where can i get a link to the poll that thom was discussing, comparing the listeners of fox, cnn, msnbc, etc?

When I think about FOX TV news, it brings to mind the old children's fairy tale about letting the fox watch over the hen house. Perhaps the updated version is like the fox with his fellow carnivores starting up a corporation called Fox and Friends and convincing the farmers at a town hall meeting to relax because Fox and Friends will take care of the hens and they will inform the farmers whose livelihood depends on the hens what they need to know so they won't have to worry because Fox and Friends will be if there is ever any problems and only tell what they believe the farmers need to know.

Doug is talking out his ass. Republicans vote by block and partisain more than DEMS . . . See http://www.progressivepunch.org .

In regard to the conversation with the Cato Institute guest, people who earned $12,000 in a manufacturing job in 1979 made money that went a lot farther than the $24,000 a service industry employee makes in 2009. Remember when what a king-size candy bar is today was regular size, and cost 20 cents? Well, I remember. The only people who are getting richer are the rich.

Thom says a hero needs an anti-hero. Is that why he has all these duels with serial villains?

Oh my hero :x

Maybe you guys should get some chess clocks. It's tiring to try to listen to guests filibuster. If each person had the same amount of time, or maybe give the guests some bonus time since they're the guests, then perhaps we could cut out the talking over people and really hear all sides.

I doubt that the filibusters would go for it but what the heck.

=====

@Bruce - yer right about the "they're getting richer" remark; I laughed out load litterally at that. Is she that stupid, or does she just think Thom's listerners are that stupid?

When I think about FOX TV news, it brings to mind the old children's story about letting the fox to watch over the hen house. Perhaps it's like the fox with his fellow carnivores starting up a corporation called Fox and Friends and convincing the farmers at a town hall meeting to relax because they will take care of the hens and inform the farmers whose livelihood depends on the hens what they need to know or not know so they won't worry and Fox and Friends will be if there is ever any problems.

Is there some kind of glitch on this blog?

A long post by Mark that had been on today's blog since yesterday and was here earlier this morning has disappeared.

Apparently Thom accepts as “truthful” from Fox News anything that has something to do with the “Mexicans.” I suspect Fox only showed Thom the “basic” Halloween “illegal alien” outfit—which few found particularly offensive—and not the “accessories,” which many people are finding offensive. One can see the “alien” outfitted with these accessories on Amazon.com; they consist of a drooping mustache and a baseball cap—the stereotypical image of a “Mexican” day laborer. Combine this with the prison jumpsuit, and only the most naïve or racist cannot see what was intended. I hate to think Thom is either, so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he didn’t get the entire truth from his Fox News source.

When Thom alienates listeners like me by making like a typical white “populist” who consciously or subconsciously excites racial, prejudicial or stereotypical notions, it is difficult to remain on message. Thom has taken an increasingly petulant tone when talking manufacturing jobs and its relationship with trade (“Can you spell NAFTA?”). Why should it be strange that 28 percent of our total trade comes from our NAFTA partners? It’s much easier, efficient and cheaper to transport goods and services. Of course, when people talk about NAFTA, they forget about Canada; Thom himself has said he isn’t worried about Canada. However, through August of the current year, we import from Canada 40 percent more products than from Mexico, which is strange considering Canada has a much smaller population than Mexico.

Overall, NAFTA gets a bad rap. The U.S. has exported through August about $211 billion in goods to Mexico and Canada, and imported about $253 billion. This pales in comparison to the $140 billion trade deficit we have with China. Our trade deficits with European countries also far exceeds our trade deficit under NAFTA, especially in heavy manufactured goods. Then of course there is our massive trade deficits with Japan, Taiwan, Indonesia, South Korea and other Asian nations. Conversely, we have a trade surplus with the nations under the CAFTA agreement—which makes up a barely visible percent of our total world trade—which as a per unfairly beaten-up on by Thom. In fact we have an over-all trade surplus with Latin American, even taking into account oil imports from Venezuela.

But the fact remains we are losing manufacturing jobs—but so are most countries in the world. The fact is that the number of U.S. manufacturing jobs remained flat from the time we began having a trade deficit in the mid 1970s until 2000; since then we have lost about 3 million jobs. But surprisingly enough this pales in comparison to China—which has cut about 15 million manufacturing jobs in the same period (while increasing service jobs), while Brazil has lost even more. Have they gone to “third world” countries? No. Robert Reich, who was Clinton’s Labor Secretary and generally left of center on economic matters, wrote in Forbes recently that it is a mistake to assume that our loss in manufacturing jobs will be alleviated by trade restrictions. The blame, according to Reich and others, should go to increased efficiency and productivity, requiring fewer workers. China has recently closed many inefficient manufacturing plants, and the same can be said of Eastern Europe, famous for its communist-era make-work manufacturing output, making sub-standard products to sell to each other.

We have to stop belly-aching about lost manufacturing jobs that will never come back, and talk about investing in research & development that leads to new manufacturing opportunities, building innovated products and technology that will create new jobs. What the federal government can do is supply seed money to entrepreneurs who want to manufacture products that address future shortcomings, needs and improvements, and protect those industries from them being absorbed by corporations that want to destroy them for their own nonsensical purposes. We can see this from the failure of the current corporate megacompanies to advance new technologies that address such problems as rapidly depleting oil reserves and auto fuel efficiency, choosing rather to stifle innovation that threatens short-term profits.

P.S.

Per the previously linked video,makes me think Alan Greenspan may have had a Lee Atwater moment and is repenting previous behavior...

BREAK UP TOO BIG TO FAIL" (Video):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#33380638

Impeach or remove Obama ???...

Ridiculous...he was voted in by a wide margin, and although some fringe elements might not care for his policies, so what ? Elections have consequences.

The flip side to the right-wing point of view is that the folks that voted him in think he's moving too slow making changes...
they also wouldn't take kindly to having their considerable efforts of electing Obama be over-turned.