WHAT’S ALL THIS “DEBATING” GOING ON?

As the year draws to an end, the United States public has born witness to an odd political aberration that the mainstream Media calls “debate”. Having grown up in an era when words actually meant something, and the correct use of the English language was lauded, I have always had a quite different idea as to what a “debate” was all about.

I recall that at one point in time there were extracurricular events as early as High School called Debate Teams. The format of any debate was comprised of two people taking opposite views of a subject with each person putting forth an argument that won over their opponent’s side of the argument.

I start to get a nervous, agitating little twitch when words in our language get hijacked by people who should know better, and twisted into a meaning, or definition, that is far from the original. I have experienced that little twitch as I have been watching and listening to this year’s political panel discussions amongst the crop of Presidential hopefuls presenting themselves to the public. These panel discussions do not comprise a debate. I direct your attention to the Webster Dictionary’s definition of both the verb and the noun shown below:

DEBATE

SIMPLE DEFINITION OF DEBATE

verb,  de·bate 

·           : to discuss (something) with people whose opinions are different from      your own

·           : to compete against (someone) in a debate : to argue          against another     person's opinions as part of an organized    event

·           : to think about (something) in order to decide what to do

noun  de·bate  \di-ˈbāt\

1.         a discussion or argument carried on between two teams or          sides

2.         a discussion of issues <We had a debate over where to go          on      vacation.>

SYNONYM DISCUSSION OF DEBATE

•           discuss, argue, debate mean to discourse about in order to reach        conclusions or to convince.
•           discuss implies a sifting of possibilities especially by presenting     considerations pro and con<discussed the need for a new highway>. 
•           argue implies the offering of reasons or evidence in support of     convictions   already held <argued that the project would be too costly>. 
•           debate suggests formal or public argument between opposing       parties <debated the merits of the amendment>; it may also apply to           deliberation with oneself <I'm debating whether I should go>.

ORIGIN OF DEBATE

·                   Middle English, from Anglo-French debatre, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere

·                   First Known Use: 14th century

SOURCE:

http://beta.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate

The only true political debate occurs when the vying Parties produce their final candidate and there is a true, defined debate between two people with differing views. Ten, or eleven bodies up on a stage is not a debate. It is usually a match of “one-upmanship” between a collection of egos each attempting to be heard over all the others. This seems to inevitably result in oral diarrhea be spewed in the faces of the audience in an vain attempt to impress someone; usually themselves.

In a true debate, facts matter. This does not seem to be a practice employed by anyone running for elective office regardless of Party affiliation.

To have men and women in the Media, who tout themselves as Journalists, allow this aberration to occur, makes absolutely no sense. My immediate conclusion on this count is that these “Journalists” are calling their profession something it is not; that would be Journalism (you can look that one up, too). I must admit, here, that my first college degree was in Journalism. It hurts my head to watch in utter wonderment as the race toward elective office in this Country morphs into some strange, twisted pissing match between folks who are probably normal outside the political ring. There seems to be very little of any substance on policy and direction offered during these trying times. And, that is a disservice to the American public who deserve a lot better from their potential political leaders.

My overall conclusion is that the voting public is the last bastion and hope for changing this abortion called the political process. The American public is not stupid, dumb, or ignorant. It is within their power to affect change; Lord knows, our politicians have thrown in the towel on that concept. Does anybody really want to “take back America”? Maybe it’s time to stand up, make your voice heard, and make your vote count. Please, just do it!

Jumping off the Cliff

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/grover-norquist/fiscal-cliff_b_2173978.html

Commentary follows the hi-lighted footnotes.

Grover Norquist

President, Americans for Tax Reform

Two Thoughts on Navigating the "Fiscal Cliff"

Posted: 11/21/2012 5:46 pm

On January 1, 2013 three things happen:

First, the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts lapse along with a number of temporary tax reductions that have been extended so many times they are collectively known as "the extenders." (Note to self: possible name for female rock band.)^[1]  This collection of tax hikes total $500 billion in 2013. The $1,000 per child tax credit drops to $500. The Obama Social Security tax holiday ends again. The bottom tax rate jumps from 10 percent to 15 percent and the top personal income tax rate jumps from 35 to 39.6 percent -- plus Obamacare's new 3.8 percent surtax: total for top rate 43.4%. (Do be sure to add 10.3 percent for the state income tax if you live in California, 5.75 percent in Maryland or 8.82 percent in New York.)

And unless changed, the AMT will hit 30 million families, up from 4 million last year.^[2]  The AMT was originally created as the quintessential "tax on the rich" targeting all of 155 people.^[3]

Second, the "sequestration" or automatic spending reductions of about $100 billion a year for ten years. This will save taxpayers $1.2 trillion over the decade and was part of the Budget Control Act (BCA) that Obama and Boehner agreed to in 2011 to "pay for" the debt ceiling increase.^[4]

Third, the surtax on income of 2.9 percent rises to 3.8 percent and starting January 1, 2013 it hits capital gains making the total top rate not today's 15 percent, not Bill Clinton's 20 percent, but 23.8 percent. The top rate on dividends increases from today's 15 percent to not just 35 or 39.6 percent, but 43.4 percent total. (And then add state and local income taxes.)^[5]

Obama would like to have a "grand bargain" -- as in 1982 or 1990 -- where Republicans were promised they would get three or two dollars of spending reduction for every dollar of tax increase. (The tax hikes were real and permanent and spending was not cut but actually rose from baseline.) Reagan said 1982 was his greatest mistake. His second biggest mistake learned nothing and agreed in 1990 to "two imaginary dollars" of spending cuts for each dollar of tax hike.^[6]

How can Americans protect themselves against being TARPed again? This new verb is a favorite of congressmen and senators who feel they were rushed to vote for the Troubled Assets Relief Program the way a sleazy salesman urges you to buy the aluminum siding NOW without bothering your pretty little head with reading the contract.^[7]

There are two protections available to the American people:

First, we can and should demand that the negotiations between Congress and the White House on continuing the various "Bush" tax cuts be done in front of C-SPAN cameras. No more secret negotiations. Open covenants, openly arrived at. Every American -- not just PHARMA and the insurance companies -- should be in the room when something as large as Obamacare or today's $500 billion tax hike is under discussion.^[8]

Republicans should promise not to be snarky and must resist the temptation to remind Americans that C-SPAN coverage of such talks was one of Obama's key promises in 2008. Oh, well. Better late than never.^[9]

C-SPAN cameras will allow Americans to know who is being reasonable and who is not. Who presents real solutions and who repeats talking points. If Republicans demand the negotiations be covered by C-SPAN and Obama refuses -- then we would know, as King Solomon did -- who is acting in good faith and who is not. Perhaps Obama is dealing from the top of the deck and he will demand C-SPAN start-to-finish coverage.

Second, once a "deal" is agreed to, it should be written down in legislative language and put online for every American to read for seven full days: 168 hours. No rushing tired congressmen before cameras to endorse legislation they have not read because it only exists in outline form in someone else's briefcase.^[10]

If going into these "fiscal cliff" negotiations every participant knows that both his private and public statements will be heard by all Americans and that the final work product must stand the test of being read by citizens, the chance of another 1982 or 1990 or TARP 2008 will be greatly reduced.^[11] Risk can rarely be taken to zero. But the ability of the American people to watch the sausage made and read the contract before signing is a better guardian of our future than the hurried endorsements of the Washington establishment based on private assurances of politicians.^[12]

Commentary from the desk of We The Peeps1:

From the man who was to propel the GOP into the White House and gain control of the U.S. Senate, here is an article by Grover Norquist. Read with a careful eye and a smattering of history, this article seems to signal a sea change in the behind the scenes maneuvering in the Republican Party. If, indeed, Norquist is a “shaker and mover” in the GOP, what we have here is an “about face” in rhetoric, at the very least.

Based on the hi-lighted footnotes I placed throughout the article, we need to straighten a few things out:

[1]    ...."the extenders." (Note to self: possible name for female rock  

          band.)    

          Haven’t the folks of the Republican Party figured out that there are more women

              voters than  

              men? When do they intend to stop their verbal and fiscal assault on the women of

              this  Country?

[2]    ...30 million families, up from 4 million last year.

         Did anyone send the memo to dear little Grover that the Affordable Health Care Act

            kicked in this year, with more to come in 2013 & 2014? This increase is a calculated

            and known increase due precisely to that Act. This is a qouting of fact that has

            absolutely no bearing on our fiscal

            woes, at the moment.

[3]    ...targeting all of 155 people.

        This number is misleading, if you don’t put it in context. It is a number from 1980

            and the Reagan years. As of 2012, there are vastly more “Millionaires” than there

            were way back then.

[4]    ...Budget Control Act (BCA) that Obama and Boehner agreed to in

        2011...  

        To include a statement like this one is totally meaningless. It has no relevance

           whatsoever to any argument Grover could pose.

[5]    ...increases from today's 15 percent to not just 35 or 39.6 percent,

         but 43.4 percent...

         This is what they are complaining about?  How about asking the elder Senators and

            Representatives what their Fathers and Grandfathers paid in taxes for Capital Gains

            and Dividends? Those figures reached up to 90%, in some cases.

[6]    ..."two imaginary dollars" of spending cuts for each dollar of tax

         hike....

         Well, there you go, again. Trashing Ronnie for a few “minor” little mistakes he made

             in his vision of fiscal integrity for this Nation. OOOPS!

[7]    ...congressmen and senators who feel they were rushed to vote

         for the Troubled Assets Relief Program the way a sleazy

         salesman.......

            And, why was it that they were “rushed”? The Republican filibuster in the Senate

            caused the Bill to get backed into a corner at the Eleventh hour. The “sleazy

            salesmen” were your boys, Grover.

[8]    ...done in front of C-SPAN cameras. No more secret negotiations.

         Um...Mr. Norquist, do you think any of your puppets would ever agree to be live on

            camera, and doing the Nation’s business? You really do think that we’ve all lost our

            ability to remember just how infantile your Congressional Lemmings really are.

            Really? Cameras? Live?

[9]    ...Oh, well. Better late than never...

         Do I hear Grover coming over to President Obama’s point of view? Ladies and

            Gentlemen, we have a flip-flop!

[10]   ...and put online for every American to read for seven full days....

         I don’t know about your tired, overworked Congressmen and Senators, but the

            American People could very easily read these documents, front to back, at least twice

            in the given time frame. And, after all, isn’t transparency a Democratic issue?

[11]   ...the chance of another 1982 or 1990 or TARP 2008 will be

         greatly reduced...

         I’m actually beginning to think Grover is a Democrat, or, at least, a centrist and a

            moderate.

[12]   ...the ability of the American people to watch the sausage made

         and...

         So, according to Grover Norquist, our National Legislation is akin to a sausage? I

            hope this mislead, unfortunate man gets off the bus at the very next stop. The

           American People have endured enough of this oral diarrhea, and its time to clean up

           our ride into 2013 and beyond.