Jon Stewart Bitches Out Crossfire

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]DLM wrote:
So ZEB BostonBarrister JeffR and Thunderbolt23, I wonder what tax bracket you’re in? If you don’t mind me asking, I doubt its one of the lower two.[/quote]

DLM:

I’m in the second-highest bracket, and I aspire to the top bracket.

However, given that I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, I would like to point out one of my least favorite features of the indexed “progressive” tax system: My standard of living is similar to someone in a lower bracket in a different city. This is a partial explanation for those stats you see about how Blue states subsidize Red states – CA, MA, NY, and DC have hugely high costs of living, which translate into nominally higher local salaries. As for purchasing power though, when I was paying over $2000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and a parking space 8 blocks away in Boston, I certainly didn’t feel “rich” at the end of the day…

42

Roy Batty,

“Actually, the keen intellect you display while defending your position makes me glad you’re on Bush’s side.”

This makes zero sense, but whatever tickles your pickle.

“BTW, Bush isn’t Texan. He may have a ranch there, but he was born in the North East.”

Well, let’s see, Bush was elected governor by Texans, so sounds like he passes muster just fine. Bush is plenty Texan - if you don’ think so, ask Texas.

43

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Roy Batty,

“Actually, the keen intellect you display while defending your position makes me glad you’re on Bush’s side.”

This makes zero sense, but whatever tickles your pickle.

“BTW, Bush isn’t Texan. He may have a ranch there, but he was born in the North East.”

Well, let’s see, Bush was elected governor by Texans, so sounds like he passes muster just fine. Bush is plenty Texan - if you don’ think so, ask Texas. [/quote]

So you consider Hillary Clinton a “New Yorker”?

44

DLM,

I’m in the second tax bracket. I aspire to the first.

Therefore, I’m Anti-Socialist (current Democratic Party).

Socialists punish initiative.

It’s a very bad idea.

JeffR

45

ninjaboner,

Thanks for your anectodal story about the grad students “you know.”

Interesting, but not relevant.

Roy,

Hey!!! Long time no rant.

Would you consider coming on over to THE CHALLENGE and betting on a Kerry win?

It’s important to add your dignitas to the proceedings.

JeffR

46

Ding-Dong-Dean wrote:

“OH my god Jeff you are a jerk.”

That was mean. Do you know RSU?

Either way, enough name calling. You wouldn’t say any of that to my face.

Why do it here?

“Comments like this and attitudes like this are a large part of the reason that America is the most hated country in the world. Try living overseas at the moment.”

Is that like having to “pass a global test?” Nice litmus test.

“America’s domination of the world is based on one thing: wealth. Wealth facilitates the science and military might. As for intelligence? Surely the average American has the same average IQ as a person anywhere else. And the finest minds on the earth BAR NONE? So no other country produces any geniuses? Any inventors? Any composers? I guess you won’t be joining the ranks of the finest minds on the earth anytime soon”

More insults? Great.

I clearly didn’t say “no other countries have geniuses/composers/inventors.”

HOWEVER, based on our history of invention, ingenuity, and drive, it’s hard to argue that we don’t possess the largest number of the finest minds in most fields.

I don’t have enough strength to list all of our major accomplishments.

Hey Ding-Dong-Dean, come bet on Kerry.

Do you have the stones?

Yes or no will do.

JeffR

47

Moriarty,

“So you consider Hillary Clinton a “New Yorker”?”

Now, yes. She calls it home. New Yorkers embrace her as their own.

But I’m not a New Yorker, and I have no dog in that fight. New Yorkers can have whoever they want.

48

What sorta wager you have in mind, Jeffy boy?

49

[quote]JeffR wrote:
DLM,

I’m in the second tax bracket. I aspire to the first.

Therefore, I’m Anti-Socialist (current Democratic Party).

Socialists punish initiative.

It’s a very bad idea.

JeffR[/quote]

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

DLM:

I’m in the second-highest bracket, and I aspire to the top bracket.

