The Wall Street Journal Raided My Bank AccountYou have to admit that the title catches your eye. And as you read the body you realize he has a good point. Why would a big "important" newspaper get things so screwed up? Well... if you read Dean Baker religiously, you know it is because they have an agenda. And it isn't to help the "little people".
Yep, I paid for the paper this morning. Okay, most people would not call that "raiding." But where on earth does the WSJ get off saying that the government has been "raiding" Social Security for decades? Was this article a paid political advertisement? (It reads that way.)
Of course, it makes as much sense to say that WSJ raided my bank account as to say the government raided Social Security. (Perhaps more, I thought I was buying a newspaper.) There was absolutely nothing improper done with Social Security money. It was used to buy government bonds. Readers of a business paper like the WSJ may have thought that its reporters understood how U.S. government bonds work.
Here's another example:
Denmark Is Not Having Trouble Paying for Its Welfare StateFunny... most people think the "news" papers are in the business of reporting "news". They didn't realize that newspapers are propaganda organs of the elites who run the show like the Wizard of Oz, i.e. from behind a curtain off to the side so nobody will notice.
Contrary to what the NYT apparently wanted readers to believe when it told them: "But sustaining a benevolent nanny state is proving to be challenging even for the notably generous Danes."
Actually, Denmark's debt to GDP ratio is just over 40 percent, roughly one-third less than the United States. Its deficit for the year will be around 3 percent of GDP, approximately one-third of the size of the U.S. deficit. Denmark has also consistently been running large trade surpluses, building up claims against foreigners in contrast to the United States, which has been running large trade deficits.