New Federal Budget Proposal
March 13, 2003 9:22 AM Subscribe
“Class warfare turns out to be alive,” Center director Robert Greenstein commented. “It is a centerpiece of the Nussle budget, with deep budget cuts that could harshly affect the poor, the vulnerable, and many middle-class Americans, alongside lavish tax cuts for the nation’s richest individuals. With this budget, we would be marching down the path toward a new Gilded Age.”
“The Nussle budget serves one very useful purpose.” Greenstein added. “It shows that these large tax cuts aren’t free, and that at bottom, the issue is one of national priorities. This ought to trigger a national debate. Are tax cuts averaging $90,000 a year for millionaires so high a priority that we should cut health care programs, increase the ranks of the uninsured, reduce the cost or limit the availability of student loans, and increase hardship among the disabled, poor children, and others to free up room for massive tax cuts?”
Possible Other Titles
Why is this rain yellow? or Hey, GWBush, self-appointed one of God, WWJD?
“The Nussle budget serves one very useful purpose.” Greenstein added. “It shows that these large tax cuts aren’t free, and that at bottom, the issue is one of national priorities. This ought to trigger a national debate. Are tax cuts averaging $90,000 a year for millionaires so high a priority that we should cut health care programs, increase the ranks of the uninsured, reduce the cost or limit the availability of student loans, and increase hardship among the disabled, poor children, and others to free up room for massive tax cuts?”
Possible Other Titles
Why is this rain yellow? or Hey, GWBush, self-appointed one of God, WWJD?
Think tank op-ed press releases are crap.
Please don't post crap.
Thanks.
posted by oissubke at 9:36 AM on March 13, 2003
Please don't post crap.
Thanks.
posted by oissubke at 9:36 AM on March 13, 2003
Read the link oissubke, show me the crap. It may not be what you want to hear but that doesn't make it crap. BTW, I appreciate your manners, I just disagree about CPBB ever publishing crap, unlike the Heritage Foundation.
posted by nofundy at 9:44 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by nofundy at 9:44 AM on March 13, 2003
Think tank op-ed press releases are crap.
But ... but ... they're nonpartisan. It says so right on their home page!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2003
But ... but ... they're nonpartisan. It says so right on their home page!
posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:48 AM on March 13, 2003
<sarcasm>Class warfare is when poor people or those concerned about them point out that rich people are passing laws to move wealth away from the poor and toward the rich. It is not when rich people pass the laws that hurt poor people. That's not warfare; that's business. </sarcasm>
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2003
Somewhat trollish with a fruity blended economic flavor.
Has the thought ever crossed the mind of the "Tax cuts for the Wealthy!" Pap Finn/Jacksonian democrat crowd that there is no longer a *way* to give tax cuts *or* tax increases to a "class?"
From the poorest to the wealthiest, ask the question, "How did you get your money?", and you will get responses that cover the gamut: taxable, non-taxable, real money and virtual money. Wealthy people with NO liquidity and poor people who are set for life. Billionaires who don't own their own house or car or pay their own bills, and adult children still sponsored by their aging parents who will inherit enough to never need to work a day, yet though they will own a house and a car and retire at 40, cannot ever afford a spouse or children. Smart people who use every loophole and dumb people who buy $300 sunglasses.
So if they can't attack it from *that* angle, then they'll whine about how the government won't provide services and products for FREE. Why, if you just took all of Microsoft's money away, you could give everyone in the State $100 FOR FREE! Of course, then Microsoft would be out of business, but that's okay, because each Microsoft employee would get $100 too!
Oh, not Microsoft's money, just the billionaires who own Microsoft, though all of their money is tied up in Microsoft stock so it's the same thing. But what the hell, isn't it just *fairer* that everyone in the State gets $100? You know, something easy to understand and FREE? You don't have to use that brain muscle that hurts so much, just think "Hey, I'm gonna get $100 out of this deal!"
The heck with that golden goose, give me them eggs!
posted by kablam at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2003
Has the thought ever crossed the mind of the "Tax cuts for the Wealthy!" Pap Finn/Jacksonian democrat crowd that there is no longer a *way* to give tax cuts *or* tax increases to a "class?"
