Skip to comments.Their Temper Tantrum (NY Times rant and barf alert)
Posted on 06/24/2011 9:01:30 AM PDT by Zakeet
Congressional Republicans, who played a major role in piling up the governments unsustainable debt in the first place, have thrown a tantrum and walked out of the debt limit talks. This bit of grandstanding has brought the nation closer to the financial crisis that Republicans have been threatening for weeks. But, at least now, their real goals are in sharp focus.
It has been obvious all along that cutting government services alone is not a solution to either the budget deficit or the mounting national debt. The Democrats, at least, acknowledged that reality at the bargaining table by saying that along with the cuts the Republicans cherish, there would have to be increases in revenue an end to unnecessary tax loopholes for corporations or the rich.
Those demands were modest too modest and Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is leading the talks, said they were making progress. But any compromise at all proved too much for the Republicans.
Mr. Cantor said that because he and the House would not support a tax increase, he was walking out of the talks until President Obama resolved the tax issue himself with House Speaker John Boehner. In other words, Mr. Cantor and Mr. Kyl preferred striking a Tea Party pose to the hard work of reaching a deal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We approve of revenue enhancements because we are so d*mn broke here at the Times that we haven't had to cough up any income taxes in years.
I don't remember The Slimes attacking the Wisconsin Democrat legislators who went AWOL.
Is my memory that bad?
LMAO! And the NYT was leading the charge to have a balanced budget and responsible spending! NOT!!!!
That’s one goofy looking MOFO. The suspenders must keep his panty hose up.
I must have missed it too. I’m just so sure that the NYT would have been in the forefront in chastising the Wisconsin Dems about their responsibility to their voters and to remember that they are there to represent them, and not spend their time in bars in Illinois while they should be working. It is inconceivable that the NYT could not have lectured Wisconsin’s runaway DEMS on something like this.
And thus we have further proof (as if it were needed) about how today’s MSM journalists were not exactly at the top of the IQ barrel when their “Gaia” - or was that “Gay-Ya” gave out brains.
I can remember (a long time ago) when reading the NYT implied some degree of intellect. If their current presentation of journalism is any indication of the mental capacity of their readership, the sooner they switch over to an all cartoon format, the better.
Can someone provide a link for info on what this touted tax proposal is? Is this another one of those worthless “hire people and you get a tax credit” arrangements?
When I started to read the story the word “satire” came to mind. I thought it had to be satire.
Typical Sulzberger, sounds like he got some sand in his vagina again...
First, there is no such thing as "unsustainable debt". The debt will sustain itself, much to our detriment. Unsupportable? Yep. But what is unsustainable is our spending, which is increasing our debt. We cannot sustain an increasing debt level.
Nobody is talking about reducing our debt. The most aggressive plans do little more than, over time, stopping the GROWTH of our debt.
Maybe they meant "unmaintainable". We can't necessarily maintain our current level of debt if the interest rates we need to pay go up.
Second, while congressional republicans certainly played their part in increasing our debt over the years, they hardly played "a major" role. Frankly, our total debt in Jaunary of 2007 was probably maintainable for the long haul. In the last decade, the republicans actually controlled congress for less time than democrats. People forget how little we controlled the senate; we had a 50/50 split, and then for a 1.5 years the democrats had control; then we took it for 4 years, and then they took it back for the last 4.5 years. (6 years democrats, 4 years republican, 1/2 year split).
We had the house from January of 2001 through January of 2007 (6 years), and then democrats had that for 4.5 years.
And a majority of the debt has been incured in the time since January of 2007. And the largest yearly increases in the debt have occured when democrats had the house, senate, and the presidency.
Lastly, while "everybody" knows that we need more revenue to control the debt, there is no agreement that you need to raise tax rates; The republican argument is that raising tax rates now, with the current Obama Economy, would cost us jobs and revenue; we need economic growth, and that growth will return revenues to their historical norms.
Boy...that guy looks like he's done a lot of hard work in his time (especially of the blue collar type) ...(rolling eyes sarcasm)
Oh yeah, he’s chopped plenty of firewood, changed the oil in his 4x4, harvested many deer and fish, truly a man’s man.
The New York Times editorial writer(s) present their "arguments" in much the same fashion as your typical confused leftist. Notice how they make blanket assertions, but provide no evidence to back up those assertions.
The New York Times says so, therefore it must be true. It's "obvious", isn't it?
After all, leftist tropes are always obviously enlightened and correct, while conservative policies are always obviously flawed and evil, right?
How come the "obvious" tactics of charlatans and demagogues and propagandists seem to be right at home in so many New York Times editorials? (Rhetorical question only)
Are there any New York Times editorial writers who are smarter than a fifth grader?
There was one fool insisting that some one not paying income taxes, pays a higher percent of their income than those making 250K a year.
Of personal note there was one who stated that those under sixteen thousand a year, had no tax liability. I want the IRS to know that! Disabled Vet, taxable income a little over 12K, been audited three times in 12 years. the last time got five letters from four different IRS offices demanding five different amounts, ranging from $32 to $1700.
To all of us, TEAS, Indies, Reagan Dems, Libertarians, the Times is irrelevant but not to many E.Coast lemmings. The fact is: we must as Pubs oppose and combat their lies, Schumer-Reid-Pelosi-Durbin made yesterday about Pubs causing the entire eco,. mess. Otherwise, these lies, as they have been for decades, will be believed nationally.
Eric Cantor, and very few in the new Congress, are not like GHWB. Apparently the NYT doesn’t believe that when he says “No New Taxes”...they think they will happily cave.
Okay, let's end trust fund exemptions. That would put the kibosh on the Mark Daytons, Rockefeller and other uber-progressives. And let's make sure the NYT is properly taxes, and is not allowed to declare "losses" as deductions... after a year of paying corporate taxes, the NYT would be out of business.
I'm all for that. Time for these insaniacs to lose their jobs and platform.
Three-quarters of his Page One editors are gay or bi -- and that's according to one of them, in print.
Hahaa... I had to go and click on the link just to see if this childish pout was one of the NY Times’ lefty columnists or an actual NY Times ‘Editorial’. (Yes, no surprise, it’s an offical NYT editorial.) It is hard to believe that only 35 years ago the New York Times was considered by many to be a reputable newspaper, and even, mostly deservedly, called itself “the paper of record”. People across the country were interested in what the New York Times had to say.
And now it’s come to this - - a ‘Daily Collegian’-style playpen for lefty homosexual foot stompers. Wow, how the mighty have fallen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.