White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies'

[rush549]

White House lashes out at Fox News for 'lies' - Yahoo! News
Thu Oct 1, 5:14 pm ET
In the past few months, Fox News' critical coverage of the Obama administration has been the subject of scornful scrutiny by left-leaning pundits and political satirists. But now the White House appears to be willing to get dirt on its own hands, jumping into the fray by blasting the network's "disregard for facts" in a post on the official White House blog.
Written by White House Online Programs Director Jesse Lee, the post takes issue with Fox News' coverage of the president's attempts to help the city of Chicago secure the 2016 Olympics, saying that Rupert Murdoch's cable news juggernaut, which famously bills itself as being "fair and balanced," has "continued its disregard for the facts in an attempt to smear the Administration's efforts" to convince the International Olympic Committee that the U.S. should host the games.
Lee specifically takes issue with Glenn Beck, who in July accused the president of being a "racist" with "a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture," for showing that "nothing is worthy of respect if it can be used as part of a partisan attack to boost ratings." Lee then goes on to "reality check" a number of assertions recently made by Beck on his afternoon program, in addition to directing readers to the St. Petersburg Times' Politifact site, which rebuts accusations made by Fox News' Steve Doocy against Patrick Gaspard, the director of the White House Office of Political Affairs.

The move by the Obama White House sets a new watermark in its seemingly escalating war with Fox News. Back in June, President Obama gave an interview to CNBC in which he criticized the network for being "entirely devoted to attacking my administration," and later promised to "call out" anyone who misrepresents him when he delivered his address on health care reform to a joint session of Congress. Taking it a step further, Obama slighted Fox News during the White House's recent pro-health care reform PR blitz, appearing on five Sunday news shows, not to mention Late Night with David Letterman, while declining to grant an interview to a single Fox News program, a move that led Chris Wallace, host of the network's Fox News Sunday, to label the Obama White House as the "biggest bunch of cry-babies I've ever seen." Some objective observers of politics and the media feel that the ire expressed by Wallace is somewhat understandable. After all, the Obama administration's frustrations stem not from non-partisan hosts like Wallace, but from Fox News' roster of unabashedly partisan hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity, who've both gone so far as to compare the Obama White House to Hitler's Germany and the communist Soviet Union.

While many are raising hay about the White House acting aggressively to combat perceived smears from Fox News, it isn't unprecedented for a president and his administration to feud openly with the media. George W. Bush and CBS came to blows in 2004 after Dan Rather alleged on 60 Minutes II that Bush had used his family's connections to manipulate his enlistment in the National Guard to avoid serving in combat in Vietnam, an incident that led to the firing of CBS producer Mary Mapes and badly tarnished Rather's reputation as an objective newsman. Prior to that, Hillary Clinton famously alleged that forces in the media were involved in a "vast right-wing conspiracy" to destroy her husband's presidency, while Nixon's infamous enemies list contained numerous names of media members and the news organizations they worked for. In short, animosity existing between the White House and the media isn't anything new.
During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama did what many presidential candidates of both parties have done over the years: promised to "change the tone in Washington." By using the White House blog to defend itself from perceived media distortions, the Obama Administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill, just like every past presidential Administration to make the same promise.
-- Brett Michael Dykes is a contributor to the Yahoo! News Blog.

[dwightdmagee]

"... the Obama administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill ..."

Can't argue with that.

[Brent]

Gee, why doesn't Obama just do an interview with Fox News to dispel all of these alledged lies?

[Erzer]

Originally Posted by Brent

Gee, why doesn't Obama just do an interview with Fox News to dispel all of these alledged lies?

That would be an excellent idea....except for the following.

Obama: (like all presidents)
won't do it because his people will want all questions and I mean all, released to his office in advance

where they to get the questions, they will want certain ones removed

won't trust Fox to portray him in the right light or to reveal all the questions in advance

Fox:
won't want to pollute the interviewing "game" by removing crucial questions

won't give all the questions as it might as well be an advertisement

will be considered playing with the interview no matter how much they prove their wayward producer is not in the picture - despite the fact this has been going on by all the other news outlets



The bottom line, is the normal be bold, be defiant, be in your face politics of the Demokratic Progressive Party only is used when trying to shut out the facts...thus we will continue to hear from them that the news lines are false. If he had factual evidence of lies, then you would see someone forced to retire into the woodwork; didn't this happen with one of their supporters during the previous administration

I've got an idea, do a joint FOX/CNN live interview and while he's at it, put up the facts to present the case to the American people that FOX lied and let us decide.

[rush549]

Originally Posted by Erzer

That would be an excellent idea....except for the following.

Obama: (like all presidents)
won't do it because his people will want all questions and I mean all, released to his office in advance

where they to get the questions, they will want certain ones removed

won't trust Fox to portray him in the right light or to reveal all the questions in advance

Fox:
won't want to pollute the interviewing "game" by removing crucial questions

won't give all the questions as it might as well be an advertisement

will be considered playing with the interview no matter how much they prove their wayward producer is not in the picture - despite the fact this has been going on by all the other news outlets



The bottom line, is the normal be bold, be defiant, be in your face politics of the Demokratic Progressive Party only is used when trying to shut out the facts...thus we will continue to hear from them that the news lines are false. If he had factual evidence of lies, then you would see someone forced to retire into the woodwork; didn't this happen with one of their supporters during the previous administration

I've got an idea, do a joint FOX/CNN live interview and while he's at it, put up the facts to present the case to the American people that FOX lied and let us decide.

Well, since he's a fascist, socialistic dictator. Why not just shut them down. Or better yet, take them over, problem solved. That's what Hitler would have done.

[JHM2K]

Originally Posted by rush549

Well, since he's a fascist, socialistic dictator. Why not just shut them down. Or better yet, take them over, problem solved. That's what Hitler would have done.

I take it you haven't heard of recent attempts to squelch talk radio, right? IIRC it's the "fairness act" or something to that effect. It's early, I still need coffee.

Point being, there ARE efforts being made to suppress opposing views. Not simply combat and discuss, but suppress.

Handwriting is on the wall, IMO...

[rush549]

Originally Posted by JHM2K

I take it you haven't heard of recent attempts to squelch talk radio, right? IIRC it's the "fairness act" or something to that effect. It's early, I still need coffee.

Point being, there ARE efforts being made to suppress opposing views. Not simply combat and discuss, but suppress.

Handwriting is on the wall, IMO...

Wheres the bill?

[JHM2K]

Originally Posted by rush549

Wheres the bill?

I'll have to do some homework and dig for it, as this was several months ago. Pretty sure the bill was shot down, but the point is that it was pushed at a very inappropriate time... you know, in the midst of Waxman-Markee (sp?) AKA "Cap and Trade" bill, and the birth of HR3200 that we're still fighting over. It was stacked on top of the chuckwagon at the last moment, in hopes noone would notice.

People noticed. The jist of the bill was that 'annoying' guys like Rush and Neal Bortz and Savage would be hushed. People deemed annoying by the administration, of course.

Still, I'll do my best to locate the text of it. Hang tight.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by dwightdmagee

"... the Obama administration may be unintentionally signaling that their promise to alter the nation's political discourse was a lofty notion that they might fail to fulfill ..."

This administration sends a LOT of unintentional messages.

It's kinda like they think that what they say is louder than what they do. A common human failing, but still - makes me ask: "Where are his advisors and why arent' they helping him see what mistakes he's making?"

Could it be that he just won't listen?

[GDC-SRT]

This all started years ago!
Here is a link, however the red link to the act of 2009 at the bottom does not work.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by GDC-SRT

This all started years ago!
Here is a link, however the red link to the act of 2009 at the bottom does not work.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here is some more to add.

The new FCC Czar. Who is Mark Lloyd? How does he plan to stop your freedom of speech? And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Mark Loyd is the Diversity guy who would make sure people like Glenn Beck and Oreily are squelched.

I have repeatedly asked the same question as many. Given the "Free Press" concept that allows Larry Flint to publish his cr@p and the John Birch society to publish theirs, why do we have the government talking about such things as the Fairness Doctrine, et al.

If FOX is broadcasting untruths about the administration, why doesn't the President call them on it and go onthe network? I mean, by his own admission, he got a fair interview with Bill OReily.

Of course that was during the election when promises didn't have to actually be kept. Now, of course, there is the annoying problem of facts about his performance.

Chris Mathews might give Barry a break. Not Bret Hume or Brian Wilson. They don't, as yet, have the tingle up their leg. So why doesn't President Barry meet and give it to them?


roadster with a stick

[Brent]

Originally Posted by Erzer

That would be an excellent idea....except for the following.

Obama: (like all presidents)
won't do it because his people will want all questions and I mean all, released to his office in advance

where they to get the questions, they will want certain ones removed

won't trust Fox to portray him in the right light or to reveal all the questions in advance

Fox:
won't want to pollute the interviewing "game" by removing crucial questions

won't give all the questions as it might as well be an advertisement

will be considered playing with the interview no matter how much they prove their wayward producer is not in the picture - despite the fact this has been going on by all the other news outlets



The bottom line, is the normal be bold, be defiant, be in your face politics of the Demokratic Progressive Party only is used when trying to shut out the facts...thus we will continue to hear from them that the news lines are false. If he had factual evidence of lies, then you would see someone forced to retire into the woodwork; didn't this happen with one of their supporters during the previous administration

I've got an idea, do a joint FOX/CNN live interview and while he's at it, put up the facts to present the case to the American people that FOX lied and let us decide.

Except for talking to athletes right after a sports game or an impromptu man in the street viewpoint, all interviews are rigged to some extant. Certainly white house press conferences and shows like 20/20 are the greatest offenders. Nothing new as you noted, it's just seems that the distaste people have for this sort of thing is peaking with Obama. He sure has become a lightening rod for controversy.

The white house publicly issuing claims that Fox lied is a risky move in my opinion. People will tune in to Fox as a result and may very well decide for themselves that Fox is correct. The drop in ratings of the other news outlets and growing Fox viewership already reflect a growing dissatisfaction with Fox's competition.

[rush549]

Media Consolidation -- a Historical Perspective | ePluribus MediaMedia Consolidation -- a Historical Perspective

Submitted by jamess on Fri, 01/18/2008 - 23:18

• Al Gore
• Bill Clinton
• Corporations
• FCC
• Hillary Clinton
• john edwards
• Media consolidation
• Presidential Primaries 2008
• Regulation
• Ronald Reagan

Media Reform Information Center

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. ... in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation. In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth.

Media Reform Information Center ------
Media Consolidation on NOW

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was created in 1934 with jurisdiction over radio, interstate telephone communication, and later television. But the FCC has always struggled with a fundamental lack of clarity about its proper functions. In its mission to serve the public interest, should the FCC crack down on indecency on the airwaves? Should it use its power to rescind the licenses of wayward stations? Get background information on some of the FCC's more recent decisions below: * The Fairness Doctrine * Media Regulation Timeline * Details of FCC Rule Changes * Local and National Media Ownership

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Media Consolidation on NOW | PBS ------------------- Source: PBS Now Media Regulation Timeline 1941

Local Radio Ownership Rule, National TV Ownership Rule enacted. A broadcaster cannot own television stations that reach more than 35% of the nation's homes.

1946

Dual Television Network Rule enacted, prohibiting a major network from buying another major network.

1964

Local TV Multiple Ownership Rule enacted, prohibiting a broadcaster from owning more than one television station in the same market, unless there are at least eight stations in the market.

... 1981 [Reagan Presidency]

Reagan Administration deregulation under the leadership of FCC Chairman Mark Fowler. Deregulatory moves, some made by Congress, others by the FCC included extending television licenses to five years from three in 1981. The number of television stations any single entity could own grew from seven in 1981 to 12 in 1985.

1985 [Reagan Presidency]

Guidelines for minimal amounts of non-entertainment programming are abolished. FCC guidelines on how much advertising can be carried per hour are eliminated.

1987 [Reagan Presidency]

"Fairness Doctrine" eliminated. At its founding the FCC viewed the stations to which it granted licenses as "public trustee" — and required that they made every reasonable attempt to cover contrasting points of views.

... 1996 [Clinton Presidency]

President Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It is generally regarded as the most important legislation regulating media ownership in over a decade. The radio industry experiences unprecedented consolidation after the 40-station ownership cap is lifted.

NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. Big Media - Regulations Timeline | PBS -------------------
The result? Top Telecommunications, Media and Technology Companies http://www.openairwaves.org/telecom/...act=industry#6 ------------------- Does Clinton regret the Media Merger Mania he unleashed? It's not clear: Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal 8/6/2007

The Fallout From the Telecommunications Act of 1996 * Lifted the limit on how many radio stations one company could own. The cap had been set at 40 stations. It made possible the creation of radio giants like Clear Channel, with more than 1,200 stations, and led to a substantial drop in the number of minority station owners, homogenization of play lists, and less local news. * Lifted from 12 the number of local TV stations any one corporation could own, and expanded the limit on audience reach. One company had been allowed to own stations that reached up to a quarter of U.S. TV households. The Act raised that national cap to 35 percent. These changes spurred huge media mergers and greatly increased media concentration. Together, just five companies – Viacom, the parent of CBS, Disney, owner of ABC, News Corp, NBC and AOL, owner of Time Warner, now control 75 percent of all prime-time viewing. ... * The Act gave broadcasters, for free, valuable digital TV licenses that could have brought in up to $70 billion to the federal treasury if they had been auctioned off. Broadcasters, who claimed they deserved these free licenses because they serve the public, have largely ignored their public interest obligations, failing to provide substantive local news and public affairs reporting and coverage of congressional, local and state elections. * The Act reduced broadcasters’ accountability to the public by extending the term of a broadcast license from five to eight years, and made it more difficult for citizens to challenge those license renewals.

News Corpse Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal -------------------
The result? Who owns the Media? http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart.php -------------------
One Candidate has spoken out against this senseless consolidation of the Free Press -- that Candidate is John Edwards 8/6/2007

John Edwards:

"It’s time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this [News Corp./Dow Jones] merger and other forms of media consolidation."

So far, Edwards is the only candidate to address this issue, and he deserves enormous credit for exhibiting such courage. The media is a potentially devastating enemy - just ask Howard Dean. However, Hillary Clinton has the greatest moral obligation to take a stand given what her husband saddled us with.

News Corpse Bill Clinton’s Take On Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal ---- And Edwards has paid the Price for telling the Truth to the American People! The price tag: being "Virtually Ignored" by the Media, and even being dropped from Candidate Polls, based on the arbitrary decisions of corporate Media Executives, and little else: John Edwards for President-Where Is John? -------
Survey USA Drops Edwards Based on "Judgment" by sarahlane - Jan 17, 2008 Unbelievable! CNN narrows the Field of Candidates! by jamess - Jan 13, 2008
What is Edwards saying that they find so disturbing? Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation Aug 2, 2007 Challenges Democratic presidential candidates to cut off contributions from News Corp Executives

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, Senator John Edwards spoke out strongly against media consolidation which threatens the health of our democracy, by calling on Democrats to openly oppose and take the necessary steps to stop the merger between News Corp and the Dow Jones Company/The Wall Street Journal. Edwards called on Democrats to oppose the merger in light of the biased and unfair manner Fox News, and other media arms of News Corp, cover Democrats and the Democratic Party. ... "News Corp's purchase of the Dow Jones Co. and The Wall Street Journal should be the last straw when it comes to media consolidation. The basis of a strong democracy begins and ends with a strong, unbiased and fair media — all qualities which are pretty hard to subscribe to Fox News and News Corp. The reality is that Americans deserve more news outlets — not fewer. It's time for all Democrats, including those running for president, to stand up and speak out against this merger and other forms of media consolidation.

John Edwards for President-Edwards Comes Out Strongly Against Media Consolidation
Al Gore, another Progressive Statesman, has also spoken out just as urgently against this "wild west" atmosphere for evermore Media Consolidation: Gore Lashes Out at Media Consolidation by Jill Lawless August 28, 2006

"Democracy is under attack," Gore told an audience at the Edinburgh International Television Festival. "Democracy as a system for self-governance is facing more serious challenges now than it has faced for a long time. "Democracy is a conversation, and the most important role of the media is to facilitate that conversation of democracy. Now the conversation is more controlled, it is more centralized." ... In the United States "the only thing that matters in American politics now is having enough money to put 30-second commercials on the air often enough to convince the voters to elect you or re-elect you," he said. "The person who has the most money to run the most ads usually wins."

Gore Lashes Out at Media Consolidation ----
Where do the other Candidates stand on the FCC, Media Consolidation, and the Fairness Doctrine? It would be nice to know! [The Fairness Doctrine, by the way, pre-Reagan era, used to require ALL qualified Candidates, get Equal Air time from the broadcasters, in exchange for their very lucrative broadcasting licenses.]
Edwards has the guts to take a Stand and speak out, like Al Gore did -- do they? John Edwards pickets at NBC - WGA YouTube - John Edwards pickets at NBC ---- John Edwards:

"One of the things we have a problem with in America is the conglomeration and consolidation of the Media. We need to make sure that diverse voices are being heard, and we don't have that kind of consolidation because that's a big part of the problem."

If the Trends set in motion by Ronald Reagan, and continued by Bill Clinton, are allowed to proceed unchecked as they have for 2 decades, this is the likely Future we will face Instead of the "Big Six" Media Conglomerates -- we'll end up with the "Titanic Two" Fox and MSNBC! (and just wait til they merge)

[Jeep2Xfire]

I like pie charts, they have pretty colors. And I like pie

[Franc Rauscher]

Nice post rush. But here is my question.
Why are we blaming Reagan and then Clinton for the consolidation of our news sources instead of the news agencies themselves.

People buy news as a product just like any other. Produce crap and lies, people will soon stop purchasing the cheap easy news that is meaningless to them in favor of the gritty truth.

The NYTimes and the LA Times were more than happy to headline the selatious. NBC, Dan Rather, Chris Mathews all use the leads that bleed with a rather loose association with the facts. They are all going down financially.
After 8 years of accusing FOX of carrying water for the Republican Party, these outlets and others openly shilled for the Dems and Barrack Obama. Any credibility they may have enjoyed was lost November 4th 2008.

As they wane, buyers will snap them up. people with money, including Mr Murdoc. Why doesn't George Soros buy CBS or NBC? He certainly has the dough to do it. Then he could go head to head with Murdoc and expose the lying and deceit the White House and many others claim FOX is perpetrating.

The answer is the same as the reason President Barry won't go there for an interview.


roadster with a stick

[rush549]

Originally Posted by Jeep2Xfire

I like pie charts, they have pretty colors. And I like pie

Me too, pie, and monkeys. And I ponder... Pie aren't square, pie are round.

I like monkeys.


The pet store was selling them for 5¢ a piece. I thought that odd since they were normally a couple thousand each. I decided not to look a gift horse in the mouth. I bought 200. I like monkeys.
I took my 200 monkeys home. I have a big car. I let one drive. His name was Sigmund. He was retarded. In fact, none of them were really bright. They kept punching themselves in their genitals. I laughed. Then they punched my genitals. I stopped laughing.
I herded them into my room. They didn't adapt very well to their new environment. They would screech, hurl themselves off of the couch at high speeds and slam into the wall. Although humorous at first, the spectacle lost its novelty halfway into its third hour.
Two hours later I found out why all the monkeys were so inexpensive: they all died. No apparent reason. They all just sorta' dropped dead. Kinda' like when you buy a goldfish and it dies five hours later. Damn cheap monkeys.
I didn't know what to do. There were 200 dead monkeys lying all over my room, on the bed, in the dresser, hanging from my bookcase. It looked like I had 200 throw rugs.
I tried to flush one down the toilet. It didn't work. It got stuck. Then I had one dead, wet monkey and 199 dead, dry monkeys.
I tried pretending that they were just stuffed animals. That worked for a while, that is until they began to decompose. It started to smell real bad.
I had to pee but there was a dead monkey in the toilet and I didn't want to call the plumber. I was embarrassed.
I tried to slow down the decomposition by freezing them. Unfortunately there was only enough room for two monkeys at a time so I had to change them every 30 seconds. I also had to eat all the food in the freezer so it didn't all go bad.
I tried burning them. Little did I know my bed was flammable. I had to extinguish the fire.
Then I had one dead, wet monkey in my toilet, two dead, frozen monkeys in my freezer, and 197 dead, charred monkeys in a pile on my bed. The odor wasn't improving.
I became agitated at my inability to dispose of my monkeys and to use the bathroom. I severely beat one of my monkeys. I felt better.
I tried throwing them way but the garbage man said that the city wasn't allowed to dispose of charred primates. I told him that I had a wet one. He couldn't take that one either. I didn't bother asking about the frozen ones.
I finally arrived at a solution. I gave them out as Christmas gifts. My friends didn't know quite what to say. They pretended that they like them but I could tell they were lying. Ingrates. So I punched them in the genitals.
I like monkeys

[rush549]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

Nice post rush. But here is my question.
Wh are we blaming Reagan and then clinton for the consolidation of our news sources instead of the news agencies themselves.

People buy news as a product just like any other. Produce crap and lies, people will soon stop purchasing the cheap easy news that is meaningless to them in favor of the gritty truth.

The NYTimes and the LA Times were more than happy to headline the selatious. NBC, Dan Rather, Chris Mathews all use the leads that bleed with a rather loose association with the facts. They are all going down financially.
After 8 years of accusing FOX of carrying water for the Republican Party, these outlets and others openly shilled for the Dems and Barrack Obama. Any credibility they may have enjoyed was lost November 4th 2008.

As they wane, buyers will snap them up. people with money, including Mr Murdoc. Why doesn't George Soros buy CBS or NBC? He certainly has the dough to do it. Then he could go head to head with Murdoc and expose the lying and deceit the White House and many others claim FOX is perpetrating.

The answe is the same as the reason President Barry won't go there for an interview.


roadster with a stick

Because they knew better than to expect sociopathic corporations to to be patriotic, or do the right thing. That's why games have rules, and governments have laws.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by rush549

Because they knew better than to expect sociopathic corporations to to be patriotic, or do the right thing. That's why games have rules, and governments have laws.

That is the wrong answer, not related to the quetion. But I'll bite because you are right about this.

Not all corporations are sociopathic. Only those like mine and those that make a profit, right Rush.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sociopathic
Truth is, by definition, the purpose of Corporations is to make a profit. To that end they are self serving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopathy
According to WIKI's rather loose definition, they may be Sociopathic.

Governments should make laws. In 230 some years, ours has many plenty of laws. How many do we need?

How about they enforce them?

It is illegal to enter this Country and reside without permission. Enforced?
It is illegal to produce Meth, enforced?
It is illegal to grow or transport Marjaunna, enforced?

Why don't we make it illegal to reject anyone from health insurance for a pre existing condition? Then private enterprise would have to figure out a marketable, yet profitable, way to spread the risk of health care to everybody. The government could simply insist by law that it be done. Let the insurance industry figure out how.
Why don't we make it illegal for doctors to cherry pick medicare and medicaid patients? Serve one serve all. But pay them the going rate instead giving a piece of the cost to some pile of bureauocrats in Washington?

Why does the government bail out or buy corporations that fail to meet conditions of self preservation? Why are Banks, who should have been allowed to fail, allowed to receive government funds but have yet, a year later, to ease credit restrictions?
Why has our government not seen to that promise, made last year and believed by the current administration and congressional leaders? Why weren't the laws enforced to make it happen?

Why should news outlets, that can't justify their existance, get any help, financial or otherwise from the government? Particularly a government Constitutionaly barred from applying pressure on the media.

Our government should make laws to protect the rights and property of the individual.It should also enforce them(or the laws are worthless Codswallop). From corporations as you suggest, and from itself as the Constitution declares.


roadster with a stick

BTW, the correct answer is that Soros would have to provide a credible source of news. Unlikely.

[rush549]

Originally Posted by Franc Rauscher

That is the wrong answer, not related to the quetion. But I'll bite because you are right about this.

Not all corporations are sociopathic. Only those like mine and those that make a profit, right Rush.
sociopathic - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Truth is, by definition, the purpose of Corporations is to make a profit. To that end they are self serving.
Sociopathy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to WIKI's rather loose definition, they may be Sociopathic.

