Quantcast

Republicans, It’s Time to Face Facts: The Right-Wing Media is Lying to You

not-news-just-liesBashing the media is an easy thing to do.  Both political parties do it, though Republicans are far more aggressive with their accusation that the “liberal media” or “mainstream media” is out to get them.  All while ignoring the obvious bias that Fox News displays nearly constantly.

And you’ll be hard-pressed to find many conservatives that are willing to actually be objective about Fox News.

As a liberal, I’ll fully admit that MSNBC has an obvious left-leaning slant, but it still pales in comparison to the right-wing cheerleading Fox News does on a daily basis.

But conservatives might need to face a simple reality: Their trusted media sources are lying to them.

Let me fess up to something right now — I watch a good deal of Fox News.  It’s not easy but it’s necessary to understand what lunacy I might soon be dealing with, as most conservative arguments are taken directly from whatever Fox News talking point they’ve decided to push.

Do you know how many times I saw a Fox News anchor or show host call out John Boehner for blocking a vote on the Senate’s continuing resolution,  which would have passed and prevented the government shutdown?

Zero.

A simple, indisputable fact about what was going on with the government shutdown—and they never mentioned it.  At least they never did in the numerous hours I spent watching the network.

I can probably count on one hand the times I’ve heard “Obamacare” called the Affordable Care Act.  You know, the actual name of the law.  Because nothing says “legit and professional organization” like one that exclusively uses Republican talking points and rhetoric to discuss politics.

Anyone remember last year leading up to the elections?  Almost every host on Fox News, and every right-wing media pundit I saw comments from, went out of their way to tell conservative voters that Romney was headed for an easy victory over President Obama.  Even in the days leading up to the election, many right-wing “experts” were still telling Americans that Romney was going to defeat Obama.

This blatantly flew in the face of countless polls, and overwhelming evidence, that suggested not only was President Obama headed for re-election—it was going to be an overwhelming victory for the president.

And if these polls were ever used as evidence to counter the Republican belief that Romney was actually ahead, they were then painted as “liberally biased” and should be dismissed.

Except, all these “liberally biased” polls were spot-on and all this “right-wing evidence” was completely wrong.  When President Obama was re-elected, Republicans were legitimately in shock.  They couldn’t figure out how it had happened.  Some even said the polls had to be rigged.  After all, they were told for weeks and months Romney was headed toward an easy victory.  How could this have happened?

Well, the answer is pretty simple: The right-wing media was lying to their voters.

Just like they were deceiving their voters during the government shutdown.  Hell, just like they always lie to their voters.

Fox News was on a mission to paint this shutdown as “Obama’s shutdown” while purposefully glossing over some of the very basic facts about the whole ordeal, like:

  • “Obamacare” is the law of the land, not a bill.
  • There were enough votes to keep the government open, Boehner just wasn’t letting the House vote.
  • Monuments were closed because the workers paid to run and maintain them weren’t coming to work — because the government was shut down.
  • The debt ceiling isn’t about new spending, it’s a procedural vote that allows our government to pay bills on money already spent.
  • Year-to-year deficits under Obama have been reduced by their largest margins since just after WWII.
  • Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling seven times under George W. Bush.

Just for starters.  But even with all of those indisputable facts, you didn’t see the right-wing media reporting any of it.  It was just a constant stream of, “Obama won’t negotiate, he’s unreasonable!”

Which, of course, is ridiculous considering he didn’t need to negotiate anything to do with the Affordable Care Act.  There was a bill out there to reopen the government, essentially the exact bill that was just passed that reopened our government, so why in the world would President Obama negotiate with Republicans who were blatantly holding our government hostage?  But again, you won’t hear the right-wing media say anything about that.

And we should really take their word on key issues.  After all, the shutdown had a solid chance at defunding “Obamacare” and Mitt Romney is the President of the United States, right?

Oh, wait.  Never mind.

The following two tabs change content below.
Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement. Follow Allen on Twitter as well, @Allen_Clifton.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Clara DeLay

    Faux news followers get so entangled and entrenched in the lies and distortions they are bombarded with that truth and reality sends them into a total tailspin, followed by continued denial and desperate attempts to create their own faux reality, facts and truth be damned…

    Karl Rove’s and others’ reaction to the election results remind me of the time a co-worker and I spent her entire pregnancy convincing ourselves that she was going to have a boy. When her husband called me to tell me that she just had the baby, I asked excitedly, “Did she have a boy?!” When he answered, “No,” I was so discombobulated that I asked, “What did she have?” There was a long pause… Moral: when you get too caught up with Faux news and your own made-up reality, you tend to lose touch with actual reality…

  • deedee2die4

    The left-wing, socialist media … You know, the ones that want to redistribute their wealth. No such thing!

    • bizriak

      It is not socialism to try to change a system in which nearly all wealth is piled up at the top of the food chain. I do not advocate doing away with the rich or trying to take someone’s hard earned money away from them. There are too many dishonest ways many of the super-rich became super-rich and too many dishonest ways the super-rich hold onto their wealth at the expense of others and/or become mega-rich at the expense of others. If an individual works hard and possibly has some good luck then that individual, if he or she becomes rich as a result of their hard work, deserves every penny he or she earns. If an individual becomes rich through shadowy government favors, exploiting the poor or ignorant or by taking away from others then I have a problem with that. What is it about big oil or massive corporate farming or any other bloated industry filled with mega-rich that deserves federal subsidies? Who can truly say that a multi-millionaire with a stable of tax attourneys deserves tax breaks to the level that he ends up paying no tax at all? Who can then say that it is fair for anyone to work full time or full time plus hours every week and not make enough money to live? Who can say it is truly fair for anyone to get sick with cancer or something else and have to spend every penny to stay alive, then when cancer is defeated have nothing left on which to live? Socialism is not in play here and every time you call it socialism any person with a brain will stop discussing it with you. If you want to disagree with my points then that’s great, but if you want to do so by simply spouting buzzwords with no meaning behind them then keep that non-opinion to yourself. I could have a more intelligent conversation with my genuine particle board desk upon which this keyboard rests.

      • Dave

        People that wealthy did not work hard for their money. Get real. When the CEOs of the United States earn 343 times the CEOs of other countries, you cannot say with a straight face they are entitled to that much money. But it is not the CEO’s fault that their pay is so high, it is the Board of Directors who aspire to sit in the CEO seat and pad the paycheck in the hopes that their sucking up to the position where the unearned money is piled up that it will one day be theirs. They waste the investor’s money – money that could pay higher dividends, result in higher value for each share of stock. No, it is time to level the playing field. Corporate tax increases would be a good start.

      • Roger Schramm

        Bingo !!, We had plenty of money , good jobs and explosive growth when corp rates were at 70 %, before 1980 when Reagan slashed them to less than half. Since then its been ever increasing debt, jobs sent overseas, crumbling infrastructure and stagnate if not falling wages !!

      • Mark

        Raise corporate taxes and corporations will move their operations to another country. We will lose jobs. Corporations do not belong to the United States. They are free to locate where their costs are the least.

      • arizonaroper

        Haven’t we already lost the jobs because they’re already moved their production to other countries where they can lower their cost of doing business and thus increase their profits? Raise the corporate taxes and let them leave if they choose to do so. They aren’t doing us any good here while the jobs they allegedly represent are overseas anyway.

      • LLB

        So let’s just send them to wherever taxes are zero, BAN THE MOFO’S from doing business in the US, take the dollars that are still left here, and start all over again from the ground up, building an economy that is FAIR. Nobody deserves to rape and rob the people in order to funnel every tiny little penny of productivity they will ever generate in their entire lives to a few tiny little super-wealthy…and then blame those so raped for the desperate state of their lives. THIS SHOULD NOT BE LEGAL. IT IS NOT OK.

    • Guest

      And since when is wanting the rich to pay their fair share of taxes redistribution of wealth? It amazes me how often republicans are so brainwashed and willing to vote against their own interests.

      • James Sabo

        It’s not a matter of them paying a fair share, it’s a matter of wanting them to pay a ridiculous share, I think we should just have a set percentage that EVERYONE pays and be done with it.

      • Pepo

        I agree, but then take away all the write offs and the special interest loopholes that make the very rich pay a smaller share than the regular guy.

      • James Sabo

        I 100% agree, that is what Romney was trying to do…and the rich don’t pay a smaller share they just pay a smaller percentage…I don’t think a guy paying 2.5 million a year in taxes is a small share…I am to assume none of the people that are trying to argue this point have never ran a business or been in high up on the food chain before? I ran my own business, and I can tell you this, I did pay a little lower percentage as a business owner and had some “tax loopholes” that benefited me, but the people that worked for me and with me still made out better than I did after all the bills were paid and all the wages were handed out.

      • Robin Salvadori Allison

        Ever hear the parable of the “Widow’s mite”? If you and I go out to eat, I order a glass of water and the cheapest sandwich, you order the steak and a bottle of wine. Bill comes, and I owe 5 bucks and you owe 45. My share of a 20% tip is a dollar. Yours is 9. We both pay the same percentage and the same share by virtue of the fact we are paying a 20% share of what we benefited from. You paid more dollars as your fair share. Now, if I have a 100 dollars I can spend on food and you have 1000 dollars, I spent 6% of my assets while you spent .51%. If you look at food as the analogy for income (necessary for living), and the tip as taxes, my extravagance of eating out cost me far more than it cost you. Just as in the parable, the rich man putting a sack of gold in the offering box is not paying nearly as much as the widow who places a single copper coin. The percentage of income may be the same, and you can argue his share was far more money, even at a lower percentage, but the poor widow gave up far more than the rich man.
        Unless you were paying your workers far more than you paid yourself, and not properly deducting all your business expenses, I don’t see how your workers could make out far better than you did. Not if you were turning a profit. I can see you possibly making less per hour if you were working double shifts and not paying yourself a proper salary to account for the hours. My manager at one point was working at least 80 hours a week, and figuring her hourly pay, she was making less than I was per hour as her assistant. Until bonus time came around. Though had I been on salary (our store was too small for my to be salaried), I would have been working 60-60 hours too, and she would not have needed to work 80. She was being screwed by upper management.
        Being exempt from OT, I take home $9.20/hr. My pay rate is $10.25. Dropping me to 40 hours, I’d need to make about $15/hour. I pay the same taxes as someone working 1/3 less time and making $15. So which of us pays a “fair share”? Both, because the income is the same, or am I getting screwed because I need to put in 60+ hours? Your guy above paying 250K in taxes is likely not working any harder or longer than the guy paying 25K- he’s probably working far less, as most of his income is probably investment, while the guy paying 25K is likely earning his salary as a lawyer or brain surgeon. So is all income equal? Should someone who does construction pay more or less than someone who has investments? By percentage of income?

        Meanwhile, revisiting our restaurant analogy, let’s figure that there is a coupon for 12% off purchases over $10. ($10 being the cap on payroll taxes of 100K+ a bit). You use this coupon, and so you get $4.50 off, meaning you effectively got steak and only paid a 10% tip, while I got a PB&J and paid 20%. I don’t see this a fair division, even if you spent more money. You got more benefits, and the percentage of disposable income is far, far less.

      • James Sabo

        Because it’s hard when you have greedy employees and the government wanting all your money, do you think insurance is cheap or free? Do you think someone else pays for all the upkeep and improvements to a business? Do you understand that even huge corporations like Heinz and Mcdonalds struggle because of overhead? Think about it, a 9 BILLION dollar corporation struggles because of cost…what do you think happens to the little guys that are barely scraping by when they have to start paying more money out? Well guess what…you are going to find out, let me know how your socialism works out for you.

      • Kim

        I’m really “struggling” with the concept of a company like McDonalds “struggling” with $5.5 Bill in PROFITS and paying their new CEO $13Mill. If an avg. worker put in 40 hrs. week, they couldn’t earn that much in over 600 years! How can ANYONE justify that kind of inequality? Call it whatever the ISM/SCHISM you want to demand some kind of “fairness.” Its grotesque to suggest that kind of largesse is okay, but people not being able to earn a living wage and have healthcare benefits is a “struggle” too big for a company like this??? I just threw up in my mouth a little. I am not a violent person, but so help me gawd, if I were standing in front of someone who suggested that minimum wage workers are “greedy”, I think I’d bust every tooth right out of their greedy ass grille, out of the sheer force of human decency that dwells deep within me. I wouldn’t even have to know the people. Just the suggestion might cause my reaction. I’ve never raised a hand to anyone, but Sir, I might just kick your stupid, selfish ass.

      • James Sabo

        Bitch I make less than minimum fucking wage, and I want your cunt ass to come TRY to kick my “stupid ass” if you had half as much intelligence in your whole whorish body as I have in one tenth of my brain you wouldn’t be on here spreading your ignorance…

      • Beano Cook

        James watches Fox “News”.

      • Kim

        Maya Angelou was sure right when she said “People are always showing us who they are.” Here you are, for all to see :-) Do you kiss your children with that mouth? Do you beat your wife with that hate? Wow, that’s some vile stuff, Man. The worst part, over the fact that I suggest that it is wrong for people to be treated so unfairly. You should seek some help. Fast.

      • Sam

        Wow, sounds like someone could use some serious anger management therapy. I don’t think anything Kim said deserves that kind of low class comment from you.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Show me how you make less than minimum wage. I think you are full of shit, a very poor businessman, or both.

      • Christopher Belanger

        wow lost me now……………….

      • guest

        Worth every penny obviously…

      • LLB

        What a numbskull you are.

      • Ronald Odde

        Well..guest…I suspect you are paid quite well by the conservative firm that pays you to troll these conversations….

      • Gary Smith

        If you make less than minimum wage, then you can’t be that intelligent or hardworking. Either a) you’re a liar, b) you are a terrible worker, or c) you’re an idiot.

        My money, dear assbag, is on all three.

      • LLB

        THANK YOU. *Applause*

      • Secular_Humanist

        Greedy employees??? Heaven help your staff, or your slaves, who want to make a living wage. Paychecks haven’t kept up with inflation (something nobody talks about, since food and living expenses aren’t considered).
        I hope all your employees walk off the job and leave you high and dry!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Uh, you do realize if we have universal coverage, you wouldn’t have to worry about providing insurance. And your “greedy employees” want to make enough money so they don’t have to rely on food stamps and Medicaid like Wal-Mart workers??

        And McDonald’s “struggling???” Profit for Q2 of 2013 was $1.4 billion. You are indeed funny. And I’ve read a couple of stories about guys who run fast food places, pay their employees $11/hr and want to pay them more. One is in Boston.

      • Christopher Belanger

        money brings talent ……

      • LLB

        Don’t know about that. Our American CEO’s are paid many times what corporate CEO’s in other countries are paid, and perform LESS well. Check out “Too Much” online for details.

      • Senor Equis

        These progressives are about to find out how free Obamacare is when their premiums triple by 2015. But hey they get to feel warm and fuzzy about having to work three part time jobs because employers, excuse me, wreckers have laid them off from more than 30 hours per week due to the Obamacare rules designed to destroy our economy in true Cloward Piven fashion.

        Forward Comrades!

      • f.avallearce

        Such delicious irony! In the comments section of an article about Fox News repeating their lies (oops! I meant talking points) over and over ’til people believe them, we have someone…repeating the Fox talking points.

      • LLB

        Let’s look at those four words again.

        9 BILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION.

        And its CEO is making, what, again??

        Hmm…wonder how McDonald’s defines “struggle”?

      • Clara DeLay

        WOW! BREAK IT DOWN, ROBIN! Forgive the scream, but you really put it out there!

      • TomJ

        How do you define your “fair share” of the fruits of my labor? Why does anyone else deserve any of it? While I do agree that people should pay for the limited services provided by government and that a wealthy person not only has the means to pay more but often gets more benefit (more property being protected for example). However, how is it right for you to tax me to fund whatever it is you want to call art? This is just one example of something that the federal government deems necessary (largely because it brings in re-election votes from a special interest group) that is not to be found in our constitution. There are thousands of other examples. The federal government is so large that when it was shut down (partially) for a couple of weeks, hardly anyone was affected – except those government workers who got some extra paid time off. We need to read and understand the 10th amendment!

      • Robin Salvadori Allison

        Perhaps I don’t want to be taxed to help support business getting tax breaks, or for you getting a mortgage deduction, or some other thing that you like funds going to (yet another unneeded weapons system perhaps?) Let’s agree that your share of taxes going to Art (which has a long tradition of government funding dating back to Greece and Rome or perhaps earlier, and our founders based their ideas on government on all the great civilizations throughout history that came before) will instead go to something you think taxes ought to be spent on and I don’t, while I will pick up your share of the tiny amount that goes to Art. It all works out a wash in the end. People tend to move to places that are attractive, and have a lively cultural life when they have the money and ability to choose. Attracting the population that has appreciation of things like art is a function of government. Yes, that is more a local level thing, but in a place that needs growth, they often don’t have the money to attract folks by supporting art, or museums, or parks. So we give them a hand, since in a growing economy, giving someone a hand benefits everyone. See, I don’t mind paying for some kid 1000 miles away to get the chance to see a famous work, or an opera- that kid might someday either grow up to enrich my life, or my children’s because their interest in art, or music was given some fertilizer. Or simply teach them to appreciate more than utilitarian things and money-they may be a future co-worker of my kids, or their boss.
        There is little the “federal government” deems necessary that isn’t supported by a either a large minority, or a persuasive one who can make a case for why it enhances the general welfare. Big Bird being on the chopping block for Mitt Romney showed a large number of folks resented taking away funding for PBS when it was far less than we were spending in bombs. People like a lot of things not in the Constitution- like the Internet. Like safe automobiles.

        Except for the skewing of policy by big money- which we also have had happen in our past, part of why we began paying a salary to our Congress- the feds have done many things at the behest of a relative minority throughout our history, things not spelled out in the Constitution. Purposely not spelled out, because our founders knew times change, needs change, and they were not perfect. They knew the Constitution wasn’t perfect either- Ben Franklin was very unhappy with it, but supported it as the best compromise available. They put in very few micro managing details, and allowed for amendments.

        Affected by the shut down- federal workers , their creditors, their families and friends who may have had to pitch in with loans, the businesses that depended on tourists to national parks or monuments (a couple ended up closing for good), the businesses that catered to federal workers selling them gas, groceries, their morning coffee, lunch…. Billions of dollars of economic activity gone, investors nervous…our interest rates likely to rise, so the debt will grow because of the dual hits of lower GDP and higher borrowing costs. Not to mention the rest of the world thinks we are batshit crazy. I couldn’t go to websites I normally do for statistics when I argue on the internet, or my friends ask me to act check something for them. I got to worry about what would happen if it went on too long-I’m paid by Medicaid funds. Oh, and hundreds of government contractors-private businessmen- who had to stop projects in the middle, and still had payroll to meet or lay off their people-and they didn’t get back pay for Congress’ malfeasance.

      • TomJ

        Rather that basing taxes on long traditions going back to Greece or Rome, I am in favor of using the constitution that all elected official swear to uphold and most do not. The powers of the federal government are clearly enumerated and anything not given to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people. Business tax breaks, mortgage deductions, art, PBS, etc are not legitimate (constitutional) places for the federal government to be involved. Then, if you want to erect a statue in your local community or a park in your state, you can do so. If I happen to be in the same state or community, I can try to dissuade you and your friends or I can move or simply pay the tax for which I disagree. They really did specify an excellent framework for governing a constitutional republic – it would be good for all of us if we were to return to it.

      • LLB

        Perhaps we should just end all taxes then…oh, except for the hugely bloated military that has sent our poor people overseas to kill their poor people nonstop for the past 12 years. We’ll abolish roads, schools, firehouses, law enforcement. When we disagree with one another we’ll just go fight a duel in the street the way we did in the Old West. And the elderly? Well, if their families can afford to take care of them, good for them. If not, well…

        If we don’t want to live in a society that’s like this, then we need to understand that if we have enough money after taxes that we are comfortable and not living in survival level fear, maybe the tax system is fair enough. Maybe we all don’t need a 3 million dollar house. Maybe grand luxury isn’t nearly as important as, oh…nobody STARVING.

      • TomJ

        You seem to have forgotten that on September 11, 2001 those poor people overseas crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center killing about 3,000 innocents, crashed another into the Pentagon killing another 125, crashed another into a field in Pennsylvania killing another 40. I agree that the military is bloated (as well as the rest of the federal government). Roads, firehouses, schools, law enforcement are not enumerated powers of the federal government and are thus the responsibility of the states. Have you ever read the US Constitution??

      • Kim

        So, if I understand your logic: What happened on 9/11 justifies the deaths of millions more innocents and the systematic dismantling of our infrastructure in this country b/c we “can’t afford it,” while we spend TRILLIONS on nation-building in the places we’ve bombed the hell out of and corporate subsidies for the billionaire owned industries…I could go on and on with what is psychotically WRONG with this whole picture, but how does 9/11 or the constitution justify ANY of it?

      • TomJ

        Under the US Constitution the federal government has the responsibility to provide for the defense of all of us. What do you think our response should be when someone (Al Quada) declares war and shows itself willing, able, and anxious to kill as many of us as they can? About what are you speaking when you say, “millions more innocents”? There are always (or nearly always) civilian casualties in war. This is exacerbated when the enemy chooses to hide itself among the civilians.
        Would you prefer that we abandon these countries after we have bombed the hell out of them? I too am against corporate subsidies. It would help your argument if you would provide specifics rather than simply claiming that you could go on and on.
        In short – what is your answer to the 9-11 (and the other ones as well) attacks?

      • Ronald Odde

        OK..I’ll give you the 3000 innocents (although I dispute that number) killed on 9/11 if you give me the 80,000 killed every year in firearm related incidents. As long as we are tossing numbers around. You might also look up the numbers with regard to poverty in this country or people that cannot afford prescription medications, or basic healthcare. Another interesting number is the amount of taxes Exxon mobile or Facebook paid last year (give ya a hint..ZERO)

      • Ronald Odde

        Why does anyone deserve any of it? Because you did not come by it as a result of your own efforts, regardless of what you think. An individual in this country owes it success to the infrastructure in this nation that made it possible, friends, family, co-workers, the employer that hired them, the teachers that educated them, the Uncle that got them the job or gave a reference, the advantage they get because of the color of their skin, or their families connections, wealth, ect… You need to understand that not everything that exists or is necessary is implicitly talked about in the constitution. The city cleaning the shit out of the water you drink before they send it to you is a good example. So, Mr. Constitution, stop using the public water works that my tax dollars pay for, get yourself a bucket, and hope you don’t get too thirsty.

