Monday's Brains: The Weekend's Haul
Aug. 18th, 2008 09:51 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfs
- Quote of the day!
- I think this says more about Paul Waldman than it does about John McCain:
Though there was no particular evidence that the tire-gauge attack was having an effect, the McCain campaign's glee was evident. Just days before, they had alleged that Obama's criticisms of their tactics constituted "fussiness and hysteria," and now here they were brandishing small, phallic objects bearing their opponent's name. Meanwhile, McCain himself was sent out to pose in front of working oil rigs, to testify to his thirst for pulling more black gold from the earth. The message couldn't be plainer: See that itty-bitty, little tire gauge? If you vote for Obama, that's how big your penis is. If you vote for McCain, on the other hand, your penis is as big as this rig, thrusting its gigantic shaft in and out of the ground! Real men think keeping your tires inflated is for weenies.
(via Andrew Sullivan) - Team Obama Plays Hardball
- John McCain's team has gleefully pre-released every ad they've run to the press, enjoying the free publicity that doing so gets them, no matter how negative or nasty the ad. (Aside: Why didn't the reporter at NPR laugh in John McCain's face when he said he had run "no negative ads" against Obama? Does he not know what's going on in his own team?) The Obama camp, in contrast, has released ads to the press that have mostly been positive and uplifting.
It turns out that the Obama team is putting out negative attack ads. But they're doing so in very limited markets, targeted to specific economic demographics, while maintaining a positive national campaign. As a bonus, the McCain team doesn't get to respond to the ads for three or four days, by which time the damage has been done. - The Misery Index: Highest Since Bush I Held Office
- Economic mismanagement, the redistribution of wealth upwards (what the Hell do you think the Bush administration's policies were, if not "the redistribution of wealth"?), employment malaise and inflation all contribute to "misery," and right now the misery index is higher than it's been since 1991.
- The consequences of Foreign Policy ADD
- Undiplomatic points out that the distraction of the Russia-Georgia conflict has given Iran a great gift: McCain knows how to talk about war with Russia, seems to enjoy doing so (he actually seemed alive last week), can put aside any pesky questions about the 4000+ dead and billions bankrupted and corruptly distributed in Iraq, and can distract us from fretting about the much crazier and more worrisome Iran.
- Cooking was a major evolutionary leap
- The article argues that cooking, because it "pre-digests" fibrous material and making nutrition readily availble, gave us the caloric volume needed to exploit our brains efficiently, leading to an evolutionary arms race for intelligence. Oddly, the article doesn't mention cooking (and brewing) were also means of reducing mortality by cutting down the bacterial load we consumed.
- Ernest Borgnine gives us his secret to longevity
- And it explains John McCain's problem!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 06:04 pm (UTC)You make it sound as if the income and property of the wealthy intrinsically belongs to society at large, so that failing to transfer it to others amounts to a gift to the wealthy.
You understand, don't you, that this is communism? Not the random epithet that people throw around a lot, just the literal thing itself.
. png
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 06:17 pm (UTC)It wasn't a random epithet. It was an experiment in framing.
Of course it does. But the current regime doesn't call it "wealth redistribution." They tag the Democrats with that accusation all the time, when the capitulations on the Farm bill, the oil & gas incentives, the ethanol incentives, the steel tariffs (nobody remembers those anymore in the wake of 9/11, funny that) and so on, are clearly distortions of the market that do not favor the majority of people who are the market.
But most importantly, every modification to the tax code results in a redistribution of wealth. For the past eight years, without qualification, the redistribution has hurt the average American citizen.
Framing the issue of the Bush administration's tax code as "the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy, where clearly the wealthy and powerful feel it belongs" is a pretty effective one.
After all, it roused you enough to respond.
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 07:13 pm (UTC)And to you, "experiment in framing" means "this point I'm trying to make is so important I'm willing to corrupt the language itself."
I intend to keep using "redistribution of wealth" to describe using tax money to buy votes, whether it's done by Democrats or Republicans, and I doubt I'll find much use for "experiment in framing" at all.
And you know it doesn't take much to get me to reply. If you really wrote that line just in order to attract my attention, well, I'm flattered, but there are more productive discussions we could be having.
. png
no subject
Date: 2008-08-18 08:11 pm (UTC)It rings absolutely true to me. The key to Republicans winning (since I've been paying attention, ie Reagan) is to seem manly and make their opponent seem unmanly. It would have been interesting to see how that played against Hillary Clinton. Do you disagree?
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 08:19 pm (UTC)Taking away money from Group A and giving it to Group B is what government does. Any government. When Congress takes your taxpayer dollars (at gunpoint, if necessary, see IRS) and spends that money on Kevlar for Marines in Iraq, that is taking money from Peter to pay Private Paul. (A buddy of mine, by the way, thanks for the Kevlar that helps keep him alive.)