However, given that I live in one of the most expensive cities in the country, I would like to point out one of my least favorite features of the indexed “progressive” tax system: My standard of living is similar to someone in a lower bracket in a different city. This is a partial explanation for those stats you see about how Blue states subsidize Red states – CA, MA, NY, and DC have hugely high costs of living, which translate into nominally higher local salaries. As for purchasing power though, when I was paying over $2000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment and a parking space 8 blocks away in Boston, I certainly didn’t feel “rich” at the end of the day…[/quote]

Why is there the consensus that a higher tax is a bad thing? A few statistics on higher taxes.
Country, Single Tax/Single Income Family Tax, Poverty Rate
Belgium 55.6%/40.2%, 4%
France 48.3%/39.4%, 6.4%
US 30.0%/19.4%, 12.7%
UK 29.7%/17.8%, 17%
Anyone else notice the trend towards higher taxes equals lower poverty rate? Much of the money taken away from the top 10% of the population (who provide 90% of taxes) go to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Food Stamps (I won’t adress the efficency of these programs, but that can be improved) which redistributes wealth to the people who may not be able to feed themselves and their family, not the people who are trying to buy their 50k dollar yacht or second mansion. I’m not an economists so I won’t argue that higher taxes on the rich do or do not hurt the overall economy of the US. However, I don’t think many people would argue that France’s economy is better than the Unites States, and they still have enough money to make sure 12.7% of their population isn’t impoverished.I guess it comes down to whether or not you prefer the 12.7% of the population who are in large born into poverty, remaining poor, to help the national economy to retain our position as the world’s leading power. Or to help them break out of the cycle of poverty so everyone in the US has the same chance to lead a life of plenty where if you work you don’t have to worry about where your getting your next meal.

50

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
RSU,

Perhaps you are correct; however, I don’t watch either show to gather enough insight to say that I know what Jon Stewart was really reaching at. From the clip, I just assumed that he was preaching that the media, in general, is doing a shitty job. At the same time, he also makes a great point that his show is on Comedy F’n Central. To think that people are actually watching HIS show for NEWS is just incredible, and he seems to agree.

Am I right?[/quote]

I think in some sense, you are right – people shouldn’t have to watch his show for real news. Note: I don’t think they do watch for real news. I think he presents a great perspective on the lunacy pervading much of today’s politics, particularly the Bush administration, and people like the way he presents the opinion. It’s like he’s standing outside the window watching people act a fool and cracking jokes to his buddies, while simultaneously conveying sincere concern.

51

DLM:

What are the unemployment rates in those countries you cited? Look those up, and that will answer your question.

52

DLM:

Also, look at the thread I started concerning the poverty numbers - I believe it’s titled “Shrinking Middle Class?”. A lot of the people who qualify as impoverished are recent immigrants.

Also, look at the definition of “rich.” Someone who makes $200K/year in NYC is hardly going to be out buying a yacht (and even if he were, he would be supporting the jobs of the yacht-making industry – remember that famous example in the 80s of the luxury tax killing the U.S. yacht industry at that time?).

53

BB, maybe because his scores were high enough that they would alienate a lot of the population – further disconnect him from the common man? If he had a few failures and a rocky path, I’m sure he’d suddenly appear more ordinary.

Also, I won’t argue that the unemployment rate isn’t low in the states, which is good, I wish the measurement was better. You do know that people fall off the bottom of the list after being there a while right?

However, the fact that countries with high taxes subsidize unemployment (they pay unemployment benefits) does not mean things have to be structured that way. I think when people get their panties in a bunch about “socialism” they are looking at programs created in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.

This programs are extremely out of date and are based on some utopian ideal that people are all good, honorable and wanting to be educated and productive. If you make social programs a little less naive, then they won’t be so harmful.

For example, here in Canada we hand out too much money. If you are poor or unemployed we simply hand you money. I think it is insane. Instead of handing out money, we should make these people work for it. I don’t care if they dig ditches and fill them in again, they need to understand what the rest of us have to do for a living.

They could walk the streets picking up garbage, washing off or painting over graffiti (not that we have much of that), scooping up dog turd in city parks, cleaning public toilets, whatever horrible crap we can come up with. Maybe sorting through the city garbage looking for recyclables. These are valuable tasks, just not overly desireable.

If you made people work for their handouts, they’d be a lot more likely to get skills, experience and finally, a real job that wasn’t as distasteful. I’m painted a liberal lefty, but damn I’m disgusted by the concept of entitlement and handout that exists these days.

Make these programs emergency measures that you don’t really want, but that will keep you from not being able to feed and educate your children. Then, they will be serving their purpose and won’t be a big drain on the economy by encouraging unproductivity.

The ideas are okay, but the implementation of them has been horribly done. The world is a harsh place and any social programs out there need to be a little hard-nosed as well. After all, it’s my money being given to these losers, and I’d rather keep it for myself.

End rant.

54

After federal and state taxes 200-K per year is a take home of about 2-K per week. You call that rich?

The person is certainly better off than most, but not rich.

55

Thunder,
“This makes zero sense, but whatever tickles your pickle.”

Uh, sorry… If I have to explain it to you then it loses its punch.

Jeffr,
I really wouldn’t take that bet. I will be voting for Kerry, but that doesn’t mean I have any illusions of him actually winning this election. It will be close, but I’m already resigned to the fact that we will have four more years of incompetence and a widening gap between those at the top and those at the bottom.

Like many of you have said, I aspire to be in the top income bracket. As a small business owner who is very aggressive and ambitious I am sure that I will one day reach that goal. I don’t like the system, and I have no illusions that Kerry will be my salvation. Ulitimately it is up to us as individuals if we are going to be successful or not. Once I am at the top though, I certainly won’t have a problem paying a higher percentage of income tax on my personal income. 36 years on this planet growing up in a relatively low income family, and 11 of those struggling to eak out a living as a businessman, I have learned to live below my means… A foreign concept in America these days.

Sorry to take things further off the thread’s topic… There are a few things about Bush that make me not want to vote for him. I am not opposed to using force to protect our country, but I don’t believe that we should do it just because we can do it. I don’t believe that Bush acted responsibly, and thousands of lives have paid the price (those who have been killed, maimed, and their families). In addition to that, the worldwide hostility toward America right now is at an all time high, and terrorism has only found a new target to pursue with reckless abandon. We are more unsafe than we have ever been. That is probably the biggest reason, but there are several others.

I don’t trust his administration with protecting our civil rights (patriot act), and I cringe at the idea of having a religious idealogue at the top position in America. Being a Christian is fine, but a president should make major decisions based on facts, not faith, and Bush has made too many comments about the latter for my comfort. If you are a Christian, you have to remember that religious freedom is the very reason that people first came to America, so we need to protect our rights to worship freely, and repsect others who don’t believe as we do. Theocracy is only good if you agree with the state religion, but we are a diverse nation of many religions. Suppose the state religion were Santa Ria (sp?)… Would you want someone making policy decisions based on what they read from a pile of chicken guts? An extreme example, but you get the concept I hope.

As far as fiscal responsibility, I don’t think his policies are sound. The deficit is out of control, and this admin is spending like a drunk sailor. I don’t think that Kerry will be much better, but I don’t think anyone could possibly be worse than the record spending going on now. If you think you’re getting a tax cut you are naive. We will somehow have to pay this big credit card bill we’ve racked up. If you don’t pay for it out of your income tax it will come out somewhere else that hurts.

Again, sorry for the thread hijack. To pull things back on topic, my very favorite thing that Jon Stewart did was point out that a post debate show with “Spin” in the title is not even attempting to be objective or responsible. I wish so much that the pundits (on both sides) would wait until the following morning to start doing their spinning on the debates, and give the American populous time to digest what they have seen. Everybody wants to declare their candidate the winner, which is fine, but do we expect anything else? Why get literally pounded with pundits cutting down the opponents and trying to interpret what their candidates “meant” when they said certain things. I think he obviously started getting a bit aggravated towards the end, but that is because the very nature of the show is not real discussion… it is one-liners and zingers and loud speaking and interupting and crosstalk. All of journalism seems to be creeping into a sewer where that is where we get our news, rather than reading in depth articles or watching REAL discourse. He’s right that they have a real opportunity with their show that they are missing. They should at least have a rule where only one person at a time can speak, so that they can complete a thought without someone assuming where they are going and cutting them off. Hannity and Colmes is the worst. That show really makes my blood pressure go up.

Sorry for the long post.

56

RSU!!!

"I believe you to be wrong in your interpretation of Stewart’s point. He criticizes a show like “Crossfire” because they think they’re doing their job by presenting “both sides of the fence.” They think that by putting an indoctrinated liberal across from an indoctrinated conservative is being fair and objective…allowing the people to decide. But, what occurs is two people presenting and defending exactly what their ideology dictates without exception, with no further questions asked.

For example, Bush will never do any wrong in Sean Hannity’s eyes, likewise he’s unlikely to do any right in Al Franken’s.

The problem is perpetuated by shows with this platform, for the public themselves “choose sides” in this black and white approach. What Stewart thinks is the job of the media is to OBJECTIVELY analyze the actions of our leaders – and this, most likely, means everyone doing some right and some wrong.

Shows with a platform like Crossfire, or Hannity and Combs, etc. promote diversional, biased thinking, rather than well thought out opinions and analysis based on objective information. This is what has resulted with the dawn of news as entertainment."

Damn kid! that was the best thing I have ever read of yours. Simply brilliant. You actually opened up my eyes to your point there. I did not see this cause and effect before. Shows like Hannity and Colmes really do drive us further apart! You basically have two extremists sititng there blbbibg on and on. Great post there man I’m so excited right now. I really love to gain perspective, especially if it’s from someone I generally disagree with.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

57

First RSU knocks my socks off and now you too VROOM? (no I’m not going to come over to the dark side :wink:

"This programs are extremely out of date and are based on some utopian ideal that people are all good, honorable and wanting to be educated and productive. If you make social programs a little less naive, then they won’t be so harmful.

For example, here in Canada we hand out too much money. If you are poor or unemployed we simply hand you money. I think it is insane. Instead of handing out money, we should make these people work for it. I don’t care if they dig ditches and fill them in again, they need to understand what the rest of us have to do for a living.

They could walk the streets picking up garbage, washing off or painting over graffiti (not that we have much of that), scooping up dog turd in city parks, cleaning public toilets, whatever horrible crap we can come up with. Maybe sorting through the city garbage looking for recyclables. These are valuable tasks, just not overly desireable.

If you made people work for their handouts, they’d be a lot more likely to get skills, experience and finally, a real job that wasn’t as distasteful. I’m painted a liberal lefty, but damn I’m disgusted by the concept of entitlement and handout that exists these days.

Make these programs emergency measures that you don’t really want, but that will keep you from not being able to feed and educate your children. Then, they will be serving their purpose and won’t be a big drain on the economy by encouraging unproductivity.

The ideas are okay, but the implementation of them has been horribly done. The world is a harsh place and any social programs out there need to be a little hard-nosed as well. After all, it’s my money being given to these losers, and I’d rather keep it for myself."

Thank you for this gem this idea should be sent to all governments of the world. Shit if they are gonna give money to someone who can’t find work, give em a stupid little shit job that will at least make things nicer for the rest of us. The only forseeable problem might come into the whole minimum wage thing, you would probably have to give them at least minimum wage. I still think it would be worth it. (even though it is bigger government overall I’m ok with our government making our country cleaner and more beutiful. That should be one of thier jobs.)

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

58

[quote]Vegita wrote:

Damn kid! that was the best thing I have ever read of yours. Simply brilliant. You actually opened up my eyes to your point there. I did not see this cause and effect before. Shows like Hannity and Colmes really do drive us further apart! You basically have two extremists sititng there blbbibg on and on. Great post there man I’m so excited right now. I really love to gain perspective, especially if it’s from someone I generally disagree with.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins
[/quote]

Ah, reaching across the aisle from time to time makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside…j/k

Thanks man.

(now…vote Kerry? lol)

59

Roy Boy,

Thank you for this response:

“Jeffr,
I really wouldn’t take that bet. I will be voting for Kerry, but that doesn’t mean I have any illusions of him actually winning this election.”

I appreciate your honesty.

At least you accept the inevitable.

Kerry was a poor choice from the get-go.

Are you angry that the Dems chose him over Lieberman?

I would be.

I didn’t include the rest of your anti-Bush rant.

I simply disagree with you.

Remember, many of the same things that you say about Bush were said by your liberal friends in the 1980’s about Reagan. Did you catch the funeral?

JeffR

60

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
DLM:

What are the unemployment rates in those countries you cited? Look those up, and that will answer your question.[/quote]

[quote]
Also, look at the thread I started concerning the poverty numbers - I believe it’s titled “Shrinking Middle Class?”. A lot of the people who qualify as impoverished are recent immigrants.

Also, look at the definition of “rich.” Someone who makes $200K/year in NYC is hardly going to be out buying a yacht (and even if he were, he would be supporting the jobs of the yacht-making industry – remember that famous example in the 80s of the luxury tax killing the U.S. yacht industry at that time?).[/quote]

France (9.1%) and Belgium (7.2) have the highest unemployment rate of the countries I listed. Followed by USA (5.8) and the UK (5.2%). These statistics are from http://www.nationmaster.com/ if your wondering and on the whole from 2002-2004. This shows that 6.9% (approximately) of the USA works and does not get out of poverty? Is this a good thing? Addressing the issue of immigrants being the majority of the poor, Blacks and Hispanics have about the same poverty rate (20-23%). Do you know many black immigrants? It looks as though historical economic oppression has to do with poverty as much as immigration. Belgium’s unemplyomet rate is about 140% that of the US, yet their poverty rate is less than 1/3 of ours. Do you think this is an unreasonable increase in unemployment for 2.3 million people to come out of poverty? (If the US’s poverty rate decreased to Belgium’s) I personally do not, I think more money to fund and revise programs to help the unemployed find jobs that will support them and their families, and pay for medical bills for families in need is a great investment for society. A country whose [quote]culture, science, and military are the glory of the human race.[/quote](as JeffR so objectively puts it) should be able to feed itself and give all its children the same opportunity in life.