      • Ronald Odde

        AMEN….but is silly trying to win an argument with those folks using logic….or math…

      • Secular_Humanist

        You know – the people who work(ed) for you – for not very much, thank you, made it possible for YOU to be successful. Employees used to be an asset, now they are an expense and replacable.
        Why do wealthy people not want to pay a fair share of taxes? don’t they like and support the country that enables them to be wealthy?

      • Kim

        @secular_humanist- Your comments are sane and rational. The “person” who responded to me is clearly neither, not to mention vile and misogynistic. It’s not just greedy workers he hates, he REALLY hates women to go off on me with that kind of vile language. Keep trying to appeal to sanity if you choose, but I think he has demonstrated that he’s waaay off the reservation. You might have better luck with Limbaugh. lol

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I peaked at $204K about 20 years ago. I paid about $40K in taxes. The difference is, I didn’t complain about it. I was grateful to have made so much money.

      • LLB

        Uh-huh, and what exactly WERE YOU LEFT WITH after you paid your taxes? Could you afford a nice house? Could you send your kids to college? Did you have a retirement account? Could you take vacations? Did you have health insurance? Did you live every single day in survival level fear lest the car break down and you lose your job because you couldn’t afford transportation to work and couldn’t fix your car? Were you comfortable??

        It’s not what people pay in taxes, it’s WHAT THEY HAVE LEFT, and how well they can live on it. A person who pays 2.5 million a year in taxes is raking in much more than that! EVERY YEAR. Much, much, much, muchmuch more than that. You are talking about people who own Maybachs, and buy 5 million dollar WATCHES, for Chrissakes. They pay that 2.5 mil and never even miss it, they are so rich. And then they look at 2.5 million *people* who live in survival level fear every day and have no hope of a secure future, and *demand* that those people should pay more in taxes so that the multimillionaire’s own tax burden may be lowered! Because the multimillionaire, who just shipped 500 jobs to China so he can pay a dime a day in labor costs, thinks *he’s* being punished by having to pay taxes at all! And you do, too. What is WRONG with you??

      • Ronald Odde

        You are full of feces on both the count that Romney was trying to close tax loopholes and that your employees are doing better off financially than you. if your employees are doing better, why don’t you hand the business over to one of them in exchange for becoming an employee yourself? because you are full of shit.

      • tcaruso01

        What ridiculous share? CEO’s are paying a smaller percentage than their secretaries!! Where is the ridiculousness???

      • George Layton

        Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?

        Tax Year 2009

        Percentiles Ranked by AGIAGI Threshold on PercentilesPercentage of Federal Personal Income Tax PaidTop 1%$343,92736.73Top 5%$154,64358.66Top 10%$112,12470.47Top 25%$66,19387.30Top 50%$32,39697.75Bottom 50%<$32,3962.25Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
        Source: Internal Revenue Service

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        “The rich pay most of the taxes!”

        They should. They have most of the money.

      • LLB

        Honey, they have ALL the money…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Purty much :)

      • George Layton

        It’s true that the distribution of taxes is somewhat more equally divided when payroll taxes are accounted for—but the change is surprisingly small. Payroll taxes of 15 percent are charged on the first dollar of income earned by a worker, and most of the tax is capped at an income of just below $100,000. The Tax Policy Center, run by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, recently studied payroll and income taxes paid by each income group. The richest 1 percent pay 27.5 percent of the combined burden, the top 20 percent pay 72 percent, and the bottom 20 percent pay just 0.4 percent. One reason that the disparity in tax shares is so large is that Americans in the bottom quintile who have jobs get reimbursed for some or all of their 15 percent payroll tax through the earned-income tax credit (EITC), a fairly efficient poverty-abatement program.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        What is a “ridiculous share?” You mean 39.5% like during the boom years of the Clinton administration when we all had decent jobs?

        No, we do not need a “set percentage.” You make more money, you should pay more in taxes.

      • LLB

        That does NOT work out to a fair way to tax. If you make $25,000 a year and pay 10% of that in tax, what do you have left to live on? Can you live on that? How about if you have one kid? Two kids? A disabled/dying spouse? Now imagine you make $25,000,000 A YEAR. You only owe 10% in taxes. You pay your employees so little they have to work when sick, can’t afford to see a doctor, and need SNAP to afford food. Fair??

      • Ronald Odde

        The “flat tax” amounts to increasing rates on the poor and lowering it for the rich. This is the exact opposite of what needs to be done to correct the wealth gap. And just so you understand, we currently have a “progressive” tax code which means that the more income you make the higher percentage you pay. What needs to be done is to eliminate the loopholes, make it illegal to ship your money overseas to avoid taxes, tie tax breaks and subsidies to corporations to the creation and maintenance of living wage jobs in the US, hold EMPLOYERS accountable for the hiring of illegal labor, close VISA loopholes allowing long-term employment by short term visa holders, do away with the non-profit and not-for-profit status (if you don’t make a profit, you already don’t pay any taxes…yes mega church..that big freaking building with the giant screen TV’s? That’s a flippin’ profit.), and tax the living hell out of goods being imported into the country. Then, when the economy picks up and people have jobs again, we can afford to give every child in the country the education they deserve so that they can take the new jobs we will create.

    • suburbancuurmudgeon

      Why didn’t it bother you when income was redistributed upward to the top 1%? I’ve yet to meet a conservative willing to answer that question.

    • Richard Gadsden

      Wealth redistribution isn’t socialism. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.

      • Robin Salvadori Allison

        Actually that’s communism. Socialism is where everyone pools effort or resources for the benefit of all. Early settlers were in society socialist- they pooled labor and shared food as needed. A barn -raising is typically Americana at its best- pure socialism- because if the new farmer didn’t have a barn, he would not prosper, and for a community to prosper, everyone must. We don’t barn raise much now, instead we pay taxes that support FEMA so folks can rebuild after a disaster. More socialism.

    • he_who_scoffs_at_danger

      So, what you’re saying is that the median bias of the mainstream media can’t be affirmative of the center-left, Democrat Party and hostile to the right and Republican Party because the mainstream media is not Marxist adgitprop.

      Are you perhaps a troll presenting us with a strawman caricature of a stupid progressive?

    • LLB

      Wealth has been dramatically redistributed upward for the past 30 years. Conservatives don’t complain about that…except when they can’t afford a $530 car repair because they aren’t making any money. Then they blame Obama because they are paying too much tax, and people even poorer than they are are getting all of it and not working. *rolleyes.gif*

    • Edward Krebbs

      I never cease to be amazed at those who shamelessly admit their goal of taking the labor of all to benefit a select few – the most egregious form of redistributing wealth. And like you point out, then they try to shame those wanting a more equitable system under the slogan of “redistributing the wealth.”

  • Spazzy

    Don’t forget that Fox “news” also refused to call it a Government shutdown, and instead called it a “slimdown”.

    • johngalt30

      false.

      • Shawn

        Half false. They called it both. They were pushing a narrative that it was saving money and that “defaulting” wouldn’t mean they couldn’t pay the bills.

      • GeeOPee

        Fox News did call the shut down a slime down. That is not false its what they did. Stop rationalizing crazy.

    • Don

      …and the right still blame Democrats (surprise!) for the shutdown because the Dem’s wouldn’t cave in to their demands…

  • Rene’ Williams

    Faux news is the national enquirer of the news world. Hyperbole and hypocrites is all they are.

    • Wayne Bassett

      At least the national enquirer is good for a laugh and doesn’t make people stand out side the white flying the Rebel flag.

    • Kathy Lips

      The FCC has them listed as “entertainment” rather than “news”. Apparently their audience is likened to those who thought that Gilligan was a real castaway on an island!

  • DM

    I am really sick of hearing how the “debt ceiling” has nothing to do with raising debt. It is called a debt ceiling for a reason. It allows the country to BORROW the money needed to pay it’s bills. We borrow between 32 and 46 cents for every dollar we spend , We have a cap that they can’t go over unless congress allows us to, and they have to vote on it.

    • Sherri G

      They have to borrow money to pay for the OLD debt still on the books, like the Iraq and afganistan wars of several TRILLION DOLLARS. This is not paying on NEW debt but covering the credit card payments from 5-10-15-20+ years ago!!!

      • erik thorne

        Which considering that out of the 17 trillion at least 12 trillion of it belongs to the Republicans spending. But they always like to skip over that fact.

      • Kim

        Without fail!

      • strayaway

        Approximately $10T of the $17T was accrued under past presidents of both parties. The remaining $7T of debt is president Obama’s .

      • Chrs

        Accrued vs. committed to……..hmmm…. So you’re only looking at what changed while that Pres. was in office, instead of the debt the Pres. signed us up for? How “FAUX” news of you (spin baby spin). How much of our current debt could be attributed to funding 2 wars under Bush…..or the real estate market meltdown under Bush, or the banking crisis, that happened under Bush, or the depression/slowdown that started while Bush was in office, and the current administration has to pay for……and if Bush was such a good President……where was he during the last 2 elections? Why wasn’t he out there using his influence of being a former President to stump for the Republican candidate? Because the GOP knew he would be an embarrassment, so they kept him away (out of sight, out of mind)

      • strayaway

        Correction: two underfunded wars under BOTH Bush and Obama and an executive attack on Libyans for good measure. Sorry, but after five years, the ‘Bush did it’ excuse is running a little thin for explaining away over 7% unemployment with the Fed still printing $85B/month to keep a patch on the economy. Don’t forget that on Christmas Eve of 2009, President Obama quietly transferred billions of bad bank debt to taxpayers by executive order and, as Senator, he left the campaign trail to lobby for President Bush’s Wall Street bailout. I would be the last to say Bush was a good President and seldom watch TV let alone fox news. You are being presumptuous and a bad guesser. Obama is in too many ways too much like Bush for my taste.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        Bush still did it and we’ve been paying the price since 2007.

      • strayaway

        Bush started it and Obama continued Bush’s legacy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We’re out of Iraq. We’ll be getting out of Afghanistan next year. We stayed out of Libya and Syria. So I think Obama’s doing rather well.

      • strayaway

        You’ve got to be kidding. The Iraqi parliament set a date for when the US had to be out while Bush was still president. Senator Obama promised, look it up on YouTube, that if he was elected that the “first thing” he would do is remove US troops. He lied. He did not remove US troops until one month before that deadline and was negotiating to keep more there longer but couldn’t work out acceptable terms. 73% of US troops who died in Afghanistan died there under Obama. Why are any still there? He caused a huge mess in Libya partially resulting in racial attacks, the Islamist invasion of Mali, Benghazi, the Al-Queda seizure of hundreds of surface to air missiles, and the collapse of the Libyan economy. He tried to do the same thing in Syria resulting in even the Pope coming out against him and putting Putin in charge there. Now his trying to destabilize Syria by providing weapons and thus weakening of order there has already resulted in Al-Queda securing deadly pathogens. Pakistani wedding parties have been bombed, Yemen had been bombed. Obama gave $1.5B of weapons to the Muslim Brotherhood government government of Egypt three weeks before the sequester. This guy really didn’t and doesn’t deserve a peace prize.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We are still out, which means we’re not paying for a continued presence in Iraq, despite some conservatives that wanted us to stay. And how did he cause a huge mess in Libya? The Libyans were pissed off enough at Ghaddafi. And I hardly think we are responsible for Mali and the Muslim Brotherhood.

        I agree we need to be out of Afghanistan but it’s not as easy as just saying “Shazam, you’re gone.”

        Syria worked out really well. He and Putin played “good cop/bad cop.” The right wanted us to invade Syria for reasons which are still unclear (in my opinion, not in theirs).

        Getting the Nobel Peace prize was largely a “Fuck you” to Bush. I don’t think he deserved it either.

      • strayaway

        We are out because of the Iraqi parliament’s decision made during the Bush administration. We had two reasons for going into Afghanistan under Bush; to get rid of the Taliban and Osamma. The Taliban were chased out in short order. Word is that Osamma is dead now too although he was supposed to have been in Pakistan so we could have been out some time ago. It would take about six months for an orderly withdrawal.

        Syria is turning into the same sort of mess that Somalia became and Libya to a much lesser extent.

        This is how Libya became a mess. We can probably agree that Khaddafi was a dictator and quirky. He had however agreed to end his nuke program and was in recent years agreeable to Western demands. Libyans had one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world. He was not a threat to or threatening the US. Then Obama decided to join France and Britain in an over enforcing an elective authorization of the UN. The UN never authorized toppling a government and killing Khaddafi; acts of war. When Khaddafi was toppled, a weaker government took over. It was and is unable to assert control. Al-Queda controls major sections of Libya and makes sporadic attacks in the capitol. Oil exports are way down, social programs have collapsed, and the economy is in relative shambles. There are probably more killngs now in Libya than under and because of Khaddafi. This collapse was probably an unintended consequence of he overthrow of Khaddafi as were some other problems along the way. Sub-Saharan blacks were initial targets of revolutionaries. They were killed, beaten, and some fled. Some of Khaddafi’s loyalists were out of work, had to flee with their weapons, and linked up with Islamists with whom they subdued Northern Mali. Benghazi was another example the inability of this new government to control violence. In the process of the US embassy takeover, Al-Queda got their hands on hundreds of US surface to air missiles. I have no idea what they were doing there but the potential for shooting down airliners anywhere in the word by Al-Queda is now a much more serious threat. This is an under reported story much more serious than fast and furious.

        I am not suggesting that President Obama wanted any of these things to happen. What I am saying is that these things would not have happened if Obama and the other western aggressors had not toppled Khaddafi. It was bad US foreign policy and Obama was responsible for this policy.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        I still don’t see how Libya is OUR fault. The French took the lead and with or without our “help,” the outcome would have been the same.

        You seem to imply we have far greater influence in the world that I believe we do.

      • strayaway

        You sound like you are trying to take the blame off of Obama. I don’t know if the French could have done it my themselves. We’re going to have a lot of influence if Al-Queda ever starts shooting down airliners with the missiles they looted from us in Libya. By the way, I had a clue as to what we were storing hundreds of surface-to-air missiles in Libya for. BBC is claiming that Syrian rebels have been receiving supplies including surface to air missiles from Libya; not officially the Libyan government but from planes taking off in Libya.

        It was our fault because, to the extent that President Obama was conducting his personal war over there, The US is responsible for whatever messes he made. As a US citizen and taxpayer what my President does is more important to me than what France does.

      • Christopher Belanger

        I bet if congress was not fucking with him things would get better quicker

      • strayaway

        Based on what, Obama and status quo Republicans’ past record of selling out taxpayers and the middle class to corporate interests?

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        But you forget that Bush doubled the debt from $5 trillion to $10 trillion. Not that it matters. What matters is our debt burden, not our debt.

      • strayaway

        Not relevant but if you want me to I will. Bush raised the national debt from $5T to nearly $10T in his eight years including the couple of hundred billions that Obama retroactively added to Bush’s last budget. President Obama has raised the debt by $7T in less than five years and has a good shot at achieving $10T of debt in eight years. From the standpoint of today’s children, President Obama has already assigned them more debt than Bush and potentially will put them on the hook for much more. After Bush and Obama, these kids will be praying for the rebirth of Calvin Coolidge.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The only reason it’s relevant is because conservatives like to complain about Obama’s debt but remain silent about Bush’s and Reagan’s (Reagan tripled the debt). And again, the amount of debt alone isn’t a problem. Try reading this: http://www DOT american DOT com/archive/2013/january/how-to-reduce-the-debt-burden-for-future-generations

        It comes out of the American Enterprise Institute which isn’t known for being a left-wing socialist organization. It is officially “nonpartisan” but is associated mostly with neoconservatism.

      • strayaway

        Your link didn’t work. Reagan and Bush were big government spenders. No doubt about it but neither could compare with Obama. The amount of debt isn’t important? What kind of nonsense is that. The Emperor’s clothes are glorious too I suppose. Ask the kids who will have to pay the interest on that debt and suffer from lost economic opportunities. China has a surplus and uses the surplus to buy the world’s natural resources so it will hand its children mines, oil fields, forests, etc.. Our government is instead handing our kids a bill. You are saying that it doesn’t matter. That outcomes for theses two groups of youth will be the same as a result. That’s ridiculous.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You have to take out DOT and substitute the actual “.” otherwise the post gets rejected.

        Read the article. For instance, if you buy a house and have a $300,000 mortgage, you don’t worry about coming up with $300K next month. You worry about paying the mortgage, which is about $1700/month. You run into trouble when your mortgage is more than you can afford.

      • strayaway

        That worked but I totally disagree with the article. It is advice for gamblers written by the same folks who got us into Iraq and deeply into debt. These are the Cheneys and other neocons whispering into our ears that if only we give them a little more money and another war, things will most likely, almost certainly, turn out well. They did pretty well for themselves getting people to buy into their game and on their terms and by their rules.

      • James Sabo

        What flavor is that?

    • Robin Salvadori Allison

      Debt is raised by 1) required payments (such as interest on the debt) and 2) money spent through the appropriations passed by Congress. Just as most businesses use a line of credit to make payroll every week, or obtain the materials to fill orders, the government makes promises and then needs to borrow to fill them. Hubby worked for Waffle House. New store, one of their corporate quirks is paying cash on Sunday when folks get paid. Problem is, 90% of their weekend sales were credit card. This meant they couldn’t make payroll until sometimes as late as Wednesday. Which was a PITA. The government has money coming in. Less, because revenues are down because unemployment is high, and business sluggish precisely because unemployment means less demand. It can’t tell folks that their paychecks will come in as the money accumulates. The debt limit is an artificial construct created in 1913 IIRC to allow all the bills appropriated to be paid without a separate vote on each one. Votes to authorize borrowing were tying up Congress, so they just did it in bulk. When the Gephart Rule was in force, an appropriation automatically gave the government authority to borrow if necessary.. They got rid of it I think during Bush II, because a vote on the debt ceiling is a place for Congressmen to do “votes of conscious” and vote not to increase because they don’t like tax cuts, or the Iraq war, or whatever. Always with permission of the majority and minority leaders to ensure passage. The 2011 fight, and this one, are anomalies. And Unconstitutional.

      Look at the debt limit as if you have a line of credit, and a household budget. You decide that you can borrow up to 10% of your income on that credit line. You budget accordingly, but leave a couple of major purchases off (The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). You raise your personal dollar amount you let yourself borrow as your income goes up. Your budget is 90% necessities, and 10% stuff you can do without, at least temporarily. You marry, and your spouse insists you add those major purchases to the budget. Suddenly, your debt limit is impossible to maintain, despite belt tightening. You start putting off repairing the roof, or getting a new car. You know it will cost more later if you put it off. But you have to borrow to keep the lights on and pay off those big items you were ignoring.
      A sensible person sits down and makes priorities- keep the lights on, pay off old debts, fix the damn car, and borrows to do so. They raise the limit. They also send the spouse to work (raise revenue/taxes) so that the debt % goes back down to the 10% you felt was a good thing.
      You don’t put off things with initial costs but long term savings, you don’t decide that in your low crime neighborhood to spend more on a security system and you don’t pull your kids out of college and stop feeding them to save money. You don’t avoid fixing the roof to save money. You certainly don’t default on your credit cards and let your interest rates go up. Yet that’s precisely what the austerity preachers and “don’t raise the debt limit” folks in Congress and punditry suggest. As population grows, so of necessity does government. So of necessity does infrastructure. So does spending. The trick is not worrying so much about debt, but as debt to GDP. GDP also grows with population, and it grows fastest with a fair amount of government spending on building and educating and feeding people, since that money all creates jobs, and people with jobs grow revenue, so debt goes down.

      Trickle down economics since Reagan was like you going to your boss and asking for a paycut, buying that new home security system you didn’t need, and cutting your costs by neglecting your leaky roof and eating beans instead of roast chicken. Eventually you run out of things to cut out, your security system still has a monthly charge, and some bills like rent need to be paid. You have to ask your boss for a raise (tax hikes) or borrow more. Our Congress won’t ask for a raise through tax hikes for the nation. They won’t raise revenue by spending some money on building things we will need in the future, or otherwise creating more jobs and therefor tax payers. So our Congress needs to suck it up and borrow more. Their choice. Instead they threw a tantrum that actually increased our debt and slowed the economy. Meaning we need to borrow more.

      • Secular_Humanist

        Beautifully explained – but – FOX viewers are not interested in facts or they would watch any other network’s news.

      • strayaway

        That was an eloquent way of saying that to maintain our unrealistically high standard of living we take out another line of credit and bill it to our kids. It works in the short run but sets up our children to be debt slaves.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We’ve had debt since the beginning of the republic. We will always have debt. We will NEVER have enough of a surplus to pay off the debt, nor should we.

      • Senor Equis

        Hmmm except in the Founding Fathers time there was no Central Bank that created new debt everytime a new dollar was issued (the Bank of England was trying to do that to the Colonies and our Framers revolted against that because they understood debt slavery). In fact for the 19th century dirt poor farmers actually saw their cash savings APPRECIATE in value from the Revolutionary War until the Civil War destroyed the dollar again and the gold standard was reimposed after the war to stabilize the value of the currency. There’s a reason Jefferson, Jackson aka the alleged founders of the Democratic Party opposed Central Banks to their dying breaths…

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        That was then, this is now. The world is far more complicated. I’d rather live now than in the 19th Century. My IRA has appreciated rather nicely since Bush got out of office.

        You have a better suggestion?

      • strayaway

        It’s the amount of debt that is different. There are about 120M taxpayers in the US having to pay the interest on $17T of debt. Should the rate of interest the federal government pays on loans EVER get back to its average rate of 5.8%, the average US taxpayer will have to pay $8,200 a year just on federal debt interest. That’s bone crushing for an economy. Forget all your social programs. Tax money will have to be used to pay interest. I don’t see any way out except to follow Argentina or the Weimar Republic in trying to inflate our way out.

      • nominalize

        You have the wrong denominator, in two ways. First, there are far more than 120M taxpayers (just counting corporate “persons” explodes that number). Second, taking the average is futile when you’re talking about incomes, because they are so unequal. For instance, if you put nine people making minimum wage in a room with Tiger Woods, who made $78 million last year, the average salary in that room would be just over $7.8 million. Let’s say those ten folks paid an average of $8,200 a year just on debt interest. That would work out if Tiger paid the whole $82,000, which he would barely notice, and the other nine paid $0. (It’s just over 1/10 of one percent of his income; as if someone making $50,000 paid an extra $52 a year.)

        Or, maybe it would be unfair for the minimum wage guys to pay zero. But if we said that each of the ten paid proportional to their income, based on ordinary standards of fairness (i.e. the more you get out of society, the more you put back in), then Tiger could pay $81,838.52, and the other nine would pay $17.74 each, and we’d cover the bill.

