I figure that if I have to do more than two google searches for a post, it's going front page. Plus it will be easier for Gosh to find. Plus I can use DeepPink. Go here for backstory.
You're making progress.
If I'm making progress, it's in slowly forcing you to actually read and pay attention.
As far as the scope of my argument, I'm not responsible for the imaginary boundaries you create. This one bill is a clear cut objective example of Democrats caring more for taking from the rich than giving to the poor. You can't even argue that, since it's fact. However, I'd also argue that it's indicative of their larger view of government.
It's a very, very common form of argumentation to show how one clearcut example of behavior represents a greater trend. For some reason you've spent twenty odd posts failing to grasp that, then getting pompous with me when I finally make it so clear that even you can't be confused anymore. You think I'm somehow modifying my viewpoint to come in line with your reasonable views?
No.
I've been saying the same thing all along. One objective fact demonstrating a larger subjective conclusion. You try to pretend I'm claiming it's all objective fact, or that the objective facts aren't facts... It's all confusion on your part. I change nothing. Meanwhile, you've been all over the place, making flailing, scattered attempts at attacking my opinions. You're so used to being wrong, you don't even notice yourself abandoning one failed argument for another.
I wish they'd invent a simulator of the experience of knowing what the fuck you're talking about. Then you could sit down in it, see what it's like to actually know what the fuck you're talking about, and then when you go back to real life you'd see how different it is.
You could then marvel to yourself “ohhh, I get it, people seem a lot less condescending and irritated when you actually know what the fuck you're talking about! I guess they're not just all dicks like I had assumed! Ohhhh, hahahah me! I had no idea what the fuck I was talking about!“
Think of the fun.
Also, please notice that you're such a queen that even your hypothetical musings are in DeepPink.
Presuming that I "fail to tick" is both arrogant and indicative of a closed mind.
No. First off, I'm not presuming. Second it's not a matter of "accepting your opinions" and being "open minded." There's a difference between having an opinion and just being an idiot.
You fail to read what I write. You make up opinions for me. You have arguments between yourself, and some imaginary person that's not me. You can't understand even basic arguments I make. When I say you "fail to tick" I don't mean politically. I mean that on a basic logical and reading comprehension level.
You literally can't read. That's not a presumption.
You can't construct a thoughtful or applicable argument. That's not me being closed minded.
Let me demonstrate:
That perhaps at least some of the Democrats sincerely believed it would be bad policy to outright repeal the estate tax.
Ok... Now, per my previous "presumption" let's look at this.
I post about how the Democrats are giving up something they ostensibly like (a minimum wage increase) in order to defeat something they don't like (an estate tax decrease).
It is thus understood, at the outset, that the Democrats are opposed to an estate tax decrease, since they chose to give up something they like in order to oppose.
Despite this, you demand that I "concede" that the Democrats are opposed to an estate tax decrease.
How do you expect me to read this, and not think you're a colossal moron? You don't seem to be able to parse basic logical structures, how is it ever going to even get to subjective morality and "closed mindedness?"
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.
Ok... And I'm supposed to be angry at them for setting themselves up with a win/win?
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).
You're confused. Again, please go back to where I point out that you can't read, and don't understand the basics of the issues.
The 94 number applies to small businesses effected by the estate tax, if we're to believe "Hairy's" research on the subject. This is based upon raising the exemption to $3.5 million. Do you REALLY think there are only 94 families in America that are worth over $3.5 million? I hope not. In fact, there are 313 billionaires in the US.
What Hairy is saying, is that if the exception is raised to $3.5 million, 94 small businesses will be effected per year. Not 94 total. Not 94 families total. 94 small businesses per year.
There are approximately 2.5 million Americans with a net worth above $1 million. 94, dude? Did you really think there were only 94 worth more than $3.5 million?
Yet again, how do you expect me to talk issues with you when you misread everything, and then fail to notice your misreading has led you astray by multiple orders of magnitude?
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?
Do some research: http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm The “scraping buy“ and “literally millions“ are positively Pelosian in their mindless appeal to compassion, but they're not particularly relevant to reality.
"Of those paid by the hour, 479,000 were reported as earning exactly $5.15, the prevailing Federal minimum wage. Another 1.4 million were reported as earning wages below the minimum."
There are not "literally millions" of minimum wage earners. There are 479,000. Even if you add them with those making less, you get 1,879,000. But then, if they're not making the minimum wage now, why would they make it after a hike? There are, ultimately, only 479,000 Americans who would potentially see a raise due to a minimum wage hike. And some of them would also be fired, to free up more salary money.
But wait, it gets better. "[A]bout one-fourth of workers earning at or below the minimum wage were age 16-19." So, basically what we're talking about are kids with summer jobs, or other "introduction to the workforce" sorts of things, not meant to support them directly. So, it's more like 1,409,250 people who can be reasonably said to be "scraping by" on minimum wage. That's roughly one American in 213.
The actual effect of a minimum wage increase is unclear, and even the most respected economists will disagree. Since you didn't find it at all strange to conclude that there are only 94 families worth over $3.5 million in the entire US, I'm going to posit that you're not an economist, much less a respected one.
But, here's the most basic problem with a minimum wage increase: If you increase the minimum wage, you increase the cost of everything that uses minimum wage labor in its production. Even if it works out fine for the lowest paid, others suffer. For example, you might increase the minimum wage by 40% (as the bill in question did) and only drive up the cost of goods by 10%.
That would help out minimum wage earners.
But, what about the guy who was already making $7.25 an hour? He now pays 10% more for certain goods, but makes no more than he did. You're actually hurting him. In fact, EVERYONE pays 10% more for those goods, so the guy on student loans suffers, the working family that has expenses but make well over minimum wage suffers, etc. etc.
That's not to say it can't work to a net benefit, just that there are risks associated. It's fun for socialists to pretend this is just a matter of giving the poor workers the spare cash that fat cats were going to burn to light cigars with. It's also stupid. That's class baiting bullshit, and it's designed to get votes, not to help anybody.