DOWNLOADS: (157)

PLAYS: (627)

Embed

You've just got to love the right wing propagandists over at Fox, like Bill O'Reilly, having the nerve to be screeching about Al Gore and his business partners' decision to sell Current TV to Al Jazeera. Here's more from Mediaite on Bill-O's rant during the opening of his show this Thursday evening: Bill O’Reilly Tears Into ‘Hypocrite’ Al Gore For Trying To Settle Current TV Sale Before Taxes Went Up:

Bill O’Reilly had some harsh words for Al Gore tonight over his sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera. O’Reilly took issue with Gore’s hypocrisy in trying to finalize the sale before the fiscal cliff deadline this past Monday night to avoid paying higher taxes, as well as doing a deal with “anti-Americans” at Al Jazeera. O’Reilly declared that Gore has “shamed himself” with the deal.

O’Reilly highlighted Gore’s hypocrisy on taxes by bringing up video of Gore saying two months ago that he believes rich people such as himself need to “do our fair share.”

O’Reilly then set his sights on Al Jazeera, a network he declared to be run by “anti-Americans” and even sympathetic to Osama bin Laden. By making a deal with Al Jazeera, O’Reilly said, Gore has “shamed himself.” O’Reilly made it clear he would not want Al Jazeera to be censored, but said the whole deal is “sleazy” and “disgraceful.”

I'm not going to defend Gore on the tax hypocrisy, if the anonymous sources O'Reilly quoted here, that it was Gore along with his business partners who were pushing to get this through before taxes went up this year are correct. But as the article noted, Gore owns 20 percent of the company, so it wasn't just him pushing for the time table if the source is accurate. And if the source is not accurate, as O'Reilly admitted is possible, Gore may very well have not been the one pushing for the deal to go through before the end of the year to avoid the higher tax rate.

Of course, O'Reilly's solution for this is for Gore to come on his show and explain himself, which we all know would be a completely "fair and balanced" and cordial interview... or maybe not. The likely outcome would be O'Reilly screaming over Gore and calling him every name in the book and accusing him of sympathizing with terrorists, just as he did here.

Which brings us to O'Reilly's attack of Al Jazeera as some anti-American propaganda outfit. I just have to say, that's pretty rich coming from someone from the right wing propaganda outfit, Fox, which has an ownership stake by Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. I guess O'Reilly doesn't have any problems with Uncle Rupert palling around with someone from the country where 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from.

And as to the quality of Al Jazeera's programming, from what I've watched of it, they've done a hell of a lot better job than Fox or many of their American counterparts with just delivering straight news from around the world. The reason people like O'Reilly hate them is for the real reporting they were attempting to do when the United States decided to invade Iraq under false pretenses and reporters from that network along with others paid the price for that with their lives.

Fox and O'Reilly were too busy playing cheerleader for the Bush administration at the time instead of telling Americans the truth about what we were doing there.

There are legitimate concerns to be had about foreign ownership of our news media here in the United States, but I think they pale in comparison to the problem we have with media consolidation, which is far more dangerous. The quality and honesty of what's presented to the American public matters and having five or so huge media companies controlling everything we watch, read, listen to and the mixture of entertainment and news has been far more corrosive than any addition of news channels with foreign ownership will ever be.

DOWNLOADS: (221)

PLAYS: (3661)

Embed

Anyone remember Bill-O and his rant back in September of last year, where he threatened to "pack it in" and leave the country if President Obama raised his taxes? MSNBC's Ed Schultz took his viewers on a trip down memory lane and replayed O'Reilly's threat, and asked him when he was going to make good on it now that his taxes have indeed gone up.

Sadly as Ed and The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky noted, it's not likely that we'll get rid of Bill-O or his ilk any time soon, regardless of the Randite temper tantrum he threw on the air last year.

DOWNLOADS: (260)

PLAYS: (2825)

Embed

“What kind of country do we want to have?” That was the question asked by Mitt Romney's new running mate Paul Ryan during his speech this Saturday morning aboard the USS Wisconsin. It was also the question asked by Chris Matthews when he played the clip of Ryan on Hardball this Saturday. And it was a question met with some terrible answers from one of Matthews' guests, FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe.

Eugene Robinson pointed out that Ryan's budget doesn't balance anything and has draconian cuts to the poor while asking the rich to do nothing. After he stated that he didn't understand how Republicans were going to win based on a slogan of 'I've got mine, you get yours' approach, Matthews brought up Ayn Rand and the GOP mimicking her philosophy.

Kibbe responded by saying Matthews needs to spend some more time reading Ayn Rand, even though Matthews already professed to having read her books and having long outgrown them, a common trait among people who employ critical thinking skills and age-appropriate maturity levels. I guess Kibbe wants Matthews to get back in touch with his inner fifteen-year-old if he seriously thinks he should be picking Rand's novels up again for a refresher now.

If this is the right's response to just how radical Paul Ryan and his proposals have been, I'm flabbergasted. Read more Ayn Rand. Really? Karoli already posted Kibbe and his organization going nuts over the pick of Ryan just after it was announced.

The Plum Line's Greg Sargent posted on just how radical the pick of Ryan is and his post got a mention during this segment, which I was happy to see. Letting Kibbe spew his Libertarian nonsense, not so much.

