"How you could have had my vote"

[Rollory]

http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html

A lot of stuff there that applies to me too. Bush wasn't a candidate I was particularly enthusiastic about, but for every position of his I didn't like Kerry was equally bad or worse, and the face of the Democratic party right now is one I just want to punch in the nose.

[Matthew Gallant]

At least I know that [Bush] will do what he says he will do.
Yeah, uh, the Democrats are never going to get this guy's vote if he can write something like this without irony.

[JeffL]

One thing he was accurate on was AAR - if the goal was to convert moderates, it failed miserably. I listened to it quite a bit and then quit because it was so full of bitterness and bile.

[Zarathustra]

5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich. Rich people were talked about in this campaign as though they were all evil cheaters who had wage slaves tied up in the basement to be flogged for minimum wage, and what they didn't earn from the wage slaves' labor, they stole from nursing home residents. I am not rich, but I work hard, am learning about investing money, am continuing to improve my prospects for earning more money in the future, and fully expect to end up at least well-off someday. If I do, it will be because of my efforts and work, not because of winning "life's lottery." I know two millionaires personally. Both are entrepreneurs who took big risks and worked their backsides off for years to get where they are. Given that Kerry is married to a billionaire, this seemed especially hypocritical.

That's my biggest reason for avoiding the Democratic party. They truly think they have the right to my earnings, on behalf of others. When you work and save, your earnings becomes a big issue to you. In this forum, don't remember which poster, the inheirtance tax was lauded and he even suggested that I should not be able to leave anything to my children.

[Derek Meister]

The other problem is how often people mistake themselves for being "the rich" that are being spoken of.

For some oddball reason, if you talk about increasing taxes for people making more than $200,000 a year, the 98% of the rest of the population who makes less than that somehoe interprets that as meaning you're going to raise taxes for them.

I don't always understand why people making less than $30,000 seem so alarmed anytime someone talks about tax increases for "the rich" to pay for tax-cuts for the "middle class".

[Qenan]

http://fromasadamerican.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-you-could-have-had-my-vote.html

A lot of stuff there that applies to me too. Bush wasn't a candidate I was particularly enthusiastic about, but for every position of his I didn't like Kerry was equally bad or worse, and the face of the Democratic party right now is one I just want to punch in the nose.

Y'know, when Roe v. Wade goes down I am going to laugh at women like that.

Seriously, I read her comments and didn't see much of an action point. She didn't like Kerry's presentation, apparently, but it isn't very clear what would have reached her better. If that was enough to make her vote for Bush, I doubt she would have been easy to sway, no matter what she says in her blog.

[Matthew Gallant]

The other problem is how often people mistake themselves for being "the rich" that are being spoken of.
They also think they're patriots as they walk into a voting booth and vote to limit the civil liberties that are supposed to be the backbone of the country. They have a sticker on their car to prove it, too.

[Tim Partlett]

At least I know that [Bush] will do what he says he will do.
Yeah, uh, the Democrats are never going to get this guy's vote if he can write something like this without irony.

I don't know about this. He might have told great porkie pies about why he was doing certain things, and he may have made terrible mistakes when other things, but didn't he actually do most of what he said he was going to do? Even if he didn't: that was the core message of his election campaign. If people are believing that, then the Democrat party could learn a lesson from its effectiveness.

[Derek Meister]

They also think they're patriots as they walk into a voting booth and vote to limit the civil liberties that are supposed to be the backbone of the country. They have a sticker on their car to prove it, too.

There's a bumper sticker I want to get that says "I SUPPORT THE TROOPS MORE THAN YOU"

[Bub, Andrew]

Well, if Kerry had gotten a couple more percentage points I could have written a MUCH more scathing blog entry about how Bush lost my vote. This person did very well given the limited ammunition he had to use. This sort of thing should be paid attention to, but come on, the Democrats did appeal to a slim majority of America in 2000 and a slim minority in 2004.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

It's surprising how such small differences (broadly speaking) can create so much bitterness and antagonism on both sides. The level of bitterness evidenced by the blog linked to above and some of the responses here and elsewhere, and the sheer anger in the current US political environment is really out of proportion to the actual differences.

Personally, I find your politics and issues have become very much secondary to the struggle itself.

[Derek Meister]

As I've said before, the fact that the overall percentages in 2004 aren't all that different than in 2000 despite the large influx of voters this time around shows that there hasn't been much change other than the rift between the two sides growing.

As a country, we're less unified than ever, something both sides need to keep in mind over the next four years.

[BrewersDroop]

That's my biggest reason for avoiding the Democratic party. They truly think they have the right to my earnings, on behalf of others. When you work and save, your earnings becomes a big issue to you. In this forum, don't remember which poster, the inheirtance tax was lauded and he even suggested that I should not be able to leave anything to my children.

Who do you think is going to pay for the gigantic deficits run up by the Bush administration? Your children. You and many others on the right have a problem with Democratic tax policies yet apparently have no problem with a Republican party which thinks it has a right to your children's earnings.

[Bub, Andrew]

As I've said before, the fact that the overall percentages in 2004 aren't all that different than in 2000 despite the large influx of voters this time around shows that there hasn't been much change other than the rift between the two sides growing.


And that's what disturbs me most of all, Derek. If a president can screw up as much as Bush has - and it doesn't change the percentages - there's something very wrong here. At least in 2000 I could console myself by admitting that Gore is a bad candidate who ran a bad campaign and that Bush was an unknown quantity promising moderate policies. Now I just have to throw my hands up!

[Zarathustra]

The other problem is how often people mistake themselves for being "the rich" that are being spoken of.

For some oddball reason, if you talk about increasing taxes for people making more than $200,000 a year, the 98% of the rest of the population who makes less than that somehoe interprets that as meaning you're going to raise taxes for them.

I don't always understand why people making less than $30,000 seem so alarmed anytime someone talks about tax increases for "the rich" to pay for tax-cuts for the "middle class".

Let me tell why; because fair is fair. There's no reason why one group of people should burden the biggest share of the load, even if they can afford it. Currently, the tax system is graduated to where middle class and upper class pay much more percentage-wise than lower income people. As you know, the top 2% pay much of the complete tax burden.

Respectfully, I have to say that even when "fair" does not benefit me, I still support it.

[Zarathustra]

It's surprising how such small differences (broadly speaking) can create so much bitterness and antagonism on both sides. The level of bitterness evidenced by the blog linked to above and some of the responses here and elsewhere, and the sheer anger in the current US political environment is really out of proportion to the actual differences.

Personally, I find your politics and issues have become very much secondary to the struggle itself.Agreed!

[Zarathustra]

That's my biggest reason for avoiding the Democratic party. They truly think they have the right to my earnings, on behalf of others. When you work and save, your earnings becomes a big issue to you. In this forum, don't remember which poster, the inheirtance tax was lauded and he even suggested that I should not be able to leave anything to my children.

Who do you think is going to pay for the gigantic deficits run up by the Bush administration? Your children. You and many others on the right have a problem with Democratic tax policies yet apparently have no problem with a Republican party which thinks it has a right to your children's earnings.

I hear what you're saying. But don't be overalarmed, the deficits can be managed by reducing spending and GDP growth. There are a lot of Republicans who feel the same way as you. If necessary, we'll join you in holding Bush's feet to the fire.

[Jason McCullough]

I'm looking forward to seeing Milton Friedman write angry articles about how the GOP is now spendings tons of money on *its* constituencies.

[wildpokerman]

5. You disturbed me with your demonization of the rich. Rich people were talked about in this campaign as though they were all evil cheaters who had wage slaves tied up in the basement to be flogged for minimum wage, and what they didn't earn from the wage slaves' labor, they stole from nursing home residents. I am not rich, but I work hard, am learning about investing money, am continuing to improve my prospects for earning more money in the future, and fully expect to end up at least well-off someday. If I do, it will be because of my efforts and work, not because of winning "life's lottery." I know two millionaires personally. Both are entrepreneurs who took big risks and worked their backsides off for years to get where they are. Given that Kerry is married to a billionaire, this seemed especially hypocritical.

That's my biggest reason for avoiding the Democratic party. They truly think they have the right to my earnings, on behalf of others. When you work and save, your earnings becomes a big issue to you. In this forum, don't remember which poster, the inheirtance tax was lauded and he even suggested that I should not be able to leave anything to my children.

My problem with you conservatives is that you think you have a right to my children's earnings.

[wildpokerman]

Dammit I should read down in the thread before I post what someone else thought of first. Yeah that is a serious problem with the Bush administration though is that they are spending money we don't have.

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, I don't think it would be right to impinge on your children's earnings. Not sure what you meant, though, except maybe your are referring to the growing deficit.

We've run up deficits before (Reagan) and grown our way out of them. I'll agrue that the 9/11 series of events had some to do with the current fiscal backsliding but I also plead guilty that the Bush administration needs to rein in spending.

[Enidigm]

The other problem is how often people mistake themselves for being "the rich" that are being spoken of.

For some oddball reason, if you talk about increasing taxes for people making more than $200,000 a year, the 98% of the rest of the population who makes less than that somehoe interprets that as meaning you're going to raise taxes for them.

I don't always understand why people making less than $30,000 seem so alarmed anytime someone talks about tax increases for "the rich" to pay for tax-cuts for the "middle class".

Let me tell why; because fair is fair. There's no reason why one group of people should burden the biggest share of the load, even if they can afford it. Currently, the tax system is graduated to where middle class and upper class pay much more percentage-wise than lower income people. As you know, the top 2% pay much of the complete tax burden.

Respectfully, I have to say that even when "fair" does not benefit me, I still support it.

Its funny you say that instead of wondering whether 1% having 80% of the nation's wealth is the problem in the first place.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, I don't think it would be right to impinge on your children's earnings. Not sure what you meant, though, except maybe your are referring to the growing deficit.

We've run up deficits before (Reagan) and grown our way out of them. I'll agrue that the 9/11 series of events had some to do with the current fiscal backsliding but I also plead guilty that the Bush administration needs to rein in spending.

It worked out ok with Reagan because it verrrry slowly dropped as a percentage of GDP, and they could raise taxes to fix it.

The fiscal projection right now is a slow slide in deficits as a percentage of GDP, and then when the boomers retire the county goes straight to hell - the total outstanding deficit reaches WW2 levels, the annual deficit drives long-term interest rates through the roof, and the country (maybe) collapses.

We should be paying down debt.

[Derek Meister]

Additionally, I would argue that while the average rich person pays more into the system than the average poor person, the rich person also tends to get more out of the system and it's services.

Note that I'm not counting people on welfare and the like, because they're not paying back into the system either.

Compare what the average lower middle class person would lose if the police, highways, firemen and military were suddenly taken away, versus what the average large corporate owner would.

[Ben]

Derek- Rich people could afford private security. Poor people can't.

[Toddy]

I hear what you're saying. But don't be overalarmed, the deficits can be managed by reducing spending and GDP growth. There are a lot of Republicans who feel the same way as you. If necessary, we'll join you in holding Bush's feet to the fire.

You're getting even funnier. Bush wouldn't have to just cut spending, he'd have to slash and burn to get the deficit even slightly under control. Core programs like education would have to take the brunt of the cuts, too, because there's no way Bush is touching the military or intelligence spending right now.

Also, Bush's low-dollar policies are making it even harder to pay this deficit off. I understood the reasoning for dropping the dollar initially, but the dollar has sunk too far too fast, seriously hindering the ability of the US to pay off these debts.

I don't think there's any easy way out of the current situation, and foresee some lean years ahead. And that's if Bush actually tackles the money problems in his second term. I don't think that he will. He's apparently planning to make the tax cut permanent, isn't cutting back on military spending, and has no plans to curb the fall of the greenback. The current mess is going to look pretty rosy by 2008 if Bush continues with his current foreign and domestic policies.

[Brian Koontz]

Compare what the average lower middle class person would lose if the police, highways, firemen and military were suddenly taken away, versus what the average large corporate owner would.

If it was taken away it would just be reconstituted. If reconstitution was prevented for some reason its hard to say what would happen. If corporations made their own government they would certainly foot the costs, but they would also gain benefits in addition to what they hold now. In the absence of government the corporate sector moves one step up the food chain.

[Enidigm]

Funny but debasing the dollar is both the solution and the torpedo that could sink the economy. On the one hand, if the dollar is overvalued now, debasing it should through gross measures reduce imports and increase exports. Otoh, if the dollar sinks so low that it drives the overseas investment away, as the consumer economy would no longer have the buying power to buy the imports, the investment community might not feel any need to prop the American economy up any further - and if one financial creditor starts to bark, they all bark, and the cardhouse collapses.

If debasement is seen as more a strategy to reduce the deficit, it will probably not lead to a run. But if its seen as a direct result of years or decades of financial mismanagement i think a run would be inevitable.

[Derek Meister]

Derek- Rich people could afford private security. Poor people can't.

You've said that before, and you're still wrong.

Yes, people with something others want could hire security. However, if you suddenly took away police forces, highways, firemen, armies, etc, the people who are currently rich would not be the ones rich in that new world.

Example: Bill Gates.

Physical security for himself and even the Microsoft Offices, he could probably afford with the money he currently has.

However, for him to continue making money, he would have to fund roads to and from his workplaces, water, sewer and electrical supplied for his offices, firemen to watch over them all, highways to be able to ship product on roads, a private FAA to coordinate shipments by air, replacements for the large segments of the Internet that are state and federally funded through universities and the like, an FBI that could crack down on larger software piracy rings, and a large army to prevent his little areas from being taken over by larger forces.

Microsoft as a company, and Bill Gates through it, make a large pile of cash thanks in part because of all the services they get from their local, state and federal governement. I wouldn't be surprised, however, to find out that if you could put a dollar amount on how much they actually use those services, they're actually coming out ahead of what they pay, thanks to tax exemptions and writeoffs.

[Ben]

That's gibberish. Are you asking about some sort of anarcho-libertarian dream where everything is privatized? Obviously rich people would benefit more from that. The idea isn't that Gates would fund everything himself, but that private police/fire/etc. agencies would spring up and serve you if you pay for it. At that point, it's just like taxes.

If you are asking about actual governmentless anarchy, anarchy is not a sustainable condition. Sooner or later, someone would establish their own little government. Yes, there'd be a shakeup, but poor people would be the ones starving in the streets. The rich would lose their fortunes but the poor people would be dead.

[Jason McCullough]

Unless they stormed the castles, which has a nasty history of happening.

[Ben]

Eh, not really. Most of the castle storming in history has been from another group of rich guys. Poor people in history have generally been mostly concerned with growing beets and not getting eaten by mountain lions. Could feudal peasants have overthrown their local liege lord if they wanted? Probably. But why would they? Some of them would die, and the rest would be more or less back where they were.

I imagine the military would re-establish the government really quickly. The hypothetical is fundamentally flawed.

But regardless, we aren't necessarily talking about the super rich. What about the doctors and lawyers of the world? They don't rely on the infrastructure more than plumbers do, they just happen to make more money.


Not only does "decreasing marginal utility of money" make the most sense as a justification for progressive taxation, the way that we tax simply by income rather than by estimated social load indicates that was the concept driving the initial establishment of the progressive income tax.

[Jason McCullough]

Good point. I need more beets....

[Derek Meister]

The point that always gets brought up by the defenders of tax cuts is that those individuals making over $300,000 are paying a significantly more of their income than the guy making $30,000.

I don't think it's hard to prove that the richer individual makes far more use of that infrastructure to make his money than the poorer, to the point where it's actually pretty fair for him to pay more of his income for such.

[Ben]

It seems very hard to prove. Audit Bill Gates' use of the road system. Alright, how much was it?

[Duality]

Its true.

Where Bill Gates is going, they don't need roads!

[JAGuarinc]

Its funny you say that instead of wondering whether 1% having 80% of the nation's wealth is the problem in the first place.

"In the United States, the richest 1 percent of the population held nearly 35 percent of all personal wealth in 1998 (up from 29 percent in 1989)"

From here (http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:JukziYGCv-UJ:minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/03-06/clement.cfm).

Along the way it describes several theories of how inequality in wealth distribution comes about and how they finally have a model that fits the data pretty well. Interesting reading.

For more up to date info you could wade through the various Surveys of Consumer Finances (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html).

In '89 it was:

Top 1% = 29% personal wealth
Top 5% = 53% personal wealth
Top 20% = 80% personal wealth
Top 40% = 93% personal wealth

In '98 it was:

Top 1% = 38% personal wealth
Top 5% = 59% personal wealth
Top 20% = 83% personal wealth
Top 40% = 95% personal wealth

[Natus]

A lot of stuff there that applies to me too. Bush wasn't a candidate I was particularly enthusiastic about, but for every position of his I didn't like Kerry was equally bad or worse, and the face of the Democratic party right now is one I just want to punch in the nose.

Oh, YOU want to punch the Dem party in the nose? Yeah, the right-wing spin machine doesn't spew any hatred, racism, classism, or bigotry. Oh, no! Not Fox, Hanmnity, or Rush! Oh no!

Like the author of that ridiculous letter, you're a die-hard Republican. If not nominally, then deep inside. You'll never vote Democratic, so why pretend you could have. Be dis-satisfied with Bush, but learn to love him as your Great Leader a la 1984, because that's where you've helped to bring us. If she was as well-informed and intelligent as she said she was, she NEVER could have voted for Bush, and deserves the disdain she receives for her easily manipulated and shallow standards.

[Jason McCullough]

JAGuarinc, that article is fascinating. But can I just point how strange it is that "power" is mentioned not once in there? Really smells like curve-fitting to me.

[JAGuarinc]

Thought you might like it Jason. Reading about what didn't work to explain the disparity was an eye-opener. As you point out, they don't exactly go into who controls corporations, banks, etc. Those who are able to direct the actual flow of moolah and so on. Not to mention the sweet smell of the good 'ole boy network. Although I'm pretty sure the latter wouldn't be reported on any surveys. :D

Still, that they were able to apply the model to Sweden is hopeful. Now I want to see it applied to many more countries for differing time periods before I accept it as close to gospel. Small sample size and all that. Sheesh, it's like I'm evaluating Win Shares or DIPS.

[Natus]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2004/11/08/tomo/index1.html

[Oghier]

I don't think it's hard to prove that the richer individual makes far more use of that infrastructure to make his money than the poorer

What is this based on? This is not an area in which I have any expertise, but this stament rings false to me. The primary differences I can think of between someone making 18k and someone making 250k is that the former is more likely to receive some form of government assistance, while the latter probably doesn't send his kids to public schools or require health care without being insured.

I'm sure there are counter-examples (perhaps the rich put more strain on the roads, as they're less likely to use public transportation?). I'm curious to know if there are some studies on this. It's a pretty interesting issue.

[Jason McCullough]

Which kind of job do you think requires more government enforcement of property rights and infrastruture? Being the CEO of microsoft, or being the janitor at Microsoft?

[Oghier]

The math on that is well beyond my meagre skills.

Does the government really have large annual expenses which can be directly attributed to the defense of Microsoft's property rights? Is there some part of, say, the federal highway system which could be apportioned to that firm? I understand that these are core activities of the government, and that neither courts nor asphalt are free. However, I think it might be tough to show that Microsoft adds any significant marginal cost (unless you count money the government spends *attacking* Microsoft, but that's hardly for Bill's benefit).

You could make the point that the wealthy, Microsoft senior management included, have more to lose if the government fails in its duties. A banking crash would cost Bill unimaginably more than it would your janitor. But that is a completely different argument to the idea that the rich now cost the government more.

If you look at it on an individual basis -- and this is, after all, how we calculate income taxes -- Bill's probably a pretty good deal for the government. Whatever expenses the government incurs protecting his individual property (some tiny portion of the local police budget?), I'd bet he pays a couple million in annual tax. If they don't make money on Bill, we really do need to make some changes ;)

[Jason McCullough]

They probably don't make all that much money on Bill, actually. He basically takes no annual pay - he's already the richest guy no earth - and anything he pays for he does so by selling stock. I'd be surprised if he pays much annually, compared to his billions - unsold stock accruals aren't taxed.

On a larger point of whether capital or labor benefits more from government in general - capital, hands down.