Most people think rich people should pay more in taxes. And they think the government should spend more to help revive the economy. The New York Times knows this—but still calls this discussion "politically sensitive."
Today Jonathan Weisman has a piece (6/7/12) about recent comments by Bill Clinton and former Clinton/Obama economic adviser Larry Summers. The piece primarily channels Republican claims that these Democrats want to keep tax rates low for the wealthy. But that does not appear to be what either of them actually said, and both have released statements denying the Republican spin.
Nonetheless, the article treats the Republican interpretation as the most important fact, which produces this somewhat confusing lead:
Congressional Republicans pounced Wednesday on disputed comments from Bill Clinton and a former senior Obama economic adviser, claiming that the Republican push to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts beyond the 2012 expiration date has support at the highest levels of the Democratic Party.
The next sentence, to make things even murkier, says that Democrats responded by saying that's not what either man said. But it's not hard to see where Weisman comes down: Republicans "are on the offensive," and Democrats are "on the defensive."
But perhaps the real problem comes here:
The heated exchange illustrated how politically sensitive the tax cut expiration has become amid fresh data showing the economy slowing. A majority of voters say the federal budget deficit should be tackled with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. In an April New York Times/CBS News poll, 56 percent favored boosting the economy by spending on education and infrastructure while raising taxes on the wealthy, against 37 percent who favored cutting taxes and spending.
What? The poll Weisman's citing shows a 20 point advantage for raising taxes on the wealthy and spending more money—which seems roughly similar to other polling. He introduces this by saying a majority favors a "mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich." That doesn't seem to make any sense.
And more broadly: What is "politically sensitive" supposed to mean? These are issues where public opinion is pretty consistently on one side of the discussion—the conventional wisdom in elite media seems often to be on the other side (spending cuts, debt panic and so on).
And this isn't the first time the Times doesn't seem to trust its own polling on these questions. Maybe that's what "politically sensitive" is supposed to mean: The public is dangerously out of step with elite opinionmakers and politicians.
About Peter Hart
The existence of interlocking corporate directorships can explain much of the way news is interpreted and presented. Much coordination of corporate behavior is not legal, except in the sense that it is "legal enough" to operate with the expectation of privileged non-enforcement.
Interlocking corporate directorates allow for upper class cohesion, coordinated action, and unified political-economic power.
This class privilege is not extended to union activities which are subject to hair-splitting interpretation of laws prohibiting sympathy strikes, and thereby dissolving lower class cohesion under force of law.
A unified corporatocracy is strategically positioned in law to relatively easily tactically overcome threats posed to it by a disinformed democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Media_corporation_interlocks_-_2004.jpg
A unified corporatocracy is strategically positioned in law to relatively easily tactically overcome threats posed to it by a disinformed democracy.
Then perhaps it's time to resort to an old fashioned remedy; revolt, and put the bastard up against the wall.
DECODING NYT Talk. ; )
Definitions: —"Politically sensitive"———
1) a popular expression when those in the know—-know nothing.
2) analogous to light hitting a vampire….light sensitive and deadly to the species.
3) the antithrsis of TRANSPARENCY.
Isn't this the second article by Jonathan Weisman in which FAIR is pointing out a gross misinterpretation of the facts?
Yes, at least the second by Mr. Weisman. What the those members of the 1% want is to rule this country directly. Interlocking of govt, military, marketing and mercenary along with the hard line Christian Dominionists who want a holy war to end all holy wars. To evangelize and force their beliefs upon everybody else. Kill or enslave all others. Such is their "Great Mandate" is interpreted by them. The "7 Pillars" or "7 Mountains" that hold up our society they have targeted. They run most of the news paper/entertainment conglomerates and Wall St. and the Federal Banks and onward to make sure we have no place to go but to them. Like rats in their maze.
Just destroying the Middle Class and making most of us little more than helots to them would eliminate our Constitutional Republic without firing a shot. Should some of them actually get their war with Iran would depress most of the world's economy and put us into a position of a Great Depression. Then they would come to "help" us "temporarily" but they would control us without any safe guards or limits. It would never end unless they did it themselves or we did. Not a scenario I find comforting.
padremellyrn is on it!
Well Bill said two things.One is we should extend the tax cuts another year.And two that Obama could take 100% in taxes from him and it wont balance the budget.Right on both counts.And an acknowledgement the tax cuts are good for the economy.And that tax hike on the wealthy above the 87% they now pay will accomplish little.We could I suppose have them pay 100% of all Federal taxes.After all it is only a 13% hike right?What then I wonder?Where do you go from 100%?Simple confiscation of property for resale I suppose.Government tax collectors moving along roads like the Union troops under Sheridan rampaging through the south.Taking everything not nailed down.I love the first bit that says everyone wants the rich to pay more.Simple statement for simple minds I suppose.And in effect that is what this next election will hinge on.The success of the liberal party sowing seeds of divisiveness and class warfare.Or another way
[...] NYT Tax Talk: What Does 'Politically Sensitive' Mean? Posted on 06/07/2012 by Peter Hart [...]
In that same interview Bill Clinton also said that once the economy is on better footing all tax rates should, at the very least, go back to where they were during his administration.
Funny how that part gets left out of little Mikey's ranting.
The 1% and their allies and sympathizers have been practicing their own forms of "class warfare" for many decades by rigging the system to benefit themselves while demonizing the poor and those in the working class.
P.Ness I have nothing against that last tidbit he said.I even agree with it.If the economy gets better then hell yes EVERYONES taxes can go up .The 50% that pay nothing can get more skin in the game.The middle class up a point or two.Same with the upper.Let the good times roll.Higher taxes wont help move the economy.Just the opposite.It will just fund gov expansion.But if we are rolling in it…… what the hell right?Couple more bucks in wont kill us.And people who really believe in this crap should be allowed to sign a waver that allows them to pay more if they want.
Look Clinton is no help to BAM.You know it and i know it.His other quote that "Obama could take 100% of his money and it would not even balance the budget" was a hoot.Bet obama bit through his neck tie.I worked for Clinton.He still cracks me up.Remember him saying to other Dem leaders that a few years ago Obama was fetching their coffee.He called him an amateur.Gotta love the guy
If you are against deficits you should be against tax cuts, especially among the wealthy who own the most and pay the least. The top 300 families = the wealth of the bottom 150 million. That is nearly half of the country's population of 310 million.
"Higher taxes wont help move the economy.Just the opposite.It will just fund gov expansion."
After lowering taxes twice "Bush's Republican administration increased the federal budget by an extraordinary 104 percent. By comparison, the increase under President Bill Clinton's watch [when taxes were higher] was a relatively measly 11 percent, a rate lower than Ronald Reagan's."
Government expansion and tax rates don't have a strong correlation.
Clinton understands that if you want to improve the economy and shrink the deficit and the debt tax increases have to be part of the policy.
In that same interview the Big Dawg also made it clear that he totally disagreed with Paul Ryan's Social Security plan.
P.ness
This is the argument moving forward.Should we pick the bones of the rich …the middle class…and even the poor to squeeze a few more pennies from the till.Or should we expand and create new wealth.The left has to get off the idea that there is enough to "make it" if only we tax the rich more.How many times do you need to hear from people(Bill clinton)That that wont work.There is not enough money in the country en total.We need to build a bigger and better America.Not except a smaller and less.
Bill Clinton has no moral ground to stand on when it comes to the current crisis and the economy. It was under HIS watch and with the help of key people in HIS administration that the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed. Also, the Welfare Reform (more like Welfare De-form) was another one of his crowning achievements!
The problem is not with the one percent. Throughout history there have always been sociopathic few who have this enormous sense of entitlement. They will step on anyone in order to gain money and power. The problem lies with the sheeple who remain willfully ignorant and/or apathetic. They continue to opt to remain in their electronic stupor induced by their TVs, computers (aimless surfing and emailing), cell phones (talking and texting), and DVD players uselessly trying to evade their conscience. Thirty something percent of union members voted for Scott Walker of Wisconsin, helping him fend off a recall. What were they thinking?! It is simultaneously infuriating and saddening to witness Americans go to the booth repeatedly and vote against their interest.
Free spirit….You libs keep saying that."Against their interests"What is meant by that.?Guy cant find a job so he goes on welfare.Under the next prez jobs are created (he lands one)but he goes off welfare.Which is in his interest?Unions vote right or left because they think this guy or that guy is going to do a better job for the country that will benefit everyone.The left thinks unions are in their pocket because they own the union bosses.But the individual when he gets in that booth does not have his boss watching over his shoulder.The only thing he has on his shoulder is a lot of rhetoric about how good Obama is for the economy.Unlike the poor Union workers have no interest in begging money from the rich to pay their way.They understand the so called rich give them ALL their jobs.They want more rich.Again with you elitist libs thinking that anyone who see the light(not the smoker you throw out)must be stupid,blind,or hypnotized.The unmitigated arrogance is truly astounding.Chalk this up to another group of people the left feels the need to "direct" in their lives ,as they themselves themselves are certainly incapable.
Michael, voting for one's interest encompasses seeing the big picture. Voting for the short run is dimwitted.
Free spirit.Ok I agree with you.But saying that,do you honestly believe that Obama is better for (business)than Mitt will be?The poor vote the short run because they live day to day.So I do understand them backing a guy who spouts talk about making the rich pay for the plight the poor man find themselves in.Quite literally" pay" by the way .Of course it is short sighted and yes dim witted.But on a level i do understand it.But for everyone else it is as clear as day that he has not a clue.Can you not see that Mitt will absolutely be better for the economy.Better for Jobs.That translates into better for the tax base by the way.Where do you not seeing Mitt doing better?and please don't go into extending the tax cuts.Obama extended them.Clinton says he would for at least another year.Obviously to any thinking being there are positives to the tax cuts.And….dangers to not keeping them.Give Mitt 6 months.the difference will be startling.The business community buttoned down the hatches .They are waiting for the change, to come out into the sun again.
Michael, you must be loaded because you always defend what's good for the 1%.
[...] if that weren't bad enough, the Times piece, by Mark Landler and Jonathan Weisman, fails to do simple factchecking of Republican claims about the Obama tax plan: He [Obama] said [...]