Posted by
rycK on Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:55:54 PM
More Propaganda and Half Truths from the New York Times
When you begin to assemble a good perky piece of propaganda you need to minister to your political stooges and your other favorites and radiate at least some doubt on the opposition. This is neatly accomplished in the current example of counterfeit journalism from the New York Times, a ragzine renown for its narrow political views and proper use of propaganda.
Let us work through the following expounding bit of propaganda form the Pinch Pustules in the hallowed halls of the NYT.
First we look at the byline: “Fighting to Fix What’s Not Broken[1]” and make a few comments. Here, in the best tradition of circular logic, they begin the biased essay with the conclusion they want to finally put out as the conclusion. This is an old stale method of persuasion and works well with the simple, the mentally ill, certain Methodists and others of the left. Aristotle and his cronies beat this one to death many times. We must be drawn into the implicit truth that nothing is really wrong here.
What follows next is the idea that one of the political candidates favors a “fix” of the SS system, a leftist legacy from FDR and a general failure in social terms from his New Deal fluff and other shabby elements. It desperately needs a fix, but not at this politically inopportune time.
Senator Barack Obama, in a debate were there is fierce competition to give away anything and everything the people have for votes, recommended that the Social Security payroll taxes, currently capped at $97,000 should rise with inflation. We cannot be too hasty and accuse the NYT of straying and avoiding a gratuitous tax increase in this instance because there lies a handy [but phony] caveat and there is the need to make Hillary look as good as possible given her dumpy looks, her criminal activities, Marxist sympathies and other political baggage. Obama has to be attacked here.
“In response, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York declined to offer any specific proposals of her own, saying that she favored “looking at a lot of different things and using a bipartisan commission to do it.” She accused Mr. Obama of proposing a huge tax increase “on the backs of middle class families and seniors.”[2]
Hillary avoids the details as usual. This is all true, but to think that Hillary would go ‘bipartisan’ is a truly phony notion. Did Nancy Pelosi really try for bipartisan cooperation in forming new bills in her first 100 days? Or did she close the doors on the Republican opposition and work up legislation in secret?
The NYT abets Hillary’s cheap shot at Obama. Hillary is right! All this foam and fluff pales against the galactic background of Hillary’s other massive tax hikes, omitted by reference by the propagandists of the Pinch Persuasion. Obama is wrong here and Hillary is right. Vote for Hillary since she will not be seen as a wanton tax maggot. You read the proof in the NYT. Sure.
Hillary is commended for her financial acumen and restraint in taxation:
While Mrs. Clinton was right that eliminating the cap entirely would raise about $100 billion a year, or $1 trillion over 10 years, it is not clear that is what Mr. Obama intends to do.[3]
Hillary wins!! Uncertainty sets in here leaving us to the only viable conclusion that Obama is some kind of spurious entity, or ignorant of tax consequences, or perhaps an unrepentant tax monger and needs to be muzzled or ignored. At least vote for Hillary.
Next, enter the glubberance episode as the NYT sidesteps the facts and introduces a second monster:
“The starting point for understanding what is at stake with Social Security is to recognize that its problems pale next to the escalating cost of health care. If present trends continue, the Congressional Budget Office projects, the cost of Medicare and Medicaid will soar to about 20 percent of gross domestic product by 2050, from 4.6 percent today. By comparison, Social Security rises to just a little over 6 percent from about 4.2 percent.”[4]
Bingo!! Misdirection from the issue! We need to save money by having Hillary push her socialized medicine upon us. Having two gorillas standing on your chest is okay as long as only the first one will stomp the hardest and break more bones.
The First Gorilla is dismissed as an illusion by this comment from the far left:
“It isn’t a good idea to say Social Security is in crisis when it isn’t,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “Obama may be using this to score some political points against Clinton, but the danger here is that he is playing into the idea that this is some sort of pressing issue.”[5]
So, we now find that [1] Social Security is sound and [2] Obama is barking about taxes unnecessarily. How refreshing. And [3] HillaryCare is the more important issue.
But, is this true?? The NYT is never very handy in balancing factors in a truthful way.
Actually, we find that SS is a huge financial predicament because Democrats spent the so-called trust monies on pandering for votes to get reelected and left some phony IOUs in the hands of the Treasury.
“The Trust Fund does hold bonds that are a legal obligation of the government, and the government will not default on these obligations. However, the bonds in the Trust Fund cannot pay a single Social Security benefit. If for accounting purposes, you consider these pieces of paper “assets,” you must also note that they are Treasury “liabilities.” Summing over both agencies of government, assets plus liabilities net out to zero.”[6]
The NYT has always told us that some IOUs [sacred bonds] are some form of ‘instant money in reserve’ that can be used to fund and rescue the SS System, when they cannot. This culminates the circular conclusion. Social Security is not broke, it is just fine!
What a pitiful lie, something the Walter Duranty Memorial Papers know much about:
The money is gone and any cashing in any ‘bonds’ requires that the Treasury go to the tax base for the money. The cash box is empty and there is no money to send to SS![7] To folk other than the NYT staff, this must be read as an impending major tax increase or a budget deficit. No other options make sense. The liberals believe that we can shuffle IOUs around and somehow get money to SS recipients!
The Pinch Pustules proudly conceal this torpedo from the readers and replace the facts with some leftist fluff from a liberal think tank. Nuttin’ is broke.
Obama is actually right in that something must be done before we all rush to the Treasury money bin and grope for money that is not there. ]Inflation indexing SS taxes makes some sense.] Then, we would encounter a financial catastrophe, which, in good liberal terms the NYT would call for a gigantic tax hike. The Bush Administration tried to point this out and get some private investment as a component of the Social Security Mess, but this was rejected by Democrats. We have time they said.
Do the left-liberal Hillary Clinton Democrats win this argument?? Of course they do. They can make all the promises they wish. If SS goes broke by, say, 2015, then they blame Bush for inaction and bawl and weep for money and the NYT will lead the chorus for massive new tax hikes to ‘save the old people” who will be the largest voting block in the political arena.
Tax Whoring is a Win-Win Situation for the left. They get to use taxpayer monies to buy votes. Just promise everything, get elected and hike taxes later.
We are indebted to the New York Times for valuable instruction in model propaganda pieces. SS is not broke thus does not need no fixin’. Thank you.
I never doubled that the Pinch Pustules would fail in this endeavor. They are masters in this field .
rycK