powerful distribution -- by both old media and new -- of news, information, and photos relating to the earthquake. Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook have been a valuable source of information, as have news organizations that scrambled to cover the tragedy. (The Business Insider has a good round-up of those efforts, with links to several useful resources.)
But much of the conservative media elite has reacted quite differently.
Fox News Channel's highest-rated shows, for example, all but ignored the disaster, according to a new Media Matters study:
On January 13, Fox News' three top-rated programs for 2009 -- The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and Glenn Beck -- devoted a combined total of less than 7 minutes of coverage to the earthquake in Haiti, instead choosing to air such things as Beck's hour-long interview with Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly's discussion of Comedy Central host Jon Stewart, and Sean Hannity's advocacy for Massachusetts candidate Scott Brown's Senate campaign.
Fox News never hesitates to boast that its prime-time lineup draws more viewers than its competitors. But that success comes with a responsibility -- a responsibility to bring people important information in times of crisis. Fox fell far short of meeting that responsibility, instead inflicting upon viewers Sarah Palin's fumbling, bumbling attempt to answer a question about which of America's founders she most admires and continuing its attempts to elect Republicans to the Senate.
Not that O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck were alone in dropping the ball. Christian Coalition founder and former Republican presidential candidate Pat Robertson, host of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, had a rather unusual response to the devastation in Haiti:
ROBERTSON: [S]omething happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, "We will serve you if you will get us free from the French." True story. And so, the devil said, "OK, it's a deal."
And they kicked the French out. You know, the Haitians revolted and got themselves free. But ever since, they have been cursed by one thing after the other. ... They need to have and we need to pray for them a great turning to God.
Got that? Haiti was hit by a crushing earthquake because it made a deal with the devil to escape the French.
Robertson's reaction may seem bizarre, but it really isn't -- not for him, anyway. This is a man who "totally concur[red]" that the September 11 terrorist attacks could be attributed in part to "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians." A man who linked Hurricane Katrina to the legality of abortion. A man who suggested that then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was the result of God's "enmity" against those who "divide" his land. A man who said Disney World's annual Gay Days event would bring "earthquakes, tornados and possibly a meteor."
At least he acknowledged that the meteor was only a possibility. Apparently Robertson's ability to divine the will of The Divine is limited to terrestrial events. Hey, he's only human.
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh did his best to convince us that he isn't.
First, Limbaugh said President Obama would use the Haitian tragedy to enhance his standing with the "light-skinned and dark-skinned black community in this country." Then he seemed to dissuade people from contributing to relief efforts, complaining: "[W]e've already donated to Haiti. It's called the U.S. income tax."
As with Robertson, this really isn't anything new for Limbaugh. He has long been contemptuous of U.S. efforts to help Haiti -- particularly when there is a Democrat in the White House.
In 1994, when Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was expelled by a military coup, Limbaugh opposed and ridiculed U.S. intervention, and claimed the only reason for restoring Aristide was to please the Congressional Black Caucus:
LIMBAUGH: As you know, we're invading Haiti simply because the Congressional Black Caucus wants it. Now the Congressional Black Caucus has got to be given a safe escort once the battle is over because they're going to go in there and plant their flag as in Iwo Jima. The Congressional Black Caucus will then capture Haiti and conquer it from the rest of the world. [9/1/94, via Nexis]
LIMBAUGH: The democratically elected government of Haiti is Jean-Bertrand Aristide. This guy -- I think he blinks once every five minutes. You know, he's -- he's -- he's not -- he's like a cup and saucer short of a full place setting according to all the psychological profiles. But the guy's a Marxist, ladies and -- I mean, he's a Marxist. He's a -- he's a Communist. He has written books, one of them entitled, I think, something like "Capitalism: The Mortal Sin," and so this is the democratic regime that we are implementing down there, or reinstalling because of the Congressional Black Caucus. [11/24/94, via Nexis]
If you're more interested in compassion than conspiracy theories, The New York Times has a list of relief efforts that can use your help.
In 1994, Limbaugh ridiculed Haiti, suggesting our only interest in the nation is "the fact that baseballs are made in Haiti" -- which he deemed "irrelevant" because of the baseball strike going on at the time. This week, he again ridiculed Haiti, saying the nation produces "zilch, zero, nada."
