Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
16,000 people to create a police state run by the IRS
only in your mind...don't believe everything you think...
remember: "Watching FOX makes you stupid"
Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.
December 15, 2010
Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:
91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.
Health Care constitutionality rulings tie game...
There are over 700 District Court judges. There were 4 of these 700+ venues chosen by the lawsuit filers...two right leaning and two left leaning (ei: was the D. Court Judge appointed by a Republican or Democratic President). The goal was to get a tie game and thus send the arguement to the U. S. Supreme Court ("USSC"). Since the Supreme Court is politically 5 to 4 right wing including tea party rally attendees Scalea and Thomas (his wife WORKED AND WAS PAID by the tea party organization - an undeclared till busted US$700,000 over the past couple of years) some believe/hope that this law will be declared unconstitutional by the USSC.
BUT, the insurance companies don't want this fat hog to be repealed regardless of what you hear from the conservative right talking heads and EVERYONE knows that it won't be repealed politically. Reason? The features in the arguement that are contencious are cured by 1. A single payer Medicare for all, or 2. A public option. There is no way on god's green earth that either of those options will be hung out as solutions without major upheaval...tho they might in the end be the solution/result.
A vast majority of the US population wants to keep the law and make it even more powerful.
There have been 4 court decisons on the constitutionality of the Health care law. This ruling referenced in the Denninger article is but one of 4. There were 2 rulings of constitutional and 2 rulings of unconstitutional.
That this breathless attempt at a Obama damning report of the most recent ruling not being immediately implemented doesn't mention the other two recent rulings of constitutionality is no more than pure hyperbolic "Kabuki Theater" by Mr. Denninger...much like the phony votes on repeal done in the House and today in the Senate...defeated in both houses as everyone knew would happen. The low information voter is appeased because their tea party fearing favorites tried...wink, wink.
5.9% short interest (12/31/10)...probably higher since then...
squeeze is on
If you are still above ground and breathing...
there is a job somewhere (volunteer if you have to in order to keep the mental wheels turning)...there is Hope and there is a Future.
The alternative is give up and choose to have no tomorrow.
No jobs; No Hope; No Future: reads like the conservative right trifecta of middle class destruction. A ruling gentry class and serfs scraping by. Reagan would be proud of his legacy.
Clearly
missed the bounce call (@ 1.60ish) by a few...deep line in the sand at $1.47.
Was that a joke?
dickmilde says, "Did you know that: Unemployment is lower in the United States than in 93 other countries?"
Unemployment in the United States is HIGHER than 108 countries from the same list...
Country Comparison :: Unemployment rate
This entry contains the percent of the labor force that is without jobs. Substantial underemployment might be noted.
Rank country (%) Date of Information
1 Monaco 0.00 2005
2 Qatar 0.50 2010 est.
3 Azerbaijan 0.90 2010 est.
4 Guernsey 0.90 March 2006 est.
5 Belarus 1.00 2009 est.
6 Uzbekistan 1.10 2010 est.
7 Thailand 1.20 2010 est.
8 Liechtenstein 1.50 31 December 2007
9 Vanuatu 1.70 1999
10 Isle of Man 1.80 October 2010 est.
11 Papua New Guinea 1.80 2004
12 Cuba 2.00 2010 est.
13 Seychelles 2.00 2006 est.
14 Kiribati 2.00 1992 est.
15 Bermuda 2.10 2004 est.
16 Jersey 2.20 2006 est.
17 Tajikistan 2.20 2009 est.
18 Kuwait 2.20 2004 est.
19 Singapore 2.30 2010 est.
20 United Arab Emirates 2.40 2001
21 Laos 2.50 2009 est.
22 Mongolia 2.80 2008
23 Gibraltar 3.00 2005 est.
24 San Marino 3.10 2008
25 Guatemala 3.20 2005 est.
26 Moldova 3.40 2010 est.
27 Cambodia 3.50 2007 est.
28 Malaysia 3.50 2010 est.
29 British Virgin Islands 3.60 1997
30 Macau 3.60 2009
31 Brunei 3.70 2008
32 Norway 3.70 2010 est.
33 Korea, South 3.70 2010 est.
34 Faroe Islands 3.90 2009
35 Switzerland 3.90 2010 est.
36 Bhutan 4.00 2009
37 Cayman Islands 4.00 2008
38 Denmark 4.20 2010 est.
39 Palau 4.20 2005 est.
40 China 4.30 September 2009 est.
41 Panama 4.40 2010 est.
42 Saint Kitts and Nevis 4.50 1997
43 Austria 4.60 2010 est.
44 Hong Kong 4.60 2010 est.
45 Nigeria 4.90 2007 est.
46 Australia 5.10 2010 est.
47 Bangladesh 5.10 2010 est.
48 Honduras 5.10 2010 est.
49 Japan 5.20 2010 est.
50 Taiwan 5.20 2010 est.
51 Sri Lanka 5.40 2010 est.
52 Kazakhstan 5.50 2010 est.
53 Luxembourg 5.50 2010 est.
54 Netherlands 5.50 2010 est.
55 Mexico 5.60 2010 est.
56 Burma 5.70 2010 est.
57 Cyprus 6.00 2010 est.
58 Montserrat 6.00 1998 est.
59 Virgin Islands 6.20 2004
60 Israel 6.40 2010 est.
61 Vietnam 6.40 2010 est.
62 Trinidad and Tobago 6.40 2010 est.
63 New Zealand 6.50 2010 est.
64 Costa Rica 6.60 2010 est.
65 Peru 6.70 2010 est.
66 Greenland 6.80 2007 est.
67 Aruba 6.90 2005 est.
68 Paraguay 6.90 2010 est.
69 Andorra 7.00 2008
70 Malta 7.00 2009 est.
71 Brazil 7.00 2010 est.
72 El Salvador 7.00 2010 est.
73 Armenia 7.10 2007 est.
74 Indonesia 7.10 2010 est.
75 Germany 7.10 2010 est.
76 Uruguay 7.40 2010 est.
77 Botswana 7.50 2007 est.
78 Mauritius 7.50 2010 est.
79 Philippines 7.50 2010 est.
80 Bahamas, The 7.60 2006 est.
81 Fiji 7.60 1999
82 Ecuador 7.60 2010 est.
83 Russia 7.60 2010 est.
84 Argentina 7.90 2010 est.
85 Finland 7.90 2010 est.
86 United Kingdom 7.90 2010 est.
87 Anguilla 8.00 2002
88 Northern Mariana Islands 8.00 2005 est.
89 Nicaragua 8.00 2010 est.
90 Central African Republic 8.00 2001 est.
91 Canada 8.00 2010 est.
92 Belgium 8.10 2010 est.
93 Romania 8.20 2010 est.
94 Bolivia 8.30 2010 est.
95 Syria 8.30 2010 est.
96 Sweden 8.30 2010 est.
97 Italy 8.40 2010 est.
98 Ukraine 8.40 2010 est.
99 Iceland 8.60 2010 est.
100 Chile 8.70 2010 est.
101 World 8.80 2010 est.
102 Czech Republic 9.30 2010 est.
103 Bulgaria 9.50 2010 est.
104 European Union 9.50 2010 est.
105 Suriname 9.50 2004
106 France 9.50 2010 est.
107 Egypt 9.70 2010 est.
108 United States 9.70 2010 est.
109 Morocco
Experts doubt GOP claim that health care law's a 'job killer'
By David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — Despite what Republicans say, the 2010 health care law isn't necessarily a job killer.
