Grudgingly admitting in the second paragraph that the economy is worse than the Obama administration will acknowledge, the Times piece launches immediately into defense mode in the third paragraph. It fallaciously states that, "The fiscal stimulus of 2009, coupled with low interest rates and other Federal Reserve interventions, kept the recession from being much worse." Clearly there is no way to substantiate such a claim because it is inherently speculative. Furthermore, it has been widely reported that much of the stimulus money hasn't been spent, and that a large percentage went towards creating a larger government.
It is a universally known fact that federal employees now earn more than private workers, and the ranks of government workers have increased at an alarming pace. What this means, of course, is that more people, earning higher wages, are being compensated from an employer that produces virtually nothing. The payroll is funded from the labors of an ever-dwindling work force of producers.
The piece then goes further, complaining of Congressional gridlock and blaming the minority party - Republicans - for the Democrats' inability to "accomplish" anything. Perhaps the Times editorial staff has already forgotten the massive Health Care legislation, force fed on a decidedly unwilling populace, and the maneuvering of the majority party in that alleged victory.
But perhaps the most egregious example of political bias - and a gross misunderstanding of economic principle - comes in paragraph seven. Speaking of Obama, the piece states:
"First, he needs to keep driving home that he is committed to addressing the deficit, and that he will call for widespread sacrifice to do so — starting with letting the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans expire at year end. Mr. Obama must tell Americans that claims from Republican leaders that the country can both cut taxes and tackle the deficit are absurd and cynical."What is absurd is the notion that increasing taxes on the wealthy - the actual employers of the country - will somehow fill the coffers of the federal government. Keeping in mind the growing number of people drawing a paycheck from the government, it stands to reason that the problem would only suffer the domino effect. The employers, forced to fund more of the insatiable government, will move more of their businesses offshore and shield even more of their incomes from the intrusive clutches of Uncle Sam.
The very next paragraph reveals the chilling idiocy of the Liberal mindset:
"Next, he needs to explain why too much sacrifice, too soon, especially from the middle class, would do more harm than good while the economy is weak. More government support is needed until conditions improve."Anyone who actually belongs to the middle class understands all too well that that statement is ridiculous, for while the Liberal elites claim to target the "wealthy", it is the middle class - doing well, but not well enough to either run or hide - who will be leaned on to support the "more government" that the Times endorses.
The Times editorial concludes with this obsequious gem:
"The economic damage they inherited was too deep, and the economic stimulus they pushed through Congress, for all of the fight, was too small."Toeing the party line, the Times dutifully perpetuates the lunacy that what Obama "inherited" was anything but incestuous, a gift from his own party, who managed to derail the Bush years in only two, after regaining control of the Congressional purse strings in 2007.
The most frightening aspect of such an editorial is the fact that readers of that publication already consider themselves intellectually head and shoulders above the rest of us. Granted, they are generally better educated and more handsomely compensated for their labors, but they are dupes nonetheless. Armed with the almighty New York Times, they may prove to be too formidable an adversary for the everyday, naturally smarter person who would otherwise disagree forcefully with such a position. That line of thought must change. Sphere: Related Content