In this excellent clip from last night, Lawrence O’Donnell of MSNBC shows in detail how the New York Times “sane-washes” Trump’s nonsensical assertions.
In an article yesterday about Trump’s incoherent and rambling response to a question about whether he planned to lower the cost of child care for American families, the Times published his comments in full.
The article attempted to make sense of what he said, commenting that he believed the vast sums of money collected by tariffs would pay for everything, including child care. Trump thinks that tariffs are a tax on foreign nations.
As O’Donnell explains, tariffs raise the price of imported goods. They are not a “tax” on foreign nations.
But the Times does not explain this basic fact. Instead the article says, “In itself that would be a disputable policy assumption.”
Watch Lawrence O’Donnell eviscerate this lame article and the Times‘ failure to acknowledge that Trump’s claims were demonstrably wrong, not “a disputable policy assumption.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
amen
LikeLike
Tariffs are literally taxes on imported goods. By definition. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tariff
The fact that tariffs raise the price of goods does not change that fact. All taxes on goods raise the price of the goods and are always paid by the consumer.
LikeLike
The problem is that O’Donnell, like most on MSNBC, has a small audience. This past weekend I went canvasing for state representatives in Charlotte, hoping to help end the super majority status of the General Assembly. We were sent out to meet with undecided voters. Most were pleasant, if non committal, but the last person we approached was definitely MAGA. When my wife asked him what issues mattered to him, he stated the boarder, defeating communists, a strong defense, ad nauseam. We then emphasized that we were canvasing for state representatives who had no impact on the issues he raised and asked if he would consider supporting them. He then asked what party. When we said Democrats, he then replied “hell no!” All of the polls seem to indicate that voters are much too firm in their positions. The talking points from this voter demonstrated a man who knows his Fox talking points. He wasn’t some old geazer off the streets, but a middle aged man in a very wealthy neighborhood. The Times has become a frustrating contributor to sanitizing Trump, yet polls show that 70% of its readers are supporting Harris. Even if Harris wins, too many will be fine with our democracy in peril and keeping the grift alive.
LikeLike
The NYT is already back to its old tricks in today’s paper. Giving the “here is what the candidates MUST do at the debate” story to the two reporters who have been pushing Republican narratives for months. Every story about Kamala must be about how she has no policies and needs to convince all the many voters who doubt she can handle the job and don’t trust her that she’s trustworthy. (Newsflash, they won’t be convinced). Every story about Trump must be about the policies he’s offering and whether they will work or not (jury is still out). And Trump is a bit uncouth which can be off-putting but voters of course will put up with that in a man they trust in the office.
Imagine if reporters wrote that it was Trump who had to prove to voters with very serious doubts about his honesty and his dementia and his constantly incoherent ramblings that Trump would not AGAIN ruin the economy with his incoherent and disastrous economic policies that he is unable to even explain or understand.
Imagine if THAT was the narrative about Trump. Instead, only Kamala has something to prove because it is Kamala the voters supposedly have massive doubts about and will continue to have massive doubts about until she explains every one of her policies in great detail. Whereas they treat Trump as the candidate who is offering voters a coherent policy rather than inane ramblings that he can only defend by blatantly lying about everything.
LikeLike
NYT WITS
LikeLike
The NYT lives rent free in so many heads.
LikeLike
Diane,
Thank you for posting this very important critique by O’Donnell of the corporate media especially the NYT.
In the 4th paragraph you write:
As O’Donnell explains, tariffs raise the price of imported goods. They are not a “tax” on foreign goods.
However, the last word in the above paragraph should be foreign “nations” not goods.
O’Donnell is emphasizing that Trump is falsely stating his tariffs are taxing foreign nations.
Thank you for all you do!
Josh
LikeLike
Thanks, Josh. I will make that change.
LikeLike
O’Donnell may be well-meaning, but he’s rather more confident about the quality of his argument there than may be warranted.
At its core was O’Donnell’s claim at 7:45: “Donald Trump did not say one word about paying for child care or using tariff revenue for paying for child care.”
Say what? Is there anyone here who read what Trump said who agrees with O’Donnell in that respect?
The article Lawrence alluded to:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/us/politics/debate-trump-age-capacity.html
contained a link to this previous article by Michael Bender
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/us/politics/debate-trump-age-capacity.html which was even more abundantly clear on the subject of what Trump was saying:
====
A question lobbed from the stage of the Economic Club of New York on Thursday about what, if anything, he would do about the cost of child care should have been right in former President Donald J. Trump’s wheelhouse.
[…]
His answer was a jolting journey through disjointed logic about how the size of his tariffs would take care of all the nation’s children, which only raised a new, more complicated question about why he remains unable to provide straightforward answers about policies he would prioritize in a second term.
“Well, I would do that,” he said when asked if he would commit to supporting legislation to make child care more affordable, and how he would seek to do so.
“And we’re sitting down — you know, I was somebody — we had Senator Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue,” Mr. Trump continued, referring to the pair’s previous push for paid family leave and expanding the child tax credit. “It’s a very important issue.
But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about that — because the child care is, child care, it’s, couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. “But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly — and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care.”
====
Tangentially… these are the first couple of paragraphs from an Sept 9 editorial from the NY Times editorial board:
“The most important distinction between the two candidates for the White House is that Vice President Kamala Harris is committed to democracy and the rule of law and Donald Trump is not. It’s a race that is, fundamentally, about who has the right temperament and is fit to be the next president, and the answer is not in question.
“Consider, for instance, Liz Cheney’s endorsement last week of Ms. Harris. Ms. Cheney, a former Republican congresswoman, supports the vice president even though she disagrees with many, perhaps most, of Ms. Harris’s policy positions. “As a conservative, as someone who believes in and cares about the Constitution, I have thought deeply about this, and because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump, but I will be voting for Kamala Harris,” she said. Her father, Dick Cheney, a former vice president and fellow lifelong conservative, followed suit the next day.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/09/opinion/harris-trump-debate-issues.html
LikeLike