Let's go back to the original strategy brief by Stuart Butler and Peter Germanis. Their piece, "Achieving a 'Leninist' Strategy," appeared in the Cato Institute's Cato Journal for fall 1983. Anguished over President Reagan's failure to exploit Social Security's 1982 fiscal crisis to privatize the program, they concluded that the reason was the program's strong support among the powerful voting bloc of seniors.
The answer, they concluded, was to "neutralize" elderly voters while continuing to undermine confidence in Social Security among the young. Their model was the Leninist movement's "success in isolating and weakening its opponents."
Any plan to change Social Security, they wrote, "must therefore be neutral or (better still) clearly advantageous to senior citizens ... the most powerful element of the coalition that opposes structural reform."
The young, by contrast, were not organized to support privatization, and uninformed about its virtues. The task of filling the knowledge gap, they argued, could best be performed by "the business community and financial institutions in particular ... both through their commercial advertising and through public relations."
Ever since then, proposals for dramatic changes in Social Security and Medicare have reflected this divide-and-conquer strategy. Some have scarcely any other practical rationale. Consider, for example, the argument for means-testing Social Security. This often appears as the question of why the system should be burdened by paying a monthly benefit to Warren Buffett or Bill Gates (insert name of your favorite billionaire here).
Yet to reduce Social Security's costs significantly, any means test would have to reach far beyond billionaires. One reason is that there simply aren't enough taxpayers in the Buffett/Gates class to make a difference, especially when the maximum initial annual Social Security benefit, whatever your wealth, will be $30,156 this year. Only about 8,200 of the 140 million personal income tax returns filed with the IRS in 2009 reported adjusted gross income of $10 million or more.
Moreover, Social Security benefits are already sharply skewed toward the working class and middle class: 76% of all benefits paid in 2009 went to recipients with less than $20,000 in non-Social Security income, according to calculations by Dean Baker and Hye Jin Rho of the nonprofit Center for Economic and Policy Research. Those reporting $180,000 or more got 1% of the total. In other words, means testing makes no sense in terms of Social Security's fiscal condition; its only result would be to make the program less relevant to the lives of middle-class Americans â€" and that's a political strategy.
The same goes for increasing the full retirement age for Social Security (currently 67 for those born in 1960 or later) and the eligibility age for Medicare (65). An analysis of this commonly discussed nostrum for both programs was just released by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.
The CBO found that gradually raising the full retirement age to 70 for those born in 1973 and later would indeed cut Social Security outlays â€" by 2060 they would be 13% lower than if the law remained unchanged. But the burden would fall especially heavily on low-income seniors, who typically have few alternative income sources, and those for whom staying in the workforce isn't an option. The CBO says the change would "lower average income and increase poverty rates" among the elderly; does everyone understand the trade-off of a policy change so casually bruited about?
As for raising the Medicare age, that looks like a classic case of being penny wise and just plain foolish. Raising the age to 67 would reduce government expenditures on Medicare by 5%, the CBO says. But the agency acknowledges that it would do nothing to stem overall healthcare costs; indeed, its own analysis and those of other experts suggest those costs would rise overall. Those who lose Medicare access (those ages 65 and 66) "would pay higher premiums for health insurance, pay more out of pocket, or both." And some would have no insurance.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120113,0,442443.column
As always Republicans are penny wise and pound foolish, think short term rather than long term
Not the type of thing that makes for good leadership!
Have there been any studies of what would happen if the cap on FICA liabilities on salaries was lifted? Right now there are no FICA liabilities on salaries over $104K. How would the solvency of Medicare and SS look then?
Of course there would have to be safequards against compensation being shifted to non-salary payments like cars, airplanes, tuition for kids, etc. as was done when marginal income tax rates were in the 90% bracket.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 11:03:34 AM
Have there been any studies of what would happen if the cap on FICA liabilities on salaries was lifted?
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
"If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years."
Suspicions confirmed! Thanks.
Stocks and stock options can also convert income to capital gains.
Capital gains are still income. Right now they are taxed at a lower income tax rate if you have held the stock or option for more than one year.
FICA should be paid on any salary substitute scheme.
A couple of comments on this thread:
1. The social security wage cap is $110K this year, not $104K.
2. The healthcare bills created two new Medicare taxes on high income individuals: 0.9% on wages and 3.8% on investment income, to the extent AGI exceeds $200K for individuals and $250K for couples. These are effective beginning in 2013.
3. All remuneration for services is subject to social security and Medicare taxes, whether in the form of stock, options, non-exempt fringe benefits, cars, planes, etc. If you hold onto the stock after you receive it, only appreciation after receipt is eligible for reduced capital gains rates.
4. There are legislative proposals that would close the "John Edwards loophole" of reclassifying self-employment income as passive S-corporation investment income. I would also like to see them close the "carried interest" loophole for hedge fund managers, but that won't happen until 2013.
Thanks for the correction and the up to date information from an obvious expert. Good stuff!
Quote from: finehoe on January 15, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 11:03:34 AM
Have there been any studies of what would happen if the cap on FICA liabilities on salaries was lifted?
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
"If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years."
So your advocating an increase in the tax rate for everyone over 110,000 a year by 6.2 percent and converting SS from a retirement fund (LOL) to just another welfare (income transfer) program
Quote from: stephendare on January 16, 2012, 09:12:48 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on January 16, 2012, 08:54:21 PM
Quote from: finehoe on January 15, 2012, 12:09:59 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 15, 2012, 11:03:34 AM
Have there been any studies of what would happen if the cap on FICA liabilities on salaries was lifted?
http://aging.senate.gov/crs/ss9.pdf
"If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the
Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years."
So your advocating an increase in the tax rate for everyone over 110,000 a year by 6.2 percent and converting SS from a retirement fund (LOL) to just another welfare (income transfer) program
civil, i believe that finehoe was simply answering dogwalkers question as to whether or not anyone had studied the issue, rather than 'advocating just another welfare program'.
Aside from trying to conflate the answering of a question with advocacy of a point of view, there is a more important point. As the grandchild and child of welfare recipients, I have to wonder if you think that a welfare program is a bad thing.
I know that many of the other people on this forum have benefited personally from this whole 'welfare' thing you speak so disparagingly about, whether or not directly, as my L'il Mama and mother did or indirectly----as in the benefit from not having to worry whether or not your elderly mother or disabled father will starve to death homeless in the streets because they are able to recieve social security payments.
It sounds like you are advocating a return to the wrenching poverty and disgusting history that preceded such programs.
Sorry but the question needs to be asked, if you want to remove the cap on social security tax and freeze benefits at the existing levels then you are advocating a 6.2 percent increase in the tax rate for all income over 110k.
The whole basis of the social security system is that you pay into it and you recieve benefits based on that. If in fact the benefits are not based on contribution then its no longer a retirement system. Please don't put words in my mouth or assume the worst of me. Either social security is a retirement plan or its not. The whole concept of social security changes if all income is taxed and the benefits are fixed. If you want to change SS into a income transfer system thats fine, but the whole concept was that you pay in and reap the benefits. That has insured a wide level of support across all income strats. If that changes then expect the support to change.
While I am generally not in favor of tax increases... I would be very open to the idea of either removing or moving the cap number upward. In my view... this would not really be a tax increase since the rate would not change... but I would see it more of a loophole closing.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 17, 2012, 06:50:43 AM
While I am generally not in favor of tax increases... I would be very open to the idea of either removing or moving the cap number upward. In my view... this would not really be a tax increase since the rate would not change... but I would see it more of a loophole closing.
Wow BT, I love your very reasoned response. That is the second time I feel compelled to say something.........right before Christmas you even supported the idea of a universal healthcare system (provided it was put in the constitution)
Maybe the start of 2012 marks a renewed coming together on ideas that will make the US prosper once again while guarding the well-being of its people..........rather than the enabling of a return to barbaric conditions that conservatives so often advocate.
Neither of these positions are anything different from what I have always thought and said. If you would stop lumping all republicans into some monolithic, stereotypical group and actually listen to what they say you would see that... 8)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 17, 2012, 10:28:19 AM
Neither of these positions are anything different from what I have always thought and said. If you would stop lumping all republicans into some monolithic, stereotypical group and actually listen to what they say you would see that... 8)
Republicans in leadership are a very monolithic sterotypical group, that's why a reasoned person like Huntsman doesn't stand a chance. It used to be the Republican's strength.......but it could very well be their undoing.
I am shocked you would see things the way you do... ::)
Republicans Democrats in leadership are a very monolithic sterotypical group, that's why a reasoned person like Huntsman Leiberman doesn't didn't stand a chance. It used to be the Republican's Democrats strength.......but it could very well be their undoing.
Ya think democrats who do not toe the party line are electable in a presidential election?? They have their sacred cows just as the republicans do... and the base gets pretty riled up when they deviate from the plan...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 17, 2012, 11:03:41 AM
I am shocked you would see things the way you do... ::)
Republicans Democrats in leadership are a very monolithic sterotypical group, that's why a reasoned person like Huntsman Leiberman doesn't didn't stand a chance. It used to be the Republican's Democrats strength.......but it could very well be their undoing.
