Patterico's Pontifications

1/25/2012

L.A. Times: Obama Finally Promises to Milk Rich Guys Like Romney

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 6:52 am



People sometimes ask me why I don’t blog much about the L.A. TImes any more. Is it because I’m too busy? Or has the paper gotten better?

Let me show you today’s front page and ask you if it gives you any clue:

It’s the same rag it always has been.

I just barely bother reading it any more.

107 Responses to “L.A. Times: Obama Finally Promises to Milk Rich Guys Like Romney”

  1. Trade ya;

    http://www.miamiherald.com/

    narciso (87e966)

  2. I don’t suppose he mentioned where the investor gets the money to invest, Double taxation anybody ?

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  3. Obama has some interesting ideas on how to disincentivize investment and crash the stock market just as obamawhore boomers are set to retire. He’s super-smart.

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  4. I assume you don’t believe that those who are more fortunate the than others should also pay more taxes.

    tadcf (ead2bd)

  5. Fair! The all purpose word.

    MayBee (081489)

  6. Romney paid more taxes just last year than Obama and his champagne wishes and caviar dreams hoochie have paid their entire lives

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  7. I assume tadcf the idiot doesn’t think Rangel should pay more in taxes than the average middle class voter he screams racism at.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  8. Obama gave 1% of his income to charity
    Biden gave $369 to charity

    This must stop! They have to pay their fair share.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  9. I didn’t listen to the speech, preferring to do something useful like cleaning out the garage. However from what I’ve read (LATimes & Washington Post & Washington Times) the speech was not a State of the Union speech as much as it was a Beat Down the Repubs/Rich/Middle Class and Uplift gifts to his supporters in exchange for campaign cash (Warren Buffett anyone?) He was, and will remain the Doofus-In-Chief.

    GM Roper (d58b94)

  10. using retread lines from previous SOTUs that weren’t inspired, much less inspiring, the first time they were spewed, Obama shows his contempt for the American people by thinking they will wolf down his bullsh*t and ask for 4 more helpings.

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  11. Don’t some of the Gingrich supporters here agree with this?

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  12. tadcf: Yes, romney paid a lower percentage of his income in income tax than many of us. but he also paid a whole lot more in dollars than we did. so… if you’re a class-baiting liberal with no record to run on, you hype the percentage. on the other hand, if you’re grounded in reality, you look at the amount he paid and figure that by any standard, he is paying more than his ‘fair’ share of the total tax bill. and btw, how does taking more money from the likes of Romney make things any better for the millions of people who don’t have jobs? Hint: it doesn’t, it actually makes things worse.

    On another note, notice the dog that didn’t bark in Obama’s speech? Where in his speech was there anything that would make someone more likely to go out and hire additional workers? Or make someone who isn’t already spending everything they have a bit more likely to go out and buy something with the money they have sitting in the bank?

    If I was trying to get the economy going, those are the groups I need to speak to. Jobs don’t get created out of thin air, they get created when someone who has money decides to take the risk that they’ll earn a return on their investment. From the consumption side, jobs get created when the amount of money being spent increases (and business responds by hiring to meet the added demand). And if people are worried and sitting on their hands and their money, I would want to say something that made them just a bit less nervous.

    Granted I did not listen to Obama, but to those who did: was there anything in his speech aimed at reassuring those groups? or, as I figure, did he on the contrary target them and make them even more apprehensive than they already are?

    steve (369bc6)

  13. Obama’s SOTU addresses have the lowest average Flesch-Kincaid score of any modern president; Obama owns three of the six lowest-scoring addresses since FDR.*

    he talks to us like we’re idiots

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  14. Yes, romney paid a lower percentage of his income in income tax than many of us.

    Comment by steve — 1/25/2012 @ 8:32 am

    The percentage paid by Romney is above all but a small percentage of taxpayers – 2% I believe.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  15. 11. Hardly, using the government or one’s church to put in the time that charity requires with one’s tithes is better than not.

    Get rid of the deductions for charity, the loopholes for Green writeoffs, the money-laundering for corruptocrats, and all perverse incentives that clog the works of capitalism like an impacted bowel.

    Yes, including deductions for homeowners. Flat tax.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  16. yes Gingrich says making money off of investments is ridiculous you have to whore yourself out to Freddie Mac so your tacky slutty wife can have Tiffany accoutrements

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  17. Team R really scraped the bottom of the candidate barrel this year

    happyfeet (3c92a1)

  18. 14. Romney tithes to his church, doing god’s work gilding the byways of Kolob.

    Mother Teresa stand your ground.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  19. Tadcf eats his boogerz. Why is it that people on the Left cannot understand the difference between capital gains and salary/wages?

    JD (48f69a)

  20. No, he was taking issue with a particular private equity firm’s performance, there was no blanket statement, like ‘there are some times, when you’ve made enough money;

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/25/education-department-admits-flawed-data-gainful-employment-analysis#ixzz1kUN6gzPz

    narciso (87e966)

  21. Comment by tadcf — 1/25/2012 @ 7:46 am

    No, those who are “more fortunate” should not pay “more” taxes. They should pay taxes on their income as agreed legislatively by Congress. When the Democrats controlled Congress entirely, together with the White House for two years and could not pass a Federal budget, they also didn’t raise taxes. In fact, they reenacted the tax rates of the previous administration. So evidently they believe tax rates are just fine.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  22. Obama’s SOTU speech was record breaking too in that every paragraph decried his own policies. Obama’s got an extraordinary amount of gall to try to pretend that Americans won’t remember how three years of his own actual conduct contradicted every single thing in his insipid speech.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  23. JD: then there are those on the right who think that a dollar of investment income should be taxed at the same rate as a dollar of earned income.

    steve (369bc6)

  24. I thought I heard this am that Obama has no intention of including his Buffet rule in his budget this year.

    MayBee (081489)

  25. If obama inherited this economy than why did he willingly take the position as president?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  26. MayBee, a great example of his hypocrisy.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  27. I cancelled my Times subscription when I saw the light and left the Democrat Party. Times solicitors call occasionally and react vehemently when I tell that that I tired of the propaganda they feature as news. This front page is an excellent example of what I mean.

    mhr (4a7b46)

  28. I cancelled my Times subscription when I saw the light and left the Democrat Party. Times solicitors call occasionally and react vehemently when I tell that that I tired of the propaganda they feature as news. This front page is an excellent example of what I mean.

    mhr (4a7b46)

  29. I had subscribed since high school. I cancelled last year, and with the possible exception of the weekly Fry’s ad, I don’t miss it at all.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  30. By the way Ocommie’s land reform policies remind me of Mugabe.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  31. Don’t some of the Gingrich supporters here agree with this?

    Um, no. In fact Gingrich said at the last debate that Romney’s tax rate should be zero.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  32. 24. Mitt Romney advisor, Norm Coleman “The Republican Party will not repeal Obamacare”. Death by a thousand cuts, but who’s the victim?

    Willard has purchased the most formidable team in memory laying siege to SCOAMF, a total, Brobdingnagan fustercluck.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  33. If Bain actually created about 100K jobs, and Romney’s portion of that is, say, 10K jobs, then what would be a fair payment to Romney for creating those 10,000 jobs? I think that stimulus jobs cost well over $100,000 each, but let’s say it should be a bargain-basement $25,000/job. That would make Romney’s FAIR SHARE about $250 million.

    Hey, that’s what he got! Why are we punishing this man with taxes for doing, at a substantial discount what Obama wishes he could do with other people’s money?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  34. And yes it is Bush that does not care about troops……………but yet Bush put into place policies which would withdraw the troops from Iraq.

    Leftys love to project.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  35. 34. Well, it would be, but see Last’s article at the Standard.

    Staples, the source of 89,000 of the 100K, was a venture by to grocery chain vets. Bain’s sole contribution, other than a Romney pep talk, was $650,000 of venture capital, like the fourth largest stake by PE firms.

    Recalculate, certainly, but check into Sports Authority and Dominos details first. You may end up with Ogabe Stimulus II numbers.

    gary gulrud (1de2db)

  36. tadcf: Yes, romney paid a lower percentage of his income in income tax than many of us.

    The corporation that paid him dividends, first paid 35% income tax, then he paid 15% of what was left. That adds up to 50% tax total that he paid on the income from his investments.

    Mike K (9ebddd)

  37. JD: then there are those on the right who think that a dollar of investment income should be taxed at the same rate as a dollar of earned income.

    Comment by steve — 1/25/2012 @ 8:59 am

    And?

    JD (318f81)

  38. The corporation that paid him dividends, first paid 35% income tax, then he paid 15% of what was left. That adds up to 50% tax total that he paid on the income from his investments.

    Well, no, it doesn’t add like that. The 15% is only on the 65% of profits left after the first round of taxation, so the number is only 44.75%.

    But still it’s a damn sight more than I pay.

    Which brings up the question of how such a bright guy as Warren Buffett could make such a stupid mistake as forgetting about the corporate tax? Did Obama waive that, too, for Berkshire Hathaway?

    Kevin M (563f77)

  39. And even if you are talking about capital gains, the corporate tax reduces the earnings to the underlying company each and every year. Which in turn reduces its market cap and balance sheet.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  40. But Rangel will be left alone?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  41. “Why is it that people on the Left cannot understand the difference between capital gains and salary/wages?”

    JD – Obama wants everybody to play by the same set of rules in his fair America. Are not capital gains taxed at the same rate whether one is rich or poor?

    Celebrate success!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  42. And? and what?

    As for the ‘double tax’ on corporations, if we argue that corporations are entities in their own right, there is no double tax, as each ‘entity’ pays tax on the income they make.

    steve (369bc6)

  43. How much of their earnings would you allow people to keep, steve?

    JD (318f81)

  44. Daley – success must be punished.

    JD (318f81)

  45. I didn’t see Obama mention that he paid a 16% rate in 2010 with 1.7M in income. We paid a 23% rate for federal alone and make far less than 200K.
    Didn’t see much in the coverage about Romney’s contributions to charity either. That eclipses all the other candidates including Obama. Biden donated 360 dollars a couple of years ago and a little less than 2% this year.
    Rather than harp on taxes he should be chastising the “one percenters including the left” to dig deeper if they truly believe in helping the “downtrodden”.
    More taxes won’t do the trick.

    vor2 (6c8528)

  46. As for the ‘double tax’ on corporations, if we argue that corporations are entities in their own right, there is no double tax, as each ‘entity’ pays tax on the income they make.

    It’s true they are legal entities in their own right. That’s why for example if a corporation is sued, you can’t sue the stockholders also. That has nothing to do with the economic argument. A tax on a corporation is substantively a tax on the owners of it.

    Gerald A (b4fe48)

  47. the rapey little fascist can tax all capital gains everywhere at a million percent and still not make a dent in his obscene deficits

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  48. I assume you don’t believe that those who are more fortunate the than others should also pay more taxes.

    Comment by tadcf — 1/25/2012 @ 7:46 am

    Right because God arbitrarily smiled on them and not on you. Work and effort and smarts had nothing to do with it.

    Incidentally since Mitt only gets on vote just like you, why should he pay one dollar more than you? If you are going to argue for ‘fair’ share of taxes then you should support them having their ‘fair’ share of the vote.

    cubanbob (ad2274)

  49. Yes but Rangel will be left alone.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  50. First, I hate the idea that we tax income. Being stuck with that, I think the most anyone should pay is 30% of what they make, without distinction as to how the money was earned.

    steve (369bc6)

  51. “There is always inequality in life. Some men are killed in a war and some men are wounded and some men never leave the country. Life is unfair.

    President John F. Kennedy

    Msot people grasp this before they get out of their 20s.

    Our current President, having never held a real job and bathed in hatred of America from his socialist family and pals, does not.

    Bugg (34ad0e)

  52. Obama’s SOTU was written at an 8th grade level……………but Obama’s simplicity is so awesome.

    And Bush was so dumb he committed 9-11……..right lefys?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  53. You guys are pikers, I cancelled my LA Times subscription in 1992 when the published a front page article dragging out every imaginable attack on Bush Sr and at the very end of the article, printed uncritically Bill Clinton’s campaign statement that he had gotten a draft notice at the height of the Vietnam War and armed with his Rhodes Scholarship, didn’t understand the letter that said “You, William Jefferson Clinton, are drafted into the Army and will report to place X on date Y.”

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  54. “You guys are pikers, I cancelled my LA Times subscription in 1992”

    Kaisersoze – Got you beat, I’ve never subscribed to the rag.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  55. Gotta love the subhead “A Fortune Enhanced by U.S. Tax Code.” That really is the way that liberals think. It’s not that the U.S. Tax Code permitted Romney to amass a fortune by not taxing him up the wazoo; no, to the Times staff believes the U.S. Tax Code actually enhanced Romney’s fortune. Am I unaware of the part of the tax code where the U.S. Treasury makes deposits into the Romney bank account?

    JVW (b504f9)

  56. Kaisersoze – Got you beat, I’ve never subscribed to the rag.

    Comment by daleyrocks — 1/25/2012 @ 10:56 am

    Well played, Sir.

    The thing about the LA Times in the big picture isn’t that they are so ridiculously biased, its that they consider themselves to be a big national powerhouse in Journalism when in reality, they are a local paper that just happens to have an enormous subscription base.

    Kaisersoze (298188)

  57. Has Barcky proposed increasing the cap gains rate to fix this travesty? How will his millionaires and billionaires penalty on income fix this injustice? This is just boilerplate leftist class warfare.

    JD (48f69a)

  58. As for the ‘double tax’ on corporations, if we argue that corporations are entities in their own right, there is no double tax, as each ‘entity’ pays tax on the income they make.

    Following that logic, we should tax kids on the money their parents spend on their support.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  59. People sometimes ask me why I don’t blog much about the L.A. TImes any more.

    It wouldn’t occur to me to ask why you don’t blog about the L.A. Times.

    As you went on to say, it’s a rag and it’s not worth reading.

    I agree. I don’t even know what’s in the L.A. Times. How could I possibly wonder why somebody’s not blogging about it?

    Steve (1f4b7c)

  60. Daley – success must be punished.

    Worse. Private sector job creation must be punished.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  61. “Following that logic, we should tax kids on the money their parents spend on their support.”

    Kevin M. – Or weekly allowances. Out of fairness. The chirren must grow up understanding these concepts. It does not matter that their parents have already been taxed on these dollars, just as corporations have been taxed on the dollars they pay out as dividends, the chirren must be taxed on the money they receive as allowances to learn how to become fair citizens.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  62. I knew President Obama’s mom was white and his dad was black. But why was he bright orange last night? He looks like Dr. Zaius’s brother, or possibly he has a serious liver problem. Or he has to fire his makeup artist today.

    About capital gains; the income people invest in such investments has already been taxed when it was earned. This is never mentioned, as if the money people invest fell from the sky. And you can lose money on investments, yet the government only lets you right off up to $3000 in a givent ax year.The very good thinga about Mitt Romney are that he knows how to make a buck on how taxes impact economic activity. Our current president, fresh off Tony Rezko giving him half a house, the Daly machine giving him political jobs and the Mrs. a no show job at a hospital, haven’t got a clue.

    Bugg (34ad0e)

  63. About capital gains; the income people invest in such investments has already been taxed when it was earned

    Yes, good point, so it is triply taxed (when earned, corporate tax and cap gains). And repeatedly so as you continue to invest.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  64. Here’s another argument why a lower cap gains rate doesn’t make sense:

    Very little of what are called investments are actually investments in a business. Most is the buying of shares from someone who bought the shares from someone else who bought the shares from someone else, none of whom made a direct investment in a company. My buying shares in Apple doesn’t put money into Apple’s bank account… and as such, it can’t play any part in Apple having the resources to invest in another electronic gadget.

    Buying shares on the open market doesn’t put money in the hands of businesses, we’re merely trading money among ourselves, we’re not investing, we’re betting. Why should gambling income be taxed at a favorable rate compared to those who make money by working at a store? Heck, why should income from betting on shares of Apple be taxed at a lower rate than those who bet on the Giants winning the Super Bowl?

    If you wanted a more logically justifiable tax program, you’d give a lower rate to those who actually invested in a company… and tax everybody else at rate that gambling income is taxed at.

    steve (369bc6)

  65. there has to be a robust equities market for capitalism to thrive Mr. steve

    it’s not about any individual investment; it’s about having a market where capital can be put to work

    Obama wouldn’t know anything about this of course, because he’s a fascist who wants to rape our children

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  66. Obama is a Stuttering Clusterf*** Of A Miserable Failure.

    SCOAMF 2012

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  67. Most is the buying of shares from someone who bought the shares from someone else who bought the shares from someone else, none of whom made a direct investment in a company.

    Really? I always thought of this as renewing a loan/investment. It just doesn’t seem like a problem for the company until not enough investors want to buy shares. Then it’s a problem.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  68. Also, isn’t it possible that not as many investors will want those shares absent the favorable tax treatment?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  69. “there has to be a robust equities market for capitalism to thrive Mr. steve”

    Mr. Feets – Some people may buy shares of stock in companies if they were told they had to hold them forever and ever, but probably not that many.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  70. Was #66 a joke?

    JD (318f81)

  71. that is a very good point Mr. daley a lot of times in America you have to buy and sell stocks based on what political party is in power, cause of how intrusive our government is with respect to what was once called the “free market”

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  72. Yes, people will be less enthused if there was a higher tax rate on post-initial investment gains. But that’s true for any activity.

    My argument is just that post-investors don’t warrant a lower rate than people who make money other ways.

    Have one rate that is charged on income regardless of the source… and have it low enough to encourage people to go out and earn lots and lots of it.

    steve (369bc6)

  73. than people who make money other ways

    the bias in the taxation is meant to encourage everyone to invest and enjoy capitalism’s rich bounty

    particularly people who might like to retire one day

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  74. There’s lot of bias in the tax code. Isn’t that one of the things reformers complain about?

    steve (369bc6)

  75. “There’s lot of bias in the tax code.”

    steve – Incentives have been built into the tax code to encourage and/or discourage various activities over time. They have accumulated into the current mess we have now, with incentives for saving and investing, home ownership, charitable giving and the like. Realistically, I don’t see them going away and see us retaining a progressive tax system. The lobbying strength of the real estate sector, investment sector and charities are just too strong.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  76. but this is a bias towards fun

    everyone likes fun

    happyfeet (a55ba0)

  77. The screen shot doesn’t do the impact justice. Looking at the actual front page is scary. We are doomed.

    AZ Bob (7d2a2c)

  78. I appreciated Newt saying he would lower Romney’s taxes in the recent debate. That helped Romney a bit, but it’s also presidential.

    All told, Romney raised fees by about $375 million and closed tax loopholes that raised another $375 million in revenue, according to Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a nonpartisan, business-backed budget watchdog group.

    Romney has long argued that fees are not taxes because they are charged for specific services. But others, including gun owners in Massachusetts – who number about 200,000 – have rejected that distinction.

    It’s a tax on our rights. Period,” Wallace said today.

    Mitt would get more mileage out of this stuff if he had a better record on taxes.

    Dustin (7362cd)

  79. Really? I always thought of this as renewing a loan/investment.

    True. Money is fungible. Pretty much by definition.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  80. I guess you could tax dividends as regular income if you let corporations write off dividends paid against their income. And perhaps we should, if only to avoid this type of demagoguery. Not so sure about cap gains, though — zero seems about right, so maybe we just want to treat capital gains as not reportable.

    Kevin M (563f77)

  81. Was Palin blamed for Romney’s flip flops?

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  82. Here’s what the Progs don’t seem to be able to assimilate:

    I would love to have an effective rate of taxation of 44.75%, as has been computed for Romney when you take account of the Corporate and Personal rates on his overall, pretax, income.
    It would mean that I’m “rolling in it”, and that ain’t bad.
    The question really is: Should anyone have to pay that much “tribute” to Government?

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  83. Warren Buffet benefited from Maobama’s opposition to the Keystone pipeline.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  84. WB has remarkably been on the winning side in most economic issues since getting involved/creating BH.
    It is what he does, and he’s very good at it.

    AD-RtR/OS! (b8ab92)

  85. Buffet is a corrupt turd.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  86. Come now, Doh, Buffet has just learned to apply the immortal words of the Deteriorata:

    Know what to kiss, and when.

    PCachu (e072b7)

  87. I think of Buffett like the tycoon that Ned Beatty played in Network, who is bent on taking over UBS
    (the thinly disguised CBS) with his hatchetman,
    Robert Duvall.

    narciso (87e966)

  88. Trent Lott has nothing on Buffet.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  89. E.J. Dionne is running the LA Times now? There’s not even a pretense of fairness anymore, is there. The media got burned when they had to shutdown the Clinton/Lewinsky Newsweek story because they, umm, actually had a story. No more mistakes like that – now they just let the Dems write the paper.

    East Bay Jay (2fd7f7)

  90. E.J. Dionne nearly had a heart attack when Daniels criticized Obama’s SOTU.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  91. Not only that according to Andrew Sullivan,Obama doesn’t say um ooooooooooh aaaaaaaaaah the republicans do.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  92. Heh. Quite a lucrative gig, working as secretary for Warren Buffet…

    When the Nebraska winter gets especially brutal, Debra Bosanek, 55, can escape to sunny Surprise, Arizona, where her new home has a pool and “professional PGA putting green.”

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/warren-buffett-secretary-homes-654812

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  93. her second home…

    Colonel Haiku (b486eb)

  94. _____________________________________________

    I assume you don’t believe that those who are more fortunate the than others should also pay more taxes.

    I wouldn’t be as annoyed by that sentiment if it were balanced by just as much indignation over moderate-income paying too much in taxes. But noooo. So many of those who complain the loudest about the well-to-do not forking over more to the IRS will be the same ones who are surprisingly complacent (or even rather agreeable) about all the taxes — particularly of those combined from the local, state and federal levels — imposed upon Joe Six-Pack.

    Mark (411533)

  95. Lolz at Charles Johnson’s comment about blind support.

    DohBiden (ef98f0)

  96. ____________________________________________

    It’s the same rag it always has been.

    I really wonder what the print media, newspapers in particular, will be like over the next 20 years. Unfortunately, even niche publications that I dislike (eg, Mother Jones) can somehow manage to hang on year after year, decade after decade. Then again, that’s also true of the always-thin National Review.

    Such esoteric segments of the economy may attract a relatively small (or even tiny) readership and an equally small base of sponsors, but they nonetheless somehow always keep their doors open. But an originally truly large and robust entity like the LA Times going through a long, slow decline (and eventual death?) will be a more interesting process to observe. Meanwhile, even the finalization of the paper’s current bankruptcy — ongoing for a few years — has yet to occur in court proceedings.

    Post-bankruptcy, I guess the example of the San Francisco Chronicle, which now seems to be living on fumes, may be an window into the future of its counterpart hundreds of miles to the south.

    Mark (411533)

  97. No, it’s gotten progressively worse, overshooting
    the rebalancing from the Kyle Palmer era, Mark, it’s audience ‘continues to get more and more selective’ yet it persists,

    narciso (87e966)

  98. Mark, I found it interesting that you mentioned in your comment SF Chronicle, which is running on fumes.

    I’m positive that the Chron reporters that would show up at the same Christmas parties I’m invited to are exceptions and not the rule.

    From what I’ve gathered from those who’ve attended the editorial meetings to discuss what does and does not qualify as news is that the industry is actively killing itself off.

    What goes above the fold is what you’re supposed to like.

    They learned what you’re supposed to like in journalism school. Which, if you conducted a survey, you’d learn that in journalism school every single student wants to transform the world.

    They also learn in journalism school to parrot the word “objective.” Like they don’t have opinions that they think you’re supposed to buy into.

    Steve (1f4b7c)

  99. Every time I hear that Obama’s starting off on his “The rich must pay their fair share” rhetoric, I’m reminded of a Chip Bok cartoon that sums it up:

    Obama on the podium speaking to a crowd- “I won’t allow the half of Americans who pay no taxes to bear the burden of the other half who aren’t paying their fair share.”

    Link to the cartoon:
    http://www.creators.com/editorialcartoons/chip-bok/19315.html

    A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf)

  100. That photo of the president with his mouth open makes this a particularly excellent front page for dog training.

    Icy (e70c45)

  101. Was #66 a joke?
    Comment by JD — 1/25/2012 @ 12:54 pm

    — It must be.

    Icy (e70c45)

  102. 48.

    As for the ‘double tax’ on corporations, if we argue that corporations are entities in their own right, there is no double tax, as each ‘entity’ pays tax on the income they make.

    It’s true they are legal entities in their own right. That’s why for example if a corporation is sued, you can’t sue the stockholders also. That has nothing to do with the economic argument. A tax on a corporation is substantively a tax on the owners of it.

    That’s how the CBO figures it.

    CBO assumes that corporate income taxes are borne by owners of capital in proportion to their income from interest, dividends, capital gains, and rents.

    Buffet owns the controlling interest in Berkshire Hathaway. I’m sure Buffet gets a substantial proportion of his income from those sources, which means he pays the corporate tax rate on that income whether he knows it or not. But then, whatever his faults I’m sure he’s enough of a business operator to know it, so it’s apparent he doesn’t want to reveal it.

    Steve (1f4b7c)

  103. There you go again:

    Today (Sat.) LA Times news (not editorial) calls AZ Gov. Jan Brewer the “voice of Republican anger” on immigration issues.

    Those Republicans are an awful angry mob, eh?

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  104. By the way, did you all see Elizabeth Warren claim that she isn’t rich? Fisking ensued. On the Huffington Post.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/elizabeth-warren-wealth-income_n_1237607.html

    So by “soak the rich” they mean, of course, rich people other than themselves.

    Simon Jester (31190a)

  105. Just another reason not to blog about what’s in the LAT: I figured it was going to be a hatefest when they reported that Rick Santorum’s daughter is hospitalized.

    Sure enough. I don’t think that makes me much of a seer. It’s possible to know how low people who’d make up the excrement they made up about the son they lost will sink. You just know they’ll sink low.

    The article itself wasn’t cruel, but you should read the comments. The LAT my be a rag, but maybe that’s because they sure know their readership. Based upon how many people still subscribe, they probably know their readership on sight and by first name.

    Steve (3a70e0)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1112 secs.