Maybe this belongs in the political thread, I don’t know. But it’s hard to justify keeping somebody after you argued that no reasonable person believes him
Fox News wins Court Case about Carlson using interesting strategy
- Thread starter GoBigBlue712
- Start date
Maybe this belongs in the political thread, I don’t know. But it’s hard to justify keeping somebody after you argued that no reasonable person believes him
No, but yeah probably belongs in our political thread, come one come all for the very safe space, all views are welcomed.
They already used that sort of defense successfully for Maddow I think it was, that those shows aren’t about bringing you the news as much as they are being exaggerated opinions.
It’s not something that will endanger his show, nor should it.
They already used that sort of defense successfully for Maddow I think it was, that those shows aren’t about bringing you the news as much as they are being exaggerated opinions.
It’s not something that will endanger his show, nor should it.
Tucker Carlson Tonight is the political version of First Take. First Take is the sports version of The View.
They are commentary shows.
They're actually right. No reasonable person should take him seriously. The problem is that reasonable people are not their target market.
It's similar to Alex Jones's custody battle when his attorney argued that his statements on infowars should be disregarded because he is just an actor making performance art. Maybe so, but his viewers think he's a prophet, and that's what he wants.
It's similar to Alex Jones's custody battle when his attorney argued that his statements on infowars should be disregarded because he is just an actor making performance art. Maybe so, but his viewers think he's a prophet, and that's what he wants.
I like Tucker Carlson, .... and consider myself both "reasonable" and well-informed...
I just read the opinion. The article cited is not a faithful characterization of the arguments made, or of the judge’s opinion. Just one more example of the death of journalism. The article is rather a simple cynical piece intending to capitalize on the sentiments of a large group of people that don’t like Trump and don’t like Fox News. It is like candy for a child. The child will not say no.
“The Court concludes that the statements are rhetorical hyperbole and opinion commentary intended to frame a political debate, and, as such, are not actionable as defamation.” Thats the point of the dismissal, and most everything builds to support that point.
Tucker is Conservative, but he goes after both sides. I would love to hear who you think is "reasonable".
He has gone after Republicans quite often especially if your views of globalism hurts America. But Trump is a about USA. But then again, Republican didn’t try a coup which Backfired.
I have not read the opinion, but how is that quote inaccurate to what other posters are saying? They are just rhetorical hyperbole, sort of like saying "I will sell you my car, it is the best used car you can buy!!", which of course no reasonable person would take to be literally true. So no one should take Carlson's views as being literally true either. P.S. I also can't stand to watch Maddow, they are two sides of the same coin.
I like Alex Jones and consider myself reasonable. I just want to know if the government's gayness chemicals are being added to processed food or just chemtrails.
It's simply a legal defense, if you have a way to quickly dismiss a charge against you, you take it. Why wouldn't you?
It doesn't mean those opinion shows aren't based in fact; they all are no matter the perspective, they just focus on what they want to, ignore what they don't, and they all are over the top hyperbolic.
The biggest problem is one shouldn't take basically any of the media seriously, as they are almost always taking advantage of your ignorance. This Trump tax return story is today's version, if you understand the very basics of money, finance, the very fundamentals, then you should know that this nothing. The advocate media here want's to take advantage of the fact the average joe doesn't understand economics and is easily manipulated emotionally by making things out to seem unfair.
Markk Twain think it was said, if you don't read the paper you are uninformed, if you do then you are misinformed. Same is true today, but much much worse due to a variety of factors.
It doesn't mean those opinion shows aren't based in fact; they all are no matter the perspective, they just focus on what they want to, ignore what they don't, and they all are over the top hyperbolic.
The biggest problem is one shouldn't take basically any of the media seriously, as they are almost always taking advantage of your ignorance. This Trump tax return story is today's version, if you understand the very basics of money, finance, the very fundamentals, then you should know that this nothing. The advocate media here want's to take advantage of the fact the average joe doesn't understand economics and is easily manipulated emotionally by making things out to seem unfair.
Markk Twain think it was said, if you don't read the paper you are uninformed, if you do then you are misinformed. Same is true today, but much much worse due to a variety of factors.
I am certain I do understand quite a bit about commercial real estate, and there is no doubt that DJT has done what many other real estate developers have done. I have seen it on a much smaller scale in person.
But I would argue that his tax returns are a poster child for the tax code and why it is FUBAR. Remember, US was on track for a trillion dollar deficit in good times, before Covid hit. I am 1000% against raising individual tax rates, or SS rates, or medicare rates, but could go on and on about other aspects I would change to raise revenue in a more fair manner so that individuals who rake in $400M in income can't write off 100% of it for years and years and years. And I will say that no matter who wins in November.
When he was going to bomb Syria. Tucker went after him hard. Some people credit Tucker for stopping a war due to how hard he went after Trump on it.
Yeah, but that's a different matter entirely, and it is usually (not attacking you) supported by complete fools that don't know the first thing about the first thing, like the guy who liked your post for example. He posts some of the most painfully stupid posts you can read on the Catpaw, and it's voters like him who the Elizabeth Warren's of the world and the advocate media are grievance exploiting.
The danger of looking at the tax code by fairness over what produces greater economic output and indeed overall taxable revenue is that you end up hurting the average joe more than you help in your quest for "fairness". If the tax code ends up creating much more income and overall taxable revenue by seeming unfair to a lay cursory analysis, as it almost always does in these instances, then that's a feature not a bug and not directly related to finding better ways to tax other than individual rates.
I think this is a very fair assessment of the tax code. If you want complete fairness in a tax code, then everyone will be taxed something, when currently half of the population doesn't pay income taxes. If we want taxes to collect money from people based on their use of the system, which in theory is the purpose, then the tax code would change dramatically. First, you wouldn't have a progressive tax code. Everyone would pay X amount to cover their share of certain government functions such as defense. Taxes on the wealthy, would almost certainly go down, because they pay the overwhelming majority of taxes. Corporations should probably never be taxed at all. Corporate taxes are simply an invisible tax on the people through the products and services we buy because they are passed through to consumers. Anyone with any economic sense realizes corporations do not pay taxes, their customers do. A fair tax code would look much different than the one we have, and I suspect many would complain about it.
Pretty fair bet that many (most?) would complain about any tax system you come up with.
Definitely would want to debate the proposition: "Taxes on the wealthy, would almost certainly go down, because they pay the overwhelming majority of taxes." Depends on how you define "wealthy", and "overwhelming majority". Is a man whose businesses gross $400M a year and lives a lifestyle 99.99999% of humanity can only dream of wealthy? By any rational standard, the answer is "of course"
To the average Jane or Joe, who makes $20 an hour at a routine job, the CPA or Primary care MD who makes $150-200K a year is wealthy, but I wouldn't agree with that either.
Of course, all the above avoids the first and foremost question that should be asked about any tax code, which is, exactly what do you want the money for?
That is a huge point and one that infuriates me about elected officials. They don't seem to ever debate whether the expenditure is appropriate in the context of the Constitution. There seems to be a belief among elected representatives that they should be able to spend tax dollars on anything they desire and at whatever levels they desire.
I’d like a tax code where the wealthiest pay their fair share. I don’t mind paying my fair share but it’s hard to feel good about it when the Bezos and Trumps of the world pay nothing. I understand that they create jobs but they’re also rich AF and can pony up their 20% just like everybody else.
That is the thing that is just a terrible aspect of our tax system, and really hard to explain or justify to the average person. And corporations that relocate off shore and pay nothing, yet have their hand out wanting states and cities to fund their expansions, etc., etc. At some point, you have to forget about all the minutiae and take a look from 1000 feet up and say "this just doesn't look or smell right"
I think that is the exception rather than the rule. The data I have seen regarding income tax from 2017 show that the the top 1% of earners paid 38.47% of taxes, the top 5% paid 59.14% of taxes, the top 10% paid 70.07% of taxes, the top 25% paid 86.10% of taxes, and the top 50% paid 96.89% of taxes. The bottom 50% paid 3.11% of taxes. In theory, if we are after fairness, every person should pay some percent of their income in taxes because everyone benefits from things like defense, etc. Personally, I'd like to see the tax code simplified, but I don't think it's going to happen.
