tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post3416480089183415082..comments2024-03-19T03:26:51.618-04:00Comments on the daily howler: Supplemental: The craziness of those crazy tax plans!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76321341716888384542015-11-05T10:33:11.034-05:002015-11-05T10:33:11.034-05:00Excellent analysis Jeeves. But what about our mel...Excellent analysis Jeeves. But what about our melting culture?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-5768793227254704612015-11-05T10:29:45.569-05:002015-11-05T10:29:45.569-05:00If there was no point to my post what point is the...If there was no point to my post what point is there to this:<br /><br />HOWLER: "Just for one brief shining moment, can we talk real talk? CNBC's Three Musketeers were not on the air because they're highly competent. ....One moderator was on the air because he's a legacy player, just like Mika and Willie, his fellow incompetents.<br /><br />Quintanilla was handsome and Hispanic; Quick and pretty and strawberry blonde; Harwood was handsome and second generation."<br /><br />I guess you could say Somerby's point is that he can channel Alex Castellano, whom he defended against Rachel Maddow over the 77 % pay gap, and who otherwise came to fame as the author of Jesse Helm's attack ad on affirmative action.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8675962996871156942015-11-04T21:12:37.483-05:002015-11-04T21:12:37.483-05:00There is no point to your post except, I guess, to...There is no point to your post except, I guess, to malign Somerby (and his college friends) in unfair and misleading ways. What crap.Some Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-82757641925464690662015-11-04T13:03:26.805-05:002015-11-04T13:03:26.805-05:00Let's stipulate that the age of Howard K. Smit...Let's stipulate that the age of Howard K. Smiths, Walter Cronkites, Edward R. Murrows, et alii, is past us, and that the likes of Dan Rather, having messed with too many Bushes too many times, is today interviewing aging rock stars between talent shows and tribute acts on some faraway cable channel, the newsman's equivalent of sleepin' wit' de fishes.<br /><br />Given that, I can't see that the CNBC moderators were significantly worse than T-shirt Boy at CNN or any of the other talent-deprived entertainers given us in this Golden Age of Ailes. <br /><br />Were they prepared for the onslaught of dis-information zombie Rep-bots? Why should they have been? It used to be that a politician's lies would be restricted to sneaky little tricks of reframing and circumlocution -- not brazen, fat-bosomed Goebbels-style Big Lie lies. These candidates reminded me of Michael Corleone testifying before the Kefauver Committee -- without the unflappable dignity.<br /><br />The panel, being the unremarkable little Alices they are, had not been practicing believing six impossible thoughts before breakfast when they were pulled through the looking glass hapless before the mad tea party that had entrapped them. Carl and Quick and Hardy Har Harwood are only little people within the news-entertainment matrix. Don't be harsh on them. Leave them alone and let them have their little careers. Trust me, being demonized from time to time by those they would presume to report on is part of being a rodeo clown for right win zealots. They're professionals and can take pies in the face and being dunked in cold water.<br /><br />I didn't see any specific mention of this, but if W. seems a statesman today by comparison, it's because he bought his election with tax cuts amidst a roaring economy (Clinton's) and budget surpluses as far as the eye could see (a temporary demographic trifecta pointed out in '96 in Perot's graphs). <br /><br />Today's con-men are buying their elections in the context of a rotting infrastructure, no industrial policy and a history of tax cuts to the wealthy being invested overseas, all based upon a doctrine of reverse Keysianism debunked by repeated woeful experience.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Jeeves Stumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716700263908484003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60607220433678664552015-11-04T09:54:11.636-05:002015-11-04T09:54:11.636-05:00I agree with DinC. the comic book metaphor was un...I agree with DinC. the comic book metaphor was unfortunate.<br /><br />I think the odorous John Harwood should be as roundly criticized as Rachel Maddow was. Harwood, after all, focused on the border wall and making Mexico pay for it. He ignored Trump calling Mexicans rapists, which Maddow did as well, except for criticizing Bush.<br /><br />As we know, if Harwood wanted to start with immigration instead of Trump's plainly crazy tax plan, then he should have compared him to Dylan Roof, the Charleston church killer. He should not have used the "comic book" metaphor.<br /><br />Harwood should have said "That was an amazingly stupid and ugly presentation. In the most obvious sense, Donald Trump is Dylann Roof.....Donald Trump is a deeply disgraced, repellent figure."<br /><br />Harwood didn't begin to say that.<br /><br />That said, we don’t live in a rational world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-68195483191308934122015-11-04T09:37:33.743-05:002015-11-04T09:37:33.743-05:00Sorry, I should have said "Somerby making fun...Sorry, I should have said "Somerby making fun of Chris Hayes three times for acting "surprised" by saying "really" when Krugman pronounced Bush "sane" <strong>compared to the current candidates.</strong> <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67870839655387523432015-11-04T09:19:37.093-05:002015-11-04T09:19:37.093-05:00DinC here you go:
http://time.com/4091301/republ...DinC here you go:<br /><br />http://time.com/4091301/republican-debate-transcript-cnbc-boulder/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35903457315708891172015-11-04T09:15:08.234-05:002015-11-04T09:15:08.234-05:00Yeah, pardon the poor trollfuckwit and his strawma...Yeah, pardon the poor trollfuckwit and his strawman. How could he pretend such a suggestion from the guy who put "crazy" in the headline for this post twice.<br /><br />Poor trollfuckwit may have been been too literal in interpreting Somerby making fun of Chris Hayes three times for acting "surprised" by saying "really" when Krugman pronounced Bush "sane" compared to Bush 2000. <br /><br />How could it be anything other than a literary device for Somerby to say of Krugman's assertion, "Plainly, that assessment is true. Unfortunately, CNBC's hapless moderators barely touched on these points last Wednesday night."<br /><br />I, like you and most readers know, when Somerby says something is plainly true we should not expand on it by pretending Somerby is suggesting something. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72986911882520240882015-11-04T09:04:26.044-05:002015-11-04T09:04:26.044-05:00CNBC is useless. And if you review Howler archives...CNBC is useless. And if you review Howler archives, you will find, except for covering Russert and Matthews when they were on that network last century, Somerby barely acknowledged it existed. Now it is yet another shining example of liberal failure. This is a notion Bob shares with the Republican Presidential candidates, the ones with ten or fourteen crazy tax plans Bob has yet to detail.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-15738820809831451472015-11-04T08:35:09.046-05:002015-11-04T08:35:09.046-05:00I would say that W did pretend to do actual budget...I would say that W did pretend to do actual budgeting (yeah I have to say W to distinguish now from Jeb). Back in October 2000 in my LTTE that tipped Iowa into Gore's column (ha ha) I called the surplus "imaginary". Maybe I was wrong, since I could not have predicted the Iraq invasion - the one they pretended would pay for itself. But ultimately the surplus was even less real than Harold Hill's band.<br /><br />Also, one more point when Obama made most of the Bush tax cuts permanent after his re-election that was ANOTHER $3.7 trillion in tax cuts - heavily tilted towards the rich. $1.3 trillion to the richest 5% according to CTJ.Dr. Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58276649082720374872015-11-04T07:24:44.717-05:002015-11-04T07:24:44.717-05:00Pretending that's what Somerby suggests the mo...Pretending that's what Somerby suggests the moderators should have done is your own little strawman, you trollfuckwit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-58915472204882075922015-11-04T07:21:56.005-05:002015-11-04T07:21:56.005-05:00Haha.
No, but those moderators were useless. Trul...Haha.<br /><br />No, but those moderators were useless. Truly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4819114404310481032015-11-04T01:43:19.158-05:002015-11-04T01:43:19.158-05:00Yes. labeling it crazy, or saying it made the Bush...Yes. labeling it crazy, or saying it made the Bush 2000 proposal look sane in comparison would have been a much better place to start.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60173948602332008712015-11-04T00:55:01.426-05:002015-11-04T00:55:01.426-05:00Anon 11:01 -- I wish you didn't lump me with t...Anon 11:01 -- I wish you didn't lump me with the odorous John Harwood. I didn't find a written text of the debate, but found a recording on you tube. I think I found the question you referred to. <br /><br />What I said may be similar to the essence of what Harwood said, but he sure didn't say it right. He should have pointed out that total income tax collected is under $2 trillion a year and Trump proposed cutting that amount by $1.2 trillion a year. Then, he could have asked Trump how he'd make ends meet. Instead he made a dumb, childish, offensive comment, likening Trump's campaign to a comic book.<br /><br />The questioner is supposed to ask questions, not offer views and opinions. Even if his views are accurate, it's not his job to tell people what to think. Furthermore, that "comic book" metphor made for a bad debate. It didn't encourage a useful, informative discussion. Rather, it stopped discussion in its tracks.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61666464505154980212015-11-04T00:28:40.657-05:002015-11-04T00:28:40.657-05:00For ourselves we wouldn't say @ Midnight lied....For ourselves we wouldn't say @ Midnight lied.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54587607918816504522015-11-04T00:19:13.372-05:002015-11-04T00:19:13.372-05:00"Here's the worst part of Friday's co..."<strong>Here's the worst part of Friday's column</strong>. As he rampaged about the grifters, Krugman largely failed to discuss the utterly crazy budget proposals those ten candidates have made."<br /><br />Bob Somerby<br /><br />Guess you would largely like to disappear that comment too. And in your own mind you have.<br /><br />Don't worry. You aren't the only one who thinks Bob's shit doesn't stink. Bob does too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-24952729555264396652015-11-04T00:01:38.200-05:002015-11-04T00:01:38.200-05:00Wish there were some way to disappear your comment...Wish there were some way to disappear your comments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-67050095922126679432015-11-04T00:00:00.578-05:002015-11-04T00:00:00.578-05:00No, he attacked Krugman for calling candidates gri...No, he attacked Krugman for calling candidates grifters without evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4959971724458944762015-11-03T23:48:24.075-05:002015-11-03T23:48:24.075-05:00Didn't Somerby spend his first post this morni...Didn't Somerby spend his first post this morning attacking Krugman for not mentioning the tax plans of the Republican candidates, all the while knowing about Krugman's characterization of those plans as crazy on MSNBC last night.<br /><br />And Somerby attacked Krugman for being deceptive this morning?<br />Christ, is there no level of hypocrisy Howler fans won't put up with?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-11291007479147080372015-11-03T23:01:36.772-05:002015-11-03T23:01:36.772-05:00Good for you David in Cal. That is basically what...Good for you David in Cal. That is basically what John Harwood said in the very first question of the debate addressed to an individual candidate. Glad you, Krugman, and Somerby are on the same page five days later.<br /><br />You see John Harwood, who apparently was only part of the panel because his father was once a reporter, is the one who brought up the Tax Foundation's analysis of Trump's tax plan. It was part of his characterization of Trump's "comic book version of a Presidential campaign." I suppose he could have called it crazy like Krugman and Somerby instead, and that would have avoided charges of liberal bias.<br /><br />We'll never know. Somerby disappears Harwood's question about Trump's proposals altogether.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3787035262497262672015-11-03T20:51:15.879-05:002015-11-03T20:51:15.879-05:00What also needs to be said is that these people ar...What also needs to be said is that these people are campaigning on the dire complaint that we MUST NOT hand our children and grandchildren massive debt. You hear this at every town hall and stump speech. Yet....their tax plans do exactly that. This seems so obvious, that this should be repeated over and over, and yet these two things are rarely said together.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-1389845103255924882015-11-03T19:21:13.240-05:002015-11-03T19:21:13.240-05:00As I said above, I agree with both Somerby and Kru...As I said above, I agree with both Somerby and Krugman. Trump's tax cut looks nuts.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-43082855961264311842015-11-03T19:19:56.730-05:002015-11-03T19:19:56.730-05:00Thanks Anon. I thought there might be some differ...Thanks Anon. I thought there might be some difference in how the numbers were presented. But, no. Trump's plan looks nuts.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72194235961967958112015-11-03T17:45:48.465-05:002015-11-03T17:45:48.465-05:00David in Cal writes:
"it's still hard to...David in Cal writes:<br /><br />"it's still hard to believe. I suspect there are aspects of the figures that I don't understand."<br /><br />First DinC, understand your sources, Somerby and Krugman.<br /><br />Somerby is someone who openly asks "Who's dumber—CNBC's Three Musketeers or us?" He admits "you could report the size of Bush's tax cut proposal in several different ways" but never tells you if that is true for the proposals of the candidates. He only gives us one figure for each of only two candidates and nothing for the others running. In fact we do not know if the term we will come to use is for the eight others on the stage in the main debate, or all fourteen running. The easiest way to cut through the confusion is just to remember the simple description that fits however many proposals there are: Compared to the Bush 2000 proposal, they are just <strong>"massively crazier."</strong> <br /><br />We know you may think "massive" is one of those "fuzzy" words misused on a journalistic basis by people in a profession that is lazier than liberalism itself. That could be true. Unless proven otherwise.<br />We all know what "crazier" means, however.<br /><br />Your other possible source is Professor Krugman. PhD. MVP. A leading journalism expert recently described him as having "reacted in an unintelligent, childish way to last Wednesday night's debate." He engaged in "deceptive practices" offering work that was even worse than "unskilled, pitiful, unintelligent, not real serious, clueless...journalistic conduct." <br /><br />I am not sure which one you will find more credible. Somerby or Krugman.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64140787300939964562015-11-03T17:14:21.354-05:002015-11-03T17:14:21.354-05:00"Our analysis finds that the plan would reduc..."Our analysis finds that the plan would reduce federal revenues by $11.98 trillion over the next decade. However, it also would improve incentives to work and invest, which could increase gross domestic product (GDP) by 11 percent over the long term. This increase in GDP would translate into 6.5 percent higher wages and 5.3 million new full-time equivalent jobs. After accounting for increased incomes due to these factors, the plan would only reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trillion."<br /><br />The Tax Foundation<br />Analysis of Trump Tax Plan<br /><br />http://taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-planAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com