Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
When I have to drive over taxpayer-supported highways that have been severely damaged by huge trucks I do doubt they are paying their fair share. Those trucks obviously overstress the infrastructure, but the corporations have bribed the legislatures to pretend otherwise. Just one example.
When I have to drive over taxpayer-supported highways that have been severely damaged by huge trucks I do doubt they are paying their fair share. Those trucks obviously overstress the infrastructure, but the corporations have bribed the legislatures to pretend otherwise. Just one example.
Right - so raise corp. taxes. What you don't get is that corp. taxes are regressive taxes. What that means is that the poor and rich are equally taxed. Also, corps only collect the tax from their customer and transfers it to the gov't.
An when a poor Latina single mother comes home from her second part time job and wants to relax with a beer, she can't afford it, because Old_Joe thinks the corp and she by extension do not pay their fair share and made it too expensive. Or maybe she just wants to take her child out to McDonalds, but no, Old_Joe thinks the corp and she by extension do not pay their fair share and made it too expensive.
Have you always hated the poor or was there a trigger for it?
Didn't say anything about raising corporate "taxes". Is there some valid reason that business should not pay it's fair share when they abuse and destroy commonly owned infrastructure, or contaminate commonly shared resources?
"What you don't get" You haven't the slightest clue as to what I do or don't "get".
"Have you always hated the poor?"
Mark Twain had an observation, crafted specially for jackasses: "It's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt." When you contribute half of what we do to help the poor then you can open your mouth and bray.
With regard to taxation, you really have to look at the incidence of taxation [read: what they actually pay]. Historically, it was zero at the bottom and the top and fairly flat across the middle. These days, at least here in Michigan, corporations do not pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure they require for their operation. This has come about via tax cuts for them added to negotiated tax breaks for building, expanding or even staying in some jurisdiction. Hell, there have been bidding wars between cities and even states.
Taxation, whenever possible, should be based upon the user fee concept. Road taxes, park fees and morphing into sewer and water costs and further into a plain cost basis transaction.
Then we get to the 'general fund'. The common good, as it were. National defense, police and fire, the court system and laws, etc. Most of this is straight forward.
And then the sticky part - the social good of a people. How do they take care of the poor and elderly? How do they address education? How do they protect the environment? How do they address health care? The answers to these questions define a people.
Are we high minded? or knuckle dragging troglodytes?
It hurts my heart to see someone deliberately appealing to the latter.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
BTW, if you really want to fix the tax system make it 15% for EVERYTHING - with zero deductions and a personal exemption of $25,000. Income, dividends, interest, short and long term cap gains, corp. A family of four wouldn't start paying their 15% until they hit $100,000. Corporations would pay 15% - at the window, just like everyone else.
"I'd rather that the ... poor are not taxed into poverty"
By definition, nothing will move the poor into poverty, they're already there. On the other hand, you can tax the poor out of poverty with refundable tax credits like the EIC as well as with food stamps and the like.
"There are different levels of poverty and different types of poverty e.g. education." Attaboy, Dex. Firm grasp of the obvious.
I really like where you ask "Have you always hated the poor?" immediately followed by "Oh, you don't hate the poor". Another flailing, blind attempt to score some incoherent alternate fact. At least you're in high, if not good company- why not apply for a job with the current administration? You're a natural replacement for Kelly Ann Conway!
This thread seems to have veered way off topic (fine with me, I'm just saying).
I guess a couple thoughts: 1. The word "attack" is used in the subject. Much like the word "outrage", its a convenient word to toss out there, but may not be most apt. Wouldn't it be less emotional, and more clinical/accurate to indicate Trump "critiqued" or even "criticized" the media? I mean he hasn't come to fisticuffs (yet) with Don Lemon, has he?
2. There has, for decades, been a partisan bias (i.e. pro-Blue) in most media. Some conservatives (Rush L., then FoxNews) saw an unmet need, and filled it, very profitably. The effect on the MSM, seems to have tilted even more "pro-Blue". This becomes a self-enforcing feedback-loops of sorts: each media outlet caters ever more to its own biases, because the people who tend to watch that outlet tent to mostly skew to the bias. Obama famously made a habit of criticizing Rush and Fox News. Shoe is now on the other foot. Tough-patoot!
3, During the ColdWar, the Soviets had "media" too, notably Pravda. Pravda did not report the news objectively, but with a systemic bias to support state objectives. The truth was subverted to fit political objectives. Just because an organization maintains that they are a "news outlet" doesn't mean they are honest, anymore than Pravda "journalists" were honest. My anectodal impression during the election is that the MSM, on a daily, and rather consistent basis, seemed to program their segments in lockstep with Dem talking points. Effectively, much of the MSM behaves as though they are organs of the DNC -- disseminating the "party line" much like Pravda once did.
4. The proliferation of blogs and other internet options seems to allow someone to start a rumor (or fake news), and much of the MSM will just take it 'as is' and disseminate it -- so long as it fits the DNC worldview.
5. The deep & widespread bias of the MSM was obvious on election night, and in the immediate aftermath. The non-verbal behavior of the on-screen 'talent' was laughably transparent to this writer.
6. Has any journalist who was caught collaborating with Podesta or the Clinton campaign been terminated? Seem to recall Brian Harwood (?) was involved in that. He still seems to have a job. NBC anchor Brian Williams, caught in repeated lying is "suspended", then re-appears on MSNBC. The MSM doesn't police itself, even when the bias is blatant and uncontested.
My (long-winded) point, "journalism" in the tradition of Murrow is dead. The mid-20th century ideal of reporters as some type of sacrosanct arbiters of objective truth is not the world we live in. Trump didn't kill it. -- He's simply honest enought to call a spade, a spade. "Independent reporters" do not exist. If the MSM operates as an organ of the opposition party, its quite appropriate to deal with them as such. Just as if they were Pravda.
"The mid-20th century ideal of reporters as some type of sacrosanct arbiters of objective truth is not the world we live in. Trump didn't kill it."
Certainly no argument there. In my opinion, AM "hate radio", aided and abetted by "the proliferation of blogs and other internet options... (allowing) someone to start a rumor (or fake news)" killed it. Has any journalist who was caught collaborating with Bannon or the Trump campaign been terminated? Trump simply took advantage of the situation, handing over the White House to Breitbart, the well-known purveyor of absolute truth.
He surely won't be the last to do that, on either side.
@Ted- we were being pretty civil until Dan Hardy poisoned the water, as usual. It's a shame that a thread deteriorates because of the irresponsibility of one person.
Agree. This has been a rather civil thread. Unless David or Chip have issues (which they'd say so if they did) clearly it's not a "bad" or "toxic" thread or discussion that needs to be closed. Besides, if a thread gets bad, folks just move on to another one. In other words, as you were, folks....
@Ted- we were being pretty civil until Dan Hardy poisoned the water, as usual. It's a shame that a thread deteriorates because of the irresponsibility of one person.
Any attempt to equate the veracity of Rush or Fox News with the MSM is laughable at best. Trump is the least honest of all bordering on pathological. By journalism standards they fail. Did the MSM call the election wrong? Sure, they and just about everyone else but they didn't alter the polls and stats they were being fed. Not so much bias as didn't see that coming.
>> He surely won't be the last to do that, on either side.
Oh, come on. Jeez.
@davidrmoran No sir, I'm afraid that I'm serious with respect to that prediction. Roughly since the advent of the "Tea Party" we have seen an ever increasing spiral of misinformation, disrespect (if not outright hatred), and aversion to even the concept of compromise. This has now been shown to enable the capture of two branches of the government. Why would such a potent weapon not be used in the future?
Then I suppose the Tea Party is to blame for the incessant hate diatribe that is CNN. Their constant references to a certain German dictator or to white- hooded southerners came from that source? CNN has destroyed themselves.
If anyone is looking to blame someone here, just look in the mirror, myself included. A better place to start these discussions is MSNBC or Media Matters. Let's leave MFO for investing talk.
@JohnChisum- By choice we don't view any of the cable channels, of any type. I do get the definite impression from commentary here that CNN is less than impartial, for what that's worth. I didn't mean to imply cause and effect with respect to the Tea Party, but now that you mention it it's one heck of a coincidence, isn't it?
