Wednesday, April 11, 2012

It's PRESIDENT Obama, dumbasses

An editorial at the New York Times makes an unforgivable and pointless error in etiquette: it refers to the President as "Mr. Obama." Not only does it make this error in the body of the piece, but it does so in the actual title of the piece: Mr. Obama and the ‘Buffett Rule.’

Who is in charge over there, these days? Does the New York Times still employ editors and fact checkers?

I'm joking, of course. Well, mostly. Because the fact is that etiquette rules require the use of "President" in the initial written reference to the current Commander-in-Chief. Thereafter, Mr. Obama, Mr. President, or even Obama are all okay. When speaking directly to the President, however, "Mr. President" is the standard. So while the use of "Mr. Obama" in the body of the article is permissable, the use of it in the title is not. Ultimately, there's no excuse for rudeness.

And in that same vein, let me say something else. I hated it when--during the Bush years--citizens who didn't like him called him "your President" (as in he was only the President of the Right, or some such thing) or actually came out and said "he's not my President." And my opinion hasn't changed in that regard; I hate it when I see people say the same sorts of things about President Obama. Like it or not, he is the current President, and that makes him my President, end of story.

But I digress.

Aside from the etiquette failures of the piece, it also--in applauding the President's defense of the Buffett Rule--makes the mistake that very well may be the most common error made, with regard to economics, taxes and federal revenues:
The Buffett Rule, which would raise an estimated $50 billion over 10 years, would not make an appreciable dent in the deficit or provide a lot more for essential programs. By comparison, letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for taxpayers making more than $250,000 a year, as the president has also called for, would raise $800 billion over 10 years.
Sorry, no. Dumbasses. Neither of those things is remotely correct. The Buffett Rule won't  raise additional revenues, as a matter of course, nor will the expiration of the "Bush-era tax cats." If such things happen, revenues may go up. Maybe even by numbers in the range cited. Maybe even by much more. But revenue could also go down. Whether revenue goes up or down will--first and foremost--depend on the economy, how strong it is, how much it improves (or gets worse) in future years. I've gone through this multiple times, but of course--since the world is not listening to me, for some reason--nothing's changed in the media; they're still tragically clueless for the most part.

And now, not only are they clueless, they're also impolite. I feel vindicated.

Cheers, all.

4 comments:

  1. Oh, I hated (and still hate) all that "your president" business. Who ever it is, is the elected President of OUR country. Suck it up, I don't care if you didn't vote for him or don't like his politics. Great post, Robo.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I have to say "my" President, can I at least add a few descriptive modifiers?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Sara: It's maddening. Are we civilized, or not?

    @Pete: You can also address him as "Captain, my Captain" and stand on your desk in his presence.

    ReplyDelete