Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » A Tax Increase – This Was Not Supposed To Happen!

A Tax Increase – This Was Not Supposed To Happen!

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

An old Dutch proverb says, “We grow too soon old and too late smart.” That proverb is quite appropriate as “Dear Leader” President Barack Hussein Obama’s “fiscal cliff deal” actually increased taxes on his supporters. As Joseph Curl provided some quotes in The Washington Times:

from Meet Virginia: “Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama.”

from Bake: “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class.”

from a poster on DemocraticUnderground.com: “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”

from RomneyLies: “I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th.”

from DemocratToTheEnd: “My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help.”

from Nancy Thongkham: “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”

I am not making this up. I even provided a link to Curl’s article.

Curl also wrote:

“Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.”

So, what happened? Obama, with the help of Congress, in 2009, enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks. But his “fiscal cliff deal” didn’t extend the holiday. Nor did it even pretend to address Social Security entitlement spending, which now comprises the single largest budget item. But not to worry since the Social Security Trust Fund has the back of all us retirees. Suuuuuuuuuure!

And what of Obama’s precious middle class? On January 2, 2013, Obama said, “”[This bill] raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into a recession.” Obama said that just before returning to Hawaii to resume his vacation, a move that cost us taxpayers $3 million. But this source says that fully 77 percent of taxpayers will experience tax increases. I don’t care how you cut it, 77 percent encompasses the middle class. If you start at 100 percent, then look at 77 percent of taxpayers, the resulting percentage reaches all the way down to 23 percent of taxpayers. (100% – 77% = 23%) Twenty three percent can omit the lowest income quintile, and only 3 percent of the lower middle class quintile. But the 77 percent includes the majority of the lower middle class, the (so-called) middle class, the upper middle class, and the upper class income quintiles.

As Dylan Matthews, in The Washington Post says, “One plausible definition of ‘middle-class’ is those households in the middle quintile of the income distribution, or between the 40th and 60th percentiles.” He also says in his article that the mean income of the middle class is $49,842. But wait. According to this source, the tax change (spelled ‘increase’) for people making between $40,000 and $50,000 will average $579. In fact, Matthews’ article states that the average income for the “lower middle class” is $29, 204. They can expect a tax change of $297. So, when Obama said, “… preventing a middle class tax hike …”, was he thinking that we are just stupid, that we would not notice the drop in our paychecks? Or was he just lying?

But it’s too late for Obama supporters. They are getting “too late smart.” Oh, well, perhaps when economic reality sets in, they will remember for whom they voted. But don’t count on it, as the steady drumbeat of lies and half truths propagated by the Democrats and MSM will make all the “something for nothing” crowd forget their 2012 votes.

But that’s just my opinion.

Powered by

About

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Yeah! Give us all back that payroll tax holiday (which was always meant to be temporary)! Who needs Medicare or Social Security or Unemployment Insurance! Nobody ever uses those things anyhow!!!!

    Look, Honey Boo-Boo Chile, there’s an old saying: you get what you pay for. If you aren’t willing to pay the taxes required to maintain a first-world country, then move to a third-world nation where you can pay a lot less (or none at all). And maybe, just maybe you’ll find out first-hand how nice it is to live in a nation where there’s enough tax revenue to pay for the things that we Americans take for granted.

  • Igor

    Much heavy breathing over nothing. Obama said all along he wanted to lapse the temporary Bush tax cuts. And everyone knew that the payroll tax holiday was temporary.

    To get effective and fair taxes we have to decide who to target for benefits and who to target for tax increases.

    Back in 2001 Bush excused the disproportionate tax cuts for the rich by saying “they pay most so they should benefit most”, and “the rich will use the money to hire people”.

    Now we see, from Romneys returns for example, that the rich do NOT pay the most, and from the failures of the labor market since the tax cuts that the rich do NOT hire people with their windfall tax savings.

    Two premises of republican tax policy demolished in the Great Bush Tax Cut Experiment.

    Back to the drawing board.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 1 & 2, Glenn and Igor, why are both your feeble attempts to pontificate and try to change the subject not a surprise to me? Say what y’all will about jobs, tax cuts, and Social Security, the FACTS are that taxes increased, and Obama (or someone who writes for his teleprompter) lied. Obama said, “[This bill] raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into a recession.” (emphasis mine) The bottom line is that Obama lied! Taxes did increase for the middle class. Or can y’all provide sources that define the middle class differently and show me the error of my ways? And that same sentiment goes for subsequent commenters as well.

  • Igor

    Taxes returned to their pre-Bush levels, that’s all.

    The Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 were sold as TEMPORARY. They had to be lapsed sooner or later, especially when they proved counter-productive.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    The FACT is that Obama was referring to allowing the temporary Bush tax cuts to lapse – and then only for those who were already wealthy. The payroll tax holiday was itself never meant as anything more than temporary.

    But of course since those are only facts and not rabid anti-Obama rhetoric, they mean absolutely nothing in Warren World.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Warren –

    You DO remember the tax levels the last time America had a budget surplus, don’t you? And the time before that? And the time before that?

    Don’t you?

    Hm?

  • troll

    Warren – you are concerned that the statement [This bill] raises taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans while preventing a middle class tax hike that could have sent the economy back into a recession. is a lie

    I challenge you to parse or reanalyze the proposition assigning meanings in such a way as to render it true

    your liberal friends have been trying to help you with this

  • troll

    …an attitude of reflexive falsifiability would improve your articles generally

    but that’s just my opinion

  • Dr Dreadful

    Warren claims the ending of a temporary tax relief measure counts as a tax increase. You what?

    Why don’t we apply this logic to another area of government? Suppose there were a temporary amnesty in place for illegal immigrants. And then let’s suppose Obama signs an executive order ending the amnesty. Would Warren give the President credit for introducing stronger immigration laws, I wonder?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    …Like I said, the ear-piercing Hussein-screaming brat in the middle of a grocery store that nearly every one is too polite to say something to-impossible to reason with and just as annoying.

    Oh dear, I’ve missed his point again.

    Hussein the boogie man!
    Hussein the boogie man!
    HUSSEIN THE BOOGIE MAN!!!!!

    {:^PbPbP~~~~~~~~~

  • Baronius

    Igor, Troll, and Glenn – You misread the article, and apparently aren’t familiar with the issue. This isn’t about the ending of the Bush tax cuts; it’s about the ending of the payroll tax cut. Warren made it pretty clear that’s what he was talking about.

    Maybe rather than slamming Warren without understanding his article, you could do what Jet apparently does, and slam Warren without reading his article. No, wait, that’s no better. I don’t know what to tell you.

  • troll

    nope – the article is about Obama telling a lie…Baronius clearly misread my comment at least

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, both Glenn and Igor acknowledged that Warren’s complaint was about the payroll tax holiday. They expanded their responses to include the Bush tax cuts for context, which I think is valid.

    Troll, on the other hand, is simply encouraging Warren to try and look at the President’s statement on the bill differently than his predetermined conclusions about it. Good luck with that…

  • troll

    …just establishing a benchmark in the therapeutic process as I would with any paranoid type

    Warren makes it clear in #3 that the lie is ‘the bottom line’ for him…so I thought that’s what should be responded to

  • Cindy

    Meet Virginia?

    And I thought the article was about meeting a Vagina. Not nearly as interesting an article as I had hoped for.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Clearly Baronius missed Igor, Troll, and Glenn’s point… and I did read the article. About as amusing as the sunday funny papers and not nearly as intelligent

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Um, Baronius –

    My first comment – that’s #1 above – didn’t address the Bush tax cuts at all. I addressed only the payroll tax cuts and what those payroll taxes are used for.

    Sometimes I pull a real boehner and misread what’s written, but not this time. This time, it’s you who misread my comments. That is not a hit on you, however, because I’m at least as (and probably more) guilty of it than you are, so no big deal.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Meet Virginia?

    And I thought the article was about meeting a Vagina.

    No, Cindy, that would be “Unnecessary Pap Smears”…

  • Cindy

    Very astute, my dear Wats…er…Dr.D.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Damn! My secret identity is revealed.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Don’t you hate it when that happens? … especially when you have to buy a new cape

  • Cindy

    lol, you sillies :-)

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    I find these comments to be quite amusing as most of you try to obfuscate, change the subject, and spread mis-information.

    For example, for comments # 4 and # 5, Igor and Glenn, the “fiscal cliff deal” bill actually extended the (so-called) Bush tax cuts for most Americans. That allowed the Senate to claim it was cutting taxes. Bush, BTW, had nothing to do with the (so-called) tax holiday. If Obama had been truthful, he would have not let the “temporary” tax holiday lapse either. But, noooooooooooooooooo! He let it lapse, while lying and saying taxes on the “middle class” will not increase.

    Re: comment # 10, Jet, Is someone holding a gun on you forcing you to read my articles? If not, DON’T READ THEM!

    Re: comment # 13, Doc, you say, “They expanded their responses to include the Bush tax cuts for context, which I think is valid.” (emphasis mine) Well, Doc, had you done ANY research, you would know that the “fiscal cliff deal” bill signed by Obama extended the (so-called) Bush tax cuts for a vast number (those making under $250,000 per year) of Americans.

    Re: comment # 15, Cindy, what an erudite (NOT) comment you made. And that goes for comments # 18 through # 22, as well.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Warren you’re like the Howard Stern show-I can’t help watching to see what assinine thing you’re going to say next.

    By the way, I’m dissappointed that you haven’t copied Limp-baugh’s recent equating homosexuals to pedophiles yet…

    or did I give away your next article (ooops)

  • troll

    …any non-paranoid watching the clip of the offending statement in full can see that it’s reasonable to think that Obama was talking specifically about income taxes

    should he have pointed out additionally that SS withholding was going back up? perhaps…but then he would have had to explain that the entitlement system couldn’t afford to carry private business by stimulating consumption any longer without nasty long term consequences

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 25, troll, you say, “…any non-paranoid watching the clip of the offending statement in full can see that it’s reasonable to think that Obama was talking specifically about income taxes” You offer your opinion as if it was fact, with no supporting link that we can follow to form our own opinions. What are we to do if our opinions differ from yours? Or is difference permitted?

  • troll

    Warren – you will find the video link on your CBS source…I’d think that you would have taken a look before writing this piece

  • troll

    …when you have viewed it let me know if you think that the ‘income tax’ interpretation is all that unreasonable

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Troll, Troll, Troll, You KNOW that if it did come from Fox News or LimpBaugh’s mouth it’s not fact.

    Haven’t you gotten his point yet?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I think I just found who Warren listens to when he wants to learn just how eeeeeeeeeevil we liberals are….

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    That’s dissapointing Glenn, all this time I thought it was the church lady…

    …then again when I was 14 I thought teaching algebra was an evil conspiracy too, so that fits right into the mindset of homeschoolers.

    Then again Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell were against teaching it because some librull sex fiend snuck the word “bra” into Algebra

  • judiann1

    While remembering who we voted for we need to remember the choices and particularly keep in mind who backs their campaigns. For those who can’t go figure … corporations are running this country. Enjoy the ride … what little time you have …

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Well, Doc, had you done ANY research, you would know that the “fiscal cliff deal” bill signed by Obama extended the (so-called) Bush tax cuts for a vast number (those making under $250,000 per year) of Americans.

    Ah, I see. So Obama did not in fact raise taxes on the middle class at all. Glad you’re coming round to reality…

  • clavos

    …and I did read the article.

    Nothing in your #10 (or any of your subsequent comments in this thread) gives any indication you did.

  • Baronius

    Based on Jet’s comments, he read the article…but it was an article about Limbaugh insulting gays.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Clavos and Baronius obviously didn’t read my comment… I said his NEXT article would be about that-not this one…

    …understandable since most republican’ts read only with their right eye while keeping the left covered

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    …understandable since most republican’ts read only with their right eye while keeping the left covered

    Wh o ear d yo me , Je ?

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I can see how covering your eye while typing would cause that ;)

  • clavos

    I said his NEXT article would be about that-not this one…

    No, you said:

    In #10:
    …Like [sic] I said, the ear-piercing Hussein-screaming brat in the middle of a grocery store that nearly every one is too polite to say something to-impossible to reason with and just as annoying.

    Oh dear, I’ve missed his point again.

    Which, of course, in the absence of any contrary statement, obviously refers to the present article.

    In #16 you said:

    and I did read the article. About as amusing as the sunday funny papers and not nearly as intelligent

    Again, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it’s obvious you didn’t read the article.

    Your #21 is irrelevant to this issue.

    In #24 you say:

    Warren you’re like the Howard Stern show-I can’t help watching to see what assinine thing you’re going to say next.

    By the way, I’m dissappointed [sic] that you haven’t copied Limp-baugh’s recent equating homosexuals to pedophiles yet…

    Still no contradictory evidence, still obviously in reference to this article, and then, finally, you refer to an (as yet nonexistent) future article by Warren, saying:

    …or did I give away your next article (ooops)

    #29 Is again irrelevant to this issue (though silly).

    And #31 is not only irrelevant (to the issue) and silly, it’s repetitive.

    #36 is, obviously, erroneous:

    And #39, yet again, is irrelevant.

    So, no, Jet, Clavos and Baronius DID “read your comment;” apparently it was YOU who didn’t.

    TTFN

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 28, troll, you say, “…when you have viewed it let me know if you think that the ‘income tax’ interpretation is all that unreasonable[.]” Yes, I think your interpretation is unreasonable. The speech to which you refer was primarily about two points: his willingness to compromise [from his perspective, as long as he gets his way], and deficit reduction [about which he has never been serious – he mentions deficit cuts while failing to mention even greater deficit spending]. Yes, he did mention income tax – once (1:02 mark), and he mentioned the payroll tax holiday – once (21 sec mark). You sound like a drowning man grasping for ANYTHING that will help him. I differ with your opinion. Does that make mine incorrect?

    Re: comment # 30, Glenn, you cite an article about teaching algebra. Now you will explain what children chanting, “Mmm. Mmm. Mmm. Barack Hussein Obama,” has to do with teaching algebra. The article you cite continues, “Distribute the wealth with the lovely rich girl with a big ole bag of money, handing some money out.” Again, please what that has to do with teaching algebra.

    Further, what does the article you cite have to do with ANYTHING about which I wrote? Glenn, IMHO, you have made yourself look more foolish than I could ever hope to.

    Re: comment # 33, Doc, taxes DID increase. What’s your point?

    Re: comment # 39, clavos, well said. Using the commenters’ own words illustrates just how they let their opinions show without doing any reading or research.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Clavos-only Republican’ts like you and Warren could miss the ramifications of the words “yet” and “next” and try to falsely imply I meant this ridiculous article.

    I REPEAT…
    ————-
    By the way, I’m dissappointed that you haven’t copied Limp-baugh’s recent equating homosexuals to pedophiles yet…

    or did I give away your next article (ooops)
    ——-

    That’s an awful thick Maher bubble around you… I feel sorry it seems to be impenetrable.

    I did read the article too-go to liberal hell if you don’t believe it.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 41, Jet, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with my article. But, since YOU continue to raise the subject, have you ever heard of NAMBLA? And, as this source indicates, your continued reference to “Limp-baugh” and his equation of homosexuals (we called them queers in my day) to pedophiles is hardly confined to him alone.

    No, I don’t plan to write about the subject as Rush has said it all,

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Comment 41 contains the phrase “this ridiculous article.” which has everything to do with this right-wing propaganda-which describes every single article (especially this one) that you have ever written.

    as for queers-heeding your opinion on gays makes as much as sense as listening to Rush pontificate against the misuse of prescrption drugs.

  • troll

    Warren – Obama doesn’t mention the payroll tax holiday at 21 sec as you claim…or anywhere else in the clip for that matter unlike income taxes

    this makes a response problematic – I guess I can do no better than to ask why you think that’s what he’s talking about

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Troll… really? You’ve dealt with him for how long now without realizing his lack of even a tenative grasp on political reality?

    The only facts Warren believes in are his own opinion.

  • Zingzing

    we called them queers in my day

  • clavos

    Interestingly, most of my gay friends, in the spirit of irony and thumbing their noses at the straights, call themselves queer.

    And most are also highly self-confident individuals with good self-esteem who are comfortable in their own skins; they also are financially secure, conservative, over-achievers in both the arts and business, who are not given to hysteria.

  • Baronius

    Wow – you guys may actually pull this off. You went from not talking about the article to talking about Limbaugh and gays to turning the thread into a discussion of Limbaugh and gays. Warren appears to be a net noobie who doesn’t know the difference between taking on all comers and being led off-topic. As for you guys, were you deliberately trying to take this thread off-topic or did you do it by accident?

  • Zingzing

    Clavos, I’m sure that’s what warren meant.

    Baronius, everyone loves the thread police.

  • Cindy

    Baronius has single-handedly taken this thread off the topic of the article and diverted it to the analysis of the comments section. Sheesh! Did you do that by accident?

  • Igor

    Not unusual: the second page is typically where BC comments wander off the original topic.

  • Baronius

    If anyone wants to talk about the article, go for it.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    What is left to say-This article is a reworded regurgitation of already published right-wing propaganda and the author refuses to listen to any contrary opinions of what are presented here questionably as his own. He arrogantly dismisses any facts to refute them, and rewards anyone (few as there are) who agree with him with a “see I told you so!” to answer those who don’t.

    When he gets bored with people putting down his foolish and often miscopied from other unreliable sourced articles, he writes a new one even more nonsensicle in hops we’ll forget his last brain fart.

    When a reasonable argument against one of his hero’s opinions (for he obviously has none of his own) is presented he predictably responds

    A. You missed my/his point

    B. You didn’t read the article or you’d agee with me.

    C. That comment has nothing to do with my article (even if it does)

    It’s the crying baby syndrome-pay attention to me or I’ll do something even more outrageous until you do.

  • clavos

    I love nonsensicles; they’re as good as fudgesicles

  • http://cinemasentries El Bicho

    baronius – The internet allows people to communicate with each other. Blogcritics is a site on the internet. On this site, people are able to discuss various topics interactively. They’ve never been restricted by the article in what they are allowed to discuss in comments. No reason to think they should start now.

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 43, Jet, am I starting to get “under your skin?”

    Re: comment # 44, troll, I went back and reviewed what Obama said, particularly at the 21 second mark. Technically, you are correct – he doesn’t refer to the “tax holiday” by name, but he does say, “… while preventing a middle class tax hike …[.]” It appears that you are hiding behind a technicality.

    Re: comment # 52, Baronius, discussion of the article will never happen as most commenters can’t intelligently discuss anything beyond their own opinions (see comment # 53).

    Re: comment # 53, Jet, you say, “… This article is a reworded regurgitation of already published right-wing propaganda …[.] You (again) offer no illustrations (links) of your accusations. Your continued offering of your opinion (with NO attribution) is making you appear silly.

    Howard Stern aside, if you don’t like what I say, don’t read it.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    I rest my case

  • Baronius

    EB – Fine words, almost poetic. But doesn’t it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren’s and don’t talk about the article? I mean, if y’all want to make Pat Robertson jokes or whatever I can’t stop you, but isn’t it kind of messed up?

  • clav

    I rest my case

    Case???

    What “case?”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Baronius –

    EB – Fine words, almost poetic. But doesn’t it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren’s and don’t talk about the article? I mean, if y’all want to make Pat Robertson jokes or whatever I can’t stop you, but isn’t it kind of messed up?

    As with the rest of Warren’s articles, we come in, point out how, um, uninformed his articles are (among other crticisms), and Warren always replies by saying that our criticisms don’t count, et cetera, ad nauseum, so then the rest of us begin speaking on slightly (or more than slightly) different topics. Read this comment thread again – you’ll see the same pattern.

    In other words, it’s hard to have a constructive conversation when one side simply dismisses whatever you say and presents little or no relevant data to defend his side.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    Fear not Warren-since you’re always “not” something-we couldn’t replace you because we don’t know what you are!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    But doesn’t it seem weird to you that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren’s and don’t talk about the article?

    It’s not weird that the same people gather in every comment thread of Warren’s because pretty much the same people gather in the comment thread of every Politics article. (Well… unless you think that’s weird.)

    As for not talking about the article: (a) an infuriating habit many people have is to talk about what they want to talk about; however (b) people do talk about the meat of Warren’s articles far more than he claims they do.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    (c) we few are the only ones dumb enough to read them.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    and (d) after the initial non-defense of his articles, we begin discussing not so much what’s in his articles as what personal or environmental factors led to his writing of said article and his inclusion of certain elements therein.

  • troll

    Warren – given #56 your ‘lie argument’ boils down to a question of the logic of ordinary language use doesn’t it?

    when Obama uses the phrase ‘a middle class tax hike’ must he refer to all such hikes?

    I can think of constructions where this doesn’t hold eg if I say “I caught a fish” it wouldn’t be all that reasonable to infer that I mean that I caught them all

    do you agree that based on this logical technicality it’s reasonable to question your argument?

  • http://rwno.batcave.net Not the liberal actor

    Re: comment # 64, Glenn, you say, “… we begin discussing not so much what’s in his articles as what personal or environmental factors led to his writing of said article and his inclusion of certain elements therein.” If that’s your attitude, then I expect full agreement from you about my latest article.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Warren –

    heh. I think you should read my comment on your newest article – it’s already there.

  • Igor

    Warren is a notorious plagiarizer so there’s no real depth behind his articles, therefore more discussion from others doesn’t elicit more info from Warren. He just gets defensive.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Re: comment # 33, Doc, taxes DID increase. What’s your point?

    My point is that, by the standard of verification you yourself set (see: your exchange with troll), my contention that Obama didn’t raise taxes is as valid as yours that he did.

  • Baronius

    Dread, what does that say about the tax debate, if “he raised taxes” and “he didn’t raise taxes” are both to be considered equally true? I kind of get your point, but don’t you think we should stop talking about temporary vs. tax rates, federal taxes vs. federal income taxes, and current year vs. 10 year vs. baseline budget cuts?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Baronius, I expected that you’d get the point. Warren still didn’t, even after troll served it up to him on a plate.

    I agree that the dialogue about taxes needs to be more constructive, but here at BC we can only work with the materials provided. In this instance, those were pretty shoddy.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    “isn’t it kind of messed up?”

    considering Warren has repeatedly been caught using the work of others and ignores those who point out the inaccuracies in his articles, I’m not sure why you think people should talk about them.

  • Baronius

    Dread – Us thread people seem perfectly willing to bring our own materials, to talk about anything we want to. If the article was lacking, we could bring our corrections. I think the article actually addressed the matter nicely. It said the same thing I am: people don’t realize the implications of tax debate because no one talks clearly.

    EB – I don’t know if that’s a non sequitur, but I personally couldn’t follow it.

  • Dr Dreadful

    It said the same thing I am: people don’t realize the implications of tax debate because no one talks clearly.

    Unintentionally it said that, Baronius, perhaps. But you know as well as I do that Warren’s unvarying message in every article he writes is “Everything Barack Hussein Obama does is wrong”. The only difference is in which particular cherry-picks, distortions, removals of context, pettifoggings and propagandizings tenuously anchored by tendrils of truth he uses to further his aim.

    So I guess that’s the challenge. We can spend inordinate amounts of time refuting Warren, which as Jet in admittedly not the most mature way has pointed out is like water off a duck’s back, or we can reframe the discussion along the lines of:

    Absolutely everything Warren says notwithstanding, is there anything to the claim that the fiscal cliff deal will raise taxes on the middle class, and if so is this necessarily a bad thing; and more broadly, who is the deal good and bad for?

  • clav

    The only difference is in which particular cherry-picks, distortions, removals of context, pettifoggings and propagandizings tenuously anchored by tendrils of truth he uses to further his aim.

    C’mon, Doc. Get off the fence; tell us what you really think…

  • clav

    …or we can reframe the discussion along the lines of:

    Absolutely everything Warren says notwithstanding, is there anything to the claim that the fiscal cliff deal will raise taxes on the middle class, and if so is this necessarily a bad thing; and more broadly, who is the deal good and bad for?

    Nice idea, Doc. The problem is, if we were each to seek out the serious sources (not the Foxes or CNNs) on each side for analysis and interpretation, what we would end up with would be a left opinion and a right opinion (though probably on a higher plane), at which point we’d all revert to our partisan views and nothing would get settled.

