....LMB: "Santarian Economics"....

January 10, 2003

More details about the less-than-equitable aspects of the Bush "economic stimulus plan."

From the Village Voice:

Almost half of the projected benefits from President Bush's plan to scrap taxes on dividends would go to the one percent of the population whose incomes top $1 million. The scheme has been promoted as beneficial to the elderly, but in fact, only six percent of the elderly with incomes under $50,000 get anything out of it... Further, taxpayers who earn $35,000 or less come away with $27 more a year...

At a time when we are supposedly trying to get rid of subsidies to farmers and other groups, Bush is offering a direct subsidy to Wall Street. The argument is that eliminating the tax would spur the market. Original predictions showed stocks would rise 20 percent. By Monday these projections had sunk to 6 to 8 percent. And critics were beginning to point out that the president's plan would hurt other sectors of the economy, leading to a probable decline in the housing sector and the sucking of money away from small business...

Meanwhile, as the Republicans ready yet another giveaway to the rich, Bush plans to cut back on domestic spending by holding the budget to $316 billion, according to The Washington Post.

Or, to put it another way:

Go find somebody else to explain how this will save our economy, cuz I sure can't.

Posted by Jake at 11:08 PM
Comments

Hey Jake,
The top 10% of wage earners pay 68% of all taxes.
Meaning the vast majority of people the democrats say they are going to help are not even paying taxes. The Demo's are Pandering for votes. The more you pay the more you get back it's only fair. Over tax and we'll turn into England where everyone flee's and if that happens how are you going to pay for all the illeagal aliens the demo's want to keep in the country to sponge off our social sytems.

Posted by: John at January 13, 2003 03:18 PM

John,
I'm part of that vast other 90% of people who you think don't pay any taxes at all. My records show that I pay some $279 bucks a week in taxes, social security, medicare, etc. That's over $14,500 I'll pay this year, which is about the same as my rent plus my car payment, and just about a third of my income. At 45K a year, I'll never be able to afford a home, buy any land, run for public office, etc. Perhaps this will go some distance toward showing you that taxes need to be progressive, and that those of us on the lower end of things need the break.

Besides, you are looking at this issue in exactly the wrong way. The richest ten percent of Americans deserve to foot this bill for a number of reasons.

First, their income derives almost entirely from exploiting people on the minimum wage end of the spectrum. If they paid a living wage, welfare might slowly disappear. Apparently wage slavery is preferable, and corporate giants would rather give the money directly to the government than to their employees.

Secondly, the huge cost of "National Defense" is spent almost entirely on the protection of their assets and interests, including overseas land holdings, trade routes, the use of ports, and affordable tariff schedules.

I understand that you're probably just trolling, but seriously, do you really believe that 'illeagal aliens" cost this nation anywhere near the amount we spend on frivolous government and a defense industry out of control? Some studies have shown that, when you factor in the huge amount of taxes paid by illegals and foreign nationals which will never be collected as social security, and which is clearly forfeited upon deportation, that the whole thing comes out about even.

As for the flight of the rich, I warmly invite it. Let them leave, and maybe small businessmen will have a chance to succeed, and less of an enticement to sell out.

Posted by: Some Guy at January 14, 2003 08:46 AM

you are the ignorent lying media bastards that you call others!

Posted by: at October 21, 2003 01:57 PM

I would like us all to get along in this kinder,gentler nation that G.W.Bush has created for our countrymen. Remember the sweet tax-cut that went to the poor? Remember that the reason we are fighting in Iraq... to free Iraqis from their oil and Sadam. I would urge all to visit Billionaires for Bush .com, it's a place where we can all come together and be as one.

Posted by: Dr. Keith Richabunch at May 21, 2004 11:31 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Lying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on KillRadio.org, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it.

Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters.

All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ģ.


contact: jake+at+lyingmediabastards.com

Media News

December 01, 2004

Media Mambo

The Great Indecency Hoax- last week, we wrote about how the "massive outcry" to the FCC about a racy Fox TV segment amounted to letters from 20 people. This week, we look at the newest media scandal, the infamous "naked back" commercial. On Monday Night Football, last week, ABC aired an ad for it's popular "Desperate Housewives" TV show, in which one of the actresses from the show attempted to seduce a football player by removing the towel she was wearing to bare her body to him. All the audience saw, however, was her back. No tits, no ass, no crotch, just her back.

No one complained.

The next Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh told his shocked viewers how the woman had appeard in the commercial "buck naked".

Then, the FCC received 50,000 complaints. How many of them actually saw this commercial is anyone's guess.

The article also shows the amazing statistics that although the Right is pretending that the "22% of Americans voted based on 'moral values'" statistic shows the return of the Moral Majority, this is actually a huge drop from the 35% who said that in the 2000 election or the 40% who said that in 1996 (when alleged pervert Bill Clinton was re-elected). This fact is so important I'm going to mention it over in the main news section too.

Brian Williams may surprise America- Tom Brokaw's replacement anchor, Brian Williams, dismissed the impact of blogs by saying that bloggers are "on an equal footing with someone in a bathroom with a modem." Which is really funny, coming out of the mouth of a dude who's idea of journalism is to read words out loud off a teleprompter. Seriously, if parrots were literate, Brian Williams would be reporting live from the line outside the soup kitchen.

In related news, Tom Brokaw has quit NBC Nightly News, and it appears that unlike his predecessor, the new guy can speak without slurring words like a drunk.

PR Meets Psy-Ops in War on Terror- in February of 2002, Donald Rumsfeld announced the creation of the Office of Strategic Influence, a new department that would fight the war on terror through misinformation, especially by lying to journalists. Journalists were so up in arms about this that the Pentagon agreed to scrap the program.

Don't you think that an agency designed to lie to the public might lie about being shut down, too?

This article gives some examples about the US military lying to the press for propaganda and disinformation purposes.

Tavis Smiley leaving NPR in December- African-American talk show host Tavis Smiley is opting to not renew his daily talk show on National Public Radio. He criticized his former employers for failing to: "meaningfully reach out to a broad spectrum of Americans who would benefit from public radio but simply donít know it exists or what it offers ... In the most multicultural, multi-ethnic and multiracial America ever, I believe that NPR can and must do better in the future." He's 100% correct. NPR is white. Polar bear eating a marshmallow at the mayonaise factory white. And the reason it's so white is that it is trying to maintain an affluent listener base (premoniantly older white folks) who will donate money to their stations. This is a great paradox of American public broadcasting, that they have a mandate to express neglected viewpoints and serve marginalized communities, but those folks can't donate money in the amounts that the stations would like to see.

U.S. Muslim Cable TV Channel Aims to Build Bridges- it sounds more positive than it is "Bridges TV" seems to simultaneously be a cable channel pursuing an affluent American Muslim demographic, and a way of building understanding and tolerance among American non-Muslims who might happen to watch the channel's programming. I was hoping it would be aimed more at Muslim's worldwide, but it ain't. Still, I'd be interested in seeing how their news programs cover the issues.

Every Damned Weblog Post Ever- it's funny cuz it's true.

Wikipedia Creators Move Into News- Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created collectively by thousands of contributors. It's one of those non-profit, decentralized, collective, public projects that show how good the internet can be. Now, the Wikipedia founders are working on a similar project to create a collaborative news portal, with original content. Honestly, it's quite similar to IndyMedia sites (which reminds me, happy 5th birthday, IndyMedia!). I'll admit, I'm a bit skeptical about the Wikinews project, though. IndyMedia sites work because they're local, focused on certain lefty issues, and they're run by activists invested in their beliefs. I'm not sure what would drive Wikinews or how it would hang together.

CBS, NBC ban church ad inviting gays- the United Church of Christ created a TV ad which touts the church's inclusion, even implying that they accept homosexuals into their congregation. Both CBS and NBC are refusing to air the ad. This is not too surprising, as many Americans are uncomfortable about homosexuality, and because TV networks are utter cowards. But CBS' explanation for the ban was odd:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast."

Whoa, what? First of all, the ad does not mention marriage at all. Second, since when do positions opposite of the Executive Branch constitute "unacceptable"? This doesn't sound like "we're not airing this because it's controversial", this sounds like "we're afraid of what the President might say."

Posted by Jake at 10:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)
More Media News

Jake Jake Jake

 

Fake "Ha-Ha" News

News

 

Quotes

"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into."

-Jonathan Swift

More Quotes

Media News

 

Obligatory Blog Links

 

Snapshots

Damn. That joke would have been much funnier if I'd said "apprentice" instead of "intern".

More Snapshots

Columnists Of Note

 

References

Sonic Resistance

 

Dead Trees

 

Heavy Rotation

Archives

 

Squiggles of Insight

SubvertWare

Credits

Design and Layout by Mark McLaughlin and Quang Tang
LMB Logo by Quang Tang

Alt "One Hell of a Leader" logo largely stolen from Obey Giant.
All other material by Jake Sexton (unless otherwise cited)

hosted by nice dream