And isn't this just adorable? Apparently, wankers get all up in your grill when you point out that, no, they have no clothes. Where to even start? Well, make sure you read the lead-up to this from my earlier article (including my tediously lengthy comments), then we'll get to work.
In his rebuttal to my earlier work, Pat starts out badly:
I'll avoid returning the nasty names he calls Tim Worstall and me, and get right to the point:
Ah, so name-calling is a bad thing, is it? Apparently, this is a new development -- more recent than when Pat wrote in an earlier piece:
This is what passes for deep thinking on the left: ... Atrios finds this incredibily smart and witty (and it probably is compared to most of what Atrios posts).
So, apparently, the rule is that snotty, personal put-downs are all right when ... um ... actually, I have no idea what the rule is here so I'll just suggest that Pat is being a hypocritical dick and carry on.
Now, as I took great pains to point out in my comments section way back when, the prime strategy from the right-wing wankersphere is to dwell -- nay, veritably obsess -- on the idea that Mr. $60K is getting, in their minds, a pretty good deal, while totally ignoring the fact that Mr. $1M is getting a way, way, way better deal. But as I pointed out in excruciating detail, you're not supposed to notice this.
"You're getting a good deal, that's right, a reeeeeeeally good deal ... Hey! Don't look over there, and pay no attention to the guy with the wheelbarrow full of cash, just look into my eyes and repeat after me ... goooood deeeeeal ..."
So how does Pat rationalize this? Let's see, shall we? Why, begosh and begorrah, he doesn't even try. Not a word, not a hint of the disparity in those two "deals". Shocked, shocked I am, that Pat weasels his way around the obvious. Not a word about the massive windfall going into Mr. $1M's pocket. Quelle surprise.
In a weird attempt at what appears to be a defense, Pat writes:
Look, Mr Cynic, here's a deal I'll offer you, since $6,500 is a larger value than $1,000. If you give me $1000 a year for the next 40 years, I'll give you $6,500 per year for the next three years after that. What's that? You'd be giving me $40,000 and I'd only be giving you $19,500? But I thought $6,500 was a larger value? Or is there another variable in this equation, like the number of years? Very few people have a longer retirement than their working life. And that "ignore entirely the possible returns on investing," is a classic dodge. Yes, if you assume that the person puts the money under the mattress, you can disprove that just about anything that takes into account the time value of money.
So Pat is offering me a "deal", is he? Let me think about this in terms of the deal that's being offered to Mr. $60K, in which he would get X dollars worth of tax cut every year, but would have to pay it back at six and a half times that rate upon retirement.
Hmmmm ... let me think ... no, no, you know what I'd prefer? I'd prefer the deal Mr. $1M got -- where I'd get X dollars worth of tax cut every year, and would have to pay that back at less than one-fifth that rate after I retire. That's the kind of deal I'd want.
But, amazingly, Pat doesn't put that deal on the table. Apparently, that kind of deal is only available to the really, really rich. Bummer.
You want a deal, Pat? I'll make you a deal. You stop analyzing Social Security and tax cuts, and I'll stop pointing out what a moron you are.
Deal?
BY THE WAY: I have absolutely no idea how to interpret this statement from Pat from that same posting:
I'd just like to see where [Canadian Cynic] gets the impression that the tax cut is being used as a defense of the reductions in SS benefits. Anybody? Bueller? There's no link from this remarkable statement, it's just stated as settled fact.
Nobody is using the tax cut to defend the Social Security benefit cuts, because they're completely unrelated.
What can this possibly mean? The entire defense of whacking a big chunk out of Mr. $60K's eventual SS benefits is that, with that $1000 per year tax cut, with careful investing, those people should be able to more than compensate for the SS cuts. This is, in fact, Pat's very own defense of the SS cuts. He defends this as a pretty good deal, precisely because of his analysis of the interrelationship between the tax cuts and the SS cuts. How much plainer can this be?
And yet, checking in brlefly from Planet Bizarro, Pat is adamant -- adamant, I tell you -- that these things have nothing in common. Nothing whatsoever. OK, if that's the case, then let's take Pat at his word and analyze the cuts in SS with no reference to tax cuts at all, shall we? Which means that, compared to the current situation, Mr. 60K will have his SS benefits just flat-out cut by $6,500 a year. It's that simple. If you, as Pat suggests, ignore the whole issue of the tax cuts, this is the effect of the Bush plan on Mr. 60K -- a whopping big decrease in his benefits.
So, does Pat still think this is a "good deal" for Mr. $60K? Probably not, but how is he going to defend it? By claiming that that SS cut is offset by the "tax cut"? The very tax cut that he just finished claiming has nothing to do with any of this?
Oh, please, Pat, try to explain this. Please, please, please. I can't wait.
No comments:
Post a Comment