This entry was posted on July 14, 2011 at 7:30 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
It’s been quite a show, eh, Steve? The ‘regular’ Repubs are locked in a disasterous battle with a Tea Party who genuinely believe the impending market crash is hogwash; and the prez is wiping his hands, saying, “You got massive cuts on the table, and those crazies are still shouting ‘no!’ and marching you off a cliff. I’m done.”
This economy is going from deep recession to doomsday, and “the American people” are gonna be asking The Crazies what the hell they were thinking. Tic tic tic..
Whenever we’ve had these disputes between the White House and Congress, the President always wins out. At least in my lifetime.
Leadership exemplified by one person will always trump a collection of disparate voices.
Reagan and the Democrats, Clinton and the Republicans, Bush. Jr. with the Democrats…the President will always appear to be above the messiness of Congress with its multiple voices.
And the American public still, institutionally, views the Presidency more positively than they do Congress.
Can we call a moratorium on people who skip the 9/11 reference when saying “no terrorist attacks under Bush”? Yesterday on The Five, Eric Bolling said “no attacks from 2000 to 2008″..now he’s getting dinged on Twitter for it.
1. Nobody “forgets” 9/11, they just forget to say “since 9/11″ or “aside from 9/11″. I agree that Eric’s timeline is a more egregious “skipping” of the event than the more common “under Bush” but..
2. ..in one of the more mystifying performances I’ve seen in a long time, Eric “Screaming Lunatic” Bolling is completely lost as an equal one-of-five. He manages to get his points out, but whereas everyone else keeps pushing and talking over each other, Eric clams up as soon as someone chimes in. He’s flustered in this environment, and it lead to a mangled sentence. Get over it, and enjoy the new kinder, gentler Eric Bolling.
There needs to be actual leadership for it to be exemplified. Reagan, Clinton and Bush lead, but this president just plays games.
There is no reason to believe that a world market crash would be eminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by August 2. Serious disruptions in government functions are almost certain, but runaway American debt is far more likely to be the cause of a severe world financial meltdown.
Politics be damned. What good is having a debt ceiling written into law if it is never used to reign-in overspending? Given that it has been roundly agreed that it is always bad to raise taxes during poor economic times, and that any potential revenue increase from doing so won’t amount to so much as a hill of beans toward reducing the deficit, why is raising taxes on anybody even under consideration?
“I’m not proposing to raise them until 2013″. Fine, then shut up about raising taxes until 2013 and deal with the ever-rising debt now. Raising taxes amount to phony debt reduction and if the Repubs agree to such a thing then they will lose the House in 2012.
Mila Kunis is a fool. What the heck was she thinking, agreeing to a date and then deciding she’s busy? Even if she makes it right, she’ll always be remembered (to the extent that people remember things) as the B who stood-up a Marine. Do you really need a PR-consult to know that?
Mila should have never been put in that position. If she’s actually filming two movies during that time, she does have a great excuse for getting out of it.
If her people were smart though, they’d treat the soldier like a Make A Wish kid. Fly him out..let him hang on the set …eat a meal with him and send him on his way.
But it makes more sense for ones who need the publicity to take up one of these things. Remember when Chely Wright was some kids prom date.
At the time, hardly anyone knew who she was. But they milked this for all the PR attention they could get. She was appearing on CNN, Fox News and other outlets. ET and others picked up the story.
An interview with his own employees? What’s next, a sit down with Bill O’Reilly to “clear the air”? Nice way to drag the UK scandal into your own living room, idiot.
He should issue a stand alone press release. His own employees interviewing him removes any veneer of journalism from them, while dragging them into the scandal in the process. Massively stupid. Once again, Rupert simply doesn’t give a damn about anything but his bottom line.
“Once again, Rupert simply doesn’t give a damn about anything but his bottom line.”
Do you have a saved file that you just pull talking points from? What does that have to do with the WSJ interview? Newsflash: He’s a businessman, it’s his job to care about the bottom line.
My point about Murdoch dragging the WSJ into his family mess is clear. American journalists being used as pawns for the boss to defend himself against a UK scandal they have nothing to do with is stunning.
^ Maybe. I don’t pay attention to this kind of stuff as much as you do. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. It was an interview and for those 3 people out there that didn’t know the WSJ is owned by NewsCorp, it was noted.
Fox has done a good job of treating the story as a separate event from themselves. Murdoch shouldn’t be involving his news properties in his own defense. As far as we know, no one on this side of the pond has anything to do with his kid’s slimey activities at a tabloid in England. Dragging The Wall Street Journal in dishonors a legendary paper.
-Fox has done a good job of treating the story as a separate event from themselves.-
First, they really should treat it as something separate from themselves along with always including the disclosure about sharing a parent company, which they have been doing. Second, it is something technically separate from themselves as each are separate entities with their own officers and management.
