Monday, March 12, 2012
Maddow Doesn't Do Propaganda?
In one of her self-promotional commercials, Rachel Maddow proclaims that, "For the past 10 years, we've only been pursuing policies that benefit the wealthy." This is false, folks. a) 81% of the Bush tax cuts went to the working and middle classes (300 of the 370 per annum billion). d) Non-defense discretionary spending (Medicaid, SCHIP, veterans' benefits, welfare, education expenditures, housing assistance, food assistance, tax credits for children, etc.) skyrocketed under President Bush. And c) the Medicare Part D drug program (no, it wasn't paid for and, yes, that's a problem) disproportionately helped the lower, working, and middle classes. For Ms. Maddow (Hannity with a twat, basically) to so casually throw around bromides like this is utterly and totally unhelpful (we all of us know by now that George Bush Jr. was a bad President - continuing to demonize him above and beyond this "loses" people). Divisive, too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
For the past 10 years, we HAVE been pursuing policies that primarily benefit the wealthy.
Economic Policy Institute: The Bush Tax Cuts Disproportionately Benefitted the Wealthy.
So, 81% of the tax cuts went to 95%(?) of the people? (I'm not sure where your break point is.). But if you are going to give tax breaks, they should go to the people who need them the most, not the people who need them the least. I would have given 100% of the Bush tax cuts to the poor and middle class.
You can't give tax breaks to the poor, Jerry. They don't pay any income tax.
The tax cuts cost the treasury $370 billion a year. Letting the top rates go back to 39.6% only raises 70 billion. I'm not a math wizard but 300 of 370 is 81.1%. Maddow says that we've only been pursuing policies that benefit the wealthy. That is a bald-faced incorrect statement. Couple that with the fact that the top 1% (in 2009) earned 16.9% of the AGI but payed 36.7% of the taxes and, yes, this whole 99% movement of yours seems pretty damned stupid indeed.
So, you are backing away from your previous statements that the 1% should pay more in taxes?
Or are you just being argumentive?
Probably the latter.....No, I actually DO want the top rates to go back to 39.6%. WE NEED THE REVENUES!! I just don't like Ms. Maddow trying to transform Bush from a bottom 5 President (which, at this point, I'd probably have to say that he is) into something seemingly far more sinister. The fellow was a shaky President. He wasn't an evil person who purposely tried to screw poor people 24/7.
Though I of course could be wrong.
I don't think people consider Bush so much as an "evil person who purposely tried to screw poor people" but more so as an evil person who purposely tried to benefit rich people.
Rather than evil, maybe misdirected would be a better word...but you used it first. :)
Will: this whole 99% movement of yours seems pretty damned stupid indeed.
Stupid? Try more like inevitable. People realize they're getting screwed by a system that is rigged to benefit the wealthy. The bailouts, the tax cuts, the fact that the banksters perpetrated criminal acts and very few of them were charged. I think you have to be blind not to see it.
In fact, I'd say this has got to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said. Disagreeing with some of the tactics would be one thing (and you've done that), but to state the 99 percent movement has absolutely no reason to complain? That's what I'd call pretty damned stupid.
Also, I take offense to the word you used when comparing Rachel Maddow to Hannity. That wasn't necessary. Although, it is perhaps in line with the general anti-woman sentiments of some of your recent posts (your criticism of Sandra Fluke). Also, Maddow and Hannity aren't at all comparable.
I'll be blunt about Bush, Jerry. The man was as naive a President as we've had since LBJ. He didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia and his concepts of nation-building and preemption were borderline delusional. But to say that he only did things to help rich people is demonstrably false. The social spending alone is sufficiently proof-positive of that.
wd, the percentage of the AGI that goes to the top 1% went down SIGNIFICANTLY from 2008 to 2009 (from 20% to 16.9% - a 15.5% reduction!). And even though they only make 16.9% of the AGI, they pay 36.7% of the total income taxes. How much larger of a percentage do you frigging want? 50%? 80%? What, pray tell, would ultimately satisfy you?......And if the system is so damned rigged, then how come 57% of the people who were in the lowest economic quintile in 1996 raised themselves up to a higher quintile by 2005? Let me give you a clue, wd. It's called hard work/determination/the deferrence of gratification/taking personal responsibility.......And, again, you simply don't understand science. When you make a comparison between groups, you don't just look at the between group variability. You also look at the within group variability. This 99% group is so frigging diverse as to be utterly meaningless. A person making $150,000 a year and living in Marblehead Neck MA is technically as much a part of the 99% as a person making $25,000 a year and living in Trenton New Jersey. You see what I'm saying?
And how 'bout this, wd - Hannity is Maddow with a pecker? Is that any better? And what did I ever say about Mrs. Fluke that was sexist?
I think what Rachel Maddow said was that we've been pursing polices that only benefit the wealthy for the past THIRTY years... and according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, "income for the top 20 percent has increased since the 1970s while income for the bottom 80 percent declined. In the 1970s the top 1 percent received 8 percent of total income while today they receive 18 percent. During the same period income for the bottom 20 percent had decreased 30 percent".
ONLY the wealthy saw their share of the national income go up, therefore ONLY the wealthy benefited. Rachel Maddow's statement is accurate.
Maddow is providing only one part of the narrative (gee, what a shock). In 1988, the top 1% made 15.16% of the AGI and paid 27.58% of the total income taxes. By 2009, they were making 16.93% of the AGI and paying 36.73% of the total income taxes. Ergo, yes, their income went up 11.7% but their share of the total income taxes went up 33.2% (a nearly 3:1 differential). Add to that the fact that the top 1%'s share of the country's total financial worth was 42.9% in 1983 and 42.7% in 2007 (it actually went down slightly!) and it really IS a whole hell of a lot more complicated than Maddow the Rhodes Scholar is constantly making it out to be.
Will: Maddow is providing only one part of the narrative.
Give me a break Will. That isn't the game Rachel Maddow is in. You want her to do something that would be detrimental to the Democratic Party (making the message overly and unnecessarily complex). She wouldn't have her job on MSNBC if she did what you want her to.
And she isn't a Hannity either. There's a difference between providing only one part of the narrative and LYING.
Rachel Maddow doesn't do propaganda.
Will: You can't give tax breaks to the poor, Jerry. They don't pay any income tax.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: The Impact of State Income Taxes on Low-Income Families in 2010 (excerpt) ...in most of the 15 states where such families still pay income taxes, they saw their income taxes increase.
CBS News Chicago: Report: Poor Families Pay High Income Taxes In Illinois. (excerpt) Poor families face higher income taxes in Illinois than in all but a handful of other states, according to a new report. ...that was true even before a state income tax increase this year.
Oregon Center For Public Policy: Working Poor Oregonians Pay More in Income Taxes Than Poor in Most Other States. (excerpt) As poverty continues to rise in Oregon, a new report published today said that Oregon remains among a minority of states that tax the income of working poor families and that its tax is among the highest.
The New York Times: The New Resentment of the Poor (excerpt) The poorest fifth paid an average of 16.3 percent of income in taxes in 2010.
Telling only one side to the story is the very definition of propaganda.......And in CT, the poor pay bubkis for state income tax. I don't even pay all that much.......15 out of 50. Translated, the poor currently don't pay any income tax in 35 states.......As for punditry in general, the only persons who I can listen to these days without retching are David Brooks and Thomas Friedman. The rest of 'em (Limbaugh, obviously the worst) essentially make my skin crawl.
Rachel Maddow does opinion journalism, not propaganda.
This fixation of yours regarding income tax paid by poor people... is it because you think they should pay more? At least it sounds like you think they're lucky duckies.
I don't want poor people to pay taxes if they can't afford it. And I'm not opposed to the rich paying more, either. I just don't like the pitting of one group against another group. Mr. Obama is an exceedingly articulate person. There's no reason in hell that he can't discuss this issue more thoughtfully.
WD: "Rachel Maddow does opinion journalism, not propaganda."
The difference between the two being whether or not you, WD, personally agree with the opinion.
"And she isn't a Hannity either. There's a difference between providing only one part of the narrative and LYING."
When she does lie, and you are presented with overwhelming evidence of it, you go ahead and deny it. I guess that shows another difference: if the lie favors your side, it is not a lie.
Post a Comment