Jon Stewart Hits Conservatives and Wealthy for Focusing on Cuts for Teachers
Jon Stewart's latest anti-conservative screed included a satirical defense of top income earners and a tongue-in-cheek plea for teachers to pay their fair share, in the wake of the Wisconsin protests. On Monday's "Daily Show," the Comedy Central host offered a shallow assessment of the entire Wisconsin situation with not a single critical look at the state's public sector unions.
Stewart's simplistic take on events is that teachers are being unduly bullied by Republicans and the wealthy to help solve the budget crisis in this country. What could help, he opined, would be boosting taxes on the "top two percent" of income earners.
"Hey you know, one thing we could do – not extend the Bush tax cuts to the top two percent of the country. That would earn us $700 billion over the next ten years," Stewart remarked to applause. "Oh, oh, and maybe also we could close some corporate tax loopholes."
But after playing clips, mostly from Fox News, that were critical of the teachers unions in Wisconsin, Stewart grimaced and lamented "Really? We're going to get [the money] from teachers?" He then satirically portrayed the opposition's argument to be that teachers don't "provide a valuable service."
Rather than wonder if Wisconsin Gov. Walker is going after the unions and not out of spite for the teachers themselves, Stewart decided to frame the argument around middle-class teachers versus the wealthy. "Some people," he remarked tongue-in-cheek, "will say or do anything to get our top marginal tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s."
"So to wrap up, rather than bring the highest marginal tax rate back to what it was in the 1990s, we need to bring teachers' abilities to negotiate their own livelihood back to the 1890s," Stewart sophomorically concluded.
A partial transcript of the segment, which aired on March 1 at 11:01 a.m. EST, is as follows:
JON STEWART: Our top story remains the standoff in Wisconsin. (...) The real issue in all this is simple. The country is broke. Whose fault is it? Wall Street? Main Street? Sesame Street? (...) Hey you know, one thing we could do – not extend the Bush tax cuts to the top two percent of the country. That would earn us $700 billion over the next ten years. (Applause) Oh, oh, and maybe also we could close some corporate tax loopholes. I think that would be (...) oh, okay, so that idea is out. Where are we going to get the money? (...) Really? We're going to get it from teachers? Are you sure? (...) You know, it's funny, my mom was a teacher too and she actually worked her ass off for not a lot of money. Hey, maybe your mom was a (unintelligible) teacher. (Laughter)
And not for nothing, but maybe you're bitter because after school instead of going to play with your friends you wanted to go to Loehmann's with your mom. But point taken, sounds like you're casting aspersions on all teachers and the greed that's growing out of an unchecked system. And that that teacher's union system needs to be destroyed. I guess you probably feel the same way about Wall Street. (...) See, bankers, unlike teachers, provide a valuable service. And they don't work 'till three. Their bell doesn't ring 'till four. At which point they all head to Loehmann's to take a s*** on their way to Bloomingdale's. So don't let these teachers fool you. Don't let these teachers fool you. Unlike Wall Street and bankers, teachers are no friend to the working man. But of course some people want to change the subject. Some people will say or do anything to get our top marginal tax rates back to what they were in the 1990s. (...)
(Sarcastically) Disgusting. The Democrats have pitted the top 2 percent against the lower 98 when the Republicans know the real battle should be fought within the middle class. Preferably amongst neighbors. (...) So to wrap up, rather than bring the highest marginal tax rate back to what it was in the 1990s, we need to bring teachers' abilities to negotiate their own livelihood back to the 1890s. (Bell rings) And that – oh I'm sorry class, we're going to pick this up tomorrow.
- Matt Hadro's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
unduly bullied?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 4:52pm.
So Stewart would have us reward teachers for a crappy job of teaching kids?
Um, when I get some kind of service, like a car wash or go to a restaurant, I will tip extra for a job well done. I do NOT tip if it was a crappy job and I'm a pretty forgiving kind of guy.
I'm a supervisor at my job and I have part time workers. If they show that they are trying to do a good job(and I correct them if I have to) and do indeed show improvement and etc, I will give them a raise over time.(they work above minimum wage, but that's my decision) If they do a bad job, I dock them back to minimum wage until they can do better. If they do a bad job and get worse, they are fired and I hire someone else.
Why can't the same methodology be applied to school teachers?
-Jon
As opposed to the reward Wall
Submitted by bob loblaw on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 11:24pm.
As opposed to the reward Wall Street got? Taxpayer bailouts, golden parachutes, big bonuses, all while bringing the country into one of the worst financial crisis we have faced?
Also the teachers aren't saying they won't budge on anything, they are mainly opposed to their right for collective bargaining getting taken away. I have not heard the argument that if they do a bad job that they can't be fired. If teachers are bad at their job then they should be fired, but their right to collectively bargain should not be taken away.
Everything but the taxpayer bailouts
Submitted by StanO360 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:25am.
are private sector, if companies make stupid decision the stockholders (mostly investors like unions) should pay the price. If a company is unresponsive to stockholders or the Board is in cahoots with the CEO than dump the stock!
Regarding teachers, the are subject unfortunately to no one! Their wages and benefits, like all public sector employees are constantly ratcheted up, with everyone pointing fingers at other districts saying "look how high their wages are!".
If they can collectively bargain and there is no way to hold them accountable, no way to fire bad employees, no way to award good employees. They write there own ticket (within a certain realm). Trust me in some school districts I feel zero pity for teachers, 60-80k for at the most 10 months work a year or for some that play the system 8 months work from 7:30-3:00pm.
Do we need them? Is it sometimes thankless? Are some underpaid? Yes, Yes, Yes. But, are some overpaid? Is teaching an outlet for those with mediocre education (deserving mediocre pay)? Is it a somewhat flexible job with huge vacations and outrageous benefits? Yes Yes Yes!
I just don't see how the same
Submitted by bob loblaw on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 1:02am.
I just don't see how the same people who go on tv and defend Wall Street, making millions of dollars, can rail against teachers who make 60-80k teaching roomfuls of children.
I don't think the right to collectively bargain prevents union members from being fired.
I can only speak for the education I had in my small high school (around 200 kids in the entire 9-12 grades) the teachers there would come in early and stay late for students who needed to make up a test, or study for tests. I really don't think teaching is something that more than a handful get into to 'game the system'. I disagree that teachers have outrageous benefits, or huge vacations, or that it is all that flexible. I guarantee their benefits, or vacations are not more outrageous than Wall Street.
Funny, lockjaw, as last time I checked, it was your democrat...
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 3:09am.
...friends who were running Wall Street.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Dave...about that Wall Street crowd:
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 4:26am.
I think they've switched [again]. They're whores.
Jer
Here's a little primer for you on "why teachers don't get fired"
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:59am.
I'm sure it's the same with those Wall Street monsters.
Start the adopt a teacher campaign
Submitted by octavioj on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 4:58pm.
The day these wealthy liberals start an adopt-a-teacher campaign and start paying for the teachers they so love we can discuss not cutting spending. Particularly in states where education is about a third of the budgets. There is no free lunch.
I think the old class warfare
Submitted by Free Thinker on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 5:19pm.
I think the old class warfare tactic isn't working for the left this time because it is the middle class that is revolting against the political class. This isn't a poor vs. rich argument we are having right now. A point obviously missed by Stewart and most certainly his stoner audience that believes he is delivering real news on his comedy show.
You left out the part where
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 5:27pm.
You left out the part where the conservative on one of those "shows" was bad-mouthing teachers as having it easy, that his mom was shopping with him at Lohman's at 4 in the afternoon. That criticism did mention the unions either.
Freedom to negotiate? Really!?
Submitted by freecitizen on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 5:58pm.
They keep framing this as the workers right to negotiate with their employers face to face when it is in fact the complete opposite. Individuals are not allowed to negotiate. Only Union bosses are. Some random teacher cannot negotiate a deal for himself that he finds fair and he cannot even be employed unless he is willing to forgo his personal right to negotiate for himself. Union hypocrites. But why say it twice.
Workers' "rights".....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:12pm.
....are granted by the state and can be recinded by the state. Workers' "rights" are not unalienable.
Union "rights" vs. Worker's rights
Submitted by freecitizen on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:41pm.
You're referring to unions' rights not worker's rights. As individual workers, they absolutely have the right to negotiate with their employer and walk away if a deal can't be struck. We all do. I can go into my boss's office and demand more money or benefits, but I would have to justify them based on my individual merits and value.
The union takes away this right.
That's only partially right
Submitted by StanO360 on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 12:28am.
The union does not take away this right, the State takes it away when they force you to join a union and pay dues. It's a closed system.
He's a funny guy
Submitted by ArcherB on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:00pm.
Here's the quote from the article:
"Hey you know, one thing we could do – not extend the Bush tax cuts to the top two percent of the country. That would earn us $700 billion over the next ten years,"
Earn? EARN? How does taking money from someone else EARN us anything? That's not earning. Earning is when you go to work and do something that people are willing to pay you for. That's what "EARN" means.
Next, $700 billion over 10 years? Do you mean $70 billion a year? Doesn't sound so big when you put it that way, does it? It sounds even less significant when you consider our budget is about $1.6 TRILLION in the red EVERY YEAR.
Finally, the "Bush tax cuts" are federal. The problems in Wisconsin are state. Two totally different tax systems. See, WI's budget is funded by state taxes, not federal. If you eliminate Bush's tax cut entirely and even quadruple the taxes on anyone making over minimum wage, it would do absolutely nothing for the WI budget. Then again, I don't expect Stewart to know the difference.
"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary."
--Ernesto "Che" Guevara
Archer....
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
...hits the bulls-eye!
What is it with "comedians"? They spend 35 years trying to make people laugh, then want to be taken seriously.....unsuccessfully, in Stewart's case. Of course, his audience won't know the difference between Federal issues and State issues any more than they can differentiate between public-sector unions and private-sector unions.
And, always remember, humor is subjective.
Hypocrit
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 2:33pm.
"How does taking money from someone else EARN us anything?" So, how does taking money from the hands of hard working teachers EARN you anything? Giving away millions in tax breaks to the already rich and turning around to claw it out of the hands of hard working citizens is just plain WRONG.Typical liberal.
Submitted by NeoKong on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:09pm.
I get a kick out of the way that he wants to take $700 billion dollars of private cash so govt. employees will have really swell jobs. He makes it sound like the money is lying on the ground and all we have to do is scoop it up. Apparently private citizens are not contributing enough to state and federal workers.
Stewart didn't say get rid of
Submitted by bob loblaw on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 3:00am.
Stewart didn't say get rid of the Bush tax cuts and give that 700 billion to the teachers, he made the point that if you are trying to balance the budget ending the Bush tax cuts would gain 700 billion dollars. State and federal workers pay taxes just like private workers do.
The Entire System
Submitted by iveseenitall on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:13pm.
The government doesn't earn anything. The government (all governments) need to be cut at least in half. Guess what , it wouldn't have a negative affect the quality of life in America---not one bit. In fact, it would improve it. Better still,close 'em down. Reduce taxes to zero. It'll do us all a world of good. ( I know,I know -- it'll never happen ---sad)
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" ( progressive)
Deluded Right
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 2:40pm.
Who will pave the roads and provide access for everyone? (Every road a toll road) Who will pay the police? (Private Armies?) Who will pay firefighters? http://www.theroot.com/buzz/firefighters-let-house-burn-over-75-unpaid-f... ... and when those in power decided YOU didn't fit in? "Lets just chop off your hands!" It seems you would prefer to live in Somalia - in constant warfare for everything you have. Go for it.Graywalker, just FYI dude.
Submitted by bassndude on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 3:12pm.
Graywalker, just FYI dude. You could reduce the size of Government by 2/3's and still provide for the security of the citizens and the border and fund the military. Go ahead buddy, look it up and get some facts before shooting off your mouth about something you obviously know nothing about.
What is it with the leftist idiots in here of late? Did NB send out an invitation to these nut jobs?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
bassndude, just FYI, Dude
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 4:42pm.
If you had passed reading comprehension, I was replying to what was said : "Better still,close 'em down. Reduce taxes to zero." So, before you go shooting your mouth off - try comprehending the previous material. "Reduce taxes to Zero" is a lot less taxes than 2/3rds. Or did you fail math too? And, yes, when NewsBusters had google put their ad on my blog, they did, in fact, invite me.Also
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 5:12pm.
The real problem is you NutJobs bowing down to corporate interests and handing tax breaks to billionaires and corporations so they don't come anywhere near paying their fair share of the burden to run the country.(Yes, I would like to see many spending reductions, too)
Got a research link for your statement that you could cut 2/3rds of the budget and still provide benefits and security?
Here is a good graphical representation of the issue: http://nationalpriorities.org/en/resources/federal-budget-101/charts/gen... (also a good site to explore about the Federal Budget)
Note how when you nutters too over in 2000, we starting dropping income like crazy... exactly like crazy. Now that the consequences your irresponsible tax-cutting streak has come around, you are blaming TEACHERS of all people!!
The only Realistic solution is to pursue a rational evaluation of income and expenditures and Balance the two. Let the tax rate on the wealthiest 2% go up a couple points, cut back some spending. Maybe a Flat tax - no loopholes. Maybe no income tax, just sales tax - no limit, no loopholes.
But giving away tax breaks to the uber-rich and trying to claw it out of the hands of working citizens is twisted. PERIOD. Talk about jealousy - "Why do they get such great benefits!?!? WHAaaa!" Maybe because their base pay SUCKS and its a thankless, tough, crappy job!!
I hear they're finally
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 6:31pm.
I hear they're finally changing the network name to " Communist Central " to better reflect the beliefs of the management and on air, what passes for talent in a left wing bomb throwers world.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
spend less
Submitted by goldbough on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:25pm.
It's amazing how the left always tries to get more money out of the citizens rather than spend less. It shouldn't be surprising; I don't think they realize that's an option.
Since When
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 5:21pm.
When did Corporations become Citizens and Teachers become, apparently, non-citizens? Maybe, if non-citizens actually paid their fair share of taxes to keep up the public systems they benefit from as much as the rest of us (or more), then we wouldn't have to attack actual, living, breathing, hard working citizens (Teachers, etc) to get the money to cover their (corporations and billionaires) extraordinary tax breaks.Well educated students means
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 8:55pm.
Well educated students means Stewart and MSNBC loses their audience base.
Good point. If people were a
Submitted by Stevenbiot on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:53am.
Good point. If people were a tad bit more educated, television in general would lose massive ratings. Stewart is funny to watch though. He reminds me of the monkey at the zoo that everyone laughs at for eating his own poop.
Where's his ticket?
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Tue, 03/01/2011 - 11:13pm.
Where does this bozo Stewart have any sort of credentials or credibility on either side of the freakin' aisle for him to be saying a gawdam thing? Or worse, that anyone should waste valuable time and electricity watching him spout?
Boycott him. Or better still, send him to wherever his dimtwit predecessor Craig Kilborn went in the depths of obscurity. ( I understand CK got into a jam with the Secret Service showing graphics of 43 with a sniper sight superimposed on him. Secret Service tends to take a dim view of that taking place on sitting Presidents.)
CC was a far better network way, way back when, before they jumped into the deep end of the political pond.
NVCon, struggling back up from under the weather.
jon you moron.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 1:24am.
We pay the second most of any country for education. Our rank is where? Perhaps down around 20?
And you think the cure is to pour more cash down this toilet?
Try some Research
Submitted by Graywalker on Fri, 03/11/2011 - 4:46pm.
... or did you fail that part in school? Just look up teacher salary by state. Most are below the median income for their state. Schools are underfunded. More than that, teachers cite child hunger and poverty as their most daunting challenges to overcome. Kids who are hungry don't learn all that well. Here are some links to help you get started : http://teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/statemedian/index.html http://www.aft.org/yourwork/teachers/ http://www.aft.org/pdfs/pubemps/pecompsurvey0910.pdf (page 76) Even at $100,000 with benefits included, its below what Fox News calls "Poverty" ($250,000 a year) for a family of four. Education. Get Some.Teachers aren't the entire population of middle class
Submitted by Stevenbiot on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 7:51am.
Apologist Stewart forgot to put two and two together and claimed that republicans are trouncing on the middle class. Unfortunately, for facts sake, middle class taxpayers will have much to gain by public employees not having a monopolized say in stealing the rest of our tax dollars to fund their failing enterprise. If I went to get my oil changed and the idiots instead put water into my engine, my engine failed and ruined my car, I wouldn't go back to the lube station and pay the idiot more money for providing a crappy service would I? Nope! I would choose another station to service my ride. Same goes for American schools that provide a horrendous educational disservice. Although, our tax dollars get stolen from us anyway, even if we would rather send our children to a private school, where the teachers weren't the bottom academic performers in their university, which public school teachers hold the title.
You know why?
Submitted by Graywalker on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 10:13am.
You poor, blind idiot. Do you know why teachers are the bottom academic performers? Because they are not paid worth CRAP. The top academic performers can make triple a teacher's salary in the private sector. And you want to pay them LESS? Teaching is a thankless, difficult job as it is and you morons demonizing the entire profession makes it worse. So, how do you expect to draw top talent to the teaching profession while paying them very little and talking bad about the whole profession? Teaching is the profession that teaches all the other professions. ~Author Unknown Teachers are expected to reach unattainable goals with inadequate tools. The miracle is that at times they accomplish this impossible task. ~Haim G. Ginott I don't learn so good, no matter how good the teacher is. Warren ZevonWhen Stewart skewers
Submitted by bsny on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 10:19am.
Democrats it is "delicious". But when he takes on Republicans, it is "simplistic". But there's no double standard here, right?
It was simplistic and
Submitted by wiwf on Wed, 03/02/2011 - 11:01am.
It was simplistic and inaccurate, but goodness was it hilarious.