20/20 show this Friday
- Thread starter 4thHorseman
- Start date
- Status
B
BeLikeTrey
Guest
here's my letter
------------
John Stossel nailed it on the environment, taxes, government spending, and gun control. Very refreshing to see this on what I consider a normally liberal slanted station.
-------------
and yes a couple of phrases were borrowed
I think this is an attempt to compete with the FOX NEWS channel, though. I think Fox News has been a great influence to bring the "Pendulum" back to center.
------------
John Stossel nailed it on the environment, taxes, government spending, and gun control. Very refreshing to see this on what I consider a normally liberal slanted station.
-------------
and yes a couple of phrases were borrowed
I think this is an attempt to compete with the FOX NEWS channel, though. I think Fox News has been a great influence to bring the "Pendulum" back to center.
TonyB
Member
I always thought I liked this guy..but I'm always leary of media types....but this 20/20 was awesome.....I taped it for the gun story but eneded up watching the whole show and I have a new respect for Stossel.....I'll be getting his book too.....
cracked butt
Member
AS usual, Stossel was outstanding. It actually amazes me that networks allow him to be on TV as nearly every word he speaks flies in the face of the network's agenda. I sent a message to 20/20 on how I felt about the program- everyone should take 2 minutes to do the same.
Mr. Chitlin
Member
Harry,
I can put it up. It has to be in WMV ,ASF, MPEG-1, , AVI or Quicktime (MOV) for me to host it. That is the formats that the host supports.
PM me and we will work it out. It will be late tonight (Saturday) before I get home (8PM or so).
repsychler
Member
I can host it as well, at least for a while. I have probably 3 gigs of transfer that my site won't use, but beyond that it'll cost me $5/gig, so if it goes nuts I might need to pull it.
I watched 20/20 last night. It was a very good program.
One thing I did notice is that some segments involved some form of lunatic protester.
Who resulted in the virtual ban on DDT, which could greatly certain parts of the world: Tree hugging protesters.
Who cries out for more gun control: Soccer mom protesters.
I did find the interview with violent felons most interesting. I loved the "I don't care about the gun laws, I go and get mine from someone on the street..."
One thing I did notice is that some segments involved some form of lunatic protester.
Who resulted in the virtual ban on DDT, which could greatly certain parts of the world: Tree hugging protesters.
Who cries out for more gun control: Soccer mom protesters.
I did find the interview with violent felons most interesting. I loved the "I don't care about the gun laws, I go and get mine from someone on the street..."
BryanP
Member
Someone already posted a link to where you can buy a DVD of the show on ABC's web site. You really want to send a message to them that you liked it? Buy the DVD. Money talks louder than email.
A
AnklePocket
Guest
It was a great counter to Peter Jennings' snivelling about guns in his story about where illegal guns come from.
New hero status for John Stossel. Hugh Downs would be proud.
New hero status for John Stossel. Hugh Downs would be proud.
BowStreetRunner
Member
I enjoyed the whole show as well.....and the republicans do need to be called out about small gov't.....as a republican thats what i want, less gov't
and i was AMAZED about the gun control segment
WOW
WOW
WOW
i am still in disbelief that it was that pro gun..........still in shock
just emailed 20/20 about what a good job they did
maybe we should all email stosel to do a piece on the AWB in a few months........
BSR
and i was AMAZED about the gun control segment
WOW
WOW
WOW
i am still in disbelief that it was that pro gun..........still in shock
just emailed 20/20 about what a good job they did
maybe we should all email stosel to do a piece on the AWB in a few months........
BSR
Terminus
Member
I send ABC an email commending John Stossel as well. His take on every single one of the ten lies was, IMHO, spot on.
The Republican tendency to spend tax dollars like Imelda Marcos may have been the most disturbing fact of the bunch.
The Republican tendency to spend tax dollars like Imelda Marcos may have been the most disturbing fact of the bunch.
jimpeel
Member
Much of what he spoke of was covered in Dixie Lee Ray's book " Environmental Overkill: Whatever Happened to Common Sense?". Should be available at your local library or on interlibrary loan.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
Actually, there are several weak spots in Stossel's presentation, but overall it is interesting that something so provocative would make it to the air. The weak spots, particularly in the case of gun control, are due to the time element.
Weak spots?
1. I am curious about his claim on the portion of taxes the "rich" pay. Certainly they pay more than Sharpton and knee-jerk mothering government types realize, but what would it look like if everyone paid a flat tax?
As a side note, I think the top 5% income he mentions is not terribly far above our family's two wage earner income. Need a rerun on that. Curious thing is that our income is equivalent to what WAS the local median some years ago and we can barely afford to purchase a home here. This makes me wonder what exactly qualifies one to be "rich".
2. Strossel attacks the general myth of chemicals being bad but tries to make the case with one. He needs to more strongly represent that this is the centerpiece example and that the myth is too all encompasing rather than DDT being the total issue. He does point out that some negative results (cancer, etc.) of the chemicals are sometimes on the decline rather than the suffocating threat liberals imply.
3. The gun law exposition was probably the best as he focused on a particular item--crime. The weak part is that he does not point out that some of the so-called gun safety issues are crimes. Instead he simply discards them without examination.
A full exorcism of the anti gun beast would probably require a miniseries, chopping off one head at a time to let individual sets of facts soak in without interference from the usual thought pattern that retreats to alternate arguments when one point is in danger.
Weak spots?
1. I am curious about his claim on the portion of taxes the "rich" pay. Certainly they pay more than Sharpton and knee-jerk mothering government types realize, but what would it look like if everyone paid a flat tax?
As a side note, I think the top 5% income he mentions is not terribly far above our family's two wage earner income. Need a rerun on that. Curious thing is that our income is equivalent to what WAS the local median some years ago and we can barely afford to purchase a home here. This makes me wonder what exactly qualifies one to be "rich".
2. Strossel attacks the general myth of chemicals being bad but tries to make the case with one. He needs to more strongly represent that this is the centerpiece example and that the myth is too all encompasing rather than DDT being the total issue. He does point out that some negative results (cancer, etc.) of the chemicals are sometimes on the decline rather than the suffocating threat liberals imply.
3. The gun law exposition was probably the best as he focused on a particular item--crime. The weak part is that he does not point out that some of the so-called gun safety issues are crimes. Instead he simply discards them without examination.
A full exorcism of the anti gun beast would probably require a miniseries, chopping off one head at a time to let individual sets of facts soak in without interference from the usual thought pattern that retreats to alternate arguments when one point is in danger.
Last edited:
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
i don't have my video transfer gear at home this weekend
i'll get the file encoded monday
i'll get the file encoded monday
PrudentGT
Member
Stossel's usually right on the money; he used to host the 'Fleecing of America' segments exposing graft, corruption and general wastefulness on the part of civil servants. To touch on Guy's question about flat tax, I vaguely remember a Stossel-hosted segment that showed a graph of per-capita income tax levels in the 20th centruy. In present value adjusted dollars, it came out to a pretty steady level of about $200.00 a head IIRC, until WWII (you know, when quarterly withholding was introduced as a temporary war time measure), when it shot up to it's current airy heights of thousands of dollars per capita.
Guy B. Meredith
Member
PrudentGT,
More wondering what a flat rate of, say, 15% would look like. With that in place, what portion of the total tax would the top 1% be paying? Would it end up being more or less than the 34% of the overall they are currently paying?
More wondering what a flat rate of, say, 15% would look like. With that in place, what portion of the total tax would the top 1% be paying? Would it end up being more or less than the 34% of the overall they are currently paying?
IMO, continual lies and obfuscations trump brief glimpses of fact and truth. This show only reinforced what most of us believed to begin with, stirred a few fence-sitter, and was dismissed by the brain-washed (assuming some have one to be washed to begin with) as "conservative" propaganda.
The cut off for the top 5% was 125,000
The cut off for the top 1% was 300,000
If I remember correctly. Surely those might be lower numbers than most people think but that is why middle class tax relief is realy middle class tax releif.
The cut off for the top 1% was 300,000
If I remember correctly. Surely those might be lower numbers than most people think but that is why middle class tax relief is realy middle class tax releif.
Great show.
