Thanks to Gosh...

Thanks to Gosh, I had an interesting realization today...

In this post I talked about the Democrat's dismissive response to a House bill which would increase the minimum wage and decrease the estate tax. In typical fashion, Gosh reminded me of [INSERT DEMOCRAT TALKING POINT HERE].

Now, as it turns out, the Democrat talking point he focused most of his attention on was the idea that the combination of the two issues into a single bill was a dirty trick by Republicans. In fact, Harry Reid himself says it, and I quote him in my post. He calls it “blackmail.“ Now, obviously Gosh can only regurgitate what Dems say, so this should really be me thanking Harry Reid for helping me make an interesting realization, but I loathe Harry Reid, and I merely find Gosh humorously formulaic, so I will give him credit.

And what did I realize? I realized that I had been buying into the idea that this bill is, indeed, a form of trick. I'm a pretty knee-jerk supporter of Republicans, but I still concluded, without thinking, that this was Republicans just trying to stick it to the Dems.

But is it? The Democrats want a higher minimum wage. Republicans want to reduce the estate tax. So, if you put both of them in one bill, what is that? Isn't it “compromise?” Isn't it “governing?” Yes. It is. That's literally what it is.

I think this demonstrates the degree to which the left's views dominate the discourse. It doesn't matter if we're left or right of center, we're still constantly deluged with a generally left of center view of things, thanks to the MSM. As a result, even conservative (such as myself) may accept a leftist view without realizing it. Rather than realizing it's not blackmail at all, I rationalize the “blackmail” away by saying to myself “well, fuck Harry Reid, why not blackmail him?”

But the fact is, he's not being blackmailed. He's simply pissing on any sort of leadership he's not directly responsible for. Hence, I loathe him.

Whenever the left bias of the MSM is mentioned, leftists say “well, what about FOX?” It's true that FOX is right of center, but I think this little anecdote nicely covers how FOX operates. They debate the left's allegations, but they never change the context, fight the assumptions, or try to change the battleground. They say, “yeah, well, fuck Harry Reid.” What they should be saying is that it's simply not blackmail.

posted on Sunday, July 30, 2006 9:43 PM

Feedback

# re:link123 8/2/2006 11:39 PM link123 from 59.183.35.193

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/3/2006 1:15 AM Selective Memory from 12.154.211.2

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

Apparently even a Republican House Rep may accept a leftist view without realizing it.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/3/2006 1:19 AM Hairy from 12.154.211.2

According to the Washington Post, the business community has carefully weighed up the pros and cons of the pending Republican legislation that combines an increase in the minimum wage (boo!) with a decrease in the estate tax (hooray!) — and they're on board:

>>Business lobbyists said the trade-off between a lower estate tax and a higher minimum wage clearly favors the business community and upper-income Americans...."Every closely held business in America today is either affected by the death tax or could be affected by it," one top business lobbyist said.<<

Now this is actually a bit odd. There's an abstract sense in which every small business "could be" affected by the estate tax, but in reality virtually none of them actually are. The CBO estimates that even under current law a mere 485 small businesses are affected by the estate tax each year — note that that's not 485 thousand or 485 million, it's 485 — and if the exemption were raised to $3.5 million, a change that even Democrats endorse, the number would be reduced to 94.

Ninety. Four. The entire business community is practically giving itself whiplash making a U-turn on the hated minimum wage in order to reduce the estate tax on 94 businesses each year. Wow.

By the way, the Republican legislation would increase the size of the estate tax exemption to $10 million per couple by 2015 and then index it to inflation thereafter. It's funny how indexing for inflation is out of the question when it comes to something like the minimum wage, but turns out to be an essential safeguard when it comes to making sure that a $10 million exemption doesn't dwindle away to nothing due to future congressional inaction.

Think of it: in terms of actual purchasing power, that $10 million exemption could easily decline to $9.5 million, or even $9 million, if future congresses were to dilly dally over passing an increase. Thank God America's future heirs to great fortunes are being protected from the ravages of inflation by today's Republican Party.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/3/2006 8:38 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

Wonderful.

I point out that the Democrats care more about taking money from rich people than giving money to poor people, and what do I get?

Somebody arguing that decreasing the estate tax is bad.

Who cares? Nobody is asking Democrats to agree with the logic behind the estate tax decrease. Nobody is asking you to agree. A trade is being offered. A compromise.

Democrats would rather shriek "blackmail" than compromise.

Democrats would rather take money from rich people than give money to poor people.

Let's stop pretending Democrats are champions of the poor, and realize that they're actually wealthy people who leach off of even more wealthy people.

How many people could eat off of John Edwards' ill gotten millions?

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/3/2006 11:52 PM John Edwards? You're changing the subject. from 12.154.211.2

Over seven million Americans can have a raise of $2.15 an hour by raising the minimum wage, but only if we give a tax cut to the top 7,500 ultra-rich people at a cost of $753 billion dollars.

Is this your idea of compromise?

Recall that the Republican-controlled Congress had an "up or down vote" on raising their own salaries, but this same group refuses to have an "up or down vote" on the minimum wage.

Who else besides Jack, you dummies, describes this as a compromise, versus a ploy to exert political leverage? Rush Limbaugh? Sean Hannity?

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/3/2006 11:53 PM Ignoring from 12.154.211.2

You still seem to be ignoring the Republican House Member who quite plainly stated that this is a political maneuver.

Again:

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

Apparently even a Republican House Rep may accept a leftist view without realizing it.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 9:42 AM Jack from 216.17.203.226

"Is this your idea of compromise?"

Yeah, it is. Let's not invent arbitrary metrics for what makes something a "compromise" vs. "blackmail." You don't have to accept a compromise if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it any less of an offered compromise.

Really, that's my point, yet again. It's not that the Democrats have to accept the offer, or should accept the offer, it's that they were offered a way to increase the minimum wage and they didn't take it. You can judge it however you want, except you sure can't say the Democrats have done everything they could to assure a minimum wage increase.

Also, while I don't really accept your goofy dollar value metrics on compromise, I will point out two things:

First, the more you trivialize the minimum wage hike as a unit of compromise currency, the more you trivialize all the screaming Democrats have done about it, and the more you justify the Republicans putting it off. If it's so minor, so trivial, then why should we be doing it at all? It's not something worth compromising for? Ok, then it must be not worth having, good thing we didn't do it, huh?

Second, even if you're right, and it's a skewed compromise, it's not like the Democrats have earned any better. When you're the minority in the House, the Senate and the White House, you don't get the cherry deals. You get what you can get, and even being thrown a bone is more than they deserve after their recent performances at the polls.

Compromise. Majority wins. That's how government works. But not when you're a leftist. Then you just get your way, or it's "blackmail" or "electoral fraud."

"You still seem to be ignoring the Republican House Member who quite plainly stated that this is a political maneuver."

It's not my fault he's cynical. He probably realizes it's pointless to try to present this thing as a compromise, since perceptions are dominated by the beltway media, and the beltway media will never give Republican moves a positive spin. Honestly, he probably sees himself however the left sees him. A lot of those guys in DC get ingrained with the history of Democrat dominance that still rules there. You're being sarcastic, but I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume this guy is working in the same left biased environment the rest of us are. If anything, it's worse in DC.

Regardless, I realize there's a fine line between compromise and political maneuver. On some level, they're actually the same thing. I'm not saying you HAVE to call this bill a "wonderful bipartisan compromise that proves the merits of Republican leadership." I'm just saying that it's perfectly legitimate to call it a compromise. How would an honest compromise really much different? You offer something, you get something. Compromise. The part I find interesting, though, is how complete, automatic and unquestioned the negativity and anti-Republicanism is. Even among Republicans.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 5:30 PM Hogs from 67.88.206.98

Hm.

Was this good policy? Would you have respected the Democrats had they accepted this "compromise"?

Who is trivializing the minimum wage hike? I don't see any trivializing. Comparing, sure.

Here's a compromise. I'll give you a million dollars and full immunity from prosecution (let's pretend that were possible) if you kill a parent. Don't want to take the money? Guess you don't think a million dollars is worth having. After all, if you thought it was worth having, you would accept any conditions to get it, no matter the consequences. See how silly this is?

You really think the Republican House Rep "sees himself as the left sees him" and doesn't really mean what he says. Contradiction. Either way you end up right. Either way seems much more complicated than just taking what the man says at face value. But that would undermine your position.

Just look at the deal at it's face. Is it good policy? Is there any reason you would oppose having a simple up-and-down vote on both provisions, separately?

And do you really think this was offered in the spirit of compromise in good faith?

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 8:09 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

"Would you have respected the Democrats had they accepted this "compromise"?"

No, I don't respect the Democrats at all. Let me put it this way: I don't Respect the Republicans at all, in fact I think they're nearly all retarded. But compared to Democrats, they're just wonderful.

"Who is trivializing the minimum wage hike? I don't see any trivializing."

Yes, well, selective vision is terribly convenient.

When somebody attempts to suggest that a minimum wage hike isn't worth the horrible cost of letting rich people keep more of their money, I do that person the favor of assuming they're not a total fucking moron. After all, only a total fucking moron would think a reduction in the estate tax is a massive deal. As bad, for example, as killing one of your parents. You fucking moron.

"See how silly this is?"

Yes, I see how silly your idiotic analogy is.

Congrats. You've proven that some trades aren't worth taking. You think that's an argument?

No.

What have I said a dozen fucking times already? Democrats care more about taking money from rich people than giving money to poor people.

I just said it again. Feel free to ignore it, and prattle on some more.

But the fact remains. Maybe you think it's a good call on their part. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion, stupid as you may be. But let's remember what the judgement was.

Jack: Cares more about his parents than about a million dollars.

Democrats: Care more about taking money from rich people than giving money to poor people.

Get it? They made a call. I think their call sheds light on just how false their concern for the poor really is.

"Is there any reason you would oppose having a simple up-and-down vote on both provisions, separately?"

No, I wouldn't.

But, please recall the first paragraph of this post. Here's an anology that actually works. Republicans walk out on the floor of the House or Senate, take a steaming dump, point at it and say "Look! I made a doodie!" Then the Democrats walk out, smear the poop on their faces, and try to rape the intern doing the minutes.

They're all idiots. But Democrats are idiots in a way that constantly reinvents the word.

"And do you really think this was offered in the spirit of compromise in good faith?"

No. I don't think anything in government is done in good faith. Everything is a bargain. People want to get shit done, they try to buy off the impediments.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 10:01 PM "You fucking moron." from 24.19.46.198

You sound very angry. Why would you treat your only commenter like that?

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 10:31 PM Disagreement is unwelcome? from 24.19.46.198

The thing that strikes me most, Jack, is that you seem uninterested in discussing the policy outcomes of these issues. You tend instead to find ways to reinforce your cynical judgement of how "retarded" or "moronic" various people are. Now it's your blog, of course, and if you want a platform to criticise and condemn, that's your freedom.

For whatever reason, you tend to name-call rather than engage the issues, particularly when they undermine your argument.

For example, in the snippet above, that starts with "The CBO estimates that even under current law a mere 485 small businesses are affected by the estate tax each year..."

It indicates that the Democrats favor increasing the line inheritance tax excemption so that it directly affects even fewer people than it already does. But this doesn't support your position that they "like taking money from rich people more than they like giving to poor people." No comment from you on that point.

Also: You clearly understand my point that some deals are not worth making. So why not concede that perhaps at least some of the Democrats actually think that way about this Republican compromise?

Instead, by virtue of some Democrat using language or rhetoric that offends you--how DARE he suggest the Republicans are acting politically rather than in the interests of the public, or use such harsh rhetoric as "blackmail"?--you take it as an opportunity to confirm, yet again, how hypocritical these people are.

Sure, there's hypocrisy in government. Get over it.

You've got someone here who is curious to explore your views on the SUBSTANCE, and keeps coming back for more, and consistently -- with a very few exceptions, which were thought provoking -- you reply with contempt and derision.

So some of my posts take shots at the politicians and media I disagree with. They do. But they also touch on the substance.

I suppose your posts touch on substance, too. They drip with contempt, are riddled with ad hominem attacks, but they do make a few points:

- You think politicians are idiots, morons, and retarded.
- You think taxes are bad.
- You believe that the Bush administration is trying to spread democracy in the Middle East.

Etc.

But mostly, you put people into boxes, particularly those who don't apparently share your beliefs. I expect you'll reply with how much of a clone I am of all the other "liberals" you hate so much, and yet you really have just barely the slightest idea of what I believe. Alternatively, you'll reply that I'm upset with your tough style of debate, and can't handle the way you so effortlessly debunk my shallow and ill-considered arguments.

You want to really surprise me? (Probably not, because you do owe anything to any anonymous blog commenter.) Try engaging the conversation with a genuine effort to be civil.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 10:34 PM Typos galore from 24.19.46.198

That obviously should have read, "you DON'T owe anything to any anonymous blog commenter."

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/4/2006 11:47 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

"For whatever reason, you tend to name-call rather than engage the issues, particularly when they undermine your argument."

I'm pretty sure I've explained this to you already Gosh. Probably a half dozen times, if I know you. I call people names when they're making it clear that they're not reading what I'm saying. Thus, you're a fucking moron.

But anyway...

My argument is not being undermined. It's being ignored. There's a difference.

You seem to view debate as a popularity contest. You don't actually notice the substance of what's being said, you just see which line of argument sounds more like what Nancy Pelosi says, and that's "winning."

For example:

Me: While mowing my lawn today, I noticed that grass is green.
Idiot: No, it's pink! It's pink!
Me: I'm pretty sure grass is green. It's from the chlorophyll.
Idiot: Oh yeah? Well Bush lied! People died!
Me: That has nothing to do with the color of grass. It remains green.
Idiot: If it's green, then how come corporations rape, pillage and steal from American with impunity?
Me: You're a fucking moron.

And of course, you think Idiot won the argument. Splendid.

"The thing that strikes me most, Jack, is that you seem uninterested in discussing the policy outcomes of these issues."

Well, for once you're right. I'm not interested in discussing the policy outcomes. I learned long ago how unprofitable it is to spend my time discussing actual debateable issues with idiots. See, you can't even admit that grass is green. Why would you be able to track more complicated, less objective matters?

"So why not concede that perhaps at least some of the Democrats actually think that way about this Republican compromise?"

What in the everloving FUCK is wrong with you Gosh? Seriously. SERIOUSLY. You need to understand something here: You are not my intellectual equal. You do not get to skim my posts, fail to pay attention, and then start demanding I concede things.

AGAIN: Democrats care more about taking money from rich people than giving money to poor people.

Clearly the Democrats don't think the deal is worth making. What the hell else does it mean that they're saying no to it? How stupid are you that you're demanding I concede something that is self evident, something which I have already affirmed ten times, with as much emphasis as I can manage?

"you take it as an opportunity to confirm, yet again, how hypocritical these people are."

Learn to read, Gosh. Please. See, I'm not you. When I write or speak, it has meaning. I'm not just blathering random talking points that seem vaguely associated to the topic. I'm saying something. I did not accuse the Democrats of hypocrisy. You may have noted that they're complete hypocrites based upon what I was saying, and they most assuredly are, but that was not the argument I was making.

Instead, what I spoke about was the ubiquitousness of their message, the force with which their propaganda is foisted upon the average American, the dominance of the leftist message in American thought, and how the MSM plays a role in all of that.

You literally just skim my posts, get some vague notion of the words involved, and then expect me to be entirely accountable to the bizzare paraphrasing you conjure up. You need to learn to read better. That may be insulting, but it's not intended as an insult. It's literally what you should do, if you want to become a more useful human being.

"Try engaging the conversation with a genuine effort to be civil."

