Fox News Bias for the Rich?

This week, Fox News showed a factually false Republican talking point about the so-called "death tax" and then showed no Democratic response and no correction of the Republican falsehood. Even worse, Fox News actually tried to imply opposition to the inheritance tax within the Obama Administration by using a misinterpretation of the work of an Obama economic advisor that actually contradicts nothing proposed by Obama but does contradict core Republican beliefs exemplified in a February 2009 CPAC speech by apparent de facto head of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh.

You can see the February 2009 CPAC speech by Rush Limbaugh from which I take short clips for my video using links at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030209/content/01125106.guest.html

The Fox News clips I use in my video come from the program "Happening Now" broadcast April 1, 2009 (not available online).

You can find the chart I used in my video that shows the percentage of estates affected by the inheritance tax that have significant small business or farm assets at http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2663

You can see the 1980 paper by Barack Obama's economic advisor Lawrence Summers titled "The Role of Intergenerational Transfers in Aggregate Capital Accumulation" (as published in 1981) at http://tinyurl.com/SummersPaper

And, finally, as always, you can find DOZENS and DOZENS more examples of Fox News bias on my Fox News bias playlist on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A3BD2524FE99BD4D

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Fox
• News
• Rush
• Limbaugh
• Death
• Tax
• inheritance
• estate
• intergenerational
• wealth
• transfer
• aggregate
• capital
• accumulation
• lawrence
• larry
• summers
• barack
• obama
• administration
• council
• economic
• advisors
• Jon
• Scott
• molly
• henneberg
• liberal
• viewer
• liberalviewer

[neonaction]

politics is so full of bullshit. Rush is implying that poor people don't work hard---this is an immense simplification and prejudice- tell that to the single mother with only high school degrees who work three jobs. You mother fucker. the world is not black and white. Politics is bullshit.

[xJoeEDangerouslyx]

@bomac10000 Unfortunately, you are completely wrong here. Taxes go to supporting the "commons." That is to say the things that belong to all of us. A fair inheritance tax would enable funding for schools, roads, police, etc. So, taxes go to everyone. That's why we have to pay them. If a billionaire dies, they don't just hand out checks to poor people, the cash goes into a general fund that helps everyone. The idea is that extremely wealthy people got to where they are due in significant part to

[cjmastablasta]

i`M NOT ENTIRELY SURE BUT CHECK OUT INHERITENCE TAX IN THE UK? THE UK IS FOLLOWING AMERICA FOR SOME REASON BUT WERE ALL BEING SQUEEZED FINANCIALLY.gOD BLESS AMERICA IF! IF IT CAN HOLD ITS GOVERNMENT TO ACCOUNT.

[gamerunknown]

@Navigator777777

Well there wasn't an economic collapse on the level of the Great Depression until after Glass-Steagall was repealed, which allowed for the fractal reserve banking. I mean in a truly free market society, that would have been fine, the banks would have collapsed and everyone would have lost their deposits but they'd no longer be able to reposses homes (in fact the executives home's would be repossesed). But free market socities are only seen in the third world.

[Navigator777777]

@gamerunknown

I don't know of a more hotly contested argument than "What caused the Great Depression?"

Liberals will say the absence of government controls.

Conservatives will say it was the federal Reserve.

"Changing with the circumstances" is a key word in your argument which will shortly suggest to me the constitution is a living document, hence the government should care for the people as it is the right thing to do.

[gamerunknown]

@Navigator777777

As for how it is "evil" or "destroying America": 15* as many Americans die every year as died in the 9/11 attacks due to lack of insurance. The average lifespan in America is the same as Cuba, a country that spends 1/20th on healthcare. 3* as many Americans die due to lack of healthcare than are murdered... you honestly think wefare is the thing destroying America?

[gamerunknown]

@Navigator777777

Actually, the Depression was a result of lassez faire economic policies. You've just alluded to a naturalistic fallacy too in that the government's functions are only legitimate when they serve the exact purpose they started with, when Jefferson said: "with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.". There were no drink driving laws back then for example. Eisenhower taxation = 94%, with GDP growth.

[Navigator777777]

@gamerunknown

Of course everything is "justified".

Promise people money and they will vote for you.

Welfare was created during The Great Depression, not during the founding of our nation.

It was not a constitutional act....hence the evil within.

IIRC, Government spending during the that time exacerbated the duration of The Great Depression.

Tell me why entitlement spending and welfare should be continued?

It is destroying America.

[gamerunknown]

@Navigator777777

How has it been interpreted as anything other than meaning... what it means? Can you point to any judicial rulings based on contravening the "general welfare" clause by spending for public services? There was even a debate about this by the founding fathers that LiberalViewer features HowtheWorldWorks in, where the phrase was used to justify foreign aid if I recall correctly.

[Navigator777777]

@gamerunknown

The General Welfare clause has absolutely nothing to to do with "Welfare" as we know it.

Unlike most General Welfare clauses, however, the clause in the U.S. Constitution has been interpreted as a limitation on the power of the United States Congress to use its powers of taxing and spending.

Our welfare system as we know it is unconstitutional.

[gamerunknown]

@Navigator777777

You're joking me? Read the preamble to the Constitution: provide for the general welfare. When one has an entrenched Constitution, there is no need to amend it in order to pass new laws, one just has to allow the judiciary to determine whether those laws violate the Constitution! Could you point me to the specific part of the Constitution that says the government can have a standing army in an allied foreign country for over 2 years?

[Navigator777777]

@gamerunknown

Because it is not in the constitution.

If Obama wanted Obamacare, the debate should have been: Change the constitution to reflect this.

Then...IF the debate was won ... change the laws to reflect the constitution.

The government has no authority to spend the people's money in a welfare state.

It does have authority for roads, bridges, national security and such.

Obama's spending is spot on the numbers for an individual seeking America's destruction.