We should note, now that Obama’s poll numbers are the lowest ever, you do not see The Telegraph using any poll numbers.
Back to their latest! It is titled “Analysis: A closer look at Cain’s campaign proposals” When we looked at it we knew what was coming. You can see it here.
If we look at the history of The Telegraph, in their very limited coverage of the Fair Tax, it is evident such things confuse them to the point of incoherence. For instance on Tuesday, May 22, 2007 they told their readers that “Fair Tax supporters contend that while there would be a 23 percent sales tax on goods, residents would no longer pay state or federal income taxes; that would more than offset the sales tax hike.”
This clearly demonstrates the staff of The Telegraph does not know anything about the Fair Tax and definitely leaves the impression that they think the Federal Government controls state tax law and this is absurd. It was called to their attention, but was never corrected. We have to assume they do not care.
Their present “Analysis” which they claim is “A closer look at Cain’s campaign proposals” has the same odor as their telling people that “…residents would no longer pay state…” income tax.
The above bit of wisdom came from the Editorial Page Editor’s domain and that would be Charles E. Richardson. We might note that on The Telegraph’s News Talk Central aired week day mornings over Fox TV Channel 24, WGXA and Radio Station 940 WMAC AM. Richardson whom we sometimes refer to as Low-Grade made clear his feelings and by extension The Telegraph’s on disagreements with their readers.
It seems that a caller disagreed with the way the paper handled a story about a local city mayor who was picked up for DUI (Driving under the Influence). A message was left on “Richardson’s answering machine. Richardson took advantage of the morning program to lash out at the caller. He assured the audience that the caller could ‘go to hell’, and in case there was any misunderstanding he repeated it, “go to hell, straight to hell”, etc.
People just do not seem to learn, they are expected to do as they are told, The Telegraph will not tolerate anything else. The people are not to in any manner question the way The Telegraph censors the so-called news they present for the reader’s consumption.
After a minor digression let us get back to their “Analysis” the first thing we noticed is they broke it into two separates parts. In their first piece on the 9-9-9 plan they start with the “class-warfare” gambit, they show the reader what they are suppose to take away from the article. This according to them is the “Poor, elderly would pay more, Rich would pay less under 9-9-9 tax plan”. Then they quote “Bruce Bartlett, former Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush”. They do this like that is suppose to give Bartlett some kind of credentials.
Bartlett is like Paul Krugman’s who The Telegraph carried water for in the past. When people called in and complained The Telegraph passed it off as the fact that he was a “National Syndicated Columnist” and could commit no wrong.
They ignore the fact that Bartlett has a lot in common with Paul Krugman who like Bill Clinton would tell a lie when the truth would do just as good. If you want to see what we are talking about, just Google “Cavuto Krugman lie” and see what you get.
As for Bruce Bartlett, he made an attempt to connect the Fair Tax to “…the Scientology-affiliated Citizens for an Alternative Tax System.” This was dishonest then, it is dishonest now. Anything Bartlett says is like anything you read in The Telegraph, it has to be taken with a grain of salt and checked carefully. Of course The Telegraph probably does not know this and if they did they could care less as it is right up their alley. You can check out Bartlett right here.
Ken Hoagland in his book “The Fair Tax Solution – Financial Justice for all Americans” takes note of this. He tells us that “In an embarrassing and revealing departure from its normally staid and restrictive filters on guest editorials, the [Wall Street] Journal allowed Washington tax lobbyist Bruce Bartlett to write a rambling and venomous piece describing the Fair tax as an invention of the Church of Scientology and then, for almost a month, refused to allow a response piece by Fair Tax founder Leo Linbeck – a devout Catholic.”
Back to The Telegraph’s scam of the day. The other side of the scam was an AP article by Michael Warren. You can see that here.
There was no title, just large letters telling you what they wanted you to believe. They want you to believe that “Not all are happy with the Chilean retirement model touted by Cain” While that is probably true, it would appear what they want the reader to think is that it is a bad program. The Telegraph has been touting the losing program of Social Security going back years prior to 1995. They will attack or ignore anyone who comes forth with any idea for change. For instance three examples of what the article ignores follows:
(1) An article titled “The Jobs Bill: Pretending to Fund Social Security” dated 09/19/2011 and available at economics21.org. The article is by Charles Blahous a U.S. public trustee for the Social Security and Medicare programs. You can see his back ground here. (2) Social Security disability on verge of insolvency an AP article by Stephen Ohlemacher and you can see it here.
(3) A dysfunctional Government that we experience every day even though so-called news sources like The Telegraph does not report it. This Government can not even pass a budget.
The above is an example of what Warren did not consider, now we can look at what The Telegraph did to the Article by Michael Warren. The Paragraph numbers are added for some clarity. You can see the original article here for comparison.
In the 6th paragraph of the original article The Telegraph cut the following: “Once the funds are exhausted, the system would collect only enough payroll taxes to pay about three-fourths of the benefits Americans have been promised.”
In the 7th paragraph the following was cut: “At the time, Chilean stocks were performing so badly that the military and police refused to go along. Many civilians also decided to stay with their government-run plans, but most switched.”
In the 8th paragraph this was cut: “Roughly half of Chile's 17 million people pay into the private system today and can earn full pensions at age 60 for women and 65 for men, compared with a U.S. retirement age that is rising to 67”.
The following was cut from the 9th paragraph: “Upon retirement, they can take out whatever's left after taxes and spend it as they wish. Anything left over at their death can be inherited by their families.”
The following was paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the original article and The Telegraph decided you did not need this information.
(10) Chilean companies aren't required to pay anything into the system, unlike U.S. employers, who must match each worker's 6.2 percent payroll tax. That makes the total Social Security tax 12.4 percent, applied to the first $106,800 of each employee's wages. (Workers' payroll taxes were cut to 4.2 percent for this year; they'll return to 6.2 percent on Jan. 1 unless extended as President Barack Obama has asked.)(11) Starting in 2002, Chileans were allowed to invest up to 10 percent more in pretax savings — besides the mandatory program — that could be withdrawn at any time with no penalties other than taxes. Those voluntary plans, used mostly by Chileans wealthy enough to be able put away up to 20 percent of their income, have boomed, creating an additional $5.7 billion investment pool.
(12) Transparency is built in: Chileans can use ATM-style cards or go online at any time to make projections and changes, and the government tightly regulates the funds, reporting each month on their progress. Success has bred imitation; 30 other countries have adopted something similar.
Paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 were used in their entirety. The following paragraph 16 was completely omitted. But here it is:
(16) U.S. Social Security benefits aren't much better, despite adjusting for inflation and using a sliding scale so that low-wage workers get a higher share of their earnings than higher-wage workers do. American workers retiring this year after making an average of $41,000 annually over 35 years would initially get about 45 percent of their working wage; an $88,000-a-year worker would get about 30 percent. The average U.S. monthly benefit is about $1,180, just 28 percent of the median U.S. monthly household income of $4,159.
Paragraphs 17, 18 and 19 were also used in their entirety. Paragraph 20 was completely omitted. But here it is:
(20) The changes mean Chile's system is hardly the private plan it was billed to be: Two-thirds of all pensioners now get some kind of government support, which both increases taxes and enables private companies to profit more from government revenues.The question is did any of the material change the conclusion of the material used?
We would love to hear from you. You can reach us in the comments section or by e-mail at wetrack@windstream.net
Your contacts at The [Macon] Telegraph.
Contacts at The Telegraph.
President and Publisher - George McCanless
Phone744-4290 - e-mail - gmccanless@macon.com
Executive Editor - Sherrie Marshall
Phone - 744-4340 - e-mail - smarshall@macon.com
Editorial Page Editor - Charles E. Richardson
Phone - 744-4342 - e-mail - crichardson@macon.com
Visiting Member - Kenny Burgamy (ex-banker)
e-mail - kenny@macon.com
Have a nice day
No comments:
Post a Comment