Ross Douthat has “A Modest Proposal” that entails
giving wealthier people more money will never float with the
egalitarians. Rather, they've already voiced their preferences for
Jonathan Swift’s version in the form of funding Planned Parenthood with federal, state and insurance dollars to kill the extra children that they find inconvenient.
Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NYT. Show all posts
Sunday, June 15, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
I Don't Usually Read Paul Krugman.....
.... but when I do, I wonder how he can hold such illogical thoughts.
And this article is no exception.
Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."
Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.
While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.
Except not.
In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.
Let's give it a try:
Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."
Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."
And this article is no exception.
Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."
Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.
While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.
Except not.
In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.
Let's give it a try:
Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."
Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Five [mythical] myths about taxes
Steven R. Weisman writes in the NYT, "Let’s topple some tall tales about taxes before writing checks to — or getting refunds from — the dreaded Internal Revenue Service."
#1: The income tax is a big-government Democratic scheme.
Weisman thoughtfully rebuts himself: "Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed the tax into law that year — and Democrats have been more inclined than Republicans to raise rates since." It may be historical fact that Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax to fund the Civil War, that was actually repealed after the war, or that Progressive, big-government Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. Taft supported the federal income tax over 100 years ago. But none of that dispells the FACT that the income tax IS a big-government Democratic scheme. If you and Mr. Weisman are still confused on this point, I refer you to the behavior of the Democrats currently pushing bigger government and higher taxes in Congress and the White House.
#2: The income tax dampens work and entrepreneurship.
Weisman presents 2 arguments to support his myth:
a. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in December that, for upper-income taxpayers, at least — “job creators” — cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” "
Non sequitur alert. Weisman separates this non sequitur from the purported myth so that casual readers don't notice that 1- the report is about taxes in general, not income taxes specifically, 2- the 'myth' is about imposing, not cutting taxes and 3- the report doesn't address entrepreneurship, which may or may not be reflected in savings, investment and productivity growth.
b. His second argument is that: "Whether tax cuts generally spur economic growth and tax increases generally dampen it is debatable, however. Economic expansion was significant in the 1950s, when tax rates were at historic highs. Tax cuts signed by John F. Kennedy and Reagan were followed by sustained growth. But growth that followed tax increases under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton was greater than after George W. Bush’s tax cuts."
A term popular in discussing the effects of a particular factor on the economy is "all else being equal." Of course in the real world, all things are never equal. On their face, Kennedy's and Reagan's tax cuts were considerably different from the modest increases perpetrated by Bush and Clinton.
#3: Taxes became less progressive because of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts.
Less progressive than what? Than before the Reagan tax cuts, I presume. No other reading would make much sense. Then why does Weisman write that the tax code has maintained "roughly the same progressivity in the federal tax system throughout most of the post-1980 period.” What does he prove by saying that the tax code since 1980 is no less progressive than- the tax code since 1980?
#4: The U.S. corporate tax — the highest in the world — makes the United States less competitive.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't satirical.
I think my teen-aged daughters could see the logic in the proposition that a corporation considers the amount of its earnings that the government takes away from it to be a decisive factor when deciding where to do business.
Weisman concedes, "The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission said last year that the tax “hurts America’s ability to compete.” (A study by my colleagues at the Peterson Institute for International Economics uses a different calculation to make the same point.)"
Not decisive, but certainly facts worth considering before calling the idea a 'myth.'
And then wrap things up with another non sequitur. No, it isn't a non sequitur. I don't know what it is, it's such a muddle:
"the taxes paid by U.S. corporations are tiny compared with their peers around the world — only 1.9 percent of the national economy, compared with an average of 2.8 percent for other advanced countries."
Our economy is considerably larger than other advanced countries, so the amount of taxes paid by US corporations is certainly not 'tiny' in comparison. But even when compared as a percentage of GDP, 1.9% is hardly "tiny" compared with 2.8%. 1.9% of the US economy makes 2.8% of Sweden's economy look "tiny."
"partly because of the proliferation of limited partnerships and other businesses not subject to the tax. "
Ah, the taxes paid by US businesses isn't really that high because so many US businesses are limited partnerships that pay potentially HIGHER personal income tax rates. Yeah, that makes sense...
