Politics

Christie’s Logical Fallacy

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Gov. Chris Christie (R-New Jersey) offered a fallacious argument when questioned about Warren Buffett’s argument on tax increases for the wealthy. The logical fallacy is Ad Hominem Tu Quoque and is committed when “it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions.”

When asked about Warren Buffett’s call for higher taxes on the wealthy, Christie replies: “If he wants to give the government more money, he’s got the ability to write a check.” The implication is that since Buffet isn’t going to write a check, his argument is crap and he’s a hypocrite.

Buffett’s argument is that everyone in the upper tax brackets should be paying higher taxes. Just because Buffett doesn’t voluntarily choose to pay the higher tax rate is irrelevant to his claim that everyone ought to.

Here is the video:

H/T: The Non Sequitur.

64 thoughts on “Christie’s Logical Fallacy”

  1. Neil Davis
    1, February 25, 2012 at 10:21 am
    The U.S. tax code is extremely convoluted and complex. Even the lawyers that devised it would have disagreements as to how to interpret parts of it.
    ——————————————————–
    …and just maybe that is a big part of the problem…….

  2. Anon nurse,
    I agree with you that the reduction in the corporate tax rate that was proposed by Obama was unnecessary, even though their would pay more taxes under the plan. The details will not be known by most Americans and that is why it is not a smart move. I understand that Obama is trying to sway some conservative voters, but he doesn’t need to.

  3. Buffet’s point about the difference between his tax rate and the tax rate his secretary pays (I believe his rate is 17% and hers is 30some% [I want to say 36% but I can’t remember the exact number he said] ) is most telling.

    Christie, of course, doesn’t get that point at all and, probably, would never understand anyone who was actually concerned about fairness or equality of sacrifice. He’s a “let them eat cake” kind of guy.

  4. W=c

    There use to be it was a little thing called”The Fairness Doctrine”

    And AY,Thank YOU :=)

  5. We do not admit any overweight dogs in our dog pack. Few dogs who have freedom are overweight. A guy who is as fat as Christie can not be expected to live for a full term. As for a fat guy trimming a budget, well, it takes one to know one. The only thing that this guy can do for the RepubliCons is stand in for the fat lady who usually sings when the party is over. But getting back to our pack. We dont trust fat dogs. They are not up to speed. They gobble up the dog biscuits if someone throws some our way and thus act like pigs. Besides, all the dogs in our pack are Democrats.

  6. eniobob
    1, February 25, 2012 at 9:35 am
    Let Me just add this also:.
    …

    I also heard a commentator make an interesting observation about my Governor the other night,he said that people see him on all the channels but they never see any one from the opposing party (Democrat)giving their views so therefore they get the impression that he is in charge.
    ——————————————

    If this is fact…isn’t there a law that says there has to be equal air time in political messages?

  7. AN.

    The way I read it, it is supposed to lower the effective tax rate, while at the same time eliminating deductions…. Pretty much all income regardless of its source is taxable…. Seems equitable to me….

  8. http://robertreich.org/post/18079650906

    Corporations Don’t Need a Tax Cut, So Why Is Obama Proposing One?

    Wednesday, February 22, 2012

    Excerpts:

    The Obama administration is proposing to lower corporate taxes from the current 35 percent to 28 percent for most companies and to 25 percent for manufacturers.

    …

    Nothing is going to be enacted this year, anyway, so it would have made more sense for the Administration to support a hike in corporate taxes – and use it to highlight the difference between the President and his likely Republican challenger.

    …

    It’s discouraging. The President gives a rousing speech, as he did on December 6 in Kansas. Then he misses an opportunity to put his campaign where his mouth is.

  9. Ron Paul has always possessed a convenient memory which his supporters find very charming … even lovable.

  11. eniobob,

    Saw your governor on TV recently and may I be the first to offer the ultimate condolences…

    AN,

    Thanks…..I had not heard of that before…. Very interesting…… It is my understanding that the net effect (what’s actually paid) tax rate is about 2 percent but the rate on the books is like 35 percent….

  12. Christie is just a buffoon. The idea that the wealthy are paying far too little in taxes is just unheard of to him. The idea that corporations are paying little or no taxes is just not possible for him to believe. What a liar.
    Swarthmore,
    Those returning WW2 vets that Ron Paul suggested got no government help forgets that many of them took advantage of the GI Bill to go to college in order to get a better job. I guess he forgets about the government subsidized housing that went up after the war. How could the good doctor forget those important things?

  13. Having apprised this as a totally unsuitable place, I hereby place the first installment of Weekend Rambles.

    AUCTIONING GAS AND MEN

    I’ve heard five bucks, six………who’ll gimme ten ?? A way to win again.
    It’s still a sin……to miss making a buck…..especially when it’s,,,,shucks,, justa new war again.

    and installment two:

    A passing thought
    You’ve seen it in many versions,
    the clouds racing over the landscape, the shadows following them.
    and then the tractors comes in view at 150 miles per hour. Oh yes, you say in recognition.

    But did you ever stop to think of how God might view the same scene?
    I think I’ll let it lie until another time.
    What will you do with it?

    PS Life is always a good time for reflection.

  14. The U.S. tax code is extremely convoluted and complex. Even the lawyers that devised it would have disagreements as to how to interpret parts of it. For Buffett to make the blanket statement that the wealthy should pay more taxes is overly simplistic. The wealthy, as a group, are people who pay widely varying percentages of their income in taxes, depending upon how that income is derived, what businesses the wealthy person is involved in, what that person spends their money on, how many people they hire, etc., etc., etc. There are some people whom Buffett would consider “wealthy” who already pay about half of their income in taxes every year. There are others who may only pay 15% or less. And, of course, there are some large corporations that pay no income tax at all. The best solution is for the U.S. income tax code to be dismantled and simplified in accordance with the constitution, or eliminated altogether.

  16. If you grant that The U.S. should have a graduated federal income tax that is not apportioned among the states, then how much income tax a person should pay will always be a matter of personal opinion.

    However, the apportionment phrase in the sixteenth amendment, as a matter of law, is contrary to the explicit directive stated in Article I, section II, clause III of the constitution. Therefore, unless the constitution is legally changed to eliminate the apportionment directive given in Article I, section II, the subsequent sixteenth amendment is overruled.

    In other words, to put it simply, a constitutional amendment cannot legally stand if it contradicts a directive of the constitution itself . This is what we have in the sixteenth amendment. If the U.S. had simply eliminated the apportionment clause in Article I, section II, the sixteenth amendment would have been altogether unnecessary for the purposes of imposing a graduated income tax without apportionment. As it stands now, the sixteenth amendment is legally invalid. But of course, that doesn’t stop the government from relentlessly enforcing it anyway.

  17. Think Ron Paul in the South Carolina debate, when he said that in the ’60s, “there was nobody out in the street suffering with no medical care.” Paul also recalled that after World War II, 10 million soldiers came home and prospered without any kind of government aid at all – all they needed was a massive cut to the federal budget, and those soldiers just surfed on the resultant wave of economic progress.

    “You know what the government did? They cut the budget by 60 percent,” he said. “And everybody went back to work again, you didn’t need special programs.”

    Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/arizona-debate-conservative-chickens-come-home-to-roost-20120223#ixzz1nPCMSywW

  20. Let Me just add this also:.

    Christie Budget Relies on ‘Optimistic’ Projections, S&P Says
    By Terrence Dopp and Elise Young – Feb 24, 2012 5:54 PM ET

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-24/christie-s-new-jersey-budget-relies-on-optimistic-projections-s-p-says.html

    I also heard a commentator make an interesting observation about my Governor the other night,he said that people see him on all the channels but they never see any one from the opposing party (Democrat)giving their views so therefore they get the impression that he is in charge.

Comments are closed.