Republicans think you don't pay enough tax.

[mikeyx]

we have agreed twice in a day...wow.

that is a scarey trend idn'it?

 

[daredelvis]

Their lack of response speaks volumes.

Well, I don't know that for a fact. Brainster claims to have put me on ignore after I called him on posting some context/factually challenged garbage about a Supreme Court nominee, so he may have missed my link to Unabogie's links.

Daredelvis

 

[Upchurch]

Like I said, that confusion says more about you than about Frank Flemming.

It mostly says that I don't know (or care) who Frank Flemming is.

That's the thing: it's not Poe. You confuse it for an example of Poe because it matches your conception of conservatives, but it's actually quite obvious as parody for those who haven't constructed crude caricatures as their working model for their opponents. In fact, the real parody isn't even of conservatives, the real parody is of the conception that people like you have about conservatives.

It's amazing how this reinforces your preconceived notions of me, huh? Just preconceptions and reinforced biases everywhere.

As for parody, have you seen the garbage people will put into blogs, be they liberal or conservative? There is no rhyme nor reason for some of it. As I have no frame of reference for Frank Flemming (still don't), a right-wing blogger on a right-wing site saying crazy right-wing things with no clear indication of the author's intent at parody is the very definition of Poe's law.

Regardless of whether or not the article you cited was parody, it had no actual substance to it and doesn't really further the conversation. (What were you yelling at Travis in another thread about poisoning the well?) You've actually managed to derail it a bit.

 

[Unabogie]

Their lack of response speaks volumes.

Just to get serious here for a moment, but this is why it's often so hard to have a productive discussion with conservatives. The meaningful discussion is about whether or not we should borrow the money to pay for the tax cut, have the poor pay for the tax cut with slashed services and benefits (which is the GOP plan), pay for the tax cut with higher taxes on the wealthy, or not have the tax cut at all.

In this discussion, we can talk about the stimulative effects of government jobs, UI benefits, and payroll tax cuts. We can talk about how raising taxes on billionaires will or won't affect employment.

What we can't do is base the discussion on bullcrap such as "the tax cut undermines Social Security", which we've heard from two posters already. So far, weeding out the bullcrap seems to be an elusive goal. I'm hoping we can get an acknowledgement from them that the posters were misled by right wing propaganda, realize they were mistaken, and are ready to move on.

 

[jj]

You mean Obama wants to underfund Social Security?

Ahhh, yes. It's ok to tax the poor to benefit the rich, you say, and then use scare tactics lke "underfund Social Security" to try to sell the deliberate abuse of the rapidly dwindling middle class.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for parody, have you seen the garbage people will put into blogs, be they liberal or conservative? There is no rhyme nor reason for some of it. As I have no frame of reference for Frank Flemming (still don't), a right-wing blogger on a right-wing site saying crazy right-wing things with no clear indication of the author's intent at parody is the very definition of Poe's law.

Poe's law concerns the indistinguishability of some parody from the real thing. But this was easily distinguishable by anyone who was familiar with either Flemming OR Pajamas Media. You are apparently neither, yet you still felt yourself qualified to dismiss it out of hand merely because of the source (which, again, you admit you are not actually familiar with). And recall, that's what you did in your first response. You didn't dismiss it because you found the contents worthless, you dismissed it because of the source. You made no comment at all about the content until I challenged your dismissal.

Regardless of whether or not the article you cited was parody, it had no actual substance to it and doesn't really further the conversation.

You were always free to not respond. Hell, you still are.

(What were you yelling at Travis in another thread about poisoning the well?) You've actually managed to derail it a bit.

I added a joke to this thread. It's not my fault you couldn't recognize it as such. And again, if you find this a derail, you are (as always) free to not respond.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So Brainster was wrong?

I don't recall that millionaire surcharge in the last round of payroll tax cuts. Is it new? Do you think it has a chance in hell of being passed?

 

[BenBurch]

I don't recall that millionaire surcharge in the last round of payroll tax cuts. Is it new? Do you think it has a chance in hell of being passed?

Not if the Republicans have any say, and they do, and that was the point of this thread.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't recall that millionaire surcharge in the last round of payroll tax cuts. Is it new? Do you think it has a chance in hell of being passed?

So Brainster was wrong?

 

[Newtons Bit]

So Brainster was wrong?

The, "So Obama wants to underfund Social Security?" I dunno. Does Obama think this proposal has a chance in hell of passing? If so, then probably not. But Obama isn't an idiot. This is a political card that has little chance of passing, but he gets big points just by playing it.

The real question is, "Is Obama a politician?" And I think the answer to that question is a big "yes".

 

[Unabogie]

The, "So Obama wants to underfund Social Security?" I dunno. Does Obama think this proposal has a chance in hell of passing? If so, then probably not. But Obama isn't an idiot. This is a political card that has little chance of passing, but he gets big points just by playing it.

The real question is, "Is Obama a politician?" And I think the answer to that question is a big "yes".

The current payroll tax cut also moves funds from the general fund to offset the loss to SSI. Again, yes or no? This line of attack is false, right? Come on. You know this evasion is unbecoming.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The current payroll tax cut also moves funds from the general fund to offset the loss to SSI. Again, yes or no? This line of attack is false, right? Come on. You know this evasion is unbecoming.

What evasion? I'm trying to understand the situation. If the current tax cut doesn't reduce the funds coming into social security, even if it reduces the rate, then obviously no. Duh. This is the first time that I've even heard that the social security trust fund is currently receiving money from the general fund to make up for the payroll tax cut.