Your reference to the Tea Party was clear to me, not sure why you are backing off that?
This started earlier with the 2000 elections. Some people cannot accept the results if their candidate loses. This time around it's very different. I've never seen anything like this, where not only people but the news and politicians are out to get rid of President Trump at all costs. This has gone way beyond the usual bickering. Disagreements are one thing but calling for impeachment or even worse is just plain idiotic and for the latter, criminal.
@Edmond: I thought the thread's caption accurately reflected what Trump said. Maybe he was just having a bad day and letting off some steam. Don't know. But that's what he said. Please don't shoot the messenger.
@OJ, sorry, I understood you to mean either side as in left/right - liberal/'conservative' (shd be 'destructive'). I inferred totally false equivalence, not know what you meant 'on either side.'
@JC, CNN a hate party? omg, bwahahaha. And then you cite the 2k election, which was blatantly stolen? A double piece of comedy tonight! I salute you.
A triple, actually: 'out to get rid of Trump at all costs, and you have never seen the like'? You slept through '08 and '12? Maybe someone can fill you in on what happened.
I've never seen anything like this, where not only people but the news and politicians are out to get rid of President Trump at all costs.
Could this be because of Trump's polarizing personality where he represents only his followers, his social media outbursts villianizing any counter views? Is it because he has degraded other parts of government that oppose his views or actions, in essence opposing the 3 equal but separate concept of government branches - again when they don't agree with him (and by the way, the media has always been known as the unofficial 4th branch/watchdog)? Is it because he is out of touch with MOST Americans, even with a low Democratic turnout he still had 3M less votes then Hillary? Is it because if you looked at the 'history repeats itself mantra', his actions are reminiscent of dictatorship, not democracy? Should we ignore the signals and say that's ridiculous, it can't happen here?
This phenomenon has been building over many years, starting with entertainment political radio, also called hate radio, with the Rush show in the 80's. The Tea Party grew from that propaganda in my opinion, nothing more. And never have the fringe groups of skin heads, white supremacists and other hate groups been more excepting of a government elected official in modern times than the election of Trump. Are they wrong, or you?
Sorry, there are definitively 2 drastically different beliefs about what is going on here. I had to vent my 2 cents.
@JohnChisum- By choice we don't view any of the cable channels, of any type. I do get the definite impression from commentary here that CNN is less than impartial, for what that's worth. I didn't mean to imply cause and effect with respect to the Tea Party, but now that you mention it it's one heck of a coincidence, isn't it?
LOL,
I probably watch Fox more than any other "news" network - and still can't bring myself to join the 39% who currently approve of Trump's performance.
The whole concept of national TV networks overtly favoring one side or the other troubles me. CNN's garbage - pretty much top to bottom. So I'd hate to single out Don Lemon, but I will. MSNBC has some very bright capable people - but is too one-sided to be taken seriously.
I'd gladly return to something like the FCC fairness doctrine that existed from 1949 until 1987 - although it might need to be modified to include cable channels. Wasn't perfect - but at least it gave lip service to the idea of those using the public airways having to air both sides of controversial public issues. Brave new world we're in for sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
@MikeM- Well, I was just trying for a quick outline, but you nicely filled in with full color. Trump may not have deliberately solicited "the fringe groups of skin heads, white supremacists and other hate groups", but he certainly did nothing to discourage them, either. The resulting abusive excesses are just beginning. I still cannot decide whether this man is personally evil, or simply so obtuse that he is unaware of the evil forces that he is encouraging into motion.
Skinheads? white supremacists? Way too much MSNBC I think OJ.
Discussions like this make me wonder why I returned. But, they also have consequences. I changed my Amazon prefs to another organization. That probably won't shut this site down tomorrow as my purchases are not like some others, but I did have the choice. The monthly commentary has been injected with some politics as well. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth so I am not receiving that anymore.
I just remembered that I can adjust the topic threads I see but only on desktop. So I am deleting the view of Off Topic threads. A certain handful of posters have filled it with crap and extreme views. I suspect a couple of posters start these threads just to get responses from the conservatives. They have lost my respect long ago but they won't care.