    That’s how US politics operate.

  • http://jetsgayheadlinenews-jet.blogspot.com/ Jet Gardner

    #74 Doc you have been patient with him and where has it gotten you?

    No one but his three man possy has gotten through, s0 I’ve been dealing with him on his level and where has it gotten me?

    Nowhere to both questions.

    On his other latest article I pointed out the blatant copying of someone else’s work using an identically key-worded sentence that was critial to his argument and he came back with a childish retort about the use of the word “the”

  • Igor

    IMO it’s hopeless to use Warrens article as anything but a suggestion of a topic to discuss.

    From that point forward, one might respond to other peoples points that you agree with or not.

  • Dr Dreadful

    The problem is, if we were each to seek out the serious sources (not the Foxes or CNNs) on each side for analysis and interpretation, what we would end up with would be a left opinion and a right opinion

    Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from “sides” rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics. That’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.

  • Dung Honter

    “Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from “sides” rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics.”

    I think he’s getting at something deeper. How you ‘logically’ account for things ultimately depends on what weights you give items in the social contract. Some people love a big soft cuddly government security blanket and will gladly devote 50% or more of the produce of their life towards that end. To others, myself included, I don’t ask or need much from the government. Basically my only interaction is when they’re playing nanny telling me I can’t do things I’d otherwise choose to do and when they send me bills… neither of which I find very endearing. The big worker protections like unemployment and minimum wage have rarely applied as I’ve been in business or self employed most of my working life and I’ve proven perfectly capable of saving and planning for my own kids/retirement/healthcare/rainy day without government doing it for me. If I had a look at the social contract I’d strike out lots of the major provisions, keep a few of the basic physical safety and security ones, and gladly sign and pay for what I agreed to. Until I get that option expect me to continue to come here and bitch.

  • clav

    Well, of course you would if you insisted on seeking opinions from “sides” rather than from people who actually know a bit about taxation and economics.

    Your implication being that everyone who knows “a bit about taxation and economics” would all be on the same page and wouldn’t be on different “sides of the issues.

    Would that the world of human beings were that straightforward. Forget the world, would that just the Dismal Science were that straightforward and uncomplicated.

    But it isn’t.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Your implication being that everyone who knows “a bit about taxation and economics” would all be on the same page and wouldn’t be on different “sides of the issues.

    Not at all. Naturally everyone’s opinion of what should be done about the economy is going to be infused with their personal political ideologies. My hope is rather that more attention can be paid to those who actually know what they’re talking about rather than those who prefer to simply shake their fists at the problem.

    [/hopeless romantic]

  • clav

    But my point was that “those who ‘know’ what they’re talking about” are themselves divided, if you define as those who know what they;re talking about as the economists with real training at recognized institutions and who also hold some recognition awards in the field. Such individuals exist on both sides of the fiscal questions facing us.

    Now, if you define those who know what they’re talking about as those who agree with your favorite economic guru, then yes, what you’re wishing for would preclude all but one overall definition of “good” economics, but in reality, there are at least two (in reality more) very different schools of economic thought which offer different (but seemingly viable) approaches to resolution of today’s problems.

  • troll

    …what makes you think that academically trained economists know what they’re talking about any more than the next life-coach you’re going to meet on the subway?

    do you think that Stiglitz’ (eg) economic theory and policy proposals aren’t ideologically based/tainted?

    consider: Warren makes an art of bias while tauting an advanced degree in statistics – ironical or diabolical?…only his confessor knows – along with his hair dresser and the shadow

    personally I find this ‘pathological persona’ and particularly its paranoid aspects far more interesting than the so-called political content of his articles

  • Doug Hunter

    #84

    Truth told, even at risk of sounding like one of those nutty ‘anti-science’ right wingers. Excellent.

    Large swaths of science and scientific studies (especially of the type applicable to political discourse including economics and the social sciences) are simply manifestations of the preexisting opinions of the author (or those funding the study)… the bias tends to stick out like a sore thumb which leads me to a quandary. Is the average person so dense they can’t see through this (or more likely the average person doesn’t actually read the science and just assumes as they’ve been trained that scientists are near infallible) or does something about extra years of schooling give scientists a false sense of intellectual superiority and they actually believe what they’re writing can’t be seen through by the common people or as a final alternative perhaps the scientists just aren’t that clever themselves. In any case, it seems to work. Warren would indeed be an interesting case study.

  • Baronius

    The masses are ignorant and polarized; the experts are learned and polarized.

    Due diligence, then?

    Drop the fist-in-the-air nonsense. Use terminology correctly yourself and, where possible, nudge the conversation toward correct terminology. Look at what the experts say – they may be hitting consistently to the left or to the right of the target, but at least we can avoid sources who aren’t even hitting the side of the barn. Recognize that both sides have a bias, and factor it in when considering their (and your) analysis.

  • Dr Dreadful

    The masses are ignorant and polarized; the experts are learned and polarized.

    But be mindful of the possibility that the masses’ assessment of the learned as polarized may arise from ignorance.

    Due diligence, then?

    Absolutely.

  • Dr Dreadful

    or does something about extra years of schooling give scientists a false sense of intellectual superiority and they actually believe what they’re writing can’t be seen through by the common people

    Doug, I think that is a common conceit: the very learned are, after all, human like the rest of us.

    and they actually believe what they’re writing can’t be seen through by the common people or as a final alternative perhaps the scientists just aren’t that clever themselves.

    In that case, they’re very easy to see through if you know what you’re looking for. One scientist who emphatically did not fall into that category was Carl Sagan, and IMO every child should be introduced, as soon as they’re intellectually able, to his Baloney Detection Kit. If they can’t see through bullshit after mastering that, they deserve everything that’s spoonfed to them.

  • clav

    …what makes you think that academically trained economists know what they’re talking about any more than the next life-coach you’re going to meet on the subway?

    I don’t necessarily, but you have to set a standard somewhere, and it would seem the academics are at least better versed in the arcane science of economics than the masses, n’est-çe pas?

  • Doug Hunter

    #88 Enjoyed the link, this one seems pertinent:

    Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no “authorities”).

    Replace science with life and you’re getting close.

    #89 Or conversely, economists have been forged into hammers therefore every problem appears as a nail. Sometimes it takes the masses to know they’re being screwed instead.

  • Baronius

    Social sciences aren’t self-correcting. There’s rarely a Galileo-dropping-rocks moment in them. Economics and military history are more prone to those kind of moments than, say, sociology, but everyone’s got his own interpretation of them.

    I agree with Clavos about the merits of study. I also agree with Doug partially, that a certain school of thought in economics will see every problem as solvable by a tax cut, tax hike, trade deal, trade war, whatever their “thing” is. You’ll die waiting for 100% agreement in a social science, but you can get insights from looking at the works of a few experts you trust. You can’t be cowed by the fact that the other guy can cite his own experts.

    Doug mentions the problem with arguments from authority. But the thing is, we all make reference to experts who know things we don’t. It’s the old problem that no one knows how many people there really are in China, but I don’t even know that China exists. I think you have to approach the social sciences carefully, not looking for the answers you want to hear but looking for systems that (a) match your understanding of the world and (b) have a reasonable explanation for the historical evidence. That is, you need to make sure that your thinking is (a) internally consistent, and (b) consistent with reality. And the less-familiar you are with a field, the more you have to test the possible schools of thought.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But be mindful of the possibility that the masses’ assessment of the learned as polarized may arise from ignorance.

    Hence the conservatives’ absurd refusal to listen to the 98% of the experts who are telling them that yes, AGW is real.

  • troll

    …clav – last time I was playing dominos with the masses she told me that the dismal science’s modern models are based on suicidal assumptions and reminded me who it was who beleived that the fundamentals of the economy were sound – right up to the crash

    being well versed while aesthetically pleasing might not be the best foundation for a standard

  • clav

    Point taken troll.

    So…

    We can’t rely on the masses;

    And we can’t rely on the experts…

    And there is no god…

    We’re effed…

    So let’s party!

  • troll

    And be excellent to each other!

    sounds good!

    …you first

  • clav

    :)

    Ah, troll, you sly ol’ devil, you!