As many of my readers know I am active within the Democratic party. I've come home to roost could you say?
I see it as the lesser of two evils and have no concerns about saying that. I realized a little after the war started that it was my obligation to work within the political struture to get improvements. Until we have instant run-off voting the Democrats are the only game in town. I'd love to see active third parties but as things stand they have no clout or impact--I shall yawn if you feel the need to rehash the 2000 election, you have no empirical case to make but I'll certainly argue with you for posterities sake...
The Demcrats are far better on the economy and truly work within the fundamental principle that we are all in this together--hence they have a better economic approach since markets function best when we harness everyone and focus on prosperity and fourishing as opposed to individual success in making money as the core goal. Things like the SCHIP bill which Republican's opposed in droves--chuck hegel and a few others withstanding (does anyone have which Repub. supported that one? Also items like the Iraq war and terrorism--Chuck Hegel withstanding--are still very much distinctions between the two parties. I don't see third parties as legitimate or impactful this year--but that is for everyone to decide as individuals; I can't decide for others, though I am willing to go the extra mile to make my case if desired.
Davidfl, regarding the fair tax I was hoping to have mroe time to discuss but breifly. Consumption taxation at its core seems to be a very worthy goal. It may be a wash for low income people, though I'm still not 100%. But I still remain unconvinced and hence opposed that 1) it would work in reality the way it does on paper--as things a want to do; and 2) the inclusive and exclusive usage seems manipulative but I can't put my finger on it--hence why at the very least it seems questionable as a political/economic tactic. I'm a pretty smart guy but if I can't see why you feel it is to be important others won't either.
So I'll work on toning down the rehtoric, still work to learn more on it; yet I remain unconvinced.
That in a nutshell is my concession. Keep at me on this one... I'll keep working on it.
--------------
Jim Nichols
A Speculative Fiction
www.JimNichols4.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
If I had any “readers”, they’d know that I will always support what I believe to be right regardless if I am the only one in the world to do so. I have hope that others will come around to see the truth I have seen. I guess it has something to do with a particular early adult experience.
Both sides always told me that it was impossible to be concurrently gay and Christian. Until I was 25 I believed them. I had spent several years trying really hard to be not gay and then a couple years trying really hard to be not Christian. I couldn’t shake either fundamental part of myself, so I learned that the partisans on both sides of the gay vs. Christian fight are incorrect. I was soon quoted in the newspaper of my conservative Christian Reform college as “the only openly gay student at Calvin College”, I always wore Christian t-shirts to gay events and gay pride t-shirts to Christian events, and I helped an amazing gay-yet-celibate minister build a support organization for other gay Christians.
I bring this up because that epiphany made me question for myself EVERYTHING I had ever been told instead of relying on the opinion of coconspirators. I began to look around and saw that most partisans and extremists in any dispute are willfully blinding themselves to arguments that seem to come from the other side.
It doesn’t matter what the argument is: abortion, gun control, energy policy, economics or the FairTax. There are people who have heard one side of the argument, concluded that side is correct and the other side incorrect. They use that as the excuse to not try to understand the other side and then they surround themselves with like-minded people who restate side “A” over and over and continuously demonize side “B”.
The best example to illustrate my point so you will appreciate it is to use FairTaxers. They’ve been told over and over again that prices will fall by 22%, so we will have only a 1% increase in prices when we add the 23% tax. First off, the math is ridiculously distorted in that argument (specifically because of the inclusive-exclusive dilemma of quoting percentages which I will get into later), and second, the exaggerated drop in prices was based on a study that included the employees’ side of the payroll taxes. There are very rational arguments to discredit the claim that “prices will be about the same” under the FairTax, but the majority of FairTax advocates have been convinced that anyone who disagrees is either stupid or lying so there is no reason they should even listen to their arguments. They just reply that the opponent should read the book. I use blogs now to make my point instead of t-shirts, but I still put myself in the middle where I believe the truth lies.
The people in power have used this phenomenon for decades, if not centuries, to hold onto power. Both parties today can make the most outrageous claims of the other side because they know that only a small minority of Americans will take the time to understand the positions of both. Those that do will usually support some third option and will be told by the overwhelming majority they are wasting their time and effort. Some who tell them that will be doing so with the conscious knowledge they are lying to hold onto power. Others will be like the FairTaxers spouting, “read the book” whenever they get backed into a corner—honestly believing the misunderstanding they have of the situation.
I’m rambling and monopolizing your comment section so I should stop for now. I’m driving from Florida to North Carolina tomorrow night and have a shit ton of stuff to do between now and then anyway. I won’t likely be reading you again until Tuesday.
To say that you are preaching to the choir is to understate. Then the entire "blog world" is generally guilty of that anyway.
Like you, I am probably not a die-in-the-wool Democrat. What does it say about the Democrats that they have chosen two skeptics chairs of county parties? At any rate, I am, in reality, a Populist as I have a suspicion that you are. If we do, indeed, have some sort of democracy (and I will not even entertain the distinction between republic and democracy since both are driven my voter choice), then we must empower the voters to understand how to "drive" the system. We have had this discussion before. What is the saying, "vox populi, vox Dei"? I am sure that you have specific issues that you would like to see implemented, as do I. But that can happen only if we can convince the voters that those issues should be important to them also.
One final word on the FairTax (I cannot believe that we have to spend time on this). ANY form of flat tax is, by definition, regressive...impacting those least able to pay the most. There is no way to balance that out, without exempting people from paying all together...and we know that will not happen.
Keep the faith.
Yardman,
You are correct that I have several specific issues that I would like to have implemented. I wish I had a better understanding of the word "populist". If it means looking out for the little guy, than yes, that is me.
By the way, the FairTax is not a flat tax. It is a progressive consumption tax that does indeed completely excempt all spending from every family up to the HHS guideline of poverty. I apologize that you've missed a lot of my communication with Jim becasue much of it was offline.
You did however make part of my above point for me with your paranthetical "I cannot believe that we have to spend time on this."
It is clear from your calling it regressive and flat and lamenting that it won't exempt anyone that you have only grasped one side of the discussion and yet you feel somehow compelled to let everyone know what a waste of time it is to try to understand the argument you percieve to be coming from the "other" side.
I don't mean to offend you in pointing that out, but the tactic really offends me.
I'd like to know what your understanding of the prebate is. You stated before that it puts everyone on the dole and would foster greater dependence on the government. Clearly you see it as something different than the personal exemption on a 1040 or the earned income tax credit.
Would you be willing to elaborate?
Is this where I can leave my long comments? This is the comment's page, yes?
In response to an earlier post..
"Thats the biggest problems with philosophy in general... it sticks to theory and all these "ideas" that are reasoned out..."
I disagree. I am not confusing philosophical reason with scientific inquiry. Science uses philosophy each time one asks the question "Why?" Both science and philosophy uses empirical data to answer questions. However science, unlike philosophy, uses empirical data to answer empirical questions. Does anyone seriously use apriori reasoning anymore? I think not.
I read George Lakoff and Steven Pinker today. I plan to read various other work by these men and others to seek evidence of your premise. The bridge to understanding must be laid one brick at a time.
There is compelling argument for cognition as controller of our lives. However, there is no definitive proof. There seems to be likelihood. You showed me a study where 80% of human behavior can be predicted. This is a strong indicator on the impact of the material. However, what accounts for the 20% Why not 90% Why not a higher percentage of conformity to the theory? Can cognitive theory disprove other theories such as reincarnation or permanent survival theory? (This is not to say there is definitive evidence of either claim. However, there is empirical data suggestive of something occurring.)
What is permanent survival theory?
Permanent Survival Theory is a theory devised by Robert Almeder. He was a professor of metaphysics. He is (former?) faculty at GSU.
The theory involves various notions such as life after death, near death experiences, etc. Another book with similar notions can be found in Paradigm Wars, by Mark Woodhouse. They suggest possible alternative explanations for otherwise unexplainable phenomena.