Meanwhile, I'll stick to financial topics from here on out. This is a mutual fund site so perhaps we should keep it that way. If not, there are plenty of other places to venture to.
My (long-winded) point, "journalism" in the tradition of Murrow is dead. The mid-20th century ideal of reporters as some type of sacrosanct arbiters of objective truth is not the world we live in. Trump didn't kill it. -- He's simply honest enought to call a spade, a spade. "Independent reporters" do not exist. If the MSM operates as an organ of the opposition party, its quite appropriate to deal with them as such. Just as if they were Pravda.
Sad but true. The history on how it happened would be interesting but the media would have to first acknowledge that it is dead.
Then I suppose the Tea Party is to blame for the incessant hate diatribe that is CNN. Their constant references to a certain German dictator or to white- hooded southerners came from that source? CNN has destroyed themselves.
Well let's not forget about the destructive riots, stiffing of free speech on university campuses, hate speech, paying people to disrupt political rallies and town hall meeting etc by the Tea Party.
I've never seen anything like this, where not only people but the news and politicians are out to get rid of President Trump at all costs.
Could this be because of Trump's polarizing personality where he represents only his followers, his social media outbursts villianizing any counter views? Is it because he has degraded other parts of government that oppose his views or actions, in essence opposing the 3 equal but separate concept of government branches - again when they don't agree with him (and by the way, the media has always been known as the unofficial 4th branch/watchdog)? Is it because he is out of touch with MOST Americans, even with a low Democratic turnout he still had 3M less votes then Hillary? Is it because if you looked at the 'history repeats itself mantra', his actions are reminiscent of dictatorship, not democracy? Should we ignore the signals and say that's ridiculous, it can't happen here?
This phenomenon has been building over many years, starting with entertainment political radio, also called hate radio, with the Rush show in the 80's. The Tea Party grew from that propaganda in my opinion, nothing more. And never have the fringe groups of skin heads, white supremacists and other hate groups been more excepting of a government elected official in modern times than the election of Trump. Are they wrong, or you?
Sorry, there are definitively 2 drastically different beliefs about what is going on here. I had to vent my 2 cents.
What should be done with all your points is to apply the 'Obama Test'.
Obama - he blamed Bush, history, Tea Party and the Republicans, yet was not described as Trump is.
Obama - the news media and hollywood were on his side. Because of this what he did/said was not investigated. Also, there was little investigation/questioning of what he did e.g. the increase of 'droneing' and how he waged war. Yet everything Trump does is a negative.
Obama - in some ways he was more media astute then Trump. Trump tells you what he was going to do and is doing it. Obama didn't tell your or lied e.g. Obmacare - keep your plan/dr/cost etc. Yet, Trump is feared.
Comments
H'mmmmm
An when a poor Latina single mother comes home from her second part time job and wants to relax with a beer, she can't afford it, because Old_Joe thinks the corp and she by extension do not pay their fair share and made it too expensive. Or maybe she just wants to take her child out to McDonalds, but no, Old_Joe thinks the corp and she by extension do not pay their fair share and made it too expensive.
Have you always hated the poor or was there a trigger for it?
Didn't say anything about raising corporate "taxes". Is there some valid reason that business should not pay it's fair share when they abuse and destroy commonly owned infrastructure, or contaminate commonly shared resources?
"What you don't get"
You haven't the slightest clue as to what I do or don't "get".
"Have you always hated the poor?"
Mark Twain had an observation, crafted specially for jackasses: "It's better to keep quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and leave no doubt." When you contribute half of what we do to help the poor then you can open your mouth and bray.
With regard to taxation, you really have to look at the incidence of taxation [read: what they actually pay]. Historically, it was zero at the bottom and the top and fairly flat across the middle. These days, at least here in Michigan, corporations do not pay their fair share of the cost of the infrastructure they require for their operation. This has come about via tax cuts for them added to negotiated tax breaks for building, expanding or even staying in some jurisdiction. Hell, there have been bidding wars between cities and even states.
Taxation, whenever possible, should be based upon the user fee concept. Road taxes, park fees and morphing into sewer and water costs and further into a plain cost basis transaction.
Then we get to the 'general fund'. The common good, as it were. National defense, police and fire, the court system and laws, etc. Most of this is straight forward.
And then the sticky part - the social good of a people. How do they take care of the poor and elderly? How do they address education? How do they protect the environment? How do they address health care? The answers to these questions define a people.
Are we high minded? or knuckle dragging troglodytes?
It hurts my heart to see someone deliberately appealing to the latter.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono
BTW, if you really want to fix the tax system make it 15% for EVERYTHING - with zero deductions and a personal exemption of $25,000. Income, dividends, interest, short and long term cap gains, corp. A family of four wouldn't start paying their 15% until they hit $100,000. Corporations would pay 15% - at the window, just like everyone else.
r
I'd rather that the middle class and poor are not taxed into poverty and that they live with dignity.
By definition, nothing will move the poor into poverty, they're already there. On the other hand, you can tax the poor out of poverty with refundable tax credits like the EIC as well as with food stamps and the like.
Attaboy, Dex. Firm grasp of the obvious.
I really like where you ask "Have you always hated the poor?" immediately followed by "Oh, you don't hate the poor". Another flailing, blind attempt to score some incoherent alternate fact. At least you're in high, if not good company- why not apply for a job with the current administration? You're a natural replacement for Kelly Ann Conway!
I guess a couple thoughts:
1. The word "attack" is used in the subject. Much like the word "outrage", its a convenient word to toss out there, but may not be most apt. Wouldn't it be less emotional, and more clinical/accurate to indicate Trump "critiqued" or even "criticized" the media? I mean he hasn't come to fisticuffs (yet) with Don Lemon, has he?
2. There has, for decades, been a partisan bias (i.e. pro-Blue) in most media. Some conservatives (Rush L., then FoxNews) saw an unmet need, and filled it, very profitably. The effect on the MSM, seems to have tilted even more "pro-Blue". This becomes a self-enforcing feedback-loops of sorts: each media outlet caters ever more to its own biases, because the people who tend to watch that outlet tent to mostly skew to the bias. Obama famously made a habit of criticizing Rush and Fox News. Shoe is now on the other foot. Tough-patoot!
3, During the ColdWar, the Soviets had "media" too, notably Pravda. Pravda did not report the news objectively, but with a systemic bias to support state objectives. The truth was subverted to fit political objectives. Just because an organization maintains that they are a "news outlet" doesn't mean they are honest, anymore than Pravda "journalists" were honest. My anectodal impression during the election is that the MSM, on a daily, and rather consistent basis, seemed to program their segments in lockstep with Dem talking points. Effectively, much of the MSM behaves as though they are organs of the DNC -- disseminating the "party line" much like Pravda once did.
4. The proliferation of blogs and other internet options seems to allow someone to start a rumor (or fake news), and much of the MSM will just take it 'as is' and disseminate it -- so long as it fits the DNC worldview.
5. The deep & widespread bias of the MSM was obvious on election night, and in the immediate aftermath. The non-verbal behavior of the on-screen 'talent' was laughably transparent to this writer.
6. Has any journalist who was caught collaborating with Podesta or the Clinton campaign been terminated? Seem to recall Brian Harwood (?) was involved in that. He still seems to have a job. NBC anchor Brian Williams, caught in repeated lying is "suspended", then re-appears on MSNBC. The MSM doesn't police itself, even when the bias is blatant and uncontested.
My (long-winded) point, "journalism" in the tradition of Murrow is dead. The mid-20th century ideal of reporters as some type of sacrosanct arbiters of objective truth is not the world we live in. Trump didn't kill it. -- He's simply honest enought to call a spade, a spade. "Independent reporters" do not exist. If the MSM operates as an organ of the opposition party, its quite appropriate to deal with them as such. Just as if they were Pravda.
Certainly no argument there. In my opinion, AM "hate radio", aided and abetted by "the proliferation of blogs and other internet options... (allowing) someone to start a rumor (or fake news)" killed it. Has any journalist who was caught collaborating with Bannon or the Trump campaign been terminated? Trump simply took advantage of the situation, handing over the White House to Breitbart, the well-known purveyor of absolute truth.