 

[Unabogie]

What evasion? I'm trying to understand the situation. If the current tax cut doesn't reduce the funds coming into social security, even if it reduces the rate, then obviously no. Duh. This is the first time that I've even heard that the social security trust fund is currently receiving money from the general fund to make up for the payroll tax cut.

This is my point! The criticism from Brainster was based on a lie, and it's one the GOP is using to spread FUD about the issue. How can we discuss the issue if we are too busy lying about it to assess the facts?

 

[Newtons Bit]

This is my point! The criticism from Brainster was based on a lie, and it's one the GOP is using to spread FUD about the issue. How can we discuss the issue if we are too busy lying about it to assess the facts?

Is it based on a lie or based on something that wasn't even talked about? If I never knew that the general fund was filling in the gap then how was Brainster supposed to know?

Incidentally, I still haven't seen anything from a source other than left-wing blogs that show that this is true.

 

[Unabogie]

Is it based on a lie or based on something that wasn't even talked about? If I never knew that the general fund was filling in the gap then how was Brainster supposed to know?

Incidentally, I still haven't seen anything from a source other than left-wing blogs that show that this is true.

I posted a link to the text of the proposed law. What more could you possibly need? Look, the current law has a provision to transfer funds from the general to the SSI fund. This is not paid for and so creates debt. Usually, GOP dogma says that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They certainly are not demanding the extension of the Bush tax cuts be paid for. But in this case, they are. In this case, the tax cut does not magically pay for itself. In this one case, the tax cut must be paid for. The Democrats are proposing a surtax on millionaires. The GOP is countering with a proposed cut in UI extensions, and a pay freeze on federal employees. Both proposals will transfer funds to SSI to offset the loss in revenue. I posted two articles and the actual text of the law to confirm this.

The GOP is also lying about the effect on SSI in order to scare people into not supporting a tax cut for themselves and protecting a tax cut for millionaires.

We should seriously consider moving on to discussing the merits of the proposals instead of pretending like some alternate reality exists.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's CNN, since Google apparently only works from my house.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/08/news/economy/Social_Security_payroll_tax_cut/index.htm

In other words, the Social Security trust funds would be made whole.
"We estimate that the projected level of the [program's Old Age and Disability] trust funds would be unaffected," Social Security Chief Actuary Stephen Goss wrote in a letter this week to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and White House budget director Jacob Lew.
Billionaires with 1% tax rates

Senate Democrats want to extend the payroll tax cut into 2012 and expand it so that workers would only pay 3.1% of their first $110,100 in wages into Social Security, down from 4.2% today and well below the 6.2% normal rate. Senate Republicans have simply proposed extending the 4.2% rate.
Either way, the same revenue-transfer principle would apply.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Here's CNN, since Google apparently only works from my house.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/08/news/economy/Social_Security_payroll_tax_cut/index.htm

Great, an article from December 2011. That totally addresses why I hadn't heard about this in the past year.

 

[leftysergeant]

The republicons just refuse to admit that they have been using SS money to fund part of the tax cuts to their owners like Grover and the Koch roaches. Can somebody tell me why gazillionaires should not have to pay a little bit more when the rest of us are losing government services? Taking it from the rich people who have beeen taking money out of the ecconomy seems the best way to go about it.

Don't call the "job creators." They have gotten more and more from us and created fewer jobs as time goes by.

And what did that orange-skinned git from Ohio have in mind when he tried to stick that pipeline deal into the bill? Any moron would know that there was no good reason to do this other than to either poison the deal or to blackmail the POTUS.

 

[RandFan]

I posted a link to the text of the proposed law. What more could you possibly need? Look, the current law has a provision to transfer funds from the general to the SSI fund. This is not paid for and so creates debt. Usually, GOP dogma says that all tax cuts pay for themselves. They certainly are not demanding the extension of the Bush tax cuts be paid for. But in this case, they are. In this case, the tax cut does not magically pay for itself. In this one case, the tax cut must be paid for. The Democrats are proposing a surtax on millionaires. The GOP is countering with a proposed cut in UI extensions, and a pay freeze on federal employees. Both proposals will transfer funds to SSI to offset the loss in revenue. I posted two articles and the actual text of the law to confirm this.

The GOP is also lying about the effect on SSI in order to scare people into not supporting a tax cut for themselves and protecting a tax cut for millionaires.

We should seriously consider moving on to discussing the merits of the proposals instead of pretending like some alternate reality exists.

Just wanted to say thanks. I have to admit I didn't understand at first and I'm grateful to your patient explanations. That's why I love this forum.

 

[Unabogie]

Great, an article from December 2011. That totally addresses why I hadn't heard about this in the past year.

No offense, but who cares why you haven't heard about this prior to me pointing it out? Now, you know. Now, ignorance isn't an excuse. Now, you know that the GOP is lying about the proposal. Again, here's Mark Kirk lying about it.

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/12/no-payroll-tax-cut-doesnt-hurt-trust-fund

The White House has redefined this as the payroll tax deduction. It's not the payroll tax deduction — it's contributions to Social Security. And when the American people hear that we have legislation moving forward to cut contributions to Social Security and drive the trust fund into the red, I think opposition would be fairly overwhelming.

He's lying. Now you know he's lying. Neither proposal, GOP or Obama's will do any such thing. Is Kirk lying or incompetent? Which is worse?