I’ve been watching the news all morning as the showdown on the so-called Payroll Tax Cut heads toward a climax. Numerous commitments this afternoon preclude me from offering my take on it right now, but the issue deserves an open thread.
Have at it — play nice.
Blogs For Victory 
Hey all, been busier than a one-legged man in an a$$ kicking contest all fall, but I’m finally seeing a little daylight at the end of the tunnel. Contracts I’ve got lined up for spring may necessitate hiring an assistant, so this payroll tax extension has the potential to affect me. Actually, it’s already affected me in that it’s given me an extra couple hundred bucks since I started my own business late last summer. IMHO, it’s still irresponsible to hasten the demise of social security simply to score political points. And a wide range of sources, including mainstream sources like ABC News are saying a 60 day extension is unworkable.
Here’s an opinion from a Reuters article: (Emphasis mine)
……Moody’s Analytics estimates that allowing the payroll tax cuts to expire would reduce GDP growth by one percentage point in 2012, translating into one million fewer jobs by the end of next year.
But Social Security advocates worry that these temporary payroll tax cuts will never be restored. “The problem is, it is very easy in our current political climate to cut revenue and very hard to increase it,” says Nancy Altman, co-director of the Strengthen Social Security coalition and author of The Battle for Social Security, an excellent history of the program and its politics.
“Look at the controversy over ending the Bush tax cuts, which would only affect a small portion of taxpayers,” Altman says. “In this case, if you propose restoring the payroll tax down the road, you’d have to double the rates on workers making minimum wage. This is being sold as temporary, but it’s not likely to work out that way.”
The current and proposed FICA tax cuts don’t directly affect the long-term health of Social Security, because the revenue that normally flows direct to the Social Security Trust Fund is being reimbursed out of general revenue. But that so-called “hold harmless” provision now gives Social Security a direct role in rising deficits for the first time. Up until now opponents have sought to tie the program to the deficit by arguing that the Social Security Trust Fund is just a collection of worthless IOUs, but those arguments don’t hold water.
The FICA tax may not be the ideal way to fund Social Security. As Altman notes, the tax is regressive in that it collects tax on the first dollar earned by workers, and is capped at $106,800 in income (See: Warren Buffett). But it’s an approach all sides have been able to live with from the program’s inception in the 1930s.
“the tax is regressive in that it collects tax on the first dollar earned by workers,”
Sadly we’ve become so entrenched in our idea that the Rich must pay more taxes and the working poor pay less that we’ve lost sight of what is a regressive tax and why it is such.
The Tax to pay for the goody-tree that once was Social Security is predicated on the return of the investment; put away 7.5% of your earnings today and have a tidy nest-egg ready for those last few years after you retire and before you die. An investment that, although you will most likely only get back an amount equal to what you put in, insures you receive a paycheck while you’re working and a paycheck~ albeit smaller ~ after you stop working.
A stupid investment designed for those so unprepared for life they are forced to pay into a sink-hole with the promise of getting some of their money back when they’ve retired and since they’ve made no other plans, at least they won’t starve.
We all know the money collected today from younger workers is paid out immediately to the retired.
The “cap” is logically set where there is no possible way any deductions over this amount will ever come back to you; if 7.5% is taken of earnings over $103,000 then it’s lost all pretense that it’s an asset in terms of future benefits.
But, since we’ve abandoned that pretense years ago (like since its inception) why not slide the scale? No SSI payroll taxes on wages under $35.0/year and move the top to $165.0/year.
Spook
that once was Social Security is predicated on the return of the investment; put away 7.5% of your earnings
actually it is DOUBLE that the employer also pays 7.5% that is money that could have been added to your salary.
Well, it’s not Spook, it’s me,
You are, of course correct. The investment when viewed from from the personal side is bad enough; a combined 15% deposit over the years may yield only the amount you personally put in and the 7.5% from the employer is lost to the government as a handling charge.
What a country!
Daniel Foster over at NRO, The Corner, has, an interesting take on this:
O Come, All Ye Pay-Fors
December 21, 2011 2:12 P.M.
By Daniel Foster
This whole process is moving pretty fast, so I’m guessing we’ll see in the next 24 hours if Karl Rove is correct. It would be nice to see the GOP not cave for a change.
I love one of the commenter’s suggestions following Foster’s piece at The Corner:
[Approved commenter] DorsaiGuy
: 12/21/11 17:20
to hell with the Senate … pass their bill and then pass the 10 month version of the House bill 10 minutes later … let them stew in it for 2 months …
Nearly every press report I’ve read states something like Republicans are now arguing that Senate-passed legislation to extend the cut for … or House Republicans wage pushback on payroll tax cut as political power grab continues @ Yahoo news.
No mention of the Senate rejecting the House bill to extend for a year.
Fair and Balanced.
With the adage “perception is reality” in mind, the Teaparty and the Republicans have succeeded in turning public opinion against them enmass. When the Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal excoriates the House leader for being an ineffective, untrustworthy gutless wonder conservatives know they have a problem. All their recalcitrance will gain them is more popularity and support for the President and the Democrats. For the past 3 yrs, from Grover Norquist to the House and Senate, all the public has heard is no new taxes on anyone or any corporation for any reason. Except now, when it comes to those who can afford it the least. So when all of your taxes go up in a week, you can feel satisfied that you are doing your share to stop the “raid” on the SS Trust Fund. The right is so cross-eyed with animosity towards the President that they have thwarted even their own ideas! They are willing to sink the ship to try and drown the captain. They are willing to make sure millions are without jobs so one guy won’t have his.
Good luck with that guys. Merry Christmas.
You sound bitter, Mitch. Did someone pee in your coffee this morning?
Not bitter. Pithy. My point was, no matter if the Teaparty members of congress (which are a minority) are correct in their ideological purity, they are doing themselves..and by extentention the American, people no favors by refusing to acquiesce for the greater good. This is especially true since Boehner made a commitment to the Senate. Perception is reality and the reality for the speaker is that he appears untrustworthy and as a pawn to the tyranny of a few.
Pithy? Mmmm..kay
Perception is not reality. But, I can see the appeal your statement has to liberals;
I’ll stick to reality thank you.
“ acquiesce for the greater good”
Since it’s already established that the one year extension was the “greater good” then you mean give in to political expediency?
We’ve had quite enough of that already.
JR
he would like that, most likely they DIDNT that has Bmitch torqued.
pithy/pissy, potayto potahto
Wasn’t it fairly recently that Barry was explaining that the SS deduction was not a tax? (And, BTW, it is not. It is an imposed savings plan in which that which has been taken out is returned, or so was the idea.)
And now that he wants it cut, suddenly he is the hero who has given us (drum roll please….) A TAX CUT.
And people whine about Mitt flipping and spinning…
I got the following two emails from a good friend this morning. They’re a little off-topic from the payroll tax extension, but certainly pertinent to the present political discussion.
Limit all US politicians to two terms..
One in office
One in prison
Illinois already does this, and it seems to be working for them.
And this one: (we’ve all see the first part, but the second part really nails it)
This rather brilliantly cuts through all the political doublespeak (BS) we get and puts it into a much better perspective and is the same for many countries in Europe.
Why the U.S. was downgraded:
* U.S. Tax revenue: $ 2,170,000,000,000
* Fed budget: $ 3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $ 14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000
Now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:
* Annual family income: $ 21,700
* Money the family spent: $ 38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $ 16,500
* Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts: $385
Got It ?
OK, now Lesson # 2
Here’s another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let’s say, You come home from work and find there has been a sewer
backup, and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.
What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the sewage?
Your choice is coming November, 2012
Count:
What’s with this “we” stuff? Actually, as much of a realist I am, I was trying to highlight said reality. Face it, your “side” is surrounded and your going to loose this one. The irony of which should smack you in the face. Are you complaining that your taxes won’t go up??
As far as the relationship between perception and reality, study up on quantum mechanics. Especially the analogy Schrodinger’s Cat.
Free your mind and Happy Chanukah.
חנוכה שמח
Boehner and McConnell agree that political expediency is more important than integrity, just when you think the leadership can’t get more cowardice.
btw, I think you meant “pissy” not pithy.
Bmitch
As far as the relationship between perception and reality, study up on quantum mechanics. Especially the analogy Schrodinger’s Cat.
what garbage…
Merry CHRISTmas 🙂
The word pissy describes you to a T because you piss all over everything. How wonderful it must be to be smarter than everyone else. I suppose you deny the existence of nuclear weapons, since quantum theory (or in this case, quantum reality) was responsible for their creation. If ignorance is bliss, you have achieved Nirvana. Congratulations. Merry Kwanza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
Bmitch
Congratulations. Merry Kwanza.
FAKE like YOU………
Kwanzaa: violent 60s radical invented fake holiday
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-politics-in-national/kwanzaa-violent-60s-radical-invented-fake-holiday
happy ramadondingdong
Oh, mitch, give it a rest. Your silly transparent efforts to impress by tossing in some half-baked reference to ‘quantum mechanics’ is so juvenile. Actually, it sounds like your entire grasp of the subject was gleaned from an episode of Big Bang Theory, though I see you do cite Wikipedia, that data source for all serious scientists. Ignoring your infantile posturing is hardly the same as rejecting quantum mechanics much less attempting to “…deny the existence of nuclear weapons..”
You just get sillier and sillier….
Hmmmm…mitchy can refer to Schrodinger’s Cat and use words like “recalcitrance” and “acquiesce” but also says “enmass” and “loose” (for “lose”). Just like his politics, his IQ seems to wander all over the board.
He does, however, explain, albeit accidentally I am sure, how he is so sure of the truth of his errors. He states with absolute certitude that “perception is reality” which explains why, as he perceives SS deductions to be a tax, they are taxes. In his case, perception not only creates HIS reality, it is a mitch-centric one at that.
He probably perceives Leftism as a political model promoting individual freedom and liberty, so that would, in mitchyland, make it so.
I just got home. I’ve been listening on my car radio to my Congressman interviewed live on the local drive-time talk station. He’s heading into a meeting on the payroll tax holiday extension in a few minutes. He said the House was completely blind-sided by the Senate passing a 60 day extension as they walked out the door. We may know something yet tonight as to how this will all shake out.
No, I meant pithy. Pissy describes the behavior and attitude of those who have practiced subterfuge against the American people by thwarting the president at every single opportunity to the point of sabotaging the economy. In the infamous words of Mitch McConnell, his job was to make sure Obama didn’t serve a 2nd term. Look at what we have now. An attempt to raise taxes on those that can least afford it. Which failed. Forget the purity of intent. The reality was that they would have been raised. Congressional approval at an all time low. Voter disenfranchisement. Recall efforts in Wisconsin and a rejection of union busting in Ohio. Person-hood amendments not passing in Mississippi. Teaparty approval less than that of Muslims. And a group of dissociative inmates vying for the Republican nomination. None of which will get elected.
If you meant pity why haven’t you been?
Bmitch
An attempt to raise taxes “on those that can least afford it”.
TOTAL UTTER BS
46% PAY – NO,NONE, ZIP, ZILCH, ZERO, NADA federal TAX
53 % pay LESS than 3% of all taxes,
NEXT radical left alinsky line of BS?
has it ever occurred to you that 46% pay no income taxes (Federal) because they don’t make enough?
You want to tax that single mom making 7.50 per hour at Wal Mart? Really?
jamestooge
does she pay sales tax?
NEXT?
LOL — the House Republicans caved. Let’s just shoot them all and start over.
jr
Im with you…. 😦
House GOP Agrees to Extend Payroll-Tax Cut for 2 Months
F em, might just as well keep Ochimpy let the country crash and burn and learn chinese.
Im done with these A$$H***S
Come on now Neo. You know this wasn’t the right time to fight this battle, nor was it the right hill to die on. The repubs only control one half of one third of the government. We need a repub senate and president too and maybe all 9 scotus judges The real battle is in
20122016.Things will get better then. I promise.
GMB
go, RON PAUL……… 😦
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/12/22/flashback-2008-ron-paul-endorses-anti-american-anti-israel-911-truther-democrat-cynthia-mckinney/
I don’t know if I could ever vote for ssomeone who ever did this. The man is just bat poop insane.
😦
Minnesota Land Right Fight: Commissioner Calls Constitution ‘Old Document’
Government
“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed.”
Don’t stop now, GMB…give us the rest of the article. Here is most of it, aside from the McKinney part:
Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.
The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.
The second was Cynthia McKinney.
Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.
The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.
Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:
Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.
You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.
For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.
yes! thank you house GOP for caving! Thank you establishment for putting these rookies in their place!
vote all the tea partiers OUT!
Amazona, whats your point? Am I being critisized for something here? Was I too dramatic about something?
jamestooge
there is NO TEA party to vote out MORON!!
Oh, get a grip, GMB. Not everything is about you.
I merely filled in the rest of the article you quoted because I thought it added to the discussion of Just How Nuts IS Ron Paul, Anyway?
Not a hint of criticism of you, Gee, you hurt my feelings. Here I thought I was known for making my disagreements with people TOO obvious and sometimes mean, and you are telling me you can’t even tell when it is happening.
Do I need to sharpen my opposition technique?
So what was “Don’t stop now, GMB…give us the rest of the article” if it wasn’t about me?
My feelings were not hurt and I wasn’t accusing you of being mean. I could care less how much you critisize me, you just seem to have a problem critisizing anyone without resorting to insults, snide remarks, and personal attacks.
Do I need to sharpen my opposition technique?
One word. Yes.
Have a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year Amazona
Chag Chanuka Sameach Bokor Tov 🙂
In other repub news, Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman fail to qualify for the Virginia ballot. Nothing to see here folks move along.
YET
barry soetoro is on it
gott love
KenyaAmeriKaGet a life and start living in the real world clown.
jamestooge
like yours MORON?
I’ll pass
Folks, you are being way to hard on
boehner and mcconnelllarry and moe. Compromise is the name of the game here. Isn’t that what you have been telling me?Arent you being a little dramatic in your critisisms? I think you are being over principled and too rigid here.
Afterall you cant take one step forward without taking a few back. Right? Right?
In other repub news both Gingrich and Perry barely have enough pre validated signatures to get on the Virginia ballot. The Virginia Election Commission reccomends that you have at least 15k signatures to make sure you get 10k valids.
Perry and Gingrich both have well below that number and are unlikely to qualify either.
If this happens it will give Virginia voters the option of only one candidate.
Opps I am going to flip flop here.
It will give Virginia a choice of Ron Paul and someone else here.
Thank you for the GOP for finally caving and proving that the Tea Party are nothing but a bunch of talkers who won’t walk the walk.
I appreciate it! at least i know my payroll contribution won’t go up for the next 60 days!
Yeah, but what are you going to say to your kids when they ask you if you were one of the greedy bastards who hastened the bankruptcy of Social Security?
JR.
that won’t happen. Social Security will never go bankrupt. The adults in the room (Democrats and some Moderate GOP members) will eventually work it out.
means testing, increase the age requirement, raise the cap for payroll taxes, surcharge of 1.9% on incomes over 1 million dollars, etc.
There are a million ways to solve it. Don’t worry, just stand aside and let the Dems handle it.
You mean by cutting its funding so they can claim it is a “tax” cut?
You mean by playing politics with this program?
That’s how they are going to “handle” it?
Oh, I get it….Barry is going to “monitor” the problem.
The congress will come back after the holiday break, and they will agree to a full year extension.
Once they caved today, its obvious on this issue they can’t win. Me thinks Boehner just handed the Dems a great campaign issue…
jamestooge
only to the 50% of dumbed down users and taker drones like your self.
useful idiots unite OPM and freeeee stuff woo hooo pass the weed!
The comments from James on this thread are hilarious – he has his panties in a bunch over the GOP caving on the arrangement of the deck chairs on the titanic. The issue at hand was a 12 month extension (GOP supported) or a 60 day extension (Dem supported), with the caveat of the keystone pipeline in the GOP bill. So in reality, the Dems killed jobs and delayed access to domestic energy supplies in their haste to get out of town. The media and the President demonized anyone who opposed this, and the GOP caved.
Now James, do you care to comment on what actually happened?
Cluster, I suggest that your comment So in reality, the Dems killed jobs and delayed access to domestic energy supplies in their haste to get out of town.. overlooks the ideological and political component of the Dem vote, which is pandering to the eco-Nazi opposition to the pipeline.
This component is multi-tiered but is essentially based on the desire to control all who live here by severely limiting our access to energy, which would have the two-fold effect of undermining the economy and shoving more people into dependency on the government (thereby expanding the Leftist voter base) and forcing the Left-desired model of civilization which includes getting rid of the internal combustion engine.
The more the Right forces the issue, pushes for increased job creation (outside of government, that is) and plentiful energy sources, the more the Left will push back, as Leftist control is always based on coercion of some kind, whether economic or at the end of a gun.
The Dems would have hated seeing the GOP steal their thunder by promoting the same program they have been pushing—the extension of the FICA contribution reduction—but they would have done it, understanding the political fallout of fighting it. But once the GOP plan included the poison pill (to the Dems) of increased energy production coupled with expansion of the private sector job market, they had to object, and count on their propaganda machine to cover up the reality and create a new one via changing perceptions of what really happened.
***************
There….all caught up
What I’d like to know is why is there such a visceral contempt expressed on this website for people who make minimum wage. That’s whom the rise in SS deductions would effect the most. For months now the extreme right has waged a war against teachers, firefighters, police and public sector workers. It seems like the right thinks something is being taken away from them. The Randian fantasy that you have is unworkable. The extreme right has raised the ire of the American people and is now seen for what they are: obstructionists. This is 2011, not 1955. Get used to it.
mitch,
Try and ground yourself in reality before thinking again ok? Those “minimum wage” people you profess to care so much about, have been paying the standard SS deduction for years, if not decades prior to this temporary deduction, so it’s not as if it is an increased burden. Also, the majority of minimum wage earners are either young workers with no family, or second income wage earners. Secondly, the SS deduction is not a tax, it’s an insurance, so with this political ploy on behalf of democrats, we continue to deplete the SS funding, which democrats use to oppose.
Now on to your “war against unions” drivel. Conservatives are actually supporting the position of FDR in this battle and attempting to help states avoid bankruptcy by reforming public union compensation packages. Avoiding bankruptcy actually sustains union employment – unless you would prefer we just ignore the issue and just go down with the ship.
Any other asinine comments?
mitch, though most if not all of your posts are nothing more than unwelcome peeks into a pathology totally disconnected from reality and fueled by impotent rage, this one stands out in a quite impressive field of paranoia and irrational hate,
Not a single person on this blog (or anyone I know, or anyone on the Right I can think of) has ever expressed the slightest negative opinion of ANYONE based on income.
Ever.
Actually, it is the Left and its dependence on Identity Politics which divides people into demographic groups which are then demonized or pandered to, depending on current expediency.
The Right says “You guys are working hard, for not much money. Let’s create a vast pool of economic opportunity so you can LIFT YOURSELVES to a higher level of income. Let’s create a meritocracy, where you are rewarded for your skill and ambition, and where you will not have to bear the burden of lifting up those who have chosen to not develop their skills, or who have no ambition. Let’s make sure your children’s teachers are also chosen and compensated for their skill, so your children leave our educational system able to read, write and reason, prepared to move ahead and upward in our economy. All labor is noble if done well and with pride. Let’s keep our low-level jobs open for Americans so they can earn a living while striving for advancement, leaving those jobs for other entry-level skill sets to fill.”
It is the LEFT which says “You are poor, poor poor POOR, and it is the fault of others. You have no responsibility for your status, and you would not be poor if others were not rich, so you have no obligation to strive to lift yourselves up. It is hopeless anyway, as you are trodden upon by the greedy and heartless, so just take this subsistence level income from the government, and be sure to vote us back in so it keeps coming. If you do happen to earn more, much of it must be taken from you to give to those who have not earned it. This is a collective society, where excellence is not rewarded and failure is not penalized. Many of you, depending on race and gender, are simply incapable of advancing on your own, so limited are you by the inherent deficiencies associated with your skin color and sex, that you will always need a paternalistic hand up so you can pretend you are equal. Remember, this is a nation of people divided by race and income, and it is important to always see yourself first as a member of these groups and not merely as Americans with common goals. Always remember your victimhood, and make it the primary focus of your life.”
I see much more respect from the Right, for all people as individuals, than the contempt shown by the Left, which callously suppresses initiative and manipulates emotion just to gain power.
And you, mitch, are a poster child for the success of the Left in manipulating emotions and distorting fact.
Really? Have you ever actually read any of the posts? Neo’s uninformed comments about how few pay fed taxes. His unthinking defense of right wing ideological extremism. His facination with using 2nd amendment “remedies” to anything he finds offensive. The fool he makes of himself by expressing the inane beliefs he holds that the the President isn’t a citizen or he is an usurper, a marxist, a muslim, a gay crack-head. I mean it’s pathetic and laughable.
Mr. Spook is much more sane, but still seems to pine for a era where-in true, traditional conservative ideas actually had a place in the market place of debate. Instead it’s been smothered by all sorts of fringe concepts and conspiracy theories or the fundamental Christian extremism as elucidated by none other than Jeremiah who scream about “taking the country back”. Yeah, it’s going to be taken back alright. Back from the extreme and to the center where all successful cultures, societies and governments operate from.
And then there is you. A self- absorbed, condescending gaseous windbag with a healthy vocabulary. A snark filled pompous intellect who is utterly incapable of having any sort of conversation that does not take on political affectations. A personality that catagorizes , demonizes and tribalizes in a transparent effort to achieve some meger amount of self-worth.
There is no Republican party left. It has been eaten from the inside out through efforts and calculations that go back to Roger Ailes and Richard Nixon. Ayn Rand was a novelist. She was not a economist. And the Teaparty is now seen as the Rumplestiltskin of the American Politic. I’ll give them this though. They have given new meaning to the term obstruction. If things keep going as they have been lately, you’ll have the continued pleasure of ranting and raving through the nest 4 yrs of President Obama.
mitch,
Are you at all interested in discussing the actual substance of policies, or are you more interested in discussing the phobia of personality you seem to be preoccupied with?
I will also remind you that Obama had two years of a compliant Congress that passed everything he wanted, and even Obama himself has said that he accomplished more than any other President, with the exception of four. So those facts don’t really square with your “obstructionism” assertion – do you care to revise that?
Wow, Mitch — dial back the caffeine, man. Have you listened to the President’s demagogic speech on the payroll tax holiday (yes, holiday, not cut) extension? It was full of lies, distortions, and half-truths. In the end, he argued for 2 months more of pizza for the guy who wrote in, while the Republicans argued for 1 year more of pizza. Meanwhile, the President’s wife argued that kids shouldn’t eat pizza. Give me an @#$%&^!* break.
Now that said, the House GOP had 3 options, two of which made them look good, or at least not bad. They could have chosen to simply pass the Senate bill as soon as it was forwarded to the House and followed the Senate out the door; they could have chosen to stand on principle, or they could have chosen to put up a half-baked fight and cave after a couple days. They chose the latter — the worst possible choice. Boehner should have stood up on the House floor with a transcript of Obama’s speech in front of him and gone through the lies one by one, and said, “I’m sorry, but we aren’t going to let the President get away with this garbage.” Instead, he not only caved, but he didn’t even get anything in return except being made to look weak and stupid.
A classic comment, Mitch. Gotta hand it to ya… I don’t think anyone has ever summed up Amy so succinctly and accurately. 🙂
One of the things I find amusing about this fiasco for the Republicans–and it was a fiasco–is how twisted up some of you folks get in your logic.
custer says, “Those ‘minimum wage’ people you profess to care so much about, have been paying the standard SS deduction for years, if not decades prior to this temporary deduction, so it’s not as if it is an increased burden.”
Ah, so eliminating a tax cut and allowing rates to return to previous levels is not an increased burden? So why is it that when the Bush tax cuts were set to expire, all we heard was that allowing them to expire would be tantamount to a tax increase? Especially hard hit would be those over-taxed, put upon rich people. Where was your logic then, cluster?
cluster says, “I will also remind you that Obama had two years of a compliant Congress that passed everything he wanted.” You forget that Mitch McConnell has turned the senate into a dysfunctional body that requires a supermajority in order to get anything done. The democrats have not had the supermajority required to defeat filibusters, and McConnell has used the cudgel very successfully in thwarting the democrats and pursuing his stated single purpose of making President Obama a one-term president. So by de facto the senate has become a body that requires 60 votes to get anything done.
You all can’t make up your mind whether cutting the payroll tax is a good thing or a bad thing. You’re conflicted because on the one hand, it _is_ a tax cut. But on the other hand, it threatens an entitlement that most of you are either taking advantage of or plan to. Even better, it’s disproportionally paid for on the backs for every working man and woman. It’s quite amusing. All entitlements are bad, except the ones you are entitled to. All citizens receiving a monthly check from the government are moochers–unless that moocher happens to be you.
You all leave out the fact that the reason Republicans look so inept on this issue is that Boehner and McConnell had an agreement, which led to nearly unanimous, bipartisan senate support for the 60-day extension–an incredible feat considering McConnell’s obstructionist ways. Then Boehner reneged. Maybe it only looks like the Republicans don’t know what they’re doing.
You all leave out the fact that while the Republicans pushed for the Keystone pipeline, the Democrats wanted the one-year extension paid for by a 1% tax on the rich. They took it off the table. Say, cluster, that shouldn’t have been an increased burden, right?
Anyway, thanks, Republicans, for this week’s entertainment.
Bmitch
Neo’s uninformed comments about how few pay fed taxes
Uhhhh projection?
10 seconds and a google search would prove me correct and you a Buffoon.
You all leave out the fact that the reason Republicans look so inept on this issue is that Boehner and McConnell had an agreement, which led to nearly unanimous, bipartisan senate support for the 60-day extension
Watson, I’ve heard this referenced, but I can’t find any evidence that McConnell and Boehner did, in fact, have an advance agreement on the bill that eventually came out of the Senate. I heard Boehner interviewed a couple days ago, and he was asked about it. He only said that McConnell told him they could get the pipeline into the Senate bill, and Boehner said, go for it. All along everyone (the Senate, House and President) were talking about a 1-year extension. Unless I missed something, the 2 month extension Senate compromise was a last minute agreement between Reid and McConnel. The Senate passed it and went home. CNN has the most complete coverage of this whole fiasco, and they only mention an agreement between Reid and McConnell. Do you have a link to a video clip or a direct quote from either McConnell or Boehner that they had an agreement that Boehner subsequently reneged on?
watson,
I thought for sure you had grown tired of being embarrassed here, but I underestimated your lack of shame.
Ah, so eliminating a tax cut and allowing rates to return to previous levels is not an increased burden? – watson
The SS deduction is NOT a tax, and it is a very small temporary reprieve. As Spook so succinctly put it – it amounts to a pizza, and furthermore, pushes SS closer to insolvency, which Democrats use to oppose, that is until they discovered that it could be used as a political football, and that their minions (think:watson) would fall in line with, knowing that minions like watson rarely think things through. Can you wrap your mind around that?
In regards to “obstructionism” – are you denying that Democrats controlled both houses for two years and passed everything Obama wanted them to?? Really? Even Obama admitted that he accomplished most of his agenda. So who do we believe? Obama or you?
mitch…quite a litany of resentment and hate, yet without a single actual idea.
How too too Leftist of you.
Watson, any luck finding any evidence that Boehner and McConnell had some kind of advance agreement on the 60 days extention? Yeah, me neither, and I’ve been through several dozen new accounts from the last week. Next time do a little homework before making a gotcha statement that’s not true.
Lets see here. Republicans wanted the extension to last a full year. barky only wanted 2 months. The repubs are the evil ones here Thomas?
Spin it please Sir!!!
Tommy-boy is a drone regurgitating dumbed-down talking points. There is nothing surprising about what he claims.
waspstooge
the $1000.00 cut in SS taxes would amount to that ONLY for those in the $50,000.00 tax range
not for the convince store clerk who pays NO federal taxes.
that is FIFTY CENTS an HOUR on %50K or higher wages……….BFD
Here’s an observation that will amuse most everyone. In a recent interview, Obama claimed that only four other Presidents have accomplished more legislatively than he has in his first four years, BUT watson, james, mitch and sunny have all recently stated that Obama has been obstructed by republicans every step of the way and that is reason why the economy, and the country are still suffering.
Can there be any better proof that liberals, or certainly our resident liberals, just don’t engage their brain that often????
the Democrats wanted the one-year extension paid for by a 1% tax on the rich. They took it off the table. Say, cluster, that shouldn’t have been an increased burden, right?
Do you know how they plan to pay for the SS deduction? Let me know, so I can determine whether or not you actually think about stuff.
how is this for a “tax cut” ?? ROTFLMAO
Calif. Nurses Go on One-Day Strike — Hospitals Decide to Replace Them
“…we are standing solid in solidarity to fight back their corporate greed.”
OOPS
Cluster:
The phobia of personality is what has driven policy. It is the reason that “Republicans” have voted against their own ideas. It is the reason that they have emphasized an ideology rooted in fantasy over what’s best for the country. There is no point in discussing the finer points for it would be like discussing which hose nozzle to use on a fire. The “Republican” party is has been totally destroyed by an anti-intellectual conservative movement that they cynically embraced in order to gain power. Unfortunately the term “conservative” was a masquerade for an economic panacea and an implementation of the religious views of a few.
We are not a “Christian” nation. We never were. Jefferson was a deist who owned slaves. The concept of God is not mentioned in the constitution. Franklin was an atheist. Through the efforts of congress by reducing regulations we have become a Corpocracy and the main focus of this blog is now; and has been in the past, to defend it. I mean, you probably agree with Citizens United and Mitt Romney: corporations have the same rights as living beings. If that’s so, make them pay taxes and fight in wars. Not profit from them. Opps!! I forgot about Blackwater. Silly me.
Right or wrong, President Obama will get elected to a 2nd term because given the alternative between a flaming racist clueless libertarian, a thrice married angry hot head Washington insider opportunist or a 2 dimensional chameleon, people will choose the sane guy.
There is nothing wrong with being conservative. I adhere to many conservative values. But what is promoted and supported on this blog is not conservative. It’s rage. It’s fringe and its not mainstream. Time to round up the crazies and put them in FEMA camps.
mitch,
You’ve got problems – you’re over emotional and way to far in the weeds to gain any clarity. You’re focusing on all the wrong things, not too mention being obsessed with minority factions within an ideology that encompasses so much more than you are able to discern. See what liberalism has done to you?
Take a break this holiday and let the noise inside your head quiet down, and start to look at everything through a common sense lense, rather than the liberally distorted emotional prism – ok? Have a Merry Christmas.
And incidentally, read something on John Adams and his Faith before spouting anymore non sense,
I’ve read alot about Adams actually. I really enjoyed the HBO rendition as well. But what does Adams have to with anything?
If, as you intimate, you are not as fringe as those who comprise the base, what of their actions do you refute? And why do you use the word liberal as a pejorative? I may be liberal, but I am not “a” liberal. There is no need to objectify. That’s a ploy.
And Merry Christmas to you and yours! 🙂
mitch, as you chose to differentiate between being liberal and being A liberal, perhaps you can explain the difference.
Bmitch
mmmm mmmm mmmm
commies and alynski 101
Empty chambers approve $40 tax cut…
Just 12 members ram through without single vote…
HAPPY HOLIDAYS: USA DEBT NOW $15,123,841,000,000…
Obama to jet off for $4M Hawaiian vacation…
Bmitch
crack? or meth?
delusional paranoia along with drugs, the Donk way either way.
ask barry the doper.
Bmitch
good donks……..
Ochimpys civilian army and YOU
“I got the love for the ‘Js,’ you feel me?” said Brandon Betts, a customer who purchased the shoes. “Look at the box! The box is cold!”
“Man it’s crazy in there: people getting run over and security guards getting trampled and stuff,” he added. “They almost tried to arrest us!…Fighting over shoes was it worth it — yeah.”
WAIT until the welfah runs out
http://www.wdrb.com/story/16383283/police-called-to-jefferson-mall-for-fight-over-sneakers
This nation was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation and the Creator is mentioned not only in the primary documents but the Federalist papers and in all of their personal writings. Unlike some people–it takes a little more than unicorns and pixie dust to resolve issues.
Unlike Liberals and Progressives of today “The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group.”
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
BTW, it was Obama who first wanted the 1-yr moratorium on the SS hike but do not let that get in your way of distortion.
Many many words of hatred, resentment, hostility and anger from mitch, but so far, not a single word about what he thinks would be the best way to govern the nation.
For him it’s all about personality and choosing sides, and then attacking and hating the Other Side.
4th “Best” President ever. Only in the eyes and mind of a Progressive.
— 46 Million now living in poverty. The most on record since the census began tracking poverty in 1959.
— Federal spending, the budget deficit, and our national debt are all at the highest % of GDP since WWII.
— Chronic unemployment worse than the Great Depression.
— 34th consecutive month the unemployment rate has been above 8%.
— America’s credit rating downgraded for the first time in history.
— Lowest US consumer confidence in 30 years.
— Highest black unemployment in 28 years.
— Worst jobs record of any modern President.
— Worst housing crisis since the Great Depression.
— Misery index at 28-year high.
— Under President Obama, US Poverty rate swells to 1 in 6.
— Record number of Americans now rely on Food Stamps.
— Rate of Economic growth only slightly higher than the 30’s. The decade of the Great Depression.
— Been to almost all 57 States.
But make sure I get an extra few bucks a week while depleting SS–when I get a job again.
DB, as I’ve said before; the question for the voters is, which part of this do you want 4 more years of?
Well Spook, if you don’t mind me answering this question. The answer is none. Unfortunately there are are a lot of voters out like me that are going to be hard to convince that men like Newt and Romney are going to be any better.
Convince us and the repub nominee will cruise to victory.
Convince us and the repub nominee will cruise to victory.
I tell you what GMB, why don’t you do your own soul searching and figure that one out on your own. My concern is not trying to convince prima donna’s of anything
“My concern is not trying to convince prima donna’s of anything”
Just can’t resist can you Cluster? prima donna? Really now. Over principled, rigid, now a prima donna. Well, at least it is a new insult and not one of the old and worn out ones.
Thats pretty much the problem with todays republican party. They expect something for nothing. If they don’t get it, the insults start flying and recriminations continue. Is it any wonder that membership in todays repub party is shrinking faster than ever before?
One day of intense media critisism was all it took to get the house repubs to cave. One lousy day. And you expect people like this to get you back to a more constitutional form of government?
Sorry folks I just don’t see it happening.
Well, GMB, assuming that either Mitt or Newt is nominated and then elected (and those are two pretty big “ifs”), I don’t see either one being a transformational President. More like a transitional President, just sent in to stop the bleeding, or even slow down the bleeding. I think our choice is going to be, do we want to see the patient die or live to fight another day. I hate that kind of choice, but it is what it is. Like you, however, I’m prepared for the eventuality that the patient dies. And you can bet that, if Obama is re-elected, and has 4 years to do what he wants, it’s more than likely that the patient dies. Even with a GOP House and Senate, there’ no doubt in my mind, given the kinds of people he’s surrounded himself with and given his own words, that he’ll circumvent Congress at every possible opportunity.
GMB,
As we have discussed on too many occasions, I am not looking for the next President to be the “messiah”, or the “perfect conservative”. I am looking for the next President to bring common sense, fiscal responsibility and a belief in free market capitalism back to the white house. Once we get our house in order, then maybe can we start to address other issues. In a football game, the coach is not looking to win the game in the first quarter, he is simply looking to win the next play.
I grow tired of idealists like yourself that have scorched earth policies if they don’t get their way.
Over principled, rigid, now a prima donna. Well, at least it is a new insult and not one of the old and worn out ones. – GMB
Actually they are one in the same. A prima donna is a person that is overly rigid & self absorbed. So it is not a new insult, just a different spin on the old ones – 🙂
I grow tired of idealists like yourself that have scorched earth policies if they don’t get their way.
And what way would that be Sir? Perfection? Hardly. Maybe just a GOP that might be willing to stick to it’s guns over any one small issue on the national level. Maybe a GOP that can take the heat for more than just one day before they cave.
That is too much much to ask.
I know this. I denoucnce myself for being to rigid and over principled and for being a prima donna and an avocate of scorched earth. Oh and for being too dramatic.
Maybe just a GOP that might be willing to stick to it’s guns over any one small issue on the national level.
And what makes you think Newt or Mitt wont? Let’s put it this way – If Newt or Mitt get elected, I can not promise you success, but if Obama is reelected, I can guarantee you failure.
I don’t see it as “over principled” but merely as tunnel visioned.
And, yes, quite dramatic in your overweening pride in what you choose to call your “principles” when what you are really talking about is your bullheadedness.
Well, we have the same principles of conservative ideals. It’s just that we also understand that lacking a magic wand or other device to arbitrarily replace the current policies all at once with ideal ones, we are pretty much stuck with the reality of taking the process one step at a time.
In football, you don’t throw the bomb on every play, with the attitude of “touchdown or nothing”. No, you take your smaller gains, you understand that sometimes you will lose some yardage, and you understand that most scoring comes after a patient and steady move down the field.
Sure, every one of us would be thrilled to have the ideal candidate suddenly spark overwhelming support and surge to the Presidency. But, understanding that we are not going to be able to get the ideal candidate this time, we are ready to push for what we can get, and to start grooming a set of better candidates for the future.
Part of this is the ability to understand the cunning and ability of the Left, and the gullibility of too many of the American voters. Real success, long term and permanent success, has to be gradual because it depends so heavily on reeducating America about the Constitution and the history of successes we have experienced when we followed it. Without that gradual process, we can easily find ourselves in the same position the Leftist ideologues are in today—-that of having pushed too hard, too fast, and scared the timid tier of American voters into a rebound vote.
Cluster. As far as Romney goes, I could probably sit here for an hour posting videos of Romney saying one thing and another video of Romney saying the exact opposite. Do you dispute this fact?
As far as Newt goes. He has a history of quitting on commitments. Unfair? Maybe. But it is up to the quitter to convince that he won’t quit this time.
I denounce myself for everything you might disagree with.
All the repub party needs to do is to provide one victory however small. One small victory in the facing the toughest of opposition. One small victory will put bullheads like me firmly behind the repubs again.
They seem unwilling to provide it.
Like I said GMB, I don’t care to convince you of anything. I think you are best suited for the sidelines waiting for the messiah, while I and other conservatives will try and do the heavy lifting. That way you don’t get your hands dirty. Then one day, maybe you can feel vindicated and proclaim victory all the while not really having any role in that victory.
Enjoy the show
Enjoy the show?
That is where you get me very wrong Cluster. I did not spend 18 years of my life on active and reserve duty with the United States Army to “enjoy the show”.
I got my hands plenty dirty to make sure that people have thier rights to voice thier opinions on such things as B4V.
My blind faith in the republican party is gone. There are millions more like me out there. Enough to effect the next election? Who knows?
In the end, I fear, the repub party needs us more than we need them.
My blind faith in the republican party is gone
I have never had blind faith in any political candidate or party. I simply work with what’s in front of me and try and affect the most positive outcome I can.
Here I am somewhat in the middle as I have changed my party affiliation to Libertarian because neither of the two major parties fit my views any longer. They have left me and not the other way around. As far as voting goes–I never miss a chance, and even if I have to hold my nose and vote for a RINO like McCain or a Progressive-lite like Bush–I will take that over a Socialist like Obama.
I guess I would have to completely agree with Cluster here as “I have never had blind faith in any political candidate or party. I simply work with what’s in front of me and try and affect the most positive outcome I can.” Basically, I will do the same next year no matter but there is a chance with the new rules that we could end up with a brokered convention which could net us a Santorum, Bachmann, or even another look at Palin or Cain. That would make me feel a great deal better about casting my vote.
The Libs are going nuts about the Repubs “caving” but in reality it really wasn’t a loss for Repubs but rather the spin presented by the MSM. Obama and the Repubs were on the same page for a year extension (which I do not believe in) and the Dems flinched because of Keystone and the “over 1 million” taxes were on and off the table respectively.
At this point we have started replacing RINOs with Conservative members in the House. We need the same in the Senate and WH but I will take one small step forward as better than a giant leap backwards. Then again I do not get Liberal “thinking” when working folks (of all levels) are forced to participate in entitlements like SS but then whine like little girls if we expect to collect some of it back. As I have stated previously–just give me a lump sum of what I have paid in at this point (without interest or penalties unlike the IRS) and do not take anymore out and I could do better over the next 15 years than they have done in the first 32 plus.
That, and I also always wonder what the final outcome these Progressives really want because Socialism is only a stepping stone and not a final destination.
On a completely different tangent–I am really getting tired of this “you have to go to the middle to win” crap as if you look at the elections since Goldwater, every Republican victory was based on being Conservative, principled, and projecting a positive, forward-looking message. I may not have made up my mind as to the candidate yet, but pandering to idiots and the mushy middle ground never won anything. If you haven’t decided at this point between Socialism and hopefully something more Constitutional at this point–I don’t really want your vote. Pandering hurts more than it helps.
db, I agree that we do not have to go to the middle, much less the Left, to win.
We need to look at what is happening in our search for a candidate.
On one hand, we have the Left and its Complicit Agenda Media, aided by attack dog minions like the trolls we see here, trying to herd us like sheep toward the candidate THEY want us to have. They know there is an excellent chance that Barry will be defeated in November so they want us to be stuck with the candidate who will do the least harm to the Leftist policies they already have in place while they regroup for another go at the Big Show.
On the other, we have the establishment GOP, harried by true conservatives and hounded by the TEA Party types to move back to true conservative principles and trying to appease them while in reality fighting for their own status quo.
This is why we are, at this moment, facing a choice between Mitt and Newt.
And this is why we as conservatives need to work toward a brokered convention, which will mean keeping any one candidate from getting enough primary votes to lock up the nomination. This is our only chance at getting a true conservative on the ballot.
Socialism is only a stepping stone and not a final destination.
Written by someone who has actually taken the time to study Leftist ideology and its agendas, and who takes its statements at face value.
I only wish there were more who would do this.
And this is why we as conservatives need to work toward a brokered convention, which will mean keeping any one candidate from getting enough primary votes to lock up the nomination. This is our only chance at getting a true conservative on the ballot.
Sounds a lot like the GOP version of “Operation Chaos”. There are certainly at least a half dozen candidates not currently running that would be preferable, IMO, to most, if not all of the present choices.
Can I have my pizzia topped with arugula? Yummy??
Amazona, I like the bullheaded comparison. I would have to agree. With me it is not a bug but a feature.
Yeah, I’ve always found the “I Meant To Do That” response a convincing rejoinder when something is pointed out.
spook asked, “Watson, any luck finding any evidence that Boehner and McConnell had some kind of advance agreement on the 60 days extension?”
Sorry, spook, better things to do these past few days than hang out here. 🙂 But I did take a look this morning, and I agree that you may well be correct. However, we do have the letter from Senator Reid to Speaker Boehner which said, in part:
“You and I agree that this should be our goal. But as these weeks have made clear, there remain differences between our parties over how to fund and implement these programs that will take longer then a few days to reconcile.
“Recognizing this reality, eighty-nine Republican and Democratic senators came together to agree to a short-term extension of these programs. As you requested when we met last Wednesday, Senator McConnell and I worked together to find this common ground.” (Emphasis mine.)
Then there is the statements by Rep. Louie Gohmert, in which he complains that “If the message had been properly communicated to the Senate that we were not going to go along with a two month extension, then the Senate would not have voted 89 votes for that extension.” He goes on, “The Senate ‘had the word that, according to them, that they’d been told we’ll go along with a two month extension.'” I wonder how they got that impression.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to you. 2012 should be an interesting year to say the least!
And this quote from Senator Reid reported on December 18: “When we met last week, Speaker Boehner requested that [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell [(Ky.)] and I work out a compromise. Neither side got everything they wanted, but we forged a middle ground that passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.”
Maybe they did, maybe they didn’t.
My point is merely that your quotes don’t prove that they did, or prove anything, really, other than that you find what you want to find by carefully selecting how you interpret things. (Not surprising, given your apparent political leanings.)
For example, your own quote, with my own emphasis: As you requested when we met last Wednesday, Senator McConnell and I worked together to find this common ground.”
The REQUEST was made “last Wednesday” AFTER WHICH the working together took place.
And no one knows when the Senate “had the word” about whether or not the House would go along with a compromise. Or, for that matter, who gave them “the word”. So wonder away.
Nice to have such a starry-eyed faith in the old Peevish Possum to believe he would never phrase a statement like his with the intent of sowing discord by implying (though only to the gullible) that there had been an advance agreement.
And your Reid quote is vague and irrelevant to the point you are trying to create.
“When we met last week, Speaker Boehner requested that [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell [(Ky.)] and I work out a compromise.”
Yeah. And what, specifically, was the nature of the compromise Speaker Boehner had in mind? Where does Ried state that what Boehner had in mind was a two month extension? Where does he state that this request telegraphed an intent to give in to the Dem insistence on only a two month extension instead of the year he and the House wanted? Where does he state that McConnell would not demand that REID give more than the GOP?
Right. None of this was in Reid’s statement. What WAS?
“Neither side got everything they wanted, but we forged a middle ground that passed the Senate by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.”
Again, no reference to when this “forging” took place.
wattle, I notice that you have scuttled over to this thread without answering any of the questions I posed to you on the Bill of Rights thread.
These are not complicated questions, so I wonder why you refuse to acknowledge or answer them.
Would you like to have them moved up to a more current thread so you can reply in a forum more likely to be read?
When you use forbidden vulgarity you will lose your entire post, not just the offensive word. //Moderator
watstooge
You can’t judge my comments on face value?
we can and you are judged to be an azzahola
Oh, wattle, I DO judge your comments on their face value, and the judgement is that your so-called political beliefs are shallow, superficial, and based upon nothing more than emotion-based dislike of a system you clearly do not understand any more than you understand the one you support and defend.
You refuse to explain your political beliefs because you know you can’t defend them, even if you were to expend the intellectual energy necessary to understand the system you appear to believe in.
You admit as much when you whimper that if you were to be candid about your belief system, I could easily “….pick it apart…” . And you’re right. I could. Anyone with even the most basic knowledge of the relentless failures of Leftism could. You can whine that this would be done in a “….sneering, condescending manner…” but this is just a feeble (and failed) effort to conceal the simple fact that you don’t know anything, that you FEEL a lot of things which you cannot begin to defend or support, and that one of the things you FEEL is that sniping at people about things you also do not understand constitutes political discourse.
I don’t care about your political philosophy for the simple reason that it does not exist, beyond the foolish belief that if you cloak your peevish and hateful pathology in the pretense that it is really political commentary you can validate it.
Wrong.
True political commentary is based on an objective allegiance to a clearly stated and understood political model, or system, and the ability to define it, explain it, and defend it.
Simply hurling insults, as you do, is just a personality disorder.
Amasneera said, “Simply hurling insults, as you do, is just a personality disorder.” Obviously, that is something you know a lot about.
And if you don’t care about my political philosophy, then why do you keep insulting me because I haven’t spelled it out for you? And exactly what political philosophy is demonstrated on this blog? The posts are almost exclusively simple-minded attacks on President Obama and now puff pieces supporting Newt Gingrich. Has Matt EVER written a post with actual political philosophy content?
And why do I need to state a philosophy in order to correct your misunderstanding about the timeline that led to the Senate compromise vote? You were wrong; I corrected it.
And by the way, I never did read your question on the Bill of Rights thread, so why don’t you repost it here. It’s a joy reading your rants, you know.
wattles, I merely point out that you, like the other PL trolls who clutter this and other conservative blogs, HAVE no clear-cut political philosophy, which leads to the obvious question of “why are you here?”
Without a coherent political philosophy, you can’t discuss politics in a coherent fashion. This is why you, and your ilk, are focused on the tabloid level of what you clearly define as “politics”—-race, age, weight, appearance, gender, education, scandal (real or invented) and such superficial fluff.
You rattle on about events, quoting at great length from those who have written or spoken about them, but you are never able to link those events to a legitimate political model and support or decry them based on how they relate to your objective beliefs about how the county should be governed.
What is really funny to those of us who understand this is the new and frantic effort to pretend that having an objective political philosophy is not only not necessary, expecting discourse to be based on it is silly. But you are not convincing anyone.
Every conservative posting here can, and has, explained his or her political philosophy, often at great length, and our choices and our opinions are clearly based upon it. You Pseudo-Libs, on the other hand, tap dance around any effort to figure out WHY you say what you say, leaving us with the observation that you can’t explain it because you are not basing your comments on anything more substantial than ignorant, anti-conservative, bigotry.
It’s this blind and often hysterical dependence on emotion that leads to such nonsense as this: “The posts are almost exclusively simple-minded attacks on President Obama and now puff pieces supporting Newt Gingrich. ”
There are only two possible explanations for a comment like this. One is based on the Alinksy/radical Leftist dogma that lying is OK if it advances radical Leftism, but that would imply a much deeper understanding of the Left than I think you possess.
The other is that everything you think you know has passed through so many filters of anti-conservative bigotry and hyper-emotionalism that it ends up so distorted that this is how you really perceive it.
Unfortunately for you, you offered up two examples of the end result of your filtering of reality that are so blatantly false they jump out at anyone who has actually READ these posts you misrepresent.
Yes, we understand that your limited grasp of politics is so personality-oriented, so identity-based, that you probably don’t have a clue as to the difference between not liking a person and disagreeing with his politics. To you, and the political lightweights like you, personality IS politics. So of course any comment on the policies, goals and agendas of Obama are really just “simple-minded attacks” on HIM, as a person. After all, this is how you see the world, and this is how you approach critiques of Republicans.
To someone just skimming the surface of politics, like you, oblivious to ideology and the workings of either system, the many detailed analyses of the political careers of GOP hopefuls, of their histories and successes and failures and policies and, yes, philosophies, would just be incomprehensible background noise, and all you could glean from any positive comment would be as simplistic as calling it a “puff piece”.
And I didn’t HAVE a “misunderstanding” of this timeline you find so compelling.
That is why I said My point is merely that your quotes don’t prove that they did (have an earlier agreement). You supported this by then bringing in other quotes.
Let’s see if the third time is a charm:
….. tell us how legislation regarding the entry of the federal government into private health care, and making laws requiring individuals to enter into contracts and make purchases, complies with this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tell us which power delegated to the United States by the Constitution requires the government to participate in private health care.
(Because that is what DELEGATED means. It does not mean “can” or “may” or anything but MUST.)
Then explain how, if this is not a power DELEGATED to the United States government, BY THE CONSTITUTION, it is legal.
The body of the original Constitution includes the enumerated duties of the federal government—the MUSTS.
The Bill of Rights says what the federal government CANNOT do.
Anything that falls between the MUSTS and the CAN’Ts is, to quote the 10th Amendment, …reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Amysneera, you ask, why am I here? Mainly to understand the thinking of far right conservatives. See, unlike you, I try to absorb different points of view. I also visit liberal sites and ones in between.
Why do I post here? Usually to point out hypocrisy or factual errors, such as your factually incorrect interpretation of the Boehner-McConnell-Reid timeline.
When I say “The posts are almost exclusively simple-minded attacks on President Obama and now puff pieces supporting Newt Gingrich,” by “posts” I mean the ones written by the B4V staff, not the comments that follow. Look at the recent posts, leaving out the open threads: “Newt Did NOT Agree With Mitt on Health Care.” “Liberal Group Tries To Sell Newt Gingrich.com for $1 Mil.” “Newt Tells Gay Iowa Voter to Vote for Obama.” “The Brilliant Thomas Sowell endorses Newt.” “Barak Obama – The man and the Myth.” My, those are rich in political philosophy. Just Newt puff pieces and attacks on President Obama and evil liberals. And I stand by my statement that Matt has never written a post on this blog that expounds on his political philosophy.
You say, “The other is that everything you think you know has passed through so many filters of anti-conservative bigotry and hyper-emotionalism that it ends up so distorted that this is how you really perceive it.” Look, we don’t know each other except from this blog. My perception of you is what you write, as is my perception of, say, Clown. You may be a warm person in the flesh, and Clown may actually be articulate, but we could never tell from what you two write here.
As for the constitutional basis of the health care reform law, you know that at least parts of it are headed to the Supreme Court to decide. (Or do you agree with your pal Newt that if the president and Congress decide something, that ought to be good enough?)
As for your selective cherry picking of the Constitution, you left out a couple of parts from Article I, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power:
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
You obviously left them out because they don’t fit your view of what you want the Constitution to be.
I’m done with this thread since it’s pretty stale. Maybe we’ll pick it up another time.
watstooge
I’m done with this thread since it’s pretty stale.
Bub Buyah !!
I don’t come here to be “warm”—I come here to exchange ideas, which too often involves avoiding speed bumps like you.
I did not HAVE a “…factually incorrect interpretation of the Boehner-McConnell-Reid timeline…” I didn’t have one at all. I merely pointed out that what you claimed proved your point did not, in fact, prove it at all. Which you proved to be correct by then bringing in other quotes. As I have also pointed out.
This is just another example of you going on and on about something when the facts prove you wrong, by simply ignoring the facts and arguing what your emotions tell you is going on.
And what, exactly, IS a “far right conservative”? Someone who really REALLY REALLY believes in the Constitution?
If you can’t even define your own political position, how can you define ours?
If you can’t even base your comments on a clearly defined and understood political position, why are you writing about opinions you can’t even defend? Pick a political model which you think is the best way to run the nation, base your comments on explaining, promoting, defending or supporting that model or why it is better than the alternative, and your opinions will belong on a political blog. Till then, you are just emoting.
Yes, we all understand that you find some statements resonating with your personal biases, and it makes you feel good, and maybe even smart, or relevant, to pass them on in a hostile and confrontational manner. But don’t expect to be taken seriously if that’s the sum total of your political knowledge or interest.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
I did not mention these parts of the Constitution because they are not relevant to anything we are talking about. This is not “cherry-picking” —what a silly claim. I did not “…(leave) them out because they don’t fit (my) view of what (I) want the Constitution to be.” What an utterly ridiculous claim, though another peek into how your mind twists things.
The parts you quote absolutely fit into my view of what the Constitution IS—they just don’t have anything to do with Obamacare.
The ridiculously named health care reform act doesn’t deal with commerce with foreign nations, or commerce among states, or with Indian tribes.
There is no power vested by the Constitution to force people to buy things or enter into contracts.
Newt is not my “pal” and I do not believe you accurately state his belief.
I notice that this thread got “stale” right about the time wattle was put on the spot, again, and challenged to answer specific questions.
Funny how that works……….
“And by the way, I never did read your question on the Bill of Rights thread, so why don’t you repost it here…..” ….so I can scurry away from it, feigning boredom.