The establishment media has, thus far, allowed the deficit hypocrites to screech about fiscal responsibility one moment, and then frantically work behind closed doors in the next to ensure the deficit continues to inflate. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and 31 House Democrats have all voiced their opposition to allowing the expiration of the Bush era tax cut for the wealthy. These representatives all claim to be fiscally conservative, yet they're actually fighting to increase the deficit.
A recent favorite example: The AP recently ran a story with the headline "Nearly Half Oppose Tax Hikes for Rich." Here is the opening paragraph:
Almost half the country opposes tax increases for the richest Americans, according to a poll suggesting that congressional Democrats are taking some risk by backing President Barack Obama's plan to boost levies on the wealthy.
If anyone is searching for a mea culpa moment in the press, you can stop looking. The media won't point out this kind of shameless deficit hypocrisy for a couple reasons. First, beltway hill jockeys rely on access to the idiot deficit fearmongers, so they probably don't want to point out that -- ya' know -- the Bush tax cuts significantly contributed to the deficit. That might stir up some bad feelings.
Second, the media feels its role is to forever insist that both sides of the political spectrum harbor "extremists." Therefore, it is unacceptable to point out cutting checks averaging $3 million each to the richest 120,000 people in the country is not a good way to help average people. After all, one doesn't want to sound like some shrill leftist blogger.
It's much safer to take centrist Democrats' word that they're very, very concerned about the deficit and working very, very hard to save us all even as they work to ensure the deficits continues to balloon. That's what a "nonpartisan" stance in the media has become: turning a blind eye to hypocrisy because acknowledging facts has somehow become a liberal stance.
Cross-posted from allisonkilkenny.com
Follow Allison Kilkenny on Twitter: www.twitter.com/allisonkilkenny
It's a bit disingenuous to suggest letting tax cuts on the wealthy expire as being the same as sending them each a $3 million check. Isn't more accurate to say that the rich will each be sending in $3 million less? It did start out as their money after all.
Also, I think it is interesting to see that 46% of the people would like to see the taxes cut for the richest few percent. That means that middle and possibly low income people want to see the taxes of the rich cut. The fact that 54% want to raise taxes on the rich is only noteworthy because of how low that number is. I think that 46% know that cutting taxes is good for all people ... except big welfare progressives and big warfare neo-cons who wish to control our lives, of course.
1) net neutrality is an attempt to prevent end service suppliers from regulating access to content (both speed of data transmission and actual access)
2) MSM is supplying its clients/customers with the clients/customer's desired material. MSM tries to supply a service/product in order to make a profit...it is NOT a mouthpiece of the government. If you have an issue with MSM, please do the AMERICAN thing and switch to another supplier (vote with your dollars)
3) begining to rise up...lol...an illegal war, lies to the public, erosion of our civil rights, spying on americans, ignoring various international treaties...and nothing...but let a black man get elected who then tries to improve the health care system...then people rise up?
lol;...
2. I agree. But most of them do play softball with the powers that be so they maintain access. If they don't play software (i.e. Fox) then the admin basically threatened them with exclusion. The fact that so many backed Fox, suggests the MSM are not complete lap dogs.
3. I am one of those people rising up. But I can assure you, it didn't start with Obamacare. It started with the exact out rages you mentioned. That's why I voted for Obama. But, where is the change? Rising up in 2008 got us more of the same so I am rising up again 2010 and will do it again 2012 and until this federal government finally knows it place and limits itself to its constitutional authority.
I've got a better idea. Give the government less money and end the Fed so they can't just print it up and destroy our currency through the hidden inflation tax (which requires backing the dollar with gold/silver once again). Face it, taxation is evil. It hurts the people it is supposed to help. The tax feeders (pols) loot the population and use that money to benefit campaign contributers in order to get re-elected or to start more wars around the world. How about this idea for a free market - Let me spend my own money! I'm sure it would benefit my children.
wait..an economic policy/process as old (older) than currency represents a moral decision with a negative value?
lol...
"How about this idea for a free market "
I'm fairly sure you have little understanding of what a market is.
85% of our budget deficit is due to Bush wars, Bush tax cuts, Bush recessions and Bush bailouts. The phony fiscal conservative Republican budget proposal doesn't plan on balancing the budget until the year 2063!
"Despite its continuing popularity among Republican politicians, at least a few conservative intellectuals are starting to have misgivings about STB.
For some years Bill Niskanen Cato Institute has argued that STB actually increased spending and made deficits worse. His argument is that the cost of spending is ultimately the taxes that will have to be raised to pay for it. Thus fear of future tax increases was the principal brake on spending until STB came along. By eliminating tax increases as a necessary consequence of deficits, it also reduced the implicit cost of spending. Thus, ironically, STB led to higher spending rather than lower spending as the theory posits.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html
But, of course, the answer is not to raise taxes so we can "Feed the Beast". The solution is to kill the damn thing so it stops eating so much.
members of Congress? I wonder.
“Let me show you the loopholes that the rich exploit, and you too, can be rich.”
The person who says, “why don’t we close the loopholes so that everyone has a fair shot?” is ridiculed and marginalized.
“You can’t fix the system. You’re a fool to try. Smart people take advantage of the loopholes. Make your money before they pass a law.”
This is the attitude that dominates America. Rich/poor. Blue/red. The only difference is how many people we’re willing to disregard to get “ours”. I don’t know that this can be fixed.
This is why there are no journalists left in the media.
This is why a poor person will vote against healthcare and Wall Street reform. And we’re all to blame.
If you want the world to be a better place, be a better person.
..now how do I get off this damn soapbox?
This whole game of 'Shared Sacrifice' and 'Social Security Crisis' is a SHAM. The 400 wealthiest families are sitting on over $1 Trillion. It is they alone who have benefitted from the Reagan Revolution of tax cut after tax cut. It was Presdent Reagan who 'fixed?' Social Security by reducing benefits, but here we go again. It is time for the RICH to pay for their 30 years in the sun. It is time to end once and for all, the 'AUDACITY of GREED.' It is really quite simple. If we don't dramatically raise taxes on the rich right now, the Republic will die and the United States will just be another footnote in the history books about failed democracies.
lol...ONLY in the absence of well managed income. Everyone should implement a personal tax policy and have knowledge of the various tax strategies appropriate for them. If you are actually paying that much tax, then I would blame yourself.
Talk radio and Fox are controlling the debate with no accountability for the propaganda and fear they spread. Where are the supposed liberal media hiding? Besides a few shows on MSNBC I can't find any.
They voice concern about the deficit while their entire agenda (what agenda there is) is based around reducing taxes on everyone.
They also voice concern about the big middle class entitlements (not the ones for the poor) and the military.
Blue Dogs are doing what Democrats do best: accept a conservative-created frame and either concede or argue in vain from the inside of the box.