Obama to House GOP: You don’t really want the middle class’s payroll taxes to go up, do you?

posted at 4:05 pm on December 20, 2011 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Only guy in America who’s enjoying this congressional clusterfark pretends like he wants it to end.” I got a kick out of Boehner’s new op-ed this afternoon calling on Obama to step in and lead the two sides to a deal because, really, why on earth would The One do that? He refused to dirty his hands with the far more consequential negotiations of the Super Committee because he wanted to preserve the “do-nothing Congress” meme as a campaign straw man for next year. If his campaign strategy mattered more to him than a grand bargain worth trillions in deficit reduction, it surely matters more than some ticky-tack standoff over the payroll tax. But don’t take my word for it:

The fraying of a deal to extend payroll-tax cuts and unemployment benefits gives President Obama a golden opportunity to tar House Republicans as the source of Washington’s dysfunction while championing a popular issue…

“It’s incredibly tricky ground,” said Lanae Erickson, deputy director of the Social Policy and Politics Program of the centrist Democratic group Third Way. But “there is an opportunity to capitalize on this and hang it around necks of Republicans,” she said. “I think the American people’s patience is wearing thin with the tea party, and they’re really tired of government being held hostage by them. This is just going to be another nail in that coffin.”

More from the Times:

But even some Republican strategists said Monday night that party leaders in the House had put their members in a very difficult position.

“Democrats are clearly on the high ground of reasonableness here,” Steve Schmidt, who helped run Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said on MSNBC. “When you’re in a rock-throwing fight, you always want to be on the side that’s throwing the rocks downhill.”

He added: “It’s not a great fight for the Republicans.”

Gallup announced today that Congress’s approval hit a record low this month just as both WaPo and CNN are reporting O’s job approval is back near 50 percent, his best showing since the spring. I hope that’s a coincidence but I’m honestly not sure. From the CNN poll: “By a 50% to 31% margin, people questioned say they have more confidence in the president than in congressional Republicans to handle the major issues facing the country. Obama held a much narrower 44% to 39% margin in March.” Exit question: Chuck Schumer says the House GOP will end up caving and passing the Senate’s two-month extension. Is he right?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Libfreeonmydime…you’re pretty slow — no?

GALLUP APPROVAL:

12/10-12/2011 45
12/11-13/2011 43
12/12-14/2011 42
12/13-15/2011 41
12/14-17/2011 42
12/16-18/2011 42
12/17-19/2011 43

WOW!! OBAMA’S ON FIRE THIS WEEK!1

He went from 45% to 43%. Time to cave GOP.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 4:20 PM

Libfree-why do you want to defund social security? Do tell.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Hank Johnson playing race all over the place. Bringing up the Koch Bros. He really is making no sense, so finally had to turn channel. Quite a contrast to his fellow Rep.

FLconservative on December 20, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Libfree-why do you want to defund social security? Do tell.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM

I haven’t posted on this thread, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Perhaps you’ve mistaken me for the more….exuberant liberal4life. But, dearest, it is good to know you’re thinking of me.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM

so, after finally waking up in 2008 from my democrat/liberal coma, i am faced with an alcoholic, whimpering, cowardly lion for a speaker. and the rest of the useless GOP.

that is all.

GhoulAid on December 20, 2011 at 6:03 PM

by that, i mean, there is no upside to this for House Republicans. why not sign it, say “we got the pipeline”, and move on?

Well, for one, we didn’t get the pipeline. What we got was a moving up of the timetable for Obama to make a decision on the pipeline. He can still say no.

xblade on December 20, 2011 at 6:05 PM

upinak on December 20, 2011 at 5:49 PM

totally OT, but the other day I forgot to thank you for the heads-up warning; I was so wigged out trying to figure out where I had messed up- I did figure it out later. Thanks for helping out a noob!!!:)

AZgranny on December 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM

Why is there a bipartisan drive to hasten the failure of Social Security by carving this tax cut out of incoming SSI funds?

The entire Congress needs to resign.

This is insane.

cane_loader on December 20, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Thanks for helping out a noob!!!:)

AZgranny on December 20, 2011 at 6:07 PM

no worries Granny.

upinak on December 20, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I haven’t posted on this thread, and I’m not sure what you’re referring to. Perhaps you’ve mistaken me for the more….exuberant liberal4life. But, dearest, it is good to know you’re thinking of me.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Actually I make fun of any mooch that uses liberal in their nic. You should learn to pay attention. Narcissist much?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:10 PM

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011

While we are at it though-why do you want to defund Social Security?

Funny how you had to chime in and NOT even give an opinion.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM

upinak on December 20, 2011 at 6:08 PM

:)

AZgranny on December 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Politics is funny-peculiar. Here is President Obama on the t.v. criticizing Boehner for not abandoning Obama’s 12 month extension of the Payroll Tax Holiday in favor of a 2 month holiday. I’m kinda thinking he should be yelling at Senate Democrats, but that’s just me . . .