Given that our current and (possibly) future leadership have no definitive plan (I've seen proposals and witnessed rhetoric, most of which are more of the same; although Obama's is better, though he seemingly back tracked to more "traditional/status-quo" positions with his economic policy)to balance the budget, decrease the deficit, etc. If our officials don't take measures to correct these problems the Trust Fund for social security will likely deplete and will rely on FICA, which will cover about 65-75% (or something like that). The government exists to protect, defend and educate its citizens. I question its ability to do so indefinitely at its current state.
I know the dismantling or revamping of the social security system will cost trillions possibly and worsen the deficit. I also know such proposals could result in moral peril for social security recipients as thee are no guarantee for returns on privatization accounts. Do I care about the elderly and the disabled? Certainly. Do I believe things are okay as they are with regard to the use of tax revenue? Certainly not. I am unsure if any present or future politician will take the necessary measures to ensure social security will fulfill all of its functions indefinitely. Hence my slant towards more radical, if not nihilistic, measures. If the government won't take care of its elderly and disabled properly, then at least let me keep my money. Yes, Jim, I know. "my money...my government...etc. reeks of conservative programing." Don't blame me. Blame my biology.
I have become somewhat pessimistic with regard to the activities of our government. I don't trust the government to do the right things: balance the budget, fix elderly healthcare, protect its citizens competently. How many stories have you read about elderly barely able to afford (human) food, much less purchase medication? How many elderly are capable of keeping up the the changes in federal policy?
How can the government project a report to 2086 when other reports state the future cannot be projected to 2041? Is that not why Hillary chose to not deal with the issue (because it was not possible to clearly project one way or the other)? Pardon my skepticism, but something seems amiss. Our money is going into a system to provide certain purposes and is not delivering as it should. How many elderly people are still unable to get their medication because it's too expensive, or they don't understand their government med plan because the legalese is too dense? How many elderly live at or below the poverty line (I know social security is a supplemental income. I question if they are getting their fair share of the money.)? Do all disabled people get their benefits? If not, why? Do you trust a government whose solution to fixing the economy is giving money away (economic stimulus pandering) instead of investing in welfare? If government is willing to throw away revenue, they may as well inflict more damage. Call it nihilism, call it what you will. I call it a response to an irresponsible government. It reminds me of the riots after Rodney King.....people turning on themselves.....THIS is the way I feel about government.
Can you argue with absolute certainty the money will be available for all eligible citizens in forty years or greater - providing for all needs as intended by the social security system? Is it an impossibility that if the budget isn't balanced, the deficit reduced, medicare reformed, etc. the Trust Fund will be depleted and rely on FICO, which won't be less than 80%? Take their report and shove it up their collective ass. Seriously. Question them. My point is the real issues need to be addressed.
By the way, I don't watch Fox News. I don't have cable. Nor do I read it often enough to be swayed by their spin. The links on my site are from various sources. The links and news feeds are representative of how I approach news gathering. Read multiple sources. Make up your own mind.
Yeah, I said alot. I'm sure you'll rip each point apart! I prefer it you don't. It won't answer the main issue. Focus on the last paragraph.
;O)
I would appreciate your addressing the issues discussed, which are: the justification for the long term projection of the report cited on your post (2086?), whether or not you believe it is unlikely for the Trust Fund to be depleted if government continues as is (not balancing the budget, medicare/medicaid reform, reducing the deficit, etc.), is the report justified in making the claim "social security will be fine" for such a long period? Again, some economists claimed previously there could be no consensus as per whether the money will be there or not by 2041, let alone 2086.
yeah i'm going to rip each point apart... most specifically the last paragraph cause I find it extremely disturbing...
I'm not likely to have the time early in the week. I may have to post in chuncks but i'll answer... most definately answer it...
http://www.factcheck.org/social-security/a_rigged_calculator.html
http://www.factcheck.org/aarp_claims_bushs_plan_is_a_homewrecker.html
http://www.factcheck.org/recycled_exaggerations_local_ads_pressure_congress_in.html
http://www.factcheck.org/false_attacks_over_windfalls_to_wall_street.html
http://www.factcheck.org/social-security/bushs_state_of_the_union_social_security.html
http://www.factcheck.org/social-security/aarp_says_social_security_needs_moderate_changes.html
Take a look at these articles. They address both liberal and conservative perception.
Post a Comment