NYT Accusing GOP of Sabotage on Debt Limit: Are you KIDDING me???

Sometimes even the New York Times finds a way to shock me with their blatant partisan lies.  The latest narrative from the Democrat party and the Drive-By Media has begun: "Republicans are deliberately sabotaging American job growth so that they can win in 2012."  It's so incredulous a claim I'm irritated that I have to even discuss it, especially to make a defense against the party who has so desperately attempted to hang on to policies that are damaging to the country and financially not feasible.  The article in question is dripping with bias and loaded questions.  Let's go to the article in question:

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. ]

First off, this presentation makes it sound like both cuts in government spending and "revenue increases" are both relatively good things for the country.  They aren't.  The business climate in America is already strained and business owners are taking their businesses elsewhere, costing workers badly needed jobs.  The reason, despite the Drive-By Media's attempts to paint business owners as "greedy," is actually because taxes cut into the legitimate and reasonable profit requirements of business owners to make the risk of business ownership worth it.

Increases in revenue, by the way, is simply a code word for raising taxes.  As I have demonstrated on multiple occasions here, additional revenue is not the problem.  Again, we go to the history of the Reagan years.  Prior to Reagan, the Democrat congress was spending 180% of the tax dollars received.  Reagan doubled tax revenues by reducing the top marginal rate from 70% to 28%.  Simple math shows that if you need 80% more revenue to reach a balanced budget and you receive 100% more revenue, you ought to have a 20% surplus, right?  Yet even with 100% more revenue, the Democratic Congress (which controlled the purse strings, remember) continued to spend 180% of that new, twice as large amount!

In short, friends, we do not have a revenue problem. If we had a revenue problem, the solution would be to CUT taxes to spur economic growth, leading to more people paying taxes as a result of businesses growing and hiring new people (works every time it's tried).  No, like in the 80s, we have a SPENDING problem.  As Ronald Reagan once said "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.”  We are not going to fix our problem by raising more revenue.  When you try to raise more revenue, it never works because business owners don't just sit there and accept those higher taxes cutting into their profits.  They often move to another country because they aren't serfs!  They don't belong to the land.  Government can't force business owners to continue to employ the same number of people when tax rates confiscate large portions of their profits, or to not move their business to another country to avoid those confiscatory rates.

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.

Again more spin, calling the Democratic demands "modest."  They aren't modest, they are poison to an already ill economy!  Why should the GOP compromise and allow the Democratic party to damage the country further?  We know that raising taxes on businesses causes those businesses to leave the country and costs American jobs.  Why should we compromise on that?  It's poison for the economy!  How do you compromise with poison, exactly?  Do you compromise and say "you may not put enough poison in my food to kill me, but I'll compromise and accept enough poison to make me violently sick?"  OF COURSE NOT!  The Democrat policies proposed will hurt the country, so the Republicans, in good conscience, must not compromise with this poison!

But at least 11 hard-line Senate Republicans have already said they will oppose any deal that does not include a balanced-budget amendment — a nonstarter for Democrats — and Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said this week that all revenue increases are the same as raising taxes and are unacceptable.

And here we have the inevitable explanation of the real problem:  Democrats consider a balanced budget amendment a nonstarter.  In other words, legally requiring the government to spend only what money they actually have, a horrible and inconceivable budgetary policy that basically every American family has to deal with, is a nonstarter.

Let's get serious for a moment:  The Republican party is not being obstructionist here.  They are tackling a person who is about to eat a poisonous morsel of food in order to stop them from taking a bite.  Might you give that person who you've tackled a bruise in the process?  Maybe, but I'd rather a bruise than suffering from a major case of deadness thanks to ingesting poison.  People need jobs.  By allowing the Democrat party to take more money out of the business budgets of business owners is going to cause more layoffs and less hiring, which is more bad news for the economy. 

The Times, true to it's usual modus operandi (that'd be "regular way of doing things," for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) is playing political games, doing it's best to present the Democrats as nice people asking for reasonable compromises and the Republican party as blow-hard jerks insisting on their own way. (How DARE you tackle that poor person!  You gave them a bruise!)  The truth, of course, is that the GOP is trying to block damaging policies from passing.

Democrats and the Media will claim that Clinton was able to balance the budget with tax increases, ignoring the truth of history.  First of all, credit for the 90s balanced budgets belongs far more to the Contract with America and the Republican Party than Clinton, and secondly the balanced budget was created not by raising taxes but by CUTTING SPENDING (see: "The Era of Big Government is over").  Liberals won't tell you that because they want you to believe that a) it is possible to raise enough revenue to pay for their overspending and b) even if "a" was true, that it is moral to tax and tax and tax to pay for their overspending and c) even if "a" and "b" were true, that tax increases would result in static spending (which it NEVER does) by the wealthy.

Democrats don't want to let go of their ability to buy votes.  They want to keep taxing and borrowing so they can spend on social programs to reward the people who vote for them.  They are offering the country poison at a time when the economy is violently ill.  The Republican Party should absolutely not compromise with this poison, but instead should stop that poison from being ingested at all costs. Period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall Source - New York Times:  Republican's Temper Tantrum