Is Covering Fake News Real News?

A quick diversion.

It seems we have always had unanswerable questions to divert us like:

  • What came first, the chicken or the egg?
  • If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, does it still make a sound?
  • If you say something and your wife isn’t there are you still wrong?*

To which we now add:



.
Those three minutes of air-time could have been used to examine:

  • The role of the McCarran-Ferguson Act in spiraling insurance premiums;
  • Waste, fraud, and abuse at every level of government; or
  • Anything on the various escalating pension crises.

But those stories would take a lot more effort to present and would alienate some sponsors and viewers for whom reality is not a priority.

.

.

.

* Attribution: from blooper reel in Out of Print:
.

38 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on August 8, 2017 at 12:34 pm

    Let’s face it when it comes to most politicians and mega millionaire/billionaire business tycoons is anything they say for real?

    Reply

  2. Posted by bpaterson on August 8, 2017 at 2:04 pm

    if a company with major govt contracts gives a $10,000 birthday present to a politicians wife or child adn we don’t know about it, is that corruption?

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 8, 2017 at 3:30 pm

      Only if you’re not the recipient? Most think what they do or get somehow is different than everyone else. Hate to go there but let’s face it our POTUS is a prime example…..

      Reply

  3. Posted by Earth on August 8, 2017 at 6:37 pm

    Earth to Trump:

    Not funny.

    Reply

  4. Posted by S Moderation Douglas on August 9, 2017 at 1:59 am

    I’m kind of hamstrung here. I can no longer discuss our president on Facebook because apparently most of my family in the Bible Belt are ardent supporters.
    No sex.
    No religion.
    No politics.
    Ergo, no Trump.

    But theoretically, if our president were a congenital liar* the news outlets would be negligent if they did not expose those lies every single time.

    *He is.

    Reply

  5. Posted by Anonymous on August 9, 2017 at 4:45 pm

    10% in 2020, sounds like their really taking a hard line on them poor public’s…..

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/finance/345751-puerto-rico-board-creating-grounds-for-own-removal

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 9, 2017 at 5:33 pm

      “Consequently, this path results in a cut to bondholder payments totaling almost 80 percent of the expected payments for the next 10 fiscal years.”

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 9, 2017 at 7:27 pm

        Like John said, PR could be the litmus test for NJ & other States!

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on August 9, 2017 at 9:39 pm

          Raise taxes on the rich… cut medicaid benefits to the poor. And fully fund the pension and COLAS. That’s the rule of law. Just do it.

          Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 12:35 am

    Anonymous to other Anonymous:

    Where is Earth when we need her?

    The judges say, you don’t have to “fund” the pensions, but you do have to pay them.

    Funny law.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 1:05 am

      We’ll see …………. eventually.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 10:16 am

      That’s an easy one ….make employees contribution large enough to cover the pension pay outs…..

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 11:24 am

        I’m less demanding………..

        Give the employees a taxpayer contribution towards their pensions EQUAL to what Taxpayers typically get from their employers and require THEM to fund the balance of their pensions as a level annual %-of-pay using reasonably conservative assumptions (i.e., the SAME as those now used by most Private Sector Plans in their valuation and contribution calculations)

        Even in NJ where pensions are less generous that in some other States (such as CA, where they’ve gone completely off the wall), because they ARE multiples more generous than those granted their Private Sector counterparts, my above suggestions would require NJ’s non-Safety workers to contribute about 25% of pay, and would require NJ’s Safety workers to contribute about 40% of pay.

        If you want a super-rich pensions, YOU pay for it.

        Oh……….. and ZERO Taxpayer contributions towards retiree healthcare, because THAT (ZERO) is what most Private Sector Taxpayers are accruing in employer-sponsored retiree healthcare subsidies today.

        *********************************

        EQUAL, but NOT better …… on the Taxpayers’ dime.

        Reply

  7. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 10, 2017 at 12:22 pm

    If “EQUAL, but NOT better” is your goal, then the lower level employees would need to contribute 50-75% of their wages, and the highest level would contribute nada point nuthin’, perhaps with a little bonus thrown in. And a sliding scale for all those in the middle.
    What are the odds?

    EQUAL, but NOT worse.

    SMH

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 12:43 pm

      BS …… WAS this “highest level” CA County Executive worth almost $400K in salary and a pension of almost $400K annually ?

      http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-news/solano-county/former-solano-county-administrator-tops-statewide-pension-list-again/
      *****************************************************

      The THEFT from Taxpayers is palpable.

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 10, 2017 at 1:07 pm

        The county which hired him thinks so. I will bet you a dollar to a barrel of peas there are hundreds or thousands of private sector executives or mid-to-high level managers in Solano county who make much more than he does. The county might have cancelled his pension and paid him $500,000 in wages instead, and still private sector executives would make more.

        If Transparent California really wants to be transparent, they will publish the earnings of all California workers, public and private. (Redacting the names for the private sector, of course. Can’t have an invasion of privacy there.)

        SMH

        Reply

    • Posted by Earth on August 10, 2017 at 6:43 pm

      Earth to SMH: I agree with you (obviously), but today’s topic is “fake news”. Don’t let others throw you off the track.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 7:58 pm

      Quoting SMH (=SMD=SMA=EARTH)………….

      “If “EQUAL, but NOT better” is your goal, then the lower level employees would need to contribute 50-75% of their wages, and the highest level would contribute nada point nuthin’, perhaps with a little bonus thrown in. And a sliding scale for all those in the middle.”

      The “lower level employees” are generally paid more in “wages”, and vastly more in pension s and benefits.

      They are not the taxpayer’s relatives, and Taxpayers owe them nothing more than a Total Compensation package EQUAL to what they would get in a comparable job in the Private Sector. We do not “owe” tham a secure retirement any more than a Private Sector Taxpayer is “owed” a secure retirement.

      As to “higher level employees” ………. with Private Sector CPAs, Lawyers, Doctors, Engineers, etc. ROUTINELY working 60+ hours/wk and their Public Sector counterparts typically working 40 hours/wk, they DESERVE only 2/3 the pay……….. and to be ignored when they claim they are underpaid.

      Add their MULTIPLES greater pensions, and many are over-compensated, not under-compensated.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous (NOT Earth... the other Anonymous) on August 10, 2017 at 8:07 pm

        One Anonymous to another, I commend you.

        Thank you for returning to fake news.

        Reply

  8. Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    What has wall street said about NJ now dedicating the lottery revenue to Pensions?

    Reply

  9. Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 8:09 pm

    If AMERICA can “Privatize” our soldiers and war effort, why can’t we Privatize our State and Local Police …… and rid ourselves of the ludicrously rich pensions and benefits our self-interested, vote-selling, contribution-soliciting, taxpayer-betraying Elected Officials grant them in exchange for their Unions’ campaign contributions, election support and the block voting of Safety-worker families?

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/report-trump-considering-plan-to-privatize-much-of-war-in-afghanistan

    Reply

  10. Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 8:58 pm

    Why not? What could go wrong?

    “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year, or about $493 a day. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 10, 2017 at 11:55 pm

      Quoting …………….

      “Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year”

      So why do CA’s lieutenant’s, Captains, chiefs, Etc make nearly as much (sometimes more) when in charge of 1/100 or 1/1000 of that General?

      BBexause their Unions BOUGHT the ludicrously generous pay, pensions and benefits with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support.

      CA’s Taxpayers should tell em to whistle-dixy when it comes to funding these pensions

      Reply

  11. Posted by S Moderation Honestly on August 11, 2017 at 11:53 am

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 at 12:09 pm

      Whatever they are, there is no way that pension’s value upon retirement after 30 years and retirng in the early 50s, that the are as ludicrously generous as those granted CA’s Police.

      And in some Cities, Police overtime IS included in pensionable compensation, and some have the insane (for Taxpayers) “DROP” Plans making the pension problem far greater.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 at 1:12 pm

      Yeah this stuff NEVER happens in the private sector. BTW, caught on camera – I doubt employees are routinely surveilled…..

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 at 4:09 pm

        She was only suspended …she’ll be back on the job Monday …unions ya’ know

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 at 4:17 pm

          If her Union can keep her employed in that position, it’s just MORE evidence that Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 11, 2017 at 5:18 pm

            Clearly fake news, comment on fact. Fact is there was probable cause to record the individual, when caught on camera they were arrested and suspended without pay pending an investigation. But hey fake news sells do keep on posting!

        • Posted by Anonymous on August 12, 2017 at 4:34 am

          everything that she did at work must be checked for fraud ..it’s she’s willing to steal from coworkers for a few dollars how much did she change other workers benefits to steal from the taxpayers …..?

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on August 12, 2017 at 6:24 pm

            could be the unfunded liability decreases by ~$50b after the investigation…..?

  12. Posted by Anonymous on August 12, 2017 at 12:43 pm

    It is the reaction to fake news that measures impact.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: