Overloaded

Yeah... Turn the tv off for a while
And convince your friends to do the same

It makes me not want to watch the actual debates, and that's a shame.

Agreed, I had the news on yesterday morning and during the what seemed to be 15 minute commercial break it was just bad mouthing and bs! I just turned the tv off. So annoying!

I feel for you guys. We haven't had a single political ad down here, but that is to be expected in a state already called for Romney about 50 years ago. I'm mixed about knowing my vote really doesn't matter here, regardless of who I vote for. However in a state like Ohio it actually does because it is a typical toss up state. The give and take between an electorally worthless state and one that is the crown jewel.

I hear you!

I try to ignore the political ads as much as possible. If there's a TV show I want to watch, I DVR it and fast forward through the commercials.

We've also been innundated with junk mail, which I promptly toss in the trash without even reading.

What concerns me is my kids - I've heard them make comments about things in the ads. I explain to them that you can't believe what you hear in political ads, because things are exaggerated and taken out of context. It's not a reliable source of factual information.

I also explain that neither candidate is as bad as the opponents ads make them look, and neither candidate is as good as their own ads make them look.

But I still worry about my kids being exposed to that garbage - I don't remember the negative attack ads being all that bad when I was a kid. How does it affect a generation of children who grow up only knowing negative campaigning?

You know what would make the debates an absolute must watch? Figure a way to hook the candidates up to a lie detector that would hit them with a nice jolt of electricity every time they lied.
Hell, I'd pay to watch that.

Every election, we think the negative campaigning is worse than ever. Here's a historical peek:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/10/29/some-historical-perspective-on-negative-campaigning/

Nobody ever said that Grover Cleveland's mom was a prostitute or that Abraham Lincoln was a threat to your uterus.

There has GOT to be a difference between the political era in which yellow journalism was the only medium, and now... when we have TV, internet, social media, radio, and of course, yellow journalism. (Shout out to the Blade.)

I think perhaps the difference in recent elections is how fast information travels now, and also how many sources of information there are now.

There may have been negativity in past elections, but the average person wasn't constantly bombarded with the messages like we are now.

^^

"Now" meaning the elections since the internet and 24 hour news commentary becoming more common. (Probably since the 2000 election or so.)

So true, mom2. We're blitzed with an endless stream of EVERYTHING: Election crap, natural disasters, tragedies of all sorts. It really does make it seem as though everything is a lot worse than ever before, when in reality we're just more aware of everything, IMO.

Remember when they sent out videos people's houses calling Bush's mother a fat slut?

It's not that it's negative and it's not that all the crap that get's made up, it's the fact that so many people believe it and it's pushed by "main stream" media.

Have the changes in campaign financing impacted the amount of media being purchased?

It seems like they are buying more than ever, and certainly more than Grover Cleveland.

Hey, it's been going on for 200+ years :) :) :)

YouTube: 1800 Anti-Thomas Jefferson Negative TV Ad

YouTube: 1800 Election Attack Ad

HA!

I have to admit that the "Obama's dad was a commie poet and his mom was a porn star" DVD is a new low for political attack ads.

Agreed with the earlier posters that the election cannot end soon enough. I am receiving 3-4 robo-calls a day on the landline, being bombarded with idiotic ads on cable/radio/email/snail mail, my Facebook feed is filled with zealous partisans, and I even heard a Romney ad when I was on hold with the vet the other day (the radio was the on-hold audio).

While all of it annoys me, the propaganda that bothers me the most is the propaganda that villfies success as an inherently unfair "phenomenon."

...the propaganda that bothers me the most is the propaganda that villfies success as an inherently unfair "phenomenon."

To: justread
From: oldhometown
Re: Your success

You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

You didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen.

See my previous statement - " it's the fact that so many people believe it "

Thanks for proving my point.

it's the fact that so many people believe it...

There you go. Nailed it, SensorG.

I'm getting inundated by robocalls, each and every one of which tells me that the other party is a lying scumbag trying to drive me into the poor house. That's the one I already live in.

