tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post1861387675777363248..comments2024-03-28T16:18:12.319-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Timesday: The Times is just a big rolling mess!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-88935968772256509382011-11-03T06:13:26.464-04:002011-11-03T06:13:26.464-04:00John K
I actually saw a Dem congressman from Oreg...John K<br /><br />I actually saw a Dem congressman from Oregon try to do just that (argue for Clinton era-tax rates and also a financial transaction tax) on the Neil Catuvo show on Fox yesterday. Of course, Catuvo shouted him down with a series of red herrings and straw men. Catuvo's method was shocking in its transparency and mean-spiritedness, but I wonder how many viewers saw it in the same way I did. <br /><br />Without a platform, no one can do the job that needs to be done. Effectively, there is no method in place to let the truth get through to people. It's depressing.Chris Promhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00718053511827202636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-12220188587965652962011-11-03T01:39:50.905-04:002011-11-03T01:39:50.905-04:00Does the Times understand the difference between &...Does the Times understand the difference between "Deficit" and "Debt"? Here's a headline from September:<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/us/politics/obama-vows-veto-if-deficit-plan-has-no-tax-increases.html?ref=jointcongressionalcommitteeondeficitreduction" rel="nofollow">Obama Draws New Hard Line on Long-Term Debt Reduction</a><br />In fact, there is no plan for the debt to shrink. The amount of the annual deficit equals the increase in the debt. Under the plans being discussed, the annual deficit would become a little smaller, but it wouldn't go away. The debt would continue to grow. <br /><br />The Times might claim that their phrase "debt reduction Plan" is accurate, because the debt would be reduced to a figure lower than it would have been without the Plan. I think this sort of confusing terminology is not uncommon in Washington-speak. But, I wonder how many Times readers are confused into thinking that there are plans under which the Debt would actually start to go down.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72454583635556860752011-11-03T00:39:34.269-04:002011-11-03T00:39:34.269-04:00The New York Times won't give you a baseline b...<i>The New York Times</i> won't give you a baseline because like the rest of the establishment media, they are in on the game. It is this: neither the GOP (inflexible on this) or many Democrats in Congress or the President is willing to return to the <b>Clinton-era tax rates, which would produce $3-4 trillion dollars in revenues over 10 years.</b><br /><br />That is more than the Simpson-Bowles figure. That is more than the Super Committee was tasked to generate in cuts and revenues. That is about equal to the awful plan <b>Democrats</b> put forward, but still a bit more. If we return to the Clinton-era rates, though, that means less money for the billionaires and millionaires, and slightly higher taxes for some other groups. That also means that the social safety net doesn't get cut.<br /><br />The plutocrats do not want this. They don't. Why do you think Michael Bloomberg was hosting a <b>"Go Big Party"</b> this past weekend? Why do you think the "centrist" Democrats are pushing hard to come up with cuts rather than return to the Clinton rates? Why do you think the GOP wants instead of even modest revenue increases to "reform the tax code" and thus lower the rates even further? Why do you think the Peter G. Peterson Foundation keeps trying to ram these cuts down everyone's throats, even though when they held town halls, people said they wanted taxes RAISED on the rich? The plutocrats and their Congressional and White House allies do NOT want the rich to pay higher taxes and they do NOT want a social safety net. They hate it, and they know rich people don't need it, so they want it gone.<br /><br />If Mr. Somerby or any reader of this blog can convince someone in Congress--other than poor Bernie Sanders, who I fear is now just ignored--to state what a return to the <b>modest Clinton-era rates</b> would do to lower the deficit, and remind people that under those rates, the country created 22+ million jobs, I would say please, please, please do this, ASAP!John Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08073378940347627766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-56695800975726411752011-11-02T19:40:23.773-04:002011-11-02T19:40:23.773-04:00Another number missing from that article is the ma...Another number missing from that article is the magnitude of the deficit. The article shows neither the current year deficit nor the projected 10 year deficit. Without those figures as a base, a reader doesn't know how significant the projected deficit reduction plans would be.<br /><br />As I understand it, the Congressional Deficit Reduction Panel is seeking to cut the 10-year deficit by $1.2 trillion. That's a lot of money, but it's actually less than FY 2011's <i>one year</i> deficit, which, I believe, was $1.3 trillion.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-53907373101843254922011-11-02T18:56:12.586-04:002011-11-02T18:56:12.586-04:00What's Social Security doing in that proposal?...What's Social Security doing in that proposal? It's not going into the red in the next 10 years. It's not part of the budget.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com