With Ryan pick, Romney doubles down on economic radicalism:

In picking Ryan, Romney is confirming his commitment to full-flown economic radicalism — something that he had kept well disguised until the Tax Policy Center study unmasked it. The central idea driving the GOP ticket is not just that tax hikes on the rich must be avoided at all costs. It’s that dramatically reducing the tax burden on the wealthy — coupled with deep cuts to social programs and a quasi-voucherizing of Medicare — is the route back to prosperity.

Call it the “Ryan/Romney vision.” Not the “Romney/Ryan vision.” The “Ryan/Romney vision.” The Ryan pick was urged upon Romney by conservatives who wanted him to “go bold,” i.e., to confirm beyond doubt that he will govern from the Ryan blueprint. “We want the Ryan budget,” Grover Norquist said recently, adding that the paramount requirement in the next president is that he have “enough working digits to handle a pen” to sign it. The Ryan pick is a triumph for this wing of the party.

After all, we already know Romney has the skills to handle a pen. He is now confirming what he intends to sign with it.

The Ryan pick is also a break with Romney’s previous theory of the race. He had previously intended to make the campaign about nothing more than a referendum on the economy and Obama’s stewardship of it. Now it will be a choice between two starkly different ideological visions, one that drags the race onto the turf of tax fairness and entitlements — which is much more in line with the debate Dems wanted.

Go read the entire post, but here's a bit more on how the media is going to play into this election and how this debate is framed:

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (203)

PLAYS: (1765)

Embed

Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist on Wednesday blasted a "very nice left-wing twit" who thanked him for contributing to the destruction of the middle class in the U.S.

During an interview on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, a prankster calling in on the Republican line said that he made "seven figures" and he appreciated Norquist's efforts because "I'm paying virtually nothing in taxes."

"I just find this hysterical because I don't pay any Social Security, I don't pay any Medicaid or Medicare because I exceed that limit," the man explained. "And I get capital gains so I'm only paying 15 percent."

"But I'm getting rich and the middle class is getting screwed and the lower class is getting screwed. But, hey, you know, keep it up, man, because I'm going to be filthy rich and those fuckers are going to be living in slums by the time we get done," the caller laughed.

But Norquist was not amused.

"Ralph, I think you are a very nice left-wing twit, and you're calling on the Republican line and taking up other people's time and that's really a little dishonest," the Americans for Tax Reform founder replied. "You fibbed and claimed to be arguing from a Reagan Republican perspective then made up a story about who you are -- about how you got rich and you don't pay taxes, which would be fascinating. You could make a lot of money selling that secret."

"In point of fact as people know, the top 1 percent of income earners in this country pay 40 percent of the federal income tax, the top 50 percent pay 99 percent of the personal income taxes," Norquist continued. "So we have a steeply progressive tax code, meaning we penalize people who work, save and invest."

"Your caricature of the people who don't pay taxes is silly and it's one of the reasons why people are so offended when [President Barack] Obama gets up and acts like people who have been working all their lives -- paying taxes all their lives -- are somehow not sending enough money in. You know, 'What's a matter with those peasants? Why don't they send more money in? The king wants to build a new castle and Solyndra could use some cash.' It just really irritates real taxpayers, not phony callers pretending to be Republicans."

Earlier this year, Republicans in the Senate blocked the Paying a Fair Share Act, which would have enacted a rule named for billionaire Warren Buffett, who revealed that he paid a lower tax rate than his “secretary.”

According to the Congressional Research Service (PDF), almost 100,000 millionaires in the U.S. pay a lower effective tax rate than millions of families earning less than $100,000.

An April CNN poll found that 72 percent of Americans — including 70 percent of independents — favored the “Buffett Rule.”

DOWNLOADS: (148)

PLAYS: (897)

Embed

Republican presidential candidate said Sunday that his "intent in running for president is to help middle-income Americans," but admitted that he would only give them a $167 tax cut.

Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Romney why his plan didn't cut tax rates for the richest Americans from 35 percent to 15 percent or less like his fellow Republicans wanted to do.

"I would love to see a tax system which brings down rates [for everyone]," Romney explained. "I'll work on a plan of that nature. The plans that I have seen so far that have been put forward of that nature have represented dramatic reductions in tax for the very highest income people."

He added: "And I'm not looking to dramatically reduce taxes for the wealthiest in our society, not that there's anything wrong with being wealthy. I'm pleased to have done very well myself. You understand that, others do. My intent in running for president is to help middle-income Americans."

"Your plan that would eliminate the tax on capital gains and dividends doesn't help [the middle class]," Wallace noted. "A recent study showed that a family making $75,00 a year -- in terms of what they would receive by eliminating capital gains and dividends -- $167, sir."

"Well first of all, $167 is not zero," Romney declared. "And number two, one of the reasons people don't save their money is that they don't see an incentive to do so. ... Look, I recognize it's not a huge tax cut. It is a tax reduction that allows middle-income folks to participate in making a brighter future for themselves and saving."

In October and again in December, the GOP hopeful called a payroll tax cut of $1,000 to $1,500 for middle-class Americans just "a little Band-Aid."