Politico has a clip of a Fox News Staffer urging the crowd to cheer when they go live. You can see it here.
Blogroll
Archives
- February 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
No surprise there, FIX News doesnt report the news they create it. All these crackpot protesters are a joke a well. They call the president a Fascist and Hitler, lol, Where were they all when the patriot act was being passed, or the constitution was being trampled by Bush’s illegal wire tapping, or when he took billions of dollars in surplus and turned it into a deficit? or when we were spending 10 billion a month nation building Iraq? Now this president wants to fix health care, saying it will cost 900 billion over 10 years, and they are all in hysterics over the amount, i guess that type of money helping Americans, just doesnt sit well with them. Instead they would rather spend it setting up a socialist medical program in Iraq and Afghanistan instead.
Reply to Sundance— “No surprise there, FIX News doesn’t report the news they create it”—
***I can appreciate your “gotcha” passion but let me offer a TV insider’s take to help your perspective.
—-“Politico has a clip of a Fox News Staffer urging the crowd to cheer when they go live. You can see it here”.”—-
***This is standard operating procedure in virtually all live TV events. Watch the flashing applause signs on Jay Leno or SNL, watch the floor directors on the telethons and the same is true for the coverage of crowds, parades, morning show performances and other live events.
A large crowd doesn’t know when the camera will be going live, and while they want their enthusiasm documented, they can’t sustain yelling and cheering for an unlimited amount of time…if you go to such events you will see these events do NOT consist of non-stop cheering. So the producer “cues” the crowd, same as they do the talent. They don’t tell the crowd what to say or how to say it, they indicate that the camera is hot and if they are going to cheer, now is the time to do it.
It’s not sinister, it’s not orchestrated, it’s not covert, it’s good tv as practiced by all networks. It’s just a way of letting a crowd that is predisposed to cheer know that they are about to be on air.
Look a little deeper before you assume the worst and blog on it like its truth, it will keep you from looking silly. No charge.
—“All these crackpot protesters are a joke a well.”— ***Now you are talking about people like my mom and my sister and I don’t appreciate it. They are not crackpots…are there crackpots in the crowds? You bet…show me a protest left or right and I’ll show you crackpots…heck, show me a neutral protest and I’ll show you crackpots turning out from the left and right. BUT, If you focus on the parsley you’ll miss the steak. The issue for most is spending. How much can the camel hold before the spending bill that breaks its back is passed? Bush was pushing it, he was getting close to the people’s breaking point…but one trillion isn’t the same as 2, 4, 9 or 13 trillion.
It isn’t a matter of not protesting Bush…giving him a pass for his deficits. He was approaching the lid for many Americans…now we are past the lid times 10…why is that so hard to grasp. It is waaaaaay worse and that has the silent average people upset and so now they are speaking up AT LAST.
You make it sound that all things are equal and people are just protesting Obama for the very same things they let Bush get away with.
You are obviously smarter than that…all things aren’t equal…the camel’s back is broken by trillions MORE. That doesn’t make people crackpots, it breaks their backs and now they speak out.
For every right wing nut-job Nazi sign you’ll find 100 “stop spending signs”…IF cnn will show them… don’t miss their point…for every Tom Delay disciple you’ll find 1000 independent individuals who don’t take orders from anybody..except maybe their spouse!
Do you have a breaking point? If it was Bush at a Trillion, what can you possibly say about Obama and 10 trillion? I can respect your anger and frustration at Bush’s spending…but it’s so much worse now…if you don’t show a proportionate level of increased outrage now, I will have little choice but to think your real issue is Bush the person and not the spending behavior. Enlighten me.
So dave is saying the tea bag parties are not as grass roots as they’d like us to believe.
As they said on CNN this morning, Fox shouldn’t be calling themselves a “news outlet” if they are actively trying to create the news. And if there’s an anti-war protest, or demonstrators demanding an investigation into the torture practices of the prior administration, everybody knows that Fox is not going to be there trying to excite the crowd into a frenzy for the cameras- likely, they will not report it, because it doesn’t fit their obvious conservative agenda.
Looks like Fixed News lied again, this time about how they were they only media at the teabaggin’…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-newspaper-ad-mak_n_291494.html
Fox finds a 100,000 rednecks and they call it a ‘coup’.
Maybe they should be pronouncing it “coop”
YES vg, anti social and uneducated
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-moran.htm
In all fairness to Faux News, their Bill Sammons sent out an email re: the 9/12 teabaggin’ to his staff, asserting that news organizations should be reporting the events, and not creating them (he left out “promoting them”). Sammons’ comments would clearly contradict Dave “now where’s my gun?” Ettl, who wants us to believe a responsible unbiased media includes a cheerleading squad.
Dave compared it to SNL and Leno, as if it were a staged event, so it must be so.
They expected a particular type of response from the crowd, and Ms. Noonan coached it out of them to get it on camera. This is Fair and Balanced journalism.
Dave, I respect your knowledge, but your glibness tells me that you expect all the rules to be bent in your direction. Television news is not entertainment, nor is it a endorsement of the icon on the camera. You shoot what is there, not what you want it to be. Your assumption that I’m trying to be personal about your family rankles me too. Nothing of the sort is happening. I have more zest and class than that. You have taken this to a personal level, beyond the issue and that is not right. Sundance –BTW No Charge!
Reply to Sundance–
—“Dave, I respect your knowledge, but your glibness tells me that you expect all the rules to be bent in your direction.”— ***My “glibness” as you call it is just approach, it doesn’t carry a message or an expectation, it’s simply more personally satisfying to write to entertain myself and prospective readers. I don’t expect favoritism or that the rules do not apply to me.
—“Television news is not entertainment … You shoot what is there, not what you want it to be.”— ***well, that’s the way it used to be and that’s the way it’s supposed to be , but again I would challenge you to attend any such event covered by any TV network and watch it for yourself…it is what it is. But keep in mind that Beck and O’Reily, Hannity and Van Sustren aren’t “Newscasts”….they are commentary shows based on news events. Bill Hemmer, Chris Wallace, John Roberts, Shepherd Smith are among the Fox News Anchormen.
—“Your assumption that I’m trying to be personal about your family rankles me too. Nothing of the sort is happening. I have more zest and class than that. You have taken this to a personal level, beyond the issue and that is not right.”— ***My bad..More misplaced glibness I guess, sorry…my point is that my family isn’t a bunch of crackpots. They have been pushed to their personal limits and have at last been moved to speak up. Thats what so many are missing–Its policy not personal.
***I couldn’t help but notice you skipped over my question about your personal “breaking point”? –“Do you have a breaking point? If it was Bush at a Trillion, what can you possibly say about Obama and 10 trillion? I can respect your anger and frustration at Bush’s spending…but it’s so much worse now…if you don’t show a proportionate level of increased outrage now, I will have little choice but to think your real issue is Bush the person and not the spending behavior” ***do you have an answer?
Dave, I’m assuming your family is just as middle class as mine. If we had some tax fairness where the middle class was not bearing the tax burden for the ultra rich, we would make a great start on reducing the deficit. We are all concerned about deficits, but let’s get real here. Folks are not getting emotional over the “loss of their America” because of budget deficits. If we get real health care reform, middle class families will see some real cost savings for their personal finances. I for one believe Obama will keep his promise to only sign a bill that has a financing plan that does not add to the deficit. Call me optimistic. And as well meaning as your family may be, I find it offensive that anyone would march alongside the crazies that call Obama a Nazi and threaten violence. By their actions, they are condoning the crazies…. Guilt by association, my friend.
Ok, it’s issues, not people. However, I have to say that I have never like GB. His little smirk gives me the absolute willies. He scooted into a war based on his own weird thoughts about Gog and Magog wrestling in the Old Testament. I feel assured that he has a mental problem that did not rear it’s ugly head far enough to create a problem with his believers, albeit he certainly was visible to his detractors–pretty natural I suppos.
Now let me comment on your “ten trillion.” I think that is a little over the top don’t you? It’s true that the O administration has spent a lot of money, but please recall what that administration inherited–an eight year war on two fronts–a “tax the middle class and let my rich friends pass”–and a Patriot Act that gutted the civil liberties of many Americans. He lied in his State of the Union. Is there a more despicable act than lying to those that you govern? Give me some reason I should not feel personally repugnant toward George Bush? Breaking point, no, as long as he is trying to reform the abuses.
Reply to seagal- —“Dave, I’m assuming your family is just as middle class as mine. If we had some tax fairness where the middle class was not bearing the tax burden for the ultra rich, we would make a great start on reducing the deficit”— ***I don’t know the parameters of your definition of “middle class” … but I would consider myself to be middle class – on a good day. And I think a flat tax of some kind would be a good idea but I don’t begrudge the wealthy their success and I believe they already carry a disproportionate amount of the tax burden …..
JULY 29, 2009 Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95% by Scott A. Hodge Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the “rich” are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act. Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined. The Tax Policy Blog is the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy at the federal, state and local levels since 1937.
—“We are all concerned about deficits, but let’s get real here. Folks are not getting emotional over the “loss of their America” because of budget deficits.”— ***Seems if you think you have some insight so
Kindly share…what is it that gets folks “emotional”?
—“ If we get real health care reform, middle class families will see some real cost savings for their personal
finances.”—****what have you seen or heard that indicates that will happen given the plans or portion of plans we have heard about so far? What is the budget office saying? None of the administrations predictions
have been accurate, what makes you think they have this right?
—“I for one believe Obama will keep his promise to only sign a bill that has a financing plan that does not add to the deficit. Call me optimistic. “—I think optimism is great but that is too simplistic, what track record of promises kept can you point to that gives you such confidence. His popularity at this stage in his presidency –compared to
presidents back to Eisenhower — is now the second lowest only to Bill Clinton. What are these folks seeing that you are not?
—“And as well meaning as your family may be, I find it offensive that anyone would march alongside the crazies that call Obama a Nazi and threaten violence.”— ***Crazies turn out for marches…as much on the left as on the
right and they represent only themselves… if big media focused on the issues and the people there for the real purpose, people such as yourself wouldn’t be mislead from the bulls eye by spotlighting the outer ring. (a little
shooting reference for ya! )
—“By their actions, they are condoning the crazies…. Guilt by association, my friend.”—****what happened to This is
America and you have a right to be crazy but that doesn’t mean your issues are mine? I hate to use this type of argument but think back to the anti- bush protests and all the crazy stuff done and said then. Should we dismiss
all for the actions of those few too?
Whats with all the stars*** Did Walter Winchell or Paul Harvey write this?
Reply to sundancekid —“Ok, it’s issues, not people.”—***and when you truly believe that and really look to that , you’ll have an clearer picture of where everyday American people are coming from…you may still disagree but you will at least be dealing with their reality.
***I’m not getting into the GB discussion with you…we disagree, so be it.
—” Now let me comment on your “ten trillion.” I think that is a little over the top don’t you?”— ***actually, not by much… Obama’s Deficit Projections Off by $2.3 Trillion, Congressional Budget Office Says Tuesday, March 24, 2009 The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that President Obama’s budget and deficit projections are too low. The president’s budget will incur $9.3 trillion in federal deficits between 2010 and 2019 –$2.3 trillion higher than Obama had originally claimed….The total deficit from 2010 to 2019 was pegged at $9.3 trillion. The deficit is not expected to fall below a floor of $500 billion for the foreseeable future, the report pointed out. In fact, the budget office found that Obama’s projected deficits are more than double what they would be if the president had merely stuck with the current spending and taxation proposals left by the Bush administration….
AND …http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
—“ It’s true that the Obama administration has spent a lot of money,”— ***c’mon sundance…that way too simplistic…the amount of spending and proposed spending is staggering….as much as all other administrations combined?
—“but please recall what that administration inherited–an eight year war on two fronts–a “tax the middle class and let my rich friends pass”—***and how much is Obama spending today in Iraq compared to Bush? Why not slam on the breaks, get us out, stop wasting our treasure? It’s a poor excuse if you continue the policy and it is still just a drop in the Obama bucket! As far as taxes… the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined…according to– The Tax Policy Blog – the official weblog of the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization that has monitored tax policy. Where is the pass in that?
***I’m not here to make you like the former president…I don’t think you see him accurately but you are entitled to your opinion but when you say this-
—“ Breaking point, no, as long as he is trying to reform the abuses”— ***Then I have to wonder about you sundance. Bush’s deficit was bad…perhaps worthy of the protests…but Obama’s deficits are far enough beyond bad so as to be almost incomprehensible…and yet that’s ok with you…I don’t know what you do for a living but I hope it isn’t teaching logic because you don’t add up. Clearly with you it IS people and NOT issues. That’s ok. But it’s that kind of thinking that makes me feel obliged to join the discussion to try to find clarity and balance and logic. Thanks.
Dave E – Here is a good article for you to peruse at your leisure that is on point regarding hte middle class – something your lengthy treatise does not. You will note, Bush tax cuts are still in place for now and the decade is not done yet. I stand on my position that the the tax burden has shifted to the middle class.
Published on Wednesday, June 4, 2003 by the Washington Post
Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise
Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline
by Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Three successive tax cuts pushed by President Bush will leave middle-income taxpayers paying a greater share of all federal taxes by the end of the decade, according to new analyses of the Bush administration’s tax policies.
As critics of the tax cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003 have noted, the very wealthiest Americans — those earning $337,000 or more per year — will be the greatest beneficiaries of the changes in the nation’s tax laws. And, as administration officials have argued, low-income taxpayers will also enjoy a disproportionately lighter tax burden.
Conservatives and liberals alike agree that Bush’s tax policies have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle class.
The result is that a broad swath of lower-middle, middle- and upper-middle-income people, as well as some rich Americans, will carry a greater share of the federal tax burden after the laws passed in the past three years are fully implemented. While taxes are scheduled to decline for all income groups, those earning more than $28,000 but less than $337,000 will end up paying a greater share of the taxes than they did before the changes.
The findings, by two groups that have been critical of the Bush administration’s tax policies, add a new wrinkle to the increasingly contentious debate over the fairness of Bush’s tax policies and which income groups would benefit most.
Liberal groups have argued that the Bush administration is penalizing the poor while rewarding the rich. In part to answer those critics, Republicans have targeted the poor with expanded tax refund checks for families with children, a new 10 percent tax bracket and a larger earned-income credit for married couples who are poor.
The result may be a surprise to both sides: By the end of the decade, the middle class will be picking up a greater share of the government’s tab.
“It’s hard to get a lot of progressivity at the very top,” said R. Glenn Hubbard, the architect of Bush’s most recent tax cut proposal and a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. By slashing taxes on dividends, capital gains and inheritances, the cuts ensure that tax burdens will no longer rise consistently with income, as they would with a perfectly “progressive” system. “But,” Hubbard added, “we’ve very much retained progressivity overall because so much money was dumped into the bottom rates.”
The two studies focused on separate issues. Citizens for Tax Justice examined the percentage changes in total federal taxes that would be paid by different income groups through 2010. The Tax Policy Center, jointly run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, looked at the share of federal taxes that would remain for the various groups once those changes are fully phased in. But the studies reached similar conclusions.
Citizens for Tax Justice found that for the lowest fifth of taxpayers — those earning below $16,000 — federal taxes would fall 10 percent between now and 2010, while federal taxes for those in the second quintile — earning between $16,000 to $28,000 — would fall 12 percent. At the other end of the scale, the decline for the top 1 percent of taxpayers — those making $337,000 and up — would be 15 percent.
In contrast, for taxpayers earning between $45,000 and $337,000, the decline would be 7 percent, less than half the cut reaped by the very wealthy.
Citizens for Tax Justice assumed that those provisions in the tax laws scheduled to expire before 2011 would expire as scheduled, although administration officials have said they are determined to make those changes permanent.
The Tax Policy Center assumed that all proposed tax cuts would become permanent. It found that the share of federal taxes paid by the top 1 percent of taxpayers would drop to 22.8 percent of the total in 2011, from 24.3 percent today, while the share paid by the lowest 40 percent would fall to 2 percent, from 2.2 percent.
All others would have a slightly larger proportion of the federal tax burden in 2011 than they do today. For families earning between $22,955 and $80,903, their share of federal taxes would rise from 25.5 percent to 26.1 percent.
Both groups included all federal income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes; Citizens for Tax Justice also included excise taxes.
Treasury Department officials said the studies are skewed because they include Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, which the tax cuts did not seek to reduce. Pamela F. Olson, the assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy, said that if Social Security taxes are included, then Social Security benefits should also be measured. “Then you would have a very progressive system,” she said.
Instead, Olson pointed to the Treasury’s analysis of the impact of successive tax cuts on individual income taxes only. In that analysis, all taxpayers with less than $100,000 in income are shown to be paying a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than they did before Bush took office. Households earning $100,000 or more are now paying 73.3 percent of federal income taxes, up from 70 percent.
Figuring out whether tax policy benefits the wealthy or the poor is a hotly disputed subject. Liberals favor a progressive tax system in which households pay higher tax rates and a higher share of their total income as they climb up the income ladder. By that measure, the Bush tax cuts have made the tax code less progressive. By 2011, the poorest taxpayers’ after-tax income will have risen only 0.3 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center, while household income for the richest 1 percent of taxpayers will have jumped 8.6 percent.
Conservatives say the better measure is which group winds up paying a greater proportion of the tax burden after the tax cut. The rich may get the largest dollar benefit from the tax cuts, but the top 20 percent of households will still be paying 71.5 percent of all federal taxes in 2011.
Conservatives and liberals alike agree that Bush’s tax policies have shifted more of the tax burden to the middle class. Kevin Hassett, a conservative economist with the American Enterprise Institute, said it “makes complete sense” that this would happen as a result of Bush’s polices.
Changes such as the elimination of the estate tax and the reduction of the stock-dividend tax disproportionately benefit the wealthiest 1 percent, who have the largest amount of assets and capital. Those at the other end of the income spectrum benefit disproportionately from targeted tax cuts such as the child tax credit.
With the biggest gains going to the wealthiest and to low-income taxpayers, those in the middle inevitably get a higher tax burden because they don’t qualify for the targeted tax breaks that go to the poor or the investment-related tax breaks that go to the wealthy. “The middle class is predominantly labor income,” Hassett said.
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
I think we can agree, there are darn few Obama supporters at the tea parties, yelling at Dem congressmen at town halls and at the 9-12 Fox event. And denying that racism is not at play is just plain dishonest.
Reply to seagal— “Dave E – Here is a good article for you to peruse at your leisure that is on point regarding hte middle class – something your lengthy treatise does not” — ***thanks for the article, I hope to get to it this weekend…in the meantime let me add that while you and others give me crap for reposting what’s been said…its done as a courtesy for others just joining in helping them to have context …AND it’s done to assure me I don’t overlook questions and to assure you I don’t dodge your questions…
so while I thank you for the article…you overlooked the following…was that an oversight or intentional sidestep?
We are all concerned about deficits, but let’s get real here. Folks are not getting emotional over the “loss of their America” because of budget deficits.”—
***Seems if you think you have some insight so Kindly share…what is it that gets folks “emotional”?
what have you seen or heard that indicates that will happen given the plans or portion of plans we have heard about so far? What is the budget office saying? None of the administrations predictions have been accurate, what makes you think they have this right?
***His popularity at this stage in his presidency –compared to presidents back to Eisenhower — is now the second lowest only to Bill Clinton. What are these folks seeing that you are not?
***what happened to This is America and you have a right to be crazy but that doesn’t mean your issues are mine? I hate to use this type of argument but think back to the anti- bush protests and all the crazy stuff done and said then. Should we dismiss all for the actions of those few too?
The anti bush protests didn’t use metaphors comparing health reform to the holocaust or a black president with Hitler mustaches. The ‘both sides do-it-too” is the refuge of the right.
The Secret Service says the threats to this President are up 400% over any other President. The White House receives an average of 30 death threats against Obama every day. It’s clear what political party those people most often identify with, or what media outlet or radio/tv commentators they religiously listen to for guidance.