He surely won't be the last to do that, on either side.
Time to close this thread !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
Ted
Oh, come on. Jeez.
Agree. This has been a rather civil thread. Unless David or Chip have issues (which they'd say so if they did) clearly it's not a "bad" or "toxic" thread or discussion that needs to be closed. Besides, if a thread gets bad, folks just move on to another one. In other words, as you were, folks....
Oh, come on. Jeez.
@davidrmoran No sir, I'm afraid that I'm serious with respect to that prediction. Roughly since the advent of the "Tea Party" we have seen an ever increasing spiral of misinformation, disrespect (if not outright hatred), and aversion to even the concept of compromise. This has now been shown to enable the capture of two branches of the government. Why would such a potent weapon not be used in the future?
@Mark- Yes, I agree.
If anyone is looking to blame someone here, just look in the mirror, myself included. A better place to start these discussions is MSNBC or Media Matters. Let's leave MFO for investing talk.
This started earlier with the 2000 elections. Some people cannot accept the results if their candidate loses. This time around it's very different. I've never seen anything like this, where not only people but the news and politicians are out to get rid of President Trump at all costs. This has gone way beyond the usual bickering. Disagreements are one thing but calling for impeachment or even worse is just plain idiotic and for the latter, criminal.
@JC, CNN a hate party? omg, bwahahaha. And then you cite the 2k election, which was blatantly stolen? A double piece of comedy tonight! I salute you.
A triple, actually: 'out to get rid of Trump at all costs, and you have never seen the like'? You slept through '08 and '12? Maybe someone can fill you in on what happened.
This phenomenon has been building over many years, starting with entertainment political radio, also called hate radio, with the Rush show in the 80's. The Tea Party grew from that propaganda in my opinion, nothing more. And never have the fringe groups of skin heads, white supremacists and other hate groups been more excepting of a government elected official in modern times than the election of Trump. Are they wrong, or you?
Sorry, there are definitively 2 drastically different beliefs about what is going on here. I had to vent my 2 cents.
I probably watch Fox more than any other "news" network - and still can't bring myself to join the 39% who currently approve of Trump's performance.
The whole concept of national TV networks overtly favoring one side or the other troubles me. CNN's garbage - pretty much top to bottom. So I'd hate to single out Don Lemon, but I will.
I'd gladly return to something like the FCC fairness doctrine that existed from 1949 until 1987 - although it might need to be modified to include cable channels. Wasn't perfect - but at least it gave lip service to the idea of those using the public airways having to air both sides of controversial public issues. Brave new world we're in for sure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Discussions like this make me wonder why I returned. But, they also have consequences. I changed my Amazon prefs to another organization. That probably won't shut this site down tomorrow as my purchases are not like some others, but I did have the choice. The monthly commentary has been injected with some politics as well. That leaves a bad taste in my mouth so I am not receiving that anymore.
I just remembered that I can adjust the topic threads I see but only on desktop. So I am deleting the view of Off Topic threads. A certain handful of posters have filled it with crap and extreme views. I suspect a couple of posters start these threads just to get responses from the conservatives. They have lost my respect long ago but they won't care.
Meanwhile, I'll stick to financial topics from here on out. This is a mutual fund site so perhaps we should keep it that way. If not, there are plenty of other places to venture to.
Later.
The history on how it happened would be interesting but the media would have to first acknowledge that it is dead.
Oh! Wait it wasn't the Tea Party that did that.
Never-mind
Obama - he blamed Bush, history, Tea Party and the Republicans, yet was not described as Trump is.
Obama - the news media and hollywood were on his side. Because of this what he did/said was not investigated. Also, there was little investigation/questioning of what he did e.g. the increase of 'droneing' and how he waged war. Yet everything Trump does is a negative.
Obama - in some ways he was more media astute then Trump. Trump tells you what he was going to do and is doing it. Obama didn't tell your or lied e.g. Obmacare - keep your plan/dr/cost etc. Yet, Trump is feared.