Uncivil Rights
A BLOG rife with wit, sarcasm, and the endless joy which comes from taunting the socialistic and unpatriotic liberal left. Logical thoughts and musings ONLY need reply...unless you're really, really funny. You have the Uncivil Right to be an IDIOT.
"Give me LIBERTY, or give me DEATH!"
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Jackie Calmes, You have an Uncivil Right to be a Biased Idiot
Jackie Calmes of the New York Times is at it again. Her bias reporting can be seen in the previous post on the Lamestream Media, and she does not disappoint today in Obama Vows Swift Action on Vast Economic Stimulus Plan.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
She writes: "Advisers to Mr. Obama say they want to use the economic crisis as an opportunity to act on many of the issues he emphasized in his campaign, including cutting taxes for lower- and middle-class workers, addressing neglected public infrastructure projects like roads and schools, and creating “green jobs” through business incentives for energy alternatives and environmentally friendly technologies."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or probably know: 45% of the wage earners in this country pay NO income taxes, so how can he CUT them? Are reporters supposed to get to the heart of the subject or just take someone's word?
This is one of my favorites: "His address, a video of which was made available on YouTube, was part of an effort to calm financial markets roiled by the failure of an outgoing president and a lame-duck Congress to come up with a plan to lift the economy and restore investor confidence."
What she DOESN'T write, or ask, or know: The democrats made banks make risky loans to those who didn't qualify. Republicans wanted MORE oversight, and Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and your's truly, Barack Obama, stopped it. Fannie and Freddie took on bad paper from Countrywide - thank you Chris Dodd. This caused the housing bubble to burst. Bush did NOT fail. Then Barack Obama is elected and the stock market TANKED...because Barack Obama was elected. Investment in free markets will go down when a SOCIALIST is elected as president, Jackie.
It's curious how you manage to deduce the increase in the market to the naming of Giethner: "News that Mr. Geithner, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, would get the job helped send the stock market up by nearly 500 points on Friday after days of sharp losses." But no where did you EVER mention that the election of Barack Obama may have had the slightest impact on its downturn...hmmm...stupid?...idiotic?...bias???
In your defense, I will say you have the uncivil right to be a biased idiot.
But there's more. Speaking of letting the Bush tax cuts expire: "That could have economic and political benefits. Mr. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive." FYI Jackie, that WOULD be a tax increase and would be reported as such by those willing to be objective and truthful. I understand you wrote what you wrote because YOU would NOT refer to it as a tax increase. And WHY do people think it would be counterproductive, Jackie? Because tax increases DO NOT necessarily produce more revenue. The collection of tax revenue is at its highest in the nation's history due to Bush's tax CUTS. You, however, prove your idiocy on this subject here: "By letting the tax cuts expire, Mr. Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent and without the Democratic majority in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase."
When the rich are burdened with higher taxes, they hire accountants. Remember John Kerry's wife? She stated her tax burden was only 12%. Even Barack Obama stated, in an interview, that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would not necessarily raise revenue. It wasn't about raising revenue; it IS about FAIRNESS. Of course, if you investigated this story, you would have known this and hopefully included it in your story. Instead, you made it quite clear that you are propagandizing for Obama, or Obamagandizing as I like to call it.
I'm sure the democrats enjoy your advertisements. I hope they will pay you well.
Labels: media bias
totalkaosdave, 8:04 AM
|