"In fact, less than half of U.S. business income is generated by corporations subject to the tax, down from 80 percent in 1980."
So, let's run this out to its logical conclusion. A 100% corporate income tax would result in 0 economic activity by corporations in the US. 0 US business income would be generated by corporations subject to the tax. Would that mean, then, the tax had no effect on US competitiveness? Weisman seems to say so, and to use that as support for his argument.
#5: Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no taxes.
Mercifully, we are reaching the end. But this is a doozy.
I suppose we can forgive him from rounding up from 46.4%. And when convenient, 0.6% is negligible while 0.9% is the difference between 'tiny' US corporate taxes and the rest of the developed world.
And I do have to thank Weisman for making it easier to critique him by providing links.
Weisman writes: "The Tax Policy Center’s estimate that 46.4 percent of households pay no federal income tax blew up in the face of 2012 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney after he cited it in a talk to donors.
Except the TPC report clearly states, "
#1: The income tax is a big-government Democratic scheme.
Weisman thoughtfully rebuts himself: "Democrat Woodrow Wilson signed the tax into law that year — and Democrats have been more inclined than Republicans to raise rates since." It may be historical fact that Lincoln instituted a temporary income tax to fund the Civil War, that was actually repealed after the war, or that Progressive, big-government Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Wm. Taft supported the federal income tax over 100 years ago. But none of that dispells the FACT that the income tax IS a big-government Democratic scheme. If you and Mr. Weisman are still confused on this point, I refer you to the behavior of the Democrats currently pushing bigger government and higher taxes in Congress and the White House.
#2: The income tax dampens work and entrepreneurship.
Weisman presents 2 arguments to support his myth:
a. "The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reported in December that, for upper-income taxpayers, at least — “job creators” — cutting taxes has “little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth.” "
Non sequitur alert. Weisman separates this non sequitur from the purported myth so that casual readers don't notice that 1- the report is about taxes in general, not income taxes specifically, 2- the 'myth' is about imposing, not cutting taxes and 3- the report doesn't address entrepreneurship, which may or may not be reflected in savings, investment and productivity growth.
b. His second argument is that: "Whether tax cuts generally spur economic growth and tax increases generally dampen it is debatable, however. Economic expansion was significant in the 1950s, when tax rates were at historic highs. Tax cuts signed by John F. Kennedy and Reagan were followed by sustained growth. But growth that followed tax increases under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton was greater than after George W. Bush’s tax cuts."
A term popular in discussing the effects of a particular factor on the economy is "all else being equal." Of course in the real world, all things are never equal. On their face, Kennedy's and Reagan's tax cuts were considerably different from the modest increases perpetrated by Bush and Clinton.
#3: Taxes became less progressive because of the Bush and Reagan tax cuts.
Less progressive than what? Than before the Reagan tax cuts, I presume. No other reading would make much sense. Then why does Weisman write that the tax code has maintained "roughly the same progressivity in the federal tax system throughout most of the post-1980 period.” What does he prove by saying that the tax code since 1980 is no less progressive than- the tax code since 1980?
#4: The U.S. corporate tax — the highest in the world — makes the United States less competitive.
I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't satirical.
I think my teen-aged daughters could see the logic in the proposition that a corporation considers the amount of its earnings that the government takes away from it to be a decisive factor when deciding where to do business.
Weisman concedes, "The Simpson-Bowles deficit commission said last year that the tax “hurts America’s ability to compete.” (A study by my colleagues at the Peterson Institute for International Economics uses a different calculation to make the same point.)"
Not decisive, but certainly facts worth considering before calling the idea a 'myth.'
And then wrap things up with another non sequitur. No, it isn't a non sequitur. I don't know what it is, it's such a muddle:
"the taxes paid by U.S. corporations are tiny compared with their peers around the world — only 1.9 percent of the national economy, compared with an average of 2.8 percent for other advanced countries."
Our economy is considerably larger than other advanced countries, so the amount of taxes paid by US corporations is certainly not 'tiny' in comparison. But even when compared as a percentage of GDP, 1.9% is hardly "tiny" compared with 2.8%. 1.9% of the US economy makes 2.8% of Sweden's economy look "tiny."
"partly because of the proliferation of limited partnerships and other businesses not subject to the tax. "
Ah, the taxes paid by US businesses isn't really that high because so many US businesses are limited partnerships that pay potentially HIGHER personal income tax rates. Yeah, that makes sense...
"In fact, less than half of U.S. business income is generated by corporations subject to the tax, down from 80 percent in 1980."
So, let's run this out to its logical conclusion. A 100% corporate income tax would result in 0 economic activity by corporations in the US. 0 US business income would be generated by corporations subject to the tax. Would that mean, then, the tax had no effect on US competitiveness? Weisman seems to say so, and to use that as support for his argument.
#5: Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no taxes.
Mercifully, we are reaching the end. But this is a doozy.
I suppose we can forgive him from rounding up from 46.4%. And when convenient, 0.6% is negligible while 0.9% is the difference between 'tiny' US corporate taxes and the rest of the developed world.
And I do have to thank Weisman for making it easier to critique him by providing links.
Weisman writes: "The Tax Policy Center’s estimate that 46.4 percent of households pay no federal income tax blew up in the face of 2012 GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney after he cited it in a talk to donors.
Except the TPC report clearly states, "
46.4% of Households Paid No Federal Income Tax for 2011
And the NYT carried the transcript of the tape of Romney that was clandestinely recorded by a relative of the 2nd worst president in history:
"These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."
So, this one really IS a myth. But it is a myth created by Obama sycophants at the NYT and elsewhere by intentionally misrepresenting what the report cited and what Romney actually said in order to create a controversy during a presidential election. Not like the NYT has ever done that before.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Upside-Down to the NYT is Right Side Up
The First Amendment, Upside Down
"The Supreme Court decision striking down public matching funds in Arizona’s campaign finance system is a serious setback for American democracy."
When this sentence is read in the New York Times, it means that the USSC decision has advanced democracy at the expense of government control of government.
"In the Citizens United case, the court ruled that the government may not ban corporations, unions and other moneyed institutions from spending in political campaigns."
So, allowing citizens and legal US entities to participate in the democratic process by supporting candidates through contributions is destructive to American democracy as the NYT sees it.
"The Arizona decision is a companion to that destructive landmark ruling. It takes away a vital, innovative way of ensuring that candidates who do not have unlimited bank accounts can get enough public dollars to compete effectively.
"Arizona’s campaign finance law provided a set amount of money in initial public support for candidates who opted into its financing system, depending on the type of election. If a candidate faced a rival who opted out, the state would match the spending of the privately financed candidate and independent groups supporting him, up to triple the initial amount. Once that limit is reached, the publicly financed candidate receives no other public funds and is barred from using private contributions, no matter how much more the privately financed candidate spends."
In effect, the Arizona law pitted the voters of the state against the taxpayers of the state. Voters' contributions to the candidate they personally support would be off-set by taxpayer dollars supporting the candidate they oppose. Once again, the NYT uses some sort of NewSpeak inversion of reality to come to an upside down conclusion.
"The Supreme Court decision striking down public matching funds in Arizona’s campaign finance system is a serious setback for American democracy."
When this sentence is read in the New York Times, it means that the USSC decision has advanced democracy at the expense of government control of government.
"In the Citizens United case, the court ruled that the government may not ban corporations, unions and other moneyed institutions from spending in political campaigns."
So, allowing citizens and legal US entities to participate in the democratic process by supporting candidates through contributions is destructive to American democracy as the NYT sees it.
"The Arizona decision is a companion to that destructive landmark ruling. It takes away a vital, innovative way of ensuring that candidates who do not have unlimited bank accounts can get enough public dollars to compete effectively.
"Arizona’s campaign finance law provided a set amount of money in initial public support for candidates who opted into its financing system, depending on the type of election. If a candidate faced a rival who opted out, the state would match the spending of the privately financed candidate and independent groups supporting him, up to triple the initial amount. Once that limit is reached, the publicly financed candidate receives no other public funds and is barred from using private contributions, no matter how much more the privately financed candidate spends."
In effect, the Arizona law pitted the voters of the state against the taxpayers of the state. Voters' contributions to the candidate they personally support would be off-set by taxpayer dollars supporting the candidate they oppose. Once again, the NYT uses some sort of NewSpeak inversion of reality to come to an upside down conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)