Highly paid commentators arguing tax cuts for the rich not a winner for the Dems

[prolesunited]

Just shows you how removed they are from the mainstream.

Used to be that the majority of journalists were in the same socio-economic class as the "common folk." They documented their struggles and were an advocate for the working class because we were all in the same boat. Our struggles were their struggles.

Now, we have elites who have no idea what are daily lives are like. I recall seeing shows about helping people deal with the economic downturn. They profiled families doing such things as mowing their lawns, doing their own housework and actually cooking! They all acted as if such "deprivations" were horrific, but we just need to buck up to pull through this month.

Now comes the subject of the tax cuts. Seriously, do you think they are going to get behind letting the tax cuts expire, especially when it will directly impact their wallets?

Oh, they say, nobody cares about class warfare anymore. That's just a remnant of our past. So says the commentator at the top of the heap.

[badgolfer]

1. Business channels

You should watch the people CNBC and Bloomberg bring on to discuss extending tax cuts for the rich. They of course are for extending the tax cuts for the rich, including themselves, but never mention how they would benefit.

Letter today in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution builds on how the rich create jobs and the middle class doesn't. I would love to ask this guy where are the jobs from the last two tax cuts. Funny how they forget that the bulk of the country is middle class and they do the majority buying which entices companies to hire more people.

[ejpoeta]

2. exactly!! we have HAD these tax cuts since 2001 haven't we?

yet we have watched jobs disappear. now, in there line of thinking, we should have been increasing the number of jobs all this time but that is not the case. so then i guess tax cuts for the rich DON'T create jobs. tax cuts for the little people (you and me) create jobs because people have money to spend. so they spend money. then poeple who make things hire more people. then those people have money to spend. then businesses that make things or provide services have to hire MORE people. and there is the cycle. so i guess the middle class DOES create jobs.

[w8liftinglady]

3. wow-that's a great topic for my next editorial!

[dkf]

4. Do you have any salary figures or are you assuming?

How much do columnists make nowadays with print media in the red? Is this the reason they can't stay afloat...highly paid columnists?

[prolesunited]

5. Why the hard time? Are you in favor of tax cuts for the rich

And do you not see a problem with the media advocating for them?

However, I could have been more clear. TELEVISION commentators. Didn't mention columnists at all, but more papers rely on syndicated columnists, who generally are more highly paid, so you will get a skewed viewpoint there. No one is getting rich in daily newspapers.

Here's a partial list:
Matt Lauer (Today) $16 million +
Katie Couric (CBS) $15 million
Brian Williams (NBC) $12.5 million
Diane Sawyer (ABC) $12 million
Meredith Vieira (Today) $11 million
Bill O'Reilly (Fox News) $10 million
George Stephanopoulos (ABC) $8 million
Keith Olbermann (MSNBC) $7 million
Shepard Smith (Fox News) $7 million
Wolf Blitzer (CNN) $3 million
Christiane Amanpour (ABC) $2 million
Lawrence O'Donnell (MSNBC) $2 million
Eliot Spitzer (CNN) $500,000
http://www.tvguide.com/News/Top-TV-Earners-1021717.aspx

The reason papers can't stay stay afloat is huge drops in ad revenue. The Internet has replaced classifieds and want ads. Car dealerships and real estate were other mainstays, but we know what happened there. Also, smaller profit margins used to be acceptable until corporate takeovers and consolidation made profits a higher value than integrity and community stewardship.

[pscot]

6. They aren't journalists

They are highly paid media functionaries whose job is to catapult the propaganda.