Fox no longer a news organization

[cheri1122]

Keep it fair at CBS,John. I know you won't.
CBS Political Director John Dickerson Calls on Obama to 'Declare War on the Republican Party'

From the linked article:

Readers with strong stomachs should read the whole thing to comprehend the visceral disdain Dickerson has for Americans who have the nerve to point out that the nation can't possibly continue as it is if it continues to run trillion-dollar annual deficits and pile up debt at an even greater rate.

If that's true, it's because the only ones to point it out are the Republicans, especially the Tea Party version. But they didn't mention it until the last election - never a peep when Bush was running the deficits up with tax cuts. Then, they were all about "Family Values", remember? But they found their ideas of 'family values' don't coincide with most people's, because we think nontraditional families are families too, so they stopped trumpeting that platform loudly.
The deficit is important, no question, but it's not THE most important issue facing us right now, it's just the one the Republicans can use to impose budget cuts on those they don't favor [the old and sick and poor] while giving breaks to the corporations that fund their campaigns [under the heading "job creators"].
Most Americans believe that the deficits will be handled when the economy improves, if Congress can't find the will to stop giving breaks to Wall Street & the banks. And the economy will improve when more people have jobs that pay a decent wage, so they can spend some money, create the demand for goods & services that keeps the economy on a sound footing.
Most Americans believe that major profitable corporations [GE, Verizon, et al] have been playing fast & loose with the responsibility to support one's country via taxes, and we don't like that, either - but the Republicans are fine with it.

 

[davekc]

From the linked article:

Readers with strong stomachs should read the whole thing to comprehend the visceral disdain Dickerson has for Americans who have the nerve to point out that the nation can't possibly continue as it is if it continues to run trillion-dollar annual deficits and pile up debt at an even greater rate.

If that's true, it's because the only ones to point it out are the Republicans, especially the Tea Party version. But they didn't mention it until the last election - never a peep when Bush was running the deficits up with tax cuts. Then, they were all about "Family Values", remember? But they found their ideas of 'family values' don't coincide with most people's, because we think nontraditional families are families too, so they stopped trumpeting that platform loudly.
The deficit is important, no question, but it's not THE most important issue facing us right now, it's just the one the Republicans can use to impose budget cuts on those they don't favor [the old and sick and poor] while giving breaks to the corporations that fund their campaigns [under the heading "job creators"].
Most Americans believe that the deficits will be handled when the economy improves, if Congress can't find the will to stop giving breaks to Wall Street & the banks. And the economy will improve when more people have jobs that pay a decent wage, so they can spend some money, create the demand for goods & services that keeps the economy on a sound footing.
Most Americans believe that major profitable corporations [GE, Verizon, et al] have been playing fast & loose with the responsibility to support one's country via taxes, and we don't like that, either - but the Republicans are fine with it.

Where in the world do you get this stuff? Both parties are guilty of "being in bed" with Wall street. And at the top of the heap, is Obama. He has taken more from Wall Street than any other president including Bush or Reagan. Don't get me started on Hillary.lol. Democrats just like republicans in Wahington are all in that "one percent". Democrats like to pretend they are not, but it is not a reality. In fact they as a whole raised more money in the last election through corporate donations than republicans. The whole Koch brother thing is a farce. Steyer all the way to Goldman's are in the democrats column. One is as bad as the other.
Tax breaks under Bush are a dot on a map when looking at the debt. Spending is the biggest problem. Entitlements represent the highest continuing cost to the government. Just a fact. Add in two wars and reckless spending, and you have where we are at today. A 1.1 TRILLION dollar budget. But Nancy says the cupboards are empty. Too funny.
That irresponsibility falls on both parties. As we keep pouring money in just to service the debt, expect entitlements to continue to shrink. We are even adding illegals into the mix now. Those costs are huge. We don't have enough GE and Apple companies to come close to covering those costs. And that is taking every penny they make.

 

[LDB]

Dave, Dave, Dave, why are you confusing things with truth and facts. It's much easier to blame everything on the right even if the truth is the left hold a majority, albeit a slim one, of all the blame. Take a break, get another glass of koolaid. Maybe then you'll be able to ignore the truth just like the left does.

 

[Ragman]

That irresponsibility falls on both parties.

Yes, a pox on both their houses. The left blames the right, the right blames the left, and it is us, the taxpayer that gets it up the poop shoot!

 

[layoutshooter]

Yes, a pox on both their houses. The left blames the right, the right blames the left, and it is us, the taxpayer that gets it up the poop shoot!

AND

In 2016 the foolishness will be repeated. Nothing will change. There will be no "different" candidates, it will be the same bunch that has be ripping us off for decades.

AND YET

They will win and we are lost.

 

[Ragman]

AND

In 2016 the foolishness will be repeated. Nothing will change. There will be no "different" candidates, it will be the same bunch that has be ripping us off for decades.

AND YET

They will win and we are lost.

The problem is, not enough centerists. Just look at the posts here on this board.

 

[layoutshooter]

The problem is, not enough centerists. Just look at the posts here on this board.

No, the problem is that both, so called political parties, in this country are corrupt. They are owned, and controlled, by the few that wield the dollars needed to keep them in power and line their pockets with enough cash to keep them in their stable.

The other problem is there is no real press willing to expose what is going on. Why? They too are being bought off.

 

[davekc]

Money controls politics. We are at the point that one must be corrupt to some degree, just to have any chance of winning. Big money buys candidates. When their candidate is elected, those paying demand their favors. Sadly not much is going to change until you have a candidate that can win without money from others. Contributions from "the folks" just pales too much in comparison with super pacs and all these other ways that candidates raise money. Only when they limit contributions and ban lobbyists will that change.

 

[layoutshooter]

" Only when they limit contributions and ban lobbyists will that change."

There is likely very few, "elected officials" (puppets), who are willing to bite the hands that feed them. They covet the power and riches that their masters allow them and are more than happy to allow their strings to be pulled.

 

[Turtle]

You know about this, right? Ted Cruz has a pithy comment on it. Marco Rubio seems OK with it.
Koch Brothers Plan to Spend $889 Million On 2016: Here?s What Else They Could Buy With the Cash - ABC News

 

[layoutshooter]

Too bad there is not any REAL "news outlets" putting this stuff out. ABC cannot be trusted to say the sky is blue, none of them can, from any nation on this, or likely any other, planet.

What's Uncle Warren doing? OR Bumbling Bloomberg? Or any of the others that run the political machines?

 

[davekc]

You know about this, right? Ted Cruz has a pithy comment on it. Marco Rubio seems OK with it.
Koch Brothers Plan to Spend $889 Million On 2016: Here?s What Else They Could Buy With the Cash - ABC News

Democrats will have to get cracking to keep up.

 

[Pilgrim]

Don't worry - they'll keep up, and then some. Between the unions, Hollywood's support, George Soros and other sources that go unrecognized by the MSM the money will flow in rivers for the Democrats' benefit.

 

[davekc]

Don't worry - they'll keep up, and then some. Between the unions, Hollywood's support, George Soros and other sources that go unrecognized by the MSM the money will flow in rivers for the Democrats' benefit.

I have no doubt. That is why I think it is hilarious all the talk that the republicans have all the money.

 

[Ragman]

I have no doubt. That is why I think it is hilarious all the talk that the republicans have all the money.

Nobody ever said the Rebumlicans have all the money, just that they support those with money.

 

[Ragman]

Nobody ever said the Rebumlicans have all the money, just that they support those with money.

And then talk about it on Fox pretending it's news. ( had to get thread back on subject )

 

[davekc]

Nobody ever said the Rebumlicans have all the money, just that they support those with money.

Almost. The only difference is that Republicans support the oil industry and Democrats support Hollywood. Same thing, just different industries.

 

[cheri1122]

Dave: I don't care who they get money from, what matters is the legislation they propose & support. One of the Republicans' first items on their agenda is rolling back the reforms enacted after the banks and Wall Street almost crashed the whole country. The Democrats take money from Wall St, but some of them want to avoid a repeat of near catastrophe, and I haven't heard of any R names supporting them. The R side wants to run the Keystone pipeline through the country - for what benefit? There was another busted pipeline in the news this week, threatening the water supply, do we need the risk, really? For 35 jobs?!
I'd support tax breaks if they translated to actual jobs, but the truth is, they don't - they are just more profit for companies that never get enough.
The idea that spending is the problem ignores the other side of the coin: spending wouldn't be a problem if the income supported it, but they never want to discuss the income, do they? And when they talk about spending, they never mention the Defense Dept, or call crop subsidies 'welfare' [but they are] or the tax cheats, either. I wonder how much tax income would increase if they stopped allowing writeoffs for "charitable deductions" that are nothing more than quid pro quo transactions - like golf tournaments, $400/plate dinners, private previews of public events - the list is pretty long, and the pretense is beyond defending.
Sam Brownback just showed how well those Republican policies worked in Kansas, and it's pretty ugly.

