I love this shit

So I found a news article about Bush and Kerry that actually deals with an issue - the Economy. But this Christian Science Monitor piece is so horribly balanced that I'd rather be subjected to Swift Boat Dipshit propaganda 24/7.

The first economist they quote works for the Heritage Foundation, but a Bank of America economist, Mickey Levy, takes center stage. Keep in mind that Levy's former employer was the American Enterprise Institute while reading this passage:

On taxes, for instance, Bank of America economist Mickey Levy describes Kerry as a traditional Democrat who would raise taxes and spending. Kerry has said he would restore the income tax rate on those making more than $200,000 a year to the level they were before the Bush tax cuts, putting the money into healthcare reforms.

CS Monitor let's Levy's comment about Kerry increasing spending slide despite recent media reports about Bush's proposed spending going through the roof, clocking in at over $3 trillion. In fact, Levy doesn't even mention how the size of our federal government has increased more under Bush than it did under Clinton. And on the topic of big spending, Levy doesn't even mention the war in Iraq.

Nope, there's not too much bias in this article. And it gets worse:

Kerry would also raise taxes on dividends and capital gains. In addition, the Kerry staff is exploring raising the cap on earnings subject to payroll taxes above their present level of about $88,000 a year.

The latter, says Mr. Levy, would be a "gigantic tax increase" hitting business as well as individuals, and thereby eventually affecting all workers.

In comparison, President Bush proposes making his temporary tax cut permanent, including ending the estate tax.

So after painting Kerry as a big spender who would increase the size of the government, Bush is trumpeted for his tax cuts. But there's no mention of those cuts shifting more of the tax base onto the backs of the middle class and the poor. Couple this information with the fact that Bush is spending so much that it would make a socialist blush, and two huge rhetorical question remains: Who will pay for Bush's big spending ways? Wouldn't it require a tax increase?

The reason why Kerry's tax plan is superior is because it shifts more of the tax burden onto the backs of the rich, where it belongs. Those fuckers can afford to pay increased taxes and I can't.

After framing Kerry as a big spending asshole, the article finally mentions Bush's spending.

But [Heritage Foundation economist] Beach is concerned with the growth in spending under Bush.

Notice the extreme lack of details. Even after quoting Clinton economist Robert Reich in an attempt to balance things out, the details I mentioned are still nowhere to be found.

The framing continues:

Bush: Passed $1.7 trillion in broad-based tax cuts to stimulate economic growth. Wants to make the cuts permanent and review how to simplify the tax code. ...

Kerry: Says he would restore 1990s tax rates for those earning over $200,000, but make other tax cuts permanent. Would cut taxes on businesses by 5 percent.

So when Bush proposes tax cuts, it's to "stimulate economic growth." But when Kerry proposes tax cuts, it's.. Well, they don't have a descriptive sentence for it at all. I guess Bush's tax cuts are better!

Excuse me while I gouge my eyes out. If this is what qualifies for talking about issues this election, I'm gonna cry.