Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
So because the GOP didn't fight hard enough to make the tax cuts permanent when they first passed them, there's no reason to argue that they should be extended or complain that they are being allowed to expire? Is that really your argument?
No, and it never was.
Funny. Sure looked like you were arguing that conservatives shouldn't complain about the tax cuts expiring because since the GOP didn't fight as hard to make them permanent, they clearly didn't think it was that important either. But I'm sure you'll come up with some more vaguely worded BS to further muddy the waters...
Quote:
Actually, I was noting the difference between the two responses.
Between what two responses? WTF are you talking about?
I and other conservatives think it's a bad idea to let the Bush tax cuts expire. Instead of arguing against the tax cuts themselves, you choose the incredibly odd approach of insisting that since the GOP didn't vote to make them permanent, we shouldn't care if they expire. I'm unaware of any other interpretation of what you posted, but I'm sure you'll insist that wasn't what you meant.
How about actually saying what the hell you mean instead of dancing around?
Quote:
Now maybe you have some wonderful and perfectly valid rationale for why there was no hue and cry back then towards the GOP but there is now. I kind of doubt it given how you've handled this thread thus far but who knows. Hope springs eternal.
Why would there be "hue and cry"
towards the GOP? I'll ask again: Are you arguing that conservatives should have been pissed at the GOP because they only passed tax cuts but failed to make them permanent? Cause you are once again certainly appearing to be making that case.
If that's not what you mean, how about you actually say something in clear English instead of tossing around innuendo and implication?
Quote:
Quote:
They are similar enough issues that the Democrats in the senate thought to bring it up when pushing for extension of those unemployment benefits Joph.
Yeah, in that money is being spent on both of them.
Lol. No. Money is not being spent on both of them. In one, money is being spent, in the other revenue is not being collected.
What's funny is that I've been trying for several posts to show that the left fails to make a distinction between taxing less money and spending more and here you go giving me an example of exactly that failure. Perfect! Although I'm betting you're still not going to get it even now that I've pointed it out. Pretty please maybe can you grasp that there's a difference between those two things and that you (and most liberals) consistently fail to pay attention to it when talking about economic policies?
Quote:
They could have just as easily cited the unfunded Medicare expansion or years of unfunded wars. Did you even bother to read the quote or were you just too busy shaking with anticipation to type it?
I did. And you're correct. They could have. However, the Democrats wanted to attack the Bush tax cuts, and create an equivalence between the two, so they chose that example to make their comparison. You get that right? You do recall that I said several posts ago that while the arguments used are similar in both cases that the two cases aren't actually the same because one involves taking less from people, while the other involves giving more to them. Both create a gap between revenue and spending, but they do so from different directions, and it's a mistake to treat them as though they are the same.
Shocking how it just keeps coming back to that whole "tax cuts are different than increased spending" thing...