I think there's a problem with his tax presentation as well. Top 1% of taxpayers is not top 1% of income earners in this country. Some of the richest plain don't pay taxes or skip out on heaps of it. Most of the taxes are paid by middle class and moderately wealthy small business types.
The tax laws needs to be simplified and financial institutions that create tax shelters must be persecutable under the law. Which they are not at this moment.
Guy,
One of the arguement FOR flat tax is less loopholes for tax cheaters and of course more incentive to pay up as the taxes would be much lower. Theoritically it could translate to more people paying taxes.
I think there's a problem with his tax presentation as well. Top 1% of taxpayers is not top 1% of income earners in this country. Some of the richest plain don't pay taxes or skip out on heaps of it. Most of the taxes are paid by middle class and moderately wealthy small business types.
The tax laws needs to be simplified and financial institutions that create tax shelters must be persecutable under the law. Which they are not at this moment.
Guy,
One of the arguement FOR flat tax is less loopholes for tax cheaters and of course more incentive to pay up as the taxes would be much lower. Theoritically it could translate to more people paying taxes.
WonderNine
member
I'd really like to see it! Patiently waiting!
My cable modem has a really phat pipe.
My cable modem has a really phat pipe.
glocksman
Member
Interestingly enough, the DU crowd has been quite subdued over the show. CO Liberal and Benchley made a couple of ad hom attacks on Stossel and his motivations, but neither of them made any attempt to refute what Stossel reported.
Perhaps because they can't?
Perhaps because they can't?
jimpeel
Member
Guy B. Meredith
Here is the Excel file of the IRS statistics. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
As to the "fair share" argument, Kerry says he will raise the rate by five percent for the "rich", whoever they are. Remember, the "rich" are always in flux as to who they are and how much they make which qualifies them as so. Look at what they are paying now.
Source: Cato Institute. http://cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html
Here is a graph of Average Federal Tax Rate by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001
Note how the percentage went up (remember, this is ONLY the top one percent of taxpayers) and up and up. On Clinton's watch, the percentage went from 28.5% to 37.4%. Under Bush, that percentage has dropped to 33.9%, or the rounded 34% that Stossel used. If Kerry wins, they will be paying 39% and there will be those who will lament that they are still not paying their "fair" share.
Stossel was saying that millions die every year from Malaria yet the non-environmental use of DDT would aleviate most of them.
Actually, the top 50% of wage earners pay 96.03% of income taxes. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/top_50__of_wage_earners_pay_96_09__of_income_taxes.guest.html
Here is the Excel file of the IRS statistics. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls
As to the "fair share" argument, Kerry says he will raise the rate by five percent for the "rich", whoever they are. Remember, the "rich" are always in flux as to who they are and how much they make which qualifies them as so. Look at what they are paying now.
Source: Cato Institute. http://cato.org/research/fiscal_policy/2003/factsfigs.html
Here is a graph of Average Federal Tax Rate by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001 (Includes Individual Income, Payroll, and Excise Taxes)
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Individual Income Taxes Paid by Income Group, 2001
Here is a graph of Share of Federal Income Taxes Paid by the Highest-Income One Percent of Taxpayers, 1980-2001
Note how the percentage went up (remember, this is ONLY the top one percent of taxpayers) and up and up. On Clinton's watch, the percentage went from 28.5% to 37.4%. Under Bush, that percentage has dropped to 33.9%, or the rounded 34% that Stossel used. If Kerry wins, they will be paying 39% and there will be those who will lament that they are still not paying their "fair" share.
Someone once said [paraphrase]"No substance is, of and by itself, a poison. It is merely the amount, and frequency, with which it is taken that makes it so."[/paraphrase] One drop of Tetraethyl Lead on the skin or a drop of cyanide in a six ounce glass of water will cause near-instantaneous death. Ten gallons of either in a reservoir will have no effect whatsoever.
Stossel was saying that millions die every year from Malaria yet the non-environmental use of DDT would aleviate most of them.
Are you speaking of the "crime" of having someone else get access to your firearm and misuse it?
jimpeel
Member
Guy B. Meredith
The problem with a flat tax is that the poor will pay the same 15% everyone else does instead of the 0% they pay now.
What is truly needed is a consumption tax -- in concert with the simultaneous repeal of the sixteenth amendment -- which would make everyone who spends money pay a fair tax. That tax would not have to be any higher than 7% because the ultimate taxation of every dollar would preclude the necessity for anything higher.
If you don't want to be taxed, don't spend. People would have the incentive to place their money in savings. This would remove M1 -- the money in circulation which drives inflation -- out of circulation. The banks would have more money to lend at lower interest rates while being able to have higher rates on savings accounts. Interest earned from savings accounts would not be taxable until spent.
There would also be more incentive to invest in the stock market as earnings would not be taxable until spent.
There are, however, some major considerations to be addressed:
There must be exemptions from taxation for necessities of life including food, utilities, and shelter.
The law must be structured in such a way that it does not create a Value Added Tax (VAT) which is an economy killer. Under a VAT each leg of distribution adds a tax to their portion of the consumed product. The mine adds a tax for the ore. The smelter adds a tax for the steel. The supplier adds a tax to the vendor. The vendor adds a tax for the manufactured good. The distributor adds a tax to the seller. And they tax the consumer the consumption tax at point of sale.
The good parts of a consumption tax are:
Every dollar is ultimately taxed. You buy your neighbor's used lawnmower, he gives the money to his wife who goes to Sam's Club and buys non-food items. She is taxed.
Drug money, which is now laundered to escape taxation, would be taxed if spent.
And here's the kicker. Every tourist dollar will be taxed as though they are residents of our country. Right now -- exit fees excluded -- tourists pay no more than state sales tax when they spend in this country.
I saved the best for last. The IRS would need be no larger than California's Board of Equalization to operate. Thousands of IRS workers would be thrown out of work because the seller now becomes the holding agent for the tax monies just like they are now for state sales taxes.
Fifteen percent is fifteen percent and cannot be 34% or anything in between. The rich will pay more of the total dollars gleaned because they purchase more things; and those things are more expensive than most of us buy. They buy $250,000 Bentleys, we buy $22,000 Toyotas. They buy $1,000/lb caviar and we buy $.50 tins of sardines. They heat and light 20,000 sq ft houses and we heat and light 1,500 sq ft houses.
The problem with a flat tax is that the poor will pay the same 15% everyone else does instead of the 0% they pay now.
What is truly needed is a consumption tax -- in concert with the simultaneous repeal of the sixteenth amendment -- which would make everyone who spends money pay a fair tax. That tax would not have to be any higher than 7% because the ultimate taxation of every dollar would preclude the necessity for anything higher.
If you don't want to be taxed, don't spend. People would have the incentive to place their money in savings. This would remove M1 -- the money in circulation which drives inflation -- out of circulation. The banks would have more money to lend at lower interest rates while being able to have higher rates on savings accounts. Interest earned from savings accounts would not be taxable until spent.
There would also be more incentive to invest in the stock market as earnings would not be taxable until spent.
There are, however, some major considerations to be addressed:
There must be exemptions from taxation for necessities of life including food, utilities, and shelter.
The law must be structured in such a way that it does not create a Value Added Tax (VAT) which is an economy killer. Under a VAT each leg of distribution adds a tax to their portion of the consumed product. The mine adds a tax for the ore. The smelter adds a tax for the steel. The supplier adds a tax to the vendor. The vendor adds a tax for the manufactured good. The distributor adds a tax to the seller. And they tax the consumer the consumption tax at point of sale.
The good parts of a consumption tax are:
Every dollar is ultimately taxed. You buy your neighbor's used lawnmower, he gives the money to his wife who goes to Sam's Club and buys non-food items. She is taxed.
Drug money, which is now laundered to escape taxation, would be taxed if spent.
And here's the kicker. Every tourist dollar will be taxed as though they are residents of our country. Right now -- exit fees excluded -- tourists pay no more than state sales tax when they spend in this country.
I saved the best for last. The IRS would need be no larger than California's Board of Equalization to operate. Thousands of IRS workers would be thrown out of work because the seller now becomes the holding agent for the tax monies just like they are now for state sales taxes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked