Posted on 03/28/2010 9:47:27 PM PDT by ciceroqpublic
This weekend the talk show programs were buzzing about an interchange between Congressman Weiner and Bill O'Reilly. The essence of the interchange centered around O'Reilly trying to force a mysteriously reluctant Weiner to admit that the enforcement agency in the new health care bill was the IRS. Weiner ducked and dodged and, in the end, refused to admit that IRS was going to pursue people who didn't purchase health care insurance.
During the on air interview on Fox the Congressman flat-out refused to admit that in the new bill the IRS were designated as the agency of enforcement. According to all press reports (I do not yet have a copy of the bill) the bill states this fact in plain language. Why would the Congressman refuse to admit this fact? Why would he be so unnaturally reluctant to split hairs over the provisions of the bill, the usual defense of scoundrel politicians? If you haven't heard the interview check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yzDbnMY4hg
He seems to be determined to achieve one purpose, and that is to say that the health care law has nothing to do with the IRS. O 'Reilly has a valid question, if someone refuses to comply with this new law how will it be enforced? Which agency will do the dirty work? Will a park ranger from the Dept. of the Interior turn up at your door? Will it be an ATF agent? One of the President's Secret Service Detail? Perhaps it's a Capitol Hill cop. Congressman Weiner refused to answer. He flat-out refused. This is kind of mysterious. I'll propose a plain explanation of the mystery.
If you watch the clip closely Weiner's act is largely convincing. Certainly he didn't agree to an interview with O'Reilly without knowing that in the wake of the Congress and the President passing a gargantuan change in the law against the will of the American People that O'Reilly would attempt to highlight the most controversial aspects of the bill. Further we can assume that he agreed to the interview for the purpose of advancing his own agenda.
During the clip he spits out a few, odd facts but largely passes on the following message to the staunch supporters of the left. "That's a lie!" he bleats repeatedly to any question O'Reilly asks. Then in a B Movie over rehearsed attempt at keeping his anger in check he bemoans the difficulty to being interviewed by someone spouting lies. His anger though is deep and it is real. When he looks to the right, freeze the image. Lowered lids...rage, it's in there somewhere... at who? Bill O' Reilly? No, like all insiders O'Reilly is a cocktail party annointed one, assumed to be part of the club. So where is his rage focused?
"There is an enormous amount of things that opponents of the health care bill that are just lies. just lies. I'll say that again, just lies."
Was he worried that we hadn't heard him call everyone on our side of the divide liars? I think not. Instead I believe that he knew the interview would be contentious and as a result be replayed as a sound byte for days afterwards. His accusations, that critics of congress and the new health care law are fabricating grand lies will resonate with members of the left nationwide and will serve to short-circuit possible debate and exchange of ideas. But this is just a secondary purpose behind his statements.
Congressman Weiner is a professional liar. He is very good at it but his face betrays with micro indicators on his face. Watch the clip and watch for his eyebrows to rise and quickly arch together. It's a classic indicator of passing a lie. Now pay strict attention to what he is saying when they happen. (I have to admit that there is some demonic pleasure in using the latest behavioural science against those that seek to appoint themselves at the top of a behavioural modification system of oppression)
More disturbing is the truthful information that he offers as a non sequitur. If you watch the whole clip he makes no statements with any content other than protesting that he is not being allowed to talk or saying the Mr. O Reilly's questions are lies. Then suddenly he's offering us factual information not related to any question and it's as a response to the pressure of being repeatedly questioned.
"Right now we have an 88% compliance rate with all elements of the tax code. Requirements, sanctions, everything it's the highest in the world. Ninety Seven.." At this point O'Reilly cuts him off to ask "What about the other twelve percent." This is the key to his whole appearance on Fox. What does the tax code compliance have to do with the new Health Care system that has been written into law? Why was this factoid and number right there in the front of his mind during a debate over health care and compliance with the new federally based system? The immediate and easy comment would be to think that the congressman was about to make some platitudinous comment about a rosy future where the population, down to the last vagabond under a trestle, will rush to sign up to Obamacare. I think there is a much darker and more logical explanation.
Here is where Rep. Weiner looks to the right. (ironic huh?) and O'Reilly says " What about the other 12%? The IRS get's them if they don't pay the taxes, ask Wesley Snipes." Freeze frame again. Rage, lowered eyelids, jaw muscles flexing involuntarily. deep seated rage at those that are not paying.
An 88% compliance ratio for the IRS? A decade ago it was 97%. These nine points are a remarkable shift in the behaviour of the population. Statistically action by a large population in the very high nineties signifies general social compliance and the small 2,3 4 % of the balance is usually attributed to the standard remnant of any population that reject a large social trend. For example there are households that have never bought into electrification or telephones. This is the way humans behave and without a Stasi style campaign employing every third person as an operative and brutal coercion the holdouts will remain.
Using the same yardstick a 9% shift in any core behaviour by a large population is extremely significant. Assuming the taxpaying base at 138 million that translates to 12,420,000 people who have moved into non compliance in the past decade, a decade if you listen to the mainstream government rhetoric,that was one of prosperity. Further it must be noted that social swings like this usually do not stabilize at the 9% mark. Many statistical modelling theorists have noted that social trends have a tendency to stabilize around the following null points of stability; 20% 45%, 60% 80-83% and finally 96-97% the point we started with in tax code compliance. This is not a linear scale model these points can be stabilizing points in either the growth of social acceptance or the rejection of social behaviours. They just seem to be, for some unknown reason, points of stability that occur frequently. You may be asking where I am going with all this, please read on because the balance of the story comes from other quarters.
Is American taxpaying behaviour shifting towards a 20% compliance statistic? Or more frighteningly 45% non compliance? Where is it going. I won't bother to ask why I will just state that this was the inevitable result of decades of oppressive, creeping universal taxation.
My experience and knowledge of anecdotal evidence points to a growing number of people who find themselves in an untenable position and in desperation drop off the radar, with the intent to find a solution. The system is set up to pile on fines, punishments etc the further you venture into non compliance. For most people, sadly, once outside the system it's difficult to return to compliance.
So now we can go back to Congressman Weiner. (I've got to comment at some point in this article that anyone raised with a surname that invites mockery must inevitably harbor a massive insecurity problem and as a result be extremely dangerous if trusted with any power) The interview with Bill O'Reilly centered around non compliance and the congressman ducked, dodged, blustered and fumed while never answering with any substance his question about the IRS. News reports cite that the new health bill will start out by adding 17,000 new IRS agents. That's a hell of a lot of IRS agents.
So let's sum up. The Government has just stuffed a monumental new entitlement down the throats of an unwilling population. Tax compliance is dropping for the first time in modern history and it's dropping fast. An angry citizen has just performed a Kamikaze attack on the IRS. (he reportedly was a democrat) The government has added 17,000 new IRS attack dogs. Government spokesmen are refusing to answer questions about the methodology of enforcing compliance on an unwilling population. And finally, the last puzzle piece, the new health care law insures that the Federal Government will count every head, locate and gain some measure of control over every single last citizen from the cradle to the grave. Feel free to discount or discard my over analysis of his inner thoughts and the facts still add up to a frightening possibility.
Behind closed doors the Government has screamed CRY HAVOC! AND LET SLIP THE IRS DOGS OF WAR!!! Is it any wonder that they are refusing to answer, using obfuscation, denying, lying, burying the facts in 2700 page unreleased legalese and moving in the dark of night? Does Weiner's behaviour make more sense from this angle? It does to me.
Since Oklahoma City our government has been running scared. In their arrogance they never imagined that they might be subject to retribution from anyone in our country no matter how unsavory their actions.Historically this is a common mistake of oppressive governance. Since the Oklahoma tragedy they have been quietly circling the wagons.They've instituted various schemes to locate and identify us, they've expanded domestic surveillance and hammered significant cracks into our protection from search and seizure, the sight of routine traffic stops have become standard viewing for the average american, they are about to add national ID's all this while the only threats we can all see are far beyond our borders. We do not see the threat that our government sees extremely clearly, us.
So I watch in the interview with Weiner and a chill runs down my spine. I tuck my two small children in tighter. Coincidentally, while watching Star Wars for the first time my seven-year old daughter asked what a rebel was. I told her that the rebels in Star Wars were people fighting against bad men that wouldn't let them be free.
