The answer is so obvious (4.00 / 3)

That I almost presume the question is rhetorical.  It's simply preposterous to defend the premise of that WSJ guy's question as being sincere given the history of top marginal tax rates in America.  It's not plausible that he doesn't know the top tax rate was once over 90% and over 70% for a very long time during decades of extreme prosperity in America.

So how anyone could claim such a question is sincere given that if there is such a point, America is so very far away from it, it is like shouting "fire" during Noah's flood.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 22:33:28 PM UTC

Weird questions (0.00 / 0)

As Mr. De Groot says, the answer to David Sirota's question is "so obvious" that it's obviously a rhetorical question, but...

David Sirota is really asking people to respond to his obviously rhetorical question.

Why?

"Is two plus two equal to four? Answer my question!"

"Does a bear poop in the forest? Answer my question!"

Who talks like that?

Why?

---

by: Jacob Freeze @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 00:18:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not at all. (0.00 / 0)

Should We Automatically Assume A Question Is Objective Because It's a Question?

Now that is a beautiful question!

---

by: anothergreenbus @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 22:38:14 PM UTC

The question isn't objective .. (4.00 / 1)

... but almost no questions are.  Still, any progressive politician should be delighted to get such a question.

Is there a point when the richest one percent are required to pay too much?  Well, how about under Ronald Reagan, that famous soaker of the rich, when the top marginal rate was 50%?  Or under that deeply Marxist Eisenhower, when it was much higher?  We used to have a "noblesse oblige" concept in this country: to whom much is given much is expected.

If I were Obama, I'd point out that both the asker of the question and the answerer are in the 1% category, and both are in a position to pay a little more.  I'd go farther: if a 1% tax increase on the richest will make sure that Americans don't go without health care, who would be so selfish as to decline to pay?

---

by: Joe Buck @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 23:03:23 PM UTC

Isn't it obvious? (0.00 / 0)

Questions and questioners have varying degrees of objectivity, but even the most neutral questioner freights their question, even unconsciously, with their particular worldview, biases, and assumptions.  All the moreso for ideologues and deliberate operators/manipulators of the public space.

---

by: alyosha @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 23:24:32 PM UTC

Anyone who has a television and has watched any of the (0.00 / 0)

news channels, press conferences for the last couple of decades KNOW that questions can frame and inflame......and usually are done in a way to couch an opinion or play "gotcha."

---

by: Jjc2008 @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 23:28:35 PM UTC

i don't know.... (0.00 / 0)

My point is, is there a point where you really are soaking the rich, where the carrying capacity of this small group of people has been exceeded...?

Let's find out!

---

by: foxtrotsky @ Fri Jul 24, 2009 at 23:44:46 PM UTC

Your question answers itself, doesn't it? (0.00 / 0)

First off, David, welcome back!

So again, in general do you think the way a reporter asks a question can transmit subjective ideology/opinion/assumptions, or do you think that a question is automatically objective because it is a question and not a declarative statement? And do you think it is an empirical, unquestionable fact that this specific question is 100% objective - and that to say otherwise is factually inaccurate (rather than, say, an opinion someone can rightfully have)?

Your questions essentially answer themselves, don't they? Weisman's question was in fact one of those, "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions--this is first year J-School stuff. But snotty upper-class bootlickers love to engage in this kind of junior high school debate club BS, so they do it all the time. I'm sure his line editor at WSJ was suitably impressed for all of 15 minutes. If only these overprivileged dipwads sense of entitlement was even remotely justified.

The only important aspect to his question was the "soaking the rich" image, which was the entire point of his question. He's making a classist political statement couched in a "question."

It's especially ironic for Weisman to ask this question when no one has done more than Barack Hoover Obama to plump up the bank accounts of the CEO-class than anyone in history, recent or otherwise.

What, $12.8 Trillion in Free Money to cover your betters' gambling debts not enough for ya, Weisman? That would be my answer to him, by the way.


"More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly." -Woody Allen, My Speech to the Graduates

---

by: Emocrat @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 00:54:42 AM UTC

It's also a test of the quality of the journalist... (0.00 / 0)

On the one hand, the question to Obama really was a softball ready to be smacked out of the park with a whole host of facts, as people have noted already. The most egregious, in my view, is that someone who lives solely off interest on their wealth only pays 15% apparently. If true, that's outrageous considering their wealth could not have been created without massive taxpayer funded investments in roads, courts, schools, reasearch, and all the rest.

More to your point, however, I took a few grad school journalism classes and we were drilled to be hyper-aware of our questions and to pose questions in the lightest possible way that would elicit the most telling responses. Give people rope to hang themselves. But also give the journalist room to discover things they didn't know (and would not have found out if they'd asked a biased question). Journalists today either don't get that sort of training or don't care. They view themselves as direct participants rather than as watchers, mirrors, and educators.

When a journalist asks "why" I know they're sloppy or poorly trained. A "why" question often elicits a defensive and shorter answer than reframing the why as a what question, which gets people to blab more than they intend.

While the question probably was a sign of sloppy journalism, Obama also had a perfect chance to hit the ball out of the park, to educate and stick up for the other 99% in this country. You can't change the world if you're unwilling to define it in other terms.

---

by: TSlavin @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 01:06:14 AM UTC

OK, maybe we need a better neutrality standard (0.00 / 0)

A completely objective and politically neutral question is not an easy thing to formulate, especially on the spot.  That's not really a fair thing to expect from reporters consistently.  What it is fair to expect is a question that at least doesn't borrow one side's talking points or phrasing.  "Soak the rich"?  Since when did that become accepted neutral terminology?

Also, can we ask a meaningful question?  There's obviously a maximum tax rate you can impose on the millionaires before you have serious problems.  The useful question is whether we're anywhere near that point with the proposed rates, and honestly, there's no real point in asking a politician that.  Obama's a smart guy, but that's a serious economic question, or maybe a game theory question or a psychology question if you phrase it right.

---

by: ZachPruckowski @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 01:28:18 AM UTC

An utterance that begins with (0.00 / 0)

"My point is..."

Is not a question.  It is you stating what your point is.  

---

by: Fat Charlie @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 01:36:08 AM UTC

Psychotherapy addresses the intent of the question before the content (0.00 / 0)

In other words there are techniques for responding to questions.

You can say, Are you asking about taxing the rich so much because you .......

would rather this not be the case?
would prefer it be spread to all income levels?
are against taxing the wealthy?

And so on. After because you put in your intuition as to why the question was asked.

The above question is not a question, it is an attack. Most questions are attacks so you defang it and then answer it the way you want to answer it. The because option is to throw the ball back into their court with a spin on it.

Patients do not ask you questions because they want to know the answer. They ask to assert some sort of power, to attack you, etc. What you want to do as therapist is to reflect their anger openly to them so you can enable them to attack you directly, to turn their narcissistic self hatred onto you so you can use it to help them. Until the patient can perceive their hostile communications that drive people away from them, they are crippled. You want them to feel their hostility so they can be more direct with you.

This is the modern psychoanalytic approach for the narcissistic disorders.

---

by: abbeysbooks @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 07:32:32 AM UTC

RE: "in general do you think the way a reporter asks a question can transmit subjective ideology/opinion/assumptions" (0.00 / 0)

Absolutely. It's called "framing the issue".

---

by: DICKERSON3870 @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 08:20:22 AM UTC

Taken to the extreme... (0.00 / 0)

...it is called "cross-examining the witness".

---

by: DICKERSON3870 @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 08:29:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't be tedious, David (0.00 / 0)

The WSJ question is obviously biased.  The phrase "lumping all of the problems of the finances of the United States" gives it away.

---

by: JRD--Iowa @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 14:54:50 PM UTC

speaking of deep questions (0.00 / 0)

If a bear takes a shit in the woods and no one smells it, is it still a bear?

/snark

They call me Clem, Clem Guttata. Come visit wild, wonderful West Virginia Blue

---

by: WVaBlue @ Sat Jul 25, 2009 at 14:56:38 PM UTC