I'm really sick of it. Everyone running for office except Joe the Plumber will say and do anything to get elected.

"Thanks for proving my point."

No problem. I'll try to forget that someone (who is that...it's on the tiop of my tongue...) actually said those words. in the same context as justread's comment about villifying success as some sort of unfair "phenomenon".

The clip is from C-SPAN...an obvious "propaganda" outfit. And I fully understand what the man is saying--a wonderful system that allows for enrichment exists in America--and whom he is putting down--people who, with their own talent and hard work, have "unfairly" gained in this system while other people who didn't are still around. And that's "unfair"

And sorry, IMO that's a screwed-up perspective.

I guess I don’t see it as putting down business as it’s pointing out that we live in a society and it’s that society that helps make what we all do possible. Driven home by the fact that nearly every “upset” business man that Romney put onto stag next to him made their money through government contracts.

I guess he should have stuck with saying Romney’s wife has a fat ass and his mom was a dominatrix slut…no one seems to have a problem with that.

Joe Biden just nailed it by saying that the middle class has been buried the last four years.I thought Biden was trying to get Obama re-elected.Maybe Obama should muzzle Biden.

I work with successful people. Some are wealthy. Once in a while, I work with someone on the Forbes list. I have learned a lot about those terrible wealthy people.

What did I learn?

-That wealth rarely make it past the third generation. The first generation makes it, the second generation builds it and the third spends it. There isn't all that much "old" money. (The guy from 5 hour energy is on the new Forbes list, but there ain't no Vanderbilts.)

-That wealthy people give far more to charity than anyone else, and that philanthropy is better at fixing societal problems than taxes.
Most wealthy people feel an obligation, and will act on that obligation, but don't want to be forced.

-That wealthy people create more jobs than anybody else. (Although the government is catching up.)

-That wealthy people pay the taxes that they are required to by law.

-That wealthy people have the willingness, capacity and ability to flee an unfair tax system.

-That a flat tax is the only fair tax.

-That most of them achieved their success due to their own hard work, productivity and/or imagination.

-That the fastest way to bring about the collapse of this country is to dis-incentivize success and subsidize complacency.

-That they were successful not due to the government, but in spite of it.

-That jealousy is a strong motivator for hatred.

-That if you add up every penny and every asset of the top 400 folks on Forbes list, their total combined net worth would be less than our government increased the debt THIS YEAR ALONE.

You think that you are scared? The wealthy are terrified enough to consider Chile, Costa Rica, or even Ireland with it's 11% tax rate.

The "war" on the "one percenters" is the single most destructive effort in the history of this country.

The ads that pander to the "middle class" suggesting that the "rich" will get a $250,000 tax cut and that the "poor" will get a $2,000 tax increase is among the most irresponsible things that I have ever witness.

Even more irresponsible than stories of prostitute moms, dogs left on cars, kenyan births, failure to pay taxes, overpayment of taxes, out-of-context 47%, fat asses or Jeremiah Wright.

So much wrong justread...where to start.

The ads that pander to the "middle class" suggesting that the "rich" will get a $250,000 tax cut and that the "poor" will get a $2,000 tax increase is among the most irresponsible things that I have ever witness.

How is this wrong? Romney's tax plan which he can't give any details on, other than he'll give everyone a 20% tax cut (If 47% don't pay taxes, 20% less is how much?) and pay for the cut by ending deductions and closing loopholes.

The rich don’t take enough deductions or have enough loop wholes to pay for the 20% tax cut. The only way to pay for it, is get rid of deductions like the earned income tax credit and child deductions. This will raise the average middle class tax burden by $2,000.

If isn’t right, please detail what deductions and loopholes Romney plans on closing to pay for his 20% tax cut.

The last 30 years in the United States have been better for the rich than any other time or place in human history. High-end incomes are up spectacularly. Tax rates are down. Welfare reform has been the law of the land for 15 years. Private sector unions are all but extinct. The wages that business owners pay to their employees have been virtually flat for more than a decade. For the rich, it's been a golden age. And yet, America's wealthy class nonetheless seems to be in an absolute fury. The looters want their money, the government is embracing socialism, the president who rescued the banking industry hates them, and their tax dollars are all going to support a bunch of freeloaders and shirkers.

The rich have the their low taxes and have been most of the weath generated in the last few decades. When will they start created jobs?

It isn't right because the reality is that his plan will impact high earners harder. When his plan will hit high earners harder, and the party spin is that it will create a $250,000 tax break for "the rich," we call that wrong.

The Tax Policy Center has done some calculations. You can peruse them here. Pay particular attention to base broadening and the 17% solution.
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

Don't misunderstand my point to be that Mr. Romney's plan is RIGHT.
Understand my point to be that the attack ads which make the incorrect assertion that the "rich" will get a $250,000 tax break is WRONG.
Only a flat tax is right.

Look outside Toledo and you'll see.

The old man with tens of thousands of employees who started with six tires and a pump, or the young man with thousands of employees who started with a laptop.

They are out there. You just won't run into them at the Quality.

You don't read Forbes, do you?

It's not campaign financing.

It's that Political Action Committees (aka secret fronts for the rich people and corporations to spend as much as they want without disclosing their names) can buy up all the air time and say whatever the hell they want to with their favorite candidate being able to say "I don't endorse their message". Plausible deniability.

Nearly every day the past 2 weeks I have been getting shit in my mailbox from "Americans for Tax Reform" aka "Grover Norquist's Republican Brown-Nosing and Boot-Licking Shop". The outfit that has that tax pledge that all the Teabagger Republicans signed that essentially forbids them from raising any sort of tax for any reason EVER. That crap has outnumbered any Dem-leaning stuff at a ratio of five to one (and I am NOT exaggerating).

Again, simple solution is to outlaw PACs and corporate money and just make it unlimited money to individual campaigns or a political party. That way we also keep people like Mags and Tom Noe from having to get busted for trying to work around the individual donation limit....

Beg to differ about Joe the Plumber. I'm pretty sure there's some damning video of him out there too. Oh wait.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/how-joe-the-plumber-became-joe-bible-believing-christian

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/joe-plumber-gun-control-caused-holocaust

Yeah, Joe the Plumber is totally not pandering to ANYONE AT ALL.

Can you see any pyramids from where you're standing, Maddie?

I don't like PACs.

I never registered with a party, and I have gotten almost nothing. A different member who once checked Republican is getting bombed with mail. I think that more has been Rep leaning. That kind of surprised me.

I'm not a teabagger, but I find the term to be offensive due to it's other meaning. I think that it reduces the credibility of the user.
I'll vote to outlaw PACs if it is enforcable.

^^^That was member of the family, btw.^^^

My string of posts was essentially to this point:

Class warfare is more dangerous than it appears on face. It is used by people who try to manipulate the game, and is a fire once ignited, has historically been extingiushed with blood. My family would not have come here if this had not occured in Germany and then Russia. To see it begin here is alarming.

Every time that they use the dynamic of "haves" vs "have nots" to engender resentment that can be manipulated I shudder. I see the resentment taking hold. I see the early ripples of mutual distrust and fear resulting from the many media channels carrying the seeds of contempt that the socialists would like to reap when grown. The flames are being stoked.

Wealthy give far more to charity? They have far more to give to charity, poor people don't have jack shit to contribute, duh. Now if you're Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, you literally can't spend it fast enough to make a dent. But there's rich assholes with a serious self interest in what they're donating to, as well. One of the Kochs if I recall correctly essentially funded a cancer research center... for his particular type of cancer, IIRC. Hmmmmmm. Not entirely selfless there, really not when you stick your name on the building. Shit, if I came into millions of bucks, I wouldn't really want some damn AnonymousCoward Center for Whatever, I'd just find some damn quiet church or non-profit somewhere that isn't full of dicks and shove an envelope full of cash and a note through the mail slot. No need for the AnonymousCoward Endowment for The Arts/Sciences/whatever.

Government catching up on job creation? You bothered to look at GOVERNMENT JOB NUMBERS under Obama? Go look and then come back here and say "d'oh, my bad".

Wealthy people have the willingness, capacity, and ability to flee an unfair tax system? Yeah, because the rest of us don't have Swiss and Cayman Island accounts like Mitt Romney, nor financial managers, accountants, and tax lawyers on retainer and speed dial to set this up for us. You can damn well bet that willingness is not the problem of the non-rich, if you could get this down at H&R Block I bet the line would make Black Friday look like the express lanes at Kroger at 6am.

Flat tax is the only fair tax? 15% of minimum wage vs 15% of $250k/year. Which person is gonna be buying low-quality shit from Walmart that breaks after a couple years? Sam Vimes's "Boots" theory comes to mind.

Jealousy? I think that's where the peons that actually do the work that makes the company money watch as the executives pay themselves million dollar bonuses while telling the peons that there will be no more 401k matching and that there's a hiring freeze so you better be prepared to do the work of 2 people for the foreseeable future. And don't forget, the bonuses are for making all the cuts that allow the company to meet the "earnings target" that Wall Street set. That right there is the damn shallow thinking that is a major problem, it's all about next quarter's figures and not where the company will be years down the road. If you don't meet that quarter's target, the stock takes a dive and all the stock options of the execs are worthless.

Yeah, Ireland's low low tax rates really paid off for them when the recession hit. I seem to recall the Irish economy and government really took it in the ass over there when the Great Recession hit. Ditto a lot of other nations that had done the LOW LOW TAXES! spiel to get businesses to locate there. And now there's civil unrest because unemployment is high, food prices are high, the banks are unstable or being bailed out, etc. So do keep that in mind, dude. And if they're so pants-pissingly terrified to leave, fine, how about we revoke their citizenship while we're at it. Next time civil unrest comes to your new country, the USA also won't be saving your bacon. (Wasn't this the attitude all those people who threatened to move to Canada after Bush was elected received from the "true American patriots"?)

And the "rich will get a tax cut and poor will get a tax hike ads"? Yeah, we've only seen Ryan's budget, Romney has nothing, though he already wanted to cut taxes AND remove deductions. Sounds good until you run some numbers and see which groups that benefits. Hint: How much do you have to make for, say, a 5% tax cut to save you enough money to make up for losing say a $2000 deduction? Anyone below that magic number just got screwed big time.

I got nothing against honest wealth. I got a big problem if it ain't "trickling down" (HAH!) on all the other people that helped along the way, a big problem if you are so wrapped up with it that you aren't happy with what you've got and you have to make more, or especially if you've decided to maliciously or psychopathically/sociopathically screw lots of people over so you get yours. And for those who don't get it, the difference between malice and psychopathy/sociopathy is that malice is where the person knows what they're doing isn't right and is going to hurt people and actually has the concept of the pain/discomfort they're causing, and psychopaths/sociopaths MIGHT in some cases know it's not right on some intellectual level, but they literally cannot fathom why someone else might be hurt or otherwise see it from any other point of view. American capitalism as it exists currently, in my book, has a very strong Darwinian/survival of the fittest component in it that strongly promotes the biggest psychopathic/sociopathic people to the top, because these people can make all the cuts that put people on the streets without blinking and all those other hard decisions. That's nice if you're the investors in that company but all the human factor is gone. Hell, if only Artificial Intelligence got better we could just replace the execs with robots and save the company millions of dollars, if you want to take this to its logical conclusion. This is also why you see a lot of "brain drain" from the big tech companies once they get successful. It stopped being a fun time where your ideas got listened to and the management worked with you and you got rewarded appropriately for your contribution when it became having to deal with all sorts of reports and having no input let alone feedback on anything that affects you and a focus on the next quarter's figures. The really smart people don't give much of a hoot about promotion and how much they get paid, so the managers who do get in power and eventually take over and life becomes miserable for everyone so they jump ship.

I'm a big believer in that some numbers aren't easily calculated on a spreadsheet, that if someone comes up with an idea that saves lots of money, they should get the credit and a reward for it, and a lot of other things that seem to be anathema to the Harvard MBA-type crowd.

I refuse to vote in a primary in Ohio, even if both parties were running Gandhi vs That German Guy With The Funny Mustache and Mother Theresa vs. Pol Pot, because I refuse to be forcibly affiliated with a political party. And I'm just getting slammed with crap at a rate of 3-1 or better for Republicans. Goddamn ridiculous. I've already stated my fixes for the system on here multiple times. Abolish the money and make it be direct to a candidate or a party, abolish all barriers and inequalities between the Two Parties and any other political parties and independent candidates, and abolish the primary system and make everything some form of Instant Runoff Voting. PLEASE GOD LET US HAVE A CHOICE OTHER THAN IDIOTS AND ASSHOLES FROM THE DEMS AND GOP.

Ding ding ding we have a winner!

If they amount of the deduction Romney proposes to take away is greater than the amount you will save by the tax cut, you just took a big one in the ass.

I keep saying that capital gains should be taxed on the same scale as regular income. Another person claims that is bad because it's "double taxation". Where's the double taxation? Let's look at this nice cartoon:

Fine, then let's just exclude dividends from being taxed. I'm all for that, I don't want to be taxed on that $10 a year I get from having a few shares of stock. I don't care if Mitt Romney owns 50k shares of something and pays no tax on the dividends. I do care that if he pumps up the stock price and dumps his shares he'll be paying capital gains rate. Purchase of the shares wasn't taxed (unless it's sales tax, and hell, the same crap of sales tax applies if I invest in baseball cards, classic cars, or real estate), so there's no double taxation.

Aww, that's nice they created those jobs.

It's not nice when they decide they aren't personally profiting enough and fire all of them and move the jobs to China. And if not them personally, all the investor friends who own the company. Or Wall Street, because meeting the earnings target is the Most Important Thing Ever.

It might be different if actual normal everyday people owned stock in companies. Oh wait, they do! Except the pension plans have mostly gone away and been replaced with 401ks whereby some guy gets paid hundreds of thousands to spend my money to buy and sell stocks with my money that I have zero control over. This is also why they've been out to kill unions: There's a lot of Public Employee Retirement funds that actually have sway and voting power in companies based on their stock holdings, heaven forbid the common man have proxy power and be able to vote in directors who won't allow the execs to jack up their own pay, or even vote in reasonable executive compensation. Bust the unions, bust the pension plans that have this power, Wall Street knows what's good for America!

I rarely have mine on, I don't pay for the other crap that is called Cable TV either. My blood pressure actually spikes 10 points in the presence of any TV that's on and showing "news", "reality shows", most advertising, and any channel whose name and programming content currently or previously didn't match (I really hate cognitive dissonance).

The last time I dared watch football, the neighbors thought I had it on some kind of time delay, because I was yelling "BULLSHIT!" not when the refs blew a call, but every time they showed political ads.

But in my examples, that's not what happened. So your patronizing comment of "awwww" is ignorant and misplaced.

In one my examples, the guy who built the company with six tires and an air tank and now employs tens of thousands of employees also gives the top stores vacations on a private jets and gives every child of every employee a $5,000 scholarship. But this is just a small glimpse of his impact.

Also in this particular specific example, there is no union interference in the ownership's relationship with the employees.
There is movement inside the organization, and many people have made careers there.

He fought in Korea and goes to church every Sunday. His foundation supports the arts, education, health care, and religion.

The library at Eastern Michigan University bears his name.

You see, "the rich" are real people. It is not up to you to decide whether or not they have "honest" profits, just like it is not up to them to evaluate your business practices.

When you make broad sweeping generalizations about classes of people, you dehumanize them and you minimize their individualism and personal impact.

Can you see any pyramids from where you're standing, Maddie?

I could if you'd move out of the way. Why do you always have to wear that hat when you're standing in front of me?