The Bush administration has consistently favored policies which give tax credits to the wealthy and deny these credits to the increasingly mythical "average American."
I do not understand a belief system in which subsidized student loans, tax credits and mortgage interest tax exemptions are not welfare; yet paying farmers to either grow food ("subsidies") or not grow food ("soil banking") is not welfare; while paying stores to give food to poor people IS welfare, as are direct payments to these poor people; yet Section 8 housing where landlords are paid to house poor people is NOT welfare.
I'm confused. Isn't all of this redistribution of wealth?
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 09:20 pm (UTC)You, too, are apparently trying to corrupt the language itself, making it impossible to carry on a rational discussion, by implying that if everything is "redistribution of wealth" then nothing is, and if there's no "redistribution of wealth," there's nothing to complain about. That's nonsense.
In truth, the things you mention are a mix of welfare ("redistribution", "vote buying") and attempts to make the economy run more efficiently. To the extent they serve a valuable social purpose that is worth the price we pay for them, they're better than the alternative. To the extent they don't, we should be trying to stop them.
Your rhetoric about tax credits is also dishonest. Tax credits do not amount to gifts any more than refraining from stealing does. In effect, you're trying to imply that past tax policies are just a fact of nature, which means that any future tax reduction amounts to giving someone something they don't deserve. That too is nonsense.
It's pretty obvious that the function of taxation as a fraction of income is, like dinosaurs, small at one end, big in the middle, and small again at the other end. The poor don't pay much tax because they're economically fragile; that's fine. The rich don't pay much tax because most of their wealth is being reinvested in the economy anyway-- and more effectively than the government would do it-- and that's fine too.
So naturally those of us in the middle pay the highest taxes as a fraction of our incomes. We're also the ones spending the largest fraction of our incomes on nice houses, cars, big-screen TVs, etc., so apparently we can afford the tax bill too.
I don't see a problem here. It all seems to work out well enough in general terms, but the exact distribution of taxation vs. income is always going to be subject to some fiddling. It's wrong of you to say that shifting the balance toward taking more money from the rich is liberal justice but shifting it back the other way is conservative greed.
That's really just a sneaky attempt to establish a moral basis for a ratchet function, moving us inevitably toward more socialism, and I won't stand for it. If you want socialism, say so, but let's preserve our ability to have the discussion.
. png
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 10:07 pm (UTC)Military appropriations, while necessary for the common defense, are a redistribution of wealth. Pretending otherwise is absurd. Certainly when the military is used in an offensive war to preserve the economic status quo.
I can choose not to buy groceries and grow my own food, Thoreau's axe not withstanding.
I am NOT saying that 'everything' is redistribution of wealth. I listed specific acts of government that do in fact redistribute wealth. A tax break or tax credit is nothing more than a tax exemption given on the basis of favoritism.
"Attempts to make the economy run more efficiently" are in fact socialism in the classic sense, that of government interference in the economy to serve social goals. I agree that many of these are reasonable and prudent, but let's not mince words. Between Section 8 and the mortgage tax exemption, we house a substantial chunk of population that otherwise might be homeless, underhoused and/or deeply upset. One consequence is inflation of housing costs; another is that existing housing stock is permitted to deteriorate. (Section 8's habitability rules are an effort to counter this.)
>> Your rhetoric about tax credits is also dishonest. Tax credits do not amount to gifts any more than refraining from stealing does.
Do not accuse me of dishonesty. Accuse yourself instead of arrogance.
If taxes are just (and I agree that a moderate amount of taxation is necessary for government to perform its duties in serving the people), then giving someone a break from taxes is unfairly raising taxes on everyone else. This is not a zero sum game. If IBM need not pay taxes, then I (and everyone else) have to pay more in taxes to subsidize IBM.
Taxation is not theft. It is a necessary evil. Pretending that taxation is theft while expanding the role of the government in the economy is dishonest rhetoric of the most vicious sort. It is also a core value of the Republicrat party.
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 10:08 pm (UTC)>> In effect, you're trying to imply that past tax policies are just a fact of nature
>> which means that any future tax reduction amounts to giving someone something they don't deserve.
No, a present tax reduction is a privilege not a right, given either to serve worthy government goals or as a form of redistribution and/or theft from all other taxpayers.
Imagine that I tax you at 99% and tax me at 1%, while taxing everyone else at 38%. Do I deserve this tax break? Do you deserve these punitive taxes? If I devote my life to public service, maybe the tax break is part of my compensation package. If you devote your efforts to destroying other people's health (i.e. selling tobacco), maybe some of your gains should have to pay for the losses to everyone else from increased health costs, secondhand smoke, etc. Maybe. I don't know that I agree, and am certainly open to discussion.
This is a slippery slope. My only point is that ALL TAX is robbing Peter to pay Paul.
>> It's pretty obvious that the function of taxation as a fraction of income is, like dinosaurs, small at one end, big in the middle, and small again at the other end.
>> The poor don't pay much tax because they're economically fragile; that's fine.
Are you kidding? The poor pay far more AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME because most of what they buy is subject to sales tax (except food), and they don't have predatory accountants helping them claim tax breaks.
>> The rich don't pay much tax because most of their wealth is being reinvested in the economy anyway--
Again, are you kidding? Much of the 'investment' by the rich is paper money chasing itself in the market, and thus removed from actual use as capital.
>> and more effectively than the government would do it-- and that's fine too.
This is the only point where I agree, except that I don't buy the relationship between decreased taxes on the rich and increased economic productivity that is the cornerstone of Republicrat beliefs.
>> So naturally those of us in the middle pay the highest taxes as a fraction of our incomes.
Not for long, the destruction of the American middle class is progressing rapidly.
>> We're also the ones spending the largest fraction of our incomes on nice houses, cars, big-screen TVs, etc., so apparently we can afford the tax bill too.
The middle class is hurting and consumer spending is trending downward despite the hidden effects of two parent two wage-earner families. Do you read the economic news or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
>> I don't see a problem here.
Your privilege.
>> It all seems to work out well enough in general terms, but the exact distribution of taxation vs. income is always going to be subject to some fiddling.
>> It's wrong of you to say that shifting the balance toward taking more money from the rich is liberal justice but shifting it back the other way is conservative greed.
Especially since I said no such thing. Stop putting words in my mouth.
>> That's really just a sneaky attempt to establish a moral basis for a ratchet function, moving us inevitably toward more socialism, and I won't stand for it. If you want socialism, say so, but let's preserve our ability to have the discussion.
Again, putting words in my mouth because you don't understand the language. Check your assumptions at the door.
I don't want socialism. WE HAVE SOCIALISM. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 10:34 pm (UTC)And reducing the tax rate is a gift to the taxpayer,
And taxing one group is a gift to another,
Then ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery, and shit is shinola. I won't have it.
. png
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-18 11:11 pm (UTC)As for paying for a service, when I buy a stamp, I'm paying for a service, getting my envelope from Point A to Point B. When I am taxed to feed soldiers, I am not paying for a service. At best I am paying for a common good, whether or not I get any. At worst I am being extorted (at gunpoint) to pay for all sorts of activities I neither condone nor approve of. The alternative is prison, so I'll pay. That doesn't mean that I am buying X units of personal or national protection in an over the counter transaction.
We don't tax religion in this country. "The power to tax is the power to destroy." This is because any religious tax would interfere in the free exercise of religion.
If we chose not to tax people who buy their homes (as opposed to those who rent) ... and we do make this choice, we call it the mortgage interest deduction ... we are deciding that government money is better spent on owner-occupied housing rather than rented housing. Otherwise we would tax everyone the same.
In effect, when I pay my rent and pay 38% taxes, and my neighbor down the street pays his mortgage and pays 34% effective taxes, this is money taken from my pocket and put into his pocket. By the "gov'mint" mind you.
Of course, this is based on the theory that everyone should pay taxes equally rather than according to their means.
When we tax different people at different rates, we are in fact redistributing wealth. Reducing the tax rate BELOW WHAT OTHERS PAY is a gift from the Treasury (and thus, everybody) to the person or entity receiving the tax break, just as raising the tax rate ABOVE WHAT OTHERS PAY is an added burden on those we tax more highly.
What on earth do you think 'redistribution of wealth' means anyway?
I should add that money is nothing more than a promise to pay, issued by the government as a public service. Playing with the price of money is yet another form of government interference in the economy. Witness our present radical inflation.
At least I don't have to house the soldiers too (3rd Amendment).
You seem to be really poorly read on the history of our nation. Try reading the Federalist Papers and go from there. Some economic education would do you some good, too.
Heck, you could enjoy a romp through the dictionary. Try the definitions of "wealth" and "tax" and "gift" and go from there. There are some real surprises waiting for you.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-19 12:24 am (UTC)Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-19 12:51 am (UTC). png
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-19 05:53 pm (UTC)You characterized my arguments as "shit is shinola."
Either you don't understand the language, or you don't know how to use it. Both possibilities should prompt you to further educate yourself instead of mindlessly repeating other people's propaganda.
If you don't like personal attacks, don't stoop to them yourself.
Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-19 05:55 pm (UTC)Re: Wait, wait
Date: 2008-08-19 06:09 pm (UTC)If we lived each in our own little isolated island, with no interaction with anyone else, then taxation would be theft. As it is, we live in a complex, interdependent world where we benefit by being surrounded by (mostly) well-educated, healthy people, and an infrastructure that allows us to take care of our food, water and shelter needs without having to spend most of our personal time and resources to do so. Taxes are what help fund that whole enterprise, the price tag of getting to live in a modern society.
However unpleasant paying taxes may be, having to go back to some sort of subsistence lifestyle would be a good deal more unpleasant.