As far as we know, no one…
True, but I read that to possibly mean, “We don’t know much.” Odds are there is no connection, but considering the potential for national security issues we need to learn more. I welcome Mr. Murdoch being interviewed by whoever he wants – including news outlets he owns – and if there’s any funny business happening on this side of the pond then his words can be used against him in a court of law.
BBC reporting that a NewsCorp shareholder is insisting Rebekah Brooks ‘has to go’. Mr. Murdoch may wield a whole lot of power in that organisation but he doesn’t always get his way.
It is actually surprising Rebekah Brooks still has her job. She is literally toxic at the moment so she must have a lot on Murdoch for her to still be around.
Bill O’Reilly claims that he doesn’t get any tax loopholes. Either his accountant is an idiot or Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t understand what the term means. He seems to believe that money taken overseas is a “loophole” when,, in reality, it’s mostly taxed profits that are invested elsewhere and outside of U.S. taxation jurisdiction. That money earns profits overseas and it stays overseas where taxes are only paid on earnings but without the double taxation of capital gains.
All of the proceeds of merchandise sales from BillOreilly.com go to charity and, as such, are deductible in their entirety for Mr. O’Reilly. It’s a nice thing to do and there’s nothing at all wrong with it, but it also adds to his notoriety and arguably amounts to expensive advertising paid for by others. Might this qualify as a clever tax loophole?
Ultimately it’s all about the money. http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-owners-of-the-wall-street-journal-say-they-wouldnt-have-sold-paper-to-murdoch-if-we-had-known/
——————–
The BBC is on strike. BBC World News is trying to hide it but it’s visible because its bulletins are broadcast from only Washington and Singapore for the last few hours, which has no effect on its reporting, which is good. To America, it’s a great thing workers at your public broadcasters don’t feel that same sense of entitlement like those at the BBC and the CBC.
You can’t do it, Al. A flat tax is only “fair” on an acamedic “same for everyone” level. In reality, the only way it generates enough revenue is for the percentage to be so high that the working class eat a huge amount, while that same percentage amount doesn’t have the same effect on wealthier folks.
You have to have a progressive system where the impact on lower income individuals is tolerable, while the higher percentage impact on higher income is also not egregious.
It would be acceptable to tier the rates such that the first fifty grand or so is taxed at a very lowl rate – just so everybody pays something and then whatever the rate needs to be above that.
I realise my net tax would probably be more than it is now without all of the deductions, credits, etc., but I could also fill out my tax return on a postcard and that would save a fortune. It’s real advantage, of course, is that investments and buying decisions would be based upon solely upon their merits without the artificial and too often wrong incentives of tax savings.
#43 heeded the lesson of #26 and it served us well. #44, in his inexperience and arrogance, just didn’t get it. Ironically, the quote is of East African origin.
July 14, 2011 at 7:39 am
Insanity:
http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/13/donald-rumsfeld-tsa-airport-security-patdown-screening-gun-bomb-weapon/
July 14, 2011 at 8:23 am
The Republican Congressional leadership better go hat in hand to the White House and beg the President to agree to a debt limit increase.
Because if the limit isn’t raised and the world markets crash – a real possiblity – they and they alone will be blamed for the results.
And with that goes the House for the next decade. Along with a landslide re-election of Barack Obama.
He has completely outmaneuvered them on this issue.
July 14, 2011 at 9:18 am
It’s been quite a show, eh, Steve? The ‘regular’ Repubs are locked in a disasterous battle with a Tea Party who genuinely believe the impending market crash is hogwash; and the prez is wiping his hands, saying, “You got massive cuts on the table, and those crazies are still shouting ‘no!’ and marching you off a cliff. I’m done.”
This economy is going from deep recession to doomsday, and “the American people” are gonna be asking The Crazies what the hell they were thinking. Tic tic tic..
July 14, 2011 at 9:56 am
Whenever we’ve had these disputes between the White House and Congress, the President always wins out. At least in my lifetime.
Leadership exemplified by one person will always trump a collection of disparate voices.
Reagan and the Democrats, Clinton and the Republicans, Bush. Jr. with the Democrats…the President will always appear to be above the messiness of Congress with its multiple voices.
And the American public still, institutionally, views the Presidency more positively than they do Congress.
July 14, 2011 at 10:01 am
Can we call a moratorium on people who skip the 9/11 reference when saying “no terrorist attacks under Bush”? Yesterday on The Five, Eric Bolling said “no attacks from 2000 to 2008″..now he’s getting dinged on Twitter for it.
1. Nobody “forgets” 9/11, they just forget to say “since 9/11″ or “aside from 9/11″. I agree that Eric’s timeline is a more egregious “skipping” of the event than the more common “under Bush” but..
