Jack's Blog

Clearly, the Republican Party is the party of common sense. After all, if you give a few hundred dollars a month to the poorest of the working poor, it's only fair that you also give several million dollars to the richest of the idle rich.

Right?

“You have seen us outfox you on this issue tonight,” crowed Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN) to Democrats on the House floor.

Those clever House Republicans. What will they think of next?

Really, Jack, if the Republicans were serious about "giv[ing] more money to poor people," why would they tie the bill to "an estate tax cut that had been blocked in the Senate"?

Because "It's a political stunt designed to give vulnerable Republicans in tough elections the opportunity to say they voted to raise the minimum wage"? Seems about right. Or is it altruism?

That's my Gosh, always playing dumb...

Let's not hide behind Republican gamesmanship, and pretend that's all that's going on here. The Republicans presented the Democrats with a decision. It doesn't matter if the Rs are the most scheming evil motherfuckers in the history of man. They presented the Democrats with a decision...

What is more important to you: Taking money from rich people, or giving money to poor people?

We both know what the answer was.

Now, you can play your idiotic rich vs. poor game all day. That's how Democrats think, and it's how you've learned to think due to years of regurgitating their crap. It's class baiting, it's divisive, it's damaging, and it's designed to garner votes, not to help anybody out.

Poor people should think of rich people as models for their own success, as potential employers. But then they might have hope... And with hope, a little dignity. And with dignity, they might stop feeling right about being paid off with social programs that keep them just alive enough to make it to the polls on voting day. Harry Reid can't have that.

I happen to believe that the only way to help poor people is to create a robust economy in which they can participate. I happen to think that minimizing taxation is a major part of that. I'm not particularly convinced of the idea that lowering the estate tax is instrumental in doing that, but it's along those lines, so it doesn't bother me. The less money government takes from people, the better, IMO.

It's hard to be offended by a decrease in the estate tax when you honestly don't think that all rich people are theives and swindlers.

Really, I think it's rather hilarious. The Republicans draft a bill with something Dems want, and with something they want. That's what's called "compromise." Had the Dems done it, that's what it'd be. But Republicans don't compromise, right? They "blackmail." They do "political stunts."

It must be easy having so little intellectual honesty.

I have an idea. From now on, when I do it, it's going to still be called "walking across the street." When you do it, it's going to be called "being an anti-American success hating traitor scumbag."

That's fair, right?

..of your standard rhetoric.

Jeez, Gosh, did I shut your bullshit down that completely? Isn't there at least ONE sorry little argument you can come up with?

Come on, buddy, tell me: How is putting something you want and something your oppoenent wants in the same bill NOT compromise?

Why is it such obvious "blackmail" or "political stunts?"

Is that not just blatant spin?