Romney promises aid for the struggling rich...

Bob001 · 1st August 2012, 09:24 AM

As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

BenBurch · 1st August 2012, 09:35 AM

What, Bob? You don't think a politician should take care of his core constituency?

JoeTheJuggler · 1st August 2012, 09:49 AM

Well any of these wealthy people that actually pay the income tax rate are certainly deserving of pity from Romney's position.

Travis · 1st August 2012, 12:33 PM

But they're "job creators." They owe society nothing.

RandFan · 1st August 2012, 12:44 PM

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

varwoche · 3rd August 2012, 10:02 AM

Cogent comments from Jenna Jameson, wealthy fellow porn star:

Originally Posted by Jenna Jameson

I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office. When you're rich, you want a Republican in office.

Travis · 3rd August 2012, 11:23 AM

I would absolutely love for Romney to embrace her support.

"VOTE ROMNEY, PORN STARS DIG HIM."

Trakar · 3rd August 2012, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story

Quote:

...The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000...

so what about the earnings between $200k and $1,000k? This would seem to include a large percentage of small, sole proprietor independent businesses and farms.

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html

Cites same TPC analysis

Quote:

...Even if tax breaks “are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion [a year] from those making over $200,000 to those making less” than that.

What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year...

Quote:

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html

no new information from above, and seemingly more distortion and opinion.

Quote:

http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

Ah! tucked in like this I thought it another media link at first pass, thank-you for providing link to study!!

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Bob001

As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html
http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm

The actual source for this seems to be this paper:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...e%20looney.pdf

One of the authors of the paper is Adam Looney. Who is he? Well, he was a senior economist on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers for two years.

I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious.

TellyKNeasuss · 3rd August 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The actual source for this seems to be this paper:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/8/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney.pdf

One of the authors of the paper is Adam Looney. Who is he? Well, he was a senior economist on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers for two years.

I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious.

Who were the other authors? Did any of them work for Republican presidents?

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Who were the other authors?

I gave you the source, which has the authors listed on the front page. You can look it up yourself.

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious.

Mitt Romney cited the Brookings institute as objective when they scored Rick Perry's plan.

JoeTheJuggler · 3rd August 2012, 02:12 PM

nevermind

ANTPogo · 3rd August 2012, 02:12 PM

You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan.

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan.

There's a certain logic to that.

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan.

Who said I trust them at all?

ANTPogo · 3rd August 2012, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who said I trust them at all?

Not me.

I was referring to the Romney campaign.

TellyKNeasuss · 3rd August 2012, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I gave you the source, which has the authors listed on the front page. You can look it up yourself.

Why should I look it up when I already know the answer?

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Why should I look it up when I already know the answer?

If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Who were the other authors? Did any of them work for Republican presidents?

Co-author William Gale, meanwhile, worked with the Council of Economic Advisers for Bush's father.

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz22WNPRhgv

TellyKNeasuss · 3rd August 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

Are you familiar with the concept of a "rhetorical question"?

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by AZ Central

source Obama aides noted that the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, is directed by Donald Marron, an economic official during the George W. Bush years.

It doesn't look like a liberal think tank to me.

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Since you chose to point out that one of the authors is a former adviser to a Democratic president, I was wondering if you were aware that one of the other authors is a former adviser to a Republican president.

But it's not just an adviser for *a* Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney?

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

It doesn't look like a liberal think tank to me.

Who called it a liberal think tank?

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:40 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But it's not just an adviser for *a* Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney?

I'm confused, are you saying that the aid of a former president counts in his favor or against him?

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Who called it a liberal think tank?

It was in one of the articles I linked to. But that's fine. What do you think it is? You say it's "dubious", well, what exactly is this organization?

ANTPogo · 3rd August 2012, 02:41 PM

So, do you think the many Republican members of the think tank and the Republican authors who worked for Republican presidents were complicit in Adam Looney's non-independent analysis, or were they just fooled?

Ziggurat · 3rd August 2012, 02:50 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

It was in one of the articles I linked to. But that's fine. What do you think it is? You say it's "dubious", well, what exactly is this organization?

You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. I did not say that the think tank was dubious, I said that claims that this report were independent were dubious. In other words, arguing for the validity of the report's conclusions on the basis of authorial status is unwarranted. The report needs to stand on its own, without appeals to the independence of the authors. Maybe it can.

