>> A common right-wing talking point that we've heard in regard to rejecting legislation that
would provide $2,000 direct relief checks to Americans, is that this legislation would
actually end up redistributing more wealth to the top. That these checks
would only go to benefit the Democrats' wealthy friends. People making six figures or more.
But what was interesting about how the media covered those accusations,
is that they didn't reject or fact check it. In fact, what they did was provide cover for that
intentionally deceptive argument. Now, why do I say it's intentionally deceptive?
The way the legislation was written indicated that the money would be means-tested.
So anyone making $75,000 or less would qualify for the full amount of $2,000 in direct
relief checks. And this is based on tax filings from the last year. Now,
did the media report that? Maybe in some cases they did, but there were
many high-profile cases where the did quite the opposite.
So I'm gonna give you a few examples. As David Sirota again reports in the Daily Poster.
First came a barrage of attacks on the $2,000 checks initiative from, of course, Larry Summers.
We talked about that on the show. A former hedge fund executive who as President Barack Obama's
national economic director, stymied the push for more stimulus after the 2008 financial crisis.
New York Times' Paul Krugman pretended the wildly popular initiative is divisive, and
said the economics aren't very good. Timesman Tom Friedman, who married into a real estate empire,
called the idea crazy and fretted that checks might go to people
who don't need the help. The millions of billionaire Michael Bloomberg joined in
with a house editorial demanding Congress blocked the checks.
And then of course, there were all sorts of op-eds written in places like the Washington Post,
for instance, that repeated the same ridiculous talking points about how this wouldn't actually
stimulate the economy. Wouldn't really provide relief. This is bad.
Don't do it. And guess how that translated to the Senate floor.
Well, let's hear the argument from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
>> Socialism for rich people. That's what Speaker Pelosi and Senator Sander
have sketched out. A terrible way to help those who need it. And experts across the
political spectrum agree. The liberal editors, The Washington Post have blasted so called
progressives demanding a-non targeted giveaway, huge amounts to perfectly comfortable families.
Larry Summers who ran the Treasury Department for President Clinton, and the National Economic
Council for President Obama says there is, quote, no good economic argument end quote. For
more non-targeted checks with no linkage to need. >> And Cenk, what he's citing there is literally
from an op-ed written in the Washington Post, where President Obama's NEC director
had said, there's no good economic argument for universal $2000 checks at this moment.
Even the liberal Washington Post today is laughing at the political left
demanding more. Well, that was more of Mitch McConnell's statement. But that was an actual
statement from President Obama's NEC director from the Washington Post. And so you have
Republican senators saying, look at this. Even liberals think this is bad policy, come on.
What is this insane socialism for the wealthy thing that we're trying to do here?
It's insane. The media just provided cover for intentionally deceptive talking point.
>> So there's actually two different things that media is doing. One, they refuse to actually
cover the facts. So they won't tell you that the Democrats could have gotten a
standalone vote on $2,000 checks if they just blocked the defense bill with Bernie Sanders.
And by the way five Republicans as well and and a number of other Democrats,
they easily would have had a majority. They could have blocked it long enough to get a
standalone bill. But did you see anybody in cable news saying, that's interesting. Chuck Schumer,
Kamala Harris. All these people refused to actually get the $2,000 check.
So I guess they never meant it. Did you hear anyone, anyone on cable news say that? CNN,
MSNBC. Did anybody say that? Never, never. They run cover for corporate Democrats to trick you.
Look, it's possible that almost every one of those networks are ignorant
and don't actually know anything about politics.
That's why I call them news actors, not news anchors. It's also possible that they know
and they're like, don't tell people that Kamala Harris is an actor. And Chuck Schumer is an actor,
and they never meant it. But it's actually worse than that. So that's problem number one.
Problem number two, Ana, is sort of pointing out is no the Washington Post editorial board is like,
no, no, no these people. By the way, the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos.
I'm not saying Jeff Bezos gives direction to the op-ed board. I don't think it works like that.
But he's in charge and he hires certain people,
etc. And the people who run that enjoy board are very, very, very conservative.
And then, the great trick is the richest man in America owns the paper.
The guys running the editorial board are deeply conservative and everybody in Washington knows it.
Then McConnell comes on goes, the liberal Washington Post agrees.
Now, Larry Summers is deeply conservative. He's a neo-liberal. He's given everything
to the rich throughout his career. Every legal break went to the rich. And every
time it was time for a stimulus check for Americans, Larry Summers fought against it.
On economic issues, he is deeply Republican. And then they go, but Larry Summers since he worked
with Obama and Clinton. Now, even the left agrees with us so, great. We have bipartisan
agreement that again, the American people should get nothing. And earlier, did we forget to tell
you guys that we already gave several trillion dollars to the biggest corporations in America?
Yeah, Larry Summers left that part out when he was talking about it. Now,
if we give it to real Americans, the economy might overheat. Trillions to my friends,
it will not overheat. Anything to the masses, it overheats. Okay, so the media and Krugman,
they think that Krugman is some sort of firebrand progressive.
Not only in this case, did he call checks to Americans divisive.
So Paul, was it divisive, when we gave away trillions of dollars in tax cuts?
It wasn't divisive when we gave trillions of dollars in COVID relief to the largest
corporations in the world. But when we give it to Americans, actual citizens, it's divisive.
And that same Paul Krugman, earlier, when I had criticized Nancy Pelosi on Medicare for all, said
that my criticism of her on that issue was vile. How could anyone criticize Nancy Pelosi? But Paul,
she's not in favor of Medicare for all. But that's a fact. She's said it on multiple occasions.
And he's like, how dare you tell people the truth? That is vile. No, New York Times, everybody
right? Nancy Pelosi is master legislator Chuck Schumer really wanted to $2,000 checks. So and
then McConnell's like, hey Paul, nice job. I'll take it from here. And Larry Summers, great job.
Washington Post, great job. Thank you for the assist, thank you for the help. Even
the liberal Washington Post and Larry Summers, Obama, Clinton, everybody agrees the American
people should get screwed, right? So thank you very much for helping Mitch McConnell, mainstream
media. I told you, mainstream media, the idea that they're liberal is hilarious, hilarious.
They're all multi multi-billion dollar corporations.
Their advertisers are Pfizer and all the drug companies in the world. And it's
those companies sometimes who are gonna roll the vaccine. But they also buy off our government,
so we're not allowed to negotiate drug prices. Those are the top advertisers on cable news.
So they work for those guys. So cable news and New York Times, Washington Post, they all
said, how can we help Mitch McConnell? We're ready to do your propaganda for you.
And they did. And then afterwards, they basically buried the body.
Don't tell anyone, the Democrats could have actually won on this.
And whatever you do, make sure in every article you call Bernie Sanders a radical
cuz he dares to fight for the American people.