'News' Anchors Echo MSNBC's Lefty Hosts: 'Why Do 2% Have a Chokehold on Other 98%?'
Here are a couple of examples, caught by the eagle-eyed Brent Baker, of MSNBC's supposedly more-restrained "news" anchors mouthing the kind of left-wing rhetoric that's a staple of their prime time hosts.
Immediately after President Obama's press conference earlier today, 11am ET anchor Thomas Roberts framed a question about tax policy thusly: "Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a chokehold on the other 98 percent?"
A few minutes later, after the top of the hour, 12pm ET anchor Contessa Brewer disparaged the Republican position against raising tax rates:
"They ignore the fact that we've been under Bush-era tax cuts and we've seen the unemployment rate skyrocket. The big corporations are sitting on megabucks in cash, they're not spending it on hiring."
White House correspondent Mike Viquiera applauded Brewer's partisan liberal rhetoric: "That's a great point..." (Audio here)
THOMAS ROBERTS (to MSNBC contributor Karen Hunter, about 11:50am ET): Karen, when we were watching this, we were making comments about the fact that the President laid out something clearly about -- we haven't had tax increases over the last ten years. We've had a recession, we've had two wars to fight. Why do you think the top 2 percent of America has a choke hold on the other 98 percent?
CONTESSA BREWER (about 12:04pm ET): You've got these Republicans who keep saying, 'Look, to raise taxes means that it's handcuffing job creators.' They ignore the fact that we've been under Bush-era tax cuts and we've seen the unemployment rate skyrocket. The big corporations are sitting on megabucks in cash, they're not spending it on hiring. So if the GOP is getting all of this push back, especially from the Tea Party, on raising taxes, how can there be a deal in this climate?
CORRESPONDENT MIKE VIQUUIERA: And, that's a great point....
- Rich Noyes's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Less than .1% of the
Submitted by ricklail on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 5:54pm.
Less than .1% of the population watch MESSNBC. Those figures are real. Why does the other 99.9% have to subjected to their BS.
The left doesn't seem to mind
Submitted by Bhaal on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 5:57pm.
The left doesn't seem to mind if the 2 percent doing to choking is either LGBT or Athiest. As a matter of fact they view it as righteous choking.
Around 60%
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 6:47pm.
Do not want the debt ceiling raised and about 55% don't want taxes raised (Gallup). So it sounds like the correct question is why does about 55, 60% have a chokehold on the other 40, 45%?
Answer: that's what the 2010 election was about.
Only 20%
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 6:59pm.
endorse deficit reduction through spending cuts only while the majority favor some mixture of tax hikes and less spending [weighted toward the reduced spending component] (Gallup). So the more important question is why are the Repubs dancing to the tune of the 20%?
Jer
Commitment
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 7:42pm.
It's called "commitment", Jer...something liberals know nothing of. I can cite a poll showing a variety of percentages to support any position you like. The fact of the matter is that the republicans won the House of Representatives last November on a pledge to NOT RAISE TAXES. They plan on honoring that pledge. Barack simply pledges to lie to the people more and more. It's time for his chickens to come home to roost.
Well, Joe W.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 9:10pm.
I was relying upon the same poll which Julia Seymour linked in a related blog earlier today. As far as "commitment", I assume then you don't hold it against Obama and the Dems for proposing and passing significant health care reform [which candidate Obama had explicitly pledged to do and which the majority of Americans supported]. Apparently some liberals at least do know something about commitment.
Jer
Proposing and passing, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:41am.
significant health care reform; is that lib speak for 'cramming it down our throats'?
ObamaCare may be significant, but it damn sure isn't health care reform for the good. ObamaCare is nothing more than a cancer that will grow in malignancy far out of proportion to any miniscule amount of "good" the plan will accomplish, if any, in the way of reform.
And no thinking American was all agog and happy at the thought of a 2,000 page plus monstrosity from the idiot politicians behind the plan, either.
The "support" you so blithely refer to is past tense, and has absolutely no bearing on this farce of a plan.
MD
So, we shouldn't hold it against Obama
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:51am.
So, we shouldn't hold it against Obama for being a committed liar? last I checked, candidate Obama (aka the liar) explicitly rejected an individual mandate. He probably forgot about that while tearing up as he lied about his dead mother for political gain.
"Jer" is in love with the half truth.
Submitted by wizardjr on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:58am.
America was for cleaning up the healthcare mess that Washington created in the first place. America was (and is) NOT in favor of the crappola known as Obamacare. As time goes on, more and more are against this travesty as they learn what's in it and what it'll do to them and their current health plan.
As far as the "tax 'em" versus "cut spending" choices, there's another half truth. The greatest majority of America is not for just raising taxes on the rich. What they do want is to stop all the inappropriate nonsense such as subsidies and other special treatment of Sir Golfsalot's corporate pirates. Ethanol, windmills, carbon taxes and all the other so-called green energy boondogles are at the top of America's chop list.
Well, Jer
Submitted by Joe W. on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:36pm.
If the majority of Americans supported Obamacare, why was there ZERO support from conservatives when the dems unilaterally rammed the legislation down our collective throats? Barack and his minions are now bleating over the lack of bipartisan efforts on the debt ceiling, when they didn't give a crap about it during the Obamacare fiasco. Hypocrites.
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:24pm.
It's important to remember that it's likely a significant portion of those respondents would not be personally affected by a tax increase on the wealthy. While their answers may be truthful, without skin in the game, their positions must be regarded in context.
Secondly, the ideological positions of raising vs not-raising taxes are grounded in two different venues; the Democratic position is purely political -an effort to energize their base as their economic policies have been failing and other political failures have been alienating that segment of the party. The policy position for not raising taxes is based on economic realities that heretofore, both sides have agreed upon.
So my question to you would be -since it's likely you'll dispute my assertion- What is the economic benefit to raising taxes on those making more than $250k/per annum? After all, this is an economic argument -the debt ceiling.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 4:06pm.
Your lack of skin in the game observation is a good point and one which I've never discounted nor denied.
The Democratic position regarding the continuation of the Bush rates has been consistent for several years. It is essentially the same as it was when Obama campaigned on the issue--although even he made some slight adjustments in his proposals prior to the election. So, in that respect your insinuation it is a more recently designed political stratagem to energize the base and compensate for or divert attention from failed policies is a difficult argument to sustain.
Simply put, the purported benefit is raising revenue and thus reducing the deficit. Obviously, I'm aware of the counter theories that it discourages business investment, suppresses the job market, etc. But, as others have pointed out, the extension of the lower rates hasn't had a positive impact on employment thus far.
I posted this op-ed by David Stockman recently which he authored a year ago. If you haven't read it, I recommend it.
Jer
Consistency, indeed
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 4:43pm.
You and your party have been very consistent, indeed. Ever since I have been alive - since Ford was in office - and as long as I can remember, your party (and by extension, you, since you slavishly support them) has not viewed the tax code as something which serves a simple purpose (to raise revenue). Your party has viewed the tax code as nothing more than a "get even" mechanism; a way for the government to steal from certain individuals for DARING to do something we are taught from our youngest days to do - to go out and be the best you can be.
If you or your party were remotely serious about increasing revenue, they would hit every single American and corporation at a tax rate of 17%. (When the debt is paid down, chop that rate to 10% since we won't be paying 15% of the budget to service a debt at that point). NO capital gains taxes. No loopholes, breaks, or anything else that varies the rates. Reference the Laffer Curve, and force the goverrnment to spend within its means.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The only problem with doing
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 07/17/2011 - 6:45am.
The only problem with doing what you suggest is that people are ... well people.
Actually Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 7:38pm.
the Democratic position has not been consistent. First, Obama campaigns on raising taxes for the "rich". He wins the election, in part -I'm sure- on this pledge and then for two years while he has control of all three branches of government, he elects not to do the very thing he campaigned on. On top of that, he had the opportunity, while still controlling both the House and Senate, to let the Bush tax rates expire, simply by doing... nothing. He chose, however, to extend those rates along with passing a payroll tax cut.
The op-ed seems really disjointed. He's all over the place. One can look back in history, take a particular event and subscribe it to one that occurred later, though one cannot know what might have happened had another event supplanted the first. Democrats use that argument every day for the Stimulus. They also try to convince people that the latest "Great Recession" is simply the result of the Bush tax rates and not funding two wars. Funny how Obama continued and expanded on both of these policy positions. The fact is that the Bush economic policies underpinned by the GOP House ended two separate recessions and helped foster a great deal of job expansion; conversely, years upon years of gross fiscal mismanagement by both parties led to this Recession. Democrats however, like to attribute it entirely to 8 years of Bush- a disingenuous lie and you're smart enough to know it.
Another way to tell that Obama has been doing nothing but playing politics was revealed in yesterday's presser. Asked if he would sign a $2+T deficit reduction plan that included only spending cuts in exchange for a debt-ceiling increase, he flatly refused. Explaining that there is no way to achieve that much in cuts alone, he somehow forgot that the press was claiming he would go for a 3:1 plan for more than $4T in deficit reduction; his Grand Plan -or whatever they were calling it. Yet, how can one achieve a $4T+ plan with 75% in cuts, that amount to less than $2T? Once again, his math doesn't add up. Why? Because he was never serious about the "Grand Plan" or the 3:1 ratio. All he has stated publicly is that he wanted a "clean bill" or that he wants "shared sacrifice." It's pure politics. It's pure lies on it's face. And his positions have nothing to do with fiscal responsibility- he frankly doesn't buy into it.
Maybe you can answer Tapper's question though: If default is a "catastrophe" then why not sign a short-term increase in the debt-ceiling for an equal reduction in spending? Obama has also flatly refused to do this. He's asking for enough of an increase to get to 2013 -obviously for political reasons- even though the last 6 increases since Nancy Pelosi first snatched the gavel (including the first 3 Obama signed into law) included no tax increases and averaged only 8 months in time.
Hackery and worthless polls
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 4:36pm.
Not only are you a party hack but you are also a worshipper of worthless polls.
Your final, idiotic question has a deeply flawed premise. A nationwide poll taken early last November indicates a majority of Americans are sick of the government being used as a charity and a babying agency. They are also sick of you, your party and your hero in the White House using the American people as a big ATM machine. We are also sick and damn tired of your party targeting certain individuals to steal from on the sole basis that they "are too successful".
We are sick of it, Jer. We are Taxed Enough Already. TEA.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, stooge...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:16pm.
A poll is worthless if it undercuts your position, but presumably profoundly relevant if it supports Julia Seymour's thesis. Typical lack of intellectual consistency and critical thinking skills. But it's what we've come to expect from you over the past couple of years.
Jer
Jer?
Submitted by MrShy on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 5:42pm.
Are you lecturing someone on intellectual consistency? Tell me it ain't so. I'll give you critical thinking (albeit, often flawed critical thinking.)
- Shy on the Wheels of Steel
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
Shy...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:20pm.
I would tell you it ain't so, but doing so would make me intellectually inconsistent.
Jer
The irony found in a scolding
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:27pm.
You certainly have intellectual consistency. But a party hack like you lecturing ME on critical thinking skills?
If my irony meter sounded like a Geiger counter, the clicking would be pretty much harmonizing at this point....
Polls are worthless, PERIOD. Ask Harry Truman what it was like to lose the 1948 election. Oh, wait...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Using the collective "we", Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 7:05pm.
is not only incorrect, considering this is a conservative site, but more than a little disingenuous; and your crack about Unsane's lack of intellectual consistency and critical thinking skills, while understandable coming from the perfervid mind of a liberal, is nonetheless, patently false.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to utilize 'nonetheless' in a post.
MD
"Obama: 80% Of American People Want Higher Taxes..."
Submitted by Red Jeep on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 7:00pm.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/07/15/obama_80_of_the_americ...
Be sure to read some of the comments.
This is what he said according to the quoted excerpt:
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 7:08pm.
"You have 80% of the American people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically"
And he is correct, although the majority want cuts to be the bigger part of the mixture.
Jer
Conveniently missing from the poll
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:58am.
Question: If higher taxes are a good idea, how much in extra taxes are you willing to pay to cover your fair share?
Let me know when that question gets asked. Anyone who isn't willing to be patriotic, and get some skin in the game and pay their fair share has no business demanding that someone else do it.
CKC, the ones
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:17pm.
who want the actual workers, and business owners to pay more in taxes, are the same folks who sit around on their a$$es getting paid to breathe by the government. They have no skin in the game, and there isn't a dem/lib in the world who would seriously propose that the professional welfare class actually pay a "fair share".
I love reading those
Submitted by jkwtrading on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 8:23pm.
I love reading those comments..one after another says it all.
If you chose your sample
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:21pm.
skew your questions you can probably show that 80% want taxes higher. Between asking people that either don't pay ANY taxes with those that pay very little and so are not being targeted, you can prove cows can fly. As long as it's out of someone else's pocket taxing is fine. Unfortunately, it has been shown that increasing taxes will not fix this and will only hurt any job recovery. Check out this video for some perspective:
Eat The Rich
Lots of people have wondered
Submitted by 10ksnooker on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 7:47pm.
Who is watching PMSNBC? And why?
It's a pretend TV network. to 78 million households.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 7:32am.
MSNBC is a tax dodge concocted by Jeffrey Immelt of GE so GE would pay no taxes. With MSNBC Immelt can go to Barry and proclaim he has a whole network devoted to Obama kissing, and Clinton kissing before the Obama God ruled.
The pretend news hour anchors come to a pretend TV studio and imagine that millions upon millions are eagerly listening to their every word.
The above is a joke but why the heck else run MSNBC? IF I were an NBC or GE stockholder I would want MSNBC stopped.
GET THIS: "...MSNBC delivers breaking news and in-depth coverage to 78 million households on cable 24 hours a day..." BUT can't draw much over a few hundred thousand viewers to their shows.
Source: http://www.nbc.com/nbc/NBC_Universal_Cable_Networks/
GE nO longer owns NBC
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:01am.
Comcast owns the network.
NOW it is a 51/49% split, Comcast/GE
Submitted by Red Jeep on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:14am.
.
2% have a choke hold over 98%
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 9:46pm.
Is this man a moron? Need I point out that how large a majority 98% would be of anything? This is not a choke hold at 98%. It's the peoples' will.
A choke-hold? That's government!
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 10:06pm.
Hay, idiots liberals, not once has the "top 2 percent" ever threatened to, say , withhold paychecks, or retirement funds, or healthcare benefits, simply because they are reaching a debt limit crisis and they have to, you know, confiscate even more income from certain people in order to afford a spending cut.
Not once has the "2 percent" ever forced people to buy things like, oh, I don't know, certain types of light bulbs, for the good of the environment, no less,or, say, buy from a limited range of health insurance policies because we, as a nation can't afford not to.
Nor have they threatened to close public areas, like parks and rest stops, when they don't get their way, or confiscate private property, for the good of the public, no less.
Nor do they, for example, force people to kick back a certain percentage of their pay checks in order to be better "represented" in the workforce, or in society in general and throw you in prison when you don't pay those kick backs to their satisfaction.
The "2 percent" don't force you to pay them a certain percentage of the value of your own car every single year just to enjoy the privilege of driving it.
They don't tell you what you can or can not build, what you can or can not sell, what materials things can or can not be made of, or even were, or how, those things can or can not be used.
They don't tell you where you can or can not walk, where you can or can not sleep, where you can or can not eat, where you can or can not dig. They don't tell you what your children can or can not read, how they can or can not dress, or even where they can or can not play.
So, tell me again, just who has a choke-hold on America? It sure isn't the top 2 percent of income earners!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan
Submitted by Danimal on Fri, 07/15/2011 - 11:29pm.
BRILLIANT!!
You folks are crazy
Submitted by ckc1227 on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 2:03am.
Everyone knows armageddon is merely two weeks away just because the Koch brothers have a lot of money. If they were poor, everything would be just fine.
2% have choke hold on 98%
Submitted by Tiger on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:17am.
When I read the headline, I thought the subject was going to be about the homosexual agenda.
MSNBC
Submitted by jessieH on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:40am.
Being a conservative, I have often wondered how 2% of the population could put a strangle hold on the other 98%, the 2% being the liberal loons.
The argument about the rich controlling the rest
Submitted by Kenyon Schraeder on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:44am.
started to lose a great deal of its air when the very same people who foisted Obamacare on the People made absolutely sure that they excused themselves, their families and their staffers from ever having to participate in the scheme and handed out nearly 2,000 waivers to the select and chosen ones in the POTUS' inner circle of donors, friends, union buddies and cronies. Birds of a feather flock together.
The air was completely gone out of the argument with the entire GE debacle and its embrace by a smug and smiling Obama. Coincidence not but boodles of money and support for sure.
This administration's modus operandi is to blame and attack the rich wherever possible but give even more power, scope and influence to unions. Does that script sound vaguely familiar? Bourgeoisie? Proletariat?
a real scandal: MSNBC in bed with Microsoft
Submitted by j17ghs on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:54am.
MSNBC is in bed with Microsoft which has control over our computers and access to the very core of the operating systems (through automatic updates). This is a true scandal and an untold story that began with Clinton's Justice Dept attacking Microsoft in court for years at taxpayer expense before it got Gates to play ball. Let's change the narrative to this one...
Bucket of cold water coming right up!
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 4:46pm.
Microsoft, IIRC, ditched its portion of MSNBC long ago. If there is any ownership left at all, it is a small amount.
Besides, it this conspiracy had any validity, my computer would not be able to access sites like NB, would it not? I'm using IE...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Really?
Submitted by Mutantone on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:46pm.
"name one specific cut to entitlements the President has proposed" not a one! He has only named increases in taxes or spreading out the debit over a ten year period if they raise the limit now. or increased spending to the Muslim Brotherhood and paying for Air force One to make 77% of the flights for his campaign, or increased staff wages by 3.5%. He sure can spend other peoples money and call any one that says cut the spending is UN-American. When in fact He and a great to many of the congress are Marxist-Communist. Who else would place the USA under UN laws about gun control or blasphemy that empower Muslims to circumvent the freedom of speech granted us under the Constitution, which he is all to willing to ignore.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz1SJJUwbgw
Small Arms
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 7:50pm.
Fortunately no one can ratify the UN Small Arms Treaty but the Senate. Pound your Senators' desks to kill that thing once and for all.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I'll do it, Uns, but
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:29pm.
unfortunately, my senators are Levin and Stabenow. I doubt that they'd vote against 0, even if he were marching them to the wall.
MI Sens
Submitted by Unsane on Sat, 07/16/2011 - 9:22pm.
You have my deepest sympathies. If it is any consolation I live in Lloyd Doggett's district, and before that, I lived in Sheila Jackson Lee's district.
Is it me or is Carl Levin out to look exactly like Ben Franklin even though Levin has maybe 1/100th the brain power of Franklin?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)