Tags: 
Categories: 
The center piece of Obama’s campaign and the current negotiations to avoid the “fiscal cliff” has been the President’s declaration of war against those making more than $250,000 per year. President Obama has consistently demanded that those “super rich” making more than $250,000 were not pulling their own weight and new taxes are needed to “make things fair.” News has emerged in the past few days that one of those not pulling his weight for the country is Caroll Spinney, the puppeteer that plays Big Bird on Sesame Street who has been pulling in between $315,000 and $350,000 for the past half-dozen years. (Big Bird)
When Governor Romney made a passing mention that one of the areas where the national budget could be tightened was PBS, the Obama campaign immediately pounced on this statement and created an incredibly stupid series of ads about Romney “killing” Big Bird. Ironically, most of the national media ignored the beginning of the Benghazi scandal but EVERY media outlet covered the “murder” of Big Bird. During the campaign Obama spokesman Joe Psaki attacked Romney’s statements against Big Bird as virtually un-American.
“When Mitt Romney was given the opportunity to lay out his plans for bringing down the deficit, he gave the same answer he has given dozens of times on the campaign trail, which was to cut funding for Big Bird,” said Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki.”If that doesn’t point out the lack of seriousness with his deficit reduction plan, I am not sure what does. The ad is an opportunity to highlight that.” (Psaki)
Now it turns out that Obama has Big Bird right in the cross-hairs of the super rich that have been causing all of America’s problems. If President Obama has his way, he will be imposing new taxes on this Icon that has avoided “pulling his weight” all of these years.
HotAir
I see no irony here. That PBS employee’s taxes increasing because of Bush-era tax cuts being eliminated has no inverse relationship to gov’t cutting support of PBS (except that Romney might have caused the employee’s job to disappear.) Your articulate and thoughtful posts are interesting to read, but they only strengthen my opposing views because you frequently use circular reasoning that is thin enough for even a novice to break through.
The author is under the impression that conflation is a valid method of creating a topic for debate. He has increasingly lowered himself to parroting the far right win memes, conspiracy theories and talking points memos.
Luckily, there are people out here that are “looking out for you” and helping “the spin stop here”.
Snoopy, you keep accusing me of “parroting” and “copying” folks when all of the content here is original – you may not like it, but unless I source something these are my thoughts. If there are other sites running parallel material I would find that interesting because I have not seen them and don’t go looking for them. If you makes you feel better to make broad and vague attacks, then maybe I am at least providing some therapeutic value.
You and Joe have both criticized me for not engaging your comments with detail and that may be a fair criticism since I spent the better part of a week staving off hackers and spammers as the site grew a little more quickly than I had anticipated. I hope that I have ended that battle so that I can focus much more attention on continuing the dialogue here in the comment section.
“President’s declaration of war against those making more than $250,000 per year”
Ber-gawk! (“war on” = talking point)
“those “super rich” making more than $250,000″
Ber-gawk! (right-wing meme & talking point)
“News has emerged in the past few days”
Ber-gawk! (original thoughts? thanks for the link to your “original thoughts” on IBTimes.com )
“Governor Romney made a passing mention”
Ber-gawk! (hardly a “passing mention” unless you think Presidential debates trivial and only deserving of penny talk when the country is clamoring for trillion talk. Guess bird feathers is all Romney could fill his “bucket” with. Yes, the passing mention was truly mock-worthy and the ads did a good job of doing so. Have another sour grape.)
“most of the national media ignored the beginning of the Benghazi”
Ber-gawk! (♪Do-re-MEME♪. It was covered profusely – only right-wing assigned “scandal” to a horrific and unfortunate event. We’re now seeing how the right-wing narrative is now sinking to the bottom of the septic tank.)
“super rich that have been causing all of America’s problems”
Ber-gawk! (passive-aggressive right wing meme)
GW want a cracker? Time to depart Conflation Station.
JHN, I appreciate both the compliment and the criticism. Don’t think there is any circular logic here at all. Romney advocated cutting public funding for a private corporation needing no public support to survive and then picked the icon of Big Bird to make a villain of Romney. Now that Obama’s tax plan targets Big Bird, nary a word from the media. I call that hypocrisy.
Obama’s tax plan does not target Big Bird. A tax increase would affect the person who plays Big Bird.
“Nary a word from the media” means it’s not news-worthy and real journalists aren’t as ridiculous as you. I’m sure “the media” doesn’t care what YOU want them to cover. I’m sure if you email O’Reilly or Hannity, they’ll find a way to create a “scandal” out of a trivial matter. Maybe Couter can work a “retard” reference in somewhere. Tweet her.
Snoopy, Romney’s proposed federal funding cut to PBS would not have impacted Sesame Street and its multi-million dollar enterprise at all and yet the Obama campaign outright campaigned and ran ads that Romney was “killing Big Bird.” In this case the actor playing Big Birds IS directly impacted and yet you pretend that his some huge difference. By the way, the “killing Big Bird” narrative ran OVER the news out of Benghazi. THAT is pretty ridiculous.
I think this waiting poicly actually benefits most those who want to have a civil ceremony for the benefit of friends and family members who could not attend a temple ceremony by giving legitimacy and authenticity to the civil wedding. Those unable to attend a temple sealing don’t have to wonder whether they were at the real wedding or whether the real wedding was the one the next day in the temple.I am the only member of the church in my family. I am still unmarried, and of course I struggle with how to include my family in my wedding, but for me having a civil wedding immediately preceding my temple sealing would not be the answer. My family would know, or at least I hope they would know, that for me what’s important is being sealed for eternity which only happens in the temple. Having to wait a year though would force me to take my civil wedding seriously. I couldn’t reasonably get married civilly then postpone marital life for a year (a day or a few days possibly, but not a year). And I doubt anyone could, nor could I see a justification for doing so.So the waiting poicly really protects civil marriage from being just a formality, just a necessary precursor to a temple sealing. It also protects the couple from staging a wedding for the benefit of family and friends that somehow lacks sincerity or authenticity. When the civil and religious weddings occur simultaneously there is no specific reason to question the legitimacy of either or to attach greater weight to one over the other. This seems preferable. And where they cannot occur simultaneously, having them as close together as possible so they can be considered one event seems the next best option, but only when this separation of the two is not by choice but by necessity.Separating the two by choice automatically gives cause to question the legitimacy, necessity or sincerity of one. I am not saying they can’t both be legitimate weddings but it becomes questionable.The major assumption I make is that civil marriage is valuable and deserves to be protected. This assumption could certainly be argued.However, I also make it obvious that I value a temple marriage above a civil marriage. Somehow for me a civil marriage would be less than real. I believe this is not the ideal attitude.For me though, the responsibilities accepted in a civil marriage are merely a subset of the responsibilities of the eternal covenant of marriage made in a temple. In honoring and valuing my temple marriage I also honor and value my civil marriage. Nevertheless, I think civil marriage is important. And I think it is important to note that the law of chastity requires civil marriage, not temple marriage, to make sexual relations permissible. I will also note that having simultaneous civil and religious weddings does not guarantee that the couple will value each equally. In some cases couples may view their temple ceremony as exclusively religious and completely devalue the civil element. Others may have a temple sealing for social or cultural reasons and not religious ones, intending only to live in a civil marriage after the sealing.The waiting poicly would affect these two types of couples (I know these two are certainly not the only types)differently if for some reason they felt the need to have both a civil and temple ceremony. Those inclined to devalue their civil wedding and view their temple sealing as their real wedding could not have a civil wedding with sincerity and honesty. What they really want is to have their family at their temple sealing and having a civil wedding does not fulfill that desire, nor will it likely fulfill the desires of the family to participate if they question the sincerity or authenticity of the civil wedding.At least the waiting poicly increases the likelihood that the family’s desire to participate in the wedding will be fulfilled by giving legitimacy to the civil wedding. So in some cases waiting a year may be the necessary sacrifice on the part of the couple to fulfill the desire of their loved ones to participate in their wedding.Those who have a temple sealing for social or cultural reasons but who feel equal social pressure to have a civil wedding would of course be hurt by the poicly. The temple sealing a year after a civil wedding is unlikely to achieve the desired social or cultural effect. But a temple ceremony is religious and those married in the temple enter into covenants. If they have no desire or intent to keep these covenants they are better off not making them regardless of the social discomfort not marrying in the temple may cause.Here having a civil ceremony and no temple ceremony is actually the best option, although I fear some in this situation would yield to the pressure of having a temple sealing. But for those who feel they must have a civil ceremony the waiting period at least decreases the likelihood of them having a temple sealing that would be damaging to them.All in all, I only really see good effects of the waiting poicly.
President Obama’s proposal is to extend the Bush tax cuts on the first $250,000 of taxable income for everybody, rich and poor alike. Big Bird, and our whole country, did very well during the Clinton presidency. Restoring Big Bird’s top rate for income in excess of $250,000 should not cost him enough to ruffle his feathers. If he makes $350,000, his taxes will go up from about $100,000 to about $105,000. That amounts to abour 1.4%
GW, Romney’s proposal to cut PBS funding (which I wholeheartedly agree with, BTW) would not have impacted budget deficits either. It was this meaningless citation of minutiae when the country was clamoring (nay, BEGGING) for him to provide detail, over and over and over, of what meaningful cuts he was proposing, while on a national stage, that makes the comment so mock-worthy – which is precisely what the Obama campaign did – mocked him and his refusal to give the people his “plan”.