From the poorest to the wealthiest, ask the question, "How did you get your money?", and you will get responses that cover the gamut: taxable, non-taxable, real money and virtual money. Wealthy people with NO liquidity and poor people who are set for life. Billionaires who don't own their own house or car or pay their own bills, and adult children still sponsored by their aging parents who will inherit enough to never need to work a day, yet though they will own a house and a car and retire at 40, cannot ever afford a spouse or children. Smart people who use every loophole and dumb people who buy $300 sunglasses.
So if they can't attack it from *that* angle, then they'll whine about how the government won't provide services and products for FREE. Why, if you just took all of Microsoft's money away, you could give everyone in the State $100 FOR FREE! Of course, then Microsoft would be out of business, but that's okay, because each Microsoft employee would get $100 too!
Oh, not Microsoft's money, just the billionaires who own Microsoft, though all of their money is tied up in Microsoft stock so it's the same thing. But what the hell, isn't it just *fairer* that everyone in the State gets $100? You know, something easy to understand and FREE? You don't have to use that brain muscle that hurts so much, just think "Hey, I'm gonna get $100 out of this deal!"
The heck with that golden goose, give me them eggs!
posted by kablam at 9:52 AM on March 13, 2003
::ears perk up::
What's this? A straw man-bashing session, you say? Would I like to help you kick it? Why yes, kablam, I would, thank you!
::kicks straw man vigorously::
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:58 AM on March 13, 2003
What's this? A straw man-bashing session, you say? Would I like to help you kick it? Why yes, kablam, I would, thank you!
::kicks straw man vigorously::
posted by eustacescrubb at 9:58 AM on March 13, 2003
Read the link oissubke, show me the crap.
nofundy, a think tank press release is only barely more legitimate than a teenager's blog entry, and that's only because think tanks have at least a thimbleful of political weight.
This is essentially an op-ed piece, wrapped up as "analysis" from a "non-partisan research organization." That's how think tanks work. Their whole reason for existence is to give politicians and the media nice little sound bites about "research findings" regarding one political agenda or another.
Take a look at their recent press releases. In what way is that not a skipping record playing the same thing over, and over, and over.... They exist because they have a halfway reputable-sounding name, and people can quote them and sound like they actually know something.
The exact same thing applies to right-wing thing tanks, which are every bit as disreputable.
If LGF were to rename themselves "The Green Center for Policy Analysis" and call their blog "Press Releases", they'd be just about as legitimate as the CBPP.
posted by oissubke at 10:01 AM on March 13, 2003
nofundy, a think tank press release is only barely more legitimate than a teenager's blog entry, and that's only because think tanks have at least a thimbleful of political weight.
This is essentially an op-ed piece, wrapped up as "analysis" from a "non-partisan research organization." That's how think tanks work. Their whole reason for existence is to give politicians and the media nice little sound bites about "research findings" regarding one political agenda or another.
Take a look at their recent press releases. In what way is that not a skipping record playing the same thing over, and over, and over.... They exist because they have a halfway reputable-sounding name, and people can quote them and sound like they actually know something.
The exact same thing applies to right-wing thing tanks, which are every bit as disreputable.
If LGF were to rename themselves "The Green Center for Policy Analysis" and call their blog "Press Releases", they'd be just about as legitimate as the CBPP.
posted by oissubke at 10:01 AM on March 13, 2003
right-wing thing tanks
Now say that three times fast!
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:03 AM on March 13, 2003
Now say that three times fast!
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:03 AM on March 13, 2003
Now say that three times fast!
A right-wing "thing" tank would be interesting, indeed!
posted by oissubke at 10:06 AM on March 13, 2003
A right-wing "thing" tank would be interesting, indeed!
posted by oissubke at 10:06 AM on March 13, 2003
A right-wing "thing" tank would be interesting, indeed!
<inappropriate>Maybe... that's where they hide Dick Cheney... ?</inapropriate>
:: ducks ::
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:12 AM on March 13, 2003
<inappropriate>Maybe... that's where they hide Dick Cheney... ?</inapropriate>
:: ducks ::
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:12 AM on March 13, 2003
What's this? A straw man-bashing session, you say? Would I like to help you kick it? Why yes, kablam, I would, thank you!
But why focus on kablam? The article itself is pretty much just a big collection of straw men. Broken up now and then by profoundly (if completely unintentionally) ironic comments like "Class warfare turns out to be alive" (indeed it is ... in press releases like this one).
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:18 AM on March 13, 2003
But why focus on kablam? The article itself is pretty much just a big collection of straw men. Broken up now and then by profoundly (if completely unintentionally) ironic comments like "Class warfare turns out to be alive" (indeed it is ... in press releases like this one).
posted by MidasMulligan at 10:18 AM on March 13, 2003
indeed it is ... in press releases like this one
See related pre-emptive sarcasm for my response to this observation.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:26 AM on March 13, 2003
See related pre-emptive sarcasm for my response to this observation.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:26 AM on March 13, 2003
Two expressions so trite that they should automatically be barred from Meta:
"ad hominum"
"straw man"
I just cringe anymore when I see either of these. Slightly off-topic, but are there any others that just really annoy?
posted by kablam at 10:31 AM on March 13, 2003
"ad hominum"
"straw man"
I just cringe anymore when I see either of these. Slightly off-topic, but are there any others that just really annoy?
posted by kablam at 10:31 AM on March 13, 2003
Think tank op-ed press releases are crap.
Please don't post crap.
silence all, the king of objectivity has given us his ruling.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:34 AM on March 13, 2003
Please don't post crap.
silence all, the king of objectivity has given us his ruling.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:34 AM on March 13, 2003
silence all, the king of objectivity has given us his ruling.
Bow when you say that, bub.
posted by oissubke at 10:37 AM on March 13, 2003
Bow when you say that, bub.
posted by oissubke at 10:37 AM on March 13, 2003
Their whole reason for existence is to give politicians and the media nice little sound bites about "research findings" regarding one political agenda or another.
I give you that it would appear so today. If you look at many think tanks that have been around awhile this assertion does not apply. The current phenomenom started in the mid 70s with generous funding from Scaife, Coors, Olin, Bradley, Hunts and Koch family money. The initial "politically bent" think tank of this new breed was the Heritage Foundation and is the king of the same today. The ones to follow the Heritage mold are most definitely and unabashedly established for the exact purposes you describe. Just don't confuse all think tanks with them.
posted by nofundy at 10:47 AM on March 13, 2003
I give you that it would appear so today. If you look at many think tanks that have been around awhile this assertion does not apply. The current phenomenom started in the mid 70s with generous funding from Scaife, Coors, Olin, Bradley, Hunts and Koch family money. The initial "politically bent" think tank of this new breed was the Heritage Foundation and is the king of the same today. The ones to follow the Heritage mold are most definitely and unabashedly established for the exact purposes you describe. Just don't confuse all think tanks with them.
posted by nofundy at 10:47 AM on March 13, 2003
Isn't class warfare intended, at least by strict Marxists, to refer only to measures which immiserate the poor, thus provoking the rise of class consciousness, rather than just any measure which benefits the rich?
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:25 AM on March 13, 2003
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 11:25 AM on March 13, 2003
which think tanks have street cred?
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Now, if we can get back to the thread, cna anyone credibly refute the charges in the article regarding this proposed budget by the House ofRepresentatives RubberStamp?
posted by nofundy at 11:40 AM on March 13, 2003
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Now, if we can get back to the thread, cna anyone credibly refute the charges in the article regarding this proposed budget by the House of
posted by nofundy at 11:40 AM on March 13, 2003
can anyone credibly refute the charges in the article regarding this proposed budget by the House of RubberStamp?
That depends ... by what criteria would the refutation be judged?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:46 AM on March 13, 2003
That depends ... by what criteria would the refutation be judged?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:46 AM on March 13, 2003
Also, I just read the report. If this is a piece of partisan mumbo-jumbo, I'm not sure where to find the mumbo.... he gave tax cut projectsions. He gave budget numbers which show which programs are going to be hurt by tax cuts. Those programs are largely social services which the poor rely on.
If there's any point the article might be wrong about, it's seems like it's going to fall under two headings:
(1) Number torture. The figures given aren't accurate or are presented in a leading way. If you see that, please explain in detail.
(2) Basic policy difference: you believe that tax cuts spur investment which spurs the economy and the whole tide rises, or you believe that such rises inevitably leave many of the lower class behind, and social services are necessary.
posted by namespan at 11:50 AM on March 13, 2003
If there's any point the article might be wrong about, it's seems like it's going to fall under two headings:
(1) Number torture. The figures given aren't accurate or are presented in a leading way. If you see that, please explain in detail.
(2) Basic policy difference: you believe that tax cuts spur investment which spurs the economy and the whole tide rises, or you believe that such rises inevitably leave many of the lower class behind, and social services are necessary.
posted by namespan at 11:50 AM on March 13, 2003
oissubke: your incessant denigration of links you don't politically agree with is crap. please don't post crap.
um, preview, too polite. just fuck off.
posted by quonsar at 12:10 PM on March 13, 2003
um, preview, too polite. just fuck off.
posted by quonsar at 12:10 PM on March 13, 2003
I'm with Namespan here. If you object to the whole use of the term "class warfare", how about screw the poor to the enrichment of the already rich.
Otherwise please point exactly where their numbers or their policy (reducing services to the poor/underprivileged and cutting the taxes of the rich is class warfare) is wrong.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 12:27 PM on March 13, 2003
Otherwise please point exactly where their numbers or their policy (reducing services to the poor/underprivileged and cutting the taxes of the rich is class warfare) is wrong.
posted by Wong Fei-hung at 12:27 PM on March 13, 2003
oissubke: your incessant denigration of links you don't politically agree with is crap. please don't post crap.
This has nothing to do with my political leanings. If someone posted a think tank op-ed saying that tax cuts were great for society, family values actually helped people, and other absurd notions, I'd call it as being a piece of crap too. People shouldn't confuse think tank "research" with science.
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Am I mistaken, or doesn't that disqualify these guys?
posted by oissubke at 1:33 PM on March 13, 2003
This has nothing to do with my political leanings. If someone posted a think tank op-ed saying that tax cuts were great for society, family values actually helped people, and other absurd notions, I'd call it as being a piece of crap too. People shouldn't confuse think tank "research" with science.
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Am I mistaken, or doesn't that disqualify these guys?
posted by oissubke at 1:33 PM on March 13, 2003
Class warfare? Are there are two combatant sides here? This kind of class warfare is more like the US/Iraq warfare, where one enormously more powerful side just beats the living crap out of the other guy. I propose we call it class pummeling.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:50 PM on March 13, 2003
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:50 PM on March 13, 2003
Better factor this and this into the budget too. 'Course, such paltry sums could easily come out of funds previously used for social programs as well, right Nussle/Bush?
And "WWJD" indeed? I'm kind of interested in how GW Bush reconciles all this greed and breaks for the rich and warmongering with the religous views that he himself constantly and odiously brings into public policy debate:
Praying for Peace
NEWSWEEK: You and the president share the same Methodist faith. Yet you have said that an attack on Iraq would “violate God’s law and the teachings of Jesus Christ” while the president continues to support using force, if necessary, to remove Saddam Hussein and says he is at peace with that decision. How do you explain that?
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert: It’s clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a “just war” theory. He is following a clear ideology that is not a part of any particular church that I know of. It’s an ideology of control that we find ourselves totally in opposition to.
Our church takes a strong stance against war but allows room for those who choose to be a part of the military. It comes down on the side of conscience. There are times when, if you are attacked, for example, you should defend yourself. But it should never be the first resort—only the last resort.
Oh, and how nice. Another oh so objective visit from the "posse", and another attempt to do everyone's thinking for them. I hear they're hiring down at the Ministry of Truth, "oisubbke."
What Others Say About the Center [on Budget and Policy Priorities]
The Center's "influence derives from the invariable accuracy of the Center's work...[it is] assembled with great speed and made available to legislators, reporters and public organizations while policy action is in progress, focusing on angles of issues that may not be readily apparent from raw reports... In short, the Center has credibility."
Washington Post profile on the Center
"I'd be grateful for your work if it were merely quick, but it's also sound. You are often critical of what comes out of the agencies...but your shots are never cheap. There can't be a lot of financial reward for what you are doing...all the more reason to tell you how much I use, appreciate, and indeed, admire the Center's work."
Jack Rosenthal, The New York Times;
statement made when he was Editorial Page Editor
President, Urban Institute
The Center "has made itself a key player in the ever-important debate over the federal budget. What makes the Center unusual, cast against its liberal type, are its business-page approach to poverty and the brief it carries for fiscal discipline....The Center has found a powerful niche by purveying timely analyses of complex and often confounding fiscal issues."
National Journal profile on the Center
"I have high regard for your objective and sound evaluations of public policies in the area of low-income and social programs, and I know that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this respect."
Former U.S. Senator Robert Dole
"Their numbers, which are trusted across the ideological spectrum, often speak for themselves."
"The Best and Worst of Public Interest Groups"
The Washington Monthly, March 1988
naming the Center one of the five best
public interest groups in Washington
"What makes them unique is the consistent high quality of their research and analysis. When you get material from them, you know it's accurate."
Michael Weinstein Editorial Board,
New York Times
Now here's the single, unsupported thing "oissubke" on MetaFilter says over and over ad nauseum in this thread about the Center: their op-ed is crap.
Now oissubke, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. The Center actually *might* be shoveling "crap" in this instance, but let's go painfully slow here and contrast the approach of both the Center and the folks quoted above with that of your own. The Center and it's article, and these nice folks who provided their opinion on "the Center" gave a little extra something in support of their viewpoint....a little extra something with which you seem wholly unfamiliar. They provided something called r-e-a-s-o-n-s. You, on the other hand, did not provide any such. Thus, the main source of floating unsupported, opinionated CRAP in this thread isn't from the Center's article, the Center itself, nor is it from the Center supporters.
It's from YOU.
Get a fucking rhetoric 101 clue: if you're going to self-righteously dictate to others that posting unsupported opinion is crap, you really ought to think twice about hypocritically posting your own unsupported opinion. If you think the op-ed piece is crap, SHOW how it is so instead of continually seeking to stifle viewpoints with which you disagree. Do you get it? Otherwise your posts here are exactly nothing more than that which you so endlessly and erroneously whine about. Crap.
Take your own advice. Don't post crap.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:12 PM on March 13, 2003
And "WWJD" indeed? I'm kind of interested in how GW Bush reconciles all this greed and breaks for the rich and warmongering with the religous views that he himself constantly and odiously brings into public policy debate:
Praying for Peace
NEWSWEEK: You and the president share the same Methodist faith. Yet you have said that an attack on Iraq would “violate God’s law and the teachings of Jesus Christ” while the president continues to support using force, if necessary, to remove Saddam Hussein and says he is at peace with that decision. How do you explain that?
Bishop Melvin G. Talbert: It’s clear to us that he is not following the teachings of his own church or the teachings of churches that believe in a “just war” theory. He is following a clear ideology that is not a part of any particular church that I know of. It’s an ideology of control that we find ourselves totally in opposition to.
Our church takes a strong stance against war but allows room for those who choose to be a part of the military. It comes down on the side of conscience. There are times when, if you are attacked, for example, you should defend yourself. But it should never be the first resort—only the last resort.
Oh, and how nice. Another oh so objective visit from the "posse", and another attempt to do everyone's thinking for them. I hear they're hiring down at the Ministry of Truth, "oisubbke."
What Others Say About the Center [on Budget and Policy Priorities]
The Center's "influence derives from the invariable accuracy of the Center's work...[it is] assembled with great speed and made available to legislators, reporters and public organizations while policy action is in progress, focusing on angles of issues that may not be readily apparent from raw reports... In short, the Center has credibility."
Washington Post profile on the Center
"I'd be grateful for your work if it were merely quick, but it's also sound. You are often critical of what comes out of the agencies...but your shots are never cheap. There can't be a lot of financial reward for what you are doing...all the more reason to tell you how much I use, appreciate, and indeed, admire the Center's work."
Jack Rosenthal, The New York Times;
statement made when he was Editorial Page Editor
President, Urban Institute
The Center "has made itself a key player in the ever-important debate over the federal budget. What makes the Center unusual, cast against its liberal type, are its business-page approach to poverty and the brief it carries for fiscal discipline....The Center has found a powerful niche by purveying timely analyses of complex and often confounding fiscal issues."
National Journal profile on the Center
"I have high regard for your objective and sound evaluations of public policies in the area of low-income and social programs, and I know that a number of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share this respect."
Former U.S. Senator Robert Dole
"Their numbers, which are trusted across the ideological spectrum, often speak for themselves."
"The Best and Worst of Public Interest Groups"
The Washington Monthly, March 1988
naming the Center one of the five best
public interest groups in Washington
"What makes them unique is the consistent high quality of their research and analysis. When you get material from them, you know it's accurate."
Michael Weinstein Editorial Board,
New York Times
Now here's the single, unsupported thing "oissubke" on MetaFilter says over and over ad nauseum in this thread about the Center: their op-ed is crap.
Now oissubke, let's give you the benefit of the doubt. The Center actually *might* be shoveling "crap" in this instance, but let's go painfully slow here and contrast the approach of both the Center and the folks quoted above with that of your own. The Center and it's article, and these nice folks who provided their opinion on "the Center" gave a little extra something in support of their viewpoint....a little extra something with which you seem wholly unfamiliar. They provided something called r-e-a-s-o-n-s. You, on the other hand, did not provide any such. Thus, the main source of floating unsupported, opinionated CRAP in this thread isn't from the Center's article, the Center itself, nor is it from the Center supporters.
It's from YOU.
Get a fucking rhetoric 101 clue: if you're going to self-righteously dictate to others that posting unsupported opinion is crap, you really ought to think twice about hypocritically posting your own unsupported opinion. If you think the op-ed piece is crap, SHOW how it is so instead of continually seeking to stifle viewpoints with which you disagree. Do you get it? Otherwise your posts here are exactly nothing more than that which you so endlessly and erroneously whine about. Crap.
Take your own advice. Don't post crap.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 4:12 PM on March 13, 2003
"oissubke"
What's with the quote marks? That's my name.
And in response to your well-written diatribe against my actions, which must have taken you quite a while to compose, compose, by the end of which you were probably quaking with anger, I'd just like to say this:
Chill out, man.
I don't sit for forty-five minutes and write a carefully reasoned explanation of why think tank press release is a crap post because (a) it's pretty common knowledge, (b) MeFi arguments don't change people's opinions, and (c) I've got better things to do with forty-five minutes.
posted by oissubke at 5:37 PM on March 13, 2003
What's with the quote marks? That's my name.
And in response to your well-written diatribe against my actions, which must have taken you quite a while to compose, compose, by the end of which you were probably quaking with anger, I'd just like to say this:
Chill out, man.
I don't sit for forty-five minutes and write a carefully reasoned explanation of why think tank press release is a crap post because (a) it's pretty common knowledge, (b) MeFi arguments don't change people's opinions, and (c) I've got better things to do with forty-five minutes.
posted by oissubke at 5:37 PM on March 13, 2003
Now, if we can get back to the thread, can anyone credibly refute the charges in the article regarding this proposed budget by the House of Representatives RubberStamp?
Refuting a big pile of assumptions and spin is quite different than refuting facts. This article is pure spin. To "refute" just a single line, let's take:
The tax cuts in the President’s “growth” package alone, all of which are included in the Nussle budget, would cost $725 billion over ten years and would, according to the Tax Policy Center, result in tax reductions averaging $90,000 each in 2003 for those Americans who have incomes of more than $1 million.
Note several things here - first, that the authors speak in absolute terms "$90,000", not percentages, and second, that they don't use, for instance, the top quintile (which is what most credible economists use when speaking of the distribution of tax liabilities), but takes only $1,000,000 and above ... in other words, focuses solely on the extreme tail of the distribution curve - meaning that the very few that have billions - who would get large tax cuts in absolute terms - have the maximum effect on the "average" (a guy that makes slightly over $1MM will get nowhere close to "$90,000").
Note also that there is no mention of the tax cuts the bulk of the middle class will get. In fact, almost everyone will get a tax cut - except those that don't pay any taxes ... i.e., the bottom quintile.
That's the cleverness of these things ... they put in a quote like the one above, and then can say "well, I dare you to refute it - you can't, it's true".
Yes - and the following is also true (according to the CBO):
The top fifth garners 53% of income but shells out 80% of the income tax. And the richest 1% of taxpayers (average income of $1,016,000) receives about 16% of income but pays one-third of federal income taxes.
That "think tank" and others like it know full well that any tax cut will always benefit "the rich" more than "the poor", because the the rich pay the vast bulk of the taxes. Including that fact as context, however, sort of makes for for "irrefutable truths" that aren't nearly as dramatic.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:57 PM on March 13, 2003
Refuting a big pile of assumptions and spin is quite different than refuting facts. This article is pure spin. To "refute" just a single line, let's take:
The tax cuts in the President’s “growth” package alone, all of which are included in the Nussle budget, would cost $725 billion over ten years and would, according to the Tax Policy Center, result in tax reductions averaging $90,000 each in 2003 for those Americans who have incomes of more than $1 million.
Note several things here - first, that the authors speak in absolute terms "$90,000", not percentages, and second, that they don't use, for instance, the top quintile (which is what most credible economists use when speaking of the distribution of tax liabilities), but takes only $1,000,000 and above ... in other words, focuses solely on the extreme tail of the distribution curve - meaning that the very few that have billions - who would get large tax cuts in absolute terms - have the maximum effect on the "average" (a guy that makes slightly over $1MM will get nowhere close to "$90,000").
Note also that there is no mention of the tax cuts the bulk of the middle class will get. In fact, almost everyone will get a tax cut - except those that don't pay any taxes ... i.e., the bottom quintile.
That's the cleverness of these things ... they put in a quote like the one above, and then can say "well, I dare you to refute it - you can't, it's true".
Yes - and the following is also true (according to the CBO):
The top fifth garners 53% of income but shells out 80% of the income tax. And the richest 1% of taxpayers (average income of $1,016,000) receives about 16% of income but pays one-third of federal income taxes.
That "think tank" and others like it know full well that any tax cut will always benefit "the rich" more than "the poor", because the the rich pay the vast bulk of the taxes. Including that fact as context, however, sort of makes for for "irrefutable truths" that aren't nearly as dramatic.
posted by MidasMulligan at 6:57 PM on March 13, 2003
which think tanks have street cred?
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Ixnay: ones that don't play Sir Mix-A-Lot. Oh, wait... gosh... nevermind!
posted by y2karl at 7:58 PM on March 13, 2003
As a general rule, those which pre-date the early seventies.
Ixnay: ones that don't play Sir Mix-A-Lot. Oh, wait... gosh... nevermind!
posted by y2karl at 7:58 PM on March 13, 2003
Oissubke: what MidasM (thanks!) said was the sort of criticism that should have been leveled at the study. Regardless of the reputation of someone, there's some chance that what they say might be true. Even the Cato Institute. Though of course rep matters in what you choose to pay attention to.
People jumping on Oissubke repeatedly: maybe we could lighten up a little bit? The crap comment was uncalled for, but the escalation was definitely.
And one more thing:
MeFi arguments don't change people's opinions,
Not so. I'm considering taking up fighting this meme as my personal crusade.
posted by namespan at 9:24 PM on March 13, 2003
People jumping on Oissubke repeatedly: maybe we could lighten up a little bit? The crap comment was uncalled for, but the escalation was definitely.
And one more thing:
MeFi arguments don't change people's opinions,
Not so. I'm considering taking up fighting this meme as my personal crusade.
posted by namespan at 9:24 PM on March 13, 2003
what MidasM (thanks!) said was the sort of criticism that should have been leveled at the study. Regardless of the reputation of someone, there's some chance that what they say might be true. Even the Cato Institute.
That's very true, and I agree with you. My beef wasn't with the actual article, though, but rather with the posting of think tank press releases in general. It was the action, not the specific points of the article, that bothered me.
To refute the action by trying to debate the article point-by-point would have been futile. Participation in the "If you think it's crap, then you're obligated to deconstruct it" challenge only encourages people to keep posting more of the same, the thinking being that one day someone will refuse to challenge every point, in which case, "A-ha!" you've proven that your agenda is better than theirs.
You know that think tank press releases are generally bogus. I know they're generally bogus. Even nofundy probably understands that they're generally bogus. Though they may contain information that is technical factual, they twist it, distort it, cover it with veiled hyperbole, and then describe it as "non-partisan research" for the sake of sounding legitimate.
They are not fascinating, except insofar as they give a little thrill to someone who agrees with their agenda and who then dutifully posts it on MeFi to prove to everyone else that their agenda is best, and they have the "non-partisan research" to back it up. They're never right. Ever. The research is always flawed. It is always partisan. Whether it's from a liberal, moderate, or conservative viewpoint, it is always, without fail, Just Another Agenda Post.
There are a handful of legitimate think tanks out there, but I dare say that their research doesn't give the same partisan "A-ha!" thrill that the biased press releases do. It's unlikely that anything from a legitimate think tank would ever make an FPP here, because they'd generally be regarded as boring.
I do suppose that I was wrong about people changing their minds, though -- I know, because in the not-so-distant past I've posted a few partisan editorials as well, thinking that they'd make great reading for everyone. I learned better.
posted by oissubke at 5:50 AM on March 14, 2003
That's very true, and I agree with you. My beef wasn't with the actual article, though, but rather with the posting of think tank press releases in general. It was the action, not the specific points of the article, that bothered me.
To refute the action by trying to debate the article point-by-point would have been futile. Participation in the "If you think it's crap, then you're obligated to deconstruct it" challenge only encourages people to keep posting more of the same, the thinking being that one day someone will refuse to challenge every point, in which case, "A-ha!" you've proven that your agenda is better than theirs.
You know that think tank press releases are generally bogus. I know they're generally bogus. Even nofundy probably understands that they're generally bogus. Though they may contain information that is technical factual, they twist it, distort it, cover it with veiled hyperbole, and then describe it as "non-partisan research" for the sake of sounding legitimate.
They are not fascinating, except insofar as they give a little thrill to someone who agrees with their agenda and who then dutifully posts it on MeFi to prove to everyone else that their agenda is best, and they have the "non-partisan research" to back it up. They're never right. Ever. The research is always flawed. It is always partisan. Whether it's from a liberal, moderate, or conservative viewpoint, it is always, without fail, Just Another Agenda Post.
There are a handful of legitimate think tanks out there, but I dare say that their research doesn't give the same partisan "A-ha!" thrill that the biased press releases do. It's unlikely that anything from a legitimate think tank would ever make an FPP here, because they'd generally be regarded as boring.
I do suppose that I was wrong about people changing their minds, though -- I know, because in the not-so-distant past I've posted a few partisan editorials as well, thinking that they'd make great reading for everyone. I learned better.
posted by oissubke at 5:50 AM on March 14, 2003
« Older Turncoats in Bermuda shorts. | Iraq's side of the story Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Coming Soon to a Burger King Near You!: "(AP) The stock market downturn has left many retirees with depleted savings and investments. The result: many of them are setting the alarm clock, brewing the coffee, and heading back to work again - that is, if they can find a job. A close look at the new retiree work force.". In one particularly sad story from this broadcast, a retired man and wife were forced to both go back to work. They shared a car and worked different shifts so that, in the last years of their lives, they could no longer spend any time together.
posted by troutfishing at 9:31 AM on March 13, 2003