Abstract: David Brooks writes for the New York Times, as such, and gives us
insights into regions of thought and inquiry that we probably never imagined
and had no special reason to do so, anyway. Most literary efforts in his
immediate surrounds are solidly based upon propaganda of the ultra-Marxist sort
moderated, in part, by certain progressive elements. This particular episode
had some interesting points that may give any reader some cause for
reexamination of what is generally believed in our political arena. Mr Brooks
has opened a nasty can of poison here by stressing that the Democrats give
details of their future plans in taxes and spending. This is never permitted as
such details always undermine the synthetic credibly of the rabid left. The
Dems will resist and stick to their race cards and Social Security threats.
David Brooks[1][2] lives
in a world where the word tautological must be expanded in scope and
depth to accommodate most of the hackneyed scribbles and coached mental
gyrations of the near-financially bankrupt New York Times—aka
the Walter Duranty Papers.[3] This place is some form of political pressure cooker where as the sun
rises revised and stale Marxian ideas and phrases spring forth from the Times
and its e-mail machines to all parts of the leftist political world. There, the
loyal workers receive their morning manna. The dedicated and True Believers are
thus refreshed with fresh slogans and political ammunition. You can see this by
watching the morally bankrupt news media pass around the exact same phrases.
Stoogery in action.
Today, we wonder about some things:
“Let’s say you’re
generally a moderate voter. You look at the Romney-Ryan ticket and see that
they are much more conservative than you. They don’t believe in tax increases
ever. You think tax increases have to be a part of a budget deal. They want to slash social
spending to the bone. You think that would be harsh
on the vulnerable and bad for
social cohesion. [All emphasis is mine except as noted]
[Note the bias here
in red]
You
look at the Obama-Biden ticket. You like them personally. But you’re not sure what
they want to achieve over the next four years. The country needs big changes,
and they don’t seem to be offering many. Where’s the leadership?
[Note more bias here in red]
In this
disaffected frame of mind, you ask yourself: What really matters in this
election? Well, the big issue is
national decline. How can we ensure that the U.S. is as dynamic in the
21st century as it was in the 20th?”[4]--Guide
for the Perplexed By DAVID BROOKS Published: August 20, 2012
A
Comment:
Well, this follows appropriately with the rigid propagandistic
mode of the NYT as the opening blather defines, starkly, and distinctly apart the two adversaries with
stinging bias buttressing up one side. The counter offer is based on us
‘liking’ Obama and Joe Biden, a strange request. The big issue is probably
correct as defined as national decline.
The
problem is delineated for us immediately:
“The biggest threat to
national dynamism is spending money on the wrong things. If you go
back and look at the federal budgets during the mid-20th century, you see that
they spent money on the future — on programs like NASA, infrastructure
projects, child welfare, research and technology. Today, we spend most of our
money on the present — on tax loopholes and health care for people over 65.”--Guide
for the Perplexed By DAVID BROOKS Published: August 20, 2012
This comment is so distant from pure or even impure reason
it is difficult to attack it without an axe. Much of our spending was devoted
to fighting the Cold War in those days and struggling with the WW2 debt and
Marshall Plan and less for those persons who the NYT respect more than the
average American citizen. [Hint: spend
more on welfare or ‘ejukashon.’[5] The
Federal budget more than doubled from 1950 to 1959 [$42.6
bln to $92.1 bln.][6]
In 1950 military spending was 35% of spending and was 75% during the Korean
mess. Entitlements were only 30%. So,
some of David’s prattle makes a bit of sense. We could go on and on but stop
here to mention that entitlements are more than half our spending now. Social
Security [in 2011] spending was $725 billion and Medicare and Medicaid were $835
billion for 43% of the total budget including the $1.2 trillion dollar deficit. SS
will be broke in less than a dozen years.
So,
where is David heading?
“A study by Jessica
Perez and others at the group Third Way lays out the basic facts. In 1962, 14
cents of every federal dollar not going to interest payments were spent on
entitlement programs. Today, 47 percent of every dollar is spent on
entitlements. By 2030, 61 cents of every noninterest dollar will be spent on
entitlements.
Entitlement
spending is crowding out spending on investments in our children and on
infrastructure. This spending is threatening national bankruptcy. It’s
increasing so quickly that there is no tax increase imaginable that could
conceivably cover it. And, these days, the real entitlement problem is Medicare.”--Guide
for the Perplexed By DAVID BROOKS Published: August 20, 2012
We all know this. We need to probe for a solution here:
“So when you think
about the election this way, the crucial question is: Which candidate can slow
the explosion of entitlement spending so we can devote more resources toward
our future?
Looking
at the candidates through this prism, you see that President Obama deserves
some credit for taking on entitlement spending. He had the courage to chop roughly $700
billion out of Medicare reimbursements. He had the courage to put
some Medicare eligibility reforms on the table in his negotiations with
Republicans. He created that (highly circumscribed) board of technocrats who might wring
some efficiencies out of the system.”--Guide for the Perplexed By
DAVID BROOKS Published: August 20, 2012
The soft Mantle of the Stooge[7]
must now be worn by David as this $700 bln was cut out of existing spending to
pay for Obama care and that board of technocrats is what Sarah Palin called the Death Squad!
The cuts affect providers and force seniors into the dreaded Medicare Advantage
plans[8] The CBO sent a letter to House Speaker
Boehner on this matter.[9]
This letter holds the details although they are complicated projections.
Okay David, what do we do??
“You’re still deeply
uncomfortable with many other Romney-Ryan proposals. But first things first.
The priority in this election is to get a leader who can get Medicare
costs under control. Then we can argue about everything else.
Right now, Romney’s more likely to do this.
All of
which causes you to look over to the Democrats and wonder: Why don’t they have an alternative? Silently,
a voice in your head is pleading with them: Put up or shut up.
If Democrats can’t come up with an
alternative on this most crucial issue, how can they promise to lead a dynamic
growing nation?”--Guide for the Perplexed By DAVID BROOKS
Published: August 20, 2012
Well, I guess we ask them to give out public details on
their plan to prevent us from going broke. I do not think they will. All they
want is more taxes from the ‘rich’ that will give us only $5-7 bln each year against a $1300 bln spending deficit that
is driving us broke.
See, I thought there was something interesting in this
article. Our
Babbler has stated a case for the
opposition, perhaps unknowingly, as the discussion of the ‘details’ is always
what Democrats fear most when they must provide them. The corollary to this is political suicide as
they have no plan except to bawl and spend and raise taxes.
David Brooks must
have unconsciously opened a can of poison for the Democrats. I am mildly perplexed by that action. I might
have missed something.
Comments: ryckki@gmail.com
[1] The Babbling Brooks
of the NYT
Babbles about the Suicide March of
Liberalism
[2] The Babbling Brooks
of the NYT Babbles about Decision Making [?!] and Perception?
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Nihilism with
Innovative Socialist and Nihilist Overtones.
Raise Taxes!
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Obama and his
Failure to Have a Clear Lead Over McCain.
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Education.
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Debt and Blame but
Offers No Solution.
The Babbling Brooks of the NYT Babbles about Lincoln, Mercury
Pills and The Grip of Emotions. [?!]
From the Babbling Brooks: Confusion, Hokum and Fluff: Vote for
Obama
Echoes from the Babbling Brooks Envision a New Conservatism. The New York Times Advises Us on Society, as Usual:
Higher Taxes
Posted by rycK on Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:37:49 AM
Brooks of the New York Times Mumbles about Bugs, Independent Voters and
Mechanical Liberalism Tuesday,
January 08, 2008 10:36 AM
The Babbling Brooks of
the NYT
Babbles about Obama and his Failure to Have a Clear Lead Over McCain.
The Babbling Brooks of
the NYT Babbles about Education.
Echoes from the Babbling Brooks Envision
a New Conservatism. The New York Times Advises Us on Society, as
Usual: Higher Taxes Posted by rycK on Saturday, February 16, 2008 10:37:49 AM
[3] In honor of that celebrated Communist stooge and liar and winner
of the Pulitzer Prize for the NYT. The color RED is used in my essays in honor
of Walter Duranty, a saint, if there could be one, in
the Marxist Archives of Honor.
“He said that these people had to be "liquidated or
melted in the hot fire of exile and labor into the proletarian mass".
Duranty claimed that the Siberian labor camps were a means of giving individuals
a chance to rejoin Soviet society but also said that for those who could not accept the system,
"the final fate of such enemies is death." Duranty, though describing the system as cruel, says he
has "no brief for or against it, nor any
purpose save to try to tell the truth". He ends the article with the claim
that the brutal collectivization campaign which
led to the famine was motivated by the "hope or promise of a subsequent
raising up" of Asian-minded masses in the Soviet Unionwhich only
history could judge.”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Duranty
[4] Guide for the Perplexed
By DAVID BROOKS Published: August 20, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/brooks-guide-for-the-perplexed.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[5] The Babbling Brooks of the NYT
Advocates Liberal Arts Studies and Knowing The Big
Shaggy to Cope in our Society. http://rycksrationalizations.blogtownhall.com/2010/06/10/the_babbling_brooks_of_the_nyt_advocates_liberal_arts_studies_and_knowing_the_big_shaggy_to_cope_in_our_society.thtml
[6] 1950's Government and Politicshttp://www.enotes.com/1950-government-politics-american-decades/spending-federal-government
[7] Or a paper bag to hide
under.
[8] President
Obama’s $700 Billion Medicare Problem http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/314024/president-obama-s-700-billion-medicare-problem-james-c-capretta
U.S. Congress Washington, DC 20515 http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43471-hr6079.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment