Fox News in shock – they DON’T run America

Posted: December 13, 2011 in Political musings, Popular Culture et al
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Those lovely people over at at Fox News just don’t get it.

They smear Obama for three years … secretly a Muslim, giving in to the Ay-rabs, wrecking the economy, not born in America, actually a Kenyan, a secret socialist (lol) … and all the rest of the crap that they actually make up, or blithely re-report, with innocent gleaming denti-white smiles.

Then suddenly, the American people pretty clearly seem to think that Obama is going to get re-elected in the 2012 election. Something to do with the fact that the Republicans are busy chasing around promoting a bunch of complete turkeys, you reckon?

Watch their suprise – nay, disgust. It’s hilarious.

I think they started to believe their own publicity, poor saps.

Fox News – Rich people paying rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people. Only they forgot the poor people get a vote, too.

Gotta love democracy, sometimes.

Comments
  1. Reed says:

    CNN – Rich people telling poor people to blame the rich because paying for all of their social services and houses which they can’t afford just simply isn’t enough.

    Like

  2. Reed says:

    Haha, well sir that depends if you are a feeble minded Keynesian or a reality driven economist.

    First I would like to start off by saying that I meant no direct insult in my comment. I am a very open minded person and simply do not condemn other people for their opinions; instead I condemn people’s opinions. I say this because I am assuming “pure bile,” was meant as a very powerful negative statement (though bile does in fact aid digestion, so in the case you were calling my statement an aid in digesting this blog post, I thank you and you can disregard the rest of this! :)) And second, I am not sure what I said is unsupported (though I have written university papers in which I do not cite the facts that I am using, so I figured they were ‘general knowledge’ enough.) In either case I will try and make an argument supporting both the CNN and social services claim.

    A money transfer? I have no idea where that thought came from. I assure you, unless you are talking about the governments payments to individuals, in which case there is a direct payment going from the rich to the poor (as the government is essentially funded by the rich, not the poor), I wasn’t trying to allude to any direct subsidy payments. I was simply referring to the tax bills. You see, can I not make the statement that the government is primarily funded by the wealthy branch of American citizens when the top 10% of income earners (>=~$140,000 per year) in this country pay 70.47% of the overall Fed Income Tax? Hell, the top 25% pay 87.30% which should clearly… CLEARLY demonstrate that while we have protestors in the street of this country saying that the 1% (or even the top 10%) are sucking the wealth from their pockets making it difficult for them to find jobs, they should instead be thanking the 1% (or 10%) for essentially funding nearly the entirety of the government which works so hard to support the lower-class’s nearly lavish lifestyles compared to the poor in other countries. If you are in fact a Keynesian (sorry about that, I hear there is this new invention called Mathematics which will rid you of that problem (don’t take offense, just a joke :))) And you believe in this whole money raining down as tax dollars collected grow proportionally to the MRS, then yeah, you can believe that there is a kind of a transfer in wealth. But the real “transfer” if you want to call it that comes when social services, which are (as above) funded primarily by the richer and upper class citizens and utilized by the poor. I have heard some less than stellar arguments that the rich use more public services… HA… but when was that last time a Rolls Royce owner was found riding the bus? Not often. Subsidies payed out to the poor who cannot afford food (food stamps)? Nope, no upper class there. Utilities maybe? That is a dangerous argument as obviously I would support a completely free market on utilities, completely obliterating this argument.


    I use 1% and 10% interchangeably here because I have this sneaking suspicion that anyone who is out protesting against corporate America hasn’t taken the time to learn much of anything useful about the 1% (probably because they chose to watch CNN).

    Sources:
    http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
    http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/top10-percent-income-earners
    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/

    Now media bias. There was an interesting study I found a year or so back (http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx) which tries to academically quantify media bias. While this is a break down of individual news stations, you will see that Fox is not some horribly right of center news station; it has, in fact, a show which is the fourth most centrist of all the studied programs. You will also notice that 18/20 (90%) of all news sources studied scored left of center. Hmmm. Isn’t that interesting. And, while I will full well admit that the study found that one of CNN’s shows to be among the most centrist, CNN was just an example I threw out there; Fox, which is what the blog post was smearing, was part of the recommended most centrist combination of news sources to view, along with ABC and NBC. So you see, Fox is just like the 1% and the rich. (I am not saying they are in fact rich or they represent the one percent or anything like that) They are a parallel. People hate them simply because they are without the knowledge necessary and the research necessary to understand. People hate the 1%… because they are looking for anyway not to accept their current status. People hate Fox because they are doing what only a handful of other news sources are in fact doing; because they are releasing to the public a view which, while necessary and not even that biased, is contrary to their own beliefs forced upon them by 90% of the other news sources.

    Don’t think I am biased in any of this. While I have watched ALL news sources as party of my own personal research, I do not watch the news. I read all of my news from some of the most reputable news sources in existence. I am not a consistent viewer of Fox in any way.

    Like

    • Well, thank you for commenting so fulsomly and with back up. I do think some of your analysis is flawed – what percentage does income tax play in the overall tax take of government – not just federal government – in America? When a poor person attends an all you can eat restaurant and pays a local tax, is he or she not funding a portion of local welfare? Anyhow I will refrain from further comment until I can apply myself diligently to your arguments and sources 🙂 Thank you for your interest.

      Like

  3. Reed says:

    Again, I assure you that I meant none of this in a scathing way. Conflict makes the world go round, as I believe. And, I will grant you that; there is probably little accurate enumeration of the actual tax bill paid on the local level simply because the very chaotic way our local systems of government are established. That being said, however, all money is spent at the local level – you cannot buy good from sellers at the federal level, that just doesn’t exist. Therefore, the logic should hold that the vast majority of all local taxes collected are on purchases made by the rich. You see, the entire point of a percentage in general is that it accounts for wealth difference. My tax bill should be about twice the tax bill of someone making half my income (on the local level, of course) assuming we both purchase baskets of goods which are exactly relative to our income levels. (Purely theoretical I assure you, however it seems to make logical sense that the rich will actually purchase a higher amount at the local level relative to their income level seeing as there are still common externalities to both consumers at the lower consumption level.

    I understand your argument, and while I cannot give you empirical proof, it seems that basic logic would conclude that even non-income tax related governmental income would still rely more on the rich given that the rich would probably spend far more at the local level – your local government would benefit far more from the taxes collected on a BMW than on a Camry. Assuming two consumers live within the same local government using the taxes collected on those car purchases, which consumer would then be most likely to benefit from the taxes collected from each purchase, and which consumer was most likely to give more to the local government? I have a feeling those are two different answers.

    Again, just my $0.02!

    Like

    • The problem with most free marketeers is their determination of value of labor. For Example, a person who makes $1,000,000 a year versus 33 people who make $30,000 a year. The 33 people all have to pay rent, utilities, phones, insurances, food, clothes, all of which taxed, gas, etc. The 33 in this example stimulate the economy far more than one person who has 1 rent (although a little higher, but usually not as much as avg rent * 33), 1 set of auto payments, 1 family to feed, etc. Have you ever heard of generous rich people? Yeh like 1 in 100. The most stingy people I’ve ever met were rich. They falsely believe that they EARN that money when in reality the amount the top earners make is usually a result of previous top earners gaming the system. And as expected, the current top earners always believe they should be making a LOT more than their predecessors, and that will require offshoring thousands of jobs, which steal wages, benefits, and livelihoods from all the people who actually do the PRODUCING, so that the parasites at the top can continue to feed from the fruit of the labor of the actual PRODUCERS. This forces American Labor to compete with Chinese and Indian Labor which makes anywhere from .10 cents an hour to $2 dollars an hour. Hardly competition since the laborers in America face much higher expenses from school, rent, everything.

      Just how does a person earn $15,000 an hour anyway? It certainly isn’t from the sweat of their brow. It’s from the parasitic infrastructure that the infestation has created to ensure its blood supply from the host laborers. Without government forcing the parasites to give back, they will continue to drain the laborers until we are back to the days of slavery. Which is exactly what the 1% and their defenders want.

      BTW, I don’t watch the media – it’s all lies and corporate propaganda, especially FOX.

      Like

      • Very interesting alternative perspective to Reed’s – can’t wait to see how he responds 🙂 And thank you very much for writing so thoughtfully and at such length. You raise some fascinating points.

        Like

      • Reed says:

        Very interesting points you have raised! I think you may actually have me stumped.

        Stumped in I have never read so much unsupported evidence passed off as fact. Haha, I joke. Kind of. Again, I am not one to condemn individuals for their beliefs; I believe that it is a conflict of interest and ideas that really do make the world go (that and oil. I kid, I kid.) However, I think you are overemphasizing the actual difference of benefit of 33 x $30,000 wages and $1,000,000 wages, the fact that we are a Producer nation (cause, we aren’t), and the deservingness of the wealthy. I think a lot of what you are arguing is based in Keynesian economics (the whole money multiplier effect is a mainstay in the Democratic party platform, though, oddly, they never spend the time to prove whether or not it works (it doesn’t – usually)). While I understand it is a hotly debated issue, I am currently pursuing an Economics degree from a very well regarded university and I have rarely (well… never) heard of the money multiplier effect you are referring to as respected. Unless you consider the punch line of a joke as respected?

        I really want to sculpt a poignant and eloquent response to this which I do not have time for right now and will try and do in the next few hours or days. It is interesting because I think you have what I call the “anti-corporatism” syndrome, much like many of those Occupy-ers that are wasting their time in the streets protesting things which they simply do not understand. I would never be so arrogant as to say the “anti-corporate” people aren’t right some of the time (a very very very small percent of the time), but I think it is sad that so many people have this view. Again, people can have this view if they can support it, but I think this is all from watching and reading too much of the useless media out there (MSNBC, CNN, NYT (God forbid anyone is dumb enough in the modern era to read the NYT)) and not from actually doing research. I will think of my response and get back to you as soon as possible! 🙂

        I never mean any disrespect! 🙂 I think these are important issues that should be discussed in a well thought out manner, and no one should ever leave a discussion like this angry, but instead more knowledgeable then at the start. So with that, I will write a more complete response and get back to you. Also, keep in mind that Fox’s sister news outlet, the Wall Street Journal has news pages which are literally the most liberal in the United States amongst major news outlets. So I wouldn’t call that committing corporate propaganda.

        Like

        • When you do reply further, Reed, you might like to explain the substantive difference between Keynsian concepts of money multiplying and the so-called “trickle down” effect of ever-increasing wealth held by the low-taxed wealthy,so beloved of right wing economists?

          Like

  4. DG says:

    Just a thought here to moderate between the posted ideals of upper and lower class contributions to economics and the current melt down.

    Who is to blame appears to be the question; media that sells ads to fund intentional controversy and drive an agenda, corrupt and amoral politicians, bankers, natural resource barons (monopolies) and their ilk or the masses. All of which seems to be on the general thoughts of most minds. As for media…If you tell a person something long enough they begin to believe it. Even though it may not be true. Again- Winners write history. History does not write it’s self…paid historians do the bidding of those in power. Math, however, does not lie.

    The internet has allowed those that use it’s power to gain insight via knowledge. But most use it to text what they just up-chucked for lunch or follow a celebrity. FACT-main stream media writes to the level of a 12 year old. Having once studied the art,I left, because I could not alter my moral convictions to do no harm. FACT- Tell what your going to say, say it, then tell them what you just told them. Reinforcement methodology to convince the reader that the author has covered the subject well. When in truth, little more than the title has been repeated in an article. That and stay away from statistics since they can be checked.(Except for intelligent forums)

    I should think the real question for all of us is not how much is paid into the government (granted it is obscene amount) but what do they do with all those billions? Raid nations for one. All Presidents have performed this act. Overtly or not. Give it away to hostile tribes in other 3rd worlds who then buy weapons and aim them at us. Support dictators until they rebel then install another at great cost.

    Both political parties are out of control. And by that I mean the control of the Sovereign American People. (Opps..forgot we lost that in the Civil War. There were other ways in dealing with issues of the day than war. But not a better way to steal. War is always the best way to steal.)

    If you win a war you can write the history and make oneself into a hero. The ultimate theft…false valor! So when Obama stated that Abraham Lincoln was his idol it made me and most likely the US Constitution, shiver. Good ol Abe was the only President to suspend the Constitution. What does that tell you about Obama’s oath of office? He has also signed on with Agenda 21 I have been informed. (That document will one day strip US of property rights.

    Why not a flat tax with a mandatory spending of all tax money within the boarders of the US? Not a novel concept. Just one that might be timely. We could also save hundreds of millions on embassies alone and just use the net and a teleconference. A lot of nations slap a import tax on USA goods. Yet beg us to fund their industries so they can compete. All in the name of up lifting the local population. When in fact it just enriches the rich. Our politicians are not that dumb just stupid and use up our wealth to fund socialism which is a proven failure and line their own pockets (insider trading). Has anyone looked at Europe lately? It is falling.

    DG

    Like

    • I don’t agree with all your points, DG, but I am delighted you went to a real effort to contribute meaningfully. One thing is for sure, if we do not debate and express our dis-satisfaction, then the politicians run riot. Or in other words, we get the politicians we deserve.

      Like

  5. My Homepage says:

    … [Trackback]…

    […] Read More: wellthisiswhatithink.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/fox-news-in-shock-they-dont-run-america/ […]…

    Like

  6. 抓姦 says:

    I couldn’t agree with you more, anyway l love your site layout. Is nice and clean.

    Like

What do YOU think? That's what matters. Please comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s