# Dishonest Rhetoric to Sell Tax Cut **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 11, 2003, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923 "2003-01-11T07:20:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/201 "2003-01-16T21:13:25Z")
Oh? You think? Tell you what, next time you’re down at Mickey D’s, ask the guy behind the counter about his 401K. Or drop down to the unemployment office, do a quick survey. Keep the car running, these people can be testy. And boy, $300 whole bucks! Really! Gosh-a-rootie! And only $260 billion for the dividend clipping class! Boy, those “lucky duckies” are making out pretty good, huh! Yeeee-haw, Maw! Warm up the skillet, we’re gonna have hamburger in our Helper tonight! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/202 "2003-01-16T22:50:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \* > For the life of me, I can’t remember what the “inequity” was which this is correcting. --Don’t jump in just yet, I’m sure you mentioned it earlier, and I’ll find it. I may not agree with the characterization, of course… I believe (although Scylla can correct me if I’m wrong) that the supposed “inequity” that is being referred to is the “double taxation” of dividends. [Bush et al. found that “double taxation” argument suckered people once with the estate tax, so why not fool 'em twice!] ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/203 "2003-01-16T22:56:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Well, the rebate benefits the poor primarily. I don’t think Bill Gates was too excited about his 300 smackeroos. A dividend cut does not benefit the poor. The rebate, you may recall, was a small part of a tax cut plan whose total distributional impact has been well-studied. (See, for example the Citizens for Tax Justice web site. As far as I know, their numbers have never been challenged or, to paraphrase Paul Krugman, the Administration has attacked the CTJ analysis as being deficient but then when asked to provide their own numbers [e.g., of the fraction of the cuts that go to the top 1%], they don’t…They just go and answer another question that they like better.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/204 "2003-01-16T23:29:42Z")
I’m always at a loss as to how to treat this kind of thing. Simple errors occur of course, and those need to be corrected politely, but what do you do with this? It makes me wince, to see this thing. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Oh? You think? Tell you what, next time you’re down at Mickey D’s, ask the guy behind the counter about his 401K. MCD has a great 401k plan with outstanding participation. Chances are if the guy behind the counter isn’t a student there for the textbook deal and the flexible hours, he’s a participant. IIRC MCD has a matching contribution plan as well as a 15% discount on purchases of MCD stock within the plan, so there are big incentives to participate. MCDs performance has been poor recently and they pay about a 1.5% dividend. Over 70% of the MCD 401k plan is held in MCD stock. In other words, you could hardly have chosen a more contradictory example. Damn straight he cares! As do the employees of Lowes, Home Depot, Walmart, Tricon Global (Pizza Hut, Taco Bell, KFC,) target, and Millions of other working class employees, whom you discount in your blithe sarcastic ignorance. > [@](#): > > And boy, $300 whole bucks! Really! Gosh-a-rootie! And only $260 billion for the dividend clipping class! Boy, those “lucky duckies” are making out pretty good, huh! I don’t even know where to begin with this abortion. It’s not $300 vs. $260 billion, and of course its not limited to class, as stocks are held across a very wide spectrum of society in other words it’s completely wrong, too. and look at the last post: > [@](#): > > We didn’t get any of this conservative theory from GeeDubya, none of this stern Social Darwinism. He didn’t even notice the presence of the elephant in the living room, farting thunderously and gobbling peanuts. Now, if he would have said something like “I propose giving 266 Billion dollars to people who don’t need the money, and here’s why…” he would have at least made a passing reference to the truth. Or he could have unzipped and demonstrated for us the “trickle down” theory. > > But of course, he didn’t. He filled the air with Bushwah about how his plan helps elderly retirees and vague innuendoes about “stimulus”. > > What would have been honest? "I like rich folks. Hell, I love rich folks, I don’t know anybody else. I don’t know how much groceries cost, I’ve never been to Piggly-Wiggly. The closest I’ve come to a knowing a poor person is tipping. I don’t even know how much money I have, my accountant does all that. I’ve heard tell that its tiresome being poor. I’ve no idea. But I don’t much give a shit. Here, here’s how this works: I trickle down on you, and you say “thank you!” Is there even the hint of debatable argument, or cogent thought there? What is the contribution? What forwards the discussion? If you just want to be a jerk why don’t you go play in the pit or something? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/205 "2003-01-16T23:54:16Z")
Well, excuzes mois! But isnt this thread about dishonesty in the rhetoric as to the tax cut. Yes, I do believe it is. Unless I’m very much misinformed. Do advise, won’t you, if I’ve misunderstood? Now then, if that is the case, wouldn’t a lengthy discussion as to economic philosophy be more of a hi-jack? Not to say I havent done my share. But my comments that so attract your scorn are precisely about that. Let me simplify: if Mr. Bush had used any of the arguments that you presented, I would have regarded that at least as being a more honest, if equally repugnant, attempt to pee on my shoes and tell me its raining. He did not, as you well know. He presented his case with as much progressive spin as he could muster, calling forth images of kindly old folks frugally clipping thier coupons and tucking them away in the cookie jar for Xmas gifts for thier grandchildren. He stayed as far away from the brutal facts of the measure as he could without provoking outright guffaws. In my estimation, a critique of Mr. Bush’s rhetoric in his presentation goes to the very heart of the thread. If you cannot detect a cogent thought, I suggest the failing is not mine. As always, I thank you again for your gratuitous insult in your final sentence. A recovering Texan rarely has an opportunity to feel decorous, but next to you, I am the very soul of gentility. You just can’t help it, can you, poor fellow? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/206 "2003-01-17T00:01:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > I don’t even know where to begin with this abortion. It’s not $300 vs. $260 billion, and of course its not limited to class, as stocks are held across a very wide spectrum of society in other words it’s completely wrong, too. When one wants to deny reality, one resorts to statements like “stocks are held across a very wide spectrum of society” rather than actually looking at the **distribution** of how they are held across society. The numbers about what percentage of this $260 will go to the top earners is out there…And, needless to say, it is very high. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/207 "2003-01-17T00:48:08Z")
jshore: > [@](#): > > The numbers about what percentage of this $260 will go to the top earners is out there…And, needless to say, it is very high. They **are** out there? Well, than by all means please produce them. It is my understanding that the distribution of stock ownership would suggest otherwise. I was under the impressions that institutions investors such as Insurance Companies and defined benefit plans held by far the largest percentage of equity assets, followed by mutual fund assets in 401ks and then mutual funds in retail hands, then bringin up the rear were individual investors such as the wealthy. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/208 "2003-01-17T01:00:35Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t even know where to begin with this abortion. It’s not $300 vs. $260 billion, and of course its not limited to class, as stocks are held across a very wide spectrum of society in other words it’s completely wrong, too. No, it’s completely right. Or are you unaware that stocks held in a 401K are already tax-exempt and this cannot benefit from this tax cut? Only the very wealth (those holding a significant stock portfolio OUTSIDE THEIR 401K) can benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/209 "2003-01-17T01:02:24Z")
jshore: and “but the wealthy are beneffiting…” isn’t an objection. Wealthy people are allowed to benefit from things. There’s nothing wrong with it. An inequity is an inequity. I’ve given you three reasons for the repeal of the tax. “wealthy people making money,” isn’t an objection. It’s life. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/210 "2003-01-17T01:28:41Z")
tejota: > [@](#): > > No, it’s completely right. Or are you unaware that stocks held in a 401K are already tax-exempt and this cannot benefit from this tax cut? No. I am completely aware of that fact. Are you aware that a single A rated 30 year tax-free municipal bond only pays about 4%? Do you know that Phillip Morris currently pays about 6.24%? Now, assuming the tax on that dividend were removed, and Phillip Morris becomes the “Marlboro Muni,” what would be the taxable equivalent yield of it’s dividend to an entity with say a 38% marginal tax-bracket? Do you think that would make Phillip Morris an extraordinarily attractive investment to tax-payers and institutions? What happens to investments when they become extraordinarily attractive? Hopefully you said “they go up.” So, assuming you said that, what happens to the guy with the 401k when all the stocks that he has in his plan start going up? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/211 "2003-01-17T01:33:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > I’ve given you three reasons for the repeal of the tax. Well yes, but you haven’t justified any of them very well: (1) You’ve claimed this “double taxation” inequity but we have pointed out that the fact that this phenomenon is: (a) Overstated, given the small amount of money many businesses **actually** pay on earnings, the small fraction of this that then go to dividends, and then only a fraction of these dividends are actually in taxable accounts. (b) Just rhetoric anyway since when you follow a stream of money in the economy it is often taxed several times. (2) Is boosting the market really the role of the federal government? The market will recover on its own once the economy gets back on track. I’d prefer to help Main Strett; Wall Street can take care of itself. (3) But we’ve argued that there is no reason to believe that this is the best way (or even one of the better ways) to help the economy. By the way, [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/opinion/14KRUG.html) is a column by Paul Krugman explaining the horrendous amount of bureaucracy that is going to be generated with this new dividends taxation scheme. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/212 "2003-01-17T01:50:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > They **are** out there? > > Well, than by all means please produce them. I’m glad you asked since up to this point, I had only heard brief allusions to the numbers and your question has prompted me to find out more of the details. [Here](http://www.ctj.org/stim03.pdf) is the analysis from Citizens for Tax Justice: > [@](#): > > Most of the new tax cuts in the President’s plan come from his proposals to (a) eliminate personal income taxes on dividends and (b) reduce capital gains taxes on sales of corporate stock. According to the administration, these new loopholes would cost $364 billion over the next 10 years. In 2003, half of the tax reductions from these provisions would go to only one percent of all taxpayers, and almost three-quarters would go to the best-off five percent. In later years, these tax cuts would become even more concentrated at the top. And here are some thoughts from them on this issue of “double taxation”: > [@](#): > > In defense of his plan to exempt dividends from tax, President Bush claims he’s merely serving tax equity. Corporate profits are unfairly “double-taxed,” he says, first when companies earn them and second when they’re distributed to shareholders as dividends. This argument, however, has two defects: it’s conceptually unsound and factually untrue. > > When you think about it, the number of times something is taxed isn’t an enlightening concept. Instead, it’s the total amount of taxes, whatever the number of levels, that matters. Who wouldn’t feel better, for instance, about paying two taxes of 10 percent each rather than a single tax of 40 percent? > > So the real question is: does the so-called “double tax” on corporate profits cause them to be overtaxed compared to other kinds of income? It sure doesn’t look that way. > > Let’s start with the corporate income tax, which, as is well known, corporations have become are extremely agile and aggressive at avoiding…[CSX example which I’ve omitted here]… > > CSX’s tax dodging may be particularly egregious, but most other companies do their darnedest to avoid taxes, too—so much so that last year, less than half of actual total corporate profits were subject to corporate income tax. As for personal taxes on dividends, well, only a small portion of profits are paid out as dividends, and most of those dividends are tax-exempt, too, because they’re paid to pension funds and tax-exempt retirement accounts. > > Here’s the bottom line: last year, barely over half of corporate profits were subject to tax at any level. In other words, the so-called “double tax” doesn’t come close to taxing corporate profits even once. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/213 "2003-01-17T01:59:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Well yes, but you haven’t justified any of them very well: > > (1) You’ve claimed this “double taxation” inequity but we have pointed out that the fact that this phenomenon is: (a) Overstated, given the small amount of money many businesses **actually** pay on earnings, Many, huh? Can you define that? What is the initial corporate tax rate on earnings? What things can the do to get that rate reduced? What is the average marginal tax rate paid on earnings by a fortune 500 company? If that rate is unfair, than your logical would be to raise that rate instead of taxing it again, wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > the small fraction of this that then go to dividends, and then only a fraction of these dividends are actually in taxable accounts. Really? What fractions, and how are those fractions likely to change if the tax is repealed? > [@](#): > > (b) Just rhetoric anyway since when you follow a stream of money in the economy it is often taxed several times. I can’t recall any other circumstance where a dollar is the subject of Federal income tax twice without it having changed ownership or been used as consideration in a transaction. That’s because there is no other circumstance. Dividends are the only time a dollar gets taxed twice with no change in beneficial ownership. > [@](#): > > (2) Is boosting the market really the role of the federal government? The market will recover on its own once the economy gets back on track. I’d prefer to help Main Strett; Wall Street can take care of itself. Ummm. Yes. It is. The role the government does best IMO is attemting to manage the cyclical nature of the economy to the benefit of its citizens. The market being a leading indicator, what you say about the market following the economy is absurd. > [@](#): > > (3) But we’ve argued that there is no reason to believe that this is the best way (or even one of the better ways) to help the economy. That’s a silly argument. Arguing it doesn’t mean anything. > [@](#): > > By the way, [here](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/opinion/14KRUG.html) is a column by Paul Krugman explaining the horrendous amount of bureaucracy that is going to be generated with this new dividends taxation scheme. \*\* I’m not registered at the NYT, but I’m sure I know what that lying bitch Krugman is suggesting. He’s full of shit, as usual. We’ve been handling REITS, GNMAs, Master Limited Partnerships, CMOs and Treasuries just fine. I think we can handle tax-free dividends just fine. It’s simply an inverted REIT with the single taxation on the corporate side. As for the IRAs and retirement plans there’s a couple of different ways it can be handled and we are currently handling investments with similar attributes as to what is being suggested just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/214 "2003-01-17T02:20:37Z")
jshore: That last link crashed both IE and Netscape’s latest versions for me. I would have to see the data on the first before I would accept it, and quite frankly, I’m not inclined to since your second quote is and egregious falsehood. No entity is under any kind of requirement to pay more taxes than it owes. If a corporation can advantageously earn or is entitled to to exemptions than it is foolish indeed not to take them. Despite the false reasoning of that quote, the final marginal tax rate imposed on a corporation does not mean that the remainder has not been taxed. If that final marginal tax rate is too low than it should be raised. It is asinine to suggest that another tax structure entirely should be imposed on those monies. The whole argument is incredibly stupid. By that same reasoning it would be reasonable and fair to repeal all taxes on the wealthy and simply tax the poor as much as we need. I mean after all, those are just the same dollars whether they are held in the hands of the wealthy or the poor, aren’t they? And those same dollars get taxed many times don’t they? And, it doesn’t matter who’s holding them when they’re taxing them, does it? WORST CITE EVER! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/215 "2003-01-17T02:21:14Z")
By the way, the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is having a field day with Bush’s tax proposals. Here are links to some of their analysis: [http://www.cbpp.org/1-9-03tax.htm](http://www.cbpp.org/1-9-03tax.htm) [http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-03tax2.htm](http://www.cbpp.org/1-7-03tax2.htm) [http://www.cbpp.org/1-13-03tax.htm](http://www.cbpp.org/1-13-03tax.htm) [http://www.cbpp.org/1-10-03tax.htm](http://www.cbpp.org/1-10-03tax.htm) One of the funnest parts of the analysis is the dissection of how misleading the claim of an average tax cut of $1083 is: > [@](#): > > The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center data indicate the following about the tax cuts the Administration’s plan would provide in 2003: > > The average tax cut for tax filers in the middle fifth of the population — those filers right in the middle of the income spectrum — would be $256, only one-fourth the $1,083 figure the Administration is citing for the average taxpayer. > > Almost half of all tax filers — 49 percent — would receive tax cuts of less than $100. > > The average tax cut for the bottom 80 percent of tax filers would be $226. Even the next-to-top fifth of tax filers would get an average tax cut of only $574. > > By contrast, the top one percent of tax filers would receive an average tax cut of $24,100. Those with incomes of more than $1 million would get tax cuts averaging a whopping $90,200. > > Overall, 80 percent of tax filers would get less than the average tax cut of $1,083 the Administration is touting. But, hey, who am I to complain? I would have gotten my $1000 in year 2000 from the dividend tax break alone. It’s fun to be well off during the Bush Administration! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/216 "2003-01-17T02:30:13Z")
