Paul Krugman has issued a challenge to the Bush Administration (1 Viewer)

[aps]

Gawd I love the guy. He is smart, articulate, and a great writer.

In his article yesterday, he was discussing the Bush tax cuts and how the Bush Administration would have you believe that the majority of the tax cuts have gone to middle and low-income Americans. NOT TRUE.

He acknowledges that some people would not think that tax cuts is an important issue, but lying to the American people about the effect of the tax cuts is indicative of the lack of moral compass this administration has on many issues.

Weapons of Math Destruction
By PAUL KRUGMAN

[O]fficials continue to claim that most of the tax cuts went to the middle class even though their own tax analysts know better.

How do I know what the administration's tax analysts know? The facts are there, if you know how to look for them, hidden in one of the administration's propaganda releases.

The Treasury Department has put out an exercise in spin called the "Tax Relief Kit," which tries to create the impression that most of the tax cuts went to low- and middle-income families. Conspicuously missing from the document are any actual numbers about how the tax cuts were distributed among different income classes. Yet Treasury analysts have calculated those numbers, and there's enough information in the "kit" to figure out what they discovered. . . .

Here's the bottom line: about 32 percent of the tax cuts went to the richest 1 percent of Americans, people whose income this year will be at least $341,773. About 53 percent of the tax cuts went to the top 10 percent of the population. Remember, these are the administration's own numbers — numbers that it refuses to release to the public.

I'm sure that this column will provoke a furious counterattack from the administration, an all-out attempt to discredit my math. Yet if I'm wrong, there's an easy way to prove it: just release the raw data used to construct the table titled "Projected Share of Individual Income Taxes and Income in 2006." Memo to reporters: if the administration doesn't release those numbers, that's in effect a confession of guilt, an implicit admission that the data contradict the administration's spin. . . .

Again, the point isn't merely that the Bush administration has squandered the budget surplus it inherited on tax cuts for the wealthy. It's the fact that the administration has spent its entire term in office lying about the nature of those tax cuts. And all the world now knows what I suspected from the start: an administration that lies about taxes will also lie about other, graver matters.


http://select.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/opinion/14krugman.html?hp

I wonder if this article will bug the adminsitration as much Joe Wilson's article did that called the Bush Administration out on its cherry picking of intelligence. What could they do to Krugman?

 

[RightinNYC]

Gawd I love the guy. He is smart, articulate, and a great writer.

In his article yesterday, he was discussing the Bush tax cuts and how the Bush Administration would have you believe that the majority of the tax cuts have gone to middle and low-income Americans. NOT TRUE.

He acknowledges that some people would not think that tax cuts is an important issue, but lying to the American people about the effect of the tax cuts is indicative of the lack of moral compass this administration has on many issues.



I wonder if this article will bug the adminsitration as much Joe Wilson's article did that called the Bush Administration out on its cherry picking of intelligence. What could they do to Krugman?

Krugman's claim of "If they don't release the numbers because I said so, its an admission of guilt" shows exactly how greatly he overestimates his own importance...

 

[Kandahar]

Krugman's claim of "If they don't release the numbers because I said so, its an admission of guilt" shows exactly how greatly he overestimates his own importance...

Is there some reason that they won't release the numbers?

 

[Thorgasm]

Is there some reason that they won't release the numbers?

9/11, National security, and it was legal not to. That is their excuse for everything. Too bad being unethical isn't against the law.

 

[alphamale]

Tax cuts generally go to the upper class because they are the ones who pay the taxes. The upper brackets, and now even the uppermiddle class, get whacked by the alternative minimum tax.

 

[RightinNYC]

Is there some reason that they won't release the numbers?

"Dear George Bush-

I think that your government is scummy and spending all sorts of money on stupid ****. I demand that you release an itemized list detailing everything that the government spends money on. If you don't do it, I will assume that you are a liar, a cheat, and a poopyhead."

Now, if Bush doesn't respond to me, does that mean he's trying to hide something? Or does it just mean I'm irrelevant?


Couple of quick questions:

Has any other administration ever released those figures?
If not, why would bush be condemned for doing the same?

And Krugman's smug attitude just makes me ill. "I'm sure this article will provoke a furious counterattack blah blah blah." How much do you want to bet that nobody on the right mentions it? Let's not pay attention to him and just let TimesSelect sink further toward obscurity...

 

[Thorgasm]

And Krugman's smug attitude just makes me ill. "I'm sure this article will provoke a furious counterattack blah blah blah." How much do you want to bet that nobody on the right mentions it? Let's not pay attention to him and just let TimesSelect sink further toward obscurity...

Aaaaahhh, The old shoot the messenger when something is indefensable. The right uses this tactic so often that it really is losing it's effect. I think it is time for this dog to learn a new trick. How about debating the real issue, not how big the author is.

 

[RightinNYC]

Aaaaahhh, The old shoot the messenger when something is indefensable. The right uses this tactic so often that it really is losing it's effect. I think it is time for this dog to learn a new trick. How about debating the real issue, not how big the author is.

What issue are you even talking about? I don't see an issue.

Krugman claims that most of the tax cuts went to the rich. This is news? I've been hearing this for the past 5 years.

Yes, its true. The rich pay disproportionately the most, and they get back disproportionately the most. Big deal. Next week, Krugman will have a groundbreaking expose about how Bush sat still for 7 minutes on the morning of 9/11.:roll:

And to respond to you, how about coming up with a real issue, instead of failing in an attempt to manufacture one? There's plenty of stuff that Bush is doing a terrible job with, go get some of that. This is just weak.

Talk about a slow news week...

 

[Thorgasm]

What issue are you even talking about? I don't see an issue.

Krugman claims that most of the tax cuts went to the rich. This is news? I've been hearing this for the past 5 years.

Yes, its true. The rich pay disproportionately the most, and they get back disproportionately the most. Big deal. Next week, Krugman will have a groundbreaking expose about how Bush sat still for 7 minutes on the morning of 9/11.:roll:

And to respond to you, how about coming up with a real issue, instead of failing in an attempt to manufacture one? There's plenty of stuff that Bush is doing a terrible job with, go get some of that. This is just weak.

Talk about a slow news week...

I didn't bring the topic up. I just commented. Your reading comprehension is lacking though. The issue is not what the numbers break down to. It is the fact that the administration is not releasing the numbers. Krugman is saying that they don't want to release the numbers because they know how it looks to the majority of Americans. 40 million + without healthcare and you are worried about the wealthy paying more in taxes and they are still wealthy. Let them eat caviar.

 

[RightinNYC]

I didn't bring the topic up. I just commented. Your reading comprehension is lacking though. The issue is not what the numbers break down to. It is the fact that the administration is not releasing the numbers. Krugman is saying that they don't want to release the numbers because they know how it looks to the majority of Americans. 40 million + without healthcare and you are worried about the wealthy paying more in taxes and they are still wealthy. Let them eat caviar.

Like I said, Captain IDon'tActuallyPayAttentionToWhatIsWritten, this is only news if Bush is now for some unknown reason refusing to publish these numbers.

Can you show me something that would corroborate that? For example, the figures through the Clinton years? Or is Krugman just appealing to the LCD of the left wing and managed to snag you?

If this is just standard government policy, then you're without a leg to stand on.

 

[akyron]

PAUL KRUGMAN, TIMES COLUMNIST, DECLARED INSANE


Insane, Wild-Eyed, and Sourced


What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN


"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here. "


This guy is nine dimes short of a dollar but hes fun to read and make fun of.

I doubt the white house would respond to him as they usually dont respond to crackpots.

 

[Thorgasm]

Like I said, Captain IDon'tActuallyPayAttentionToWhatIsWritten, this is only news if Bush is now for some unknown reason refusing to publish these numbers.

Can you show me something that would corroborate that? For example, the figures through the Clinton years? Or is Krugman just appealing to the LCD of the left wing and managed to snag you?

If this is just standard government policy, then you're without a leg to stand on.

You know how a conservative is losing a debate? They play the Clinton card. Conservatives spent 8 years tearing him down for every little thing. Nowadays, he is justification for everything Bush does. Hypocritical, indeed.

It doesn't matter what Clinton, Reagan, or FDR did. The press is asking for these numbers and there is no good reason not to release them. You got that, Captain Namecaller.

 

[RightinNYC]

You know how a conservative is losing a debate? They play the Clinton card. Conservatives spent 8 years tearing him down for every little thing. Nowadays, he is justification for everything Bush does. Hypocritical, indeed.

hahahah, I figured you'd pick up on that. The only reason I mentioned Clinton was because he was the last president. I really couldn't care less about Clinton, I thought he was fine. Replace Clinton with Reagan, Carter, or whoever you feel like. The point is that if nobody else released these numbers, then why should Bush be held to a different standard? You don't think reporters have been asking for information that the government declines to give them since day 1? So why is it now all of a sudden a big deal?

Oh, that's right, because you're a shameless partisan.

It doesn't matter what Clinton, Reagan, or FDR did. The press is asking for these numbers and there is no good reason not to release them. You got that, Captain Namecaller.

Really? Let me see if I'm characterizing your argument correctly. Anything that the "press" (pretty broad, includes a lot of people) asks for that there is not a "good reason" (completely subjective) to avoid releasing, should be released?

 

[akyron]

It doesn't matter what Clinton, Reagan, or FDR did.

Saying history is irrelevant really hurts your case more than anything.

Of course history is relevant to current events.

I like some of what Clinton said and did regardless of how badly he messed up the US military during his administration.

He had an insightful story in his book about a bar he was in in Helsinki.

"Two very drunk men were fighting over the only girl there.Both men were too inebriated to defend themselves but managed to land blows on each other. Before long they were both gushing blood. One of them was a member of the crew with two or three of his mates just standing there watching. Finally I couldn't stand it anymore. I got up and walked over to stop the fight before they did themselves serious damage. When I got about ten feet from them, One of the crewman blocked my way and said "You cant stop the fight. If you try,they'll both turn on you. And we'll help them." When I asked why, he just smiled and replied, "We're Finns." I shrugged,turned away, picked up my book, and went to bed, having absorbed another lesson about different cultures. I bet neither one of them got the girl." -President Clinton, My Life 220.

I kind of feel that way about the middle east. I bet someone thought about uniting arabs against the US may bring them closer to each other in the long run and have a slight chance of ending a couple of thousand years of tribal infighting that is so out of date and so harmful to the development of the area.

I guess all we need to do is survive the first part.

 

[Thorgasm]

hahahah, I figured you'd pick up on that. The only reason I mentioned Clinton was because he was the last president. I really couldn't care less about Clinton, I thought he was fine. Replace Clinton with Reagan, Carter, or whoever you feel like. The point is that if nobody else released these numbers, then why should Bush be held to a different standard? You don't think reporters have been asking for information that the government declines to give them since day 1? So why is it now all of a sudden a big deal?

Oh, that's right, because you're a shameless partisan.



Really? Let me see if I'm characterizing your argument correctly. Anything that the "press" (pretty broad, includes a lot of people) asks for that there is not a "good reason" (completely subjective) to avoid releasing, should be released?

Well, either you are a shameless partisan or you think we work for the government. Which is it? I think the govt. should work for us and be accountable. Anything that doesn't put national security at risk should be public information. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Oh, that's right, because you are a namecalling and shameless partisan. You should go to bed, this is getting way too easy.

 

[RightinNYC]

Well, either you are a shameless partisan or you think we work for the government. Which is it? I think the govt. should work for us and be accountable. Anything that doesn't put national security at risk should be public information. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Oh, that's right, because you are a namecalling and shameless partisan. You should go to bed, this is getting way too easy.

Were you as vociferous in your opinions when it wasn't Bush in the White House? Would you condemn Hillary for declining to release these figures (which she surely would) if she were to win the White House?

So, anything that the public wants should be released? If I call the white house tomorrow and say that I want an itemized receipt of everything that the gov spent money on in FY 05, I should get it?

 

[Thorgasm]

Were you as vociferous in your opinions when it wasn't Bush in the White House? Would you condemn Hillary for declining to release these figures (which she surely would) if she were to win the White House?

Hillary isn't my candidate, and she will never be president. But yes, I would condemn my ideal president for the same thing. I don't think Jesse Ventura would have a problem with transparency though

So, anything that the public wants should be released? If I call the white house tomorrow and say that I want an itemized receipt of everything that the gov spent money on in FY 05, I should get it?

Yes, everything non-security issue related should be available. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act? As far as an itemized receipt for everything the govt. spent is impossible. You couldn't get the CIA expenses. I do think it is reasonable to see totals though. I don't need a receipt for every pencil purchased. How else do you propose we hold them accountable. I know we aren't holding them accountable now. We keep rewarding them for their fiscal irresposibility.

 

[RightinNYC]

Hillary isn't my candidate, and she will never be president. But yes, I would condemn my ideal president for the same thing. I don't think Jesse Ventura would have a problem with transparency though

Rhetoric and lofty claims of neutrality are cheap.

Yes, everything non-security issue related should be available. Ever heard of the Freedom of Information Act?

Yep. I've used it. And if the Times wants that info, they should use it too. If it gets turned down, blame the judge.

As far as an itemized receipt for everything the govt. spent is impossible. You couldn't get the CIA expenses. I do think it is reasonable to see totals though. I don't need a receipt for every pencil purchased.

But I want one. To ME, that is important. I'll even omit CIA expenses and things DIRECTLY related to national security. But aside from that, I want an itemized list of EVERY PENNY spent. I mean, like you said:

Anything that doesn't put national security at risk should be public information. Why in the world would you think otherwise?

So how about my request? And how about the millions of requests made every day by nutjobs across the country?

How else do you propose we hold them accountable. I know we aren't holding them accountable now. We keep rewarding them for their fiscal irresposibility.

Then elect someone different, campaign for candidates you like, or get out and change things.

 

[aps]

Krugman's claim of "If they don't release the numbers because I said so, its an admission of guilt" shows exactly how greatly he overestimates his own importance...

He says that IF they attack him for what he has said AND they don't publish the numbers, then it shows their guilt. He calls them liars and publishes the number to prove that they are liars. If they call him a liar, then they should bring forth proof that he is liar.

NYU, Paul Krugman is a brilliant man, in case you didn't know. Look up his biography.

 

[aps]

What issue are you even talking about? I don't see an issue.

Krugman claims that most of the tax cuts went to the rich. This is news? I've been hearing this for the past 5 years.

Yes, its true. The rich pay disproportionately the most, and they get back disproportionately the most. Big deal. Next week, Krugman will have a groundbreaking expose about how Bush sat still for 7 minutes on the morning of 9/11.:roll:

And to respond to you, how about coming up with a real issue, instead of failing in an attempt to manufacture one? There's plenty of stuff that Bush is doing a terrible job with, go get some of that. This is just weak.

Talk about a slow news week...

Excuse me? The Bush Administration lies about who gets the majority of the tax cuts and that's not a big deal? WHY EVEN LIE ABOUT IT? LOL I'm so glad to see that when your Commander in Chief lies about tax information that you dismiss it. I am sure you were all over Clinton when he lied before a grand jury about whether he has sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. But Bush lying about tax cut, what's the big deal?

A slow news week? Rumsfeld gets trashed by multiple generals, Scooter Libby says that it was Karl Rove who leaked Valerie Plame's name to Robert Novak, and a poll finds that the majority of Americans find that the president is dishonest. But hey, this is a slow news week. :rofl

 

[aps]

PAUL KRUGMAN, TIMES COLUMNIST, DECLARED INSANE


Insane, Wild-Eyed, and Sourced


What's Going On?
By PAUL KRUGMAN


"America isn't yet a place where liberal politicians, and even conservatives who aren't sufficiently hard-line, fear assassination. But unless moderates take a stand against the growing power of domestic extremists, it can happen here. "


This guy is nine dimes short of a dollar but hes fun to read and make fun of.

I doubt the white house would respond to him as they usually dont respond to crackpots.

Really? That's why they made a concerted effort to discret Joe Wilson, who they essentially called a crackpot.

Krugman has been a Bush critic since Bush became President. All these articles, of course, were written while Bush has been President. Just more of the same--if we attack a person enough, people will start to question the credibility of this person. LOL Gawd, republicans are so predictable.

 

[aps]

hahahah, I figured you'd pick up on that. The only reason I mentioned Clinton was because he was the last president. I really couldn't care less about Clinton, I thought he was fine. Replace Clinton with Reagan, Carter, or whoever you feel like. The point is that if nobody else released these numbers, then why should Bush be held to a different standard? You don't think reporters have been asking for information that the government declines to give them since day 1? So why is it now all of a sudden a big deal?

It depends on whether an administration is making assertions that the facts do not support. If any other president was saying one thing, but the numbers showed something else, I would want to know. But that's just me. :roll:

Oh, that's right, because you're a shameless partisan.

I don't like this side of you, NYU. You sound rather desperate.

Really? Let me see if I'm characterizing your argument correctly. Anything that the "press" (pretty broad, includes a lot of people) asks for that there is not a "good reason" (completely subjective) to avoid releasing, should be released?

No. IF the Bush Administration is making assertions that a particular group of people are benefiting from something and the opposite is true, they should publish the numbers. What Krugman is pointing out is that the Bush Administration published the "Tax Relief Kit" to specifically refute the allegations that the most wealthy people were benefiting from them. So why then NOT publish the numbers at that time to support their assertions? Clearly, they have something to hide. Paul Krugman is merely calling their bluff. And he's not asking them to come up with numbers; rather, based upon what the "Tax Relief Kit" shows, he knows that they already have the numbers.

 

[akyron]

if we attack a person enough, people will start to question the credibility of this person. LOL Gawd, republicans are so predictable.

Republicans? That is exactly what Krugman makes a living doing.

 

[aps]

Well, either you are a shameless partisan or you think we work for the government. Which is it? I think the govt. should work for us and be accountable. Anything that doesn't put national security at risk should be public information. Why in the world would you think otherwise? Oh, that's right, because you are a namecalling and shameless partisan. You should go to bed, this is getting way too easy.

Beautifully stated, independent_thinker. :clap:

 

[aps]

So, anything that the public wants should be released? If I call the white house tomorrow and say that I want an itemized receipt of everything that the gov spent money on in FY 05, I should get it?

Again, NYU, you aren't getting this. It would be one thing if the Bush Administration was silent on this issue. But they have been stating facts that their numbers do not support, but they don't provide the numbers. I think it's absolutely correct to call someone on something like this.