2. ..in one of the more mystifying performances I’ve seen in a long time, Eric “Screaming Lunatic” Bolling is completely lost as an equal one-of-five. He manages to get his points out, but whereas everyone else keeps pushing and talking over each other, Eric clams up as soon as someone chimes in. He’s flustered in this environment, and it lead to a mangled sentence. Get over it, and enjoy the new kinder, gentler Eric Bolling.
July 14, 2011 at 11:56 am
Leadership exemplified by one person
There needs to be actual leadership for it to be exemplified. Reagan, Clinton and Bush lead, but this president just plays games.
There is no reason to believe that a world market crash would be eminent if the debt ceiling isn’t raised by August 2. Serious disruptions in government functions are almost certain, but runaway American debt is far more likely to be the cause of a severe world financial meltdown.
Politics be damned. What good is having a debt ceiling written into law if it is never used to reign-in overspending? Given that it has been roundly agreed that it is always bad to raise taxes during poor economic times, and that any potential revenue increase from doing so won’t amount to so much as a hill of beans toward reducing the deficit, why is raising taxes on anybody even under consideration?
“I’m not proposing to raise them until 2013″. Fine, then shut up about raising taxes until 2013 and deal with the ever-rising debt now. Raising taxes amount to phony debt reduction and if the Repubs agree to such a thing then they will lose the House in 2012.
July 14, 2011 at 12:08 pm
“What good is having a debt ceiling written into law if it is never used to reign-in overspending? ”
That’s been my argument. What the hell is the point? They set a ceiling they have no intentions of not breaking. It should be called a debt elevator.
July 14, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Mila Kunis is a fool. What the heck was she thinking, agreeing to a date and then deciding she’s busy? Even if she makes it right, she’ll always be remembered (to the extent that people remember things) as the B who stood-up a Marine. Do you really need a PR-consult to know that?
July 14, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Phew. Dodged that bullet.
July 14, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Mila should have never been put in that position. If she’s actually filming two movies during that time, she does have a great excuse for getting out of it.
If her people were smart though, they’d treat the soldier like a Make A Wish kid. Fly him out..let him hang on the set …eat a meal with him and send him on his way.
But it makes more sense for ones who need the publicity to take up one of these things. Remember when Chely Wright was some kids prom date.
http://www.cmt.com/news/news-in-brief/1473869/the-wright-prom-date.jhtml
At the time, hardly anyone knew who she was. But they milked this for all the PR attention they could get. She was appearing on CNN, Fox News and other outlets. ET and others picked up the story.
July 14, 2011 at 1:33 pm
Remember when Chely Wright was some kids prom date?
No.
July 14, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Oops:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/reuters-david-cay-johnston-the-premise-of-my-debut-column-on-news-corps-taxes-was-100-percent-dead-wrong/
July 14, 2011 at 1:51 pm
An interview with his own employees? What’s next, a sit down with Bill O’Reilly to “clear the air”? Nice way to drag the UK scandal into your own living room, idiot.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304521304576446261304709284.html
July 14, 2011 at 1:55 pm
You’re right, Joe. He should give an interview to NBC News or the NYT. I regularly see the CEO of McDonalds eating at Burger King.
July 14, 2011 at 1:59 pm
He should issue a stand alone press release. His own employees interviewing him removes any veneer of journalism from them, while dragging them into the scandal in the process. Massively stupid. Once again, Rupert simply doesn’t give a damn about anything but his bottom line.
July 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm
Bolling corrected his 2000-2008 gaffe. Happy now, idiots?
July 14, 2011 at 2:20 pm
The Five:
The New York mosque, then atheists against Rick Perry’s prayer event. Did we run out of stories already? This is embarrassing.
July 14, 2011 at 2:27 pm
“Once again, Rupert simply doesn’t give a damn about anything but his bottom line.”
Do you have a saved file that you just pull talking points from? What does that have to do with the WSJ interview? Newsflash: He’s a businessman, it’s his job to care about the bottom line.
July 14, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“The Five:
The New York mosque, then atheists against Rick Perry’s prayer event. Did we run out of stories already? This is embarrassing.”
Well, they could do every segment on Palin, Bachmann and what people at Fox News had to say. But, then they’d just be echoing their competition.
July 14, 2011 at 2:34 pm
My point about Murdoch dragging the WSJ into his family mess is clear. American journalists being used as pawns for the boss to defend himself against a UK scandal they have nothing to do with is stunning.
July 14, 2011 at 2:46 pm
^ Maybe. I don’t pay attention to this kind of stuff as much as you do. Doesn’t seem like a big deal to me. It was an interview and for those 3 people out there that didn’t know the WSJ is owned by NewsCorp, it was noted.