"We're Free!" she bubbled enthusiastically.
"In some ways we are honey." was my reply as a knot grew in my gut. "For now..."
The current administration and congress haven't finished remaking America and forcing us to choose sides. It's sickening to watch. They are far from finished taxing us even though the recent collapse was arguably the result of decades of oppressive taxation on a once vibrant, optimistic country. What happened to "it's dawn in America." ? Well it's been taxed into poverty. Where can they possibly imagine the money will come to pay the next wave of crushing taxes? I'll tell you where, our grocery bags, the medical profession's cash flow, cap and trade, a VAT and finally new entitlement excused payroll taxes.
Congressman Weiner you better not answer the questions...........................................
Copyright ciceroqpublic contact ciceroqpublicATyahoo.com
AMEN....DOUBLE BEARDS!!
Thanks Red Steel, now that is interesting. No enforcement?!! This posits two queries:
What is the managerial plan and functional intent of the 17,000 new hires.
How long will this null zone of non collection for non compliance continue before they explain to us the necessity of releasing the dogs?
The current brand of leftists don't think they need the military, yet.
As you have noticed I am new to FR. Although I have been writing content that would fit here for a long time. I have little interest in analyzing or mocking Weiner’s sexual preference unless it some dovetails with understanding his future behavior. (Look I think I spelled Behavior correctly)
I was unaware that he was engaged to one of Hillary’s sycophants. That is interesting and valuable information.
Years ago, I was taught that when in a hostile environment such as negotiations, the rule was: “The bigger the a—h*le, the bigger the smile.”
You just never let the opposition see you sweat.
In the donk instance, they know they are wrong, they know the environment is hostile and they are going to continue on regardless. The interviewer or the opposition is the enemy, the “a—h*le”, in their view.
It may be more accurate, when watching body language, to correlate the biggest smile with the party most on the defensive. I have seen GOP representatives do the same thing. OTOH, watch for the somber appearance of the powerful in the same circumstances. The more power they believe they have or want to convey in any instance, the more likely they are _not_ to smile, at all. Power in an anomalous situation will often allow itself a faint twitch at the corner of the mouth, to convey contempt, weariness and a pained, obvious effort remain civil, although they don’t really believe it is necessary. This is often seen, for example, when one of the State Department burrowers is on camera giving some sort of presser.
BOR will probably have the usual body language expert on tonight???
So, after hearing Mark Levin’s take, was Wiener right anyway???
It’s no secret why Obama has chosen the IRS to enforce compliance on his health care takeover. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to tax, so that will be his/demos defense in any Supreme Court challenge - that it lies in the category of “TAX.” Demos have really thought this through. From what I can see, the only way to stop this monstrosity is for Repubs to deny funding after they takeover the congress in November, and then write a new one. :-(
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBvJAQlXYC8
Glad you’re not a blog pimp. =)
I tuck my two small children in tighter.
Coincidentally, while watching Star Wars for the first time my seven-year old daughter asked what a rebel was. I told her that the rebels in Star Wars were people fighting against bad men that wouldn't let them be free.
"We're Free!" she bubbled enthusiastically.
"In some ways we are honey." was my reply as a knot grew in my gut.
For now...
Chilling.
bump
Congress is run by and full of con men.
Yes, the original odd couple
Or more frighteningly 45% non compliance?
April 15th is upon us. What would happen if we ALL simply decided to not send in our taxes?
Thats the way it is here, but the guns are a little different. LOL.
ROFLMAO!
I reckon thats why he likes the Obama fascism as well.
I say we whip his a$$ real good!
He does present like a narcistic masochist.
A lot like Obama.
Her father (deceased) was an Indian Muslim.
Her mother is a Saudi.
Weiner is Jewish.
Interesting combo indeed.
Not that I want anybody to suffer...
but watching the Bill O’Reilly vs. Weiner exchange was just fascinating.
Like a NASCAR race or train-meets-car/truck collision...I couldn’t
look away as I thought Weiner was going to use open profanity on
Bill.
Or maybe I’d get to see the results of an spontaneously-exploding head.
What is a blog pimp?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.