Riddle me this
 

I watch practically no TV, you understand. What I do watch is Tivo'ed, and other than that it's mostly DVDs. I certainly do not watch the news on TV.

So all of last week, I was down at my parents' house in NC, and they do watch TV news, mostly the local news & some Fox News. I therefore learned things I did not know before. Specifically, I learned that a young lady recently disappeared in Aruba and that every ablebodied adult in the Western Hemisphere has been mobilized to find her. Or at least, that's the impression I get from the news.

Could somebody explain to me why this story, which seems to me to be personally tragic to the woman's family and friends, but to be of no particular exceptional newsworthiness, has dominated the news for days and days on end?

she was blond and blue. she is now missing. "let's see if we can get big rating by capitalizing a tragedy" takes over. what passes as journalism today is nauseating.

I watch practically nothing BUT TV news as background.

News producers have found that they need to fill 24 hours with information that is cheap to produce and compelling enough to keep interest. This is also true because it's hard to follow important REAL news - that takes people with some smarts, and getting it wrong is bad.

At some point they started to realize that some stories are compelling to people because of their soap-opera-like nature. These stories have a "story arc" with drama, good guys and bad guys, twists and turns. It doesn't hurt that the culture is hungering for more reality, as the popularity of reality shows indicates. These news stories compete with reality shows for public interest and "water cooler time".

And if you're 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. Several "news" analysts and hosts took the usual tack with Jennifer Wilbanks, painting the fiancee as the bad guy. It appears there is no penalty for such bad behavior. Furthermore, the shows that scream how horrible the drama is and take the harshest tone and spin up the soap opera are getting higher ratings.

The worst such offender is Nancy Grace; I don't think there's anyone on TV who disgusts me more, and it appears she is in line to take over the 9pm CNN slot when Larry King inevitably becomes too infirm to hold up his suspenders.

There's a writing pyramid that I picked up in an english class that seems to apply even more broadly than she realized. It covers three standards to writing, to what you are trying to appeal. In order of increasing difficulty are pathos, ethos, and logos.

logos

^

/-\

/---\

/ethos\

/-------\

/---------\

/---pathos--\

---------------

It's pretty obvious which each applies to; pathos to emotion, ethos to character or personality, and logos to reason. You can see why real news, meaning information with which to reach a reasoned conclusion, is not good business.

I don't watch the news either. I read voraciously, though.
I can understand the mobilization of Aruba, most of their economy is based on pretty, blond-haired girls, or their families (== bling!).
However, for the infotainment stations to report it as if it were the most important thing in the world is loathsome, but not unexpected. Unfortunately, I'm starting to see it (hear it, whatever) on Air America, and it is really irritating.

http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/twocents.gif
News outlets jumped-the-shark decades ago and went from informative to ratings whores. It's human nature to want to see bad news. It allows us to say, "jeez, that's terrible. I'm sure glad that's not me." The news agencies (and not just TV news but internet news outlests as well) know this and are exploiting this pretty good. No one wants to tune in to hear or see good news. It's like a traffic accedent, you can't pass it by without having to slow down and gawk. There is also a desire to hang on every bad news item in the world of terrorism/ant-terrorism/Iraq/blah blah blah (thank-you post-9-11 world). And the reason why the young lady in Aruba is getting so much press time is becuase she is very young, very blonde, and very white. The press has ample opportunities to snap some heartbreaking family pictures. "Wow, that's sad. Glad that's not me."

Undertoad hit it right on, too. Everyone is in for the 15 minutes of fame/reality TV stuff. No incentive to do good because everyone who is a knucklehead who the press gives any amount if airtime gets some sort of book deal in the end. This Jennifer Wilbanks, as much of a chowder-head she was, has been rewarded by a "Tell-all" book deal. I'm sure she has an agent of sorts by now as well. Grrrrrrr!http://www.cellar.org/images/smilies/bitching.gif

I detest the current state of journalism as well. It's a product being made for profit, just like anything you buy at the store. News organizations want you watching and listening so they can tell their advertisers how big their market share is. Furthermore, "The Media" are their own political party, massaging stories and weighting polls to give their candidate an edge.

I think that it's more of a reflection on our society, though. If we didn't have such a voracious appetite for garbage, it wouldn't be made in such quantities. Jennifer Wilbanks is getting a book deal ONLY because X million people are stupid enough to buy a copy.

Will the real mrnoodle please stand up?

Boo, stupid modern journalism. I detest it. Oh, looky, a LION!!

Even smart guys like you are vulnerable to this. You stuck with the hook of the story long enough to read most of it, and thereby fulfilled the story producer's goal, your eyeballs on his page.

Doesn't seem like news to me though. More like filler. But it gets called news so you'll come to the story with those expectations and if the story is short enough and prurient enough, maybe the momentum will carry you through the next commercial break.

It's only a riddle if you are decieved by the word "news"
 

Here are three posts about this subject. I am really exercised about this. It would be nice to move about in today's society without this armor of cynicism regarding the media, BUT, I just don't see how. It would be like taking a jog on the freeway. You'd be crushed, and forgotten.

Post 1: Somebody, mrnoodle actually, casually mentioned a leftwing media conspiracy. That started it. This was my response. Although I began talking the silliness of the "conspiracy", I was really hacked about the hipocrisy in the news.

So Clodfobble called me on it. Post 2: She took me to task for taking out of context some remarks in a FOXNews story. That's fair, she was, after all, right. I did do that. But that highlights the core issue here, and that is context. Much of this crap-ola we're subjected to in the news media is presented as though it were news, and it's not. A point SteveDallas is trying to recocile. Good luck with that, by the way.

Here was my response to Clodfobble's question/accusation.

Post 3: I took the opportunity to talk about the difference between "news" and "infotainment". I could be cerebral and aim for "logos" again, but I'm too tired. I'll settle for "pathos". In this case it's the same. I am emotionally affected (nauseated and infuriated) by the truth of the matter: They lie, and do so with impugnity.

I'll just go throw up now. :vomit:

ps: I guess it's poor form to quote oneself so freely, since it's done so infrequently here. I'll bear the cost, though, because this thread is a better match than the Iraq thread for the spirit of these posts.

I wish I could have said that. Very nice UT. :Bullseye: (no smilie, rats).

You off your meds? There is no similarity between that story and the kind of story that's played incessantly for months on end for ratings. I'm allowed to think EVENTS are nifty without being accused of hypocrisy, aren't I?

Yes, certainly. Nifty is, by definition, nifty. I like cool stories too. But the two stories do share a certain "arc". Both were called news. Girl is missing. One is found, one is not. Both in countries far from where I live.

If anything, the Aruba story should rate the same level of coverage as the Ethiopian story.

I was not calling you a hypocrite, sorry. I was pointing out the fact that these things happen and deserve some attention. But the contrast shows the absurdity of the stories that are over the top. And for nothin! That "runaway bride"? :smack: It's filler if it's anything. You put it very well when you said it was a "nifty event". SD started talking about media madness and I was using a comparative example. Sorry. Here::chill:

s'all good.

One other point, though. I don't really think there is a leftwing "conspiracy" in the media. Nothing conspiratorial about it -- they are completely open about their politics. That's one reason why Fox looks so extremely right-wing, because they don't follow the party line. For every truly critical appraisal of a Democratic candidate (and I'm being generous here, because I don't remember any), there are dozens about the Republican du jour. It's just plain old bias.

Missing people are not national news. We'd need 100 more 24 hour channels if there was equivalent coverage for everyone on the side of a milk carton. Instead, they just pick a random missing person story when they are feeling lazy and give it 24 hour coverage.

You don't remember Al Gore?

Precisely my point. Al Gore is so three hours ago. Since then we've been treated to slash pieces on every single Bush cabinet member, every Bush judge, and half the Republican senators and congresspersyns.

And Gore's a raving lunatic of Howard Dean proportions. Whether it's his environmental stance or his screaming diatribes about Bush, he's a liability to the party and is therefore fair game. Dean's next on that list, as soon as he polarizes enough Dems to make Hilary seem like a moderate choice.

The only Republican with a media get-out-of-jail-free card is John McCain. Why? Because he's fully aware that the media comprise their own political party, and he wants to be at the head of it. He knows what to say when the cameras are on, and he knows that his path to success is not through the Republican party (who he has made a career of criticizing), nor through the Democrats (who he takes on about once every 6 months as a diversionary tactic). If McCain makes president, it will be as Media Darling/Independent, and he knows it.

bleh. rambling. Taco Bell is a bad thing to eat when it's 90 degrees out.

Bush has had over 100 judges confirmed. Ten were disputed. 90% confirmation is excellent.

And then you propagate the media construction of Al Gore and Howard Dean as raving lunatics. Not a great support for your theory.

The confirmation rate is fine. That's got little to do with newspeeples' lust for conservative blood. And in a sideways sort of way, you're still proving my point by suggesting that the media have a hand in selecting which candidates get confirmed.

The media had no choice but to cover HD and AG's screaming fits, that doesn't mean that the fits are constructs of the media.

Edit: and like I said, they've been deemed disposable (AG has, anyway). Howard Dean is soon to follow. Negative coverage of those two does not constitute lack of bias.

Mrnoodle, i would contend that Foxnews IS blatantly right wing. that is reality, not just an insult thrown by liberals. they have grown more so over the last 24 months. sean hannity is their darling and he is a freaking joke - even limbaugh has more credibility than hannity. O'Reiley is slightly better, but they both use the same tactics. they are fair and balanced because they allow liberals on their shows. but then they shout them down in an attempt to make the liberal look weak, IMO making themselves look like asses.

watch foxnews(i do sometimes), but don't allow yourself to believe even for one moment that they are fair and balanced. fox is just as biased as CNN and the rest of the alphabet.

No I didn't. The vast majority of Bush's nominations got no coverage, never mind "slash pieces". The coverage was given when there was a debate.The media had no choice but to isolate Dean yelling "Yeah!" at a pep rally, filtering out the crowd noise? They simply couldn't help playing it repeatedly for weeks? It was beyond their ability to avoid labeling enthusiasm as lunacy? Where did the term "screaming fits" come from?

HM - has the rest of the media ever chosen a few seconds out of longer segments of time to focus, in regards to Bush? and then played them incessantly? and then applied labels such as illiterate, hick, idiot, etc? or do you really believe that Bush fumbles and bumbles every single sentence to leave his mouth?

the media are swine, and those who believe the spiel are sheep. truth doesn't matter. ratings and customer loyalty matter. if your target viewer or listener doesn't like Bush focus on his frequent word flubbage. if your target audience doesn't like dean or gore, focus on the scream or the invention of the internet.

Fox is biased, yes. But Fox's bias is seen as a Very Bad Thing, while 40 years of leftist media bias is, what, negligible? Can't find the word I'm looking for. Fox stands out as some kind of propoganda machine because we've been so trained to accept the ABCBSNBCNNMSNBC blather that all Republicans want to be our evil overlords, starve our children and seniors, blah blah blah.

Fox's conservative slant IS equal time, to parrot a Limbaughism.

And Hannity is a commentator, not a reporter or anchor. He is packaged and sold with no pretense as a rightwinger. That's his schtick. Why is it so horrible for him and so noble for say, Al Franken?


HM -- Al's screaming fits about Bush are widely documented and easy to find. You have me on the Dean scream -- I wasn't aware there had been doctoring of the audio. But his rhetoric since becoming DNC chairman is no less hateful and untrue for its low volume.

definitely not noble. franken is a fuckstick. so is randi rhodes or whatever that ridiculous biaaatch's name is. about the only one on air america that makes any sense at all is Charles Goyette (he may only be regional at this point) and even he has left his libertarian roots to become a stark raving lunatic in the name of ratings since switching to air america.

liberal media bias is obviously there. it is also obviously no more acceptable than the right wing bias found on fox. i was simply making a point that fox is just as biased as the rest.

and as far as EQUAL time? i don't want equal time - i want responsible journalism from people who report the facts of the story without spin and who at all costs refuse to become part of the story.

Sorry I asked. :angel:

The Dean scream can only be understood in context and HM's portrayal of it removes as much context as the media.

It was the final act of the rise and fall of Dean during the Iowa primary, and Dean's ascension was largely due to media attention, along with his newly-proven tactic of using the net to raise nationwide funds. Three weeks prior to the scream, Dean was being Kinged as the new savior. His approach called for getting rough with the other side and attacking vigorously which caught the attention of everyone. Unfortunately it also had the effect of completely turning off the Iowa electorate, and his unexpectedly poor result let most of the air out of the balloon. And only THEN, YEeeaaaaagh!

The Yeagh was the least of his concerns, and the reason it was overplayed was because it was somewhat representational of his fiery attack approach being overplayed and leading to his demise. And because it was LESS damning than the REAL story, which was that Dean had dramatically failed and that his campaign had been dealt a terrible blow.

Similarly, during the 1992 election, the media made a big deal of George Bush 41 being very surprised by the newfangled technology of a supermarket scanner. The event didn't really happen as described. But the story took hold because it was such a strong analogy for what people felt about 41.

What was untrue?

republicans are all rich and have never worked an honest job in their lives seems a bit far fetched to me. i'm not searching for the quote, but i did hear myself - and he was speaking about why bush won. reps don't work so they have time to go to the polls. dems work hard so couldn't make it the polls. it is just class warfare at its lowest.

the republican politicians, sure - but no more so than democrat pols.

The very idea of this gives me a woody. But the tune was called many many years ago and all we can do now is dance to it. Eventually someone will make a serious stab at doing what you suggest, but I'm afraid they won't be able to drown out the trash peddlers.

Of course they do the same to Bush. I'm not saying they give Republicans passes, as mrnoodle is claiming about Democrats.

To be fair, he said "a lot of" Republicans, not all, and it was primarily the Republicans who vehemently opposed efforts to make voting easier and more convenient. And it was Republicans who reallocated voting machines in Ohio to create the 8 hour lines. And it was again Republicans who tried to turn people away from the polls who had been waiting in line for hours when the polling time ended. Dean's quote could certainly be read as applying to rank and file Republicans, but it was obviously not aimed at them.

However.....
Hm.

very doctoral of you.

andTed Kennedy and his fellow trustfund babies have?

and
That's in the last month or so. He's ramping up the bullshit to make headlines, and is in no way, shape or form a leader. He is, however, the downfall of the Democratic party.

So I guess the first one is the closest to untrue. And I'll agree. Dean should give at least as much benefit of the doubt to DeLay as he did to bin Laden.

And what's the contradiction and/or mistruth in the last two quotes?

You know the drug thing was a cheap shot, and untrue (he's a pill popper)

The "Republicans don't work for a living" thing is also a cheap shot, and untrue. It's part of his playing to "Democrats with Confederate flags on their pickup trucks", which, like the other statements I quoted, fall under the "hateful" category for numerous reasons that you're smart enough to figure out, so fertheloveofpete stop nitpicking and instead tell me whether Dean is nuts, pure mean, or what.

I responded to the honest living quote above. And, I gotta say that the first time I heard Republican officials consider the Confederate flag offensive was in response to Dean's comment.

And the Limbaugh thing isn't nitpicking?

They are just starting to run out of topic.

Air America is really irritating all by itself, actually.

The only news I get a chance to watch is the national news while I'm on the eliptical at the gym....it does help the time pass but it is usually pretty dull. Very rarely watch the local news although I read this morning that a 20 year old man in CT had too much to drink and stole a small Cessna plane and took two of his buds for a joy ride! DUH! When he some how landed safely at Westchester airport where the airport security met him and opened up the door a unusual amount of beer cans fell from the plane! :eyebrow:

As for the Aruba story....white, blonde and blue eyed. Enough said.

I hope this thread has demonstrated to a few more people why noodle takes the pedestal of fuckwittery.

Dean was assassintated by the media for showing emotion. I don't know which bit of the whole thing is saddest.

I find BBCNews24 still quite good, they occasionally get a bit carried away with tabloid stuff like the FA cap sex scandal crap but in general they're much better than CNN, Fox, Sky24 etc. You get the media you pay for, get the financial papers, the more expensive dailies and you get real news and issues that don't make it in the main ones, all media has bais but some is more transparent than others. Avoid anything by Murdoch, if you want to see why look at the Times before and after.

You have to admire the republican party in a way, there's something so utterly shameless about pandering to 'cultural' issues and then getting away with fucking the very people that voted for them long and hard while in office.

I'm sorry, jaguar, did I misquote Dr. Dean? In which instance?

The confederate flag quote is actually the most revealing one. The left has made a 40-year career out of making minorities and the poor dependent on big government, and has no real empathy for them. All they are is a voting bloc as far as Democrats are concerned. Dean's actually being quite honest on that count -- he knows they have the black vote tied up, now he wants the racist vote too.

Which fucks over people more? Making them dependent on handouts and programs or fostering an environment in which businesses are actually able to pay better wages and benefits?

Dean wasn't "assassintated" by anyone, he's committing political suicide in front of the whole world, and dragging the Democrats over the cliff with him.

And I'm afraid that the vaunted Pedestal of Fuckwittery is reserved for people who make constant personal jabs at others who are just voicing their opinion. Not enough room for me up there unless you move over, or at least prick that grossly inflated head of yours and let some air out.

Actually, he's being quite honest that the Democratic party has pretty much given up on the rural South, and doesn't even try anymore. He plans to change that, and start campaigning thoughout the country.
The economy is consistently better under Democrats. And one goal of Republican lawmakers is to allow businesses to pay lower wages and benefits.

Are you referring to the economy of Jimmy Carter, or the economy of Bill Clinton after the Republicans took control of Congress in 94?

I'll bite. Which law is designed to allow businesses to pay lower wages and benefits? This is so tiring. So many people to starve, and so little time. My folks got their social security check last month, so we've failed there. And Medicare covered a big chunk of our friend's shoulder replacement. Damn.

The kids haven't had school lunches in a couple weeks, since school has been out, so I don't know if we've finally eliminated those or not. But I saw some Mexicans doing yardwork for a white guy this morning, so at least they're still under our thumb. Oh shit. How'd THEY get in here?

I can't believe how many people actually believe that's really what lawmakers are thinking. This business about the Dems looking out for the little guy while the Republicans only care about lowering taxes on the rich is an absolute relic, and I can't wait for it to self-destruct. More Howard Dean, please! I like watching the left implode.

I hope you're patient, cause you're in for a long wait.

For me, the party labels are of secondary consideration at best. I'll give substantially more weight to an individual's actions and words. Interestingly, whenever I notice an effort to lower the taxes on the rich, say our current estate tax system, the people trying to make it happen identify themselves as republicans.

Republican credo:* "...government by the <strike>people</strike> rich, for the <strike>people</strike> rich, by the <strike>people </strike> rich, plus anybody we can trick into doing our work for us..."

* edited for clarity

I have more, but the subject sickens me too much to continue now.

Here's a reference.
Programs that Democrats champion and Republicans denigrate, Social Security, Medicare, the minimum wage, labor laws, overtime. These programs are so popular that the Republicans have trouble making headway against them, and you use that failure to claim that Republicans actually support them?Maybe if the Republicans sided with the little guy once in a while, they could do something about that.

That's another relic, man. This class warfare garbage is just that -- garbage. When a group of people bears 90 percent of the tax burden, they are obviously going to benefit from any tax break more than the group that only bears 10 percent of the burden. This idea that the rich are taking a bigger piece of a pie and leaving only crumbs for the less fortunate is false, false, false. The rich are that way because they made the pie bigger, not because they penny-ante'd some welfare mom's check from her. The left has completely convinced a big chunk of the population that the only way people become wealthy is if they steal government lucre from the poor.

It's untrue, false, a lie, bullshit, garbage, and otherwise incorrect. Taxing the rich as punishment for their success is counterproductive and for that matter, doesn't improve the quality of life for the poor one whit. That money doesn't go to the poor, it goes to the government, who spends it on bloated pork-ridden nonsense. Both parties.

edit: this was responding to BigV. HM beat me to the post button. Again.


Minimum wage? What good does raising the minimum wage do? No one can live on it anyway. Instead, take the burden off of businesses so that they can create better paying jobs. I suppose raising the minimum wage helps someone who works at fast food or as a farm laborer, but if that's the only goal someone has in life, they shouldn't expect to be paid $30 an hour for it. Some jobs are just low-paying. That's not my fault.

There is nothing more stupid than a Republican that earns less than 150K per year.

Hmmm. I wonder... How can I combine sentences two and three?

What does that mean, warch? I don't understand. :confused:

What it means is you're screwing yourself.

This is the kind of thing that really makes me laugh. Or cry, depending on mood. Look at say, the kafuffle over estate tax, and look at who is affected by that. Or bush's last round of tax cuts that did little for the economy but sure helped some of his mates. Look at the tens of billions of public money effectively siphoned to rich cronies off by untendered contracts over Iraq.

The other thing that halfwits like noodle tend not to take into account is themore recent concept of non metric externalities. People's wellbeing and most forms of environmental damage being the most common two. By exploiting these things you're effectively borrowing against a finite resource you cannot really define or passing the cost silently over to someone else, this doesn't mean there isn't a cost involved. Look at the cost of things like depression on the economy (when they put a vague number or it) or the forecasts for economic damage from the greenhouse effect and it starts to come into focus. There is a vague school involving this called PAE - post autistic economics which has gained some ground but it's effectively fractured and a bit all over the place at the moment, postmodern economics is not very mature yet but needed more than ever in the face of people like noodle.

The minimum wage stops exploitative businesses doing people over even harder than they do at the moment, there is no way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour, it's not in their interest. People do live on the minimum wage, usually supplemented by a sideline of some sort, take the 'burden' of businesses to pay employees in something other than peanuts fucks over all those people, including particularly vulnerable categories like new immigrants. I suppose environmental law is a 'burden' as well, why not let them dump PCBs into the local ecosystem so they can concentrate on making more environmentally friendly products? Both statements are fucking non sequiturs.

As for your folks social security cheque, this admin is working to stop that as soon as possible.

No way to encourage a business to pay more for the same labour - except of course for the obvious fact that every single person in the job market would like to be paid more, and is angling for that at all times, and when paid not enough generally departs for greener pastures.

The labour market doesn't exist in a vacuum, and historically every increase in the minimum wage results in a burst of increase in unemployment for a few quarters. The correction is that some businesses can't afford to continue with a higher percentage going to labor and so some of the jobs go away temporarily and others go away forever.

But at this point the M.W. has been low for so long in the US that it almost doesn't matter. Even mild inflation has left the M.W. behind. Very few jobs exist at minimum wage these days. Jacquelita's 16-year-old started work as a hostess at a Bob Evans restaurant (read: working class sit-down meals) for a good 30% over the M.W.

So it turns out that if you are concerned about wages, all you really need is economic growth. No amount of laws will permit employers to hire people at wages above what they can possibly pay in the economy. A decade of really good growth increases everyone's standard of living until they are ALL paid above "minimum" - even to just stand there and smile while people come in to get their biscuits and gravy. (After only three months of doing that, Jacquelita's young one will have enough cash to buy my old car, not bad at all for a teenager.)

Let me know when they work out this whole really good growth thing, it doesn't look like happening anytime soon. Removing regulation will usually stimulate some economic growth but almost always at a cost.

Well that's kinda the problem: as long as a population looks to "them" to work out really good growth, it won't happen. "They" definitely do not know how to do it.

and deregulation is not the answer. If you want to visit how it works, visit the Scandinavian states, the quality of life for everyone beats the shit out of the Anglo-Saxon model, for everyone. . The answer to the problem now is massive investment in education and research. While noodle's bizarre claims that the government can never do anything right are to be expected but they don't hold true. While governments often fuck things up they can and do do a lot of good. It's not like the republicans believe in small government anymore either. Also - the equally strange claim the rich pay 90% of tax is amusingly far from reality, the rich don't pay tax you sillybilly, that's for little people. Over a certain point the money fades into networks of shell companies, offshore tax havens and other tricks with the assistance of Private Banks. Big corporations tend not to pay tax either, last I checked GE was surprisingly based in a small Caribbean county. It's the middle class that pay the vast majority of tax in our societies.

a visual. It even comes from the NYT, not known for its integrity when it comes to anything regarding Bush. Despite the normal class warfare rigamarole about "the rich", tell me jaguar, who bears the tax burden in American society? Why, then, is it unfair that those shouldering the burden should benefit from tax cuts? Should their percentage be higher still? And should we add the burden of forcing them to pay even higher wages? If so, are you willing to pay 50% more for the same products? Obviously you will answer this with some playground insult, but if you would couch the answers "yes" or "no" somewhere within, it'd be appreciated.

Perhaps it wouldn't be that much. What, then, should the minimum wage be? How much would you pay someone to wash dishes in your restaurant? $20/hour? After all, when they go to the grocery store to purchase the products whose price has trebled because the owner has to pay his/her employees $20/hour, they'll need enough to get by on.

The "rich", which by the way means "anyone who makes over 50k" to the left, are paying it all.

It depends on what you mean by burden. The word has a very different meaning depending on how much you've got.
What makes you say that?

The fact that they pay 88.4% of the money that the feds receive from taxes?

What I mean by burden is obvious. What you're talking about is whether or not poor people have a hard time coming up with the scratch to pay Uncle Sam. The answer is that most of them don't have to -- by the time they've received all of their government checks and gotten breaks for marriage, kids, etc., any amount they pay to the feds is offset. Most of the least wealthy people don't pay any federal income tax at all.

Now, the middle class does pay. And it would be great to have a system by which we could pay less. But as far as this fairness bullshit goes, if taxation were fair, then there would be a flat income tax (or no tax other than sales tax). This doesn't interest liberals. Libs are obsessed with idea that those with more money should be somehow forced to feel the same amount of "suffering" as everyone else.

Firstly, you want a real debate, well, it makes a nice change but you'll have to work by some basic laws first. First of all, stop making up numbers. Where did the trebling come from? Where did the 50% come from? Where is 20/hr come from? I'm not going to answer you question because it has no basis in reality. Yes noodle, I understand the inflationary power of the minimum wage but use real numbers. Include the deflationary effect of overseas manufacturing. Secondly, stop using misleading terms such as 'least wealthy', we're mostly fairly intelligent people, not a goddamn news-crew, it just gets in the way.

Also worth noting: the AMT hits the rich far harder than the superrich.
Notable label here: share of reported income.
I know some people with a villa on the French Rivera, a chalet in Switzerland and a penthouse in London that report an income of your average accountant. You so far have chosen to ignore this point. I don't think the rates should be higher, I think much more resources should be put into catching the very rich dodging taxes, which is estimated last time I saw in the tens of billions and long jail terms implemented for major tax fraud by individuals.

From the graphic the biggest tax demographics by far are the 'middle class', and middle/upper 160000-400000 or soish. Rich as far as I'm concerned is 150000+. Which is pretty much what I said. Do they deserve tax cuts? I don't see why. It's not about suffering, it's about fairness, by taxing those that have far more, more, we can help those at the bottom get by. I think tax on profits from financial instruments like shares and bonds should be far higher, it's essentially free money. You can argue all you want about the economic stimulus from investment but the same effect is had by just leaving the money in the bank, the bank just does it instead.

On a philosophical level this all comes down to how selfish you are. If you're more selfish the argument tends to run that what you earn is your business, your tax burden should be the same as everyone else and fuck those with less, they should get better jobs if they want more money. The other side says that those at the bottom are in circumstances that make advancement far harder and deserve help from those that have more. Some such as myself also feel that many services can be provided more cost effectively to everyone by the government than as optional services to those that can afford it. Look at healthcare in the US, you guys spend 15% of GDP, more than 5500 a head for healthcare that judging by what I hear, isn't that great compared to 11.5%(3800PP) in Switzerland for incredible healthcare for all or 9%(2900PP) in Denmark. Only the US spends more than 50% of its money on healthcare privately. As far as I'm concerned this is a superior model.

There is one other aspect here, why is the government cutting taxes to anyone while increasingly spending by a massive amount?

Need to take this a bit further while I think about it. People lambaste the 'European welfare state' but it is in a sense, an indirect way of achieving things. If you look at high-tech productivity I seem to remember it's highest in Spain, midday siesta and all and lowest in the UK with it's grindingly long hours and workworkwork culture. Looking after people pays off. Many European nations have higher absolute worker productivity (per hour) than the US. Trade balance and per capita GNP in Sweden, the usual target for the welfare state stuff is higher than the UK.

As we move towards service / tertiary economies the ability of our best and brightest to think and work to their fullest potential coming up with innovative ideas will as far as I can see, become more economically important than squeezing every last ounce out of workers before the collapse exhausted into depression. But that's just my opinion.

:notworthy

Weird. I channel surf the news everyday sometimes twice. BBC, ABC (Aussie). This is the first I've heard. I can only assume she's American or is married related to one and it was a slow news day.
Could it also be that the story was cheaper to buy or run than say something from the Beeb or CNN. After all news is not free.

Maybe for the Philosophy Thread but I've often wondered why there isn't a Good News Channel. Must be something about human nature and the "Rather Him Than Me" attitude that pervades life. This could of course be a distant survival thing.

I think that the girl missing (presumed dead) in Aruba is the US equivalent of the Australian story we didn't hear very much about ... you know, the one about the nice blonde Aussie Girl who got busted for drugs in Thailand, was it? Someplace where drug smuggling gets you the death penalty? Whatever did happen to her, anyway?

Tonight on FoxNews it was pretty much wall to wall coverage of the Aruba thing, especially now that the boy's dad's been arrested.

They couldn't afford the bribe money so she got 20 years. But they have another chance as it will probably go to appeal. If she or someone can scrape up enough money to "lobby" the judges well.....

Death penalty for drug smuggling is the norm in some SE Asian countries. Singapore definitely; Thailand maybe not but life imprisonment for sure; Indonesia well.. see above.