Friday, March 05, 2004

quizzes of buddy don:
whut is truth?

twuz a questchun ast in the bible by pilate (john 18:38):  'Pilate saith unto him, What is truth?' i aint gonna git into no flossofy here. i jes wonted to kindly ast fer hep in figgern out witch of these thangs below is true, so i put together a lil essay quiz.


statement #1 – frum a new york times editoryull: Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told The Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."

statement #2 – frum reuters news service via yahoo: 'Families who lost relatives in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks voiced outrage on Thursday at President Bush's first ads of his re-election campaign that use images of the devastated World Trade Center to portray him as the right leader for tumultuous times.'

questchun #1: kin bofem statements be true? n ifn they is, please splain it so even a hillbilly lack buddy don kin git it.


step #1 – frum a boston globe articull: 'To avert a funding crisis in Social Security due to the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, a commission headed by Alan Greenspan in the early 1980s proposed major changes in Social Security, including increases in payroll tax rates.

'These changes would generate revenues far in excess of monies needed to pay current benefits. The surplus would be used to pay down the federal debt so that future borrowing to provide Social Security to retired baby boomers would not strain the economy. Congress heeded the commission's recommendations and raised payroll taxes.'

step #2 – frum the same articull: 'The Social Security surplus has helped drive down federal debt by $1.46 trillion between 1983 and 2003. For fiscal years 2005 through 2009, the Congressional Budget Office projects a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund of just over $1 trillion and a deficit in the rest of the budget of $2.49 trillion. Not only will that $2.49 trillion deficit in the rest of the budget entirely consume the Social Security surplus anticipated over the next five years, it will wipe out the Social Security surplus built up over the previous 20 years to finance baby boom retirements.'

step #3 – frum paul krugmans articull in the new york times: 'The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security.

Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits.'

questchun #2: since thangs dont add up in all them plans n statements frum our gummints mr. greenspan, thay must be a lie sumwhars. kin ye spot it? of ifn ye druther, kin ye spot the truth in it? n ifn ye kin, wood ye splain it so even a hillbilly lack buddy don kin git it?


statement #1 – frum a washington post editoryull: 'Anyone who questions his call for making the tax cuts permanent is seeking to raise taxes on ordinary Americans. "Our opponents have their own plan for these tax cuts -- they plan to take them away," Mr. Bush told a gathering of Republican governors.'

statement #2 – frum the same articull: 'Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.) would both keep in place the parts of the Bush tax cuts that the president most likes to tout: the $1,000 child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, the new 10 percent tax bracket. Rather, they would undo the parts of the Bush tax cut that go to taxpayers earning more than $200,000.'

questchun #3: kin ye parse out the truth frum them two statments n make the anser simple?


cunundrum – frum paul krugmans articull in todays new york times: 'The annual report of the Social Security system's trustees reveals a system in pretty good financial shape. In fact, it would take only modest injections of money to maintain that system's current benefit levels for at least the next 75 years. Other reports, however, appear to portray a system in deep financial trouble. For example, a 2002 Treasury study, described on Tuesday in The New York Times, claims that Social Security and Medicare are $44 trillion in the red. What's the truth?'

questhun #4: same questchun mr. krugman is astin at the end of the cunundrum pargraf, whuts the truth? agin, kin ye splain thisn in terms so simple even a hillbilly lack buddy don kin git it? ye mite half to read the hole articull.


last eggzample frum the same articull: 'As Mr. Bush sounds his one-note economic theme, it's a good time to recall his ever-shifting arguments for his ever-present solution of tax cuts. At the start, Mr. Bush pointed to the budget surplus. He noted that taxes as a percentage of the economy were at their highest level since World War II -- and high taxes were needed back then to fight the war. But now that the promised surplus has vanished, taxes are at their lowest level as a share of the economy in 40 years and the country is in the midst of another war, Mr. Bush sees no need for any similar sacrifice. Instead, the argument now is that the tax cuts must be made permanent so as not to imperil the economic recovery. But many of the cuts don't expire until 2010. Is Mr. Bush suggesting that the economy will still be faltering then?'

questchun #lastn: witch cum furst, the policy? or the reason we need the policy? n ifn ye thank tiz the latter, why do them reasons keep on a'changin? member to make it simple a nuff sos even a hillbilly lack buddy don kin git it.

ifn yer brave a nuff to take this here quiz, ye kin put yer ansers in the comments. thankee.

No comments: