Sorry State of "Today".

[Fred Weiss]

Yes tax rates for the highest earners used to be brutal. The result was tax shelters, lots of deductions not intended for most taxpayers, and a huge increase in income for certified public accountants.

 

[TimToad]

I don't know of any policies that are keeping people from achieving anything they set their mind to. Point is if you can't make money in America you have absolutely zero drive to better yourself. Fact.
My Great grandfather on dad's side was an orphan in Italy. Didn't stop him from coming to the 'States and making a better life.
My Grandfather on mom's side escaped Nazi Germany and came to America and did quite well for himself and family.
I learned from them that you are not entitled to anything. You earn what you work for and hard work is part of it.

If you have trouble understanding any of this keep reading the bold underlined part.

I have no trouble understanding anything, anyone here posts. Most make their biases and opinions based on perceptions quite clear.

I simply and respectfully disagree with your assessment and have reasons why that aren't based on anecdotal evidence, urban myths, legends, personal bias, etc..

It's not a matter of entitlement, it's a matter of the existence or lack thereof of a level playing field and the public policies that drive opportunity, access to better educational facilities, healthcare, lending, etc.

Entry into this country before the mid 1950's for your peeps as well as millions of other mostly white european immigrants was as simple and uncomplicated as any of us could possibly imagine. A couple of simple questions, a health check for lice or other obvious infirmities, loyalties to our enemies and you were in. The existing networking opportunities, preferences and white privilege they encountered all helped them assimilate and create more opportunities for themselves. Those are the facts and the history books as well as social studies research on our cultural construction all confirm it.

For every one of yours or anyone else's anecdotal experiences about a family member, there are many more of people who came here, worked their tails off just as hard and did not get ahead.

There is no possible way a person can look at how a country can go from a wealth gap between floor level workers and executives of 25 to 1 in the 50's to the current 450 to 1, have almost 3/4 of its workers be only a couple paychecks away from insolvency while others receive billions in corporate welfare, half the population earn under $30,000 per year, 1.5 MILLION people file for bankruptcy every year mostly due to medical bills, etc... and with a straight face say that public policy, the tax code, etc. don't influence those things and we are a pure meritocracy.

 

[TimToad]

If you apply critical thinking to my post, or even a simple rereading of it, perhaps you will get the gist of it better than you apparently did or chose to get. But let me try to provide some insight into my thinking.

If every night for many months the stories covered were heavily weighted to accidents and near accidents at American railroad crossings, one might develop the opinion that railroad crossings needed to be done away with. If every evening the stories were weighted towards shootings at shopping malls, some viewers would develop the opinion that shopping malls had developed into 21st century killing fields and stop going to them. In other words, it is ethically wrong to choose through any means including content selection to editorialize without separating it out and labeling it as editorial opinion. At least if they present themselves as responsible journalists.

I happen to agree that climate change is more important than any other issue I can think of. I still don't want anyone secretly tinkering with what I am told or not told to better suit their agenda while presenting themselves as responsible journalists providing unbiased news reportage.

Is that helpful or do I need to explain it again?

There is no need to try and patronize me, I can read and comprehend everything you wrote quite easily.

You're seeing more and more severe weather stories because, wait for it................ we are having more extreme weather related events and they are affecting more and more people around the planet and here in the U.S.

There is nothing sinister in that. I'm sure Savannah Guthrie, Al Roker, etc. would rather do fluffy, human interest stories on a kitten being rescued from falling down a well, but we live in a gaper's block society where the morbid, violent, tragic, etc. all pull the lead story.

The old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads" didn't just get invented two years ago. FFS, there is a show on cable where a dermatologist excises, removes and pops massive pimples, cysts, boils, etc. Ever see Hoarders?

I think you give the nightly news a bit too much credit for shaping public opinion. You also give the average person too little credit for being able to spot and sift through things.

 

[TimToad]

But the target was for the corporate entities like Chase, Boeing, etc who were capitalizing on the war efforts. It was also a turning point in which "CEOs" could disassociate themselves from all the profits by reclassifying incomes similar to today's tax system.

Can you explain how those tax rates persisted all the way into the 60's and 70's if they were designed to thwart war profiteering?

 

[Christian @ 2CT Media]

Can you explain how those tax rates persisted all the way into the 60's and 70's if they were designed to thwart war profiteering?

Easy, they didn't have to change the maximum applied tax rate once they gave individuals and corporations the method to restructure their income and how it is displayed to the government.

 

[Fred Weiss]

There is no need to try and patronize me, I can read and comprehend everything you wrote quite easily.

You're seeing more and more severe weather stories because, wait for it................ we are having more extreme weather related events and they are affecting more and more people around the planet and here in the U.S.

There is nothing sinister in that. I'm sure Savannah Guthrie, Al Roker, etc. would rather do fluffy, human interest stories on a kitten being rescued from falling down a well, but we live in a gaper's block society where the morbid, violent, tragic, etc. all pull the lead story.

The old adage, "If it bleeds, it leads" didn't just get invented two years ago. FFS, there is a show on cable where a dermatologist excises, removes and pops massive pimples, cysts, boils, etc. Ever see Hoarders?

I think you give the nightly news a bit too much credit for shaping public opinion. You also give the average person too little credit for being able to spot and sift through things.

I never referred to it as sinister. I only tried to point out that it was dishonest and beneath what used to be a standard of ethics among journalistic professionals. If I was patronizing, it may have been because I was patronized first.

Of course the weather gets reported and extreme weather should be evaluated for reporting along with other stories of the day. When it gets 15% to 25% of the total reporting of the day every day for several months without separating it out into separate special reporting, it becomes, according to my understanding of journalism standards, a whole other thing which could be called propaganda.

Again, I point out that I happen to believe climate change is the major issue of our times. The axe I am grinding has to do with professional standards and the breakdown of honest and trustworthy reporting of the news.

 

[equippaint]

I agree on the media being the biggest part of the problem. Certainly the very fact that virtually all are now governed by making a profit ... which was not always the case. Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley et al used to work for networks that supported broadcasting the news as a public service. The best of them now insert their agendas into the evening news.

For example, and I will say up front that I am a global climate change believer, we've noticed that the ABC Evening News has for several months now inserted an every night report on the worst of the U.S. weather. Not a night goes by that we don't get five to seven minutes of floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and forest fires. The agenda is quite obvious no matter where you stand on the issue of climate change. What is wrong, however, is that it is an adopted decision to call attention to an issue through story selection without coming out and saying so in an effort to sway opinion instead of just reporting the news.

There used to be journalistic rules. Among other things, a news organization used to be compelled to separate news from editorial opinion. These rules were intended to inspire credibility and trust. That has largely fallen by the wayside whether for better profits, secretly affecting opinion or other motivations and I see it as a major threat to the quality of life of most of us as well as the welfare of our democratic republic.

The media used to be comprised of journalists who understood their first amendment rights as well as their responsibilities. Somehow, we citizens need to find a way to bring them back to their former standards.

Not saying you're right or wrong but I don't see the weather reporting the same way. 2 children recently died in these southern storms, then the wildfires that had people dying in their cars trying to escape, of course there is more. That is news isn't it? For as long as I can remember, bad storms, floods and other natural disasters always dominated the news. Weather is a big deal for reporting, newspapers have stand alone sections devoted to it, every local news outlet has dedicated weather teams and of course websites just on weather. If someone wants to see bias or an agenda in something, they will and it seems to be becoming a problem. I think we are all getting too caught up in trying to find it and reading into things that are otherwise benign. Most things do not have any sort of agenda but it's all that we see when we allow politics to consume our lives.

 

[TimToad]

I never referred to it as sinister. I only tried to point out that it was dishonest and beneath what used to be a standard of ethics among journalistic professionals. If I was patronizing, it may have been because I was patronized first.

Of course the weather gets reported and extreme weather should be evaluated for reporting along with other stories of the day. When it gets 15% to 25% of the total reporting of the day every day for several months without separating it out into separate special reporting, it becomes, according to my understanding of journalism standards, a whole other thing which could be called propaganda.

Again, I point out that I happen to believe climate change is the major issue of our times. The axe I am grinding has to do with professional standards and the breakdown of honest and trustworthy reporting of the news.

I watched several national networks news this morning and the mega storm we're referring to was given about 1.5 minutes or less out of an hour long broadcast. There were no other weather or climate related stories.

I watch the same networks EVERY morning and they all briefly touch on severe events for a moment and then Al Roker or insert your favorite weathercaster give a minute or two of the national weather forecast. I just don't evidence of bias or agenda on a scale you seem to see. Climate change related documentaries are not news and fit more into another set of programming all together.

I wish we saw as much heavy agendaizing and propagandizing of gun safety, corporate welfare, military spending, pharmaceutical drug risks, food safety, etc. but that would upset the owners of all the networks and their key advertisers.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

Who still watches cable TV nowadays? Gezz ya'll are gettin old.

 

[equippaint]

Who still watches cable TV nowadays? Gezz ya'll are gettin old.

I still read the paper. I'm probably about the same age as you too but much better looking of course.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

I still read the paper. I'm probably about the same age as you too but much better looking of course.

That's not what your girlfriend said...

I read the paper too... but online

 

[Fred Weiss]

I watched several national networks news this morning and the mega storm we're referring to was given about 1.5 minutes or less out of an hour long broadcast. There were no other weather or climate related stories.

I watch the same networks EVERY morning and they all briefly touch on severe events for a moment and then Al Roker or insert your favorite weathercaster give a minute or two of the national weather forecast. I just don't evidence of bias or agenda on a scale you seem to see. Climate change related documentaries are not news and fit more into another set of programming all together.

I wish we saw as much heavy agendaizing and propagandizing of gun safety, corporate welfare, military spending, pharmaceutical drug risks, food safety, etc. but that would upset the owners of all the networks and their key advertisers.

I'm not a morning news watcher. The Mrs. and I watch the half hour evening news every night. That evening news has been The ABC Evening News for about the last year. The reporting I am talking about is the shift in the number of weather related reports over the last six months and the amount of time given them. It has been noticeable, abnormal and not limited to mega storms. I'll time it tonight and post about it later.

Be careful what you wish for. A free press, including broadcasters, is a key safeguard against abuse of power and other wrongdoing by our elected and appointed officials. It has been accepted practice since day one to put forth opinions by the press under the label of "editorial opinion" but never as factual news much less withheld news or over exposed news. Once a media entity adopts a separate agenda, in particular in secret through news content selection, it becomes just another special interest group and unworthy of the respect as well as the constitutional protection currently enjoyed.

 

[equippaint]

I'm not a morning news watcher. The Mrs. and I watch the half hour evening news every night. That evening news has been The ABC Evening News for about the last year. The reporting I am talking about is the shift in the number of weather related reports over the last six months and the amount of time given them. It has been noticeable, abnormal and not limited to mega storms. I'll time it tonight and post about it later.

Be careful what you wish for. A free press, including broadcasters, is a key safeguard against abuse of power and other wrongdoing by our elected and appointed officials. It has been accepted practice since day one to put forth opinions by the press under the label of "editorial opinion" but never as factual news much less withheld news or over exposed news. Once a media entity adopts a separate agenda, in particular in secret through news content selection, it becomes just another special interest group and unworthy of the respect as well as the constitutional protection currently enjoyed.

Remember, youre looking for bias and an agenda rather than what else it could be.
Things have quieted down in the past 6-12 months, ill throw some darts here at what isnt there to talk about anymore and needs to be replaced with something.
Mueller investigation is done and been going quiet for some time
North Korea is quiet
Stock market is level, stagnant however you want to put it
Housing market is level
No protests going on
Mid terms are over
Nothing substantial going on with the military
No domestic mass shootings
No big policy change headliners
No trump scandals like stormy

Notre dame will hit the news tonight and give them something to talk about.
To be honest, I noticed a change as well but I attributed it to the white house tightening their loose lips which dried out the reporters daily material. It happened about 1 yr into trumps term. The perrfect fill in? Traffic and weather, ole standby. Its always there

 

[Gino]

This has really become a fascinating thread.

 

[rossmosh]

WTF??? Did we really have a 94% tax rate in 1945? That can't be right.

People seem to forget about what made the country successful at times. While it wasn't 100% the case and there was still plenty of corruption and selfishness, there was a "put the country first" type of mentality. People generally wanted the country to succeed.

Now, while the general population wants that, those that hold positions of power and great wealth, it's far more opaque.

As for the current tax question: We have one of two options if you want to be serious about our current situation. The first is to increase taxes and offer more services. The taxes will need to focus on those that can truly afford to pay it (the top 1-5%). This simply boils down to their incredibly aggressive wealth growth relative to the other 95% of the population. The alternative is not to tax and for that same 1-5% to simply cough up more of their cash and distribute it to their employees and vendors. That's actually a Republican idea called "Trickle Down Economics" by the way. The problem is, we've never actually forced that to occur. We've continued to distribute wealth to the wealthy but never actually forced them to distribute that wealth, thus actually resulting in the trickle down.

 

[Texas_Signmaker]

Remember, youre looking for bias and an agenda rather than what else it could be.
Things have quieted down in the past 6-12 months, ill throw some darts here at what isnt there to talk about anymore and needs to be replaced with something.
Mueller investigation is done and been going quiet for some time
North Korea is quiet
Stock market is level, stagnant however you want to put it
Housing market is level
No protests going on
Mid terms are over
Nothing substantial going on with the military
No domestic mass shootings
No big policy change headliners
No trump scandals like stormy

Notre dame will hit the news tonight and give them something to talk about.
To be honest, I noticed a change as well but I attributed it to the white house tightening their loose lips which dried out the reporters daily material. It happened about 1 yr into trumps term. The perrfect fill in? Traffic and weather, ole standby. Its always there

Yea, all is quiet and they don't know what to do now...for a couple of days after the Muller report they hushed up but now they pulled an oldie back out of the bag...his tax returns.

 

[GAC05]

Yea, all is quiet and they don't know what to do now...for a couple of days after the Muller report they hushed up but now they pulled an oldie back out of the bag...his tax returns.

I'm sure they are going to find that he listed his taxable income in Rubles.

 

[TimToad]

I'm not a morning news watcher. The Mrs. and I watch the half hour evening news every night. That evening news has been The ABC Evening News for about the last year. The reporting I am talking about is the shift in the number of weather related reports over the last six months and the amount of time given them. It has been noticeable, abnormal and not limited to mega storms. I'll time it tonight and post about it later.

Be careful what you wish for. A free press, including broadcasters, is a key safeguard against abuse of power and other wrongdoing by our elected and appointed officials. It has been accepted practice since day one to put forth opinions by the press under the label of "editorial opinion" but never as factual news much less withheld news or over exposed news. Once a media entity
adopts a separate agenda, in particular in secret through news content selection, it becomes just another special interest group and unworthy of the respect as well as the constitutional protection currently enjoyed.

I just want to fully understand your position.

Are you saying that you've based your entire premise about your perception of a hidden agenda and purposeful propagandizing of the climate crisis on watching one network's half hour evening news programming over the course of six months time?

Forgive me for saying this, but that would seem to be an incredibly small sample size to deduce anything from.

As to your second paragraph, we are full agreement on the vital importance of a free press and I hardly suggested we replace actual news and investigative journalism in its best and truest forms with something that would make Randolph Hearst proud. We have excellent programming like Frontline, 60 Minutes, VICE, Independent Lens, etc. To help expose those pesky scandals and corrupt elites who just can't seem to gain power and not let it go to their heads.

In the end, nearly all electronic media is profit and ratings driven and as a culture we love our controversies, train wrecks and horse races.

 

[TimToad]

A reminder that history has a way of repeating itself and how we must be ever vigilant against the lure of demagoguery.

 

[Fred Weiss]

I just want to fully understand your position.

Are you saying that you've based your entire premise about your perception of a hidden agenda and purposeful propagandizing of the climate crisis on watching one network's half hour evening news programming over the course of six months time?

Forgive me for saying this, but that would seem to be an incredibly small sample size to deduce anything from.

Yes, I am. I have no doubt that whoever, along with David Muir, decides what stories are reported is not an ABC or Disney executive and is probably in a managerial role with just ABC Evening News.

As an every evening watcher we have noticed the obvious shift. Our sample is well over the 200 unit statistical sampling minimum used by most statisticians for reasonable accuracy and our exposure reference is about a year. The change in emphasis has been over the last five or six months. There is no question in my mind that coverage of weather related events has increased. The reasons and motivation to do so is undetermined and open to discussion.

There has not been any attempt here to include other news organizations that I do not watch often enough to have observed the noticeable change that I have alluded to with ABC Evening News.

I did time it tonight and it was only one story (the tornadoes in Texas) which was covered in less than two minutes. There is almost an every night discussion by and with the ABC chief meteorologist who maps out weather all across the country and spelling out lots of dire warnings. That did not appear tonight. I will continue for a few days to keep a count. It was a busy news day with the bulk of the coverage going to the Notre Dame fire ... or perhaps David Muir read this thread and didn't like the glare of the Signs 101 spotlight.