My brother is a rabid right-winger who hates Obama, Democrats, and liberal with a passion. Every discussion with him usually turns into nasty name calling.
I think those of you with similar family members will related more easily to this post.
The latest "discussion" we had was over Obama saying 160 million workers would get a payroll tax cut. Fueled by an article in the Daily Caller that claimed, using Census numbers, that the work force was much lower than 160 million, my brother, and many on the right, are claiming Obama is just lying.
The following, copy/pasted word-for-word, is our exchange on facebook:
ME: Questioning the numbers provided by any politician is a good idea, but so is questioning the opposing views, more so when we agree with them -- it's the best way to validate we're dealing with reality.
To start off, the Daily Caller article you posted used a number from the Census. Why would that be? It makes no sense to use that number. The Census is a look at the past, back in 2010, and doesn't take into account population growth and other factors, by 2012.
The other question you have to ask yourself is: why are publications like the Wall Street Journal and Fox Nation using the 160 million number, if that number is bogus? And more importantly, why aren't Republican leaders or presidential candidates taking Obama to task for using that number?
I'll tell you why. Because the 160 million number is a defensible, explainable, even if overly optimist, number.
The source that should be used is the Labor Department's. They show that the American labor force stands at over 153 million. When you add population growth and the number of new workers entering the work force in 2012, that number is projected to be over 160 million. Voila! No witchcraft.
Chances are that the number will in reality be somewhat lower, although 160m is totally possible if all goes well, hence no sane and sensible publications really questioning the number.
The Daily Caller is hardly a reliable publication to quote from, especially if you don't do due diligence yourself to understand their numbers.
Besides, you heard one side say 160 million, you saw a blog say 131 million and you reached an immediate conclusion: the president is lying. That doesn't sound to me like being a responsible citizen. In fact, that sounds like you drinking the koolaid that you so vehemently say you don't.
HIM: i know the north korea news agency was very truthfull,so is the state dept. now the workforce population according to you grew 30 million in 2 years,keep drinking your kool aid,better yet dont i need someone alive to poke fun at
ME: I'm going to give you a few minutes to think about this statement: it would be to the president's advantage for the number to be lower, and to the Republicans' advantage for the number to be higher.
Think about it. See if you can figure out why.
If you can, you'll understand why 160 million was used and why the Republicans aren't complaining about that number.
Go!
HIM: if this guy tells you he poops hot dogs instead of turds,you will eat them,for you believe anything they tell you as the country gets worse its always someone elses fault.come on.
ME: I'll give you a clue: the 160 million is the number Republicans pushed for.
HIM: dont care who pushed for what or who said what a lie is a lie no matter where it comes from,except you loonies on the left think that lies are the truth.
ME: You're typing, not thinking. Take a minute to think about it.
HIM: already told you long time ago they all make mistakes only you believe that if one is a liberal democrat they somehow are pure uncorrupt and only here to help out others,news flash,theyre not
ME: You're not thinking; you're just reacting. Think, man, think.
HIM: i know what youre trying to say but its not. baby crying be back later.
ME: explain to me why using a higher number is what the Republicans wanted, and Democrats would have been happier with a much lower number. I'll wait. while you're thinking about it... another clue:
The number, 160 million, is not an Obama number; it's a negotiated and mutually agreed to number between both parties, which is why Republicans aren't protesting and neither is the Wall Street Journal editorial board or Fox News.
Do you have any ideas yet?
HIM: go ahead tell me ,your words not using other peoples ideas
ME: Simple: the bill had to be paid for.
Both Democrats and Republicans agreed that the tax cuts should not add to the deficit, therefore it to be revenue neutral.
Since Republicans didn't agree with increasing taxes on the rich to pay for it, the only way to get it passed is to cut costs elsewhere. And since Republicans want more cuts, the higher the number used, the bigger the cuts needed to be.
To Democrats, using the 130 million number would be better because then the cuts in spending elsewhere would nee to be 130 billion, but if the number used is 160 million, then that's an additional 30 billion dollars in cuts.
So, where did they get 160 million from? Simple: the current work force is above 153 million; the Budget department had a report estimating the work force to grow to 165 million. So what did they do? They split the baby in half and went with 160 million.
So, it's easy to see why Dems would want to use a lower number. Besides, the president gains nothing whether he says "130 million" or "160 million." He has nothing to gain one way or the other. The only reason he's using that number is because that's the number they compromised on.
HIM: you trying to tell me your baby god caved in on the taxes to his millionaire buddies? he woundnt back stab you guys like that,must be an error,or they figured out that overtaxing the job creators is not a good thing to do.is that it? i dont believe it
ME: haha gotcha, didn't I?
How smart does the Daily Caller moron look to you now?
HIM: he gave in to those filthy trillionaires,guess you hate it now for you hate the rich
ME: :)
HIM: let me see,social security is going broke.now gets less money in,you think its great.i fail to see it
ME: hahaha
HIM: a broke country always borrowing to pay its bills,you like it again fail to see it
ME: Say it: "Sorry I called the president a liar." Be a man and say it.
HIM: maybe in this instance,but that said he is a liar
ME: ok. I'll take that.
Mission accomplished!