        Either way, 9 out of 10 taxpayers would *not* be paying $8,200 a year. Applied to the general population, the proportions would vary, but the idea works out the same— very few of us would be on the hook for so much. Which is to say, your math is a bit misleading, even if you don’t mean it to be.

      • strayaway

        As nearly as I can tell, there are about 120M taxpayers including couples who file jointly. The poor, most children, a lot of seniors don’t have to pay anything because their income is too low. They have to pay sales tax, some pay property taxes, gas taxes, and there are some hidden import and corporate taxes that are passed on. However, sales and property taxes are largely local in nature. So we are essentially back to there being 120M taxpayers who pay most federal taxes.

        I don’t personally know of anyone in Tiger Woods income bracket. I suspect they are relatively rare and legally take advantage of every tax loophole that ws designed for them. This is why Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of taxes than his secretary. That could be changed, but who is going to change it? President Obama locked in some of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Republicans won’t tax Tiger Woods and Warren Buffet and neither will Obama. So we are back in the room Tiger wood making $78M and thousands, not nine, other people making less. I wasn’t abel to find out what percentage Of Americans make $78M but only about one in a hundred make $500K/year.

        The devastation to the economy caused by having to even pay historic government borrowing rates would be catastrophic no matter which taxpayers paid it. Tiger, might not, for instance, buy so many cars, houses, and mistresses resulting in less income for factory and construction workers and hair dressers. The economy and middle class tax payers would go down, one way or another, whether through paying the interest on the national debt directly or by suffering unemployment and cuts in government benefits. Witness Argentina and the Weimar Republic.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        We won’t ever pay off the debt. That’s the point. You need to be able to use the money for growth and pay the interest. Even economists say focusing solely on the debt is wrong-headed.

        Corporations never pay down their debts unless they are going out of business. They get into trouble only when they’re overleveraged.

        BTW, do you know what makes up the bulk of the federal budget? And do you know the federal DEFICIT is half of what it was for FY 2009?

      • strayaway

        I didn’t even mention paying off the debt. i was only addressing paying off the interest on the debt. We an’t use the money necessary to create growth or even sustain present spending programs if it is swallowed up by even normal borrowing rates. Our federal government is over leveraged. The deficit is not half of what it was in 2009 especially if the Obama stimulus costs retroactively added to Bush’s 2009 budget by Obama are included. The interest costs on our national debt, that I was talking about, climb as long as there are deficits.Our government, Bush or Obama it doesn’t matter, is like profligate parents who squander their resources and leave their children destitute.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The DEFICIT is half. Go look it up.
        FY 2009 $1,143 billion
        FY 2014 (which we’re in) $744 billion.

        We aren’t using money to create growth because the Republicans block any jobs bills Obama proposes. We could invest heavily in infrastructure but Congress is the entity authorizing spending, not the President.

      • strayaway

        I was addressing the national debt which is cumulative. I was not addressing the deficit. They are different. Again, Part of the 2009 deficit was added by Obama to jumps start his stimulus program.

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        You said, and I quote: “The deficit is not half of what it was in 2009…”

        And economists have said without the stimulus (which should have been bigger), we’d have been in worse shape. Unemployment went down to 7.2% in September from a high of 10% in October 2009. Or doesn’t that matter? And where were you when Bush was doubling our debt?

      • strayaway

        Some economists have said that. They are the Keynesian economists. They also didn’t see the housing bubble happening although some non-Keynesian economists were warning them.

        Warren Harding also had a 11% unemployment situation, the Recession of 1921, popped up shortly after he arrived in office. He did just the opposite of the Hoover/Roosevelt and the Bush/Obama duos. He cut spending and taxes. Within two years unemployment was down to 3.6%. Roosevelt still had 19%, down from 24%, unemployment after 5 years in office. Obama still has 7%,down from 10%, after 5 years in office. Harding had 3.6%, down from 11%. after three years in office. Roosevelt and Obama follow Keynesian economists and get the same results. Surprise, surprise!

      • suburbancuurmudgeon

        The reason for our slow recovery has less to do with any particular political policy and more to do with the global meltdown. The countries that tried austerity had double-dip recessions. And I’m not sure I’d go with what happened 80-100 years ago. We’ve had low taxes since Bush; it didn’t create jobs and only got us into trouble.

      • strayaway

        Gerhardt Schroeder trimmed the German budget prior to the recession. German voters didn’t like his austerity budget and voted him out. However when the recession hit, Germany was well positioned for it because of Schroeder’s austerity program. Countries that did not practice austerity, went broke. It was too late for them to exercise austerity policies. Not spending because one is bankrupt is not austerity. Bums are broke, not austere. Greece was broke, not austere. It didn’t have the resources to have the choice of austerity.

      • nominalize

        You bring up one of the reasons household analogies fail: The US government doesn’t die and have children. So you have to imagine you’re immortal

      • strayaway

        You are wrong. All governments and and most nations die. But that is hardly relevant to our kids who will be burdened with large annual debts dumped on them by Bush ($5T) and Obama ($7T so far). As Asian lenders become more wary of loaning money to the US, the mega-bank owned Fed has offered a new line of credit based on its monopoly of printing money. This solution did not work for long in Argentina or the Weimar Republic. It is unlikely to work here. Government social welfare programs will collapse when resulting inflation inevitably attacks. Our children will suffer through no fault of their own.

    • Secular_Humanist

      it should be called “permission to pay debt.” The government can’t order goods and services and then say – April’s fool, we are not going to pay???
      Right now is the time to borrow money, because we don’t pay interest. this should be used to create jobs (if we get the bill off Boehners desk). When people have jobs, they don’t need assistance, which would not only save money, it would also create income.

      • OJ

        “because we don’t pay interest…”?????

  • 4everdem

    Thank you for watching Fake News so I don’t have to.

  • Oscar Jimison

    Fox New is everything that the author says it is, but they’re not the only ones who neglected to report the basic facts surrounding the shutdown. The media constantly refers to the Affordable Care Act is if it’s a bill that’s still up for debate; the fact that Boehner put himself in the position of being the only one who could avoid the shutdown and then refused to do so, was rarely mentioned; the fact that over the past few months, Republican blocked 19 attempts by Democrats to open negotiations over the budget, evidently wasn’t relevant to the story. The media constantly puts it’s thumb on the scale in favor of Republican in order to maintain their “straight down the middle, both sides are equally to blame” framing.

    • Senor Equis

      Dred Scott/Fugitive Slave Act also were law of the land. Deal with it, abolitionists! Forward!

      • the_consigliere

        Yeah buddy that’s an entirely valid comparison to make. A watered down health care bill addressing insurance coverage is exactly the same as the Fugitive Slave Act.

        Also I don’t know much about history, so from your comments I’m assuming that the abolitionists only defeated the Fugitive Slave Act by threatening to force a default and shutting down the government.

        Damn. Here I was thinking that they actually got rid of it by winning some kind of election and then getting some politician to sign some kind of executive order or i dunno, the freaking emancipation proclamation to nullify the law.

        But I’m sure I just made all that up in my head and you’re entirely correct in your analogy.

      • Richard Gadsden

        And they went out and won elections and amended the constitution to change that. If the Republicans want to get rid of PPACA, they need to win elections.

      • GeeOPee

        The Tea Party types back in the day supported Dred Scott and the Fugitive Slave Act. Just as the Tea Party types of today support destroying Obamacare and replacing it nothing! The Tea Party of today wants to go back to denying 55 million Americans access to insurance and letting Americans die or go bankrupt thanks to pre-existing conditions or insurance being completely unaffordable. You want the death panels back and want to “enslave” Americans to jobs that they hate, but are afraid to leave because of health insurance or doom Americans to early death and bankruptcy. That is a fact. Deal with your slave supporting ways bagger. Time to move on from you crazies. Claiming to be on par with the abolitionists is beyond ridiculous.

      • LLB

        The only “death panel” that EVER existed is/was a person’s health insurance premium/income ratio.

      • Edward Krebbs

        LLB, I basically agree with you. But I’d tend to say the real “death panels” are insurance’s use of rules meant to discourage various forms of treatment / denial of persons with pre-existing conditions / etc.

  • woodrowfan

    In a previous job I got to read a lot of the world’s press. It’s amazing how much Fox “News” resembles the press in Qadhaffi’s Libya, or North Korea’s, or the old Soviet press.

  • Senor Equis

    Yeah, except for all those workers who showed up to put up more Barrycades Mr. Clifton.

    And deficit reduction is only ‘at the most rapid pace since WW2′ because fedgov was printing 1.3 tril a year in 2009. Now we’re down to ‘just’ 700 bil a year, while Dubya was borrowing (back when China still lent U.S. money) 300 bil at height of Iraq War.

  • johngalt30

    Obamacare is law of the land: So were Poll Taxes and Jim Crow.

    Enough votes to keep gov’t open: Likely true.

    Monuments: Were closed, yes, but the park employees who were furloughed were direct by the White House to put barricades up, which never happened in the previous 17 shutdowns since the late 70′s. And it can’t be excused that the White House was giving orders to shut down private businesses and remove people from their privately owned homes.

    Debt ceiling: Half truth, half false. We had racked up $300 Billion in debt over the course of 150 days which did not get reflected on the debt clock, so yeah the first $300 B of the debt ceiling raise covers previous expenses. After that is still a long overdue credit card we keep buying things with.

    Year-to-year deficits: Your claim is intellectually dishonest. We are currently running a $667 Billion annual deficit, down from $1.4 Trillion. Both are the highest this country had ever seen before Obama took office. And you can’t say Bush set 2009 to run a record deficit when both Obama and Biden were in the Senate and Pelosi controlled the house. Bush signed what they gave him. If it weren’t for Republicans creating procedural roadblocks to more deficit we would be at a $2T annual.

    7 times under Bush: Can’t dispute that, but why was Obama willing to shutdown the government and call raising the debt ceiling “unpatriotic” when it was politically expedient and not now? Answer: he is as big of a fraud as the establishment republicans.

    Faux lies, MSLSD lies, CNN lies, they all spin the truth and exaggerate, its television, not a well thought out manuscript. Anyone claiming spoken news will be 100% truthful is failing to account for humans being the deliverer of the news.

  • Imaginfrnd

    Another excellent example is the trucker rally that never happened. But try telling some of it’s supporters. They’ll insist that the government looped the traffic cameras to hide “what was really happening” rather than admit the endeavor was a total bust. Or they’ll readily believe any number of provably false photos and decry anyone providing correctly referenced sources for the photos. I live in the DC area and it was a non-event. Still, how do we move forward from here when faith is the lie is so strong it blinds so completely to truth in the fact?

    • disqus_QitIW1aGkv

      It was very amusing watching the cognitive dissonance go through the roof on the weekend of their “rally” on their Facebook page. They somehow managed to convince themselves that the “rally” was a massive success. Now it’s just a bunch of paranoid conspiracy nuts convinced that “they” are out to get them.

  • Rage

    Faux news is so stupid I don’t bother watching it. As the article states they pump out one way news and never see both side of the story! Cgyjyfyhdyuxftyxftyxftyfgxyuxf. RAGE!

  • he_who_scoffs_at_danger

    Yes. The right wing media goliath. Let us measure him:

    - One cable news outlet
    - Two daily broadsheets
    - A handful of syndicated columnists
    - AM band Talk Radio

    If it were only one guy running off a newsletter on a mimeograph and mailing it to a dozen subscribers, progressives wouldn’t be less outraged than they constantly are at the one news outlet that isn’t within their epistemic bubble.

    Clifton watches FOX a lot because he likes the hategasm he gets from being righteously outraged that there are people who are allowed to think and speak heresies. Same for anyone who has found themselves in the position of having to use more than one derisive moniker for FOX News to finish a single sentence.

    Progressive criticism of FOX News isn’t “media criticism”, it’s myopic derangement inspired by antipluralism.

  • GeeOPee

    Republicans and conservatives will never admit that their media is lying to them. They seek out Fox News, Rush, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones et. al. because they lie to them. They tell them what they want to hear. They rationalize their world view and stroke their egos.

    Expecting them to heal themselves is a waste of time. They simply are not capable. More and more studies show its how they are literally programmed by their brains. The part of the brain that regulates fear is larger in conservative brains. They are ruled by fear, not rational thought.

  • Common Tator

    This whole article is a field full of lies, no different than reading something from the leftists, oh wait. I do agree with one thing, Fox News is not a friend of conservative politics, after all owned by Rupert Murdoch who really isn’t a conservative and is friends with Soros. The news from Fox is more to reinforce the division in America than it is to spread conservative news. I laugh at the people who slam Fox for telling lies, how is that any different than most media? There are conservative media but Fox isn’t one of them.

  • LLB

    Being married to a staunch conservative, I am held hostage to Faux News Radio all the time. I know exactly what you mean.

  • MLR

    I would rather watch MSNBC than FOX, and lately CNN has been pissing me off too. Just the other night Stephen Colbert was making fun of Don Lemon for comparing PBO to the Toronto Mayor. As Colbert pointed out, why did Lemon keep asking his guests if he was being unfair with his comparison? Maybe because he was? I don’t know, silly me thinks that somehow smoking crack might be worse than a bad website.

  • Jim Tabor

    I never understood why Fox News wanted to deceive their audience about the likely outcome of the 2012 Presidential election. Who benefited from that? Certainly not Fox News, and certainly not the deceived electorate. Any ideas?

    • Edward Krebbs

      If Faux had admitted the election was lost a few days before the election, then they couldn’t continue to shovel on the outrage of how the dems stole the election….ACORN…. not a legitimate president….

    • Sean Jones

      Romney and the GOP benefited, people kept donating money thinking it was helping to defeat Obama. If FOX came out and said Rmoney would lose, no one would have sent money.

  • Some.guy

    For me, the simplest way to gauge if a news station is worth watching is seeing how they address any given President.
    “Obama” and not “President Obama”, while saying “President Bush”? Not worth watching.
    “Bush” and not “President Bush”, while saying “President Obama”? Not worth watching.

  • Prabha

    In my opinion, it seems to me that holding a Govt to a shutdown as a form of ransom is criminal. Can be construed as “terrorism” in some aspects. Isn’t the official policy of the USA NOT to negotiate with Terrorists..? Seems even worse when they are in Government..

  • fairness_rules

    Keep revealing the truth, Allen. It is a breath of fresh air in the ultra conservative pit in which I live. It gives me hope!

  • republic84

    Not one single right nut on here spouting gibberish and attempting to defend fox with things like “its got to be real our lord and messiah Reagan watched it” or “they are the only ones who reported the truth about Obama actually being a Kenyan born Muslim”. I’m deeply saddened, I wanted a bit of entertainment before work (yes…us liberals DO work for a living).

  • MercuryCrest

    I was at the protests in Madison when Walker was trying to destroy the unions.

    I talked to the police and the protesters myself. Imagine my surprise when I came back and saw clips from Fox “News” showing rioting and such the same weekend I was there…with PALM TREES in the background.

    I believe they later said they aired the wrong footage or something.

    *sigh*