The greatest Fox News interview

[Gold]

IMO this does not disqualify them for about the most important executive job in the world, but we might want to ask how public servants became millionaires on modest salaries.  : : At least that starbucks guy earned it the old fashioned way...

You don’t get rich if you do it right. Chuck Shumer shares a house in DC with a few other senators. His apartment in Brooklyn is in a nice spot but he’s lived there many decades.

I have no problem with Presidents cashing in after. The Clinton’s didn’t have money until after they cashed in. Bush has money. The Obama’s didn’t have a lot of money until the book deals.

 

[boji]

Epic interview. Very refreshing, and so rare, that when we see it, it gobsmacks us.

Right?!?  We never get to see behind the curtain.

Do any Americans remember when political newscasters were steered by the Fairness Doctrine, where improving viewers' ability to understand opposing political viewpoints was not just good journalism, but was actually enforced by the FCC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The US needs a modified, updated return to something like this...so badly. 

Edit:  I wasn't around back then, but I imagine it made for a more politically informed citizenry.

 

[living sounds]

But seriously, all these vague assertions based on polls?? And some theory???  I mean I get it ....

Does that mean anything???

There's nothing vague about it. There was a concerted effort starting in the 70s to reverse the effects of the New Deal. They even wrote a plan:

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/powell_memo_lewis/

"Though Powell’s memo was not the sole influence, the Chamber and corporate activists took his advice to heart and began building a powerful array of institutions designed to shift public attitudes and beliefs over the course of years and decades. The memo influenced or inspired the creation of the Heritage Foundation, the Manhattan Institute, the Cato Institute, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Accuracy in Academe, and other powerful organizations. Their long-term focus began paying off handsomely in the 1980s, in coordination with the Reagan Administration’s “hands-off business” philosophy."

This influence campaign was wildly successfull, evidenced by the fact that people on this forum love to quote their tailor-made talking points - even though they are counter to their own interests.

As for Calson, like "the Dutch man" said, he is a member of the Kato institute (one of the influence peddling neoliberal institutions). And you may read the book about Roger Ailes (I have), it makes it clear that Fox News was/is not only making money directly, but also a political organization to further the interests of the richest 1 %.

Educate yourselves!

 

[john12ax7]

The entire political / money system is completely out of whack. There should be no such thing as career politicians (term limits). Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but salaries (especially for president) really need to increase to compete with the private sector and attract top talent, while also simultaneously decreasing political power and influence so you can't become rich outside the job by granting favors.

There is obviously something very very wrong when 9 figure sums of money are spent to get 6 figure jobs.

 

[john12ax7]

Regarding the interview, what exactly is so great about it? Personally I don't get why people watch Fox news, but all I saw was a guest that insisted on speaking his opinion no matter what, with no engagement in debate and discussion, and then a host that was cordial at first, but then got rather upset over not much of anything. How is this a win for anybody? Both sides look pretty bad.

 

[dmp]

I don't enjoy playing political games (like wealth shaming), but for extra credit whataboutism count how many new candidates (so far) are millionaires or better.

IMO this does not disqualify them for about the most important executive job in the world, but we might want to ask how public servants became millionaires on modest salaries.  : : At least that starbucks guy earned it the old fashioned way...

JR

Most politicians in Congress are extremely wealthy compared to ordinary people. This shouldn't be a surprise.
But should it HAVE to be this way? Shouldn't it be OK for at least some of our elected representatives to represent us? Wealth is one the most important things to have in common with your elected representatives.  But we don't have it.

Now look at who in Congress is not extremely wealthy (the few).  Look at what those people are saying and advocating. And look at how other Politicians are reacting to them AND how the lobbying /media / superPac/ swamp is treating them.

The Mercer family just put a billboard in Times Square blaming AOC for Amazon pulling out for example.  The wealthy are doing everything they can right now to stamp out these small voices that are speaking truth about the real face of corruption in Washington.
The funny thing is how average people in the team politics game are participating. Moderate Democrats and of course Republicans.    Normal people are manipulated into stamping out there own representative voice, and electing cartoon characters that funnel more and more wealth to the already very wealthy.
The Republican tax cut was indefensible. It was exactly what Trump, Ryan, and McConnell wanted to do.  They just told people they were going to do something else right up until they did it.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The entire political / money system is completely out of whack. There should be no such thing as career politicians (term limits). Perhaps an unpopular opinion, but salaries (especially for president) really need to increase to compete with the private sector and attract top talent, while also simultaneously decreasing political power and influence so you can't become rich outside the job by granting favors.

There is obviously something very very wrong when 9 figure sums of money are spent to get 6 figure jobs.

Thank you, I have been saying this for years.

Legislators have $1M office budgets, maybe more now...

They can trade on inside information they create, and more.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Most politicians in Congress are extremely wealthy compared to ordinary people. This shouldn't be a surprise.
But should it HAVE to be this way? Shouldn't it be OK for at least some of our elected representatives to represent us? Wealth is one the most important things to have in common with your elected representatives.  But we don't have it.

I don't see how this is important or useful.  I would like my elected representative to have math skills, a sense of history, high IQ, and good judgement, not be average at anything.

Now look at who in Congress is not extremely wealthy (the few).  Look at what those people are saying and advocating. And look at how other Politicians are reacting to them AND how the lobbying /media / superPac/ swamp is treating them.

The new crew is pretty far out of the mainstream and sucking all the oxygen out of the room from possibly electable candidates. Of course the party leadership is unhappy. AOC is the gift that keeps giving for the right every time she talks.

The Mercer family just put a billboard in Times Square blaming AOC for Amazon pulling out for example.  The wealthy are doing everything they can right now to stamp out these small voices that are speaking truth about the real face of corruption in Washington.

Umm... Amazon expanding in NYC would have been good for NYC that needs the tax revenue.  (It appears GE is cutting back on its expansion in Boston, after the tide went out revealing a less solid business.)

AOC was one of the far left voices stirring the pot (she did claim victory), but I suspect Amazon didn't get all the love they expected (from the unions and other behind the scenes power brokers in NYC). Long ago I predicted Bezos would end up expanding in VA, to be close to DC regulators and for a change I was correct.  8) Amazon is still hiring in NYC, but maybe not in Long Island City and not as many jobs as projected.

FWIW it wasn't even AOC's district but she is not shy when lights are on and cameras are rolling. Media loves her because she creates controversy every time she opens her mouth (mostly due to lack of experience and practical knowledge.)

The funny thing is how average people in the team politics game are participating. Moderate Democrats and of course Republicans.    Normal people are manipulated into stamping out there own representative voice, and electing cartoon characters that funnel more and more wealth to the already very wealthy.

where does that funnel empty out? Entitlements?  Where do you think wealth comes from? The government can only take wealth from others who created it and then destroy it with wasteful spending.

The Republican tax cut was indefensible. It was exactly what Trump, Ryan, and McConnell wanted to do.  They just told people they were going to do something else right up until they did it.

The economy appears pretty strong right now (stronger than predicted by critics). I don't agree with some of the apparently targeted tax policy against high tax states, but long term some imposed spending discipline on them won't hurt.  There is still much work to do, and lots of good news gets ignored and not reported.

JR

PS: I find it hard to believe this is the most important thing to talk about in recent news. It does neatly fit the 2020 democratic campaign agenda.

 

[Gold]

I have no problem with rich people running for office. I also have no problem with career politicians.

I don’t think being rich or being an incumbent should be an advantage though. I’m for publicly funded elections.

 

[dmp]

I don't think being rich should be a disqualifier, but I think 90+% of our elected representatives being rich skews public policy.
And undeniably being rich gives a disproportionate advantage in elections.

Evening the playing field would require a constitutional amendment, (due to Citizen's United ruling).

 

[Gold]

I understand AOC hasn’t set up an office for constituents in Queens yet. If she doesn’t pay attention to her constituents she’ll be out on her AOC.

 

[Gold]

I don't think being rich should be a disqualifier, but I think 90+% of our elected representatives being rich skews public policy.
And undeniably being rich gives a disproportionate advantage in elections.

Evening the playing field would require a constitutional amendment, (due to Citizen's United ruling).

Richard Blumenthal is the richest man in the Senate. It hasn’t made him a shill of the 1%.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Wow. I just watched the OP's link. The way the host flipped so completely, so quickly, was stunning. Most of the interview he was onboard with the guest, but in the last 10 seconds he lost it. That was amazing to witness.

Thx for posting

Mike

 

[living sounds]

Term limits would just make sure that expertise is whiped out on the legislative side. Look at the havoc the amateurs from the Trump administration have wreaked.

It takes time and effort to get good in your field, and crafting legislation is no different. Probably more so in a system that relies so much on precedent.

What term limits would do is to strenghten the very moneyed interests you want to tame. And they are undemocratic.

Here's a good rundown:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/

What needs to be limited is the revolving door, the influence of lobbiests and big money in elections. You don't get this through term limits.