Perhaps you should revisit just what Benghazi narrative WAS run on “the news”. The conservative media narrative was one of conspiracy, which has been falling apart daily as the facts come out, while the “liberal media” reported only known facts rather than positing “suggestive” scenarios based on posing what-if’s which the weak minded “heard” as being actual events. It’s called “framing the debate” by simply making suggestions to plant the seeds of doubt in the absence of facts. Now THAT’S what’s pretty ridiculous…tabloid and sensational “journalism” from the right.
I’ll reiterate…mocking Romney’s “Big Bird” reference was a stroke of genius by the Obama campaign. Romney stuck his Gucci’s in his mouth, not Obama. You don’t seem to have a problem using “Big Bird” to “smear” Obama. Ironic…or hypocrisy?
Snoopy, evidently irony and hypocrisy are completely lost on you. First, it is hypocritical for Obama to attack a mythical reduction of funding that would have “killed” Big Bird, and then to take action that actually has a direct negative impact on Big Bird. As to Benghazi, what news are YOU watching in which ANYONE in the Administration has nonestly explained anything about the attack and the death of the ambassador?
There is no hypocrisy when ads mocking Romney’s pathetic citation of “Big Bird” as an example of serious cuts to spending is all the people received from the national debate stage by Romney. You’re conflating ads mocking Romney’s “cuts” with Obama’s tax policy. Your non sequitur is noted. Romney should have been 47% more serious during the debates and on the campaign trail and he might have reached 50.1%.
You can disagree with the President’s proposed policy all you want. (Not “giving you permission” – as a conservative will try to claim if a liberal says “you can” – but acknowledging your right to disagree.) I hardly think Romney’s example of “Big Bird” cuts (he could have cited any of the PBS programs or just PBS) as “mythical” when used as his prime example of cuts. Cry “foul” (pun intended) all you want but the fact remains “Big Bird” was a gift to the Obama campaign as was “binders” and the 1917 Navy.
And of course it destroys your narrative of “Democrats [only] “choose’ the news that confirms their biases as I read and watch a variety of news which is how I have concluded that the conservative “news” stream is “reporting” by framing a false narrative of conspiracy and “cover-up” by posing precisely framed “questions” disguised as revelations. While the “liberal media” awaits the outcome of the numerous hearings and only reports what is known as it is known, the conservative media is framing Benghazi as a conspiracy and cover-up, again, proving its hypotheses to be wrong with each passing day. We all know that whatever the administration reveals will never be viewed as “honest” unless it conforms to or acknowledges the predetermined conclusion by conservatives that there is a conspiracy and cover-up. Sensationalism sells…”honesty” and accuracy not so much. It leaves me wondering where the conservative media is getting all of its “facts” when forming their chosen conclusions if there’s no “honest” information to “report” on. Conservative media starts with “conspiracy and cover-up” and then reverse engineers (frames the debate) with selective “information” of what they “report” to “prove” the negative.
P.S. Hope your holiday was filled with family and friends being thankful.
Snoopy, funny thing is that when Bush was in power there was no “awaiting the outcome” of anything – it was shoot first and investigate later. Very ironic how these “pensive pauses” just happen to come from the left media at times that particularly suit Obama. I am sure that is just a coincidence.
“there isn’t enough dialogue and folks continue to beat the same old drum regardless of the facts, will change the subject to meet their needs and will simply be unwilling to listen to any contrary argument.”
B…b…but Bush!
Correlation ≠ causation.
So just to be clear, you are saying that the media treated Obama and Bush exactly the same and that any differences were solely because of the differences in behavior of the two? I just want to make sure I have that little gem just right.
Your perspective dictates your perception and your perception dictates your reality.
Iran took their cold war with Saudi Arabia to the streets of ourRead More Occupy Sesame Street BREAKING: Christie to Endorse Romney Tuesday AfternoonCLICK HERE to watch snriametg video of the endorsementa0pressera0up in chilly New Hampshire. Your
Romney is a has-been and never-will-be. Two miserable failed bids for the White House and a defeat in a bid as Senator. His political career is over…thank Gaia we’ll never have to hear from him again. The GOP would never allow it. He’s where he belongs…a money changer in the temple.
Huckabee would impose so much of his chosen religion on politics that our freedoms would be so restricted we’d be partying like it’s 1699. Everyone would be wearing Scarlet Letters from A to Z depending upon which minor infraction one has committed, including impure thoughts.
The GOP will either have to moderate their extremist views and progress with the rest of the citizenry or continue to experience its decline into irrelevance.