Matt Yglesias

20 Responses to “Foul Ball”

1. howard Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 11:34 am

   what’s wrong is that obama doesn’t think the way washington insiders do about “entitlements;” what more is there to say, she thinks?

2. serial catowner Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am

   Uh, no. She’s ‘trimming’ to meet the growing realization of the elites that a McCain victory means the end of America as we know it. Her column should be of technical interest to Matt as an example of how a rightwing columnist pleases a rightwing publisher who needs to elect a Democrat.

   However, she doesn’t mention that Bush tax cuts for the top 1% created several trillion in deficit. She refers to McCain’s position in 2001, but does not describe how his current position would gut Medicare and continue subsidizing the wealthiest 1%.

   She serves up a marshmallow souffle with the hopes that any reader who staggers to the finish line will carry away only the conclusion- that some “average guys” have incomes over $250,000. She’s made it past one more deadline without stepping on a mine in this explosive environment of change and ruling-class dread of what they’ve created.

   If that’s “overwhelming goodness”, thanks, but I’ll take the consolation prize.

3. CN Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 11:59 am

   I think she assumes you’ve read another piece she’s done, in which she accused Obama of “incendiary” language (”privatization,” oh my!) and “scare tactics,” such as his claim that, by putting some Social Security accounts on the stock market, McCain would have, uh, put people’s accounts at the whims of said market.

   It seems that, in her mind, she has it proved.

4. Lon Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 12:08 pm

   As CN notes, she is referring back to an early article that made the argument with regard to social security. But that argument raises interesting questions about counterfactuals.

   Obama says that if McCain had his way he would do X, where X is what a program McCain supported would provide for seniors down the line. Marcus cries fowl, because while that is what the plan calls for for seniors down the line, McCain (and Bush) were not suicidal enough to actually call for it for current seniors, or even near future seniors.

   It seems to me that what McCain wants for future seniors who are not currently going to create a backlash is a fair assessment of what McCain wants. The alternative theory would seem to be that he likes current generations of seniors but hates future generations of seniors, and so he wants good policy for the former and bad for the latter. But that seems an even less charitable assumption than Obama’s.

5. kth Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 12:35 pm

   she accused Obama of “incendiary” language

   “Incendiary language”, to the Beltway press, means nothing more than using the words the proponents themselves used, before universal public rejection drove said proponents to rebrand the idea. To not be incendiary, you have to use whatever Luntz-tested word the supporters are using today.

6. DHN Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 12:52 pm

   “he supports diverting current workers’ tax revenues into private account, so it seems to me that seniors should be scared” –

   Yeah, but you know and I know that it ain’t gonna happen. There would be Congressmen hanging from lampposts. Remember the mob of angry seniors chasing Rostenkowski?

7. robert aylward Says:
   October 22nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm

   Ruth Marcus is a very nice lady, but don’t try to read too much into her column. After so many years of trying to decipher her musings, I have come to the conclusion that she just doesn’t know much. Today’s column is chock full of campaign points without much context and no explanation. On the issue of whether taxpayers on the low end of the income scale should get rebates as part of a stimulus package (McCain says no because they pay no income tax), she rather lamely makes the point that such low income earners “still have 7.65 percent taken out in payroll taxes.” Mind you, they don’t actually pay such taxes; rather, it’s money “taken out.” And her statement ignores that findings of most economists that the employee, not the employer, ultimately bears employer’s matching contribution to the pyaroll tax. So she doesnt bother to mention that taxpayers on the low end of the income scale are paying roughly a flat 15 percent tax rate (the employee’s 7.65% share and the employer’s matching 7.65% share of payroll tax), which of course is the same rate paid by taxpayers on the high end of the income scale who pay a flat 15 percent rate on interest, dividends, and capital gains. And that taxpayers on the middle of the income scale (up to roughly $100,000) pay up to a 40 percent marginal tax rate (including both income tax and payroll tax). These complications would never occur to Ms. Marcus, not because she is partisan but rather because they simply don’t.

8. viagra Says:
   March 1st, 2009 at 8:34 am

   viagra
   I want to say – thank you for this!

9. viagra Says:
   March 11th, 2009 at 6:39 am

   If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

10. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 2:48 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!

11. xanax Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 7:55 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    xanax

12. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 3:01 am

    Great site. Good info
    tramadol

13. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 7:05 am

    tramadol
    Great site. Good info

14. buy viagra online Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 11:07 am

    buy viagra online
    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

15. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 7:36 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    buy cheap viagra

16. viagra cheap Says:
    April 14th, 2009 at 10:38 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    viagra