Posted on | March 6, 2013 | 8 Comments
Journalism is supposed to be about truth. Jackie Calmes and Jonathan Weisman of the New York Times are engaged in deception:
With Republican leaders in Congress forswearing budget negotiations over new revenues, President Obama has begun reaching around them to Republican lawmakers with a history of willingness to cut bipartisan deals.
“New revenues” = INCREASING TAXE RATES.
President Obama wants to RAISE TAXES, which Republicans oppose, but these lying bastards at the New York Times — dishonest partisan propagandists, endeavoring to assist their fellow Democrat — realize that the president’s proposal might be less popular if they described it truthfully, and so they begin with this 11-word dependent clause that hides the truth and shifts the blame:
With Republican leaders in Congress forswearing budget negotiations over new revenues . . .
In other words, if you buy what Calmes and Weisman are selling, you believe that the problem in Washington is that Republicans won’t negotiate, and that the ideal way to solve the budget problem is with “new revenues,” which could be had easily if weren’t for those Republicans “foreswearing negotiations.” As far as concerns the economic error in the underlying fallacy of their hidden premise, Ronald Reagan once explained that in a single sentence:
“We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.”
Oh, to be back to the good old days, when the debt was only a trillion dollars! But of course, we can’t cut spending — President Scaremonger won’t let that happen — and therefore the question is how to raise taxes. Never mind that the government could actually collect “news revenues” if it would just stop strangling economic growth with its vicious policies.
No, in the fanatical brains of Democrats, it is necessary as a matter of “social justice” that the rich (however you define that term) be forced to “pay their fair share” (however you define that term). Words have actual meanings, except when Democrats are talking, and then you always have to ask yourself, “What do they really mean when they use words like ’rich’ and ‘fair’?”
Once you know that someone is attempting to deceive you — and Calmes and Weisman have advertised their deceptive purpose in the first sentence of their article — then all you need to wonder is why they’re lying. Perhaps sinister motives inspire them:
“The object of terrorism is terrorism. The object of oppression is oppression. The object of torture is torture. The object of murder is murder. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
That Orwell fellow was onto something.