jshore: And, I don’t see what the issue is with the last part. They are not saying that Bush’s figures are innacurate, are they? They’re just breaking it down into quintiles and taking the average of the quintiles one by one. These are simply different views of the same thing. * * * A tax cut generally produces a larger dollar amount of savings to those who are paying larger dollar amounts of taxes. Hardly an enlightening piece of information. For example, a 5% tax cut would only save 5 bucks to somebody who paid $100 in taxes, yet it would save $50,000 for somebody who paid a million. And again… **WEALTHY PEOPLE BENEFITTING IS NOT AN ARGUMENT!!!** ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/217 "2003-01-17T02:34:24Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > I can’t recall any other circumstance where a dollar is the subject of Federal income tax twice without it having changed ownership or been used as consideration in a transaction. Well, I may be missing the distinction here but the earnings are being taxed and then, if the company chooses to distribute them as dividends they are taxed further (in the not so likely event that they really were taxed the first time). > [@](#): > > I’m not registered at the NYT, but I’m sure I know what that lying bitch Krugman is suggesting. He’s full of shit, as usual. Well, it is free and you might learn something. If I can stand to read the WSJ editorial page everyday, surely you can read a Krugman column now and then. > [@](#): > > That last link crashed both IE and Netscape’s latest versions for me. It’s a PDF fileYou must not have Adobe Acrobat Reader set up correctly on your machine. > [@](#): > > If that final marginal tax rate is too low than it should be raised. It is asinine to suggest that another tax structure entirely should be imposed on those monies. Well, as I have pointed out before, I am somewhat agnostic on the idea of a dividend tax if it is coupled to other taxes such that it is not just a windfall for the wealthy. As near as I can recall, Bush hasn’t proposed overhauling the corporate tax structure in this way. In fact, after 9/11, he tried to get more tax loopholes on corporate taxes although eventually was forced to largely back off of it. > [@](#): > > The whole argument is incredibly stupid. By that same reasoning it would be reasonable and fair to repeal all taxes on the wealthy and simply tax the poor as much as we need. I mean after all, those are just the same dollars whether they are held in the hands of the wealthy or the poor, aren’t they? And those same dollars get taxed many times don’t they? And, it doesn’t matter who’s holding them when they’re taxing them, does it? Noone said it doesn’t matter who is holding them when they are taxed. And, unlike Bush, I don’t try to justify not taxing the poor more because of some appeal to some made-up concept like “double taxation”. I try to explain why I don’t think this is very equitable. (It also wouldn’t raise shit for revenue because the poor are kinda lacking in the money department.) ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/218 "2003-01-17T02:36:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > > And, I don’t see what the issue is with the last part. They are not saying that Bush’s figures are innacurate, are they? Yes, but one view looks a whole lot better than the other when you are trying to deceive the broader public into believing this tax cut is beneficial for them! ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/219 "2003-01-17T02:44:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > I’m not registered at the NYT, but I’m sure I know what that lying bitch Krugman is suggesting. By the way, from what you said, my impression is that you don’t know what Krugman is suggesting. I don’t think I could do it justice without quoting practically the whole article, so I suggest you check it out yourself. By the way, I heard essentially a very similar story about the complications, from someone who sounded much less political than Krugman is, on NPR last night. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923/220 "2003-01-17T02:46:49Z")
You can listen to the NPR (“Fresh Air”) segment here: > **[Fresh Air for Oct. 19, 2021: Actor Billy Porter](https://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air?showDate=15%2F2003-01%2F15%2F2003-01)** > > Hear the Fresh Air program for October 19, 2021 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dishonest-rhetoric-to-sell-tax-cut/147923.md?page=12)