jump to navigation

All Americans Want Bigger Govt : Is the NYTimes or Congressional Democrats All Americans? February 20, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Congress, Democrats, media bias, news, political primary, Republicans, socialism, The New York Times.

One of The New York Times’ favorite techniques for indoctrinating in the guise of news coverage is to casually assert something that advances its agenda and expect readers to take it at face value.

A Sunday story on Representative Eric Cantor, the new Republican House Whip, included the following declaration: “The [Republican] party also faces the burden of trying to advance what Mr. Cantor describes as its bedrock value — smaller government — in the face of considerable evidence that the American public wants an increasingly active government to deal with the economic crisis” (emphasis added).

If there is indeed considerable evidence that Americans want “an increasingly active government,” why doesn’t The Times offer any?

In fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction.

As the Senate was poised to vote on Obama’s $827-billion economic recovery plan last week, a Rasmussen Poll showed 62% of voters wanted it to include more tax cuts and less government spending. Only 14% wanted more spending and fewer tax cuts.

Is that a clear indication of the public’s longing for an increasingly active government?

Despite weeks of media shilling for Obama’s so-called stimulus plan — including persistent front-page advocacy in The Times — another Rasmussen poll shows only 38% of Americans think the lard-layered boondoggle will help the economy, while 29% said the plan will make things worse and 24% believe it will have little impact.

But if the public is panting for a big, brawny, activist government to lead us out of the current economic doldrums, shouldn’t they be cheering the Democrats’ plan deliriously?

In the age of media-anointed Obama, the American people remain what they’ve always been: skeptical of government activism and of the opinion that tax cuts, not spending, is the best antidote for a recession.

By Don Feder, Boycott the New York Times



1. despicable - February 21, 2009

Everything everywhere from the beginning of time to the present day has a beginning and an ending, nothing lasts forever. Change is the only constant on our planet and in the universe. This being a proven fact of all that exists, I am persuaded to ask this question. …Why attempt to prevent necessary change from taking place? …Is it because of unscientific dogmatic bias? It is unscientific bias to hold onto that which no longer has relevance and has been rendered by the passage of time no longer useful, and consequently out of step with existing circumstances, situations and conditions. That which is no longer a positive influence inside the surroundings of our existence should be replaced by that which is a positive influence, … and it will always come to pass when the only change possible to take the place of that what exists, … is the diametric opposite of what already exists.

The diametric opposite of an economy that is market oriented and not planned is an economy that is planned, … and designed to profit not individual capitalists of our planet, …but rather.. profit equally, all of the people of our planet, without discrimination or prejudice.

What makes this economic change possible and necessary is the change in our means of producing goods and services. The technological revolution on our planet has made it possible to satisfy all of the needs of everyone everywhere on our planet. No one no longer needs to not have what is needed to live well and survive well because of our scientific and technological advances.

Those that are concerned about our tanking individual unplanned capitalist economy, should give some thought to the opposite view of an economy that is social and planned so as to profit the mass of people in the world without discrimination or prejudice.

2. Daniel Downs - February 21, 2009

Mac, your sentiments seem honorable but they portray a lack of knowledge. How profitable was the planned economy of the USSR? A planned economy is not new to America, either. It became status quo after FDR’s New Deal. I recently read a book by one one the the New Deal and Great Society insiders. He said that both big government and big business are cooperating partners in ripping off the general public of a good life. In other words, the great planned society is actually good for those who get rich from the planning every one else get a little appeasement so as not to get to unsatisfied and possibly revolt.

As for the greatness of science and its by-product technology, the so-called crisis of global warming is their fruit, nuclear bombs and other means of mass destruction are another of their fruit, still another the ease of mass socialist indoctrination by radio, film, tv, internet, ipods, etc, and yet another technological abuse of animals in the name feeding the world and its continuous contribution to disease and environmental pollution, and list could go on.

Hurrah, for the planned society, the god of science, and the next global socialist dictator, who will of course be a benevolent one until….

3. Daniel Downs - February 21, 2009

Oh, yes, a last hurrah for the latest version of modern democracy, an artful work of double-speak, called planned society and economy or just plain Marxist-Lennon socialist fascism.

4. llabesab - February 22, 2009

Just to show you how smart-savvy-hep-knowledgeable-up-to-snuff-The New York Slimes is, it borrowed $250million from a Mexican “Financier” (read drug Lord?) at 18% interest. And they complain about loan sharks who go around breaking legs?

So I read whatever the time puts out with “…a lot less ‘interest”, less I be labeled a “usurist.”

5. despicable - August 31, 2009

Everything on the planet and in the universe evolves. It is a cause and effect process that is an objective manifestation that is independent of subjective notions of what should and shouldn’t be.
Political and social change is not the result of secret conspiracies by large national and international organizations.
All change is something that occurs because at a particular point in time, due to objective circumstances, situations and conditions, it becomes imperative and necesary that a particular change takes place, a change that is the only possible thing that can happen, because all other options had been exausted.
The “Global Economy” and the “New World Order,” evolved, … and is something that was predictable and was not the result of a world wide secret conspiracy of international bankers and liberal politicians. It evolved because the capitalist system could evolve in no other way.
“Capitalism” has outgrown Nationalism” and the only possible direction that the system of capitalism can move toward so that it could continue to grow, … is toward the system of “Globalism!”


Daniel Downs - September 10, 2009

“All change is something that occurs because at a particular point in time, due to objective circumstances, situations and conditions, it becomes imperative and necesary that a particular change takes place, a change that is the only possible thing that can happen, because all other options had been exausted.

“The “Global Economy” and the “New World Order,” evolved, … and is something that was predictable…”

A developing universe does not necessitate particular changes like globalism. Because actors and their motivations are not realized, does not mean human goals and motivations–just or unjust–are not the prime mover of change in our society and world. If you are a die-hard secularist and Darwinian evolutionist, such human factors are meaningless because everything is determined by blind fate.

Those who label opponents of humanly contrived change–like globalism–do so to deny human motivation, i.e, greed, control over others, creating better living conditions in poorer countries, etc. It is true those who charge politicians or international corporations or bank CEOs with planning to force the world into a more globalist or socialist form of governance do so partly on fact and suspicion. As the founder of America’s Constitutional governance, a large suspicion on all bureaucrats of all kinds is the healthiest form of participatory government.
Tyrants breed on public naivete, institutional and information control. That is prediction come true.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: