Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (196886)	8/5/2004 8:41:31 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1573718

"I don't see any good reason why economic growth should result in a higher percentage of the economy being taxed." I didn't say it had to. I just said that trying to compare tax rates during WWII to tax rates now has some confounding factors. Period. To finance WWII, the government had strong limits to which it could tax. Those limits aren't the same as they are now. Now there might be other reasons why it isn't wise to raise taxes above where they are now, but if you use WWII as an example, you have to look at average taxes vs. disposable income, not GDP. On the average, our disposable income as a percentage of GDP is much higher than it was during WWII. Period.

To: TimF who wrote (196886)	8/13/2004 1:36:09 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573718

Paper issues mea culpa for prewar coverage By SIMON HOUPT Friday, August 13, 2004 - Page A11 NEW YORK -- The Washington Post yesterday joined the conga line of respected U.S. news organizations apologizing for flawed reporting in the runup to war in Iraq last year, publishing a front-page story by media reporter Howard Kurtz that called the paper's coverage "strikingly one-sided at times." The article immediately became the focus of discussion among U.S. journalists, since the Post's coverage of the Bush administration's case for war had not been widely perceived as especially weak. In his 3,000-word article, Mr. Kurtz said Post editors tended to relegate pieces that criticized the Bush administration's war plans and the rationale for invading Iraq to the back pages of the paper. He quoted executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. as saying the Post was "so focused on trying to figure out what the administration was doing that we were not giving the same play to people who said it wouldn't be a good idea to go to war and were questioning the administration's rationale. Not enough of those stories were put on the front page. That was a mistake on my part." Assistant managing editor Bob Woodward told Mr. Kurtz that no journalist wanted to challenge the belief that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, in case weapons were later found. "I think it was part of the group-think." The Post's unusual mea culpa follows publication in May of an extensive editor's note in The New York Times that said the paper had been too quick to believe claims about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Executive editor Bill Keller's note ran on an inside page. "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper," he wrote. Yesterday, Mr. Kurtz said the genesis of his piece was different. He told the on-line edition of the trade magazine Editor & Publisher that he had assigned it to himself, and said it met with no meddling from the paper's editors. The articles follow months of criticism from those who say the U.S. news media were too willing to publish faulty information supplied by administration allies. In an on-line chat session yesterday, Mr. Kurtz noted that stories about Iraq's purported possession of banned weapons were particularly hard to report. "You couldn't go to Iraq . . . you had to rely on sources, many of whom couldn't go on the record and all of whom were relying on shadowy intelligence," he wrote. "That doesn't excuse the shortcomings of the media in general and The Post in particular, but this was not easy stuff." Mr. Kurtz said it was beyond the paper's abilities to determine whether the administration's claims were true. "We couldn't have definitively settled the question," he wrote. "We could have done a better job of questioning the administration's evidence and given greater prominence to those with minority views." theglobeandmail.com