• 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!

Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

although it is refreshing not to have netnazis and birthers.
 
our troops fight for freedom and democracy but we are not supposed to use our freedom and democracy, say some.
 
scottsoperson said:
i thought this website is sort of a libertarian website.
Click to expand...

scottsoperson said:
our troops fight for freedom and democracy but we are not supposed to use our freedom and democracy, say some.
Click to expand...

I know 14 year olds who can troll better than this. Unless you're under 14 then, good job! You're doing great, big guy!
 
EpicDude86 said:
I know 14 year olds who can troll better than this. Unless you're under 14 then, good job! You're doing great, big guy!
Click to expand...

but have i said something inaccurate...and what specifically would that be?
 
nazis would not like trolls either.
 
so you all are not really libertarians, except maybe in word.
 
i am proud of my trollmanship...or trollpersonship.
 
scottsoperson said:
same with the corporate media as a whole.
Click to expand...

This is a privately run forum. Not Public, which means you aren't guaranteed your Constitutional Rights by any stretch. If you want to be sarcastic, that's great, just don't be an outright troll because that'll get you ban'd.

:D
 
Zyphlin said:
Here’s the difference…

Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.

The media, in general, does.

The Media is supposed to be an outlet for the voice of the people, a barometer of them in a way. It’s supposed to be a check on the politicians, to expose in clear terms to the people what their government is doing and to investigate at times to find out more. They are whistle blowers and they are watch dogs.

Now, they don’t always do this job well and I won’t sit here and say there are not biases evident in the media, on both sides.

What I will say though is that if the government takes action to “save” a portion of the media landscape through the use of governmental means then that makes that portion of the media reliant on the government for its sustained growth and possibly existence. As such it brings up questions of potential bias and negligence when it comes to covering governmental things, and also breeds questions of what sort of pressure could politico’s put on that portion of the media to put forth the propaganda they wish.

Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.
Click to expand...

And how can you tell if a news outlet is doing a good job?... look at their year end tax statement.
 
American said:
Maybe if you weren't such a liberal koolaid drinker, you'd see how Obama is diffferent from the rest. You didn't see these articles when Bush and Clinton were in office. The mouthfoamers that eat up this **** from the Obama administration will doom this nation.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you weren't such an extremist partisan you would have realized this stuff happens regardless of who is in office. Writing about in the paper does not change the economic reality that this is how it has been for decades, if not centuries.

"Oh God, someone wrote it about! Blame the Liberals!"

And I'm more conservative then you will ever hope to be.
 
obvious Child said:
Perhaps if you weren't such an extremist partisan you would have realized this stuff happens regardless of who is in office. Writing about in the paper does not change the economic reality that this is how it has been for decades, if not centuries.

"Oh God, someone wrote it about! Blame the Liberals!"

And I'm more conservative then you will ever hope to be.
Click to expand...

That's a ****in' hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Zyphlin said:
Here’s the difference…

Charities, in general, don’t have a vital role in government.
Click to expand...

Neither do a lot of things that we encourage or discourage with the tax law. Does that mean we haven't been essentially engaging in social engineering with the tax law for decades if not centuries, if not millennia. People getting their panties in a bunch about this because a democrat said it are pretty much ignoring that this kind of stuff has been occurring well before Europeans first step foot in the New World. Some are blind to that fact.

The media, in general, does.

The Media is supposed to be an outlet for the voice of the people, a barometer of them in a way. It’s supposed to be a check on the politicians, to expose in clear terms to the people what their government is doing and to investigate at times to find out more. They are whistle blowers and they are watch dogs.
Click to expand...

It is? I thought the media in a capitalist society was all about profit. Granted, that may be why we have such an awful media, but what you describe doesn't seem to gel with how media functions in our economy.

Furthermore, the problem with the media has far more to do with their exceptionally near sighted business plans. Getting the government involved in their tax structures really won't change this at all.

What I will say though is that if the government takes action to “save” a portion of the media landscape through the use of governmental means then that makes that portion of the media reliant on the government for its sustained growth and possibly existence.
Click to expand...

But that has always been the case. The media right now is dependent upon the government for sustained growth and existence. Without the government providing and enforcing the legal structure in which newspapers function, there would not be a newspaper industry. Is the Red Cross dependent upon the government to function? Yes. Was it dependent upon the government before it acquired a 501(c)(3) statue? Yes. People act like changing the tax code suddenly makes industries now dependent on the government. All capitalistic industries are reliant upon the government to maintain the framework in which they operate for sustained growth.

As such it brings up questions of potential bias and negligence when it comes to covering governmental things, and also breeds questions of what sort of pressure could politico’s put on that portion of the media to put forth the propaganda they wish.
Click to expand...

If the measures the government takes goes as far as direct bailouts and nationalization, yes you have a point there. But if you read the actual documentation provided in the link, that is certainly not the case. Hence my first post to Mr. V. Modifying the tax law is hardly what the partisans here claim it is. We change the tax law every single year. 10 years ago the media was dependent upon the government in allowing expense deductions for uniquely media expenses. If it did not get those, they would be dead. As long as the government sticks to what was stated, this really changes nothing fundamental.

Its far different then trying to compare it to charities.
Click to expand...

Not in the context of what was actually stated in the link provided.

See above.

The notion that increased timetable of amortization of losses equates to what you claim it does is an absolutely failure to understand the tax law.
 
Last edited:
Gill said:
Are newspapers charities??
Click to expand...

Are Newspapers like all businesses effected by the tax code? :2wave:

Newspapers are a dinosaur media and their slow death is their own fault. But I'm sure that Dems in congress would love to "save" media from itself the same way they "saved" GM and Chrysler.... by putting only "approved" people in charge of the business and appointing czars to oversee operations.

Is that your idea of a free press???
Click to expand...

One must wonder if you read the link. One must wonder if anyone except goldenboy and myself read the thread.

I'd love to see one of you people try to argue how changing amortization tables and other changes to tax law equates to the asinine arguments presented here.
 
Vader said:
I do.

The government does not have the right to moderate the media. This is the first step to the removal of the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Seriously did ANYONE ELSE EVEN READ THE ARTICLE?

I guess if we change the amortization rules (as which will occur by 2014 as the US switches over to IFRS), then government is moderating everything.

Illiteracy is everywhere here.
 
EpicDude86 said:
In one relationship financial assistance is given to an entity.

In the other, guidelines and standards are given to an entity.
Click to expand...

Except that we provide financial assistance all of the time to all sorts of industries. Minor tweaks to specific tax codes can provide a bonanza of direct financial benefits. For instance, Bush enacted a 100% conservation tax credit which allowed land rich, cash poor farmers to pass land on without having to liquidate their farms even when the farms are exceptionally unprofitable. We were directly providing financial assistance to parts of a dying industry. Did the partisans say a damn thing? No, because they are partisans. And once conservation easements are granted, there's virtually no way short of an act of God to eliminate them, thereby eliminating any power the government has over the land owners. This stuff happens all of the friggen' time. Getting upset because a democrat did it is extremely hypocritical.
 
apdst said:
I don't have to prove it. It speaks for itself.
Click to expand...

Class, here we have a typical apdst post.

Notice the key points:
1) No evidence
2) No substance
3) No arguments
4) Reliance on nothing more then "I say so."

Thus the large number of Fs on his transcript.
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
​

More corporate welfare. Nothing new.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. People act as if this is new. Know why? Because a Democrat said it. The GOP monkeyed around with the tax code in all sorts of ways that promoted this kind of stuff. Did people like Mr. V say a godd@mn word? No, because that requires consistency.
 
Playing around with the tax code is the basis of Congress' power. If they could not do that, how much money do you think they could raise for re-election?

So this is the next industry they are offering tax breaks or subsidies to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom