EPThttp://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-september-7-2012/hope-and-change-2---last-week-this-week
It's just fucking sad.
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 492
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-september-7-2012/hope-and-change-2---last-week-this-week It's just fucking sad. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On September 12 2012 11:24 Silidons wrote: Does fox news really even try anymore? Anyone see this? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-september-7-2012/hope-and-change-2---last-week-this-week It's just fucking sad. lol i love the daily show and the colbert report, so great. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On September 11 2012 15:15 Romantic wrote: This isn't what you think it is. Define, "the rich". Inflation means that the number of people in the top bracket has multiplied many times since the first income tax. One of the first "highest brackets" was in 1939, which was a 75% tax above $5,000,000, which is what, $80-90 million today? A 75% tax on income above $80 million and calling that bracket "the rich" is a lot different than a tax on income above $388,000 and calling that "the rich". tl;dr "the rich" is meaningless and comparing tax brackets is not exactly enlightening unless you include things like inflation, the % of the population affected by the tax, etc. The top bracket in the 30s-60s included many fewer people than it does today. The threshold for being in the upper bracket was much higher. That is another issue, it is true that many mid-small size companies can benefit from tax breaks and that the bracket did not adjust with inflation that well over time. I never claimed otherwise. However, I'm very tired of this fetish of claiming that the only way to create growth was to give money to the ones at the top, because it doesn't work and it skyrockets the debt. I was arguing against the claim that social safety net are a non concern compared to tax rates. On September 11 2012 16:08 Danglars wrote: As many are in the habit of saying, time and time again. Somehow, the issues of high tax rates negatively affecting economic growth, capital flight, and others keep cropping up. There is a debate on the validity of highly progressive tax rates being a net help or hurt to the economy. Is this good policy? Straw man all you want, we're coddling the rich, entrepreneurs are superhumans unaffected by any disincentives whatsoever. Heck even claim business owners take milder chances when they started up than is generally perceived. It is a legitimate question of policy to examine what levels of progressive taxation harm growth to an unacceptable level. I see a lotta napkin analysis on these caricatures of people and their motivations thrown against percentage tax rates and the like. There are real tax rates and the real chance of business failure. You can examine just how much was risked for how much return. To give you an idea, '04-'08 saw 647k start up and 574k close. Just saying, 'Nah, these guys are gonna do what they do whether it goes up 0% 1% 5% 10%' doesn't even come close to the rigor required for the conclusions thrown out here. Already addressed was the trouble with statistics on the rich; using them to say something they're not. Putting words in my mouth and pedantic nitpicking doesn't change the fact that the Bush tax cuts didn't do much good. I was more refuting ziggurat's claims more than laying down my detailed analysis, perhaps I was being unclear so I do apologize for it. I'm a very centrist person and I know that tax issues and the economy is much more complex than the one liner I often give out due to laziness. However, I do subscribe to the notion that a healthy, growing economy is one that has a strong middle class. If you examine the situation of the last 40 years, it's not hard to realize that the ones who need help now aren't the top 1% of CEOs making record wages. | ||
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On September 12 2012 11:24 Silidons wrote: Does fox news really even try anymore? Anyone see this? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/fri-september-7-2012/hope-and-change-2---last-week-this-week It's just fucking sad. bahahahaha seriously, fox should try to hire jon stewart. at least he wouldn't make them look like fools/ would point out some of their inconsistencies so they wouldn't make fools of themselves. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:03 ticklishmusic wrote: bahahahaha seriously, fox should try to hire jon stewart. at least he wouldn't make them look like fools/ would point out some of their inconsistencies so they wouldn't make fools of themselves. Jon Stewart is really damned funny, but you do realize that his entire schtick is basically predicated upon strawmanning the piss out of what conservatives/republicans/fox say and then taking most of that out of context, right? | ||
|
BlueBird.
United States3889 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:10 xDaunt wrote: Jon Stewart is really damned funny, but you do realize that his entire schtick is predicated upon strawmanning the piss out of what conservatives/republicans/fox say and then taking most of that out of context, right? I mean it's his job, he is supposed to be funny.. I think most people realize that, I'm sure you can make a video of a liberal news network showing the exact same flip-flop between conventions. Also, Jon Stewart's interviews are usually pretty informative/good, especially when he debates with someone for awhile(Colbert's are usually pretty dull, he does the same thing every interview, it's gotten really old for me) At least it's not as bad as the entire Republican convention taking Obama's quote out of context.. We Built That! | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:10 xDaunt wrote: Jon Stewart is really damned funny, but you do realize that his entire schtick is predicated upon strawmanning the piss out of what conservatives/republicans/fox say and then taking most of that out of context, right? IKR, he's a total partisan wackjob. Fox news would NEVER do any strawmanning or taking things out of context EVER. He should totally follow their example and accept his inferiority as a media professional. Maybe some would point out the fact that there's a huge portion of that show making fun of democrates and their hypocrisy of "acceptance", BUT I'm sure he doesn't want to do that though, he just does it to try to appear unbiased, goddamn liberals taking over the media. Perhaps one could entertain the thought that he simply gets more material to work with as a comedian from the conservatives/republicans/fox, but that's just be ridiculous liberal un-American bullshit. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:17 BlueBird. wrote: I mean it's his job, he is supposed to be funny.. I think most people realize that, I'm sure you can make a video of a liberal news network showing the exact same flip-flop between conventions. Also, Jon Stewart's interviews are usually pretty informative/good, especially when he debates with someone for awhile(Colbert's are usually pretty dull, he does the same thing every interview, it's gotten really old for me) At least it's not as bad as how out of context the entire Republican convention took Obama's quote out of context.. We Built That! Sure, he's a comedian. He'd be a really, really bad one if he wasn't funny, and quite frankly, I enjoy his show. However, it is very obvious that there are many people (including people on these forums) who don't understand what he is doing or even really what he commenting on half the time, thus all they know about those things is whatever Jon Stewart is telling them in his jokes. That is problematic and sad. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On September 12 2012 10:53 Souma wrote: Their policies ARE shit, but Ryan has a history of talking about numbers before this campaign (someone mentioned before about Ryan getting Romneyized lately). I may have phrased it wrong when I said Romney "wants" to talk about them - I meant he probably can (or at least Ryan can), but he doesn't want to because he knows he'll endure a lot of backlash. And the brunt of that reasoning is because voters can be very short-sighted in regards to entitlement reform. I mean, hell, did you not see people up in arms when they thought Obama was going to remove $716 billion worth of benefits from Medicare? Even before the campaign, Ryan's numbers were always very nonspecific. His budgets were basically a statement of, "We're going to cut government spending by X amount." He excludes talking about specific programs outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS (iirc). The whole idea being that: a) People normally oppose cutting any of the programs that are left. Research, education, transportation, inner city relief, and so on, people get uneasy when you finally present the cost/benefit numbers. A good (unscientific) example is the NASA "gotcha" budget questions, where people don't realize it only gets 0.5% of the federal budget. b) Without citing numbers, they can always backtrack and make promises to "save" stuff. Think of the reaction by Romney recently about his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. This flies in the face of his proposed tax policy, which lacked a lot of specifics, but, when analyzed against his other promises, actually showed that the middle class would have to pay more to remain revenue neutral. For the latter, Romney barely released any numbers and was opened up quite quickly to criticism. By hiding their numbers, they can obfuscate the issues and stick to their popular "government is bad!" slogan. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:10 xDaunt wrote: Jon Stewart is really damned funny, but you do realize that his entire schtick is basically predicated upon strawmanning the piss out of what conservatives/republicans/fox say and then taking most of that out of context, right? Fox news doesn't need fancy editing or a lack of context to come across as totally ridiculous. | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:10 xDaunt wrote: Jon Stewart is really damned funny, but you do realize that his entire schtick is predicated upon strawmanning the piss out of what conservatives/republicans/fox say and then taking most of that out of context, right? It's not just comedy shows, there are entire organizations dedicated to combat the misinformation on Fox such as the progressive Media Matters. Although I guess one could argue that this makes Fox a job creator lol. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:25 Souma wrote: After watching Real Time with Bill Maher, The Daily Show just doesn't seem as good nor funny. =S I enjoy both shows, but I'm always surprised by the lack of depth on Real Time at times ... from Bill and the guests. Bill is even more biased than Stewart. And frankly, Jon Stewart, when given the opportunity, is a better (and shockingly knowledgeable) debater and interviewer than Bill Maher. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10777 Posts
Stewart is actually doing a pretty decent job shitting on dems and republicans, sure, it shows that he doesn't favour the republicans but Fox News/Republicans also just seem to deliver way more ammunition for ridiciule... | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 12 2012 16:20 Defacer wrote: I enjoy both shows, but I'm always surprised by the lack of depth on Real Time at times ... from Bill and the guests. Bill is even more biased than Stewart. And frankly, Jon Stewart, when given the opportunity, is a better (and shockingly knowledgeable) debater and interviewer than Bill Maher. I've only watched the last few episodes of Real Time, but what I've seen has much more depth than what I've seen from The Daily Show with the exception of the Marco Rubio interview. Bill Maher is more biased, I'll give you that, but they cover a lot more topics and have a lot more discussions than The Daily Show does. The good thing about Real Time is that it's not just Bill Maher, it's many other guests as well (though some of them are frankly idiots, but it gives perspective). Jon Stewart needs to do more interviews. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8598 Posts
On September 12 2012 16:20 Defacer wrote: I enjoy both shows, but I'm always surprised by the lack of depth on Real Time at times ... from Bill and the guests. Bill is even more biased than Stewart. And frankly, Jon Stewart, when given the opportunity, is a better (and shockingly knowledgeable) debater and interviewer than Bill Maher. +1 and that a thousand times. I really enjoyed Real time quite a bit more like 1-2 years ago, but now it seems rather stale and uninteresting when he just stops the debate instead of refuting his counterpart's arguments. The best part nowadays for me are his new rules. Hope he steps it up again. Ironically I think a Romney presidency would make sure of that ^_^ | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
Stewart is a better interviewer and master debater though.  Some of Stewart's best moments are ragging on Dems- search "Blues Clueless" on his site. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 12 2012 13:21 aksfjh wrote: Even before the campaign, Ryan's numbers were always very nonspecific. His budgets were basically a statement of, "We're going to cut government spending by X amount." He excludes talking about specific programs outside of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS (iirc). The whole idea being that: a) People normally oppose cutting any of the programs that are left. Research, education, transportation, inner city relief, and so on, people get uneasy when you finally present the cost/benefit numbers. A good (unscientific) example is the NASA "gotcha" budget questions, where people don't realize it only gets 0.5% of the federal budget. b) Without citing numbers, they can always backtrack and make promises to "save" stuff. Think of the reaction by Romney recently about his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class. This flies in the face of his proposed tax policy, which lacked a lot of specifics, but, when analyzed against his other promises, actually showed that the middle class would have to pay more to remain revenue neutral. For the latter, Romney barely released any numbers and was opened up quite quickly to criticism. By hiding their numbers, they can obfuscate the issues and stick to their popular "government is bad!" slogan. The humorous thing is ... he puts forward real plans ... that have plenty of cuts. I mean you have a legitimate criticism of Republican congressman as a whole. But Ryan in particular ... he is actually one of the few guys that signs his pen to things that special interest groups and attack ads can target. Nobody likes their budgets cut so you're painting a bullseye when you do it. The ironic comparison (since you mentioned "His budgets") is that government rules require a budget, but we've been skating along on continuing resolutions since 2009. Pretty crazy, considering some of the things in the wake of the last budget fight. + Show Spoiler + It's just something that nobody wants to address. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Points out the fundamental problems regarding regulation in the United States. | ||
|
Frostlone
Australia75 Posts
On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote: Dear America, Vote Obama. Sincerely, Rest of the fucking world. so true so true... | ||
| ||