July 14, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Fox has done a good job of treating the story as a separate event from themselves. Murdoch shouldn’t be involving his news properties in his own defense. As far as we know, no one on this side of the pond has anything to do with his kid’s slimey activities at a tabloid in England. Dragging The Wall Street Journal in dishonors a legendary paper.
July 14, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Shannon Bream reporting her boss’s defense in the WSJ on FNC. Perfect.
July 14, 2011 at 3:37 pm
-Fox has done a good job of treating the story as a separate event from themselves.-
First, they really should treat it as something separate from themselves along with always including the disclosure about sharing a parent company, which they have been doing. Second, it is something technically separate from themselves as each are separate entities with their own officers and management.
As far as we know, no one…
True, but I read that to possibly mean, “We don’t know much.” Odds are there is no connection, but considering the potential for national security issues we need to learn more. I welcome Mr. Murdoch being interviewed by whoever he wants – including news outlets he owns – and if there’s any funny business happening on this side of the pond then his words can be used against him in a court of law.
July 14, 2011 at 3:43 pm
BBC reporting that a NewsCorp shareholder is insisting Rebekah Brooks ‘has to go’. Mr. Murdoch may wield a whole lot of power in that organisation but he doesn’t always get his way.
July 14, 2011 at 3:56 pm
It is actually surprising Rebekah Brooks still has her job. She is literally toxic at the moment so she must have a lot on Murdoch for her to still be around.
July 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Bill O’Reilly claims that he doesn’t get any tax loopholes. Either his accountant is an idiot or Mr. O’Reilly doesn’t understand what the term means. He seems to believe that money taken overseas is a “loophole” when,, in reality, it’s mostly taxed profits that are invested elsewhere and outside of U.S. taxation jurisdiction. That money earns profits overseas and it stays overseas where taxes are only paid on earnings but without the double taxation of capital gains.
July 14, 2011 at 7:19 pm
O’Reilly shouldn’t talk about forms he never sees.
July 14, 2011 at 7:23 pm
O’Reilly is a Man of the People, and Men of the People don’t know from “loopholes”. Are we clear?
July 14, 2011 at 7:32 pm
His People deal with that..
July 14, 2011 at 7:59 pm
All of the proceeds of merchandise sales from BillOreilly.com go to charity and, as such, are deductible in their entirety for Mr. O’Reilly. It’s a nice thing to do and there’s nothing at all wrong with it, but it also adds to his notoriety and arguably amounts to expensive advertising paid for by others. Might this qualify as a clever tax loophole?
July 14, 2011 at 8:40 pm
“Clever” is American. So is the charitable deduction. I thnk it’s in the Constitution. Don’t touch it.
July 14, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Ultimately it’s all about the money.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/former-owners-of-the-wall-street-journal-say-they-wouldnt-have-sold-paper-to-murdoch-if-we-had-known/
——————–
The BBC is on strike. BBC World News is trying to hide it but it’s visible because its bulletins are broadcast from only Washington and Singapore for the last few hours, which has no effect on its reporting, which is good. To America, it’s a great thing workers at your public broadcasters don’t feel that same sense of entitlement like those at the BBC and the CBC.
July 14, 2011 at 8:52 pm
I agree with you (except about the constitution part) but I’d give up my charitable and mortgage deductions for a flat tax.
July 14, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I seem to recall paying a television tax in the UK… Uhg.
July 14, 2011 at 9:13 pm
NO FLAT TAX.
July 14, 2011 at 9:19 pm
Figures… “Screw more economic prosperity for everyone. It’s more important to keep the class warfare bit going.”
July 14, 2011 at 9:45 pm
You can’t do it, Al. A flat tax is only “fair” on an acamedic “same for everyone” level. In reality, the only way it generates enough revenue is for the percentage to be so high that the working class eat a huge amount, while that same percentage amount doesn’t have the same effect on wealthier folks.
You have to have a progressive system where the impact on lower income individuals is tolerable, while the higher percentage impact on higher income is also not egregious.
July 14, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Ooh ooh great idea! How about reduce the spending to match the revenue. That makes the flat tax work.
July 14, 2011 at 10:12 pm
It would be acceptable to tier the rates such that the first fifty grand or so is taxed at a very lowl rate – just so everybody pays something and then whatever the rate needs to be above that.
I realise my net tax would probably be more than it is now without all of the deductions, credits, etc., but I could also fill out my tax return on a postcard and that would save a fortune. It’s real advantage, of course, is that investments and buying decisions would be based upon solely upon their merits without the artificial and too often wrong incentives of tax savings.
July 14, 2011 at 10:55 pm
#43 heeded the lesson of #26 and it served us well. #44, in his inexperience and arrogance, just didn’t get it. Ironically, the quote is of East African origin.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/13/arabs