Media's Presidential Bias and Decline

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

This is too rich.

PURGE: SKEPTICAL REPORTERS TOSSED OFF OBAMA PLANE
Fri Oct 31 2008 08:39:55 ET

**Exclusive**

The Obama campaign has decided to heave out three newspapers from its plane for the final days of its blitz across battleground states -- and all three endorsed Sen. John McCain for president!

The NY POST, WASHINGTON TIMES and DALLAS MORNING NEWS have all been told to move out by Sunday to make room for network bigwigs -- and possibly for the inclusion of reporters from two black magazines, ESSENCE and JET, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Despite pleas from top editors of the three newspapers that have covered the campaign for months at extraordinary cost, the Obama campaign says their reporters -- and possibly others -- will have to vacate their coveted seats so more power players can document the final days of Sen. Barack Obama's historic campaign to become the first black American president.

Yeh powerhouses they are! The fact that the three all endorsed McCain has nothing to do with it, I'm sure

[TheMercenary]

So what happens when these top contributors are no longer around?

Adam Lerrick's "Obama and The Tax Tipping Point" (op-ed, Oct. 22) notes that we are fast approaching the point at which those who don't pay any federal income tax will be a majority of the electorate and have the electoral muscle to affect programs paid for by taxes from the other half of the society.

A rallying cry in the founding of our nation was "no taxation without representation." But when the tax structure is so progressive that half the population can create programs that are paid for by taxing the other half, we have reached the point of "representation without taxation" and turned our founding principles on their head.

We are currently witnessing a polarizing presidential campaign that promises to confiscate the earnings of 5% of the population to buy the votes of the other 95%. Am I the only member of the 95% who is offended by the idea that it is acceptable in America to confiscate another's earnings for my own comfort?

What irony to criticize the "greed" of Wall Street bankers while voting for easy money taken from others.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524034781878381.html

[Clodfobble]

Speaking of media bias... (not the systemic kind, just one really, absurdly horrific example someone sent me last night: )

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We are currently witnessing a polarizing presidential campaign that promises to confiscate the earnings of 5% of the population to buy the votes of the other 95%. Am I the only member of the 95% who is offended by the idea that it is acceptable in America to confiscate another's earnings for my own comfort?

Nope

[Pico and ME]

Lookout, where did you get your figures from??? They dont match my family of four's reality.

In the last two years, we have paid roughly, on average, $5,000 tax on $50,000 net income. And, on top of that, we have paid roughly $8,000 a year in other taxes. AND, I dont even consider myself middle class, or maybe just barely.... we dont have a lot of money to buy toys or other 'extras' in life...if we do, we have to do it on credit.

And another thing...those 40-50% who dont pay taxes (if accurate) are the working poor! Families trying to make it on minimum wage. There are an awful lot of them.

[classicman]

Ok so you all say that the "richest 5%" are going to pay about $600 a year more on average under Obama's plan and "redistribute this to the other 95%. Lets forget the tax cuts for he lower end for a moment. Simple math says that comes out to about +$31.58 per taxpayer for the "other 95%"? Is that correct?

[Pico and ME]

"Confiscate"
"Redistribute"
"For my own comfort"

Tell me this isn't polarization, in itself. When I hear words like these I totally lose interest in anything the speaker has to say.

[TheMercenary]

http://www.american.com/archive/2007...pays-the-taxes


This supports the notion put forth by the WSJ article.
Conclusion
These findings raise serious questions about the future of the U.S. income tax system, and the possibility of base-broadening tax reform when the majority of the federal tax burden is borne by a shrinking pool of taxpayers. As Congress considers tax reform proposals during the coming year, this is an issue lawmakers should begin to debate.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

The WSJ article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122524034781878381.html

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

"Confiscate"
"Redistribute"
"For my own comfort"

Tell me this isn't polarization, in itself. When I hear words like these I totally lose interest in anything the speaker has to say.

You don't like the way Obama talks about his plan for America?!?! You might want to try to figure it out.

[Pico and ME]

NOT mentioned in those articles is that the top 1-5% of income earners are making their money off the labors of the bottom 95%.

[Pico and ME]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You don't like the way Obama talks about his plan for America?!?! You might want to try to figure it out.

Any polarization that is happening is coming from the right. O'bama's message is getting twisted and transformed in order to strike fear in the hearts of those who arent even going to be affected by any of it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

NOT mentioned in those articles is that the top 1-5% of income earners are making their money off the labors of the bottom 95%.

And that they pay the salaries of those 95% so they can actually feed their families and pay the mortgage. But yea, we call it capitalism.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

Any polarization that is happening is coming from the right. O'bama's message is getting twisted and transformed in order to strike fear in the hearts of those who arent even going to be affected by any of it.

I can't believe you really think that is true. But you entitled to your opinion. Both sides of this have extremists who have contributed to the polarization. There is no evidence to support that one side is worse than the other.

[Pico and ME]

And that they pay the salaries of those 95% so they can actually feed their families and pay the mortgage. But yea, we call it capitalism.

What about the 40-50% of the working poor. That is an incredibally huge number. These people barely make a living, but their efforts are supporting the top 10% of people in this county who are living high off the hog and who are now whining that their taxes are too high.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Pico and ME

What about the 40-50% of the working poor. That is an incredibally huge number. These people barely make a living, but their efforts are supporting the top 10% of people in this county who are living high off the hog and who are now whining that their taxes are too high.

Just because the top 5% contribute to the social welfare does not mean they are all paying for it, due to globalization many people in this country work for earners who do not live in this country. Your thinking is exactly what I am questioning. There is some idea that because there is working poor the top 5% of income earners are somehow responsible for that situation. It is certainly much more complicated than that. We have a significantly complicated integrated society that puts people into socioeconomic classes for numerous reasons, not related to what or because there is a group who make more than others. To blame the top 5% of the income earners in this country for the plight and socioeconomic situation of those at the bottom is totally ridiculous. But that group sure makes a great target by Obama and the left to exploit to the simple minded people, "Look how much they have! You should have some of what they have! They don't deserve it or need that much! Let's take it away from them and give it to you!".