Governments should make laws. In 230 some years, ours has many plenty of laws. How many do we need?

How about they enforce them?

It is illegal to enter this Country and reside without permission. Enforced?
It is illegal to produce Meth, enforced?
It is illegal to grow or transport Marjaunna, enforced?

Why don't we make it illegal to reject anyone from health insurance for a pre existing condition? Then private enterprise would have to figure out a marketable, yet profitable, way to spread the risk of health care to everybody. The government could simply insist by law that it be done. Let the insurance industry figure out how.
Why don't we make it illegal for doctors to cherry pick medicare and medicaid patients? Serve one serve all. But pay them the going rate instead giving a piece of the cost to some pile of bureauocrats in Washington?

Why does the government bail out or buy corporations that fail to meet conditions of self preservation? Why are Banks, who should have been allowed to fail, allowed to receive government funds but have yet, a year later, to ease credit restrictions?
Why has our government not seen to that promise, made last year and believed by the current administration and congressional leaders? Why weren't the laws enforced to make it happen?

Why should news outlets, that can't justify their existance, get any help, financial or otherwise from the government? Particularly a government Constitutionaly barred from applying pressure on the media.

Our government should make laws to protect the rights and property of the individual.It should also enforce them(or the laws are worthless Codswallop). From corporations as you suggest, and from itself as the Constitution declares.


roadster with a stick

BTW, the correct answer is that Soros would have to provide a credible source of news. Unlikely.

That's what I've been saying. The culmination of 30 years of bad policy, combined with corporate person hood and and election funding skewed toward giant corporations lobbied money have left us with a plutocracy. These multi-national sociopaths own us now. They make the rules, not us. And Rupert Murdock is one of them, Sun Myung Moon, another. Who are both handmaidens of the super rich. Till we get the beancounters out of the newsroom, we will never be America again. A lopsided view I confess, but nonetheless true.

[Franc Rauscher]

Originally Posted by rush549

That's what I've been saying. The culmination of 30 years of bad policy, combined with corporate person hood and and election funding skewed toward giant corporations lobbied money have left us with a plutocracy. These multi-national sociopaths own us now. They make the rules, not us. And Rupert Murdock is one of them, Sun Myung Moon, another. Who are both handmaidens of the super rich. Till we get the beancounters out of the newsroom, we will never be America again. A lopsided view I confess, but nonetheless true.

You are closer to the mark than you might think. But the villian isn't the Corporations. They are self serving and like any animal, will preserve their interests first. This, in itself is not evil or even selfish.

The government must provide the level playing field for all. It has not. Tax breaks, tax incentives, Tiffs,.... These are all unconscionable perversions of the original tax code that by the Constitution should be level and equal.

Bring in the progressives and their progressive income tax. Again, in and of itself OK. A simple method of redistributing the wealth and preventing the consolidation of wealth. But it has been perverted and the system so corrupted that it no longer represents a fair balance of taxation.

Remember, Corporations do not pay Taxes. They collect them for the government as add ons to their gross profits. They may find ways to keep some of the taxes for themselves by influence, but the reality is that the consumer, that'd be you and me, pay the taxes in the cost of the goods and services we purchase. Check out your phone bill sometime. Read the breakdown details of the bill and you'll explode. The phone Co doesn't get that money unless they find or create a loophole.

It is the purpose of corporations, and private business as well, to make a profit, to create wealth. It should be the purpose of government to maintain and equal opportunity for all to pursue this possibility. To enrich themselves by productive effort that creates and amplifies value, not the redistribution of an existing wealth.

The aquisition of wealth is most often a selfish, zero sum game. The creation of wealth can be shared by all who participate in the endeavour.
The aquisition of wealth is a re titlement of ownership, an imperialistic takeover of the pie so to speak. The creation of new wealth makes the pie bigger.

The government cannot make the pie bigger. Only people working to create more pie can there be an increase wealth for everyone involved.

Our government is bigger than ever now. And the situation you have described is, by your own accusation, worse. So how does bigger government, or more government, solve the problem?


roadster with a stick

BTW, Skewed corporate giving to political campaigns??? Wall Street gave it up for Barry over McCain by a ratio of 5 to 1. Who got the bail outs?