Friday, November 16, 2012

Fantasyland Media:


http://www.fantasylandmedia.org

Each week, we cover the stories that are just left out of the US propaganda machine. News that the people in charge, the corporations and your government want to keep from the public eye.

------

Common Dreams:
"As boisterous threats of the 'fiscal cliff' persist and progressive voices urge President Barack Obama to avoid falling for shortsighted solutions to illusory ultimatums, a group of corporate lobbyists and CEO's going by the name of 'The Campaign to Fix the Debt' are set to unleash an onslaught of campaign ads which propose bipartisan 'compromises' to the problem, but in reality would act as a 'Trojan horse concealing massive corporate tax breaks that would make our debt situation much worse,' according to a new report by the Institute for Policy Studies.

The Fix the Debt campaign, made up of more than 80 CEOs of 'America’s most powerful corporations,' has raised $60 million to lobby for a debt deal that 'would reduce corporate taxes and shift costs onto the poor and elderly,' including large cuts to social programs such as Medicare and Social security, the report finds.

With ‘Fix the Debt,' CEOs are trying to 'pass themselves off as noble leaders who are willing to compromise in order the save America from financial ruin,' but are actually 'leveraging the Fiscal Cliff' in order to push age old attempts to avoid paying taxes at the expense of those in need, says report co-authors Scott Klinger and Sarah Anderson."

-->The NY Times has covered this CEO group in quite a different way. There is little mention of what these CEOs are really after. In fact, the group is praised in a number of articles, like a recent one entitled "Business Chiefs Step Gingerly Into a Thorny Budget Fight."

------

Guardian UK:
"It is remarkable that social security hasn't been a more prominent issue in the presidential race. After all, Governor Romney has proposed a plan that would imply cuts of more than 40% for middle-class workers just entering the labor force. Since social security is hugely popular across the political spectrum, it would seem that President Obama could gain an enormous advantage by clearly proclaiming his support for the program.

But President Obama has consistently refused to rise to the defense of social security. In fact, in the first debate, he explicitly took the issue off the table, telling the American people that there is not much difference between his position on social security and Romney's.

On its face, this is difficult to understand. In addition to being good politics, there are also solid policy grounds for defending social security. The social security system is perhaps the greatest success story of any program in US history. By providing a core retirement income, it has lifted tens of millions of retirees and their families out of poverty. It also provides disability insurance to almost the entire workforce. The amount of fraud in the system is minimal, and the administrative costs are less than one 20th as large as the costs of private-sector insurers...

But there is another set of economic considerations affecting the politics of social security. These considerations involve the economics of the political campaigns and the candidates running for office. The story here is a simple one: while social security may enjoy overwhelming support across the political spectrum, it does not poll nearly as well among the wealthy people – who finance political campaigns and own major news outlets. The predominant philosophy among this group is that a dollar in a workers' pocket is a dollar that could be in a rich person's pocket – and these people see social security putting lots of dollars in the pockets of people who are not rich."

-->Why is it that our mainstream media in our country can't tell it like it is? The NY Times and NPR would never even whisper these words to the American people. Our media is simply part of the conspiracy against the rights of working people. 

------

Common Dreams:
"Is Netanyahu Planning Nuclear Attack on Iran? 

Netanyahu thinks ballistic missiles carrying tactical nuclear warheads will be necessary to take out Iran's Fordow uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom. The site is buried deep beneath a mountain...

From The Sunday Times:
Well aware of the hostile international response to even the suggestion of a nuclear attack, the option is not being debated publicly. But last week it was referred to indirectly by Shaul Mofaz, head of the Kadima party and leader of the opposition.

For some time Mr Mofaz, 64, a former defense minister and one of the few Israeli politicians privy to the country’s nuclear secrets, has believed that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing a dangerous game."

-->The NY Times coverage of Netanyahu's plans conveniently leaves out any mention of the possible use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

No comments: