McCain Becomes Incoherent Trying To Excuse
Growing Economic Inequality
Partially hyperlinked to sources.
For all sources, see the data
Sources you'll hear in this first
segment include: the New York Times, mediamatters.org, the Center for American
Progress, Reuters, Gallup polling, the National Taxpayers Union, brainyquote.com,
The Nation magazine, and taxfoundation.org.
The mainstream corporate media tell
you that John McCain has trouble reading a teleprompter. That's why his speeches
are so poorly delivered. But in town
hall meetings, the unscripted McCain is brilliant and witty.
I wonder how brilliant and witty
you'll think he sounds after you hear this.
I'll let the entire 90 second clip
play uninterrupted and unedited. That
way you can get the full, real-time flavor of it:
Do you think the economic policies of the last eight years has led to a
concentration of wealth--in other words, is it skewed income so there's too much
money with too few people?
I think that because of our spending practices, we have mortgaged all of
our children's futures. And I
believe that every American should have a chance to become wealthy.
And I want to provide them with that opportunity.
I want to keep their taxes low and I want to provide them with a lower
price for a gallon of gas, because it's lowest-income Americans that are
suffering the most.
So, as you know, I had my
own proposal for tax cuts. And those
tax cuts, I think, were important. But
they also were associated with spending. I
think spending--out-of-control spending--has harmed all Americans.
But I think it's harmed low-income Americans.
And our failure, over 30
years, to address the energy issue. Who
is paying the most today? It's the
lower-income Americans driving the much older automobiles.
That's who is bearing the majority of the burden of our failure to act to
become independent of foreign oil and address the energy issue.
Have you ever heard worse gobbledygook?
There's a reason for McCain's
The noted late economist John Kenneth
one of my favorite quotes:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral
justification for selfishness.
I have what I call the Jack Clark
corollary to Galbraith:
Everything the right-wing does is designed to
accomplish one of two things, either (a) transfer wealth from everyone else to
the rich, or, (b) distract everyone else from the fact that (a), that wealth
transfer, is occurring.
In the questioner's words, too much
money with too few people is the
What more do you need to know than
Since 1980, the beginning of the
reign of Reaganomics, the wealthiest 1% of Americans have more than doubled
their share of the nation's income.
They went from getting 8% of all the
income, to 21%.
They're already the richest 1%.
Do they really need to more than double their income relative to everyone
Isn't there something wrong with this
We now have the greatest
income inequality since the Great Depression!
And on top of that, the right wants
to give them even more tax cuts than they've gotten already!
No wonder McCain can't come up with a
There is none.
It gets even worse.
Wealth is unspent income accumulated
How you ever wondered, how bad is
wealth distribution in the United States?
The next statistic is so
mind-boggling, I had to go double check the actual underlying government figures
myself, after I read it in an article. It's
The 400 richest American families --
all billionaires -- have
as much wealth as the entire bottom half of the nation.
Yes, you heard me correctly.
400 top-of-the-pile families have as much wealth as 57 million other
Before you right-wingers start
emailing me about how I'm jealous and I hate the rich and blah blah blah, let me
set you straight:
I don't hate the rich.
Maybe I'm rich myself.
But the wealth just can't be so
concentrated at the top that there's not enough left for the rest of the country
to live a decent life by American standards.
How do McCain, and some of the more
prominent right-wing talk radio propagandists, fare under GOP tax plans?
Isn't it amazing how solutions
offered by right-wingers invariably involve giving more money to the already
Which is themselves!
Check this out.
Under McCain's plan, McCain and his
wife would save a cool $373,000 in taxes. Per
Under Obama's tax plan, the McCains
would save less than $6,000.
Hmm… no surprise here. McCain,
and the entire right-wing opt for the "be generous to the rich" plan.
Even if vital public services need to
be cut to pay for it.
Now under McCain's plan, the Obamas
would save $49,000. Under the Obama
tax plan, the Obamas would save a little over $6000.
Economic self-interest would
naturally lead Obama to support the McCain-type plan.
But instead, Obama proposes
progressive tax measures that will cost him tens of thousands of dollars in
taxes. Every year.
Have you ever made a decision that
upholds your principles at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars a year?
That's something no right-winger would ever do.
Ok, now let's see what some
right-wing talk show big shots are up to in this area.
Sean Hannity is constantly demanding
further tax cuts for the wealthy. Might
that be in his own self-interest?
A recent report
said Hannity is being offered a $200 million, 8 year contract.
That comes out to $25 million a year.
The average American's income is
$50,000 a year. Let's assume he or
she works even as long as 50 years. His
or her total lifetime earnings would be $2.5 million dollars.
So Sean Hannity will earn in one
year, as much as the average American would take ten lifetimes to earn
Yet Hannity whines all the time about
he doesn't want his taxes to go up.
Rush Limbaugh just signed an 8 year
deal worth $400 million dollars. At
$50 million dollars a year, Rush earns as much in a year as most Americans would
take at least 20 lifetimes to earn.
Rush also, is horrified by the
prospect of increasing taxes on the wealthy.
You probably know that economic
justice and progressive taxation were hallmarks of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's
No wonder Rush says with such glee:
Roosevelt is dead.
His policies may live on, but we're in the process of doing something
about that as well.
Well, not so fast, Rush.
The public's noticing this extreme
greed on the right.
A recent Gallup poll
found 68% of Americans agreeing with the proposition, that wealth in this
country is unfairly distributed.
51% wanted the rich taxed heavily to
redistribute wealth. That's the
highest number since the question was first asked in the Great Depression.
This is despite some 27 years,
starting with Reagan's ascendancy in 1980, of relentless right-wing propaganda
about the dire necessity to lower taxes, especially on the wealthy
51% of Americans support heavy
taxes on the rich.
And Obama's plan, which so
infuriates, or better yet terrifies the right, isn't even heavy taxes.
It's just letting the Clinton 39.6%
level return, from the present 35%.
Heavy would be going back
to the Kennedy era 71%, or the Eisenhower era over 90% top marginal tax rate.
Open, naked, available-for-you-to-see
oh so clearly right-wing greed is the reason the public has turned on the GOP.
It's why I just got this email from
Terrence from Kansas City:
I just started listening
to your podcast and i love it! I am registered Republican but i have to tell you
I ashamed right now of what the party has become. Under this
administration we have $4.48 gas in Kansas City where I am at. We have
banks failing left and right and people who have to choose between going to work
and eating, but we still have these jerk talking heads who say the economy is
doing great. Keep up the good fight! I am ashamed to say this but my voter
registration might be changing soon!
I wrote back to Terrence saying
Always a pleasure to meet
someone who can change
The public's waking up is why McCain
and Hannity and all the rest of the right-wing lying squadron are repeating over
and over again blatant falsehoods about Obama's tax plans.
Trying to scare the public into thinking Obama would raise taxes for the
Check out podcast 123 for the
The simple fact
is, Obama's plan raises taxes only for those making over $250,000 a year, the
richest 3% of Americans.
To close, George from Bellmore, Long
Island, New York -- two towns up the Ling Island Railroad line
from where I grew up -- George sent me in something Garrison Keillor recently
[P]oor Rush Limbaugh
living alone with his cat in his Palm Beach compound with the cherubs on the
ceiling just like at Versailles and the life-size oil portrait of himself.
Imagine having to look at that as you come down to breakfast.
Appropriate that ol' Rush fashions
himself a French King living at Versailles.
Rush and all those right-wingers better watch out.
You know what happened to Louis
XVI in 1793, don't you?
Rush may not literally lose his head,
but I think he is about to lose his political clout, as the American public
increasingly wakes up to the falsity of right-wing dogma.
You can help hasten that day by
continuing to spread the progressive word.
More Shady Deals & Lies As The Right-Wing
Closes In On Iraq's Oil
Partially hyperlinked to sources.
For all sources, see the data
Developments are coming fast and
furious on the Iraq oil front. The
Bushians are near the end of their 8 years of misrule. So they're scrambling big
time to get their tentacles as deep and as firmly entrenched as possible into
the Iraqi oil fields.
All to set things up for the theft of
Sources you'll hear in this segment
include: the New York Times, Reuters, CNN, The Nation magazine, and the
First off, remember a couple of
podcasts ago you heard how the giant oil multinationals have been invited back
into Iraq? With some dubious no bid
And that the Bush administration had
denied having anything to do with it?
At the time, I said I didn't believe
that at all.
I was correct.
Not that it takes any large degree of intelligence to assume the Bushians
are lying whenever words come out of their mouths.
Turns out, American advisors working
alongside the State Department had a major
role in writing those contracts.
A group of American
advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing
up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies
to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.
The disclosure…is the
first confirmation of direct involvement by the Bush administration in deals to
open Iraq’s oil to commercial development and is likely to stoke criticism.
As I told you in an earlier podcast,
when the US government wanted the overall Iraqi hydrocarbons law drafted a
certain way, it hired
an American consulting firm to direct the Iraqis in what to do.
Management Systems International, a
US consulting firm, was hired by the US Agency for International Development to
"assist" the Iraqi oil and other ministries.
Maybe you'll laugh out loud as I did,
when I read what Dana Perino, White House spokeswoman, said in denial:
Iraq is a sovereign
country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move
forward in its development of its oil resources
Yup, totally sovereign and free to
make its own decisions, if you ignore the some 147,000
foreign occupation troops propping up that government.
Ok, caught red-handed on the no-bid
contracts, a few days later, another oil scandal surfaced.
Official Bush administration public
policy is that the Kurdish region in northern Iraq shouldn't sign any separate
oil deals, until a national oil law is in place.
But Ray L. Hunt of Texas is a close
political ally of George W.
State Department officials apparently
Hunt's actions in signing such a separate oil deal with the Kurdish regional
At first the right-wingers did what
they always do, lie about it.
They denied condoning the Hunt deal.
But then email messages and other
documents surfaced proving the exact opposite was true.
Forgot to use the delete button and shredder, guys?
Here's an interesting wrinkle for
Condoleezza Rice is continuing to
deny any State Department role in the awarding of the no-bid contracts I spoke
Henry Waxman, Democrat of California,
is my congressman. He's chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and
He just wrote a letter
to Condoleezza Rice demanding documents relating to the awarding of the no-bid
contracts. He links it to the
dissembling about the Hunt oil deal.
You and other
administration officials have denied playing any role in these contracts.
The documents the
Committee has received about Hunt Oil show that in matters involving Iraqi oil,
official denials of knowledge and involvement can be misleading.
This is a serious matter
because of the widespread suspicion in Iraq and other nations that the United
States went to war to gain access to Iraqi oil.
We'll see where this leads.
The big enchilada surfaces.
And I ain't talking food. Stick
You've heard me explain in prior
shows how the dominant model in the world today is for national oil companies to
own and control all aspects of the exploration, extraction and sale of oil.
The government hires giant oil multinationals only to provide services.
Up until the 60's or so, on the other
hand, the oil multinationals basically ran
things. And they took a lion's
share, as much as 84%,
of the profits. The oil
multinationals have been itching -- and plotting -- to get back their control of
the world's oil.
Check out podcast
86 for details and evidence.
Well, as reported
by CNN, the plotting has begun to come to fruition.
Iraq's oil minister Monday
opened international bidding on six oil fields…
It marks the first time in
more than 35 years that Iraq has allowed foreign oil companies to do business
inside its borders.
For the first time in 35 years.
It took a US invasion and occupation
to achieve this.
Now these deals are not the dreaded
production sharing agreements, or PSA's. Under
these, the oil companies used to severely rip off Third World nation's by taking
80% or more of the profits.
The contracts just announced for
bidding are structured differently. But
they're still wildly inappropriate in the multinational's favor.
They're still the beginning of giving the store away.
According to progressive oil industry
Muttitt, the fields in question are already developed,
It's always been Iraqi policy that the Iraqi National Oil Company would
have 100% control of this type of oil field.
All six of the fields…
are already producing oil…As such, their investment and technology needs are
relatively minor, and could easily be provided within the public sector, as they
have been for more than 30 years.
Yet these new deals give a 75% stake
to the multinationals.
Instead of 100%, the Iraqi National
Oil Company gets a 25% stake.
Anywhere else, in the year 2008, this
deal couldn't have happened.
But everywhere else, there's not a
foreign occupying army.
Oil theft, anyone?
That such is the case, has just been admitted
by a most unlikely source.
Fadhil Chalabi was a major adviser to
the Bushians leading up to the invasion of Iraq.
He met with the oil multinationals before the war.
Chalabi recently said the war was
a strategic move on the
part of the United States of America and the UK to have a military presence in
the Gulf in order to secure [oil] supplies in the future.
He said this was a "primary
objective" of the war.
To close, you should remember:
Under the Geneva conventions it's
illegal to invade another nation to grab their natural resources.
I hope you and I will see this as one
more count on an indictment at the Hague. An
indictment we all hope will eventually be filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Rice, Powell and the whole lot of these war criminals.