BigAlSouth on December 20, 2011 at 6:16 PM


8.7 Million less full time workers in the USA since about the time Obama was elected. Any wonder the unemployment rate appears low. The truth is in the EMPLOYMENT numbers.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:21 PM

So let me get this straight, you Democrats:

ending the “Bush tax cuts” is simply letting the rates return to their previous state, not a tax increase (according to you) AND…

letting an (according to President Obama last year) TEMPORARY waiver of the payroll tax return to pre-2011 levels is a tax increase (according to you)….

Seems a mite inconsistent to me.

Another inconsistency – for years you (and your politician friends) have told us there is a “Social Security Trust Fund” and that we ‘contribute’ to Social Security. Waiving our ‘contribution’ this year has contributed to, for the first time in history, our having to borrow to fund Social Security payments this year. And yet, you are willing to compound this by borrowing money again this year (the net effect of a “payroll tax holiday”)

Folks, we are B-R-O-K-E. Another ‘payroll tax holiday’ is insanity!

TxSaintFan on December 20, 2011 at 6:22 PM

@CW – if we had the same number of workers in the ‘pool’ as in 2009, unemployment rate would be above 11%.

TxSaintFan on December 20, 2011 at 6:23 PM

I guess I am missing this, but how is a tax cut that was only enacted for one year by obama and the dem led Congress all of a sudden the responsibility of the GOP led house? Shouldn’t Obama be responsible for enacting a cut that was inadequate? Reid, Pelosi? Why is it somehow the responsibility of the current House that they can’t clean up obama’s planned mess on their own when they don’t control the whole Congress? Wasn’t this predictable by anyone with half a brain? After all Obama blames the mess he inherited for everything to deflect blame, Boehner should do the same. He inherited our current mess.

txmomof6 on December 20, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Who would of thought that it would be a positive thing to lessen Social Security’s funding. Down is up and up is down in Obamaworld.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Libfree..that is what I thought. Thanks.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM

The GOP leadership always tries to stay out of the gutter and only know the Marquess of Queensberry rules. How else do you explain statements like this:

“I need the president to help out.” John Boehner

I mean the GOP should just fold on this issue now and move on. There is no point of fighting over this now with the leadership we have because they will just lose more and bump Zero up in the polls. Until the GOP gets smarter leadership, people who know how to read political traps like this and go on the offensive, we will be lucky just to hold our ground.

William Eaton on December 20, 2011 at 6:30 PM

The congressional republicans are not making…
1) the “2 week vs 1 yr” argument —- because they don’t want to explain the difference offers on how to pay for them. Even if their offer is an acceptable one, that’s not what the public wants right now….. Keep in mind that’s why the agreement could not be found although both sides wanted a 1-yr extension.

2) the “dems are killing SS” argument —- because it would technically be a lie since they offered a way to “pay” for it — See #1 ^. How can you claim it’s stealing from the SS fund when you say “you paid for it” ? :-/

Unfortunately, the Tea party group in the house did not sign up for that, so they feel they need to fight, but let’s admit it….why would anyone want the spot light for much longer given the lack of competence with which this negotiation was handled by the republican leaders?

This falls squarely on McConnell and Boehner’s shoulders…but they are the leaders and like it or not, they reflect on the whole party. Take the loss and go home quietly.

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on December 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Libfree..that is what I thought. Thanks.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Sorry CW, in the future I’ll put off grabbing a bite to eat so I can respond to your sophisticated conversational gambits.

While we are at it though-why do you want to defund Social Security?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:12 PM

I don’t.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM

Can.I.be.in.the.middle on December 20, 2011 at 6:33 PM

How do we pay for any cuts if we don’t have the money?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:36 PM

I don’t.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:35 PM

So you have written Obama and told him to quit with this silly Social Security “tax cut”?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Sorry CW, in the future I’ll put off grabbing a bite to eat so I can respond to your sophisticated conversational gambits.

LibFreeonanyoneelse’smoney–

You really don’t know how ironic that post is do you?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM

You really don’t know how ironic that post is do you?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:38 PM

Its ironic when liberals heat up leftover chili? If you say so CW.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Why is there a bipartisan drive to hasten the failure of Social Security by carving this tax cut out of incoming SSI funds?

The entire Congress needs to resign.

This is insane.

cane_loader on December 20, 2011 at 6:08 PM

My take on social security has long been that you can’t pay out billions of dollars ($130 billion) from a fund to millions (10.6 million) of people who have never paid into it, or who have paid into it for only a fraction of their lives (when they were actually working and being taxed for SSI). Those who do work their entire lives are funding the others.

The Federal government has been using this as a disability slush fund for decades. No wonder it’s bankrupt.

Disability payments should come from a different source. Of course, the fraud involved with this is rampant and I think that’s what a substantial chunk of those lower unemployment numbers can be traced to:

Study Links Expiring Unemployment Benefits to Disability Applications

I like how the WSJ article refers to these folks as “American workers”. Well, many once were, but from what I’ve seen firsthand, drugs, alcohol, and life “disabled” a lot of them.

Then there’s this:

And Social Security pays more benefits to children than any other federal program.

http://ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

I have nothing against aid to those who are truly helpless, but my concern is from where the funding originates.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

If you say so CW.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Wow…you’re slower than I thought.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

So you have written Obama and told him to quit with this silly Social Security “tax cut”?

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:37 PM

Nope, sure haven’t. Using my powerful powers of perception I feel as if you’re suggesting that a failure to write an e-mail to the President on any issue on which he and I disagree means I have no right to express that disagreement on, for example, the Hot Air forums.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

How dang slow did you actually think Libby was?

BigAlSouth on December 20, 2011 at 6:50 PM

no right to express that disagreement on, for example, the Hot Air forums.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM

No what it shows is that you’re a internet commando. Lots of blather and bitchi*. That is all.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Isn’t Obama in Hawaii doing the “Mele Kalikimaka” Christmas thing, yet?

albill on December 20, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Nope, sure haven’t.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Keyboard commando. Lots of blather online and not much else. Thought so.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:52 PM

Keyboard commando. Lots of blather online and not much else. Thought so.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 6:52 PM

So far on this thread you mistook me for someone else (suggesting your reading comprehension is suspect at best), suggested that the food in my refrigerator in my house I somehow “mooched” off someone else because all liberals mooch and then made a non-diss about me being a keyboard commando. Not only is none of it relevant to this thread, you’re not even doing a particularly good job of playful verbal sparring. What a bore.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM

Its ironic when liberals heat up leftover chili? If you say so CW.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Why should you be allowed to have chili, let alone twice, when there are people starving?

Why do you hate hungry people?

Spliff Menendez on December 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Libfree really is one of the dumber trolls around here. He doesn’t offer anything in the way of a real counterpoint. He just farts on his keyboard 100 times a day just to get a rise out of as many people as possible around here. If you ignore him, he’ll eventually get bored and find someo other way to waste peoples time.

The Count on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 6:56 PM

You’re hilarious. I told you I make fun of any of you dimwits who use lib in your nics.It is not like you guys have much in the way of diverse thougth. I never mentioned anything about you mooching the food in your house. Yes you are a keyboard commando. All talk.

Too much.Talk about comprehension issues.

Oh and I am such a bore you responded several times. Thanks for the laughs.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Why should you be allowed to have chili, let alone twice, when there are people starving?

Why do you hate hungry people?

Spliff Menendez on December 20, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Oh, right, because if you think that a return to Clinton era income taxes are a good idea, then you must automatically believe all private property must be handed over until all poverty and starvation everywhere is eradicated in an impossible to realize socialist utopia. Is that the idea? I thought the irony was the idea that I had been able to buy the ground turkey thigh, various red peppers, dried anchos, beans, corn, bay leaves and assorted herbs and spices considering I was a moochiing liberal with no income. Glad that’s cleared up.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Libfree really is one of the dumber trolls around here. He doesn’t offer anything in the way of a real counterpoint. He just farts on his keyboard 100 times a day just to get a rise out of as many people as possible around here. If you ignore him, he’ll eventually get bored and find someo other way to waste peoples time.

The Count on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

I think you just called it a keyboard commando.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

Oh, right, because if you think that a return to Clinton era income taxes are a good idea, then you must automatically believe all private property must be handed over until all poverty and starvation everywhere is eradicated in an impossible to realize socialist utopia. Is that the idea? I thought the irony was the idea that I had been able to buy the ground turkey thigh, various red peppers, dried anchos, beans, corn, bay leaves and assorted herbs and spices considering I was a moochiing liberal with no income. Glad that’s cleared up.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:03 PM

So it’s ok for you to steal the money out of my pocket with the full force of Gov’t, but it’s not ok for me to take the food off your plate with the full force of Gov’t?

It’s all in the name of fairness.

Spliff Menendez on December 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM

*** Questions ***

1. What additional concessions are the Republicans trying to wring from the Dems here? I cannot find that in any article. But if they are not trying to get something extra, this uproar makes no sense to me.

2. Why on earth are the Republicans pulling O’s bacon out of the fire by passing the Doc fix?! Didn’t the AMA lend its prestige to and support Ocare? Wasn’t leaving out the doc fix was an essential way that the Ocare numbers were faked? The docs evidentally thought that was groovy. Why not tell the the AMA to go ( ) themselves?

Thank you.

kunegetikos on December 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Oh, right, because if you think that a return to Clinton era income taxes are a good idea

OK, I’ll bite. Why would a return to Clinto era income taxes be a “good idea”?

fitzfong on December 20, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Then there’s this:
 

And Social Security pays more benefits to children than any other federal program.

 
http://ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html
 
Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 6:44 PM

 
I bet you actually think adults with families should maintain appropriate life and long-/short-term disability insurance or something, too.
 
Racist.

rogerb on December 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Libfree really is one of the dumber trolls around here. He doesn’t offer anything in the way of a real counterpoint. He just farts on his keyboard 100 times a day just to get a rise out of as many people as possible around here. If you ignore him, he’ll eventually get bored and find someo other way to waste peoples time.

The Count on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

That’s kinda the whole point of trolling isn’t it? As long as people respond to his stupidity he will continue to do his thing.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM

Why return only to the Clinton tax rates? Let’s go back to the Reagan tax rates? No wait, even better, let’s go back to the tax rates in 1915…0% for everyone. And we had a balanced budget too.

See how easy it is to play the libtard game?

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:14 PM

*** Questions (above^^^) were NOT rhetorical questions ***

Does anyone know? Thank you.

kunegetikos on December 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Liberals always say they want to be more like Canada.
Top tax rate in Canada: 29% vs. 35% here.

Wait what they mean to say is they want to be more like France.
Top corporate tax rate in France: 33% vs 35% here.

I mean they want to be just like Germany.
Top corporate tax rate in Germany: 29.8%

Why do liberals hate Canadian, French and German tax policy so much? Why can’t we be more like our superiors in Ottawa, Paris and Berlin?

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:18 PM

kunegetikos on December 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Answer to both questions:

GOP = Stupid Party
(this is the answer to all questions starting with “Why in the hell are Republicans _________________________________”)

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Obama says he wants a one year extension on the tax break.

The Senate votes to give a two month break that will make payroll processing for the year much more complicated and expensive and wait until they are running out of town to do do even that.

The House passes a bill that give Obama what he asked for and suggest that the Senate hang around and the the job they are paid for.

So who gets blamed? The Republican House of course! Deny BO what he wants, your obstructionist. Give him what he wants, you don’t care about people. Gotta love a system where you are wrong no matter what you do.

OBQuiet on December 20, 2011 at 7:20 PM

So it’s ok for you to steal the money out of my pocket with the full force of Gov’t, but it’s not ok for me to take the food off your plate with the full force of Gov’t?

It’s all in the name of fairness.

Spliff Menendez on December 20, 2011 at 7:07 PM

The way you’ve framed the issue is entirely wrong. I don’t take money out of your pocket, we both pay income tax (well I don’t know how much you make but this year I’m joining the ranks of the income tax payers). But to go with your rather crude hypothetical, the food off my plate, reheated chili in this instance, would not do a poor family much good unless they were brought to my house (gas expenditure). And, at most, my leftovers could feed a family of three for one night.

But if everyone in my apartment complex opened their home to a homeless family two times a week that would probably do a lot to alleviate hunger in our community. On a purely theoretical level governments can do a better job of collecting and distributing those resources to a greater percentage of the needy than we as individuals can. A recent article posted on Hot Air demonstrated as much when it revealed that, regardless of income tax level, the amount of private charitable donations stayed steady at 1-2% of annual income. Not very much, and certainly not enough to make up for food stamp programs or unemployment insurance if the conservative utopian fantasy came to pass.

However, your use of the word “force” has other implications. It suggests that the government has not right to tax you at all. If thats your belief there’s not much that can be done about it. However, I think that we’re part of a society and that our society is stonger, as a whole, when there are fewer hungry and starving people than when there are more. Conservatives have accussed the President of trying to create a “banana republic” while not understanding the irony (this is actual irony CW) of those criticisms. If a banana republic is bad, than a society with an expanding poverty class and a mass consolidation of wealth and power among elites is also bad. And yet Conservatives have been braying that “income inequality” is something we shouldn’t be concerned about.

I’m just not really sure what conservatives think a return to a pre-New Deal style federal government would look like in practice. I mean if anyone you know ever received an FHA loan, they’d probably be screwed. A whole generation of seniors relying (more than they already do) on their younger relatives or worse, clogging up the workforce so that younger people can’ find work? You say you’re “forced” and I say there’s a social contract.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Oh come on guys, the President really, really, really wants to go to Hawaii, so lets get this deal done. I think a two month extension on a bill may be a bit to much. If these people can’t agree on at least a one year extension, then we truly are in worse shape than we could possibly believe.

DDay on December 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM

I bet you actually think adults with families should maintain appropriate life and long-/short-term disability insurance or something, too.

Racist.

rogerb on December 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM

Yeah, I like how you edited out the last line.

Troll.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:29 PM

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Top 1% pays 40% of income taxes.
Top 10% pays 70% of income taxes
Bottom 47% pays nothing.

Not coincidentally 47% is about where Obama’s approval is. Face it dude, your side of the aisle is all about giving people free stuff. Our side is about allowing people who work to keep their money. That’s what it’s all about. The producers vs. the moochers. How do you look at yourself in the mirror every day knowing you’re a moocher?

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Whoops, forgot the /s tag.

Sure, but some just aren’t going to be able to do that. Also, fraud is always a looming possibility. I think that if the states oversaw such things as disability, then perhaps they could keep tabs more effectively than Washington.

You could surely make the argument that SSI itself makes it less likely that people will plan for their own retirement and save. Wonder what the heck folks did before Social Security?

Rhetorical question, actually…we all know what they did.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Yeah, I like how you edited out the last line.

Troll.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:29 PM

I’m pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Wonder what the heck folks did before Social Security?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:33 PM

In libfreeordie world everybody died the second they stopped working. And everyone starved to death too if they were unemployed. Why before FDR came along only the 1% lived past the age of 21.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Top corporate tax rates around the world:

China: 25%
Hong Kong: 17%
Russia: 13%
Czech Rep: 15%
Israel: 24%
Italy: 31.4%
N.Z. 28%
Norway: 28%
Portugal: 25%
Singapore: 17%
Spain: 30%
Sweden: 26.3%

US: 35%

Why do liberals hate the rest of the world? Even in the socialist utopia of Sweden corporations pay less tax than in America.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Yeah, I forgot to tag my response.

In libfreeordie world everybody died the second they stopped working. And everyone starved to death too if they were unemployed. Why before FDR came along only the 1% lived past the age of 21.

LOL

I will give them (‘tards) the benefit of the doubt, and at least ask exactly why they thought SS was needed back then? If FDR was sure that his Socialist programs would lift the country out of the Great Depression, then why would he think that SS would be needed years and years on down the road? Guess the same could be asked concerning the FHA and Fannie Mae?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:43 PM

In libfreeordie world everybody died the second they stopped working. And everyone starved to death too if they were unemployed. Why before FDR came along only the 1% lived past the age of 21.

http://demog.berkeley.edu/~andrew/1918/figure2.html

And no matter how you slice it, the modernization of the federal government is a significant part of why those numbers gradually improved over the course of the 20th century. Less workplace deaths and accidents, government funded medical research, distribution of vaccines, the FDA’s role in improving the quality of food etc. etc. Lots of things that have nothing to do with domesic policy, of course, also contributes to the lengthening of life expectancy. But to deny the government’s role in modern American society is to stick ones head in the sand.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I will give them (‘tards) the benefit of the doubt, and at least ask exactly why they thought SS was needed back then? If FDR was sure that his Socialist programs would lift the country out of the Great Depression, then why would he think that SS would be needed years and years on down the road? Guess the same could be asked concerning the FHA and Fannie Mae?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 7:43 PM

You can ask all you want. They’ll never answer. Deep down they know socialism doesn’t work. Never has never will. Yet they still drink the kool aid that they know will kill them. The explanation is simple.

Liberalism is a mental disease.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:50 PM

And no matter how you slice it, the modernization of the federal government is a significant part of why those numbers gradually improved over the course of the 20th century.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

LOL. Yeah the growth of govt is the reason. Advances in technology and medicine have nothing to do with it.

Lemme guess, you also believe that Al Gore invented the internet.

Is this really the best of the Troll Class of December 2011? Weak. Pathetic.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:52 PM

How did those technological advances happen without the government exactly? Especially considering that public universities were behind many of the medical advances. Like, you can craft a hypothetical narrative where the state didn’t fund that research. But then there’s the actual history which you have to contend with.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM

lib or die:

OK I’ll play your little game:

1920 to 1930 life expectancy grew by 8.3%
1930 to 1940 it grew by 4.6%
1940 to 1950 (ignore this decade for obvious reasons)
1950 to 1960 it grew by 1.5%
1960 to 1970 grew by 0.7%

As govt grew, the rate of growth in life expectancy has shrunk each decade.

Amazing how in the 1920s, before SS, before FHA loans, before all of FDR’s programs, life expectancy grew at the fastest rate of any decade since.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM

And no matter how you slice it, the modernization of the federal government is a significant part of why those numbers gradually improved over the course of the 20th century.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

Volts for everyone!

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM

How did those technological advances happen without the government exactly? Especially considering that public universities were behind many of the medical advances. Like, you can craft a hypothetical narrative where the state didn’t fund that research. But then there’s the actual history which you have to contend with.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Of course, you’re right. IBM, Cisco, Dell, Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Compaq, Xerox.

All created by govt workers and financed with govt money.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:02 PM

How did those technological advances happen without the government exactly? Especially considering that public universities were behind many of the medical advances. Like, you can craft a hypothetical narrative where the state didn’t fund that research. But then there’s the actual history which you have to contend with.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:56 PM

Yeah, look at how many great medical advances have come out of Europe lately. Oh…
I guess more government equals fewer advances.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

And all the wonder drugs created by Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKlein, Merck, Eli Lilly….also created in govt labs by govt workers.

How silly of me. Here I thought all these companies were private for profit companies. Guess not. Turns out according to libbie, they are all govt owned and operated.

Who knew?

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:04 PM

Ronnie:

Yep. How many Facebooks or Googles or Twitters or Ciscos or Amazons or Microsofts have come out of Europe in the past 20 years?

NONE.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:05 PM

As govt grew, the rate of growth in life expectancy has shrunk each decade.

Amazing how in the 1920s, before SS, before FHA loans, before all of FDR’s programs, life expectancy grew at the fastest rate of any decade since.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Can we assume you believe the Cato institute is a reliable source of information? Their reading of the supposedly “small government” 1920s is quite different.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n2-2.html

Here’s what’s also important, the 1920s were a major decade for expansions in federal expenditures around childhood and maternity healthcare. And the ideological groundwork was laid for the eventual elimination of child labor in the 1930s (another key factor in expanding life expectancy).

http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/dolchp02.htm

Reflecting the Secretary’s charitable involvements, the Department also emphasized and expanded the activities of the Children’s Bureau. It administered a grant-in-aid program to the states for child care and maternity health care. It distributed millions of bulletins on child care. It was a leader in the fight for a constitutional amendment limiting child labor.

But outside of all of that, your argument about the rate of expansion in life expectancy isn’t exactly compelling. A lot of the rapid growth in life expectancy in those years can be explained by new labor protection regulations (which don’t increase the size of government per se) and the discovery of penicillin (discovered in Britain, and distributed in the U.S. with government subsidies). But science (and its ability to shift how the body functions) doesn’t operate on a constantly improving line graph. That’s that Wall Street profit margins must always expand logic, it doesn’t work in all instances.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Libbie,

The great tech advances came primarily from 3 universities: Stanford, MIT, Caltech. MIT and Stanford in particular is where most of the greats of the 20th century either studied or taught including the founders of Intel, HP (Hewlett went to MIT, Packard went to Stanford), Digital, Ethernet, Google, Yahoo among others.

What do all 3 have in common? THEY ARE PRIVATE.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM

Yeah, look at how many great medical advances have come out of Europe lately. Oh…
I guess more government equals fewer advances.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM

So the fact that Europe hasn’t produced new advancements recently means that the history of grant funded medical research in the 20th century never happened? I’m sorry, I’m just curious how that point is relevant to the discussion of the government’s role in helping to usher in modern society.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The Republicans have not only painted themselves into a corner, now they’ve decided to wall themselves in. They are now poised to raise taxes on the American middle class.

And Speaker Leia cries: “Help us President Obama; you’re our only hope!”

HAHAHAHAHA!

chumpThreads on December 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM

But outside of all of that, your argument about the rate of expansion in life expectancy isn’t exactly compelling. A lot of the rapid growth in life expectancy in those years can be explained by new labor protection regulations (which don’t increase the size of government per se) and the discovery of penicillin (discovered in Britain, and distributed in the U.S. with government subsidies). But science (and its ability to shift how the body functions) doesn’t operate on a constantly improving line graph. That’s that Wall Street profit margins must always expand logic, it doesn’t work in all instances.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:12 PM

LOL. So your first BS theory was shot down. You go to 2nd BS theory. No matter what, the govt is the answer for everything. The govt invented penicillin too!!

Did you know the govt also discovered electricty? It’s true. Edison and Franklin were both govt employees. The Wring Brothers invented the plan while working for the FAA. Alexander Graham Bell? You guessed it. Govt employee. Henry Ford? Him too. Every great achievement in the past 230 years on American soil was only made possible by the govt.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Godless Europe’s medical advances include suicide holidays, hospitals where patients better have family to provide food, water, and other basics, and wings of facilities where you go to be left to starve and or dehydrate because it just isn’t worth it to keep you alive.

Cheers to you on your utopia liberals!

tom daschle concerned on December 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM

What do all 3 have in common? THEY ARE PRIVATE.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM

I never argued that the government is the *only* source of modern American society. Rather, that it was an essential part of the coming of the modern age. I’m not a socialist, I think private institutions should exist and that people should be able to earn a profit and a high wage for high valued work. But your trying to pretend as if modern society came into being in spite of the growth of government and that’s just completely insane. Silicon Valley’s achievements are unimpeachable, but so were the insights of NASA and the defense department in earlier decades.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM

They are now poised to raise taxes on the American middle class.

chumpThreads on December 20, 2011 at 8:16 PM

Wait a sec. I was under the impression that went tax rates go back to their original rate, it’s not a tax increase. Isn’t that what we were told by you guys regarding the Bush tax cuts. It was a temporary cut, therefore you can’t call it an increase when they go back to the original value.

How is this any different? The payroll cut was a temporary 1 year cut. Now it’s going back to the original number. Therefore using your logic, it’s not a tax increase.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:20 PM

Officials from the policy-neutral National Payroll Reporting Consortium, Inc. have expressed concern to members of Congress that the two-month payroll tax holiday passed by the Senate and supported by President Obama cannot be implemented properly.
—–
Pete Isberg, president of the NPRC today wrote to the key leaders of the relevant committees of the House and Senate, telling them that “insufficient lead time” to implement the complicated change mandated by the legislation means the two-month payroll tax holiday “could create substantial problems, confusion and costs affecting a significant percentage of U.S. employers and employees(BigGovernment.com)

Seems this two month deal makes little sense. Obama and the Dems are par for the course.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 8:21 PM

I’m not a socialist

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM

LOL. OK whatever.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Wait a sec. I was under the impression that went tax rates go back to their original rate, it’s not a tax increase. Isn’t that what we were told by you guys regarding the Bush tax cuts. It was a temporary cut, therefore you can’t call it an increase when they go back to the original value.

How is this any different? The payroll cut was a temporary 1 year cut. Now it’s going back to the original number. Therefore using your logic, it’s not a tax increase.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:20 PM

That’ll leave a mark.

CW on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Henry Ford? Him too. Every great achievement in the past 230 years on American soil was only made possible by the govt.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Fordism is a great example of what’s silly about modern day conservatism. Ford, and other great corporate welfare captains of industry, believed in corporations that served workers broad needs. Housing, quality of life, healthcare (as much as could be expected in those days). It was an era where reliance on government (at least for industrial employees) was less, because corporations were more invested in their local communities. The individuals that conservatives now idolize would be aghast at the way MNC’s have abandoned American workers. Perhaps the increased reliance upon the state can be partially explained by corporations abandonment of American communities and cities, like Detroit.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

So the fact that Europe hasn’t produced new advancements recently means that the history of grant funded medical research in the 20th century never happened? I’m sorry, I’m just curious how that point is relevant to the discussion of the government’s role in helping to usher in modern society.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:14 PM

The vast majority of medical advancements come from private profit-loving companies and individuals. More government does not equal more advances (see Europe). You’ve been told this. Move on to your next BS theory please.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Perhaps the increased reliance upon the state can be partially explained by corporations abandonment of American communities and cities, like Detroit.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Like the thousands of corporations that freely donate millions of dollars to their communities?

Good lord you are indoctrinated like a North Korean…

tom daschle concerned on December 20, 2011 at 8:30 PM

And no matter how you slice it, the modernization of the federal government is a significant part of why those numbers gradually improved over the course of the 20th century. Less workplace deaths and accidents, government funded medical research, distribution of vaccines, the FDA’s role in improving the quality of food etc. etc. Lots of things that have nothing to do with domesic policy, of course, also contributes to the lengthening of life expectancy. But to deny the government’s role in modern American society is to stick ones head in the sand.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:49 PM

I don’t consider myself to be an anarchocapitalist, because I do believe that the Federal government should take on certain roles that the private sector, state/local governments can’t or won’t-limited by the Constitution and taking into account what the Founding Fathers had to say about certain things-but then the left vs. right argument becomes what those roles are and to what extent?

Why wouldn’t it be better for state and local government to handle many things the Federal government has taken upon themselves, so that the People have a more Democratic say in what goes on?

Why would a company want to market a bad drug?
Why would a company want to market bad food?
Why would a company want their radio station broadcasting at the same time on another station’s frequency so the audience can’t hear?
Why would a company want their airliners flying into the path of another’s?
Why would one state not want the end of one of their highways to continue on into an adjoining state’s highway at the border?

Lastly, why would anyone trust “the government” and not private concerns, especially considering that many of those running the government were (and in many cases still are) connected with private companies?

Makes no sense to me.

If a company fails to make a good, safe product, they will go out of business, and/or face legal action. When Washington fails, we simply get more of the same.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

As a matter of fact, Obama, you are the most ignorant biatch in the room.

Payroll companies cannot accommodate a 60-day extension. You are shaking down the middle class and we are revolting.

So, don’t be surprised if we biatch slap your azz into oblivion, you idjit. We can’t calculate payroll in 60-day increments, you idjit. We have no certainty; we will NOT add staff, we cannot grow in any way shape or form.

You may have your CNN minions spike your poll numbers but let me tell you something you punk…. You’re finished. Fark you for making me have to hire more “specialists” when prior to your “term in office” life was so much easier.

Fark you and your Mooche.

Dang it.

Key West Reader on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Ford, and other great corporate welfare captains of industry, believed in corporations that served workers broad needs. Housing, quality of life, healthcare (as much as could be expected in those days). It was an era where reliance on government (at least for industrial employees) was less, because corporations were more invested in their local communities.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

…and then the unions came and f’ed it all up.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

A perfect example of why the congress has such a stellar rating, odumbo is such an idiot and why McConnell is nothing but an appeasement stooge, and Reid is insane! A two month payroll tax holiday? Give me a break! How long did it take those great thinkers to come up with that? What an insult! Two months… indeed………

ultracon on December 20, 2011 at 8:38 PM

…and then the unions came and f’ed it all up.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Post WW2, unions apparently abandoned the reason for their very creation (strength in unity vs. big companies) in favor of higher wages and better perks. Not surprisingly things started to go downhill.

A union member from, say, the early 1900′s would be rightly appalled at modern unions.

MelonCollie on December 20, 2011 at 8:42 PM

…and then the unions came and f’ed it all up.

Ronnie on December 20, 2011 at 8:32 PM

Post WW2, unions apparently abandoned the reason for their very creation (strength in unity vs. big companies) in favor of higher wages and better perks. Not surprisingly things started to go downhill.

A union member from, say, the early 1900′s would be rightly appalled at modern unions.

MelonCollie on December 20, 2011 at 8:42 PM

You’re probably right.

But there was indeed a time when the UAW workers were thriving, as well as the Big 3, Detroit and its suburbs. The UAW didn’t design the crappy cars that failed to compete with the Japanese imports in the ’70s.

Looking at union membership, it’s never been a majority in this country, even in manufacturing, but even those non-union manufacturing jobs were lost to China and elsewhere…so the blame isn’t entirely with the unions. We simply got outcompeted by cheaper labor markets that happened to be in other countries…with much collusion by our own elected officials.

We can’t embrace Free Enterprise and yet get upset when that same system drives away jobs because the companies want higher profits…which is why they exist in the first place.

If you have a problem with, say, a Dell computer, you’ll be talking to someone in India, Pakistan, the Philippines, etc…to the best of my knowledge, Dell help desks were never staffed by union members in the first place.

Capitalism thrived in this country because of our founding principles…not the other way around. Until 100 years ago half of us worked for no one but ourselves and our families on our farms. Our forebears opted for Consumerism and Suburbanism. Now it seems that it was a risk after all.

Duesenbergs and Nash’s aren’t coming back (unfortunately), and it doesn’t look like we’ll be flying around like they said we would be by now back in the ’60s either…so the big question is, where do we go from here?

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 20, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Perhaps the increased reliance upon the state can be partially explained by corporations abandonment of American communities and cities, like Detroit.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Actually, the so-called “abandonment” of American communities and cities like Detroit is explained by the increased interference by the state.

fitzfong on December 20, 2011 at 9:16 PM

“lets be clear”…I hate this man with the white hot passion of a thousand suns. He plays politics with his morning dump. Bush NEVER called out the opposition party the way this guy does. Reagan chided them in a lightehearted way, but there was never any malice as far as I could see.

Tomolena1 on December 20, 2011 at 9:18 PM

Seriously? a cnn opinion poll

MrMoe on December 20, 2011 at 9:34 PM

He goes to the podium to yap about a bi-partisan senate bill while conveniently forgetting about the infinitely better bi-partisan house bill that was passed and proceeds to only chide house republicans and hauls butt right after his remarks and takes no questions.

Straight up coward.

rgrovr on December 20, 2011 at 9:47 PM

The only thing worse than 2 more years of John Bonehead as Speaker would be 2 more years of Nazi Piglosi. Why does this wretched political system produce such awful choices?

james23 on December 20, 2011 at 9:59 PM

<blockquote>libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM
Occupy Wall Street much?

kenny on December 20, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Perhaps the increased reliance upon the state can be partially explained by corporations abandonment of American communities and cities, like Detroit.

libfreeordie on December 20, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Hilarious.

Detroit has been owned and operated by the Obama Party for decades. Their policies of unlimited welfare, ever-higher taxes, free giveaways for the lazy moochers like libfreeordie, and demanding that businesses foot the bill have turned it into an anti-business hellhole.

And the silly socialist libfreeordie screams and whines and cries that the businesses will not allow lazy moochers like itself to steal them blind, thus it’s THEIR fault.

We need to remember that this is a picture and description of libfreeordie and its fellow liberals and Obama Party members. They are lazy adult babies who are demanding that the rest of us pay their bills and threatening tantrums if we do not.

northdallasthirty on December 20, 2011 at 10:28 PM

So, like all tax cuts, this one will go mostly to high earners, and it will accerelate the insolvency of SS.

Remember the good old days, when Democrats were against tax cuts for the rich and for funding Social Security?

TallDave on December 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM

If this were a couple of years ago, Obama might be able to pull this off. Now?????? I don’t think so. The pressure is going to be today and tomorrow. If Boehner holds his ground, the pressure is going to shift to Reid and Obama.

The press has no credibility any more and Obama turns off more people, in a press conference, than actually listen to him. In fact, I firmly believe the situation with the press is so bad now, if they say it’s the Republicans fault, most people think they’re lying and taking Obama’s side and will support the Republicans. In the meantime, the Republicans approved a 1 year measure to keep the payroll tax where it is, the Senate only 2 months. The Republicans requested a conference, the Senate left town. Who’s to blame?????

bflat879 on December 20, 2011 at 11:36 PM

So, like all tax cuts, this one will go mostly to high earners, and it will accerelate the insolvency of SS.

Remember the good old days, when Democrats were against tax cuts for the rich and for funding Social Security?

TallDave on December 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Social Security is already insolvent. Why should I continue to pay into a ponzi scheme when I know I’ll never see a dime of it when (if) I retire.

SagebrushPuppet on December 20, 2011 at 11:37 PM

That’s kinda the whole point of trolling isn’t it? As long as people respond to his stupidity he will continue to do his thing.

angryed on December 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM

I suppose, though I hold out hope that one may someday form a cohesive thought. Guy’s sitting here claiming he’s not a socialist while out the other side of his mouth he pontificates about how private businesses ought to be run, waxing on about halcyon days when “companies invested in their communities”. Never mind that Detroit sold out their community long ago, letting unions strangle them to death and building unreliable cars that people stopped buying. The place is a liberal wasteland where no one wants to live.

Guys like him are democrat voting robots and a waste of time. They are incoherent morons and not worth the keystrokes, especially when we have a primary to settle.

The Count on December 20, 2011 at 11:48 PM

Remember the good old days, when Democrats were against tax cuts for the rich and for funding Social Security?

TallDave on December 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Remember when they were for slavery and segregation ? And now, I know them for socialism.

SaysWho on December 20, 2011 at 11:49 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3