OK, one more visit and I will move on. Compare the actuall WSJ piece and see how thr diferent ways that Dionne and Krugam quote the WSJ acrticle.
The culprit - The WSJ initional op-ed."
freerepublic.com
"All of which suggests that the last thing the White House should do now is come up with more exemptions, deductions and credits that will shrink the tax-paying population even furtherz"
E.J.Dionne remarks on the WSJ piece.
washingtonpost.com
Yes, the wealthy are paying more in federal taxes, but for reasons that are good news for the wealthy -- "largely because they receive a much larger share of the total income in the nation," says Isaac Shapiro of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Between 1979 and 1997, the last year for which figures are available, the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of households, adjusted for inflation, rose by $414,000 -- a 157 percent gain. For the middle fifth of households -- the middle of the middle class -- the comparable gain was 10 percent, or $3,400. The bottom fifth was stagnant.
Paul Krugman's response to the WSJ piece.
nytimes.com
Some people — moderate Republicans who aren't ready to admit what has happened to their party, and Democrats who think their party can appease the right by making its own promises of smaller government — still don't get it. They imagine that at some point the right will decide that it has gotten what it wants.
But the right's ambitions have no limits, and nothing moderates can offer will appease it. Eventually the public, which actually benefits from most of the programs the right is determined to abolish, will figure that out. But how fast voters figure it out depends a lot on whether moderate politicians clearly articulate the issues, or try to escape detection by sounding like conservatives. |
