• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York Times Finally Admits It's Just a Democratic Super PAC

The New York Times turns to no holds barred political activism in opposition to the tax bill.



Journalistic standards are dead. RIP. Let the games begin.

This returns the newspaper business to the days of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, when the papers were owned by the political parties and were absolutely transparent and vicious in their bias.

Newspapers have always had editorial bias. There's been the Republican paper and the Democrat paper in counties since forever. This is about editorial bias, not news reporting.
Calm down.
 
Nope the weasal wording is from YOU. Do you think it won't be a failure for the GOP if the bill were to fail? Gimme a break. It is WELL known this bill benefits primarily the wealthy. There is no disputing that.

Tax rates do not mean anything to the rich. The big money tax savings is in the loopholes and deductions, not in the tax rate. For example, a few years back, the Obama's made $477,000 dollars in gross income. This gross income put them in the 39% tax bracket. However, they only paid about 20% in taxes. How did they lower their tax bracket to 20%, when on paper it is 39%?

The reason is deductions and loopholes. Using deductions and loopholes is not a crime. It is in the law. It does require you hire people who can navigate the tax code to find these hidden treasures. This benefits the rich, who can afford to have teams of accountants to do this task. If Trump was to lower the Obama's tax rate from 39% to 20%, and then get rid of all the loopholes used by the Obamas, the Obamas will pay the same taxes. It is a wash. Tax rates do not mean anything, when there is 70,000 pages of loopholes to make that rate go down.

The reason the swamp is not explaining this properly, is the tax loophole code is how they get campaign donations from the rich. If Senator Warren wanted an extra a donation from the Obama's, she may go up to Obamas and offer then a golfing deduction, worth $10,000 in additional tax savings. She can't just give the Obama's this deduction for all to see. Instead, Obama will be given a map to the labyrinth tax code, so he can find the key. This is how you funnel donations and keep out the riff raft.

In turn, Obama will give Senator Warren 10% of his tax savings as a donation. This donation is not even the Obama's money. It is money that was laundered through the tax code; tax payer money. Trump knows this, since he was the beneficiary of these maps and keys, just like all the rich deep pockets, who have been solicited by politicians, on both sides, for donations.

Trump wants to make the tax code smaller, so it is harder to hide these keys. To make this bitter pill easier to swallow, he will lower the tax rates to make it revenue neutral. If the Obamas still have a 20% rate they will not be too upset.

What is good about simplifying the tax code is, is using the keys to the code impacts the behavior of businesses and the rich. For example, if you can get a large deduction for buying new tools, you may buy them this year, even if you don;t need them. This is not free market driven; optimized necessity, but it is driven by greed. The loophole codes trains the rich the wrong way. However, it maximizes donations for politicians. You shrink the code and it is back to free market ventures. Politicians have to be more honest since donations are free market and not based on greed.
 
This is all the more reason to put this bill aside until next year. Voting on bill you have not read is not very good optics.

I would agree. but Schumer may not be telling us the whole truth. They had had the initial bill in plenty of time to read it. I would think that the changes that were made in the previous 24 to 48 hours would not be that great and then they discussed the amendments of last night prior to any vote..
 
That's tough to do since they are still writing it while they're voting on it.

I know. That's why I kept asking. But I think they stopped changing it before the vote.
 
I would agree. but Schumer may not be telling us the whole truth. They had had the initial bill in plenty of time to read it. I would think that the changes that were made in the previous 24 to 48 hours would not be that great and then they discussed the amendments of last night prior to any vote..

It was only couple hours ago you were claiming no one knew anything. Does It hurt when you’re waffling this bad ? :lamo
 
The New York Times turns to no holds barred political activism in opposition to the tax bill.



Journalistic standards are dead. RIP. Let the games begin.

This returns the newspaper business to the days of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, when the papers were owned by the political parties and were absolutely transparent and vicious in their bias.

Don't give me hyperpartisan outlets with zero ethics and zero journalistic integrity while you bemoan the lack of journalistic integrity. Because then you're a part of the problem. Again, I don't like WaPo or NYT, but I'll be goddamned if I'm going to sit back and listen to worse wildly partisan outlets that don't even have anything close NYT/WaPo's level of ethics and journalistic rigor. Cast The Federalist, Brietbart, and all of that garbage into the flames. I'm so sick of people reading the worst, hyper-partisan, lying "news outlets" while complaining about WaPo and NYT. This article literally asserts something in the headline that didn't even happen. The author of the article literally asserts that this happened in the title, and then proceeds to make a case that he thinks they're just a super PAC. "The author thinks the NYT is a Dem SuperPAC" is categorically not "The NYT has admitted that they are a Dem SuperPAC."

And I love this gem,

In his botched sting on The Washington Post this week, for instance, James O’Keefe demonstrated just how easy it is to either confuse the editorial board with the newsroom or to manipulate readers to confuse them. At some point, however, it also becomes the paper’s fault, as well.​

He didn't confuse them. They asked for sources and looked into his fake story, and came out questioning it. They then did their legwork and found out that he was trying to lie to them. What part of this looks bad on WaPo? Oh right, there's no integrity required for this article, so they get to spread falsehoods at ease. Again, I don't even like WaPo and I can tell you that "The Federalist" is the news equivalent of a steaming pile of putrid garbage without standards.
 
It's isn't Trump's plan, it's Congress'. Trump just wants something passed that provided some reform that he promised.

Good morning, American. :2wave:

Thanks for your post! :thumbs: You beat me to the punch, cause I was about to say the same thing! I guess it's just become a habit for those who want to blame Trump for everything.... :lamo
 
It's isn't Trump's plan, it's Congress'. Trump just wants something passed that provided some reform that he promised.

As long as Trump publicly supports the GOP tax legislation (he has in spades) and signs the GOP massive-tax-gift to the wealthy/corporations that winds up on his desk, he is a co-owner.
 
The ACA was Congress' bill as well, but that didn't stop the bill from being called Obamacare by Republicans. The same as this bill will be hitched to Trump. Just the way things are man. If you want to nitpick this, than you should agree that the ACA shouldn't be called Obamacare since it was Congress' bill.

It should've been called Pelosicare because she's the one go got it done.
 
The New York Times turns to no holds barred political activism in opposition to the tax bill.



Journalistic standards are dead. RIP. Let the games begin.

This returns the newspaper business to the days of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, when the papers were owned by the political parties and were absolutely transparent and vicious in their bias.

It's not political bias. It's called reporting. The tax bill is a transfer of wealth to the the wealthy and corporations that will bankrupt this nation and make us further subservient to China. We need more outfits like the NYT warning us of what's taking place.

Thank you, New York Times!
 
It was only couple hours ago you were claiming no one knew anything. Does It hurt when you’re waffling this bad ? :lamo

I did not claim that Senators did not know. Schumer did. :2wave:
 
It's isn't Trump's plan, it's Congress'. Trump just wants something passed that provided some reform that he promised.

You don't think it's a problem that Trump is either lying about the effect of the tax plan on the wealthy or that he doesn't even know what's in it?
 
Tell me how this bill benefits the poor, those with pre-existing conditions and middle aged? There you go again defend the undefendable.

He meant "middle class" and you know it.
 
The New York Times turns to no holds barred political activism in opposition to the tax bill.



Journalistic standards are dead. RIP. Let the games begin.

This returns the newspaper business to the days of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton, when the papers were owned by the political parties and were absolutely transparent and vicious in their bias.

Well let's see; the far right gets it's ass busted again and the New York Times is participating in editorial politics like news papers around the country have done for generations even being named in the 1st amendment.

So now it's all the Time's fault.

sure, whatever you say even though the idiot who wrote your source piece is a right-wing toll himself
 
You don't think it's a problem that Trump is either lying about the effect of the tax plan on the wealthy or that he doesn't even know what's in it?

No a single word is going to change your mind, so why are you bothering me?
 
It's isn't Trump's plan, it's Congress'. Trump just wants something passed that provided some reform that he promised.

He promised it and he'll take credit for it, so it IS his tax plan.
 
No a single word is going to change your mind, so why are you bothering me?

So it doesn't bother you that our billionaire president is pissing on your head and telling you it's raining. Glad that doesn't bother you!
 
Well let's see; the far right gets it's ass busted again and the New York Times is participating in editorial politics like news papers around the country have done for generations even being named in the 1st amendment.

So now it's all the Time's fault.

sure, whatever you say even though the idiot who wrote your source piece is a right-wing toll himself

Well, the Times lost this one. So they can eat their hearts out.

And if people regard this as standard journalism then there are no journalistic standards.
 
So it doesn't bother you that our billionaire president is pissing on your head and telling you it's raining. Glad that doesn't bother you!

You don't even know that.
 
Well, the Times lost this one. So they can eat their hearts out.

And if people regard this as standard journalism then there are no journalistic standards.

US newspapers starting endorsing political decisions when Lincoln was running for president. So I guess they had not standards - right?
 
Back
Top Bottom