Ya think democrats who do not toe the party line are electable in a presidential election?? They have their sacred cows just as the republicans do... and the base gets pretty riled up when they deviate from the plan...
The Democratic Party line being Republican lite.
I had a little looksee at Govtrac.org to gander at the who's who of the NDAA.
It was a broadly supported bill. Nays were are pathetic minority. Most of those had a D by their names. (to the credit of democrat voters) Very few Rs stood in opposition.
There was one in particular, D that voted yea, who could have really gained more of my trust. Sadly, President Obama voted with the fascist party.
Incidentally, Ron Paul voted nay. His veto of that bill would have been a welcome rebuke of congress.
Quote from: buckethead on January 18, 2012, 08:58:34 PM
I had a little looksee at Govtrac.org to gander at the who's who of the NDAA.
It was a broadly supported bill. Nays were are pathetic minority. Most of those had a D by their names. (to the credit of democrat voters) Very few Rs stood in opposition.
There was one in particular, D that voted yea, who could have really gained more of my trust. Sadly, President Obama voted with the fascist party.
Incidentally, Ron Paul voted nay. His veto of that bill would have been a welcome rebuke of congress.
Thank you buckethead. There is still a difference between the two parties. Republicans clearly support indefinite detention, and Obama does their bidding!
Next time, when any of you vote remember this!
NDAA is a very dangerous lawBy: | TriCities.com
Published: January 19, 2012 Updated: January 19, 2012 - 6:33 AM
While most Americans were celebrating the holidays, President Barack Obama quietly signed
the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,†into law. Obama had initially said he would veto the bill which contains the draconian language authorizing the US military to seize and incarcerate US citizens without warrant, due process, trial, etc. Of course, Obama quickly changed his mind after the bill passed both houses of Congress.
When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.â€
Americans should realize that, coupled with the Patriot Act, the NDAA, for all intents and purposes, completely nullifies a good portion of the Bill of Rights, turns the United States into a war zone, and places US citizens under military rule. And what is even more astonishing is the manner in which the national press corps, and even the so-called “conservative†talking heads, have either completely ignored it, or have actually defended it. These actions by both the President and the Congress alike, no doubt, are creating a very dangerous law.
http://www2.tricities.com/news/2012/jan/19/ndaa-very-dangerous-law-ar-1622111/
Lets make the pendulum swing back to Democracy!!! Vote for a Democratic congressman/woman.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 08:20:40 AM
When signing the NDAA into law, Obama issued a signing statement that in essence said, “I have the power to detain Americans... but I won’t.â€
That's short-sighted. Not good enough. Just because President Obama says he wouldn't do it doesn't mean that a President Gingrich (or pick your favorite bogeyman) wouldn't. In this case, either you're for checks and balances or you're not.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 17, 2012, 11:03:41 AM
I am shocked you would see things the way you do... ::)
Republicans Democrats in leadership are a very monolithic sterotypical group, that's why a reasoned person like Huntsman Leiberman doesn't didn't stand a chance. It used to be the Republican's Democrats strength.......but it could very well be their undoing.
Ya think democrats who do not toe the party line are electable in a presidential election?? They have their sacred cows just as the republicans do... and the base gets pretty riled up when they deviate from the plan...
The right and the left both have intemperate voices. But here's the key: only the conservative movement counts the most vile blowhards as leading lights, embraced by the leadership. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin: these are among the most popular conservatives in America. Who are the folks on the left with equivalent popularity and influence?
John Stewart?
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 19, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
John Stewart?
Jon Stewart doesn't work for a so-called news station (Faux/Fox News)that has been banned in Canada, because Canadians have a law that prohibits news stations from telling lies.
Jon Stewart regards himself as a comedian, not a politician or news person.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 03:39:30 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 19, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
John Stewart?
Jon Stewart doesn't work for a so-called news station (Faux/Fox News)that has been banned in Canada, because Canadians have a law that prohibits news stations from telling lies.
Jon Stewart regards himself as a comedian, not a politician or news person.
I didn't realize that Fox News was banned in Canada. I was in Montreal earlier this year and they have a channel that I could swear was the Canadian version of Fox News. I forgot all about it until you just mentioned that - I was going to try and go online and see if they're both run by Murdoch.
Ok, it was Sun News Network.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network)
They have a guy named Charles Adler who would fit right in on Fox. I just skimmed through the Wikipedia entry - doesn't look like there's any Murdoch connection. But there's no denying the people who run that channel have watched their share of Fox!
Quote from: Ajax on January 19, 2012, 03:43:31 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 03:39:30 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 19, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
John Stewart?
Jon Stewart doesn't work for a so-called news station (Faux/Fox News)that has been banned in Canada, because Canadians have a law that prohibits news stations from telling lies.