I engage every conversation in that fashion, until the favor is not returned. See, I don't mind cursing, it doesn't bother me. But I find stupidity and failure to read extremely irritating and insulting. I consider your refusal to get a fucking clue to be the height of incivility.

Remember when we were talking about divorce rates, and you completely failed to understand basic statistics? Remember how you insisted you were correct for several posts, then realized you were wrong, and made some lame excuse but never really figured it out?

That may be the only time you realized you were wrong, but it certainly isn't the only time you should have. You're wrong constantly, confused constantly, and you almost never figure it out.

The previous example happened to involve math, which is immutable and objective, and thus is the only way to get an idiot such as yourself to realize you're wrong. But it goes on like that all the time. You fuck up some basic, simple thing, fail to read, misunderstand a very simple concept, misattribute things to me, or whatever you need to do to feel like you're "winning" the "debate." Then you just REFUSE to check yourself and figure it out.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 1:40 AM You're beginning to sound like Marx. from 24.19.46.198

Once again, the routine: the reader must wade through waves of ad hominem attacks in order to extract a nugget, somewhere, which is not an ad hominem attack...

At the top of the thread, you realized that you had awakened from a fog. Even YOU, the intellectual giant, had been duped by the left and the MSM. Until you finally woke up and realized that you'd been so bombarded by leftist messages that you had begun to "accept a leftist view without realizing it."

Not only that! Even a REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS had been duped by the beltway brainwashing. (Either that, or he just decided to pretend to be conniving, because he just knew that the leftist media would make him out to be that way anyway.)

But wait, there's more! Even FOX NEWS has been so taken in by the leftist media that they are unable to reframe the debate.

Because the TRUTH is merely that "the Democrats want to take money from the rich more than they want to give to the poor."

(And anyone who doesn't see this truth is "a fucking moron," an "Idiot", someone who just copies Nancy Pelosi (did I call that one, or what?).)

Republicans (of which you are usually a knee-jerk supporter, albeit a *very intellectual* one, even though you were duped by the leftist media, until you awoke from your haze) are good (well, actually, they are "retards", but they're a lot better than Democrats).

But back to the point at hand.

You were duped, and you woke up. That poor Republican from Tennessee, you "honestly" believe that he's duped too. And even FOX never "change[s] the context, fight[s] the assumptions, or tr[ies] to change the battleground."

(Sean Hannity might disagree, but maybe he's duped, too.)

I guess you had a revelation.

"False consciousness is a Marxist hypothesis that material and institutional processes in capitalist society mislead the proletariat — and perhaps the other classes — over the nature of capitalism. This is essentially ideological control, which the proletariat do not know they are under."

...Except, in this case, it was the LEFTISTS and the LEFTIST MAINSTREAM MEDIA that has the proletariat, the House Republican from Tennessee, FOX NEWS, and (formerly, thank God) Jack, you dummies, under their ideological control.

Good thing you've awoken from your slumber.

In any case, my point was that it does not follow that because the Democrats didn't accept this Republican bill, that they clearly would rather take money from the rich than give money to the poor. I guess you can't understand how that could possibly be the case, but you surely haven't admitted the possibility. Back to the circle's start: Democrats are evil, and Gosh is stupid, and that's just the way life is.

Good luck on your next revelation.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 1:51 PM Jack from 67.166.2.58

"Even YOU, the intellectual giant"

Yet more false assumptions, Gosh. I said I'm smarter than you. I never said I was an intellectual giant. You presume that anybody smarter than you MUST be a genius, cause you're just CERTAIN that you're a smart, educated person.

Not so.

Honestly, your exceedingly average intellect might still be sufficient did you not place your own "maturity and wisdom" as the keystone in your thought arch. If you were only capable of realizing how little you understand, how poor your reading skills are, and how thoroughly unoriginal your insights are, you might have the ability to function at a level which isn't completely insulting to the intelligence of everyone observing.

"And anyone who doesn't see this truth is "a fucking moron," an "Idiot", someone who just copies Nancy Pelosi (did I call that one, or what?)."

Yet more false assumptions. That seems to be the theme of this post. You're basing everything on the idea that you're doing as good a job as can be expected, and crazy ol' Jack just won't stop yelling.

But you're as wrong as usual.

Disagreeing with me doth not a "fucking moron" make. Were you capable of putting together a single post that wasn't insulting in its ridiculousness, you'd be rewarded with the "civil discourse" you claim to crave.

"Good thing you've awoken from your slumber."

And thus ends the snarky Gosh fightback portion of the post. You might as well just come out and be insulting, Gosh, it's much more rewarding. I'm proud of you for making yourself at least somewhat aware of my argument.

"In any case, my point was that it does not follow that because the Democrats didn't accept this Republican bill, that they clearly would rather take money from the rich than give money to the poor."

In this situation, it clearly does follow. One situation doesn't define a universal truth for all the Democrats actions to follow, but in this case they preferred to keep taking money from the rich rather than to give money to the poor.

In this one situation, it's immutable fact... In the future, who knows...

You can assume they're really the party that looks out for the poor if you wish, that's fine. My belief is that they're not looking out for the poor. My belief is that they keep the poor just placated enough to get the votes the need to keep taxes rolling in.

But all that is no longer interesting to me. I think there's a breakthrough on the horizon for you, Gosh. I want to go back to this:

"So why not concede that perhaps at least some of the Democrats actually think that way about this Republican compromise?"

Remember when you said that? I want to know more about what was going on in your mind when you typed that out. I think if we can explore that for a bit, we might get a better idea of what makes you fail to tick. So, give me your thoughts, what was going on when you wrote that? What were you trying to get at?

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:16 PM D from 24.19.46.198

"Democrats care more about taking money from rich people than giving money to poor people."

Unqualified.

*One situation* doesn't define a universal truth for all the Democrats actions to follow, but *in this case* they preferred to keep taking money from the rich rather than to give money to the poor.

Tightly constrained, to a single situation.

You're making progress.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:24 PM D from 24.19.46.198

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:24 PM I from 24.19.46.198

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:25 PM Iiii from 24.19.46.198

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:36 PM Shit from 24.19.46.198

Sincere apologies for the repeated posts. Didn't see it happening. This is what I intended:

["So why not concede that perhaps at least some of the Democrats actually think that way about this Republican compromise?"

I think if we can explore that for a bit, we might get a better idea of what makes you fail to tick.]

Presuming that I "fail to tick" is both arrogant and indicative of a closed mind. You're setting this up from the outset to be an attack. Guess I can't blame you, however, as you apparently think that's all I've done throughout.

[So, give me your thoughts, what was going on when you wrote that? What were you trying to get at?]

That perhaps at least some of the Democrats sincerely believed it would be bad policy to outright repeal the estate tax.

Consider also the motives of the Republicans. The estate tax repeal had already failed to pass in the Senate. Putting it back up and attaching it to this bill would win them the support of the moderate Republicans who support the minimum wage increase, and would placate those on farther reaches of the right who are strongly against it, but would be willing to accept it if the estate tax repeal went through. Even if the bill failed to pass, they could still appeal to both segments of their constituency that they at least tried. So, near-term politically -- entirely aside from the actual consequences of the policy, were it to go into effect -- this was win/win for them.

Now, my own position on the issue is based on my (evolving) understanding of the policy implications, not how it fits into a partisan strategy.

# re: Thanks to Gosh... 8/5/2006 5:41 PM Incidentally from 24.19.46.198

Incidentally, your generalization about the Democrats' motives with regard to "taking money from the rich" is not supported by the fact that they actually would support a raising of the exemption, such that an extraordinarily small number of people would be directly effected by it (94 familes).

What would the impact be to them?

And what would the impact be to the literally millions of people who are scraping by on minimum wage jobs, to have a bit more money to spend?

# Front page Gosh... 8/9/2006 9:37 PM Jack's Blog from

# Front page Gosh... 8/9/2006 9:51 PM Jack's Blog from

Post Feedback

Title:

Name:

Url:

Comments:

Enter the code you see:

Remember Me?

Jack's Blog

Archives

Post Categories

Links

Feedback

Post Feedback