Difference between revisions of "User:Woozle/tabdump"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→2011-04-19: McArdle) |
(→2011-04-19: more McArdle) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
* '''2011-04-18''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/tax-cuts-rich_n_848933.html Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts] "The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week." | * '''2011-04-18''' [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/tax-cuts-rich_n_848933.html Cost Of Tax Cuts For America's Rich Exceeds Value Of Budget Cuts] "The estimated cost to the government of that portion of the tax deal, $42 billion this fiscal year, exceeds the stated $38 billion value of the savings from the federal budget cuts lawmakers approved last week." | ||
* '''2011-04-18''' [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/s-p-us-needs-to-get-its-act-together-on-the-debt/237512/ S&P: US Needs to Get Its Act Together on the Debt]: She ends with the conclusion that we need to be willing to compromise on budgetary issues or else face worse consequences down the road (i.e. credit downrating). On the face of it, this seems innocently reasonable enough -- but I see it coming back later with a new paint job: we *liberals* need to be willing to compromise -- on taxing the rich. I do not think we should compromise on that. There should be absolutely no question that tax breaks for the rich are a luxury we can't afford right now. (Dang, where's that other McArdle piece I saw that was similarly snakey?) | * '''2011-04-18''' [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/s-p-us-needs-to-get-its-act-together-on-the-debt/237512/ S&P: US Needs to Get Its Act Together on the Debt]: She ends with the conclusion that we need to be willing to compromise on budgetary issues or else face worse consequences down the road (i.e. credit downrating). On the face of it, this seems innocently reasonable enough -- but I see it coming back later with a new paint job: we *liberals* need to be willing to compromise -- on taxing the rich. I do not think we should compromise on that. There should be absolutely no question that tax breaks for the rich are a luxury we can't afford right now. (Dang, where's that other McArdle piece I saw that was similarly snakey?) | ||
** Dana has [http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/megan-mcardles-word-games this] from 2009 | |||
** Washington's Blog has [http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/08/you-cant-inflate-your-way-out-of-debt/22643/ this], also from 2009 -- seems reasonable... | |||
** and [http://acandidworld.com/2010/12/27/diminishing-by-nickname-obamacare/ A Candid World] has [http://www.theatlantic.com/personal/archive/2010/12/questions-asked-and-answered/68224/ this], which does seem more snakey... [http://acandidworld.com/2010/12/16/the-limits-of-the-commerce-clause-whats-at-stake/ and] [http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/12/the-preposterousness-of-the-commerce-clause/68012/ another anti-Obamacare] piece. | |||
==2011-04-18== | ==2011-04-18== | ||