And those stats are fact, we all have read them everywhere. But that is just on earned income, which one could argue punishes businesses owners who are paying SS, 401K, plus all benefits for employees (like a surgeon in a PSC for example, or the owner of a successful contracting company). For example, 1% of the population owns something like 50% of the wealth on the stock market, and 10% of the population owns something like 80%, meaning the other 90% of Americans have little to nothing in the stock market. But stock sales are taxed at cap gains rate, and get a stepped up basis upon death, so a wealthy individual or his heirs never pays tax on the gain. That is just one of many examples of how the tax code is set up to favor the wealthy in many ways, naturally, the wealthy have far more clout in legislatures and congress, so they can lobby for laws favoring maintaining the status quo.
You tax that in an estate tax, but what are you really doing there otherwise by taking more from that 1% who own 50% of the market, which already paid 38.47% (how's that not a fair share?) of taxes (more really) while living income? You are taking away their incentive to park their money in the market, which is still a risk, a speculative loan to those companies that they use to grow and do business. That means less capital and less taxable revenue, they can park the money elsewhere and not incur those taxes, somewhere where it doesn't grow the economy. And if they don't park their money in the market, then 401ks and pensions don't see the returns that they do.
Even in a year where Trump or Bezos whoever paid 750 in tax, they will pay other taxes in some ridiculous amounts, an overall tax burden that's more than 99.5% or whatever people will ever pay over the course of their entire lives, much more than their fair share.
The Warrens or AOCs or whomever tell you they can tax the uber wealthy at 2% annual clip and take 70% of their annual income or whatever else to cover whatever free programs and the math never works, there's not enough there there for what they promise. And if you do do that, you never get the Amazons of the world in the first place...the very tax code complained about about as being unfair that allows them to right off years of losses allows them to exist as they borrow to invest in themselves, to eventually turn a profit, and if you didn't have a favorable environment you'd end up with a Chinese company or someone else you can't tax as much selling you whatever you want delivered to you that day by drone, your only real accomplishment is lowering the amount you are going to get in tax revenue when that 2% or that 70% isn't available as investment capital...
Instead of taxing 70% of income and 2%of wealth, you tax 70% of what these people are actually spending it on, like I dunno fine art and other exotic goods. That fine art is still going sell and it's still going to appreciate due to it's rarity, the demand for a McLaren will not go down. You aren't discouraging spending while they are living their lavish lifestyles, which those expenditures all go to someone else as income which you've taxed there and there's only so much one person can enjoy. Whatever increases to tax burdens you make by say not allowing them to carry over losses are passed on to the consumers in increased cost, which ends up being a tax on them and discouraging spending and growth, lowering again what you can tax.
I'm sort of rambling, but I don't think you redistribute wealth by thinking in terms of what's fair, rather you do it through taxing the kind of consumption that basically only they participate in, or other ways if that doesn't work, some other way that there aren't downstream consequences that harm the economy. If I'm Trump, and it costs me 100 mill to renovate a hotel in the process I spent 10 million on sales taxes for the furniture, marble etc, and then I get to deduct that from my net profits and other losses such that I only have to pay 750 dollars in taxes one year, than that's good for the country because it's good for the economy. I still spent 10 million on taxes buying stuff someone produced who will have to pay income taxes on their profits. If you punish my risk taking there by still taxing my profits ignoring my losses, then you make it less likely for that economic activity to occur.
Even in a year where Trump or Bezos whoever paid 750 in tax, they will pay other taxes in some ridiculous amounts, an overall tax burden that's more than 99.5% or whatever people will ever pay over the course of their entire lives, much more than their fair share.
