willfull disregard for the truth

[Star]

.
"I can't recall a campaign where I've seen more lying going on -- and it wasn't symmetric," said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who's been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, "but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top."

Lies from Republicans generally and standard bearer Mitt Romney in particular weren't limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party's most central campaign principles -- that federal spending doesn't create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit -- willfully disregarded the truth. ~ Dan Froomkin



How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign


Dan Froomkin
12/07/2012


Post-mortems of contemporary election coverage typically include regrets about horserace journalism, he-said-she-said stenography, and the lack of enlightening stories about the issues.

But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false equivalency that bind so much of the capital's media elite and publicly concluded that GOP leaders have become "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite media's fear of being seen as taking sides.

"The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties' agendas and connections to facts and truth," said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

"I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it -- and with their editors," said Mann. "But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance."


<snip>


more> here
.

 

[Star]

.
"I can't recall a campaign where I've seen more lying going on -- and it wasn't symmetric," said Ornstein, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute who's been tracking Congress with Mann since 1978. Democrats were hardly innocent, he said, "but it seemed pretty clear to me that the Republican campaign was just far more over the top."

Lies from Republicans generally and standard bearer Mitt Romney in particular weren't limited to the occasional TV ads, either; the party's most central campaign principles -- that federal spending doesn't create jobs, that reducing taxes on the rich could create jobs and lower the deficit -- willfully disregarded the truth. ~ Dan Froomkin



How the Mainstream Press Bungled the Single Biggest Story of the 2012 Campaign


Dan Froomkin
12/07/2012


Post-mortems of contemporary election coverage typically include regrets about horserace journalism, he-said-she-said stenography, and the lack of enlightening stories about the issues.

But according to longtime political observers Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, campaign coverage in 2012 was a particularly calamitous failure, almost entirely missing the single biggest story of the race: Namely, the radical right-wing, off-the-rails lurch of the Republican Party, both in terms of its agenda and its relationship to the truth.

Mann and Ornstein are two longtime centrist Washington fixtures who earlier this year dramatically rejected the strictures of false equivalency that bind so much of the capital's media elite and publicly concluded that GOP leaders have become "ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

The 2012 campaign further proved their point, they both said in recent interviews. It also exposed how fabulists and liars can exploit the elite media's fear of being seen as taking sides.

"The mainstream press really has such a difficult time trying to cope with asymmetry between the two parties' agendas and connections to facts and truth," said Mann, who has spent nearly three decades as a congressional scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution.

"I saw some journalists struggling to avoid the trap of balance and I knew they were struggling with it -- and with their editors," said Mann. "But in general, I think overall it was a pretty disappointing performance."


<snip>


more> here
.

"While the Democrats, too, tossed out some falsehoods, there was no comparison between them and the Republicans' intentional, ideologically extreme perversion "of facts, evidence and science." Yet reporters and their bosses, so fearful of being accused of taking sides, failed to make a distinction — which, after all, is their job.
"It's the great unreported big story of American politics," said Ornstein.

The duo [Mann and Ornstein] was surprisingly blunt, noting that the GOP was not just practicing politics as usual, with a fib here and a prevarication there, but an orchestrated strategy of dumping bald-faced fabrications wholesale on the voting public." ~ Jim Hightower


The Mass Media Favorites Fall Out of Favor | NationofChange

Jim Hightower
12 December 2012

Let us address the declining fortunes of today's mainstream mass media.

(Yes, I can hear your pained screams of "Nooooo ... we don't want to!" We really must, however, because it's not about them, but us — about our ability to be at least quasi-informed about who's-doing-what-to-whom-and-why, in order for us to be a self-governing people. So buckle-up, here we go.)

The honchos of America's establishment media are quick to blame such external causes as the Internet for their problems. But if they looked internally, they might notice that they're damn near eaten-up with a bad case of conventional wisdomitis. The problem with conventional wisdom is that more often than not it's nothing more than the contrived "wisdom" of the corporate powers.
Ironically, this narrow perspective not only afflicts their delivery of the news, but also their business model. For example, with newspaper readership declining, the accepted industry response by owners and publishers has been to fire beat reporters, shrink the news hole, reduce reporting to rewriting of wire service articles — and then run hokey PR campaigns hyping the shriveled product as "Real News."


But here's a bit of real news that very few newspapers have mentioned: The new owners of the Orange County Register are blazing a contrarian path toward their paper's revival and prosperity. They're expanding the Register's news staff, its coverage and the paper's size, doubling the editorial page and adding more sections. Editor Ken Brusic notes that offering less to subscribers and charging more not only is a rip-off and an insult to readers, but a sure path to failure. "So," he says, "we're now offering more."


Gosh — hire real watchdog reporters, dig out real news and actually try to make the paper real to local readers — what a novel notion for a news business! Unsurprisingly, the conventional wisdomites are sneering at the Register's nonconformist effort.

"It's not what most people are doing," said one analyst of the media business.


Exactly! And that's why it's so promising!

Of course, getting in the face of power and defying the conventional wisdom can be a poor career move. You can quickly begin feeling like B.B. King, when he sings, [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvCccp3qMX8"]"No one loves me but my mother, and she could be jivin', too."[/ame]

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein now know that lonely feeling. This teamed-up pair of political partisan observers have long been esteemed peers of the Washington punditry class. Cautious, middle-of-the-road, think-tank conservatives, they were popular on the insider talk-show circuit as reliable voices of conventional thinking. Until they went rogue.

In assessing the 2012 election, Mann and Ornstein have charged that the elite media deliberately failed to cover the biggest story of all — namely that the Republican Party and its nominees were flagrantly running a campaign of lies.

<snip>

"They're so timid," Mann said — and a timid press is a weak one. "You're failing in your fundamental responsibility," Ornstein said of them, asking the obvious question: "What are you there for? Your obvious job is to report the truth."

For daring to tell the truth about the media's abject failure, Mann and Ornstein have been blackballed. They're no longer invited to talk on the inside-politics shows, nor have those shows even mentioned the media's pusillanimous role in abetting the Big Lies of 2012.
.

 

[TNHarley]

Bullshit

 

[HUGGY]

The Mass media does not care about truth. The Mass Media is a business and their main concern during an election cycle is to show an election as being as close as possible if not purposefully showing the trailing candidate as being ahead from time to time. They do this because it forces the opposing parties to spend more money in advertising to counter the percieved sense that they are losing the election.

Complaining about the business practices of the media is futile. They will play the participants for all of the money in ads they can using any and all tricks at their disposal.

Several billion dollars were up for grabs in the election. That is no small potatoes. Controversy is the engine that drives up the anty.

 

[eflatminor]

So, Mr. Froomkin is just 100% sure that increasing taxes on the rich would create jobs and lower the deficit?

Perhaps someone needs to direct 'ol Froomie to the current situations in France, the UK and the state of California. After raising taxes on the rich in those places, unemployment increased and most importantly, tax revenues have DECREASED.

Now I'm not saying reducing taxes on the rich would automatically create jobs and generate more tax revenue, which could be used to lower the deficit. It might, it might not. Certainly, there is much historical evidence to back up that belief. Dr. Laffer has made a career out of demonstrating just that.

So, while Mr Froomkin is free to disagree with that assertion, calling anyone that believes in the Laffer curve a liar is, ironically, demonstrating a...how did he put it..."willfull disregard for the truth".

 

[nesta]

there is no historical evidence lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, thats a lie, lowering taxes on middle class and poor people does as they are the consumers, lowering rich peoples taxes creates absolutely zero jobs whatsoever.

 

[eflatminor]

there is no historical evidence lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, thats a lie, lowering taxes on middle class and poor people does as they are the consumers, lowering rich peoples taxes creates absolutely zero jobs whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is no historical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the rich create jobs either, so the question must be asked, why do it?

If you're thinking "increased tax revenue" as a reason why, that would also lack historical evidence. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that increasing tax rates on the rich results in LESS tax revenue.

In the last month, the UK, France, and the state of California learned that the hard way. After raising tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from that segment of the population decreased, as did overall tax revenues. Unemployment also increased, but I'm not claiming a direct causation there.

 

[blastoff]

Oh, I get it. It's all a matter of degree. One side does it, but the other side does it more. Yep, I got it.

 

[Old Rocks]

there is no historical evidence lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, thats a lie, lowering taxes on middle class and poor people does as they are the consumers, lowering rich peoples taxes creates absolutely zero jobs whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is no historical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the rich create jobs either, so the question must be asked, why do it?

If you're thinking "increased tax revenue" as a reason why, that would also lack historical evidence. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that increasing tax rates on the rich results in LESS tax revenue.

In the last month, the UK, France, and the state of California learned that the hard way. After raising tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from that segment of the population decreased, as did overall tax revenues. Unemployment also increased, but I'm not claiming a direct causation there.

Really? Raised taxes in the early '90's, and how did the rest of that decade go? Compared to the decade in which Bush lowered taxes? Seems to be a rather good historical comparison right there.

 

[eflatminor]

there is no historical evidence lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, thats a lie, lowering taxes on middle class and poor people does as they are the consumers, lowering rich peoples taxes creates absolutely zero jobs whatsoever.

On the other hand, there is no historical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the rich create jobs either, so the question must be asked, why do it?

If you're thinking "increased tax revenue" as a reason why, that would also lack historical evidence. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that increasing tax rates on the rich results in LESS tax revenue.

In the last month, the UK, France, and the state of California learned that the hard way. After raising tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from that segment of the population decreased, as did overall tax revenues. Unemployment also increased, but I'm not claiming a direct causation there.

Really? Raised taxes in the early '90's, and how did the rest of that decade go? Compared to the decade in which Bush lowered taxes? Seems to be a rather good historical comparison right there.

Well, let's take a look at the tax changes in the 90s. We did raise taxes in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

Shocker...

Clinton also implemented a 10% "luxury tax" on yachts, jewelry, private planes, etc. Guess what? The rich bought these items overseas. In the first 2 years of the luxury tax, 9,400 workers in the boat making industry lost their jobs. The guy that had championed the luxury tax (George Mitchell) successfully fought to repealed the luxury tax just a year later. Lesson learned...

Clinton did raise tax rates again in 1993. The economy had grown at 4.5% in the 12 months before the tax hikes. In 1993 and 1994, it slipped to 2-3%. Bummer...

The major rationale behind for the Clinton tax hike was to lower interest rates. Unfortunately, interest rates actually rose by more than two points by late '94. Bummer again...

Clinton's tax increase was also part of his plan to lower the deficit with more revenues, not less spending. Unfortunately, two years later, the deficit had increased. So much for that...

The economy did boom significantly after November of 1994. The reason was NOT his tax hikes but his embracing of free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and yes he CUT taxes. Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut and he signed welfare reform.

The capital gains tax cut caused a burst of tax revenues INCREASES. There you go, another example of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased revenues. Cool!

Clinton was not the liberal Keynesian you think he was, certainly not after 1994. In fact, I recall Jesse Jackson complaining Clinton was more like Reagan than FDR. He was right.

Point is, raising tax rates on anyone now, especially in an economic downturn, is more likely to result in less tax revenue than more.

So again I ask "What do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates?"

 

[Truthmatters]

The CBO credited the 1993 ombra signed without one single R vote for the responsiblity for the lions share of the 90s budget surpluses.

 

[eflatminor]

The CBO credited the 1993 ombra signed without one single R vote for the responsiblity for the lions share of the 90s budget surpluses.

Ah the troll has laid another steaming pile for all of us to enjoy...

Now to the facts:

OMB’s website reveal that good budget numbers were the result of genuine fiscal restraint. Total government spending increased by an average of just 2.9 percent over a four-year period in the mid-1990s. This is the reason why projections of $200 billion-plus deficits turned into the reality of big budget surpluses.

Republicans say the credit belongs to the GOP Congress that took charge in early 1995. Democrats say it was because of Bill Clinton. But all that really matters is that the burden of federal spending grew very slowly. Not only was there spending restraint, but Congress and the White House agreed on a fairly substantial tax cut in 1997.

'93 Clinton Tax Hike Didn't Lead To Budget Surpluses Of Late '90s - Forbes

 

[Star]

On the other hand, there is no historical evidence to suggest raising taxes on the rich create jobs either, so the question must be asked, why do it?

If you're thinking "increased tax revenue" as a reason why, that would also lack historical evidence. In fact, there exists plenty of evidence that increasing tax rates on the rich results in LESS tax revenue.

In the last month, the UK, France, and the state of California learned that the hard way. After raising tax rates on the rich, tax revenues from that segment of the population decreased, as did overall tax revenues. Unemployment also increased, but I'm not claiming a direct causation there.

Really? Raised taxes in the early '90's, and how did the rest of that decade go? Compared to the decade in which Bush lowered taxes? Seems to be a rather good historical comparison right there.

Well, let's take a look at the tax changes in the 90s. We did raise taxes in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

Shocker...

Clinton also implemented a 10% "luxury tax" on yachts, jewelry, private planes, etc. Guess what? The rich bought these items overseas. In the first 2 years of the luxury tax, 9,400 workers in the boat making industry lost their jobs. The guy that had championed the luxury tax (George Mitchell) successfully fought to repealed the luxury tax just a year later. Lesson learned...

Clinton did raise tax rates again in 1993. The economy had grown at 4.5% in the 12 months before the tax hikes. In 1993 and 1994, it slipped to 2-3%. Bummer...

The major rationale behind for the Clinton tax hike was to lower interest rates. Unfortunately, interest rates actually rose by more than two points by late '94. Bummer again...

Clinton's tax increase was also part of his plan to lower the deficit with more revenues, not less spending. Unfortunately, two years later, the deficit had increased. So much for that...

The economy did boom significantly after November of 1994. The reason was NOT his tax hikes but his embracing of free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and yes he CUT taxes. Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut and he signed welfare reform.

The capital gains tax cut caused a burst of tax revenues INCREASES. There you go, another example of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased revenues. Cool!

Clinton was not the liberal Keynesian you think he was, certainly not after 1994. In fact, I recall Jesse Jackson complaining Clinton was more like Reagan than FDR. He was right.

Point is, raising tax rates on anyone now, especially in an economic downturn, is more likely to result in less tax revenue than more.

So again I ask "What do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates?"

Rightwing Kool-Aid?

​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Republicans accuses Obama of killing a woman?

Really?

Republicans said Obama was a felon?

really?

 

[eflatminor]

Really? Raised taxes in the early '90's, and how did the rest of that decade go? Compared to the decade in which Bush lowered taxes? Seems to be a rather good historical comparison right there.

Well, let's take a look at the tax changes in the 90s. We did raise taxes in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

Shocker...

Clinton also implemented a 10% "luxury tax" on yachts, jewelry, private planes, etc. Guess what? The rich bought these items overseas. In the first 2 years of the luxury tax, 9,400 workers in the boat making industry lost their jobs. The guy that had championed the luxury tax (George Mitchell) successfully fought to repealed the luxury tax just a year later. Lesson learned...

Clinton did raise tax rates again in 1993. The economy had grown at 4.5% in the 12 months before the tax hikes. In 1993 and 1994, it slipped to 2-3%. Bummer...

The major rationale behind for the Clinton tax hike was to lower interest rates. Unfortunately, interest rates actually rose by more than two points by late '94. Bummer again...

Clinton's tax increase was also part of his plan to lower the deficit with more revenues, not less spending. Unfortunately, two years later, the deficit had increased. So much for that...

The economy did boom significantly after November of 1994. The reason was NOT his tax hikes but his embracing of free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and yes he CUT taxes. Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut and he signed welfare reform.

The capital gains tax cut caused a burst of tax revenues INCREASES. There you go, another example of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased revenues. Cool!

Clinton was not the liberal Keynesian you think he was, certainly not after 1994. In fact, I recall Jesse Jackson complaining Clinton was more like Reagan than FDR. He was right.

Point is, raising tax rates on anyone now, especially in an economic downturn, is more likely to result in less tax revenue than more.

So again I ask "What do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates?"

Rightwing Kool-Aid?

​

Wow. That is the level of discourse you're capable of? You refute nothing, your offer no countering perspective. Just hat ridiculous photograph. That's just sad...and revealing.

Best of luck to you.

 

[Star]

Well, let's take a look at the tax changes in the 90s. We did raise taxes in the early 90s and guess what? It didn't raise any tax revenues...that's the point. In 1989, federal revenues were 19.3% of GDP. In 1991, after the tax rate hikes, revenues slipped to 19.1%. According to the WSJ, the rich in particular paid LESS taxes after the rates where raised - $6.5 billion less! The WSJ report stated "81% of the revenues expected from the 1990 budget deal failed to materialize"

Shocker...

Clinton also implemented a 10% "luxury tax" on yachts, jewelry, private planes, etc. Guess what? The rich bought these items overseas. In the first 2 years of the luxury tax, 9,400 workers in the boat making industry lost their jobs. The guy that had championed the luxury tax (George Mitchell) successfully fought to repealed the luxury tax just a year later. Lesson learned...

Clinton did raise tax rates again in 1993. The economy had grown at 4.5% in the 12 months before the tax hikes. In 1993 and 1994, it slipped to 2-3%. Bummer...

The major rationale behind for the Clinton tax hike was to lower interest rates. Unfortunately, interest rates actually rose by more than two points by late '94. Bummer again...

Clinton's tax increase was also part of his plan to lower the deficit with more revenues, not less spending. Unfortunately, two years later, the deficit had increased. So much for that...

The economy did boom significantly after November of 1994. The reason was NOT his tax hikes but his embracing of free market policies (Dick Morris was Clinton's political consultant). He promoted free trade, tighter budgets, and yes he CUT taxes. Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut and he signed welfare reform.

The capital gains tax cut caused a burst of tax revenues INCREASES. There you go, another example of how lowering tax rates can lead to increased revenues. Cool!

Clinton was not the liberal Keynesian you think he was, certainly not after 1994. In fact, I recall Jesse Jackson complaining Clinton was more like Reagan than FDR. He was right.

Point is, raising tax rates on anyone now, especially in an economic downturn, is more likely to result in less tax revenue than more.

So again I ask "What do you hope to accomplish by raising tax rates?"

Rightwing Kool-Aid?​

​

Wow. That is the level of discourse you're capable of? You refute nothing, your offer no countering perspective. Just hat ridiculous photograph. That's just sad...and revealing.

Best of luck to you.

"refute nothing"? Ha!

What's ridiculous is, my message went right over your head---Katyusha. But what the hey, I accept the challenge of trying to school the unschoolable.

Check out the definition for, drinking the kool-aid:

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a metaphor commonly used in the United States and Canada that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination.


If you guys ever get the opportunity to claim phenomenal job growth after a major tax cut let me know, but-----but until then, the empirical evidence shows, Clinton pushed for and got tax increases dot then-----then 23 million jobs were created during Clinton's 8 years in office dot then-----then Bush pushed for tax cuts dot then-----then one million jobs were created during Bush's 8 years in office dot and-----and the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression began dot...

There ya go dude/dudette, I connected the dots for you. Try as rightwingers might, only class clowns will try to dispute the empirical evidence that Clinton raised taxes and 23 million jobs were created.


You have two days to respond, then I'll be away from my computer until after Christmas.
.

 

[eflatminor]

If you guys ever get the opportunity to claim phenomenal job growth after a major tax cut let me know

We had phenomenal growth AND increased revenues in 1995 after Clinton cut the capital gains tax rate. It also helped that he embraced free market policies such as free trade, tighter budgets, and welfare reform.

Growth slowed and tax revenues decreased after Clinton's tax hike (same with Bush I). After his capital gains tax cut, growth and more revenue.

So, I ask yet again, what do you hope to gain from increasing taxes?

 

[Rozman]

Clinton enjoyed the benefits of the housing bubble and the dot com bubble and Newt Gingrich.
And we can thank all the ladies who kept Bill and little Willy happy during his time in office.

 

[MaryL]

I dread repeating this, but GW Bush wasn't entirety truthful and we invaded IRAQ and that was rather unhealthy to both American servicemen and the Iraqi populace. And for reasons that were neither immediate or proven truthful. Bush was Ok though. Examine THAT.

 

[Stephanie]

oh boy, break out the hip waders

"While the Democrats, too, tossed out some falsehoods, there was no comparison between them and the Republicans' intentional, ideologically extreme perversion "of facts, evidence and science."

coming from some site called, nationofchange..

should be called nationofpropaganda
andLIARS