Republicans have titled their effort to overturn the law the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act," and that's their favorite talking point against it. The House of Representatives will start debate on repeal Tuesday and probably vote Wednesday.
Saying that the law is a job killer doesn't necessarily make it one, however, and independent experts say that such a conclusion is at least premature, if not unfounded.
"The claim has no justification," said Micah Weinberg, a senior research fellow at the centrist New America Foundation's Health Policy Program.
Since the law contains dual mandates that most individuals must obtain health insurance coverage and most employers must offer it by 2014, "the effect on employment is probably zero or close to it," said Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard University.
House Republicans defend their job-killer claim in a 19-page Jan. 6 report, "ObamaCare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law." But some of its points are out of date or omit offsetting information that would weaken the argument.
For instance:
-- The report says that a study by the National Federation of Independent Business, "the nation's largest small business association, found that an employer mandate alone could lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs between 2009 and 2014, with 66 percent of those coming from small businesses."
But that study was released on Jan. 28, 2009, well before the law was written. It studied a model, not the law that was enacted eventually, and it was based on a different set of assumptions.
"It's old. We don't use it anymore because it was based on a hypothetical mandate," NFIB spokeswoman Stephanie Cathcart said. While her group still thinks that the law will hurt business job growth, it cites no firm number.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said: "The (NFIB) report analyzes the effect of an individual mandate. Obama care includes an individual mandate. We make that clear in the report."
-- The GOP report says: "Economic theory suggests the penalty should ultimately be passed through (as) lower wages (to an employee)," quoting a Congressional Research Service report.
But Republicans chop that sentence short; the CRS version goes on to say that the penalty for not offering coverage "would not be a burden on small business owners."
-- The GOP report says: " 'If firms cannot pass on the cost in lower wages, the higher cost of workers may lead firms to reduce output and the number of workers.' CRS estimates that about one in five employees work for a business that could be negatively impacted by the new employer penalty."
The CRS report does say that, but it also says this, which the GOP report omits:
"(Individuals with lower incomes, however, should be able to receive subsidies in the community-rated pools, which will increase their welfare). For the firm, paying a penalty may be more feasible than providing insurance, especially if their employees are lower income and the wage cannot be lowered below the minimum wage or the burden is too great."
That mitigates the point the GOP quoted, by suggesting that the law has provisions that offset some of its negative impact.
A central problem with concluding flatly that the measure will kill jobs, experts say, is that the law's impact on the economy depends on a host of unpredictable variables.
"There are so many cross-currents it's hard to know what will happen," said Chris Varvares, the president of Macroeconomic Advisers, a St. Louis-based economic research firm.
To analyze the GOP claims, experts advise considering these questions:
-- Will the law help or hurt economic growth?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure will reduce federal budget deficits by about $230 billion over 10 years. Boehner has disputed the estimate, saying "CBO is entitled to their opinion."
Augustine Faucher, the director of macroeconomics at Pennsylvania-based Moody's Analytics, said that the law's deficit savings should "bring down interest rates and free up more capital for private firm investment, and therefore could boost long-run growth" and create more jobs.
-- Will the law's mandates discourage hiring? Maybe, but it's hard to tell yet.
The CBO found last August that employers' hiring decisions will be affected "in some cases by the health care legislation," adding that many of the law's effects "may not be felt for several years because it will take time for workers and employers to recognize and to adapt to the new incentives."
Employer mandates in isolation would "mean wages would decline, because a larger portion of compensation goes into health insurance, and Republicans are right on that," said Chandra, of Harvard.
But because there's also an individual mandate, "individuals would value the health care benefit, and would be willing to work for less wages, thereby reducing and perhaps completely eliminating the employment effects," Chandra said.
-- Will minimum-wage unskilled workers be particularly hurt?
"It's not an irrational position," said Weinberg, of the New America Foundation, "but there is vastly stronger justification for the claim that it will create jobs than that it will eliminate them."
The Republican report quotes an August 2010 CBO report that says that because companies generally can't pay less than the minimum wage, the law "will probably cause some employers to respond by hiring fewer low-wage workers."
It also cites the CBO as saying that "Alternatively, because firms are penalized only if their full-time employees receive subsidies from exchanges, some firms may instead hire more part-time or seasonal employees."
But the CBO didn't conclude firmly that the law is a job-killer.
In its next sentence, which doesn't appear in the GOP report, the agency wrote: "More generally, the health care legislation may shape the labor market or the operations of other segments of the economy in ways that are difficult to anticipate or quantify."
In other words, it's too early to know.
Boehner's spokesman Steel said that omitting that passage wasn't misleading, and that it didn't compromise the Republican point.
-- What changes may yet be made that would modify the law's impact? A host of regulations must be fleshed out to define how the law will work before it takes full effect.
"There are so many important parts of the law yet to be written," Chandra said.
The CBO warned in a Jan. 6 letter to Republicans that "assessing the effects of making broad changes in the nation's health care and health insurance systems (or of repealing the changes) requires assumptions about a broad array of technical, behavioral and economic factors."
In short, no one knows the economic impact of the law for sure, and most independent experts think that condemning it as a job-killer is hard to justify.
"For any policy to be effective, it has to be adaptable. You have a health system that, like the economy, is evolving all the time," said Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a mainstream research center. "At this point all an economist can do is try to tease out different pieces of the puzzle."
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/17/106950/is-health-care-law-really-a-job.html#ixzz1BPP4fDZJ
It is quite possible that we have corrected the entire move from $1.31 to $2.01...Althought the 2.01 was a top of "3", AEZS has had a "truncated 5th" - see Elliott Wave definitions.
$1.60ish is a 0.618 correction off $2.01 of the whole upward move and a predicted reversal point if it is going to reverse direction soon. If this holds true, an upward impulse would be expected to start shortly.
All imo and for entertainment purposes only.
Reagan began the middle class assault so thanks for pointing out that this has been going on since '80s...etc.
Bush era Tax cuts & deregulation did what...?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/19-facts-about-the-deindustrialization-of-america-that-will-blow-your-mind
Deindustrialization Of America That Will Blow Your Mind
The United States is rapidly becoming the very first "post-industrial" nation on the globe. All great economic empires eventually become fat and lazy and squander the great wealth that their forefathers have left them, but the pace at which America is accomplishing this is absolutely amazing. It was America that was at the forefront of the industrial revolution. It was America that showed the world how to mass produce everything from automobiles to televisions to airplanes. It was the great American manufacturing base that crushed Germany and Japan in World War II. But now we are witnessing the deindustrialization of America. Tens of thousands of factories have left the United States in the past decade alone. Millions upon millions of manufacturing jobs have been lost in the same time period. The United States has become a nation that consumes everything in sight and yet produces increasingly little. Do you know what our biggest export is today? Waste paper. Yes, trash is the number one thing that we ship out to the rest of the world as we voraciously blow our money on whatever the rest of the world wants to sell to us. The United States has become bloated and spoiled and our economy is now just a shadow of what it once was. Once upon a time America could literally outproduce the rest of the world combined. Today that is no longer true, but Americans sure do consume more than anyone else in the world. If the deindustrialization of America continues at this current pace, what possible kind of a future are we going to be leaving to our children?
Any great nation throughout history has been great at making things. So if the United States continues to allow its manufacturing base to erode at a staggering pace how in the world can the U.S. continue to consider itself to be a great nation? We have created the biggest debt bubble in the history of the world in an effort to maintain a very high standard of living, but the current state of affairs is not anywhere close to sustainable. Every single month America does into more debt and every single month America gets poorer.
So what happens when the debt bubble pops?
The deindustrialization of the United States should be a top concern for every man, woman and child in the country. But sadly, most Americans do not have any idea what is going on around them.
For people like that, take this article and print it out and hand it to them. Perhaps what they will read below will shock them badly enough to awaken them from their slumber.
The following are 19 facts about the deindustrialization of America that will blow your mind....
#1 The United States has lost approximately 42,400 factories since 2001.
#2 Dell Inc., one of America’s largest manufacturers of computers, has announced plans to dramatically expand its operations in China with an investment of over $100 billion over the next decade.
#3 Dell has announced that it will be closing its last large U.S. manufacturing facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina in November. Approximately 900 jobs will be lost.
#4 In 2008, 1.2 billion cellphones were sold worldwide. So how many of them were manufactured inside the United States? Zero.
#5 According to a new study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, if the U.S. trade deficit with China continues to increase at its current rate, the U.S. economy will lose over half a million jobs this year alone.
#6 As of the end of July, the U.S. trade deficit with China had risen 18 percent compared to the same time period a year ago.
#7 The United States has lost a total of about 5.5 million manufacturing jobs since October 2000.
#8 According to Tax Notes, between 1999 and 2008 employment at the foreign affiliates of U.S. parent companies increased an astounding 30 percent to 10.1 million. During that exact same time period, U.S. employment at American multinational corporations declined 8 percent to 21.1 million.
#9 In 1959, manufacturing represented 28 percent of U.S. economic output. In 2008, it represented 11.5 percent.
#10 Ford Motor Company recently announced the closure of a factory that produces the Ford Ranger in St. Paul, Minnesota. Approximately 750 good paying middle class jobs are going to be lost because making Ford Rangers in Minnesota does not fit in with Ford's new "global" manufacturing strategy.
#11 As of the end of 2009, less than 12 million Americans worked in manufacturing. The last time less than 12 million Americans were employed in manufacturing was in 1941.
#12 In the United States today, consumption accounts for 70 percent of GDP. Of this 70 percent, over half is spent on services.
#13 The United States has lost a whopping 32 percent of its manufacturing jobs since the year 2000.
#14 In 2001, the United States ranked fourth in the world in per capita broadband Internet use. Today it ranks 15th.
#15 Manufacturing employment in the U.S. computer industry is actually lower in 2010 than it was in 1975.
#16 Printed circuit boards are used in tens of thousands of different products. Asia now produces 84 percent of them worldwide.
#17 The United States spends approximately $3.90 on Chinese goods for every $1 that the Chinese spend on goods from the United States.
#18 One prominent economist is projecting that the Chinese economy will be three times larger than the U.S. economy by the year 2040.
#19 The U.S. Census Bureau says that 43.6 million Americans are now living in poverty and according to them that is the highest number of poor Americans in the 51 years that records have been kept.
So how many tens of thousands more factories do we need to lose before we do something about it?
How many millions more Americans are going to become unemployed before we all admit that we have a very, very serious problem on our hands?
How many more trillions of dollars are going to leave the country before we realize that we are losing wealth at a pace that is killing our economy?
How many once great manufacturing cities are going to become rotting war zones like Detroit before we understand that we are committing national economic suicide?
The deindustrialization of America is a national crisis. It needs to be treated like one.
If you disagree with this article, I have a direct challenge for you. If anyone can explain how a deindustrialized America has any kind of viable economic future, please do so below in the comments section.
America is in deep, deep trouble folks. It is time to wake up.
Iceland has a leg up on a lot of countries...
Their small population's economy is not complex, and is build primarily on fishing and support services to the seafarer...this is large scale, high income fishing that keeps employment high and generates a high degree of near term cashflow/employee. They also benefit from the Northern European traditions of the apprentice systems coupled with more formal educations that give young men (usually) good paying job tracks starting as young as mid teens.
College Bubble...
This article is just SO transparently bogus. The article attacks education and learning behind the veil of cost. If you follow the logic of this piece, only a more select few will have the information and education needed to make educated choices or to understand what the bad guys WITH education are doing to them. (We all understand the screwing the country/world got by the Banksters...few really understand how). The dumbing down of the populace is more the agenda of this piece (remember the umbrella agenda is to eliminate the middle class and grow the wealth of the very top few % and expand the bottom of the working class earner who is stuck and struggling to make it...)
The undertone is to demonize the intrinsic "value" of education...the learned ability to question, analyze and conclude at a higher level of deduction. As a parent w/one graduated, one currently in college, and another soon to be there - I can attest that educational costs are high. But the cost of an uneducated populace easily lead around by the nose via mind numbing unchallenged and/or undefined sound bites or outright lies told loudly, is greater.
My first question is, "Who funds the National Inflation Association"? And, why?
The countries that are eating our lunch value education, particularly in the sciences and engineering. This is the real nemisis.
Please explain your logic on how the health care bill at the level it is currently phased in is a "failure" relative to this article...
No sock puppets in your logical reasoning please, just facts.
You can leave out the obvious points that allow this rate increase to be done by the "Blues" of 1. No single payer system and 2. Not firm enough on the insurance industry and 3. not even close to being fully implemented...tia
Alex G
Thanks for the posts RE: CBO calculations. I heard the same this AM as it is on this AM's news cycle MSNBC and continues on their bottom of screen "crawl" (on Fox?...doubt it). The repeal won't pass of course, and this is just political grandstanding. And, don't bother arguing with some of these guys...like talking to a brick. Posting the facts and moving on seems to be best.
The "conservatives" goal for decades is to destroy the middle class by bleeding it to death...to continue growing a wealthy ruling class and an ignorant, misinformed poor lower class of people too busy earning $$ for food and shelter to pay attention to the criminal transfers of wealth to the most rich.
At least in the William F. Buckley era they admitted it...
How Wall St. execs bankrolled GOP victory
Hedge fund moguls donated $10 million, gained key House allies to head off financial reforms
By Peter Stone, Center for Public Integrity, and Michael Isikoff, NBC News
Special to msnbc.com Special to msnbc.com
updated 1/5/2011 6:54:16 AM ET 2011-01-05T11:54:16
A small network of hedge fund executives pumped at least $10 million into Republican campaign committees and allied groups before November’s elections, helping bankroll GOP victories that this week will change the balance of power in Washington, according to a review of campaign records and interviews with industry insiders by the Center for Public Integrity and NBC News.
Bitterly opposed to President Barack Obama’s economic and regulatory policies — including proposals to increase taxes on some of their profits — top Wall Street hedge fund moguls were unusually energized during last year’s election. They held multiple fundraisers and coordinated strategy to direct what appear to be unprecedented sums into the coffers of GOP and allied political committees, according to industry and GOP fundraising sources.
Many substantial donations from the hedge fund executives escaped public notice either because they were made late in the campaign (and therefore weren’t reported until after the election) or were funneled through third-party groups, obscure “joint fundraising committees” and newly created political nonprofits that are not required to disclose donors.
The net effect has been to give the hedge funds important new allies at a time they are fending off regulations mandated by the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and an aggressive Justice Department investigation into insider trading.
A prime example is Rep. Scott Garrett, a little known Republican from northern New Jersey who this week is slated to become the new chairman of the House Financial Services subcommittee on capital markets, a key panel that has direct oversight of the industry. A staunch foe of the regulation of Wall Street, Garrett has threatened to cut funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission and roll back some provisions of Dodd-Frank.
As it became increasingly clear late last summer that Republicans were likely to capture the House, the partners at Elliott Management Corp., a $17 billion Wall Street hedge fund that specializes in distressed foreign debt, mobilized to boost Garrett’s political fortunes. One of the firm’s senior officers threw a fundraiser for Garrett. The firm’s executives and one of their spouses wrote checks totaling $195,800 to two of the congressman’s political fundraising committees, campaign records show.
Of that amount, $45,000 was donated by nine Elliott executives to the congressman’s leadership political action committee Supporting Conservatives of Today and Tomorrow. As first reported by the The Record newspaper, another $150,800 was donated to a newly created entity called the Scott Garrett Victory Committee, which was registered by a GOP fundraiser using a post office box in Athens, Ga.
As a so-called joint fundraising committee that shared its proceeds with the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, it was permitted under campaign finance rules to accept donations in excess of the standard $2,400 limit on contributions to individual candidates.
Elliott executives — one of whom wrote a check for $35,000 — ended up providing about 96 percent of all the funds raised by the Garrett committee, according to the review of campaign records by CPI and NBC.
“This is particularly appalling,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a nonprofit group that promotes transparency in campaign finance. “No one in America will believe that Representative Garrett can provide impartial oversight of the hedge fund industry after taking these huge amounts of money from one (hedge fund) company.”
Garrett’s office did not respond to repeated phone calls and e-mails requesting comment.
A political ally of Garrett, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the contributions from Elliott executives were largely at the request of Keith Horn, Elliott’s chief operating officer, who is a constituent of the congressman and has been raising money for him for years. Horn declined to comment, but a spokesman for Elliott stressed that the firm “does not make donations to political candidates or parties. Some individual Elliott employees raise funds and donate to candidates and party organizations, both Democrat and Republican, at the federal and state levels.”
The contributions to Garrett were only a small portion of a tidal wave of hedge fund contributions to GOP candidates aimed at boosting the industry’s fortunes in Washington.
A central player in the effort was Paul Singer, Elliott’s publicity-shy chairman who has emerged as one of the Republican Party’s most powerful behind-the-scenes moneymen. (A fervent libertarian, Singer is also a major donor to pro-Israel causes and gay rights groups.) During last year’s election, Singer held fundraisers for GOP Senate candidates in his Central Park West apartment and, with other Elliot executives, donated nearly $500,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, making the firm’s executives among the largest contributors to that group.
Another key industry player in directing funds to the GOP was Steven Cohen, the multibillionaire chairman of SAC Capital Advisors in Stamford, Conn. His firm, generally considered among the most successful hedge funds, recently received a subpoena seeking information related to a major Wall Street insider trading probe being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan, according to a source familiar with the probe. An SAC spokesman declined to comment for this story.
Other important figures in the hedge fund campaign effort were Ken Griffin, president of Chicago’s Citadel Investment, Bruce Kovner of Caxton Associates in Princeton, N.J., Robert Mercer, co-chairman of Renaissance Technologies, which is headquartered on Long Island in New York, and John Paulson, the chairman of Paulson & Co. of Manhattan.
A dinner for donors
The executives appear to have coordinated their efforts. At a dinner at Cohen’s palatial Greenwich, Conn. home late last August, Singer, Kovner and other hedge fund executives discussed the upcoming elections and their political contributions, according to an industry source who requested anonymity. At least one GOP operative was in attendance, the source said. (Griffin, Kovner, Mercer and Paulson all declined to comment for this story.)
Among some of the more notable donations:
•Singer, Cohen, Griffin (and his wife, Anne), Kovner, Paulson and another top hedge fund executive, Cliff Asness of AQR, donated nearly $6 million to the Republican Governors Association, headed by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour. About $3 million of that was given in September and October, when the RGA was spearheading a crucial get-out-the-vote effort aimed at boosting Republican turnout. (The RGA is set up as a “527 committee” — a reference to that section of the tax code — which is able to take unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations but must disclose its donors publicly.)
•Ken and Anne Griffin, managing partner at Aragon Global Management, another Chicago hedge fund, also gave $500,000 in the election’s waning days to American Crossroads, an “independent” group whose formation was spearheaded by Karl Rove, former President George W. Bush’s political strategist, and Ed Gillespie, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee.
•Mercer, the co-chairman of Renaissance, poured more than $600,000 into Concerned Taxpayers of America, making him the largest single contributor to the independent group that ran attack ads against congressional Democrats. Almost half of Mercer’s donations were made in October and November.
The magnitude of the industry donations are particularly notable because at least some of the hedge fund executives have in the past given generously to Democrats and some members of their firms continued to do, albeit in much smaller amounts, in last year’s election. Cohen, for example, has been a major donor to Connecticut’s Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, the retired former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. And the Chicago-based Griffin was a “bundler” for President Obama in the last election. Paulson was a significant donor and fundraiser for Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, donating $30,400 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee as late as June 2009. But in 2010, he switched heavily to the Republicans. With other members of his firm and his wife, he contributed over $450,000 to various GOP accounts.
The new enthusiasm for the GOP was spurred in large part by hedge fund managers’ opposition to many of the tax and regulatory economic policies of Obama and congressional Democrats. Some hedge fund executives, along with others from private equity funds, were especially exercised about a measure that passed the House this year before stalling in the Senate. That bill would have taxed their profits, known as carried interest, as ordinary income rather than capital gains. If enacted, the legislation would increase taxes on many executives from a marginal rate of 15 percent to 35 percent. The industry also is concerned about some provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial services reform law, such as those that will require registration and greater disclosure by hedge funds and impose tighter rules on the trading of derivatives.
But the animus of hedge fund titans toward Obama and the Democrats was also driven by what they viewed as politically charged rhetoric that stigmatized them.
“Look, it was the demonization, the anti-hedge fund rhetoric,” said one Wall Street hedge fund executive who was instrumental in helping to arrange donations to the GOP.
“These guys,” he added, “manage billions of dollars from pension funds, from investors, local governments.” When Obama last year attacked the industry as “speculators” and criticized their role in Chrysler’s bankruptcy, many executives went ballistic. “It was the cheap-shot, class-warfare rhetoric that pissed them off,” said the executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The new GOP-controlled House may be far friendlier to the hedge fund industry, as some of its key allies are now poised to inherit important leadership positions. Incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia has been a key critic of the “carried interest” proposal and recently vowed to “reign in the regulatory policies” under the Dodd-Frank law to block it. In the last two years, Cantor’s campaign committee; his leadership political action committee, the Every Republican is Crucial PAC; and the Cantor Victory Committee, a joint fundraising committee he headed, all received substantial contributions from hedge fund partners. Among them: $31,400 from Cohen and executives at SAC, $32,400 from Blue Ridge Capital and $50,200 from Gruss Investments. Six top executives at the giant private equity firm KKR also contributed $55,000 to Cantor’s joint fundraising committee.
Asked for comment, Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the majority leader, said that Cantor “has made clear that the new Republican majority will use the oversight process and all means at its disposal — including the power of appropriations — to expose and repeal regulations that kill jobs and are barriers to capital formation and economic growth.”
Some media missions are to misinform intentionally:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/
Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.
December 15, 2010 | Advertisement Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.
So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.
In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:
•91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
•72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
•72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
•60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
•49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
•63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
•56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
•38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
•63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)
The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.
By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.
The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.
This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.
OT: My only post on this subject...
Bull D. Your post only highlights that you do not understand the fundamental issue and consequence of climate change (aka: global warming - a moniker that confuses otherwise intelligent people).
We won't all be living in the new Phoenix with triple digit temperatures. Climate change is just that, climate change - whos engine is fueled by overall uptrending in global temperatures.
The consequence in a nutshell is that in your region, the 100 year storm occurs every 20 years and the 20 year storm hits in 5. There is an increase in amplitude of the climate swings. There will be risks of regional tipping points...too hot OR TOO COLD causing greater calamity.
And yes. Mother Nature bats last... Nature's rebalancing of regional temperatures either up OR DOWN is what you and I see as changes in weather volitility, or perma frost, or melting ice caps or glacier shrinkage, or etc. The consequences of these things is the end game issue.
9 steps to turn around a troubled company (or family, city, state or...etc.)
1. Take control of the cash
2. Listen
3. Stop the Hemorrage
4. Find the positives
5. Make a plan
6. Raise new cash
7. Establish credibility
8. Improve attitudes
9. Show a profit (income exceeds expenses)
Wait a minute...
...are you saying that the Stimulus had tax cuts for 51 million households?...wow - but FOX and the Republican side of the isle never told us that!
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
"We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families."
Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 in a State of the Union speech
Tax cut for 95 percent? The stimulus made it so
President Barack Obama talked a lot about economic recovery during his State of the Union address on Jan. 27, 2010, including the benefits of the economic stimulus bill passed last year.
The stimulus, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included tax cuts for many Americans, Obama said.
"We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses," Obama said. "We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college."
Democrats applauded, while Republicans were silent for the most part. In one of the unscripted moments of the night, Obama looked at the Republican side of the room, smiled and said, "I thought I'd get some applause on that one."
Here, we wanted to check Obama's statement that he cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.
The key word in his statement is "working." Obama's claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.
The tax cut was part of Obama's campaign promises. During the campaign, Obama said he wanted $500 for each worker and $1,000 for working couples. Since the final number was a bit less than he promised, we rated his promise a Compromise on our Obameter, where we rate Obama's campaign promises for fulfillment.
During the campaign, the independent Tax Policy Center researched how Obama's tax proposals would affect workers. It concluded 94.3 percent of workers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes. According to the analysis, the people who wouldn't get a tax cut are those who make more than $250,000 for couples or $200,000 for a single person. Obama said he intended to raise taxes on those high earners, a promise he reiterated during the State of the Union, and that revenue would offset the stimulus tax cut.
Because the stimulus act did give that broad-based tax cut to workers, we rate Obama's statement True.
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/
Please take this paranoid drivel elsewhere /e
In Latest Compromise with GOP, Obama Agrees He is a Muslim
Place of Birth ‘Negotiable,’ President Says
http://www.borowitzreport.com/
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) – In his latest effort to find common ground with Republicans in Congress, President Barack Obama said today that he was willing to agree that he is a Muslim.
Differences over his religious orientation have been a sore point between the President and his Republican foes for the past two years, but in agreeing that he is a Muslim Mr. Obama is sending a clear signal that he is trying to find consensus.
“The American people do not want to see us fighting in Washington,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. “They want to see us working together to improve their lives, and Allah willing, we will.”
But Mr. Obama’s willing to back down on his claim of being a Christian does not seem to have satisfied his Republican opposition, as GOP leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) today insisted that the President must also agree that he was born in Kenya.
While Mr. Obama did not immediately agree to Rep. Bohener’s demand, he hinted that yet another compromise might be in the offing: “My place of birth has been, and will always be, negotiable.”
White House sources indicated today that the President might be willing to meet the GOP halfway on his birthplace and say that he was born in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean.
Elsewhere, moments after his capture in London, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said, “I knew I shouldn’t have signed up for Foursquare.” (Foursquare: The social media mobile locator)
Fishpert...yes amazing.
Old money management saying: "The market can stay irrational a lot longer than you can remain solvent..."
ChrisJP
Actually trickle down did not work in the '80s and doesn't work now. I was there. Jobs were hard to find...even w/a college degree. I went back to graduate school instead (on my dime). The tax code guaranteed trickle up. The highest earners tripled their average income 1980-1990 and the vast majority of the rest of the wage earners stayed relatively flat during the same period.
The Reagan era was the spawning of the destruction of the middle class of America.
The current Bush era tax cuts have been in place for almost a decade and we are in a total mess. If jobs are created by these tax cuts (and will be further created if we keep them in place as some would argue), we should as a nation be swimming in available work. Where is the logic of keeping the current the tax policy in place and expecting a magical new and different outcome?
And, clearly the economic nose dive was further fueled by unregulated bank behavior that was literally criminal. But the crash was coming regardless...too much personal, unsecured debt.
Money needs to be in the hands of people who will spend it, creating demand for goods. Demand for goods is the only reason to hire/create jobs...
Reaganomics tax breaks for the richest...hear Pres. Reagan explain his massive tax cuts and see the 10 year results for the top 1% v. the balance of the population...
The success of trickle down...Deja Vu all over again?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#40501142
Single largest contributor to Jobs now is to Increase/Continue Aid to the unemployed.
CBO website once again:
Economic Outlook and Fiscal Policy Choices
See slide #5
http://www.slideshare.net/cbo/the-economic-outlook-and-fiscal-policy-choices
Or, directly from the CBO website:
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11980
Report on the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- November 2010
November 2010
In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 established the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to enable the Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure troubled assets as a way to promote stability in financial markets. Section 202 of that legislation requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to prepare a report on those transactions within 45 days of a report issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the TARP's activities. This fourth statutory report from CBO on the TARP's transactions follows the report that OMB submitted to the Congress on October 15, 2010.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary
In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Division A of Public Law 110-343) established the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to enable the Department of the Treasury to promote stability in financial markets through the purchase and guarantee of "troubled assets." Section 202 of that legislation requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to submit semiannual reports on the costs of the Treasury's purchases and guarantees of troubled assets. The law also requires the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to prepare an assessment of each OMB report within 45 days of its issuance. That assessment must discuss three elements:
The costs of purchases and guarantees of troubled assets,
The information and valuation methods used to calculate those costs, and
The impact on the federal budget deficit and debt.
To fulfill its statutory requirement, CBO has prepared this report on transactions completed, outstanding, and anticipated under the TARP as of November 18, 2010. CBO estimates that the cost to the federal government of the TARP's transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants that have not been made yet for mortgage programs, will amount to $25 billion (see Table 1). That cost stems largely from assistance to American International Group (AIG), aid to the automotive industry, and grant programs aimed at avoiding foreclosures. Other transactions with financial institutions will, taken together, yield a net gain to the federal government, CBO estimates.
CBO's current estimate of the cost of the TARP's transactions is substantially less than the $66 billion estimate incorporated in the agency's latest baseline budget projections (issued in August 2010) and the $109 billion estimate shown in the agency's previous report on the TARP (issued in March 2010). The reduction in estimated cost over the course of this year stems from several developments: additional repurchases of preferred stock by recipients of TARP funds; a lower estimated cost for assistance to AIG and to the automotive industry; lower expected participation in mortgage programs; and the elimination of the opportunity to use TARP funds for new purposes (because of the passage of time and the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, P.L. 111-203). CBO's current estimate is also well below OMB's latest estimate, $113 billion, because the market value of assets held by the government has increased and several recipients of TARP funds — most notably General Motors and AIG &mdash have significantly restructured the Treasury’s investment since May 31, 2010, the date used as the basis for OMB's analysis.
Clearly, it was not apparent when the TARP was created two years ago that the cost would turn out to be this low. At that time, the U.S. financial system was in a precarious condition, and the transactions envisioned and ultimately undertaken through the TARP engendered substantial financial risk for the federal government. However, the cost has come out toward the low end of the range of possible outcomes anticipated when the program was launched. Because the financial system stabilized and then improved, the amount of funds used by the TARP was well below the $700 billion initially authorized, and the outcomes of most transactions made through the TARP were favorable for the federal government.
TARP cost estimate cut to $25 billion, says CBO
By Ben Rooney, staff reporterNovember 30, 2010: 4:38 PM ET
http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/30/news/economy/GAO_TARP_report/
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Two years after the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program was launched, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates the government's economic rescue package will cost taxpayers $25 billion.
In its fourth statutory report on TARP, the CBO said the remaining costs mainly stem from the bailout of insurance giant AIG and the auto industry, as well as efforts to prevent foreclosures. Those programs cost about $45 billion, while other transactions resulted in a net gain of $20 billion for taxpayers.
0Email Print Comment"Because the financial system stabilized and then improved, the amount of funds used by the TARP was well below the $700 billion initially authorized," the report said. "And the outcomes of most transactions made through the TARP were favorable for the federal government."
The latest estimate is down sharply from $109 billion in the last report.
The reduction reflects additional repurchases of stock by TARP recipients, lower estimated costs for AIG and the automakers, as well as fewer homeowners taking part in mortgage programs, according to the report.
The smaller estimated cost was also due to a provision in the recent Wall Street reform law that eliminated the opportunity for remaining TARP funds to be used for other purposes, the CBO said.
CBO's estimate is lower than the $113 billion projection issued in May by the Office of Management and Budget, which is responsible for creating budget proposals for the White House.
The difference is due to an increase in the market value of assets held by the government, including General Motors (GM) and AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), which have "significantly restructured" their obligations under TARP since the OMB assessment.
GM raised a record $20 billion earlier this month in its initial public offering, which cut taxpayer's stake in the company in half to about 33%.
In September, AIG outlined a plan that it will end its multi-billion dollar bailout from the federal government and provide for the full repayment to taxpayers.
TARP, which was created in October 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, was initially intended to stabilize the banking system by buying or backing "troubled assets." It subsequently evolved into a broader effort to rescue the economy and prop up the housing market.
Beck is a Baffoon /e
OT: You guys are a HOOT!
OT: What's your definition?
lib·er·al /'l?b?r?l, 'l?br?l/ Show Spelled
[lib-er-uhl, lib-ruhl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.
8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.
9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.
10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.
11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
12. of, pertaining to, or based on the liberal arts.
13. of, pertaining to, or befitting a freeman.
–noun
14. a person of liberal principles or views, esp. in politics or religion.
15. ( often initial capital letter ) a member of a liberal party in politics, esp. of the Liberal party in Great Britain.
OT: Your research is flawed...MRC is a conservative advocacy group not the least bit unbiased...
http://www.mrc.org/about/about.aspx
RSS Feed CenterAbout the MRC
The mission of the Media Research Center, "America's Media Watchdog," is to bring balance to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).
The MRC, headquartered in Alexandria, VA, began modestly with a handful of employees, a black and white TV, and a rented computer. The first order of business was to organize a research operation second to none. For years, conservatives could only present the anecdotal evidence of liberal journalists' bias — a question in this interview, a statement in that report. However, anecdotal examples of bias do not prove a liberal agenda. Only through thorough, comprehensive, and ongoing analysis based on quantitative and qualitative research can one document liberal bias in the media.
From a $339,000 initial annual budget, the MRC has grown to be the nation's largest and most sophisticated television and monitoring operation, now employing 60 professional staff with a $10 million annual budget.
The result of the MRC’s work is a mountain of evidence to use in combating the undeniable bias. The key to the MRC’s effectiveness is the ability to prove bias by using scientific studies and word-for-word quotes from the media.
Through the MRC's successful implementation of the largest, most comprehensive media monitoring operation in the world, the MRC serves as the checks and balances on the Fourth Estate. Through its divisions, programs, and a marketing effort that never rests, the Media Research Center has become an institutionalized machine on the issue of balance in the press.
News Analysis Division, the "Leader in Documenting, Exposing and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias," employs a team of expert news analysts who daily monitor all major nationally televised and print news broadcasts. The News Analysis Division publishes the daily CyberAlert e-mail report (subscribe), weekly Media Reality Check reports and the every other week Notable Quotables collection of the most biased quotes from journalists — including the annual year-end "Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting" — as well as Profiles in Bias examinations of bias exhibited by influential journalists and Special Report studies. Also part of the division: The MRC's annual "DisHonors Awards" gala and the MRC's blogs, NewsBusters, "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias" and TimesWatch, "Documenting and Exposing the Liberal Political Agenda of the New York Times."
The Business & Media Institute (BMI) is dedicated to "Advancing the Culture of Free Enterprise in America." Formerly the Free Market Project, BMI is the business and economics division of the MRC and is the only organization dedicated to correcting the media's anti-free enterprise biased reports and to promoting a fair portrayal of the business community in the news and entertainment media. The weekly Balance Sheet e-mail (subscribe) is packed with analysis of the top issues in the news from a free-market perspective. Each newsletter also includes essential research and thought-provoking commentary from some of the top names in business and economics.
The mission of the Culture and Media Institute is to preserve and help restore America’s culture, character, traditional values, and morals against the assault of the liberal media elite, and to promote fair portrayal of social conservatives and religious believers in the media. CMI, the cultural division of the Media Research Center, is dedicated to correcting misconceptions in the media about social conservatism and religious faith.
As the media and entertainment industry grow more aggressive in assailing people and institutions that hold traditional values, CMI is drawing on MRC’s vast resources to counterpunch with a unique mix of timely facts, analyses and arguments.
Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com), "The Right News. Right Now" is an indispensable online resource for conservatives in the media, public policy and at the grassroots level, for news as it should be reported — accurate, balanced, and unfiltered. The CNSNews.com site features "Top Headlines," "News This Hour," "News on the Web," "Special Reports" as well as in-depth reporting on politics, culture and international issues. CNSNews.com also distributes a daily E-Brief (subscribe) with the latest headlines and exclusive stories.
MRC President Brent Bozell writes a weekly newspaper column distributed by the Creator’s Syndicate.
MRC in the News. Many media outlets — radio, television and print — regularly feature MRC guests on their programs, quote MRC spokespeople in their articles, and cite MRC research in their stories. Below is a sampling of MRC making news in the news media.
What Others Say About the MRC. Read what Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, Bob Novak and other leading conservatives say about the Media Research Center.
MRC Membership. By joining the MRC members gain many benefits, including discounts on all MRC products and novelty media bias items such as "Don’t Believe the Liberal Media" pens, bumper stickers and magnets, and tools to fight to correct the media’s liberal bias. Members receive a special monthly report, Flash, which keeps them up to date with all of the MRC’s activities, special reports and projects to combat liberal media bias.
MRC Internship Program. In 1992 the MRC founded this internship program to educate young conservatives about media bias in the news so they can work to bring balance to the media in the political or journalistic career they pursue.
Job Openings. The MRC employs a team of over 60 professionals dedicated to bringing balance to the media and we are always looking for good people to join our effort by working for us. Check to see if your abilities and interests match one of our current openings.
Have a questions or comment about our work or products? Use this e-mail list to contact us.
Media Research Center
325 S. Patrick Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Ph. (703) 683-9733
OT: Control of 90% of media, the education system, and Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry just can't overcome that other 10% of the media that presents contrary points of view.
Do some research on who actually owns the 90-95% of the media you state you believe is owned by the "Left"...it will help clarify your arguement...happy to have the debate...but only with real facts...
As a start, find how many stations nationally carry Mr. Limbaugh...versus how many stations carry any "Lefty" ... for example, Ed Shultz, Randi Rhodes, etc. -
OT: debate v. grandstanding...
I see things as having almost no debate. Particularly in Gov't circles. The "Right" has discovered that not even engaging in a conversation gets votes and votes beget power...the country be damned. This is not debate...this is political party-centric grandstanding. Grandstanding fueled by media talking heads w/enourmous paychecks who themselves have discovered (1.) A small group of very wealthy enterprises willing to pay them to lie loudly and (2.) Low information listeners who swallow their message whole...then go and act out on their misconceptions of "reality".
In today's politic there is no debate...only avoidance of debate.
de·bate (d-bt)
v. de·bat·ed, de·bat·ing, de·bates
v.intr.
1. To consider something; deliberate.
2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points.
3. To engage in a formal discussion or argument. See Synonyms at discuss.
4. Obsolete To fight or quarrel.
v.tr.
1. To deliberate on; consider.
2. To dispute or argue about.
3. To discuss or argue (a question, for example) formally.
4. Obsolete To fight or argue for or over.
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.