The Warrens or AOCs or whomever tell you they can tax the uber wealthy at 2% annual clip and take 70% of their annual income or whatever else to cover whatever free programs and the math never works, there's not enough there there for what they promise. And if you do do that, you never get the Amazons of the world in the first place...the very tax code complained about about as being unfair that allows them to right off years of losses allows them to exist as they borrow to invest in themselves, to eventually turn a profit, and if you didn't have a favorable environment you'd end up with a Chinese company or someone else you can't tax as much selling you whatever you want delivered to you that day by drone, your only real accomplishment is lowering the amount you are going to get in tax revenue when that 2% or that 70% isn't available as investment capital...
Instead of taxing 70% of income and 2%of wealth, you tax 70% of what these people are actually spending it on, like I dunno fine art and other exotic goods. That fine art is still going sell and it's still going to appreciate due to it's rarity, the demand for a McLaren will not go down. You aren't discouraging spending while they are living their lavish lifestyles, which those expenditures all go to someone else as income which you've taxed there and there's only so much one person can enjoy. Whatever increases to tax burdens you make by say not allowing them to carry over losses are passed on to the consumers in increased cost, which ends up being a tax on them and discouraging spending and growth, lowering again what you can tax.
I'm sort of rambling, but I don't think you redistribute wealth by thinking in terms of what's fair, rather you do it through taxing the kind of consumption that basically only they participate in, or other ways if that doesn't work, some other way that there aren't downstream consequences that harm the economy. If I'm Trump, and it costs me 100 mill to renovate a hotel in the process I spent 10 million on sales taxes for the furniture, marble etc, and then I get to deduct that from my net profits and other losses such that I only have to pay 750 dollars in taxes one year, than that's good for the country because it's good for the economy. I still spent 10 million on taxes buying stuff someone produced who will have to pay income taxes on their profits. If you punish my risk taking there by still taxing my profits ignoring my losses, then you make it less likely for that economic activity to occur.
I don't think any of us believe he's a prophet lol. It's just refreshing to hear a take that isn't left-leaning plastered all over nightly news.
Guys like Carlson exist and became so gigantic because your side of the media refused to be impartial. Blame yourselves.
Agree with a fair amount of your post, but first, I really don't like the estate tax, except for maybe the real outliers, the Gates and Bezos, et al, of the world. If for no other reason than it is not good for society for vast fortunes to be passed down generation after generation.
But I think that if you buy and sell stock, or commercial real estate, and make a profit, that should be taxed at ordinary rates not cap gain, just like earned income. And if you lose on a transaction, you deduct the losses in the year incurred, which is not a change to the tax code at all. And the stepped up basis avoids tax on gains altogether. Think it was a step in the right direction to make beneficiaries take inherited IRA or 401K in ten years, not over life expectancy. Before the change, income taxes could be deferred for generations on retirement accounts.
And for kicks...
"Half of America doesn't even pay a single penny in federal income taxes," Trump wrote. "That may shock you, but it's true. That's one of the reasons soaring federal spending is so dangerous: half the country shrugs its shoulders and says, 'Who cares? It's not my money they're spending.' So the idea that the lower class is shouldering the tax burden is absurd, because the bottom half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all."
"Half of America doesn't even pay a single penny in federal income taxes," Trump wrote. "That may shock you, but it's true. That's one of the reasons soaring federal spending is so dangerous: half the country shrugs its shoulders and says, 'Who cares? It's not my money they're spending.' So the idea that the lower class is shouldering the tax burden is absurd, because the bottom half of Americans pay no federal income tax at all."
I want news to be news without being pandered to or fed propaganda. I have no "side".
Really? Because you we're using statements like "his viewers" and "their target market". Sure sounds like you have a side.
Further proof is that you seem to think that the nightly news, CNN, MSNBC, etc are just the facts. So when you watch Tucker or Fox you become astounded that there could be something so different in opinion and tone. The mere fact of thinking that Tucker/FOX is slanted provs that the other side is slanted as well. If you claim that Tucker is biased then there must, by nature, be two sides.
I just fail to see how the left can claim Tucker to be a problem while ignoring people like Maddow and Cuomo. Is it only a problem when Conservatives throw their opinion/spin on things?
I occasionally watch network news, and never watch the other two. I don't watch any of the "us" and "them" commentary shows. Give it a try.