Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Dean's piece was a throw away angry rant and hopefully represents few folks like him. I liked Barlow's piece because he got past the anger and had the integrity to admit he may have been wrong.

Maybe we should stop focusing on how big the divide is and start focusing on narrowing it. Respectful tone (no anger or contempt) with reasoned debate might be a good place to start.

It wasn't a smack upside the head. It was a very honest and straightforward response to Barlow. He can either understand it or he can, like you in calling it a "smack upside the head" or, even worse, Mike Sanders above characterizing it as a "throwaway angry rant" rather than a very thoughtful piece that I put a lot of time and thought into and that a LOT of people I know all around the country feel.

You guys have come across as arrogant, hate-spewing, demonizing lunatics for the last couple of years. And now that you've lost many of you are APOLOGIZING FOR US rather than thinking, "oh, maybe we missed something."

The truth of the matter is that you COULD take this as constructive criticism. There's been a lot of stuff from you guys on the left saying that Bush and the Republicans need to "reach out." Well we tried to reach out, a lot, and got smacked around for it. Now at least a few, like Barlow, seem to want to reach out. Well I'll reach back. But first things first: you guys have acted like complete dicks to us, and you made us feel very betrayed. Sorry, but you just did. You didn't want to talk, you wanted to condescend and demonize. We heard it loud and clear.

We've been trying to talk to you guys for two years and you haven't wanted to listen. We still try and you still just bat it away in denial.

By the way, maybe this Virginia Postrel column makes my same point but without offending as much. It's pretty much exactly what I think I'm saying, anyway:

http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001447.html

This is, like, advice you could be taking.

I stopped reading the rant when it got to the "rage-filled leftists" remark. Are leftists rage-filled? I always see liberals getting accused of not being angry enough (from both sides) and being "wimps" "pansies" and whatnot. I've seen a lot of stuff about how the democratic party supposedly lost because it's not angry enough.
So I guess that seemed a bit off to me.
Especially since this guy seems to be the angry one.

And I also saw he links to something called "Michael Moore Hates America"... And I have no time or energy for arguments that attack the person instead of the issues or arguments. I think that covers about 3 logical fallacies, for one thing.
And indeed, it does seem as if this Dean's World guy is himself attacking people instead of their stands on the issues.
(Unless of course that link points to some kind of humour or comedic take on Michael Moore, in which case I would allow for comedic license. But somehow I don't think it does, though I could be wrong.)

I have a whole hell of a lot more respect for ANYONE who focuses on arguing their points from the positive stand. What they believe in. Instead of ranting a list of things they hate about other people, or a list of lies they think somebody else has told. Why not just state what you percieve, your viewpoint, and how you see a political party or politician not supporting your beliefs, and leave it at that... instead of gettin' in the sandbox.

And don't even get me started about "name-calling". That's abusive, irrational, and rather immature, by most people's standards in civility, and I think by psychological standards as well.
Anytime someone engages in name calling, I stop listening (reading). And I think a lot of people do.

(I also take points off of my view of blogs for even linking to anything that contains name-calling, for giving any type of creedance to it. Sorry Weinberger. ;)

Dean,

It wasn't even marginally passionate until here:

I voted for Bush because the war in Iraq was exactly the right war, for exactly the right reasons, at exactly the right time. Not because I think you're supposed to believe whatever Bush says, but because I independently concluded, like a whole lot of other people, that it was the right thing to do, and that NOT doing it would be a crime against humanity. And that America and the rest of the world would be safer if we did it.

And you know what? I agree with you completely. Well, except the part about doing drugs (not my thing then or now, but I want to run for home owner assocation board one day, so forgive me) and never dating cheerleaders (if dating the girl the year before she was on the cheerleading squad counts).

David, we (meaning left and right generally) can disagree without being disagreeable. However, a common theme this past year has been "Bush is a moron and anyone who supports him is therefore a moron". Well, Dean is not a moron. I know I'm not a moron, as I am still able to farm out my time for a high price. So people like us conclude (via contrapositive reasoning) that Bush is not a moron, and then by inference that those accusing Bush and us of being morons are hysterical at minimum.

The thing I have learned from this campaign is to never underestimate the value of a fanatical opposition. If you can keep your cool while the other side is throwing tomatoes at you and screaming, you've pretty much made your point.

Hi Dean,

I never heard of you before. I agree with your post and you have a right to be angry, especially if you are trying very hard to have a reasonable conversation and people simply respond with hate and name calling. But as someone who always voted indpendently, I must say that over the last few years, and especially the last couple of years, I have heard the very same thing you have, have been treated with scorn and disdain and have never, NOT ONCE, been able to engage a single Bush supporter in anything remotely in a reasonable conversation. God knows I've tried, over and over and over again, with utter abject failure.

So I think that is why I have sided with the left (albiet wrong perhaps) in their anger and recently, name calling, over "stupid rednecks" because that is basically what I've encountered. Obviously, you and many of the sites you linked too are not. So maybe there is hope of a RATIOANL dialog afterall. I very much hope so! I've been yearning for it for years.

I'm glad I've discovered your site, and perhaps you can excuse me for my ignorance for not knowing where your side (the rational part) is coming from - because its all new to me.

I look forward to reading your blog more, and hopefully engaging in some rational conversation in the comments. I must admit though that I have been burned so consistently that I'm quite afraid to start. But perhaps that's what I'll do. Hopefully, you monitor the comments to keep it civil?

Regards,

Paul

Hi Brad,

Ok, so it looks like your a thoughtful, rational, intelligent Bush supporter. This is exciting! I've been yearning to talk with someone about these issues. Are you willing? Perhaps if it becomes too cumbersome in this space, we could pick it up through private email.

For the moment, lets skip the war issue, and focus in on some specific issues, one at a time. Flat Tax. It sounds beutiful in principle. When I first heard it I was intrigued. Jerry Brown and Steve Forbes were both advocating it back in 1992. My parents, who are both CPA's, send our entire family Forbes Flat Tax Worksheet. Along with that sheet, we were sent a traditional 1040. Everyone in our family was to fill both out and send it back to our Parents. You know what? Only one person in our family paid LESS taxes. That was my sister and her very affluent husband. They made about 230k that year, and in finality paid less taxes under the Flat Tax Regime. The rest of my family, whose incomes ranged from 13k/year to 95k/year (me) paid MORE TAXES!

I was astounded, and right then and there became very skeptical of Flat Taxes and their supposed fairness. So my conclusion is this. Already working families are under dire strains in many ways - from affordable healthcare, to outrageous mortages, to record debt to income ratios. If Bush's flat tax proposal has the same effect as Forbes', then the result will be shift of the tax burden from those in the highest tax brackets to those making below 100k or so. That means the rich will get richers and the poor poorer.

Of course from an Ayn Rand point of view, this is perfectly acceptable. And it is here, that I think most rational arguments break down. Because from what I've heard from the far-right fiscal conservatives is that is the nature of the free market. Trickle down economics and all that, which was a miserable failure. All I know is that under Clinton I got a lot richer, and in the last 4 years I've gotten considerably poorer. My income between 1992-2001, went from about 20k/year to 95k/year. From 2001-2004. It has gone from 95k/year to about 45k/year.

Paul

I'm sorry, whoever you are, but to paint *all* Democrats as moving in lockstep with each other, let alone as *all* of us wanting to demonize and condescend, is an insult.

Being a pothead doesn't make you a leftie and wanting Osama's head on a stick - as I do - doesn't make me a righties.

There are far too many genearlizations from either side, and yes, its the Democrats who need to work on their message since its getting misconstrued so baddly. But to say we hate America?

Pot call Kettle black much?

Y'all aren't going to have meaningful dialogue about anything until you get past screaming

A!

NOT B!

A!

NOT B!

at each other.

This comment is not meant to persuade anyone any which way, but I thought this "Wired" article was interesting in that it makes this salient point:

"Everyone talks about the rhetoric of the campaign -- how we are so mean and we won't love each other any more," Rushkoff said. "But the phenomenon I'm seeing is that people are being narrowcast very specifically, so we tend to think of ourselves as living in very separate consumer tribes. We look at our democracy as consumers rather than as citizens.

"We look at Bush and Kerry and say, 'What's in it for me or my little group?' The democratic process, which should be a uniting one, instead becomes a fragmented and alienating one. Candidates are saying one thing to one group and something different to another. We are being taught to be customers of government rather than participants."

"Stop Trying to Persuade Us"
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65640,00.html

Paul,

If your family did not take into account the payroll tax in your tax calculations, then it did not do the experiment correctly. Two obvious ways this would distort your calculations... (1) Your before-tax income would be higher, as it would include the percentage paid by your employer for social security and medicare. If you are under the tax ceiling, reduce your computed flat tax payment by 30% to account for the effects of the employer contrbution of the payroll tax. (2) Your sister and very flatulant husband would not have as much of a before-tax income gain, as the Social Security portion goes away at (I can't remember the top-off income in 1992). The payroll tax is extremely regressive.

We'd also need to know what your sib's capital gains income was that year. Under Forbes flat-tax, capital gains are not taxed. For rich people, that's their stock and bond portfolios, which keep investment in companies and infrastructure projects that we all benefit from. For peons like us, it's homes. In 1992, there was a one-time capiital gains exception for selliing a house and moving up. Now, it's $250K every 2 years. Arguably, this makes us less mobile, certainly among high growth regions of the country where the best jobs are. Eliminating capital gains tax is a win win for everyone, even if done in a revenue neutral way (even not assuming additional growth due to restructuring) by raising the flat tax rate.

I think if you took that all into acccount, you'd find Forbes to be a good deal. It's also been traditionally paired with a higher EITC to give the truly poor a hand getting up. It is most certaiinly siimpler than the current tax code. Simplicity in and of itself is economically desirable. Conservatives and libertarians would also like to see the tax code more social-policy neutral. Eliminate marriage penalty, home mortgage incentives, even a plank of the gay rights controversy by treating all income equally. By opposing simplicity on these grounds, it seems like liberals have some stake in keeping such controversy going. Is that true?

I'm not gonna get into the "rich get richer", "trickle down", etc. codewords. If you really want to discuss this stuff rationally, you'd skip those too. It's the equivalent of us saying that Dems do "girly man economics".

-Brad

Paul,

One more very subtle thing to consider is that affluence is not the same as income, whether active (earned) or passive (capital gains). For example, John Edwards is, by all accounts, very affluent and paid $22,741 in federal taxes on $433,546 in income during 2003. Just though I'd point out how progressive our current system is.

But back to the point... Wealth has already been taxed when it was aquired. Some forms of wealth (cars, real property) are taxed at the state level annually. And of course, there is the incidious death tax. We currently treat earned income differently from capital gains (and short term gains different from long term gains and exclude some gains like home profits periodically).

If your sis and brother-in-law decide not to work and keep their cash under their beds, our current system doesn't tax them. Well wait, there is the AMT now...

Any idea now why I'm a strong proponent of tax simplification, whether it be flat tax, VAT, or national sales tax??

-Brad

Dean

I didn't mean to imply that you didn't work hard on your piece or that other people didn't agree with it. But when it is filled with so much anger and invective it gets classified in my mind (and probably a LOT of people on the web) as a rant.

Nothing wrong with a rant, it just puts the focus more on the emotions of the writer than the case being made. Here's to hoping for less anger and more understanding between the parties.

"I have a whole hell of a lot more respect for ANYONE who focuses on arguing their points from the positive stand. What they believe in. Instead of ranting a list of things they hate about other people, or a list of lies they think somebody else has told. Why not just state what you percieve, your viewpoint, and how you see a political party or politician not supporting your beliefs, and leave it at that... instead of gettin' in the sandbox."

"Here's to hoping for less anger and more understanding between the parties."

I couldn't agree more.

Brad Hutchings: Why do you get in the sandbox?
Why would you even attempt to defend yourself against someone "calling names"?
I guess what I'm saying Brad, is that I don't understand defending yourself as not "a moron" and actually trying to draw logical conclusions and factual evidence about Bush, or whatever else, based on who calls you what names.
If someone, with seven degrees & a high IQ score, told you that they hated Bush, so Bush must not be the intelligent choice, would you think that was a viable argument? I doubt it!
And it sounds to me like each side is saying "You're calling me names!" and then proceeds to do their own name-calling, in the process of arguing against the name they were called. JINKIES that seems so unproductive! haha.
That said, I think there's room for poking fun at politicians, in a comedic sense.
And if you take a joke seriously, then that's a matter of personal taste & personal views of offensiveness. Which everyone has a right to, of course. You just let it go, and continue with your life.
If the debate is uncivil, I do the same.
Let it be, let it go, is my 'mantra'. Let's discuss the issues, baby, not genetic fallacies. ;)

Note: Mike Sanders says it better than I do, and more concisely. Thanks for being a model & example, Sanders.

Jay Fienberg, thanks for that link. Me & a lot of my friends, and a lot of other people I'm sure, have long been saying that it seems like politicians anymore operate like corporate brands advertising to a consumer base, rather than representatives answering to a constituency. Indeed, I do believe that's part of the problem, and I prefer candidates where I don't get the sense they're buying into that mode of operation. I think a lot of people prefer it too, without even realizing why.

I see some talk of taxes, and I admit up front that I haven't read all that talk before talking. Please accept my apologies if I'm saying something that's already addressed.

I've been convinced since 2000 that the estate tax is a good thing.

First, this "double taxing" argument has always been silly in my opinion. My money is already taxed when I earn it and when I spend it. Nevermind taxing it again if I have property.

What convinced me initially was, "A Minor Political Screed" by David Brin. He argues that the estate tax is the reason for significantly greater cheritable giving in America compared to countries that don't have an estate tax analog. In light of this, I find it particularly silly to read the argument that the wealthy should be allowed to keep their money because they can help society more effectively than the government can with the same money.

As I thought about it, I eventually concluded that the estate tax embodies my belief that it's bad to hoard. Is there any reason for one man in town to have ten times more bread than he can ever eat? Is there any excuse for hoarding it? I can understand not putting an arbitrary limit on the wealth one man can acquire, but is there any reason that situation should be allowed to continue by passing it on to his son (who did not earn it)? Having some bread in the freezer in case times get tight is one thing, but hoarding bread, creating tight times for one's neighbors, that's something else.

David,

I do not share Dean's anger. However, I do share his frustration at people whose political belief system can be defined as 'Bush Hatred'. I have lost long time friendships because of those feelings. Old friends who seriously think I am evil because I support the general thrust of the War on Terror. It has been quite sad and painful at times.

"I don't feel like Satan,
but I am to them."
--- Neil Young, Keep on Rocking in the Free World.

I try to seperate my feeling about person's arguments from my feeling for the person. It gets very tough at times.

Paul

Do you believe that Iraq played a part on 9/11?

Hi Brad,

You obviously are more versed in the tax code than me. Accounting has never been one of my strong suits. My step-mom is both a CPA and a long-time fiscal conservative. Ever since I can remember she has supported the idea of a flat tax. In principle I also support it for several reasons - it's obviously simpler and more fair all around. I think what astonished my step-mom and my dad (who was a Goldwater conservative w/o the racism), is that everyone making less than 100k was getting taxed more. Of course, I have no idea what the percentages were or anything, as it was 12 years ago. However the results of paying higher taxes left a stain in my mouth. From that point forward I became more suspicious of flat-tax proposals which are supposedly fair, but which (apparently) raised everyone's taxes except the rich (which it lowered).

As for incentives on keeping the tax code complex, I have none. Anything to make our tax code simple, fair and equitable I'm all for it. Actually, since we are on the subject, I believe every tax payer should have TOTAL freedom on where their tax dollars are spent. It could be chaotic, but on the other hand it would be fair, and most importantly representational. For example, those who support the war but are against social programs, could put their tax dollars towards the war effort. Those who are opposed to the war, but support social programs, could do the opposite. Based on the current electorate, all things would probably balance out quite nicely, and have the added benefit of being more fair. That way we would finally have taxation WITH representation.

As for me, I would have my tax dollars go to the following:

Highways, Education, Environmental Protection, SANE terrorist prevention programs, NOT Iraq, common sense law enforcement, NOT the Drug War, etc, oh and tax incentives for people who drive 50+ mpg cars, NOT people who get tax write-offs for driving gas guzzling Hummers. Oh, and definitely some money to basic science and technology R&D, including a SANE space program, NOT NASA in it's current form.

Cheers,

Paul

Dean writes in his opening paragraph: "A passionate Bush hater, Barlow..." I advise all to militate against the Bush Hater frame. I read JP's piece, and hatred for Bush did not come through. Hate is a stong word meant to describe one the strongest feelings a human is capable of having. To falsely impute it to someone is not cool.

Conflating a flat tax rate with tax-code simplicity is confusing two very different concepts.

I have never found it very complex to look up one number in a table (if your final income is $X, your tax is $Y ...). The very, very, hardest it gets, for people making upwards of six figures, is one subtraction, one multiplication, one addition ($X + this percent of amount over $Y). Hopefully, if you're in that situation, you can handle it.

It is WHAT CREATES THAT NUMBER which is the nightmare. What is an expense? Depreciation, cost basis, deductions ...

But none of this has anthing to do with rates.

I thus conclude that "simplicity" is simply a propaganda tactic in order to sell the idea of lower taxes on the rich as some sort of decluttering measure. "Rich people should pay less taxes" is hard to sell (it can be done, but there's a lot of resistance to overcome). "Tax simplicity" sounds like motherhood and apple pie.
But the two concepts have nothing to do with each other.

The *noise* generated to obscure this simple fact, to try to get people to think that "less taxes on the rich == simpler taxes", is symptomatic of the political debate.

This whole "you need to listen to us" thing is dumb.

If Kerry had won, the onus would be on Bush supporters to "listen," to "not be so rash."

"If you really want us to listen to you, Bush supporter, you're going to have to drop the hate. I don't know how many protests I was at where the Bush supporters were running around, screaming like a chicken with their head cut off, shouting "BOMB 'EM ALL!" "

Or, we would be saying, "Exhibit A: FreeRepublic.com," showing what a rabid group Bush supporters were.

And some Bushies would be sucking it up, "Oh? Oh? Oh really? Oh, I'll be good, I'll be nice, anything we can do, anything. Was I too rash? Were we too bold? Oh, what can we do, TO GAIN YOUR VOTE FOR OUR SIDE?"

This whole exercise is pointless.

One side won, and is feeling smug. The other side lost, and is feeling beat up. I mean, this response was predicted before the election.

I don't know a single person who was against the war who's going to change their mind.

STUPID: Voting for Bush BECAUSE Bush opposers actually went about opposing Bush.

We get the image that anti-war activists should have strapped on suits and ties, going door to door, making nice gentle powerpoint presentations.

Folks: What you are witnessing here is NOT REAL. The Soul of the Bush-supporter is not somehow "intrinsicly humble and kind." That y'all are falling for this is rediculous.

They don't want to listen to us. They don't want to change their mind. They just want us to be quiet.

"We'll listen to you if you whisper. Now, let's see what's on FOX..."

When Bush said, "I'll reach out to you," what he MEANS is: "I'll reach out to you. I'll give you my hand. If you just hold my hand, with faith, we can pull you into our tent. You'll see the wisdom of our ways. Just reach out your hand. Just REACH out your hand. Come to daddy. Come. Come, there is peace here. Come."

That's reaching out.

Well said, LK.

Josh Marshall has an interesting post up this morning, suggesting that some of the red states may be more, shall we say, passionate, than the blue. This can be quantified in some ways -- Josh has a link, and there was a famous study done some years ago, which found in an apparently objective measure of response to insult, that Southerners (the South represents much of the red states, of course) seemed to take more offense to a given insult than did those from other regions.

This was of interest because much of what has bewildered me has been typified by the recently-common blue state comment that "I thought we were having and argument, and I find it's a war!"

Lately, this has caused me to recall my years working in Latin America where people, true to the stereotype, are also more passionate (and more courteous, something also associated with the South -- in both cases for good reason, I now think, since the consequences of offense are more immediate). In South America, and even now with my Ecuadorian wife , I occasionally find myself causing utter outrage without having any clear idea of what I did to cause it. I have often thought of the apocryphal sailor's comment during the attack on Pearl Harbor: "I didn't even know that they were mad at us."

Both places seem to be regions where words can still be the equivalent of blows. So merely the mention of gay marriage in America seems to deeply offend some people, and I wonder if what I saw as Kerry's impeccable courtesy, others may have seen as veiled insult, deepened by an apparently cowardly refusal to acknowledge it as such when there was a response from the person who thought themselves "attacked."

After marrying into the culture, and much of my life spent in the region, I still sometimes don't know how to disagree without setting off an explosion. I hope that's not a metaphor for America.

Funny you mention that johne. I'm in a blue state (California) and I can't help but be a little miffed about the obvious implications of Seth's post about the flat tax above.

So, if the champions of the flat tax just want the rich to pay less (note his Type M argument), then by obvious implication, I'm either stupid, deceptive, or evil for having promoted it above. Gee, thanks Seth. Why not just stick the consequences and keep the personal shots to a minimum?

And johne, maybe you ought to think about whether how the Left/Progressives/Democrats phrase their politics is what pisses people off ;-). Find a clip of the poliite John Kerry at his last rally on election day, saying that Bush wanted to privatize Social Security as a payoff to the brokerage firms on Wall Street. If you can't see why that pisses people off, you probably would do best to just keep your mouth shut in mixed company.

"So, if the champions of the flat tax just want the rich to pay less (note his Type M argument), then by obvious implication, I'm either stupid, deceptive, or evil for having promoted it above. "

No one said those things about you Brad. I challenge you to find the words in this thread.

Should I take, from *your* inferance, that if there are two opinions on a subject, that one side is correct and the other "stupid, deceptive, or evil"? Of course not.

I always find it curious when people put words in others mouths to push an arguement somewhere.

I thus conclude that "simplicity" is simply a propaganda tactic in order to sell the idea of lower taxes on the rich as some sort of decluttering measure.
...
The *noise* generated to obscure this simple fact, to try to get people to think that "less taxes on the rich == simpler taxes", is symptomatic of the political debate.

The funny part is if you scroll up I tell you the prime motivation for simplicity: that the tax code should not be used to implement social policy. But hey, better to conclude I'm shilling for "the rich", just like everyone else who favors a flat tax. This is exactly why you guys lose elections. You accuse people of having improper or nefarious motivations and they look at themselves and say, "no, those are not my motivations nor are they likely the motivations of people we support" and they conclude that people on your side wouldn't be good leaders.

No, Lion, we're going to disagree respectfully and will ask the same in return. And in that context, if you still want to be confrontational, we'll hand you a shovel ;-).

Most of us believe we're on the side of the angels Brad, and a lot of us are miffed when a critic points out the downside of whatever we're trying to advance. It would be surprising if there are many Wall Street brokers who don't think that their prosperity is automatically linked to the welfare of the country as a whole. To most of them, Bush's privatization scheme must be just another example of that happy coincidence, more than justifying the resources they've selflessly donated to the president's re-election.

On the other point, taxes, no matter what kind they are, have social implications -- that is inescapable. Seth was pointing out one consequence of a flat tax. Do you think he was out of line in suspecting that some of its potential beneficiaries are as aware of that as he is?

You Suck like poop