4 ms·
Care to elaborate?
by mmazing 7y ago
Care to elaborate?
- chrismeller 7y agoNot OP, but I’ll take a stab at it: he’s saying that the NYT is overly liberal, frequently trashes businesses as being tax evaders and plagues on society, misses its own hypocrisy, and doesn’t live up to its historical pedigree when it comes to fact checking.
- mmazing 7y agoThere, that wasn't so hard. Take a lesson, OP, list specific verifiable arguments instead of ad hominem "yeah those guys suck as usual".
- chrismeller 7y agoWait, I’m verifiable? Who knew?!
- Shivetya 7y agoNYT and a few other papers are pretty much running in campaign mode, floating trial balloons of policy ideas of candidates they favor if not outright pushing forward a narrative which aligns with the direction one campaign or another is following. So stories align to support the narrative. The 2020 narrative for the Democratic Party is again wealth envy and how all the woes can be solved if X just pays their fair share. The easy villains are billionaires and large well known companies. After all it is damn easy to make numbers appear however you want; see the recent claim Amtrak might make a profit which is only true if you don't look hard. we are already deep into the election cycle for the next President and Congress so you must use a heavy filter on stories you read on the NYT and even here. you can pretty much toss any story that gets around to mentioning one candidate or another.
- unethical_ban 7y agoYou have to use a filter on just about anything that you read, but the point by so many others remain: Not a single person in this thread or from Fedex has actually rebutted the journalist's claims in the original article.
- mmazing 7y agoHow do you feel about the difference in income tax rates from the mid twentieth century to now for the upper wealth brackets?
- whatthesmack 7y agoThe rates that nobody paid, because of tax "loopholes"? There's no reason to compare rates that nobody paid.
- larnmar 7y agoI’d rather go back to the early 20th century when income taxes weren’t even a thing, and yet everything still worked somehow.
- frockington1 7y agoA step in the right direction. The lower the better in my opinion, the federal government is long past its prime
- mmazing 7y agoIs that because you think that the federal government doesn't properly utilize the tax dollars that it receives? If the federal government is past its prime, what do you think that the future of the United States should look like?
- malvosenior 7y ago> Is that because you think that the federal government doesn't properly utilize the tax dollars that it receives? Not the OP but this is absolutely how I feel. I think I would only be happy to pay taxes if every single dollar I spent was accounted for with a way to track progress on what is being funded. Missing milestones or goals would result in me paying no more taxes on that project until whatever management in place was restructured.
- at-fates-hands 7y agoAgreed. Anything not dealing with politics is pretty decent, but nearly everything they print now has to have some political slant or cheap shot at the current administration. I remember reading a recent article about the drought in California. Pretty well written article, but of course about midway through the article there were two paragraphs highlighting Trump's opinion that climate change isn't real, blah blah blah. Even though the whole mess has been a direct result of the state government completely mismanaging their own resources. It's no wonder most people on the right just completely discount them now as a reliable new source. It wasn't always the case, but from the time of the beginning of the 2016 election to now, it's all been downhill.