Obama *sigh* may bail out the newspapers next.

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


It's interesting that you make a story out of this stating your opinion that Obama may bail out Newspapers (when he hasn't indicated anything like that). And in your story, you quote him as saying he's concerned that people's opinions will become the news...
Pretty funny. You're proving his point.

It isn't a bailout, it's a tax break. He hasn't said he'd do it, he said he's open to looking at a bill.

Silly facts! Go away! There's an agenda here to be pushed!


I didn't make the story. The White House did. I'm just bringing it to peoples attention because the MSM won't. My opinion is wholly my own. I don't force it, people can agree or not. Then again, if I have an established reputation of just reporting facts, then I do this. . . well, I'd be no better than the NYT.
Tax break, bailout. Same thing when it means having a left-wing rag stay in business to promote Obama's agenda.

Read the OP. Make up your own mind, but in the end, I'll be right. Sadly, sadly, I'll be right.




posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Like I told BH, any attempt to rectify a loss to the industry by using tax codes, bailout monies, especially to such a targeted industry, seems fishy to me.

If the papers go the way of VCR's then so be it.

No president should step in to save a target industry that is already too biased in his favour.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Well isn't that just peachy. Why don't we just bail out every company in the country all at once instead of just one section at a time.


Yes the newspaper is a part of our history, but so are a lot of other things. Doesn't mean we should create more money out of thin air to prop them all up.


But did you read the article?

You are pushing the assertion of the OP while ignoring the content of the source, literally.

Why did you do that?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 



White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had played down the possibility of government assistance for news organizations, which have been hit by an economic downturn and dwindling ad revenue.


Gibbs is doing what he is supposed to do. Lie. "Down play" government involvement.


In early May, Gibbs said that while he hadn't asked the president specifically about bailout options for newspapers, "I don't know what, in all honesty, government can do about it."


So Gibbs doesn't know what to do, because he hasn't "specifically" asked the president. Again, no denial. Just the ol' DC two-step.


Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.


When have we had good journalism? Is it good when they support him? Sounds like Chavez to me.
The same groundswell that gave him the presidency, he is now scoffing at. Because they don't agree with him.

Chavez, again.

ps, Gibbs should change his name to "Glibbs"



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


Yes I did. The word bailout is used both in the article as well as the title. They can call it whatever they like, apparently playing it off as if it isn't a bailout (which it will be if it happens, mark my words) makes it more palatable to some. Using a different word doesn't make the thing itself change.

No matter what you want to call it the money will have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is our pockets.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


well Mike From the outside looking in I really think you applying a hammer to anything that has Obama's name attached to it... You went from reading between the lines to Chevez references - you basically made up a story and have convinced yourself of its validity and truth, Jenna did the same thing with your story on the last page.

Why are you doing this Mike?


 

mod edit, to replace large quote w/code for "Reply to"

[edit on 20-9-2009 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mental modulator

you basically made up a story and have convinced yourself of its validity and truth, Jenna did the same thing with your story on the last page.




I read the article, twice actually. Didn't need to make anything up. I think a better question is why are you so convinced that there must be something else to my opinion aside from reading the article.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Well isn't that just peachy. Why don't we just bail out every company in the country all at once instead of just one section at a time.


Yes the newspaper is a part of our history, but so are a lot of other things. Doesn't mean we should create more money out of thin air to prop them all up.



I just read the article again, you and Mike are both creating your own story
A 501 c 3 is not a bailout - it is a tax restructuring




501(c)(1) — Corporations Organized Under Act of Congress (including Federal Credit Unions)
501(c)(2) — Title Holding Corporation for Exempt Organization
501(c)(3) — Religious, Educational, Charitable, Scientific, Literary, Testing for Public Safety, to Foster National or International Amateur Sports Competition, or Prevention of Cruelty to Children or Animals Organizations
501(c)(4) — Civic Leagues, Social Welfare Organizations, and Local Associations of Employees
501(c)(5) — Labor, Agricultural, and Horticultural Organizations
501(c)(6) — Business Leagues, Chambers of Commerce, Real Estate Boards, etc.
501(c)(7) — Social and Recreational Clubs
501(c)(8) — Fraternal Beneficiary Societies and Associations
501(c)(9) — Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Associations
501(c)(10) — Domestic Fraternal Societies and Associations
501(c)(11) — Teachers' Retirement Fund Associations
501(c)(12) — Benevolent Life Insurance Associations, Mutual Ditch or Irrigation Companies, Mutual or Cooperative Telephone Companies, etc.
501(c)(13) — Cemetery Companies
501(c)(14) — State-Chartered Credit Unions, Mutual Reserve Funds
501(c)(15) — Mutual Insurance Companies or Associations
501(c)(16) — Cooperative Organizations to Finance Crop Operations
501(c)(17) — Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Trusts
501(c)(18) — Employee Funded Pension Trust (created before June 25, 1959)
501(c)(19) — Post or Organization of Past or Present Members of the Armed Forces
501(c)(21) — Black lung Benefit Trusts
501(c)(22) — Withdrawal Liability Payment Fund
501(c)(23) — Veterans Organization (created before 1880)
501(c)(25) — Title Holding Corporations or Trusts with Multiple Parents
501(c)(26) — State-Sponsored Organization Providing Health Coverage for High-Risk Individuals
501(c)(27) — State-Sponsored Workers' Compensation Reinsurance Organization
501(c)(28) — National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust





Obtaining status
Most organizations acquire 501(c)(3) tax exemption by filing IRS Form 1023. The form must be accompanied by a $750 filing fee if the gross receipts for the organization are expected to average $10,000 or more.[11] If gross receipts are expected to average less than $10,000, the filing fee is reduced to $300.[12] There are some classes of organizations that are automatically treated as tax exempt under 501(c)(3), without the need to file Form 1023:
Churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches[13]
Organizations that are not private foundations and that have gross receipts that are normally not more than than $5,000[14]

Beginning January 3, 2010 these fees will be increased. After that date, the filing fee will be "$850 for organizations whose gross receipts exceed $10,000 annually over a 4-year period".[15] "$400 for organizations whose gross receipts are $10,000 or less annually over a 4-year period" [16]

The IRS also expects to release a software tool called Cyber Assistant in 2010, which will assist with the preparation of the application for tax exemption. Once Cyber Assistant becomes available, the user fee structure will change again. The fees will then be $200 for all organizations (regardless of size) that file using Cyber Assistant.[17] Organizations that do not use Cyber Assistant (regardless of size) will pay a user fee of $850.[18]
[edit]Political activity
Section 501(c)(3) organizations are subject to limits or absolute prohibitions on engaging in political activities.
[edit]Elections
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are prohibited from conducting political campaign activities to intervene in elections to public office.[19] The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:
"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.


en.wikipedia.org...(c)



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by mental modulator

you basically made up a story and have convinced yourself of its validity and truth, Jenna did the same thing with your story on the last page.




I read the article, twice actually. Didn't need to make anything up. I think a better question is why are you so convinced that there must be something else to my opinion aside from reading the article.


First off lets don't play coy, you jumped out of the gate blazing, it was not subtle.

I've read it three times and the more I read less you and Mike's theory, idea, charge, whatever, sounds like you are not referencing the same article - reads like both of you tacked on all kinds of parameters not set forth in the article -

A 501 c is not a bailout - but thats what both of you seem to believe, writing in such a way that it sounds like you are referencing fact.

The article was spun out of the gate, very aggressively I might add and I guess I'm you's guys out.



[edit on 20-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 


mm, I'm willing to listen to another side. What else could it be? Have we become so immune to the idea of government bailouts, "restructuring" (isn't that what they called GM?) that we don't even flinch anymore when the government trys to do it to another industry.

When the banks failed, the government bailed them out. And they had to follow government rules, because they used tax-payer money.

When GM failed, and the government bailed them out, they went as far as restructuring the board of directors of GM, again, under the authority of the government because they were using tax payer funds.

And now we get to the media. Gotta go careful, because of the precident they made with the above mentioned. Because once the MSM starts getting monies, starts "restructuring" for the sake of the company, then you get the government calling the shots.

This is the precident I made, when I created this thread. Why I used the language I used.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Like I said before, I believe the newspapers should be allowed to adapt or die on their own. However the semantics here are subtle. Forcing the newpapers into non-profits is far from a "bailout". Maybe that part is being lost here. the newspapers would continue to exists, but not as institutions generating profit.

Course then again, many "non-profits" seem to miraculously generate funds and filter them through their trustees... *shrug*



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I wish a bailout (loan, whatever) would help in this area, if for no other reason than all the jobs involved in papers around the country. In an ideal world, businesses should be able to get LOANS (from banks, the ones that once upon a time lent money), but newspapers around the country are struggling. Barely any of them could afford to pay back a loan, as printed news is almost antiquated. The industry is indeed outdated and dying.

At this point in the game, giving them a bailout or loan is practically throwing money down the sewers. One more purposeless thing to tax John Q taxpayer for. It's not going to bring back a demand for newspapers, and will only hold over jobs for a year, max.

One thing that's clear to me is - this country is in deep, for no other reason than the thousands of people without jobs, and more jobs about to tank on the horizon.

Waste not, want not. Remember that slogan?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 


mm, I'm willing to listen to another side. What else could it be? Have we become so immune to the idea of government bailouts, "restructuring" (isn't that what they called GM?) that we don't even flinch anymore when the government trys to do it to another industry.

When the banks failed, the government bailed them out. And they had to follow government rules, because they used tax-payer money.

When GM failed, and the government bailed them out, they went as far as restructuring the board of directors of GM, again, under the authority of the government because they were using tax payer funds.

And now we get to the media. Gotta go careful, because of the precident they made with the above mentioned. Because once the MSM starts getting monies, starts "restructuring" for the sake of the company, then you get the government calling the shots.

This is the precident I made, when I created this thread. Why I used the language I used.



I understand Mike

I read up on 501 c organizations a couple weeks back, move some tax money around

What would be worrying is if they changed some of the parameters about political organizations and direct political conduct - this would worry me

I think such a change to the IRS code in that way could have very bad implications -

as it is it will be hard to restructure newspapers because of current code




"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.


[edit on 20-9-2009 by mental modulator]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Bail out the buggy whip companies!!! (actually there is one left)

I do not think the news publications are lacking in money any more than the banks were. After all if you own the printing press that prints the money it takes real talent to go bankrupt.





The iron grip of the "London Connection" on the media was exposed in a recent book by Ben J. Bagdikian The Media Monopoly, described as "A startling report on the 50 corporations that control what America sees, hears, reads". Bagdikian, who edited the nation’s most influential magazine the Saturday Evening Post until the monopoly suddenly closed it down, reveals the interlocking directorates among the fifty corporations which control the news, but fails to trace them back to the five London banking houses which control them. He mentions that CBS interlocks with the Washington Post, Allied Chemical, Wells Fargo Bank, and others, but does not tell the reader that Brown Brothers Harriman controls CBS, or that the Eugene Meyer family (Lazard Freres) controls Allied Chemical and the Washington Post, and Kuhn Loeb Co. the Wells Fargo Bank. He shows the New York Times interlocked with Morgan Guaranty Trust, American Express, First Boston Corporation and others, but does not show how the banking interlocks. He does not mention the Federal Reserve System in his entire book, which is conspicuous by its absence. www.apfn.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by orderedchaos
I wish a bailout (loan, whatever) would help in this area, if for no other reason than all the jobs involved in papers around the country. In an ideal world, businesses should be able to get LOANS (from banks, the ones that once upon a time lent money), but newspapers around the country are struggling. Barely any of them could afford to pay back a loan, as printed news is almost antiquated. The industry is indeed outdated and dying.

At this point in the game, giving them a bailout or loan is practically throwing money down the sewers. One more purposeless thing to tax John Q taxpayer for. It's not going to bring back a demand for newspapers, and will only hold over jobs for a year, max.

One thing that's clear to me is - this country is in deep, for no other reason than the thousands of people without jobs, and more jobs about to tank on the horizon.

Waste not, want not. Remember that slogan?


Article does not state a loan or bailout

Restructuring

Change the tax code

See mike?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by reasonable
Bush *sigh* really got us into a mess (and you still love him).


What does this have to do with Obama bailing out the newspapers?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by reasonable
Bush *sigh* really got us into a mess (and you still love him).


What does this have to do with Obama bailing out the newspapers?


Yes

and what does this article have to do with Obama "bailing out" newspapers???

Changing IRS code is not a Bailout Steve -



Links?



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by stevegmu

Originally posted by reasonable
Bush *sigh* really got us into a mess (and you still love him).


What does this have to do with Obama bailing out the newspapers?


Nothing, really, which is why it was briefly addressed and then set aside as being off topic by the OP.



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mental modulator
 



"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.


So if a paper does this, they have to get rid of their editorial department? What about left-leaning papers like the New York Times? They can't swing left any more?

And these papers are also joined at the hip to other media outlets.

Like Talk Radio.

Does that mean they can't have Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck on any more?

Instead of reassuring me mm, you've just scared the defication out of me.




edit to add; thanks mm for the education. But what you've just brought to my attention makes things a damn sight darker, not better.

*time for a drink*

[edit on 20-9-2009 by mikerussellus]



posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by mental modulator
 



"Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.


So if a paper does this, they have to get rid of their editorial department? What about left-leaning papers like the New York Times? They can't swing left any more?

And these papers are also joined at the hip to other media outlets.

Like Talk Radio.

Does that mean they can't have Rush, Hannity, Levin, Beck on any more?

Instead of reassuring me mm, you've just scared the defication out of me.




See Mike thats what you should be afraid of -

this could have many implications... You would have been worried about a bailout and missed all the real goodness...

This could turn in to a huge battle for completely other reasons -

Unless they create a specific exemption - otherwise how will left type papers be legally allowed to even comment on Obama's godliness or how will the righty papers claim Obama and Osama are secretly brothers fathered by Hilter?

More information would be nice -





top topics
 
13
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join