Shared publicly  - 
6
Pradheep Shanker's profile photoPaul Baer's profile photoMichael Tobis's profile photoRodney Graves's profile photo
40 comments
 
If they can't explain the system, isn't that a reason to have a flat tax?
 
The tired gray crone of gotham doesn't understand much of anything.
 
I liked this part: "Reporters, when they come across someone in the wild who clearly does not understand how marginal tax rates work, are obligated to explain to such people that they are incorrect, and should never spread their ignorance to their readers ... -- [T]here are not "two sides" to this issue. You either understand how marginal tax rates work, or you do not, and reporters are absolutely allowed to point out who is right and who is wrong."

It's true about greenhouse gases too. You either understand the problem or you don't.

Reporters should not humor people who are confused. Reporters who do not know better should find another beat.
 
At your service.

Care for some evidence or do you just want to play ideological games?
 
Sure.  Provide evidence of global warming in the form of measured surface temperatures over a geologically significant period against which to compare surface temperatures since the advent of industrial society.
 
What didn't you understand about measured surface temperature vice proxies?
 
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Asking for a million year old "measurement" as opposed to a proxy is obviously impossible, but that impossibility sheds no light whatsoever on the balance of evidence regarding validity of the claims of science regarding climate.

I stipulate that the measurements made on the ground with thermometers are better than proxy evidence. What of it?

I'm trying to identify if you have the capacity to adopt a genuinely skeptical stance, that is, as skeptical toward your own position as toward mine. So far I am disappointed if unsurprised.

Your challenge indicates to me that you are playing ideological games and trying to win an argument for your preconceived position, rather than being willing to honestly examine the evidence that does exist.

I can ask you if you have stone tablets handed down from on high justifying your position. If you say you have none, does that support my argument?  It's hardly conclusive either way, is it?
 
You're making an apples to rutabegas comparison since you don't have the actual measured data to make valid comparisons.
 
Getting back to the subject of the post, yes, it's true that the New York Times doesn't understand marginal tax rates and the perverse impacts they have.
 
Both +Rodney Graves and +Paul Huber believe that the climate problem is the attribution problem. The video that Paul points to (I haven't watched the whole thing) starts out the same way.

They should ask themselves why the climate community began raising the alarm about warming in the late 1970s, before the warming began at all.

The right way to look at the issue is not to look at CO2 as an attempt to explain the relatively modest global warming to date. The right way to look at the observations is to determine whether it is in line or otherwise with theoretical predictions, including but by no means limited to global mean temperatures.

Which in fact it is. See the 1979 National Academy study and compare with the thirty years evolution of climate that followed:

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/charneyreport.html

Note, in addition to the global surface warming, the polar amplification and the stratospheric cooling, both correctly predicted in 1979, just before the warming spike started.

You have been systematically misled.
 
+Michael Tobis It doesn't surprise me that you're commenting on a video that you admit you haven't watched.
 
Well, yeah, I guess you're right on that point. I doubt we'll make much progress here.

Have a good holiday for what it's worth.
 
You are also scoring points and not engaging +Paul Huber 

I'll watch your video if you watch mine. Deal?
 
OK, done; watched part 2 as well. There are a substantial number of misleading claims there. This will take some work.
 
+George Dorn The funny thing is if you read the linked articles...it is the DEMOCRATS that are failing to understand the numbers. Small problem with your rant. 
 
+George Dorn Were we the Taliban in teh 1950s? No, Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood was scandalized by a church dance in the 1950s. The aerage religious righter doesn't een want to return us to the 1950s, so to call us the Taliban isn't just wrong, its obscene. Cultural Marxism isn't asign of knowledge, but contempt for truth.
 
Has nothing to do with Ms. Collins.  It has to do with the view of the entire Democrat party. If you look at Obama's proposals, and what is coming out of the House and Senate Democrats...they don't understand the numbers.   Not even a little. 
 
That's silly. You're the one who brought Collins up. Now you are saying that proves or indicates something about "Democrats" without even demonstrating that she is one.

You are making a broad generalization, that "Democrats" do not understand "numbers". Let's talk about logic before we talk about numbers. Are you saying "some" Democrats fail to understand "some" numbers? Surely true, but surely true of Republicans as well. Are you saying "no" Democrats understand "any" numbers? Surely false.

So please make a testable claim and offer relevant evidence if you want to talk about numbers. Otherwise you are doing the same sort of meaningless handwaving you claim to be so opposed to.
 
No.  Did you read the Huff Post article?  My comment had nothing to do with Ms. Collins..you inferred that. On the other hand, go read the Huff Post article, where they show how reporters, largely Democrats, are clueless on how it works.

I am not going to provide relevant evidence for something that was an observational claim. 
 
I agreed with you that reporters should not repeat nonsense and do. That's where we started. I agreed because as a climate scientist I am constantly victimized by misrepresentations in the press about the allegedly dubious scientific maturity of our field, largely political in origin. I would certainly like this adjusted to be more in line with reality.

Your presumption that reporters are "largely Democrats" is more or less true, but your implication that the more strongly self-identified Democrats among reporters are the more egregious in misrepresenting facts is unsupported. 

What makes your claim particularly surprising is that it is about rich people's inflated fears about Obama policies. A Democratic talking point, do you think?
 
Actually, no.  

In fact, what it shows is Democrats, who are opposed to flatter taxes, don't really understand how much the current tax code is detrimental to those they are supposedly arguing for.  

Furthermore, when you look and read across the spectrum, it is largely the liberal editorialists and commentators that completely miss the point about understanding how the tax rate system we currently have in place actually benefits the rich, and how changes to these laws largely won't solve anything.  

So I stand by my comment.  I agree it was observational in nature, but I still think it holds true. 
 
OK, some person on the verge of being rich, supposedly a Democrat, freaks out incorrectly about a proposed steepening of the tax rate, and it's reported without comment in the Times, supposedly advancing Democrat objectives, which is criticized in a notoriously leftist publication, and all that is observational evidence in support of the proposition that that "Democrats do not understand how how much the current tax code is detrimental to those they are supposedly arguing for". Got it. And you stand by that.

Sorry, Prad, did you even understand the story?

Stipulate for purpose of argument that Ms. Collins is, per your suspicion, a Democrat.

She is worried about a steepening of the tax rate based on an incorrect understanding of what marginal rates mean.

She is not incorrectly opposed to the social impact of a flatter rate, she is incorrectly worried about the personal impact of a steeper rate. So what you are "standing by" is not even anecdotal evidence for the proposition you claim it supports, even if your presumption holds!

"Oops, I got it wrong" would be a lot more constructive. Go ahead, try it.
 
I am not wrong...you are just missing half the piece.  Go back and read it, maybe you will learn something. 
 
Look you don't have to agree with me...you don't even have to think that I am in my right mind.

But every time the Democrats propose a rate change with the current tax structure, and tell the middle and lower classes that it will benefit them in the least...they are lying to you, me, and the American public.  And it shows a basic lack of understanding of the entire tax code.  

Either Democrats are intentionally misleading people, or they are too ignorant to realize it.  You choose. 
 
OK, you've stated a clear position without defending it. I don't agree.

But as a condition for discussing it I would like you to revisit how the HuffPo article supports that position.

You don't need to take me up on it. It's your call. But unless you withdraw the claim that the article supports your position, or elaborate coherently how it does, I am left feeling you do not know how to draw conclusions from evidence, and doubt that your opinions are worth considering.

Again "oops I was hasty" would do fine.

I think they teach people in Republican school to pretend to be infallible. See Romney's book title "No Apologies". I do not find this an attractive characteristic of that party.
 
First,did I ever say the only thing that supports my belief is that article?  Again, you are making inferrences that I myself did not.  I am stating a long period of observing Democrats to come to the conclusion that they haven't a clue how the tax system, as structured, works.  

You are stating that I made a claim based on that article...I never did that.  That is the problem with your entire line of thinking here. And liberals tend to do this quite often.  That is  something that I don't find attractive as a characteristic of the left, while we are putting our complaints out in the open.  They make a claim that the other side stated something that they never did, and then ask the other side to defend it.  That is precisely what you did here. 

And all you have to do is come and look at my posts immediately after the election, and you would know that I do not consider myself infallible at all...in fact, I made a lot of  mistakes.

But this claim is not one of them.  
 
"First,did I ever say the only thing that supports my belief is that article?"

No, but you did say that the article supports your belief, without explaining how.

"I am stating a long period of observing Democrats to come to the conclusion that they haven't a clue how the tax system, as structured, works."

That's not a strong claim, but a retreat. (I suppose at this point, if this implies "some" Democrats, you have a point that is hard to refute, but of course you could also say it of "some" Republicans.) It is a walk-back, not a defense.

The claim I am asking you to defend is

"In fact, what it shows is Democrats, who are opposed to flatter taxes, don't really understand how much the current tax code is detrimental to those they are supposedly arguing for.

Furthermore, when you look and read across the spectrum, it is largely the liberal editorialists and commentators that completely miss the point about understanding how the tax rate system we currently have in place actually benefits the rich, and how changes to these laws largely won't solve anything.

So I stand by my comment.  I agree it was observational in nature, but I still think it holds true."

By "it" I presume you mean the article. How does "it" (the article) show anything of the sort, even anecdotally? 
 
I was speaking generally.  If you want to fault me for saying 'it' and thought it was the article, fine.  I even said earlier that the point was based on my observations, not any provided factual detail, didn't I?

So my point stands.  If you want to talk semantics, go right ahead...the worst you can say is that I wasn't specific on what 'it' means.   I think if you want to talk about the merits of what Democrats actually believe, you will have a tough time defending it. 
 
So why exactly was the article of interest, then?
 
Yeah, but he was testifying...I am on the internet. Nice try though.
 
If that was nice I'd hate to see lame...  He's now added to my fucktards circle.
 
OK, I'll ask the obvious question: how do the tax rates that are in place benefit the rich, and how would raising marginal tax rates hurt the poor and middle class? This is presumably what you (Pradeep) believe is true, and that Democratic office-holders and voters don't. (Or, put differently, this is "it", isn't it?)
 
And since I obviously have nothing better to do, I went and watched the first two minutes of the David Evans video linked to by Paul Huber on 12/21. Before two minutes or up he has asserted "In the climate models, CO2 is the only major source of warming." This is simply and demonstrably wrong, and indicates that, for all his degrees, Dr. Evans does not know what he's talking about.
 
Yeah, he is due for a thorough fisking. It's awful.
 
Definitely have drone in the right circle...
Add a comment...