If Limbaugh and Robertson are any indication of the way the conservative media think about Haiti, maybe it's for the best that Fox's top-rated shows are ignoring the tragedy. I don't even want to think about the bizarre claims Glenn Beck would come up with. Probably something about the Obama administration faking the earthquake so they could funnel billions of dollars in funds to ACORN, just like Hitler would do.
Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.
Mr. News
All that matters to them is self. and money.
They are the kind of people Dickens modeled Scrooge after.
These are people who can watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and root for Mister Potter.
------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet it's still not surprising when they DO support charities and volunteer work: After all, the Republicans have been trying to get people to work for free for decades now.
Maybe we should have another state run by the unions like say
Michigan where they are tubeing! Or maybe we should have more
Government agents like in California where they are about to BK!
If is is not in the news, like a million babies killed a year,
86,000 missing women a year, 60,000 hand gun deaths a year and
46,000 choking deaths a year etc, you're not really concerned because
you couldn't feel like your motives are somehow better than those
evil rich republicans!
Far better to spend your time covering Sarah Palin, right Oscar?
~
And you Republicans know how to do this well, huh? Once those old time Republicans i.e. Dick Armey, Dick Cheney tell your Republicans how they should show "compassion" for Haiti, then watch how FoxNews do their reporting 24/7 with ALL of their Americans (Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck, Chuck Norris, Huckabee, etc). Uh, oh. LOL.
because the coverage works you up to a frenzy where you
can be suckered!
On tonight's BO show, Laura Ingraham did everything but say that we shouldn't send a fricken penny to Haiti.
To Laura, apparently the sins of the gangs, the corrupt and the greedy should trump the plight of all of the women, children and other victims of the quake.
Another perfect example of those constantly beating their chest about the superiority of their "values."
She can keep 'em.
democrats are compassionate (in their own mind)!
As for Robertson and Limbaugh, their followers will continue to blindly follow, and everyone else will continue to be surprised at how low they'll stoop.
isn't stooping low is it?
Limbaugh has 20 million weekly listeners. You have no idea what you are saying.
I wonder if some of those conservatives (Rush?) have beach front property in the Florida. I can see boatloads of Haitians landing on their perfect white beaches as the conditions worsen in Haiti.
Would they be treated as a people in need, a nuisance or as potential voters.
I have never heard of this before.
So, a man who did something many years ago that fell under the religious rites he followed supposedly has cursed Haiti forever after that.
Exposed Rush for his distain of the Haitians people in their time of need ,and his HATE for President Obama!
Exposed Robertson for his Understaning of the Teaching of the Son of GOD to bring aid and comfort HAITI and her people !
Exposed Maddows who Politicies the disaster!
All three were WRONG!! WRONG!!
The sad thing is that all day on Fox NEWS 1/15/10, Fox will only use the Maddows part of the segment!
WATCH AND SEE, if I am wrong with this prediction!
So why exactly would they cover it when Michael Savage acted like a normal human being? That's what he's supposed to do. Why would a site like this which is here to be critical of misbehavior report good behavior?
You make no sense.
Nobody cares what Rush says or thinks about Haiti. They care even less what MM thinks about what Rush says about Haiti.
nice trying to back away from your party's mouthpiece.
but you can't back away that easily since you have supported a number of incendiary things that rush has said.
and now that rush's racisim has really shown itself.....you can't pick and choose pal. your stuck with him. live with it.
Because for a long time, people ignored dishonest people like Rush, and it helped the rightwing noise machine! They want that time to come back again.
He is only the leader of Repubican Party.
As for Rush, well who cares what a drug addict thinks..
Also, key word "addict". Obama didn't lie about his use and try to cover it up by using his maid to get him his drugs and then threatening to fire her when her husband's prescriptions ran out.
Forget Faux News, forget Hannity, Robertson, Limbaugh, etc. These folks haven't an ounce of the "milk of human kindness" in them. They are the worst of the worst - ugly Americans.
Haiti deserves our kindess, our compassion and our help. . .nothing but love and work is going to get them over this devastation. I do hope we never experience anything like this here in our lifetimes. Although, New Orleans and the Gulf Coast do come to mine.
It's an inescapable fact... well, inescapable if you know your physics. Simply stated, our current understanding of physics tells us that the more energy there is in any given physical system, the more chaotic it inevitably becomes. This means that is inherently dangerous to be altering how our planet gets rid of the energy the sun is pumping into it 24/7. Now, you can't turn down the sun... there's no dimmer switch on the big glowing ball of light in the sky, despite what you may have heard from the morons on Fox News. This wouldn't be so bad if we would quit dumping millions of tons of weather-altering crap into the air every day. The sad fact is, we have been, and we still are, and it's reached a point now where the chaos we've created has now come back to bite us. The thing is, there's a lag between when we crate the conditions for an increase in chaos and when that increase in chaos becomes noticeable in the form of wilder weather. Worse, even if every human-made pollutant producing machine on the planet disappeared tomorrow, the chaos we already made would not simply go away. Well, not in any way we'd like it to anyways. What's more, chaos in the world weather system will not go away at the same rate the we've been making it. No, chaos in a physical system like the world's weather tends to tear itself apart over a long period rather that simply fall apart in any orderly fashion. This is what you get when you mess with a complicated system when you don't know how it all works and you don't have any off switch: Chaos. You were expecting, maybe, that it would just line up in an orderly fashion for disassembly? Keep dreaming.
All of this still wouldn't be so bad if chaotic systems also didn't have the tendency to tear apart nearby orderly systems as it violently tears itself apart. Too bad for us that weather is chaotic. It would be nice if we could all just get out of the way of the weather, but when has that ever been possible? Short of all of us moving underground and becoming a post-apocalyptic society that never ventures out onto the surface, I'm afraid we are just going to have to live with the mess we made out of mother nature, and it's not going to be pretty. I would much rather that we all get out there and clean the mess up, but sadly I don't have that much faith left in humanity. Prove me wrong, people. Prove me wrong.
Oh, and I'd just like to say to any of my american cousins that are reading this: If you expect Canada to bail you when you all run out of drinkable water, I've got a rude wake up waiting for you. Yes, we have will still water, and no you can't have any. You can all go pound sand. It's nothing personal, it's just that by the time you all run out of water we will seriously need all the water we have and won't have any left over for you. And no, it's not for sale. Enjoy your salty ocean water. I hear it's really tasty, right up until it kills you.
END OF RANT.
Just wait for a hurricane, then rant away.
Whatever your political belief, we all have empathy for those suffering and it is not a right of only the liberal elite.
Robertson and Limbaugh speak to the frustrations of thier followers, but their mindset is not always a mirror of the moderate republicans, democrats and independents that listen to their shows and diatribes.
So, if voicing your vociferous ramblings make you think you are politically intune, by means continue in you limited forums.
And clearly some of us have a much more appropriate amount of empathy than others. Only a delusional fool could think that Rush and Pat Robertson have an adequate amount.
I have already stated that radical right views are a minority in conservative thought. The moderate conservatives, democrats, independents and libertarians understand that a movement fixated in socialist, marxist ideals is dangerous and something our country have fought against since it's inception. That is why the Tea Party is growing at an astounding rate. Neither party speaks for those ignored by political loudmouths.
So, don't try to validate your perverse self-indulgent concepts on the few who profess conservative ideals, but push the same corrupt image to the right as your contributors do to the left.
What are the Marxist and Socialist ideals of which you speak?
You also throw out the "socialist" and "Marxist" talking points and say that those "ideals is dangerous". Fascism is also a concept that our nation has fought against. Yet those on the right have embraced it so much it's hard to tell where conservatism ends and authoritarianism begins.
As far as "empathy": wasn't "empathy" one of the things that the right tried to frame as being a bad thing to have? I seem to remember all these people going on for days if not weeks about how "empathy" could lead to the ruining of America.
I must admit to having a certain amusement at your ostentatious use of sesquipedalianism. But you might want to double check that your own ramblings are a bit more free from some basic spelling and grammatical mistakes. Otherwise the polysyllabic phrases don't have the same punch to them.
Granted, a grab for media ratings prompt many on both sides to direct their ramblings to the lowest common denominator, it's still ludicrous to state a politicial viewpoint as inferior, simply because of those ramblings.
Far more people are centrist in their views and understand the detrimental effects that socialist policy changes will have on our society and the one we leave our grandchildren.
I do take objection to your statement on empathy as one othe "right tried to frame as being a bad thing." That's a broad statement, given the many things that can be said of the "left"'s misguided principles , if that is the term you wish to use for the fanatical liberal agenda as you so freely group a conservative mindset.
Regards to last paragraph, attacks are the tool of the feeble minded. Sorry, I was not more succinct for you.
As for the others, please give some thought to your responses as the author this last reply did. Good discussion!
Also, you wrote: I look forward to reading those actual measurements, measurements devoid of your contributors rampant bias and ignorance.
This statement seems ironic to me. You are ascribing bias and ignorance to media matters. While this article is an opinion article, most of the information on this website is factual, and consists mostly of transcribing what conservative media members say. Another post on Media Matters states that on Jan. 15, the three top rated shows on Fox devoted 20-plus minutes of airtime to the crisis in Haiti, while the three top rated shows on MSNBC devoted over an hour of time to Haiti. Here is the article. I suppose the data could be fabricated, but it would be too easy to expose that type of fabrication as a lie, and that would completely undermine MMfA's credibility, not to mention be the antithesis of its ideals.
Finally, I know that we're going to disagree about this, but can you tell me what socialist agenda is being pushed in this country? And before you bring up healthcare reform, please know that there has never been any provisions for socialized medicine.
I'm really not so much concerned about MM's take on the issue of coverage as I am on the divisive nature of the column. It's just "us against them" journalism. And you are right, it is an opinion piece and one I disagree with.
Socialism, to a degree, is necessary because there is a degree of human nature that ignores the plight of others. We all need a degree of socialism to take care of our sick, elderly and infirmed. That might not be done without some type of societal intervention. But socialism can also be the greatest slave master, enslaving the citizendry and diminishing self-governance and free will. The Social welfare system has done that in some case, in others, it provided a way out. Any giveaway proposal, whether corporate or civilian, subjugate the citizendry. We see that in the losses of jobs through feeling of entitlement, where those jobs go to people of other nations that understand the principles of self promotion and self reliance.
The unbridled administration of the welfare system, the corrupt legislative inclusion of political payoffs to representatives in our legislative bills and any attempt to administer those goods and services best handled in the "well regulated" competitive private sector is socialism.
I really love speaking with thought provoking people who challenge the system. Thanks.
As far as the divisive, "us vs. them" nature of the column, again I have to disagree. Most of what Mr. Foser wrote consists of what the right-wing members of the media said. Mr. Foser also said something that, at least to me, is the most important part to this story:
Fox News never hesitates to boast that its prime-time lineup draws more viewers than its competitors. But that success comes with a responsibility -- a responsibility to bring people important information in times of crisis
This statement is the crux of the argument. Any institution that regards itself as a news organization has an obligation to inform its viewers. Fox News failed in that duty. That is Mr. Foser's argument, and I don't believe pointing that out makes this article divisive.
Regarding your ideas about socialism, you still did not give me any concrete examples of a socialist agenda that this administration is pushing. Your ideas are interesting, but ultimately they are your ideas, not what the government is actually doing. You wrote:
Any giveaway proposal, whether corporate or civilian, subjugate the citizendry (sic)
I'm not sure how that can be true. If someone is given help, say through the welfare system, how are they subjugated? What or whom is subjugating them? There are certain stigmas attached to welfare to be sure, but subjugation implies two active participants, one of whom is controlling the other. I don't see that happening in the welfare system.
You also wrote:
We see that in the losses of jobs through feeling of entitlement, where those jobs go to people of other nations that understand the principles of self promotion and self reliance
Again, I must disagree. The loss of jobs to other countries is not because other nations "understand the principles of self promotion and self reliance", it's because corporations can get cheaper employees. I highly doubt that the reason that GM moved many of their factories to Mexico is because the company believed that American employees had to great a sense of entitlement. They moved the factories because the costs were lower, and GM had to pay less in compensation. They were able to do this because of NAFTA, which clearly is not a socialist treaty.
I also do not understand what you mean by putting well regulated in quotes in your post. Do you believe that somehow regulating the private sector is tantamount to socialism? Do you not see that much of our current economic problems arose from an unregulated system? And those two questions aside, how can you say that regulating the private sector is socialism? It clearly is not. Socialism is defined as a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Regulating the private sector does not fall under the theory of socialism. Maybe I'm missing your point, but I don't see any evidence that socialism is running rampant in this country.
I feel the movement of jobs were for the reasons you listed as well as the mindset of the foreign worker and their willingness to work at jobs considered less desirable. You're right about corporate america taking their production to foreign soil for bottom line purposes. I expect that a portion of the exorbitant cost of production can be related to union, governmental and environmental excesses combined with excessive corporate profit motivation.
I may not have effectively communicated my concern for subjugation. When the basic necessities in life are fulfilled outside the self, the self no longer needs to strive for those necessities. It soons becomes dependent on the benefactor and the subsequent drive for independence and self-governance is diminished or at least compromised. If I can depend on my government furnishing food, housing and medical necessities, the only thing not provided for is my religion. Unfortunately, we as a society attempt to control that also.
My intent was to distinguish regulation from over-regulation. I know that is subjective, but over-regulation can stifle ingenuity. Regulation is needed to stop the excesses in both the governmental and private sector, but a middle ground must be kept.
An alternate definition of socialism ( as defined in the American Heritage Dictionary) is "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy." That is the definition I use in defining a socialist idealogy.
While I will agree that some of FOX may tend to be sensationalistic, I find the same is true of the Chris Matthews type.
Your argument was the best I have read. It is so refreshing to have a conversation devoid of name calling and with abundant thought-provoking ideas.
Let's be thankful this conversation can be done in a country where we are entitled to differing opinions.
Thanks again.
Oh, and your right it is "Citizenry". I have become too spellcheck dependent. :)
"So, if voicing your vociferous ramblings make you think you are politically intune, by means continue in you limited forums." - Patriot
And, why would this same line of thought not apply to you, Patriot?
I have many friends and co-workers of the independent mindset, that have listened to the diatribes of these individuals, but don't endorse or condone their statements.
Or is that only acceptable when you can claim to listen to 20 years of Rev. Wrights speeches, but never hear the racist insults spewed from the pulpit.
I can agree that it can be heard and dismissed. Maybe you should rethink your liberal idealogy.
It appears to me that the right wing is consistent in attacking conscience.
To whom it may concern:
Has anyone considered air-dropping supplies into Port-au-Prince considering the limited ability of ground vehicles to deliver needed supplies into the earthquake affected area? It is my understanding that supplies are sitting on the tarmac for lack of delivery vehicles. Is it not possible for our military to at least drop food/water parcels via parachute if not medics and medical supplies? It seems to me that such efforts would ensure prompt delivery of necessary aid and assist in preventing the possibility of civil unrest. Just a modest suggestion… It worked during WWII. Why not now?
I have already made a donation. What else can I do?
Copied to:
U.S. Department of Defense
UNICEF – Port-au-Prince
www.whitehouse.gov
The New York Times
BBC News
Talking points Memo
Huffington Post
The Colorado Springs Gazette
I think I am going to be my own media machine and start spreading this line as something Beck DID say.
Get a buzz going.
Who would doubt it? Unless Limagugh would want the credit.
You can bet that if Obama had done less as a reaction to Haiti, Limbaugh, et.al. would be launching attacks on his "betrayal of his own people," "lack of compassion," "hypocrisy", etc., etc. The best solution for Limbaugh, et.al. is to ignore them. That's what megalomaniac demagogues hate the most. They can't stand not getting attention.
Healthcare is an issue we should agree on, without the need to create more government intervention and bureaucracies, poorly run at best. Does the VA hospital represent the proper way to take care of our veterans? Doesn't the Social Security administration's failings cause you concern? Backroom politics? Lobbyists? Immigration. Isn't that what Obama was to address?
Meet the new boss...same as the old boss. Bush Light.
The central themes are far more centrist. I am conservative, but don't have allegiance to any party. I would expect you probably have media personalities that you realize are offensive. If you defend them, you are part of the problem.
Lastly, Obama's response to the Haiti tradgedy was appropriate and timely. But you can probably credit the bashing Bush took over the New Orleans debacle.
Good response.
Yes. The VA is very well run. Now, if only we can get the rest of the right to acknowledge as much (as even Bill Kristol has done) and realize that we need this kind of health coverage for all Americans.
Post Office? No longer a money maker... and looking to cut one day of service. Also delivery times have expanded.
IRS? Needs to be cut down to 1% of its current size and make the tax form but 1 page. One of the most bloated unecessary departments of the government.
Social Security? Will be bankrupt soon.
VA? Not even close to being as good as some suggest here. Untold horror stories that I have personally witnessed.
What is wrong with a corporation making money? Do you have a retirement fund? What does a retirement fund do with its money? They buy stock in corporations who make profits. That could mean "greedy" corporations are a good thing for retirement funds or for stockholders, which can be any US citizen, etc. What is wrong with a "uber-rich aristocrat"? Are you jealous of their economic standing? The rich are the ones who create jobs and keep the economy moving by their spending. How many people do you know have been offered a job by a poor person? "Uber-rich" pay UBER amounts of taxes. Methinks you are jealous and feel they need to "spread the wealth around" as NObama told Joe the plumber.
You are wrong in all you say.
I agree with your last sentence though: "It is time to try something different... NO!!!!!
I agree, widespread deregulation is the first step towards corporate malfeasance and corruption. But.. I think widespread regulation is the first step to sending our jobs offshore and stifling research and development.
I do disagree with a previous writer saying that the VA is efficient. The military is a necessary evil, so it's prone to be over-budget. The Post office has just recently attempted to become competitive with private carriers. And the administration of the IRS system is a joke, far too complicated for the average taxpayer and rife with special exemptions.
It is time to try something different. We need to ferret out the bloated bureaucrats on both sides of the aisle, stop the "us against them" mentality and come back to a common sense approach to our government. Healthcare is a major issue and needs to be addressed along with the excesses of the private insurance companies, but the bill in front of us is frought with waste and payoffs. All of which make the bill too expensive and accomplishes too little.
And I don't believe "a plan is better than no plan".
Thanks for the conversation. You easily have conveyed the question we all have. Insightful and fun.
You sound like any one of ten thousand talking-point bleating GOP candidates of the last fifty years- "we need to cut the waste...we need common-sense solutions..blah blah blah.." -who bleat pretty, bland slogans but offer NOTHING by way of substance. Please tell us- where's the "waste" you would cut? What does "common sense" mean (I have never voted for a candidate who says he wants to enact "common sense" solutions, because that is code for "I don't have any answers, even though I just told you that the answers are right there, and simple.") I hate when candidates say that all we have to do is "cut the fat," and then NEVER tell us what the "fat" is.
"...and the administration of the IRS system is just a joke, far too complicated for the average taxpayer...." odd, since more than 99 percent of the "average taxpayers" manage to pay their fair share without much stress or hassle- the "evil IRS" line is helpful if you are selling a "dodge your taxes" radio scam or work for one of the ten thousand tax preparers who want to take a chunk out of your hide by convincing you that your taxes are complicated, but no one with a tenth-grade math education and a calculator should have difficulty paying his taxes.
But please, spare us the muddy soundbites and tell us how you would change things, without using terms like "common sense" and "waste," and give us an example of the "widespread regulation" is that you want. Because you just spent four paragraphs saying NOTHING.
Would there ever be an opposing argument that you would entertain?
Anyway, your "pay their fair share" line indicates a simplistic view of the less than obvious. Fair does not put the burden on middle class, while dispensing obvious tax advantages to lower and higher income individuals.
If your line to "spare us the muddy sounbites" is your attempt to stifle opposing views, then I expect you are more than satisfied with what your government has done to you and I applaud you. It must be wonderful to have such an innocent, uninformed and complacent view of your life.
Anyway, if that's the gist of your argument, please sit on the sidelines and allow the adults to discuss issues that we disagree on, but are grappling to come to terms.
Gosh, they appear to be on both sides.
If those make up your "opposing views," there isn't much to argue here. You want "common sense," so I guess that to be in disagreement, its up to me to figure out what "common sense" is, and then say I'm against "common sense."
When you want to discuss opinions beyond the kindergarten or GOP candidate level, let's talk again.
1) Amnesty for undocumented immigrants without utilizing the legal methods currently in place.
2) A government stimulus plan that has resulted in the increase of unemployment instead of the promised decrease, while creating temporary government jobs bound by governmental budget constraints.
3) Domestic jobs and industries being sent offshore. Most without the environmental constraints.
4) An energy policy that ignores domestic drilling until alternative methods come to fruition.
5) A Healthcare plan that increases the debt, while ignoring rampant tort awards and not addressing competition in the private sector.
6) Political genocide in Iran and an inadequate response.
7) Reconciliation threats in the House.
8) Political welfare to senators and representative ( please see "bribery")
That's a start. Tell me your "common sense" approach and see if we agree.
Definition of Common Sense - "sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts"
It's a shame that middle-ground is so elusive.