On September 23,2010, the new york times published an article that states the recent republican document under the topic of Downhill with the GOP by columnist Paul Krugman. The main point of the article was the issue of republican as the major emphasis on federal debt.Therefore, cutting federal debt to the extent of closing congress at the same time extending the Bush tax cut for the wealthy is criticized and considered by Paul as nonsense idea that is made to win election.
In order to evaluate this article let's list the major premises of the argument.
premises.
1. The new republican document condemn federal debt by many counts.
2. Making permanent the Bush tax for the wealthy will add the debt by 3.7 trillion over the next decades
3. Cutting the troubled assets relief will save 16 billion.
4. To balance budget by 2020 making the tax cut permanent and saving republican choice program will lead to closing the federal government which means;
a.No national parks
b. No more small business administration loan.
c. No more export subsidies.
d. No more medicaid,child health, nutrition programmes.
e. No more highway construction.
f. No more homeland security
Therefore, no more congress
5. It is only political pledge to win midterm election.
conclusion:
The document is nonsense that is suitable only for banana republic.
Paul Krugman has listed major evidence that enabled him to reach on the conclusion that the document is unpractical. He still have committed a fallacy of straw man. Because, he emphasised the issues that are exposed to criticism out of the entire document. In order to approve his conclusion as no fallacy we have to be able to read the entire document. Even though straw man is the label, his argument is moderate for his premises support his conclusion.
feyisa gemeda
