DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 23, 2011, 06:28:51 PM
-
...and it wasn't pretty
----------------------------------------
The GOP’s payroll tax debacle
Now that Congress has reached agreement on what must be one of the worst pieces of legislation in years — the temporary payroll tax holiday extension — let’s survey the damage.
To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed by the Senate just days before the new year: “There is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal,” because “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February,” thereby creating “substantial problems, confusion and costs.”
The final compromise appears to tweak this a bit to make it less onerous for small business. But what were they thinking in the first place? What business operates two months at a time? The minimal time horizon for business is the quarter — three months. What genius came up with two? U.S. businesses would have to budget for two-thirds of a one-quarter tax-holiday extension. As if this government has not already heaped enough regulatory impediments and mindless uncertainties upon business.
But making economic sense is not the point. The tax-holiday extension — presumably to be negotiated next year into a 12-month extension — is the perfect campaign ploy: an election-year bribe that has the additional virtue of seizing the tax issue for the Democrats.
When George McGovern campaigned on giving every household $1,000, he was laughed out of town as a shameless panderer. President Obama is doing exactly the same — a one-year tax holiday that hands back about $1,000 per middle-class family — but with a little more subtlety.
Obama is also selling it as a job creator. This takes audacity. Even a one-year extension isn’t a tax cut; it’s a tax holiday. A two-month extension is nothing more than a long tax weekend. What employer is going to alter his hiring decisions — whose effects last years — in anticipation of a one-year tax holiday, let alone two months?
This is a $121 billion annual drain on the Treasury that makes a mockery of the Democrats’ reverence for the Social Security trust fund and its inviolability. Obama’s OMB director took Social Security completely off the table in debt-reduction talks under the pretense that Social Security is self-financing. This is pure fiction, because the Treasury supplies whatever shortfalls Social Security faces. But now, with the payroll tax holiday, the administration openly demonstrates bad faith — conceding with its actions that the payroll tax is, after all, interchangeable with other revenue and never actually sequestered to ensure future payments to retirees.
The House Republicans’ initial rejection of this two-month extension was therefore correct on principle and on policy. But this was absolutely the wrong place, the wrong time, to plant the flag. Once Senate Republicans overwhelmingly backed the temporary extension, that part of the fight was lost. Opposing it became kamikaze politics.
Note the toll it is already taking on Republicans. For three decades Republicans owned the tax issue. Today, Obama leads by five points, a 12-point swing since just early October. The payroll tax ploy has even affected his overall approval rating, now up five points (in six weeks) to 49 percent.
The Democrats set a trap and the Republicans walked right into it. By rejecting an ostensibly bipartisan “compromise,” the Republican House was portrayed as obstructionist and, even worse, heartless — willing to raise taxes on the middle class while resolutely opposing any tax increases on the rich.
House Republicans compounded this debacle by begging the Senate to come back and renegotiate the issue, thus entirely conceding the initiative to Majority Leader Harry Reid. But Reid had little incentive to make any concessions. House Republicans would have taken the fall for 160 million shrunken paychecks. Every day the White House would have demanded, in the name of the suffering middle class, that Republicans return from vacation and pass the temporary extension.
Having finally realized they had trapped themselves, House Republicans quickly caved, with help from a fig leaf contrived by Sen. Mitch McConnell.
The GOP’s performance nicely reprises that scene in “Animal House” where the marching band turns into a blind alley and row after row of plumed morons plows into a brick wall, crumbling to the ground in an unceremonious heap.
With one difference: House Republicans are unplumed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-payroll-tax-debacle/2011/12/22/gIQAUjgPCP_story.html).
-
The 'baggers are morons,and this proved it.
Odds are they will continue to be morons. Stupid is incurable.
It makes no sense to say that what is right to do for 12 months is somehow wrong to do for two.
-
It is for businesses that don't operate 2 months at a time :o I'm just curious who the lead moron was to push for the 2month political pill
-
I doubt this will change my vote in any way. it does make my desire for Boehner to be replaced as Speaker, much stronger.
-
Agreed
-
Krauthammer, by the way, get tiresome with his constant whining.
-
Not agreed
-
my goal with my last post was not consensus.
-
Krauthammer is a fool and should be ignored. Boehner will be returned to the Speaker's position unless the moronic 'baggers can find an acceptable replacement. They are dolts, so this is very unlikely.
-
It's amazing how many folks Xo believes should be ignored, be it politicians, pundits, or even patrons of our saloon. Good thing he has no power to enforce such a policy
-
Au contraire: I have the absolute power to ignore Krauthammer forever.
-
If that is what it takes to counter the logic.
-
There is little logic in Krauthammer. It is rather like he was expressly hired to whine and kvetch.
There is far less logic in the Teasie movement.
-
What logic of Krouthammer's do yu find weak or broken?
-
Among other things, his desire that the US continue to slavishly support Netanyahu. His refusal to admit that the current economic crisis could not be cured in a couple of years by any president, and his support for the Republicans and 'baggers being obstructionists.
-
Au contraire: I have the absolute power to ignore Krauthammer forever.
That was never at issue.......Krauthammer is a fool and should be ignored.....were your words Notice that has nothing to do with what you can do, but dovetails nicely with your all too frequent references to a whole host of folks who should be ignored, saloon patrons included. As I said, good thing you have no power to enforce such a policy
-
By "should be ignored" I certainly did not mean that he should be censored. It is like saying "tobacco should not be smoked", or "pants with broken zippers should not be worn". Should does not mean "be made illegal".
-
But if you had the power, one can only imagine how many folks you'd deem needed to be ignored. And that was the point, not the irrelevancy of what you can do personally
-
It's amazing how many folks Xo believes should be ignored,
be it politicians, pundits, or even patrons of our saloon.
But have you noticed everyone he wants silenced are conservatives?
-
"Conservatives" are, by and large dolts, crackpots and dittoheads. They are free to natter on all they wish. But those who listen to them and take them seriously would be better of if they ignored them.
-
So, let's turn that around for more accuracy......"Hard core Liberals" are, by and large dolts, crackpots and dittoheads. They are free to natter on all they wish. But those who listen to them and take them seriously would be better of if they ignored them.
There....much better, and far more accurate 8)
-
It's amazing how many folks Xo believes should be ignored,
be it politicians, pundits, or even patrons of our saloon.
But have you noticed everyone he wants silenced are conservatives?
Yep....which is why its a good thing we don't live in such a fascist/socialist state, where only that which is deemed appropriate, by those who just "know better" than the rest of us, is "allowed" to be heard
-
Where do you get that XO wanted anyone silenced?
Could someone post a link to where he used those words? In my book ignored does not equal silenced.
-
SHOULD indicates desired behavior. Krauthammer is a predictable rightwing clown. I occasionally read his column when it appears in the Miami Herald once in a while, and I find his opinions to be batty and his arguments to be feeble. So I do not heed his opinions, and just as I never leave the house without my pants, because I perceive that pants wearing is something I SHOULD do, I do not take Krauthammer seriously. He cam hammer all the kraut he wishes, and I shall ignore it all, because I SHOULD.
-
Where do you get that XO wanted anyone silenced?
Could someone post a link to where he used those words?
In my book ignored does not equal silenced.
merry christmas mr literal
ignored...silenced...whatever Big Bad T
hell in my opinion he'd "look the other way" if conservatives were lined to a firing squad
oh by the way...if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it fall....is it's fall silenced?
or if everybody puts a poster on an "ignore" feature is that poster silenced?
-
Where do you get that XO wanted anyone silenced? Could someone post a link to where he used those words? In my book ignored does not equal silenced.
In my book the notion of "should", speaks as to intent, since no one is arguing he can't ignore it himself. And the issue I brought about, is that if the hard core left had the socialist/fascist powers it strives for, such power to dictate who should be ignored, would likely become law. NOT that Xo has come out to claim how Conservatives are to be made silent.
Nice reading into something that was never there though. Why am I not surprised
-
ignored is to silenced as wounded is to shot dead.
It goes to accuracy. It goes to speaking the truth versus misrepresenting one's remarks.
And in the end it reflects on your own credibility. If that is important to you.
-
And should is to should
What's important to me, and the "credible" portion, is what I've said, and not what someone tries to read in to it, something that isn't. I'll focus on the former, regardless of your efforts to focus on the latter
-
Nice strawmen. But my question was related to whether XO had used the term silenced as CU stated. Not sure why you are inserting yourself into the conversation.
Do you believe ignore and silence are synonymous?
-
Of course I don't. Irrelvent though, since that was never the main term to focus on. It was the word "should". But I understand the need to focus on something other. When trying to concoct a strawman, best start with something that's not the issue, nor the point to begin with. Easier then to then paint a position, that never was. Cudos on the effort
-
So your response to my original query was not actually a response to my query since you never claimed that XO had wished anyone silenced.
And since you had never said that XO had made that uttering I'm curious why you bothered to respond to my query.
But as long as you are projecting leftist powers how would a leftist fascist government enforce ignoring certain specific speakers.
outside of silencing those certain specific speakers, of course.
Which kind of brings us back full circle.
-
Sorry you are having so much trouble with the words "should" and "Ignored", sirs. I see these as entirely unambiguous.
-
So your response to my original query was not actually a response to my query since you never claimed that XO had wished anyone silenced.
Precisely. Only that if hard core leftists, like him, had the power, they'd likely exercise it
But as long as you are projecting leftist powers how would a leftist fascist government enforce ignoring certain specific speakers.
Behind "legislation", then behind a badge, to enforce said legislation
-
And in the end it reflects on your own credibility. If that is important to you.
i can assure you...when you are in this mode.....my credibility with you.....is not very important to me
-
Nice strawmen. But my question was related to whether XO had used the term silenced as CU stated.
By the way Mr Literal....
You are wrong again.
Go back and read.
I did not state XO used the term "silenced".
I used the word "silenced".....thats my description of what I think he would like to see
I never said he used that term.
Not sure why you are inserting yourself into the conversation.
Why should Sirs not enter the conversation when I directed a question to him that you commented on?
How is it that you can enter a conversation/question directed at SIRS, but he should stay out of it?
More "silence" needed?
-
I used the word "silenced".....thats my description of what I think he would like to see
Right! So you misrepresented what he said (ignore) to match the template of how you see him. Some fascist socialist willy nilly silencing people with differing opinions.
Which was my point exactly. If he didn't say it why misrepresent his message?
-
Right!
No you are wrong again!
So you misrepresented what he said (ignore) to match the template of how you see him.
LOL....BT how is it that am "misrepresenting" what he said when I clearly state what I view
as his end goals? Your jumping to wild conclusions to connect your wrong assumptions is
funny when the facts clearly do not side with you.
Which was my point exactly. If he didn't say it why misrepresent his message?
But again you are missing the point to jump to your predictable conclusions.
You are assuming you "own" my point....that you understand "my" point better than I do.
That is clearly insane....and an obvious desperate attempt to salvage your mis-calculation.
My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.
Again I never stated what you said I stated.
In a thread the topic sometimes evolves to the next point someone makes...
building off whats already said....thus a quote to build off of
sometimes a "bigger point" can be made as happened here.
I was "taking the next step" to the point SIRS was making....adding my opinion.
and you wrongly assumed I was only talking about the exact words SIRS or XO used.
i guess I can understand how you could easily make that mistake.
-
how is it that am "misrepresenting" what he said when I clearly state what I view
as his end goals?
And you came to conclude his end goals (silencing differing opinions) were based on what? What was the tip off? What word did he use that gave you that aha moment?
My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.
Good to see that liberals are not the only ones capable of those tactics.
-
If they are silenced by ridicule, it is because they clearly perceive that their own followers are drifting away because they see the ridicule as genuine and do not wish to be ridiculed themselves for being a follower of a ridiculous person. This is what happened to both Cain and Perry. Cain claimed up to the last that all charges against him were phoney and said that he was only "suspending" his campaign, when in fact it is over. Perry could not remember his own stupid stump speech and revealed that he was a goober: a less educated and more ignorant clown than Juniorbush.
Ridicule only works when people perceive it as ridiculous. Mitt Romney's alleged Holy Temple Garment Mormon underwear is apparently not sufficiently ridiculous or is seen as off-limits to ridicule. Of course, a president's underwear could not possibly cause a president to make dumb decisions. Both Cain and Perry revealed that they were less than mentally agile, and that WAS seen as important.
-
My point in my remark to SIRS is that I have come to conclusion that XO would like to see
Conservatives silenced by various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.
Good to see that liberals are not the only ones capable of those tactics.
And what "tactics" are those?? Examples of Cu4, myself, or even any other Conservative expressing how others SHOULD be ignored, would be helpful, that dovetails with a philosophy of a larger government exercising what "should" be done to the populace, will be helpful
-
Exaples of Cu4, myself, or even any other Conservative expressing how others SHOULD be ignored, would be helpful, that dovetails with a philosophy of a larger government exercising what "should" be done to the populace, will be helpful
================
Why? Helpful for what purpose?
-
Why, to demonstrate apparently similar "tactics" as liberals. That was the claim. Time for some back-up now
-
So taking a statement and extrapolating from that a completely exaggerated representation of what was actually said, including the cooperation of a bigger government in silencing the great unwashed would not qualify as a tactic of the left and now apparently the right?
various methods....by ridicule, by law, by savage personal attacks, witch hunts, whatever.
-
Still waiting for some examples.
And, no, one who has a political ideology that sees ever expanding government, with ever increasing rules, regulations, mandates, and laws, as a good thing, does not make an extrapolating statement of what should occur, farfetched, or a "completely exaggerated representation"
And also NO, that also does not equate to claiming Xo is on record as wanting to silence conservatives either........just in case you were going to try that misrepresentation tactic
So, what again are these tactics, and examples of such, that the right are using, analogus to the left again? Did I miss someone claiming that Xo should be ignored, or Conservatives supporing an ignoring of.......let's say Michael Moore, and also supports a Government bent on enforcing all the "should" dos??
-
What you fail to understand is XO never said what you in your and CU's fevered imagination project him to have said.
What you and your fellow alinsky-ites did was take his statement and turn it into some Reductio ad absurdum charge. In other words lies were told about what he said and what he meant.
Any visions of enforced ignoring came from your fevered brows.
-
So, no examples, just a misdirected extrapolated misrepresentation yourself, with no supportive backup, while ignoring precisely what was said. Looks like this next year, is going to have the same accusatory flavor as this last year. Bummers :o
-
Actually i gave you examples. I don't believe XO mentioned government enforcement in his advice to ignore certain speakers.
You took a simple statement. Ignore X and turned it into if you don't ignore x you will be punished.
I ignore Michael Moore all the time. Come and get me coppers. Top o' the world Ma!
-
No, you didn't. An "example" would include someone from the right proclaiming how someone from the left SHOULD be ignored, while having adopted a political ideology that favors government imposing what SHOULD be done.
And you ignored where I never claimed Xo said "x".
And you ignored where I made it clear that folks like Xo, IF given the power, WOULD LIKELY impose mandates on what should be ignored
Yep, 2012 misrpresentations, starting to shape up to look alot like 2011
-
So you never claimed that XO's ignore statement would if HE had his way would end up being encoded in some big government program to silence those who offend XO's sensibilities. You never projected his simple statement to mean that which he did not state.
You never took his simple statement and exaggerated it to the point of absurdity (worthy of ridicule no doubt) did you.
Now unless you are now claiming you are not a member of the right, a conservative partisan if you will, then i don't see how you can deny that you and others are engaged in the same type of actions that you curse the alinksky-ites for.
-
Funny thread.
My conclusion? Conservatives should start putting pants on before they leave their house.
BSB
-
So, again, no "example" of someone from the right proclaiming how someone from the left SHOULD be ignored, while having adopted a political ideology that favors government imposing what SHOULD be done.
And again:
you ignored where I never claimed Xo said "x".
you ignored where I made it clear that folks like Xo, given the predisposed political ideology, and IF given the power, WOULD LIKELY impose mandates on what should be ignored
Yep, 2012 misrpresentations, starting to shape up to look alot like 2011
-
So, again, no "example" of someone from the right proclaiming how someone from the left SHOULD be ignored, while having adopted a political ideology that favors government imposing what SHOULD be done.
And again:
you ignored where I never claimed Xo said "x".
you ignored where I made it clear that folks like Xo, given the predisposed political ideology, and IF given the power, WOULD LIKELY impose mandates on what should be ignored
Yep, 2012 misrpresentations, starting to shape up to look alot like 2011
Is it really possible that you are that stupid?
-
What you and your fellow alinsky-ites did was take his statement and turn it into some Reductio ad absurdum charge. In other words lies were told about what he said and what he meant.
Well, they *could* use the defense that they were "reading between the lines"...
-
Mikey T used to do that all the time.
Hmmm.
-
Is it really possible that you are that stupid?
===================================
This is entirely possible.
A true follower of Alinsky would be a lot funnier than sirs, I think.
I recall some very funny parodies poking fun at the John Birchers, the Hunt Brothers and even William F. Buckley, who liked to fiddle with that pencil in an almost obscene way when debating his philosophy.
-
Well you don't have to be a follower of Alinsky to use his tactics. You may not even be aware that the tactics you use were enumerated by Saul.
-
I see Alinsky as a fellow who simply wrote down a number of effective tactics for winning battles in the political arena that had been used and proven effective over the course of time. The righties seem to see him as Satan Himself.
-
Perhaps that is because Hillary wrote her graduate thesis about him(which was blocked for public release) , and Obama taught Alinsky's methods in Chicago.
Tactics are tactics. If they work so be it.
-
So far no one is being scilenced .
but the signal to noise ratio is suffering.
-
So, again, no "example" of someone from the right proclaiming how someone from the left SHOULD be ignored, while having adopted a political ideology that favors government imposing what SHOULD be done.
And again:
you ignored where I never claimed Xo said "x".
you ignored where I made it clear that folks like Xo, given the predisposed political ideology, and IF given the power, WOULD LIKELY impose mandates on what should be ignored
Yep, 2012 misrpresentations, starting to shape up to look alot like 2011
Is it really possible that you are that stupid?
Nice. I don't think I'm going to climb down to your level, at this time
-
Yep, 2012 misrpresentations, starting to shape up to look alot like 2011
Nice. I don't think I'm going to climb down to your level, at this time
You got there before i did. Long before I did.
-
Pointing out your theme & pattern of misrepresenting others is not going down any hole. Calling people names is. Sorry. That's kinda how the way it sorks
-
I'm sure you can back up your charges.That's kinda how the way it sorks
Or is it just obvious!!!!!
-
Oh, lemme count the ways- Misrepresenting sirs in:
This thread, implying some sort of sirs claim that Xo said he wants certain folks silenced
implying that sirs is a bigot towards the Muslim religion, for daring to not support a mosque being built near ground zero
implying that sirs supports the fairness doctrine, because he dares to point out media bias
The biggest was when I called you on one, and you tried to turn it around and demand an apology from me...or else. And then kicked me out, for daring not to apologise for YOUR mispresenting me
I can go on, but those are the biggies, that have gone on thru-out 2011, and even before that.
And yea, you can then say, give me some quotes. The issue then becomes do I want to take that kind of time necessary to search archives, that may or may not have them any more, due to some "glitch", or can I rest knowing that you know exactly what I'm talking about, as do most others, who have followed our back and forth, over the last year. Given the holiday season, and family, I'll opt with the latter, and let you keep up with the name calling, if you so wish, or some deflection as to "see, no proof, no quotes" I've provided you examples, per your request, and yea, they were pretty obvious, as well
If the saloon partrons are tired of this ever frequent Bt witch-hunt on sirs (and occasionally Cu4), I'll gladly step aside, for the good of the saloon's health.
-
This thread, implying some sort of sirs claim that Xo said he wants certain folks silenced
Where did i do that?
-
Every debate with sirs ends in a perplexing muddle, as sirs denies that he really meant what he said or said what he meant to mean. Or whatever.
-
With the whatever part being all the arguement and associated implication of a claim I didn't supposedly make??
Riiiiiiiiiight :o
-
perhaps you should read reply 39 in the context of the thread and then tell the class where you came up with the idea that i said Cu4,you, or even any other Conservative expressed how others SHOULD be ignored. And then you can tell the class how if i never said it i am guilty of misrepresenting what you said.
And then you can admit to the class that it wasn't I that misrepresented but it was in fact you who misrepresented what i said.
-
Nice try, but if there wasn't any misrepresentation on your part, this would have ended after only reply #25. The fact it didn't, and the fact you kept pushing a position/claim I never made, after reply #25, dare I see, "speaks volumes" to the class. Culmunated with the xo-like personal insult tactic in reply #51. Congrats. Time to move on
-
So the request for examples of you and or cu expressing how others SHOULD be ignored was a straw man? Because that demand really puzzled me.