Due to the tax cut???


Dave wrote:
Note that in the first instance, I gave Jon the benefit of the doubt. His
statement could be read to claim either that productivity had gone down, or
that it increased for reasons other than the tax cut. (Admittedly a strained
reading in light of "the reverse" but I gave him an opportunity to back
pedal.) He declined to make the argument I suggested might be defensible.


How long have you practiced ballet, tap-dancing and back-pedaling like this?

Answer the question: In your opinion, is this hypothetical "increase in
productivity" due to the Bush tax cuts?


"Gross error"??


Dave wrote:
You wouldn't say it's a gross error to say productivity was declining when
in fact if was increasing?

The error wasn't Jon's, and it wasn't necessarily "gross."

I've already told you once, but I'll tell you again. I read the Times fairly
regularly. Blair was a single example people are familiar with. But the
Times regularly omits important facts, gets them wrong, or buries them at
the end of their stories.


As does *any* publication. The NY Times is no worse than many others,
and better than most. I can't believe I'm defending anything with the
name "New York" but your attitude is an example of head-in-the-sand
stupidity on the part of libby-rull hating "conservative" attitude
currently in fashion. It's nothing more than an updated version of the
bigoted stupidy of the Commie-chasers of decades ago.

DSK