 

[scott2000]

Wow. I just watched the OP's link. The way the host flipped so completely, so quickly, was stunning. Most of the interview he was onboard with the guest, but in the last 10 seconds he lost it. That was amazing to witness.

The Christian Bale rant is my fave

 

[JohnRoberts]

Term limits would just make sure that expertise is whiped out on the legislative side. Look at the havoc the amateurs from the Trump administration have wreaked.

It takes time and effort to get good in your field, and crafting legislation is no different. Probably more so in a system that relies so much on precedent.

What term limits would do is to strenghten the very moneyed interests you want to tame. And they are undemocratic.

Here's a good rundown:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/

What needs to be limited is the revolving door, the influence of lobbiests and big money in elections. You don't get this through term limits.

I was almost ready to agree with you until I read that link.

Our government was designed on purpose to make legislature difficult. We have too many laws already so making that easy is a negative.

I have stated before that term limits could shift power to unelected staff, if anything unelected officials already have too much power.  Elected representatives only attach their names to bills, they don't write them.

So I almost agree with you but for different reasons.

I would not mind term limits where candidates could term out of lower offices then be able to run for higher offices, until they term out of that... this way they could accumulate some legislative experience along the way, but not get so entrenched  and beholding to constantly raising campaign finances.

JR

 

[living sounds]

We have too many laws already so making that easy is a negative.

If you think about it a bit, you will realize the lack of sophistication in that kind of reasoning. It's akin to arguening that there should be fewer roads so we can minimize traffic accidents.

Now the Anglo-American legal systems with their we-write-everything-down-and-rely-on-the-judiciary-to-figure-it-out approch look very strange and opaque indeed from over here (where simplicity and abstraction to the point of incoherence historically have been prized), but the problems aren't really grounded in there, but in the dependencies of senators and congresspeople.

They're constantly in need of raising money for elections. And lobbyists have their one-stop-shop in Washington (as they now, unfortunately, have in Brussels). What is needed are stringend laws against corruption, campaign advertising outside of a short window before the election, in other words, again, regulations. There aren't too many but too few good rules when it comes to elections in the US.

As it always does, the pendulum is bound to swing back leftward after 40 years of a rightward turn, so I am hopefull the problems can be fixed.

 

[JohnRoberts]

If you think about it a bit, you will realize the lack of sophistication in that kind of reasoning. It's akin to arguening that there should be fewer roads so we can minimize traffic accidents.

No not even close... but I find your vague ad hominem "unsophisticated".

Now the Anglo-American legal systems with their we-write-everything-down-and-rely-on-the-judiciary-to-figure-it-out approch look very strange and opaque indeed from over here (where simplicity and abstraction to the point of incoherence historically have been prized), but the problems aren't really grounded in there, but in the dependencies of senators and congresspeople.

my apologies again...

They're constantly in need of raising money for elections. And lobbyists have their one-stop-shop in Washington (as they now, unfortunately, have in Brussels). What is needed are stringend laws against corruption, campaign advertising outside of a short window before the election, in other words, again, regulations. There aren't too many but too few good rules when it comes to elections in the US.

I would agree but last time I almost agreed I was wrong so I will reserve my opinion.  :

As it always does, the pendulum is bound to swing back leftward after 40 years of a rightward turn, so I am hopefull the problems can be fixed.

Huh... if this isn't swinging hard left now, what would that look like?  (except for President Trump..  ;D )

JR

 

[cyrano]

There wouldn't be any "whealtshaming" if the rich would pay their taxes. But they don't, for the most part.

And it's even worse when you include corporations in "The rich". Most big corporations don't pay tax at all, except for some local, minute taxes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There wouldn't be any "whealtshaming" if the rich would pay their taxes. But they don't, for the most part.

The facts do not support that claim.

And it's even worse when you include corporations in "The rich". Most big corporations don't pay tax at all, except for some local, minute taxes.

Somebody paid the $1.45T (2015) that government collected (they actually spent more than that).  :

per https://taxfoundation.org/summary-federal-income-tax-data-2017/  summary

Top 1% of earners paid 39% of all taxes. The top 1% paid a larger share than the bottom 90% combined (29%), that sounds pretty progressive to me.

This is a false narrative to gain political influence with low information voters who believe the tired old "class warfare" rhetoric.

JR

PS: The wealthy are generally pretty charitable after they get more money than they can spend. The recent concert in Columbia to raise money for the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela was sponsored by Richard Branson. I expect the federal government largess discourages some private charity. The uber-wealthy prefer to fund their own charities than give their excess wealth to governments, who will use it ineffectively.