What's Up with Fox News?

[JackLuis]

Chris Wallace stomps Mulvaney for lying about tax cuts: ‘There is no evidence they pay for themselves’

Has Fox changed? Now they are refuting the Rethuglican lies!

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday challenged White House budget director Mick Mulvaney about his controversial claim that President Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts will pay for themselves through economic growth.

In an interview on Fox News Sunday, Wallace pointed to a Tax Policy Center report that found that the richest 1 percent would receive an average of $129,000 in savings from Trump’s tax reform proposal while the middle class would see a cut of just $660.

“That doesn’t seem fair,” Wallace noted.

Mulvaney called the estimate “absurd” and claimed that it understated the economic growth that would be spurred by tax cuts.

Wallace reminded the budget director that the theory that tax cuts paid for themselves had been repeatedly debunked.

“The Reagan tax cut back in 1981 added $208 billion to the deficit,” the Fox News host said. “The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 added $1.5 trillion to the debt over 10 years.”

“You can argue whether or not tax cuts spur economic growth… there is no evidence that they pay for themselves,” Wallace added.

Fox and facts!

 

[DrDelirium]

Fox has always been a tool of the neocons. Trump, for all his other failings, is not a neocon and is opposed to their globalist agenda. Just because the neocons use whatever stick is handy to beat Trump with doesn't mean they care what the stick is made of. It also doesn't mean they are suddenly on the side of the angels.

 

[coachdb18]

Greatest plan ever devised, to tax ourselves into prosperity!

 

[Hypoxia]

Greatest plan ever devised, to tax ourselves into prosperity!

We may note that prosperous regions tend to have higher taxes than poorer regions. Therefore national tax cut plans are attempts to drive the nation into poverty.

USA low-tax states tend to be less populated, less productive, less contributing to GDP, more leeching off prosperous states for subsidies -- they're welfare states. And the current plan to kill state and local tax deductions would suck more taxes from productive states to further subsidize low-output welfare states. Why can't the welfare states pay for themselves?

 

[sr71plt]

Has Fox changed? Now they are refuting the Rethuglican lies!

Wasn't Fox recently sold?

 

[Hypoxia]

Wasn't Fox recently sold?

IIRC old Rupe Murdoch transferred control of Fauz Newz to a couple of his kids, who have been restructuring and mainstreaming the dump. They likely found that out-insaning Breitbart and InfoWars, and keeping a bunch of sexual abusers on staff, wasn't good for ad revenues.

 

[coachdb18]

We may note that prosperous regions tend to have higher taxes than poorer regions. Therefore national tax cut plans are attempts to drive the nation into poverty.

USA low-tax states tend to be less populated, less productive, less contributing to GDP, more leeching off prosperous states for subsidies -- they're welfare states. And the current plan to kill state and local tax deductions would suck more taxes from productive states to further subsidize low-output welfare states. Why can't the welfare states pay for themselves?

The welfare states you speak of are mainly NY and California... they are so deep in debt, they'll never be self sufficient. The idea of 'free shit' is legend in these regions.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-debt-per-capita-figures.html

Combined State Debt: More Than $4 Trillion for FY 2011
Connecticut has the most debt, owing $5,402 for each resident, while Nebraska owes only $21 for each citizen.

 

[ishtat]

The welfare states you speak of are mainly NY and California... they are so deep in debt, they'll never be self sufficient. The idea of 'free shit' is legend in these regions.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/state-debt-per-capita-figures.html

Combined State Debt: More Than $4 Trillion for FY 2011
Connecticut has the most debt, owing $5,402 for each resident, while Nebraska owes only $21 for each citizen.

This is a silly post. To get a true picture of the indebtedness of every States citizens, you need to add in all the federal subsidies for each State which vary a lot (Alaska is huge for example). Then on top of that you need to apportion the Federal deferred liabilities, pensions social welfare etc. These figures will make the numbers you quoted look like chickenfeed and will even out State comparables a lot .

 

[JackLuis]

Chris Wallace and Shep Smith have been the least offensive of the Fox News horde for a long time, but they seldom call out the Rethug's directly.

Of course Hannity and the talking heads are still spreading the propaganda, but to see the News guys call out the lies of the Administration is refreshing.

 

[Hypoxia]

My welfare-state point derives from federal revenue flows. 'Donor' states pay more to the feds than they get back; they subsidize others. 'Welfare' states pay less than they receive; they leech off the productive states.

Most low-tax, low-prosperity, low-productivity Tromp-loving red states suck the federal tit. Isn't pay-your-own-way a conservative position? Oh right, Gups-bagheads-Turmpzoids are no longer conservative. Conservatives have (or had) principles but knew when to compromise. All gone now.

 

[someoneyouknow]

My welfare-state point derives from federal revenue flows. 'Donor' states pay more to the feds than they get back; they subsidize others. 'Welfare' states pay less than they receive; they leech off the productive states.

Most low-tax, low-prosperity, low-productivity Tromp-loving red states suck the federal tit. Isn't pay-your-own-way a conservative position? Oh right, Gups-bagheads-Turmpzoids are no longer conservative. Conservatives have (or had) principles but knew when to compromise. All gone now.

Two reports, showing the same thing. Republican-led states rely the most on federal dollars to prop them up:

From 2016:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/top-10-states-rely-most-federal-aid

From 2015:

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-states-the-most-and-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government-2015-7

And from the Tax Foundation itself:

https://taxfoundation.org/states-rely-most-federal-aid/

 

[DrDelirium]

My welfare-state point derives from federal revenue flows. 'Donor' states pay more to the feds than they get back; they subsidize others. 'Welfare' states pay less than they receive; they leech off the productive states.

Most low-tax, low-prosperity, low-productivity Tromp-loving red states suck the federal tit. Isn't pay-your-own-way a conservative position? Oh right, Gups-bagheads-Turmpzoids are no longer conservative. Conservatives have (or had) principles but knew when to compromise. All gone now.

True, not a lot of principles on the right. On the other hand, since when is it a 'liberal' principle that everyone pay their own way? Consider that the 'welfare states' are mostly engaged in resource production- agriculture, various kinds of mining, mineral processing, timber production- oh, and military service. They are basically colonial dependencies of the US, but they provide essentials for the added-value productivity that makes the rich states rich. And which is really more important- cheap food, or expensive Hollywood movies?
I believe you were earlier making a point about taxpayers subsidizing Walmart through welfare. The rich states are similarly subsidizing (at a very low relative cost) a system of exploitation in the poor states, but these subsidies keep them rich.
If the poor states were an independent, nuclear-armed entity that had to pay their own costs directly, the price of food and basic commodities would be a lot higher in the rich states.

 

[phrodeau]

Booting Roger Ailes made a difference.

 

[Hypoxia]

Oh....and Fox News is still the most-watched news channel in this country. Everyone else is a joke.

McBurgers are still the most popular takeout food in the country, and Faux Newz is just as nutritious. As the old saying goes, "Eat shit, pigs! Twenty billion flies can't be wrong!"

Booting Roger Ailes made a difference.

Canning a few other sexual predators may be a factor, too.
Wasn't there a saying that the Faux Newz studio was like the Playboy mansion but without all the fun?

 

[Iceprincess12]

Ratings!

 

[JackLuis]

‘That’s actually not true’: Chris Wallace tears NRA executive director a new one for lying about gun control

Fox News host Chris Wallace on Sunday took on NRA Executive Director Chris Cox about his organization’s resistance to gun safety laws following the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas.

“You say common decency [means] let’s wait [on discussing gun laws], what’s enough time?” Wallace wondered. “I mean, here were 58 people killed, almost 500 injured. Is it common decency to wait a day, two days, a week, a month. I mean, it is understandable — I know you don’t agree with [Democrats’] solution but what’s wrong with saying we need to address this?”

Cox, however, turned the question into an opportunity to attack House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Hillary Clinton, who he accused of wanting to abolish all gun rights.

“Is that a sensible way to have this conversation, to try to turn it into class warfare,” Wallace shot back, “where if you’re for gun control somehow you’re part of an elite?”

“It’s not class warfare,” Cox insisted. “It’s what the American people want.”

“That’s not actually true,” Wallace interrupted. “If you talk about background checks, if you talk about automatic weapons — there are a lot of people, in fact a majority of people according to the polls who would like to see those gun controls.”

“I have to say that I’m put off at the argument, if you believe in gun control, you’re an elite,” he continued. “I have to tell you, Mr. Cox, I know very few people… who have armed body guards. One of the few people I know who has armed body guards is [NRA head] Wayne LaPierre.”

Fox using facts? What is the world coming to?

 

[DrDelirium]

‘That’s actually not true’: Chris Wallace tears NRA executive director a new one for lying about gun control



Fox using facts? What is the world coming to?

That doesn't make any sense. There are already very strict controls on automatic weapons, complete with background checks. So Wallace is lying by implying there aren't.

 

[The_Trouvere]

Taxing ourselves to prosperity

Greatest plan ever devised, to tax ourselves into prosperity!

We taxed ourselves to prosperity during the Roosevelt administration.

In 1932 the top tax rate was 63%. In 1944 it was 94%.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/02inpetr.pdf

In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6%. In 1944 it was 1.2%.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

In 1932 the per capita gross domestic product in 1996 dollars was $4,901. In 1944 it was $12,380.

http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

Roosevelt raised taxes on the rich and spread the wealth around to buy votes. The additional votes he bought gave him the power to raise taxes on the rich even more. It was great fun. It caused him to be reelected three times.

 

[The_Trouvere]

I guess FOX News got tired of lying. One of these days Rush Limbaugh might tire of it too.

 

[Hypoxia]

Fox using facts? What is the world coming to?

Hallowe'en looms. Tombstones are overturned as the dead crawl from graves and crypts. Impossible half-seen chimeras skulk in the shadows. Humanoid mouths appear in flower blooms and sing mad carols. The walls between universes shake and crack. Death grins from a tree like a Cheshire cat.

And Faux Newz finds itself on the brink. Will it escape from The Dark Side?

 

[JackLuis]

Shep Smith compares Trump’s latest attacks on media to Watergate: ‘In the end, journalism ended Nixon’s career’

n Wednesday, President Donald Trump told the White House press pool that he thinks it’s “frankly disgusting the press is able to write whatever it wants to write.”

Though this latest attack on First Amendment protections, taken in tandem with the president’s ill-conceived threat to revoke NBC’s broadcasting license for reporting he calls “fake news,” is alarming, Fox News’ Shep Smith asked viewers to have heart with a history lesson.

“This presidential tactic is not new in the Trump era,” Smith said in response to Trump’s reported comments. “It dates to the Nixon administration. It’s called, affectionately, ‘working the refs.'”

Prior to President Richard Nixon’s resignation amid the Watergate scandal, he and his aides took a similarly hard-lined stance against media they saw as “against” them. Nixon “invited top broadcast executives to the White House and told them ‘your reporters just can’t stand the fact that I’m in this office.'”

“Sound familiar?” he asked, referencing Trump’s late November 2016 meeting with TV news executives where he berated them for their “unfair coverage” of him during the campaign season.

Are you tired of losing yet, Donald? It looks like you've lot Fox and Rush today maybe tomorrow would be a good day to quit before Bob get his shit together?

 

[DrDelirium]

Jack, are you are protesting listing RT as a 'foreign agent,' and letting banks freeze its assets and close its accounts? Or is freedom of speech just for American media corporations? The same corporations that don't believe South Front should be able report 'conspiracy theories' to 'US military personnel and veterans' and are pushing congressional investigations of that outlet? Of course you support Youtube shutting down their video channel, because Youtube is a private entity not bound by the First Amendment, and Facebook shutting down accounts it, and it alone, deems to be presenting 'fake news' on the same basis. But to whom is the mainstream media accountable for reporting 'fake news'? The First Amendment was never intended to help a handful of media giants control the flow of information, quite the opposite.
If NBC loses it's broadcast license, it will still be able to pollute the internet, and have all the same First Amendment rights as any other citizen that doesn't own a radio or tv station. All its commentators and reporters can go right on saying what they're saying, just as you or I can. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, but not the right to be heard, and in particular, not the right to speak over the publicly owned airwaves.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I doubt Trump would be going after NBC like this were the article not written by four girls.

 

[JackLuis]

Jack, are you are protesting listing RT as a 'foreign agent,' and letting banks freeze its assets and close its accounts? Or is freedom of speech just for American media corporations? The same corporations that don't believe South Front should be able report 'conspiracy theories' to 'US military personnel and veterans' and are pushing congressional investigations of that outlet? Of course you support Youtube shutting down their video channel, because Youtube is a private entity not bound by the First Amendment, and Facebook shutting down accounts it, and it alone, deems to be presenting 'fake news' on the same basis. But to whom is the mainstream media accountable for reporting 'fake news'? The First Amendment was never intended to help a handful of media giants control the flow of information, quite the opposite.
If NBC loses it's broadcast license, it will still be able to pollute the internet, and have all the same First Amendment rights as any other citizen that doesn't own a radio or tv station. All its commentators and reporters can go right on saying what they're saying, just as you or I can. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, but not the right to be heard, and in particular, not the right to speak over the publicly owned airwaves.

Whaat? I like RT actually, I don't believe it much more than I do Pravda, or NBC for that matter. I'm not sure what you are talking about??

 

[DrDelirium]

Whaat? I like RT actually, I don't believe it much more than I do Pravda, or NBC for that matter. I'm not sure what you are talking about??

I'm talking about the campaign underway from the corporate media and congress to suppress 'fake news' that doesn't adhere to the mainstream narrative. Besides talk, most of the action has so far been by private entities like Youtube, closing or demonetizing accounts they don't like, but more official actions are in the works, beginning with congressional 'investigations.'
The most that Trump's action could do is over a course of 8 years take NBC off the broadcast airwaves, a dying medium anyway. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube are censoring the internet, a much more active- and interactive- venue. Which actions effectively narrow editorial control over information more?