The Republican Recession and the Democratic Recovery (updated again)

[ProSense]

10. This makes no sense

"the various tax cuts"

were what I call "the accursed payroll tax cut".

As the data shows, it was NOT primarily a "tax cut for low income workers".

You'd know that, if Krugman ever bothered to write about it, but maybe he's just too busy counting his $4,000.

You keep railing against people who make just over $100,000, implying that they're the rich (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024391415#post77). Now, here you are implying that a tax cut that only affects income up to $110,000 is a tax cut for the rich, the "trickle-down" BS.

The reason you keep making these contradictory claims, confusing yourself, is that the point is nonsensical spin.

I called him a liar. Is it a "lie" if somebody (who knows better) is all "rah, rah, hooray for the payroll tax cut" without ever mentioning that, by far, more of the benefits go to the top 20% than go to the bottom 60%? Is it a lie to call THAT a "tax cut for low income workers"? (which Krugman never did, at least not in your snip. He said "workers" without mentioning "low income".)

I would call that "a lie by ommission". He knew the truth (that it favored the top over the bottom) but never talked about the truth as he promoted it.

A "lie by ommission"? It's your bizarre spin. Krugman is under no obligation to address it, and would likely call it out as silly like he does other ridiculous arguments.