Here's some help "Stimulus" information you may have missed:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/02/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-democrats-passed-25-tax-cuts-last-y/
Axelrod claims Democrats passed 25 tax cuts last year without the help of Republicans
Share this story:
With the recent Massachusetts Senate election redefining the political landscape in Washington, NBC's Meet the Press host David Gregory asked David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, whether the president now needs to start moving more toward the middle.
Axelrod responded that Republicans and Democrats ought to be working together on ways to stimulate job growth, but he said Republicans have not gotten on board even when it comes to tax cuts that Republicans have traditionally supported.
"We passed without, frankly, the help of the Republican caucus, we passed 25 tax cuts last year, mostly aimed at the middle class and small businesses," Axelrod said.
We were intrigued by the claim that Democrats passed 25 tax cuts last year, so we contacted the White House press office and asked for a list. And they gave us one, all from the economic stimulus package championed by Obama and signed on Feb. 17, 2009.
We checked them out, provided sections and page numbers in the stimulus for reference, and added a brief explainer for some. If your eyes glaze over midway through, feel free to skip ahead to the bottom of the list where we'll pick up our analysis.
Individual Tax Cuts:
1. "Making Work Pay" Tax Credit (Sec. 1001, Page 195). In tax years 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision will provide a refundable tax credit of 6.2 percent of earned income up to $400 for individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns.
2. Increase in the Earned Income Tax Credit (Sec. 1002, Page 198). Go to the stimulus bill for all the details, but it essentially expands this benefit for the working poor.
3. Increased Eligibility for the Refundable Portion of Child Credit (Sec. 1003, Page 199). In 2009 and 2010, families who don’t earn enough to pay income tax would be eligible to claim the $1,000 child credit.
4. "American Opportunity" Education Tax Credit (Sec. 1004, Page 199). Increases the Hope Scholarship Credit to $2,500.
5. Refundable First-time Home Buyer Credit. (Sec. 1006, Page 202). This extended and increased the first-time home buyer tax credit from $7,500 to $8,000.
6. Temporary Suspension of Taxation of Unemployment Benefits (Sec. 1007, Page 203). This exempts from taxable gross income the first $2,400 of unemployment benefits.
7. Tax Credits for Energy-Efficient Improvements to Existing Homes (Sec. 1121, Page 208). This provides up to a $1,500 tax credit for qualified energy efficiency improvements.
8. Sales Tax Deduction for Vehicle Purchases (Sec. 1008, Page 203). This allows people to write off state and local sales taxes related to the purchase of a new vehicle costing up to $49,500.
9. Premium Credits for COBRA Continuation Coverage for Unemployed Workers (Sec. 6432, Page 348)
10. Economic Recovery Credits to Recipients of Social Security, SSI, Railroad Retirement and Veterans Disability Compensation Benefits (Sec. 2201, Page 336). This was a $250 payment for senior citizens, disabled veterans and disabled people living on Social Security benefits.
11. Computers as Qualified Education Expenses in 529 Education Plans (Sec. 1005, Page 202). This allows college students to write off the expense of computers and software, provided it's for educational purpose and not for games.
12. Plug-in Electric Drive Vehicle Credit (Sec. 1141, Page 212). Allows purchasers of plug-in electric vehicles to write off up to $5,000 of their purchase (depending on the power of the battery).
13. Tax Parity for Transit Benefits (sec. 1151, Page 219). This relates to an increased exclusion amount for commuter transit benefits and transit passes.
14. Health Coverage Tax Credit Expansion (Sec. 1899, Page 309).
Small Business Tax Cuts:
1. Extension of Enhanced Small Business Expensing (Sec. 1202, Page 221). This is a temporary increase in limitations on expensing some depreciable business assets.
2. 5-Year Carryback of Net Operating Losses for Small Businesses (Sec. 1211, Page 221).
3. Extension of Bonus Depreciation (Sec. 1201, Page 220). This extends by a year election to accelerate the AMT and Research Credits in lieu of bonus depreciation.
4. Exclusion of 75% of Small Business Capital Gains from Taxes (Sec. 1241, Page 228).
5. Temporary Small Business Estimated Tax Payment Relief (Sec. 1212, Page 222).
6. Temporary Reduction of S Corporation Built-In Gains Holding Period from 10 Years to 7 Years (Sec. 1251, Page 228).
Other Business Tax Cuts:
1. Advanced Energy Investment Credit (Sec. 1302, Page 231). This relates to properties designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as those that produce
energy from the sun, wind, geothermal deposits, fuel cells, microturbines, or an energy storage system for use with electric or hybrid-electric vehicles.
2. Tax Credits for Alternative Refueling Property (Sec. 1123, Page 211). This is a temporary increase for alternative fuel vehicle refueling businesses.
3. Work Opportunity Tax Credits for Hiring Unemployed Veterans and Disconnected Youth (Sec. 1221, Page 223). This is a tax credit to provide incentive to businesses to hire unemployed veterans and "disconnected youth." That latter term is defined, in part, as young adults "not readily employable by reason of lacking a sufficient number of basic skills."
4. Delayed Recognition of Certain Cancellation of Debt Income (Sec. 1231, Page 224).
5. Election to Accelerate Recognition of Historic AMT/R&D Credits (Sec. 1201, Page 220).
Grand total: 25.
In all, tax cuts amounted to about a third of the cost of the $862 billion stimulus over the next decade. The biggest ticket tax cut was the first one on the list, the Making Work Pay tax cut that is expected to cost the government about $116 billion over two years. Interestingly, the White House did not include the Alternative Minimum Tax patch, which has been extended annually for years. But that accounted for another $70 billion for one year. Together, those two items account for the lion's share of the tax cuts in the stimulus.
Which leads us to the question of whether all of these 25 qualify as tax cuts?
"In a way this reminds me of Clinton's 'It depends on what your meaning of is is' comments," said Rosanne Altshuler, director of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "It depends on what you mean by tax cuts."
"These are all provisions that cut your taxes," she said, "but most of them are temporary," designed to stimulate a floundering economy.
Each of the tax provisions in the stimulus could have been broken into separate bills, said Bob Williams, also of the Tax Policy Center, and on their own could have rightly been billed as separate tax cuts.
"They packed an awful lot into that bill," Williams said. "I think it's fair to say that various tax provisions in the stimulus could be considered tax cuts. I don't think that's being deceptive."
We agree.
But there's one other element of Axelrod's claim, that the tax cuts were passed without the help of Republicans.
The stimulus passed the House with nary a Republican vote. And it passed the Senate with just three (though we note that one of them, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, is now a Democrat).
So it's certainly fair to say the stimulus passed without the help of the Republican caucus. We find Axelrod's statement True.