 

[paullud]

Dave: I don't care who they get money from, what matters is the legislation they propose & support. One of the Republicans' first items on their agenda is rolling back the reforms enacted after the banks and Wall Street almost crashed the whole country. The Democrats take money from Wall St, but some of them want to avoid a repeat of near catastrophe, and I haven't heard of any R names supporting them.

The American people are to blame for the recession and not the banks or Wall Street. The government getting involved in banks and mortgages in the first place was one of the biggest causes of the crisis so getting the government's claws buried deeper into the financial system is a bad thing.

The R side wants to run the Keystone pipeline through the country - for what benefit? There was another busted pipeline in the news this week, threatening the water supply, do we need the risk, really? For 35 jobs?!

The benefit is to make transporting oil easier which will help make oil based products cheaper for everyone, including the poor.

I'd support tax breaks if they translated to actual jobs, but the truth is, they don't - they are just more profit for companies that never get enough.

The truth is that they do.

The idea that spending is the problem ignores the other side of the coin: spending wouldn't be a problem if the income supported it, but they never want to discuss the income, do they?

Spending is the issue because you can't continue to out spend your income. The income will never support the spending and if the government continues to try and take more then companies will continue to leave the US. That decreases tax revenue and takes jobs away from the US.

And when they talk about spending, they never mention the Defense Dept, or call crop subsidies 'welfare' [but they are] or the tax cheats, either.

Spending on the defense department is a benefit to the entire country but there needs to be some new policies put in place that make more sense. Crop subsidies are in place for a very good reason and again it is to help the entire country.

I wonder how much tax income would increase if they stopped allowing writeoffs for "charitable deductions" that are nothing more than quid pro quo transactions - like golf tournaments, $400/plate dinners, private previews of public events - the list is pretty long, and the pretense is beyond defending.
Sam Brownback just showed how well those Republican policies worked in Kansas, and it's pretty ugly.

It would pretty much be nothing since the tax benefit from collecting a percentage of a small percentage of income won't even make a noticeable dent. Of course the people that donate through those means will just donate using another process that meets the new laws.

 

[davekc]

Dave: I don't care who they get money from, what matters is the legislation they propose & support. One of the Republicans' first items on their agenda is rolling back the reforms enacted after the banks and Wall Street almost crashed the whole country. The Democrats take money from Wall St, but some of them want to avoid a repeat of near catastrophe, and I haven't heard of any R names supporting them. The R side wants to run the Keystone pipeline through the country - for what benefit? There was another busted pipeline in the news this week, threatening the water supply, do we need the risk, really? For 35 jobs?!
I'd support tax breaks if they translated to actual jobs, but the truth is, they don't - they are just more profit for companies that never get enough.
The idea that spending is the problem ignores the other side of the coin: spending wouldn't be a problem if the income supported it, but they never want to discuss the income, do they? And when they talk about spending, they never mention the Defense Dept, or call crop subsidies 'welfare' [but they are] or the tax cheats, either. I wonder how much tax income would increase if they stopped allowing writeoffs for "charitable deductions" that are nothing more than quid pro quo transactions - like golf tournaments, $400/plate dinners, private previews of public events - the list is pretty long, and the pretense is beyond defending.
Sam Brownback just showed how well those Republican policies worked in Kansas, and it's pretty ugly.

I will try to hit on a few of your items. I would say republicans do a much better job at the state level. Look at states ran by democrats and most are broke. Look at cities that filed for bankruptcy. Yep, all democrats. As for banking regulations, I would recommend reviewing the Dodd-Frank bill. It needs some major repairs but as mentioned, government shouldn't be involved with mortgage lending.
As for Keystone, you are probably looking at 9k employees for three years. Plenty of unemployment. The 35 only represents the people needed to monitor it. That doesn't count maintenance and the jobs created because it is there. Whether it is environmentally the right thing is debatable. The EPA says it is good to go. Will they monitor it? Time will tell. Oil is going to get sold down there anyway. So either a pipeline, or truck and rail.
You say that republicans don't want to talk about income, but what they see is that you have to have businesses willing to make the investments to provide those jobs. If the focus is to tax them into oblivion, then they just move and hire elsewhere. We are now in a global economy and that isn't going to change. If you take the incentive away from businesses, where are these jobs going to come from?
Crop subsidies make sense in certain circumstances. If certain things aren't grown because of price, guess what. On the other side, some of it is a mess when looking at the sugar industry for example.
We do agree on one thing with regards to write offs, some are hard to defend but as long as both parties are cashing in and writing those laws, don't expect much to change.