RandFan · 3rd August 2012, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. I did not say that the think tank was dubious, I said that claims that this report were independent were dubious. In other words, arguing for the validity of the report's conclusions on the basis of authorial status is unwarranted.

I'm not sure that the argument you are responding to is the one that was made. I think the argument is that the report isn't the result of a partisan organization and therefore deserves consideration and not simply dismissal. I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me. It strikes me as uncritical to accept a report at face value simply because of who wrote it.

Quote:

The report needs to stand on its own, without appeals to the independence of the authors. Maybe it can.

That is always the case regardless. Even vaunted independent organizations get things wrong.

TellyKNeasuss · 3rd August 2012, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm confused, are you saying that the aid of a former president counts in his favor or against him?

How would the participation of David Stockman on a report evaluating the Reagan Administration's economic policies influence the report?

TellyKNeasuss · 3rd August 2012, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But it's not just an adviser for *a* Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney?

I fail to see why this is relevant. And since Romney has not as yet been president, it would be somewhat difficult to include one of his advisers on the authorship list.

Magyar · 3rd August 2012, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. .

yep, just another example of the typical republican mentality.

No posssilbe way to dispute the arguement? Change the subject and create consipracies where there are none. ANYTHING to change the subject and actually deal with the issue and reality.

Doesn't this get boring after a while?

1st August 2012, 09:24 AM	#1
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 884	Romney promises aid for the struggling rich... As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm
Bob001 Muse Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 884

1st August 2012, 09:35 AM	#2
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,184	What, Bob? You don't think a politician should take care of his core constituency?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

1st August 2012, 09:49 AM	#3
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,787	Well any of these wealthy people that actually pay the income tax rate are certainly deserving of pity from Romney's position.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

1st August 2012, 12:33 PM	#4
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,945	But they're "job creators." They owe society nothing.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

3rd August 2012, 10:02 AM	#6
varwoche Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Puget Sound Posts: 7,232	Cogent comments from Jenna Jameson, wealthy fellow porn star: Originally Posted by Jenna Jameson I'm very looking forward to a Republican being back in office. When you're rich, you want a Republican in office.
	__________________ To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot (and/or Fat Jack)

3rd August 2012, 11:23 AM	#7
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 17,945	I would absolutely love for Romney to embrace her support. "VOTE ROMNEY, PORN STARS DIG HIM."
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

3rd August 2012, 12:14 PM	#8
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	Originally Posted by Bob001 As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story Quote: ...The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000... so what about the earnings between $200k and $1,000k? This would seem to include a large percentage of small, sole proprietor independent businesses and farms. Quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html Cites same TPC analysis Quote: ...Even if tax breaks “are eliminated in a way designed to make the resulting tax system as progressive as possible, there would still be a shift in the tax burden of roughly $86 billion [a year] from those making over $200,000 to those making less” than that. What would that mean for the average tax bill? Millionaires would get an $87,000 tax cut, the study says. But for 95 percent of the population, taxes would go up by about 1.2 percent, an average of $500 a year... Quote: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html no new information from above, and seemingly more distortion and opinion. Quote: http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm Ah! tucked in like this I thought it another media link at first pass, thank-you for providing link to study!!
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,928	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

3rd August 2012, 01:31 PM	#9
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by Bob001 As far as an independent think tank can tell, Gov. Romney's tax proposals would lower income taxes for the wealthiest Americans, boost them for everybody else: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/s...,4985323.story http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/08...mpossible.html http://taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/romney-plan.cfm The actual source for this seems to be this paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/res...e%20looney.pdf One of the authors of the paper is Adam Looney. Who is he? Well, he was a senior economist on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers for two years. I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 01:53 PM	#10
TellyKNeasuss Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Thornton, CO, USA Posts: 1,500	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The actual source for this seems to be this paper: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/8/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney.pdf One of the authors of the paper is Adam Looney. Who is he? Well, he was a senior economist on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers for two years. I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious. Who were the other authors? Did any of them work for Republican presidents?
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

3rd August 2012, 02:05 PM	#11
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss Who were the other authors? I gave you the source, which has the authors listed on the front page. You can look it up yourself.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 02:11 PM	#12
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I don't know if their analysis is correct. Maybe it is. But I do know that the claims of this being from an independent source are dubious. Mitt Romney cited the Brookings institute as objective when they scored Rick Perry's plan.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:12 PM	#13
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,787	nevermind
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 3rd August 2012 at 02:13 PM.

3rd August 2012, 02:12 PM	#14
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,415	You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

3rd August 2012, 02:15 PM	#15
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by ANTPogo You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan. There's a certain logic to that.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:18 PM	#16
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by ANTPogo You can only trust them when they say bad things about the tax plans of Romney's opponents. When they say bad things about his tax plan, they're being biased and partisan. Who said I trust them at all?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 02:26 PM	#17
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,415	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Who said I trust them at all? Not me. I was referring to the Romney campaign.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

3rd August 2012, 02:30 PM	#18
TellyKNeasuss Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Thornton, CO, USA Posts: 1,500	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I gave you the source, which has the authors listed on the front page. You can look it up yourself. Why should I look it up when I already know the answer?
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

3rd August 2012, 02:31 PM	#19
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss Why should I look it up when I already know the answer? If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 02:33 PM	#20
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss Who were the other authors? Did any of them work for Republican presidents? Co-author William Gale, meanwhile, worked with the Council of Economic Advisers for Bush's father. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articl...#ixzz22WNPRhgv
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:35 PM	#21
TellyKNeasuss Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Thornton, CO, USA Posts: 1,500	Originally Posted by Ziggurat If you knew the answer, why did you ask the question? Are you familiar with the concept of a "rhetorical question"?
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 3rd August 2012 at 02:36 PM.

3rd August 2012, 02:35 PM	#22
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Also Originally Posted by AZ Central source Obama aides noted that the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, is directed by Donald Marron, an economic official during the George W. Bush years. It doesn't look like a liberal think tank to me.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:37 PM	#23
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss Since you chose to point out that one of the authors is a former adviser to a Democratic president, I was wondering if you were aware that one of the other authors is a former adviser to a Republican president. But it's not just an adviser for a Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 02:38 PM	#24
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by RandFan It doesn't look like a liberal think tank to me. Who called it a liberal think tank?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 02:40 PM	#25
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat But it's not just an adviser for a Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney? I'm confused, are you saying that the aid of a former president counts in his favor or against him?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:41 PM	#26
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Who called it a liberal think tank? It was in one of the articles I linked to. But that's fine. What do you think it is? You say it's "dubious", well, what exactly is this organization?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 02:50 PM	#28
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,200	Originally Posted by RandFan It was in one of the articles I linked to. But that's fine. What do you think it is? You say it's "dubious", well, what exactly is this organization? You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. I did not say that the think tank was dubious, I said that claims that this report were independent were dubious. In other words, arguing for the validity of the report's conclusions on the basis of authorial status is unwarranted. The report needs to stand on its own, without appeals to the independence of the authors. Maybe it can.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

3rd August 2012, 03:06 PM	#29
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,272	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. I did not say that the think tank was dubious, I said that claims that this report were independent were dubious. In other words, arguing for the validity of the report's conclusions on the basis of authorial status is unwarranted. I'm not sure that the argument you are responding to is the one that was made. I think the argument is that the report isn't the result of a partisan organization and therefore deserves consideration and not simply dismissal. I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me. It strikes me as uncritical to accept a report at face value simply because of who wrote it. Quote: The report needs to stand on its own, without appeals to the independence of the authors. Maybe it can. That is always the case regardless. Even vaunted independent organizations get things wrong.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

3rd August 2012, 03:44 PM	#30
TellyKNeasuss Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Thornton, CO, USA Posts: 1,500	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm confused, are you saying that the aid of a former president counts in his favor or against him? How would the participation of David Stockman on a report evaluating the Reagan Administration's economic policies influence the report?
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

3rd August 2012, 03:48 PM	#31
TellyKNeasuss Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Thornton, CO, USA Posts: 1,500	Originally Posted by Ziggurat But it's not just an adviser for a Democratic president, but to the current Democratic president. The one Romney will be running against. Did this other author ever work for Romney? I fail to see why this is relevant. And since Romney has not as yet been president, it would be somewhat difficult to include one of his advisers on the authorship list.
	__________________ "Facts are stupid things." Ronald Reagan

3rd August 2012, 04:16 PM	#32
Magyar Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: the edge of reason Posts: 1,546	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You have mistaken what it is that I called dubious. . yep, just another example of the typical republican mentality. No posssilbe way to dispute the arguement? Change the subject and create consipracies where there are none. ANYTHING to change the subject and actually deal with the issue and reality. Doesn't this get boring after a while?
	__________________ "There is no heresy or no philosophy which is so abhorrent to the church as a human being." James Joyce Due to recent cutbacks the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off.