Jon Stewart regards himself as a comedian, not a politician or news person.
I didn't realize that Fox News was banned in Canada. I was in Montreal earlier this year and they have a channel that I could swear was the Canadian version of Fox News. I forgot all about it until you just mentioned that - I was going to try and go online and see if they're both run by Murdoch.
Ajax, here is that news about Fox being banned in Canada:
Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Reader Supported News
01 March 11
s America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades - against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News - fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of the Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.
Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for liberal democracy and freedom. As a result of that law,
Canadians enjoy high quality news coverage, including the kind of foreign affairs and investigative journalism that flourished in this country before Ronald Reagan abolished the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987. Political dialogue in Canada is marked by civility, modesty, honesty, collegiality, and idealism that have pretty much disappeared on the US airwaves.
When Stephen Harper moved to abolish the anti-lying provision of the Radio Act, Canadians rose up to oppose him fearing that their tradition of honest non-partisan news would be replaced by the toxic, overtly partisan, biased and dishonest news coverage familiar to American citizens who listen to Fox News and talk radio. Harper's proposal was timed to facilitate the launch of a new right-wing network, "Sun TV News" which Canadians call "Fox News North."
Harper, often referred to as "George W. Bush's Mini Me," is known for having mounted a Bush-like war on government scientists, data collectors, transparency, and enlightenment in general. He is a wizard of all the familiar tools of demagoguery; false patriotism, bigotry, fear, selfishness and belligerent religiosity.
Harper's attempts to make lying legal on Canadian television are a stark admission that right-wing political ideology can only dominate national debate through dishonest propaganda. Since corporate profit-taking is not an attractive vessel for populism, a political party or broadcast network that makes itself the tool of corporate and financial elites must lie to make its agenda popular with the public. In the Unites States, Fox News and talk radio, the sock puppets of billionaires and corporate robber barons, have become the masters of propaganda and distortion on the public airwaves. Fox News' notoriously biased and dishonest coverage of the Wisconsin's protests is a prime example of the brand of news coverage Canada has smartly avoided.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada
Sorry, Faye, Fox News is available in Canada. This info comes from a friend from Manitoba, and verified by Fox News' own website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html
Canada does indeed have a law (Canada's Radio Act) that states that broadcasters can't air "any false or misleading news". Having a law against it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Additionally, at one point the CRTC did reject a permit for Fox to form a new Canadian channel distinct from Fox News, but it had nothing to do with "telling lies".
Like us Canada has a strong tradition of free speech; they would not go for the government "banning" entire channels that said things it didn't like.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 19, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
John Stewart?
Do you really think Jon Stewart spews the equivalent amount of easily-disproved bullshit that a Sean Hannity or a Sarah Palin does? Do Democratic politicians rush to Stewart's show to beg forgiveness when they go against the party line like Republican politicians do to Limbaugh's when they do the same?
Quote from: Tacachale on January 19, 2012, 04:10:17 PM
Sorry, Faye, Fox News is available in Canada. This info comes from a friend from Manitoba, and verified by Fox News' own website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html
Canada does indeed have a law (Canada's Radio Act) that states that broadcasters can't air "any false or misleading news". Having a law against it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Additionally, at one point the CRTC did reject a permit for Fox to form a new Canadian channel distinct from Fox News, but it had nothing to do with "telling lies".
Like us Canada has a strong tradition of free speech; they would not go for the government "banning" entire channels that said things it didn't like.
Sorry Tacachale, I'm not inclined to believe a Fox website........no doubt those who receive satelite might be able to view The US Fox News station.
Understanding The History And Purpose Of FOX News
November 26, 2011
By Randy Reynolds
You’d think a thing like FOX couldn’t happen in the United States. Although they’re free to be crazy and free to support the Republican Party, you’d think Americans would be too smart to fall for the
made-up outrages, dishonest reporting and relentless appeal to our meaner nature. Unfortunately, many Americans are not as smart as we used to assume: a huge swath of Americans (especially elderly white Southerners) believe FOX is just another news media outlet. They aren’t.
What is FOX? Pensitore Review (8-18-09) pulled no punches in answering that question: “ FOX News is indisputably the most popular cable news channel. And yet in 13 years, Fox has never broken a story. That’s okay, because it is not in the news business. It is in the news-shaping business. Its programming is an admixture of right-wing propaganda and fear-porn for feeble-minded paranoiacs, served up by spokesmodels who have no clue what they are reading.â€
(http://addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/preview_foxlies_xlarge.png)
Whew! Could that be true? I report/You decide:
Nixon White House aide Roger Ailes in the 1970′s created fake news stories that favored President Nixon. He shipped these pre-mixed video packages to TV stations around the country at the expense of rightwing extremist Joseph Coors. It was all b.s. all the time, but the TV stations, pretending they had a correspondent in Washington, ran this propaganda as straight news. Now that Ailes runs FOX News, his goals are the same: to spread republicanism by altering the news.
FOX is a “relentless agenda-driven 24 hour news opinion propaganda delivery system†~Jon Stewart
“They’re a Republican brand. They’re an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions†~Larry King
â€[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.†~Anita Dunn
There are thousands of examples of FOX not just “leaning†in a particular direction on an issue… but actively changing around the words and meanings of interviews to make them seem to say the opposite of what the person interviewed actually said; of lies about what happened; of incorrect graphics…for example, calling Congressman Mark Foley a Democrat when he got caught in gay chatter with pages and calling Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords a Republican when there was an outpouring of sympathy for her after she got shot.
FOX took a sparsely-attended tea-party rally in Washington and spliced in video of a heavily-attended event of an entirely different nature from months earlier.
FOX has gotten caught using image manipulation software to edit the appearance of people they don’t like to make them appear more sinister.
FOX alters poll results to mislead its viewers; in one case, their massacre of a Rasmussen poll on climate change ended up with a poll number of 120%â€"mathematically impossible, of course, except in FOX world.
On 4-24-09… White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context â€" effectively reversing the statement’s meaning â€" to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system “like the European countries.â€
A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque†found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with “low reliance†on Fox News ~Wikipedia
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes showed 67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization†(He wasn’t. He hated, feared and banned them, but you’d never know that by watching FOX). Wait, it gets worse: For all other networks and news sources, the MORE you watch them, the MORE you know about the actual facts. Those who view CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, & NPR the MOST, have the BEST grasp of the FACTS. With FOX it â€" is- the â€" opposite!! Which is what gave birth to the mocking slogan: THE MORE YOU WATCH FOX, THE LESS YOU KNOW.
In the summer of 2003, 34% of Americans who did not follow the news very closely believed evidence had been found that linked Iraq with al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion. 42% of people who were moderate consumers of FOX news had that opinion. Among those who “watched FOX News very closely†… that number was 80% !! ~Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, #4 THE MORE YOU WATCH FOX, THE LESS YOU KNOW!
FOX News’ Happening Now cropped clips of Obama from an April 3 speech in France to falsely suggest that Obama only criticized the United States. In doing so, Happening Now joined conservative commentators and Fox News hosts who have cropped or misrepresented Obama’s overseas remarks to falsely suggest, in the words of host Sean Hannity, that Obama was “blam[ing] America first†and, more broadly, that Obama’s earlier overseas trip constituted an “apology tour.â€
Fox News presented a clip of Joe Biden criticizing John McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong†statement…. Problem is, this was something Biden was QUOTING…from SIX MONTHS EARLIER… but it was edited by FOX to make it seem that Biden was stating it as his own opinion. The bogus clip was introduced by Live Desk co-host Martha MacCallum as comments Biden had made in interviews THIS WEEKEND.
FOX pushed the bogus stat that cap-and-trade would cost “every American family $1,761 annually.†PolitiFact.com has labeled the statistic false and noted that the talking point has been pushed by Republicans.
On 9/30/09 FOX Gregg Jarrett said on the air that the Obama Department of Justice “thinks it’s OK to intimidate white people, not OK to intimidate black people at the polls.â€
â€If we went back … to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.†~Anita Dunn
A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that
Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers â€" Wikipedia
It’s against the law to lie on television in Canada. Canadian conservatives tried to change that law so FOX could broadcast in Canada.
They were unable to get the law changed, so FOX does not operate in Canada!http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/26/understanding-the-history-and-purpose-of-fox-news/
Not comfortable with Fox lying? Stop watching Fox Faux News!
Free speech should not include hate speech or lying and pretending that's news.
QuoteBy Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Well there's a clue! Faye - why do you continuously post from the Puffington Post and quote articles from libs as being objective "news"?
You don't have to believe Fox Faye - just google it. And stop being a crybaby against Fox when you try passing crap off from very dubious sources.
When RFK has something to say, it's worth listening.
His is one of the most noble voices in our nation's history.
RFK is far from some liberal hack.
Edit: RFK Jr. Oopsie... N/M
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/distort-attack-repeat-20110524
http://www.outfoxed.org/
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 04:32:24 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 19, 2012, 04:10:17 PM
Sorry, Faye, Fox News is available in Canada. This info comes from a friend from Manitoba, and verified by Fox News' own website:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184837,00.html
Canada does indeed have a law (Canada's Radio Act) that states that broadcasters can't air "any false or misleading news". Having a law against it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Additionally, at one point the CRTC did reject a permit for Fox to form a new Canadian channel distinct from Fox News, but it had nothing to do with "telling lies".
Like us Canada has a strong tradition of free speech; they would not go for the government "banning" entire channels that said things it didn't like.
Sorry Tacachale, I'm not inclined to believe a Fox website........no doubt those who receive satelite might be able to view The US Fox News station.
Understanding The History And Purpose Of FOX News
November 26, 2011
By Randy Reynolds
You’d think a thing like FOX couldn’t happen in the United States. Although they’re free to be crazy and free to support the Republican Party, you’d think Americans would be too smart to fall for the made-up outrages, dishonest reporting and relentless appeal to our meaner nature. Unfortunately, many Americans are not as smart as we used to assume: a huge swath of Americans (especially elderly white Southerners) believe FOX is just another news media outlet. They aren’t.
What is FOX? Pensitore Review (8-18-09) pulled no punches in answering that question: “ FOX News is indisputably the most popular cable news channel. And yet in 13 years, Fox has never broken a story. That’s okay, because it is not in the news business. It is in the news-shaping business. Its programming is an admixture of right-wing propaganda and fear-porn for feeble-minded paranoiacs, served up by spokesmodels who have no clue what they are reading.â€
(http://addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/preview_foxlies_xlarge.png)
Whew! Could that be true? I report/You decide:
Nixon White House aide Roger Ailes in the 1970′s created fake news stories that favored President Nixon. He shipped these pre-mixed video packages to TV stations around the country at the expense of rightwing extremist Joseph Coors. It was all b.s. all the time, but the TV stations, pretending they had a correspondent in Washington, ran this propaganda as straight news. Now that Ailes runs FOX News, his goals are the same: to spread republicanism by altering the news.
FOX is a “relentless agenda-driven 24 hour news opinion propaganda delivery system†~Jon Stewart
“They’re a Republican brand. They’re an extension of the Republican Party with some exceptions†~Larry King
â€[Fox is] widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news organization like CNN is.†~Anita Dunn
There are thousands of examples of FOX not just “leaning†in a particular direction on an issue… but actively changing around the words and meanings of interviews to make them seem to say the opposite of what the person interviewed actually said; of lies about what happened; of incorrect graphics…for example, calling Congressman Mark Foley a Democrat when he got caught in gay chatter with pages and calling Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords a Republican when there was an outpouring of sympathy for her after she got shot.
FOX took a sparsely-attended tea-party rally in Washington and spliced in video of a heavily-attended event of an entirely different nature from months earlier.
FOX has gotten caught using image manipulation software to edit the appearance of people they don’t like to make them appear more sinister.
FOX alters poll results to mislead its viewers; in one case, their massacre of a Rasmussen poll on climate change ended up with a poll number of 120%â€"mathematically impossible, of course, except in FOX world.
On 4-24-09… White House correspondent Wendell Goler cropped a comment by Obama and took it out of context â€" effectively reversing the statement’s meaning â€" to falsely suggest that Obama supports creating a health care system “like the European countries.â€
A 2010 Ohio State University study of public misperceptions about the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque†found that viewers who relied on Fox News were 66% more likely to believe incorrect rumors than those with “low reliance†on Fox News ~Wikipedia
A study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes showed 67% of Fox viewers believed that the “U.S. has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al Qaeda terrorist organization†(He wasn’t. He hated, feared and banned them, but you’d never know that by watching FOX).
Wait, it gets worse: For all other networks and news sources, the MORE you watch them, the MORE you know about the actual facts. Those who view CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, & NPR the MOST, have the BEST grasp of the FACTS. With FOX it â€" is- the â€" opposite!! Which is what gave birth to the mocking slogan: THE MORE YOU WATCH FOX, THE LESS YOU KNOW.
In the summer of 2003, 34% of Americans who did not follow the news very closely believed evidence had been found that linked Iraq with al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion. 42% of people who were moderate consumers of FOX news had that opinion. Among those who “watched FOX News very closely†… that number was 80% !! ~Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 118, #4 THE MORE YOU WATCH FOX, THE LESS YOU KNOW!
FOX News’ Happening Now cropped clips of Obama from an April 3 speech in France to falsely suggest that Obama only criticized the United States. In doing so, Happening Now joined conservative commentators and Fox News hosts who have cropped or misrepresented Obama’s overseas remarks to falsely suggest, in the words of host Sean Hannity, that Obama was “blam[ing] America first†and, more broadly, that Obama’s earlier overseas trip constituted an “apology tour.â€
Fox News presented a clip of Joe Biden criticizing John McCain’s “the fundamentals of the economy are strong†statement…. Problem is, this was something Biden was QUOTING…from SIX MONTHS EARLIER… but it was edited by FOX to make it seem that Biden was stating it as his own opinion. The bogus clip was introduced by Live Desk co-host Martha MacCallum as comments Biden had made in interviews THIS WEEKEND.
FOX pushed the bogus stat that cap-and-trade would cost “every American family $1,761 annually.†PolitiFact.com has labeled the statistic false and noted that the talking point has been pushed by Republicans.
On 9/30/09 FOX Gregg Jarrett said on the air that the Obama Department of Justice “thinks it’s OK to intimidate white people, not OK to intimidate black people at the polls.â€
â€If we went back … to the fall of 2008, to the campaign, that was a time this country was in two wars that we had a financial collapse probably more significant than any financial collapse since the Great Depression. If you were a Fox News viewer in the fall election what you would have seen were that the biggest stories and the biggest threats facing America were a guy named Bill Ayers and a something called ACORN.†~Anita Dunn
A 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation survey on U.S. misperceptions about health care reform found that Fox News viewers scored lower for factual knowledge than other news viewers â€" Wikipedia
It’s against the law to lie on television in Canada. Canadian conservatives tried to change that law so FOX could broadcast in Canada. They were unable to get the law changed, so FOX does not operate in Canada!
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/26/understanding-the-history-and-purpose-of-fox-news/
Not comfortable with Fox lying? Stop watching Fox Faux News!
Free speech should not include hate speech or lying and pretending that's news.
You honestly believe that Fox is lying about which cable providers offer their channel in Canada?
It's interesting that you chose that article to rail against news sources spouting off false information. It's totally wrong about Fox not operating in Canada. In fact Fox News is available from most cable providers throughout the country as well as satellite (that is, the same way you get it here). For instance it's channel 145 in Winnipeg.
http://www.mts.ca/mts/personal/winnipeg/mts+ultimate+tv+service/channel+packages+and+pricing/find+a+channel
If you don't care for MTS's service you can still get it through Shaw:
http://www.shaw.ca/Television/Channel-Listings/Full-Channel-List/
Of course if you want some locally-grown conservative media, there's the Sun News Network, affectionately nicknamed "Fox News North".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_News_Network
So no, Fox News has not been "banned" in Canada.
Quote from: Sigma on January 19, 2012, 04:38:34 PM
You don't have to believe Fox Faye - just google it. And stop being a crybaby against Fox when you try passing crap off from very dubious sources.
It's been googled ad nauseum........here is something from someone who lives in Quebec:
Fox News - Banned in Canada?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be a bit late on this, but I just read about Fox News being banned in Canada. Then I read another article that stated it wasn't true.
Can someone please set the record straight? I have plenty of good reasons for wanting to move to Canada, but if this is true...I'm packing my bags TODAY!
11-08-2011, 06:38 AM
jambo101
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
6,321 posts, read 2,868,194 times
Reputation: 3388
If you are referring to the rightwing Fox channel that has all the political talking heads we dont get that channel in Quebec.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1422030-fox-news-banned-canada-tax-move.html#ixzz1jwbZqW15
Correction: poster quoted says this further down:
Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.
I've got Videotron as a provider which explains my lack of Fox news. for the other providers i guess if you want to subscibe to that channel you have that option..
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1422030-fox-news-banned-canada-tax-move.html#ixzz1jwdVhobp
A year ago, Public Policy Polling ran its annual “TV News Trust Poll.†There were plenty of interesting tidbits, but there was one line from the pollster’s analysis that stood out: “Democrats trust everything but Fox. Republicans don’t trust anything but Fox.â€
A year later, PPP is back with new results (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/01/3rd-annual-tv-news-trust-poll.html), which point in a very similar direction. Kevin Drum put together this great visual, which I’m blatantly stealing borrowing, showing self-identified Republicans’ attitudes towards all of the major broadcast news organizations. GOP voters trust one outlet â€" and only one outlet.
(http://www.wamo-img.com/pa/120119_fox.jpg)
And as was the case last year, Dems and independents trust every major news organization, by varying degrees, except Fox News.
Kevin added (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/chart-day-republicans-dont-trust-anyone-except-fox-news) that while everyone is subject to confirmation bias, the right and left are simply processing current events in different ways: “Liberals don’t immediately dismiss as a conspiracy everything they hear from the news media that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. They might downplay unwelcome news or even ignore it, but they’re still willing to listen to it. Increasingly, conservatives simply aren’t. They want to believe the world is a certain way, and they’re just flatly not willing to countenance anything that might challenge those beliefs. This is not a healthy development for a modern democracy.â€
I couldn’t agree more. This isn’t just about pointing and laughing at the absurdities of Republican news consumers relying exclusively on a Republican outlet. There’s overwhelming evidence (http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/) that these same Republican news consumers are dramatically confused, about a wide variety of important issues, most of the time. It’s not just because they rely on a deceptive propaganda outlet for information â€" it’s also because they don’t trust other outlets that might give them more reliable information.
The result is a large chunk of the American electorate that lives in an alternate political universe. It’s just not healthy.
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 05:07:18 PM
Quote from: Sigma on January 19, 2012, 04:38:34 PM
You don't have to believe Fox Faye - just google it. And stop being a crybaby against Fox when you try passing crap off from very dubious sources.
It's been googled ad nauseum........here is something from someone who lives in Quebec:
Fox News - Banned in Canada?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may be a bit late on this, but I just read about Fox News being banned in Canada. Then I read another article that stated it wasn't true.
Can someone please set the record straight? I have plenty of good reasons for wanting to move to Canada, but if this is true...I'm packing my bags TODAY!
11-08-2011, 06:38 AM
jambo101
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
6,321 posts, read 2,868,194 times
Reputation: 3388
If you are referring to the rightwing Fox channel that has all the political talking heads we dont get that channel in Quebec.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1422030-fox-news-banned-canada-tax-move.html#ixzz1jwbZqW15
Correction: poster quoted says this further down:
Vidéotron, Canada's third largest cable company, has not added Fox News Channel to its lineup.
I've got Videotron as a provider which explains my lack of Fox news. for the other providers i guess if you want to subscibe to that channel you have that option..
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/1422030-fox-news-banned-canada-tax-move.html#ixzz1jwdVhobp
So basically, "no, Fox News has not been 'banned' from Canada".
Quote from: finehoe on January 19, 2012, 05:07:54 PM
It’s not just because they rely on a deceptive propaganda outlet for information â€" it’s also because they don’t trust other outlets that might give them more reliable information.
The result is a large chunk of the American electorate that lives in an alternate political universe. It’s just not healthy.
And of course they scoff at the idea of getting their news from multiple sources, because well, isn't that overly elitist to use an academic method for verifying accuracy?
I noticed Republicans never mind making unsourced bold statement, and they revel in being able to mislead. They think the are being clever and smart to undermine our safety in every sense of the word.
My favorite? The Clear Skies Act which is a pollution bill in disguise.
http://www.pbs.org/now/science/clearskies.html
Quote from: Tacachale on January 19, 2012, 05:17:31 PM
So basically, "no, Fox News has not been 'banned' from Canada".
From reading multiple sources.........Canadian law prohibits lying about Canadian news as was a Fox proposal back in 2004 for which they didn't get approval. Fox news lying about US news is considered entertainment ha ha.
Sure seems like many you spend alot of time listenining to limbaugh, hannity and others and watching Fox. Looks like alot of their audience are paranoid democrats... ;)
Quote from: FayeforCure on January 19, 2012, 05:28:09 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on January 19, 2012, 05:17:31 PM
So basically, "no, Fox News has not been 'banned' from Canada".
From reading multiple sources.........Canadian law prohibits lying about Canadian news as was a Fox proposal back in 2004 for which they didn't get approval. Fox news lying about US news is considered entertainment ha ha.
Actually, no.
From reading multiple sources that are not forum posts and personal blogs, Fox was initially going to create a new venture with Winnipeg broadcaster Global Television called Fox News Canada, distinct from the American Fox News and featuring 35% Canadian content. This was approved by the CRTC. In
2003 Fox attempted to get a license to broadcast the American Fox News in Canada; this was denied largely because they had already been approved to create the Canadian channel. It had nothing to do with the
regulation (which does exist, though it's not a law) prohibiting broadcasting "false or misleading news".
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041118.wxfoxnews18/BNStory/Entertainment/
The following year Fox indicated that it had no plans to go ahead with Fox News Canada, so the CRTC approved them to broadcast the American channel.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/11/18/fox_crtc041118.html
Faye, you may want to avoid making inaccurate claims while criticizing others for making inaccurate claims.
Quote from: finehoe on January 19, 2012, 04:13:19 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 19, 2012, 03:21:04 PM
John Stewart?
Do you really think Jon Stewart spews the equivalent amount of easily-disproved bullshit that a Sean Hannity or a Sarah Palin does? Do Democratic politicians rush to Stewart's show to beg forgiveness when they go against the party line like Republican politicians do to Limbaugh's when they do the same?
Darn, I should have put a smiley after that post! Just a joke folks. Frankly he and Colbert are a more accurate translators of the news than Fox.