America is great and everything is NOT Pres. Trump's fault thread

[One Brow]

Self-righteous indignation chock full of assumptions. You know my privilege and act as I and others are unaware of what station in life we were born into.

As as I said in the first paragraph, I don't know how serious you specifically were. I even pointed out a reason for the doubt. Still, your diatribe certainly resembled diatribes from many people who are perfectly serious and quite unaware of their privileged status.

Since you know my privilege so much better than I you need to preach to me about my shortcomings, and how my "tremendous social power" needs to be used for your greater good. Is that a joke? You know I have some magical, ungodly tremendous power and you know that I dont use what I've been blessed with to try and do good, right?

For all I know, assuming you are in all the categories you listed, you could still be disadvantaged in any number of ways. I'm lucky enough to be on the positive axis of every category of privilege I've seen described, except for religion, and it has given me tremendous social power I did not earn. I do make efforts to use that power for those with fewer privileges.

Your philosophy is a broken one and the reason a huge voting block feels disenfranchised.

If this were a board game of trying to win votes, I would care. I think it's sad that people who get enormous social advantages can't take the time to appreciate them and help others.

I am not in that voting block but only attempt to explain what they feel. Continue on ignoring them, preaching to them that they need to shut up and listen to you because their privileged voice does not matter and you know more and know better, and your all knowing insight understands their life better than them.

Sorry, but when white people tell black people when and where to protest, it always seems to be "in the time and place where I don't have to bothered by it". When men tell women what feminism means, it always seems to mean something that makes the men more comfortable. Real social change creates bother and is uncomfortable. Not telling people the actual effects of their whitesplaining/mansplaining is not doing anyone a favor.

While I don't claim to know everything about anyone life, I do know what privilege does for that life and the many ways it can help a life even when times are rough. It's my lived experience, and I'm not going to stop talking about that simply to make other people comfortable.

A broken philosophy built on assumptions and self righteousness has no foundation. Neither does the intersectionality that you preach as when boiled down divisiveness is it's only tenet.

Only one of us is casting "listening" as "assumptions" and casting "help others" as "divisiveness".

OB, you have a long history of showing you ascribe to a philosophy that sees good in pushing one side only and always, as the greater benefits of castigating and sounding out The Other will pay off. You rarely, if ever, stick up for injustices done to the other side and when you do it is as muted and unemotional as possible.

I eagerly wait your long list of injustices done to "the other side", after you calculate in the effects of years of social planning, redlining, exclusion, etc. I mean, you're not going to pretend that everyone gets an equal start right now, equal treatment in elementary schools, etc., are you?

You went on a month long tirade against Archie for only posting one side's view, which is something you have done for the decade that I've been posting here.

Actually, my tirade was that Archie was putting forth conservative arguments without being willing to endorse or engage in the arguments and responses to them, while simultaneously claiming he was not taking a side. One he removed the mask and came out as endorsing the conservative position, I stopped.

Were you angry that someone else used your tactics or trying to shame and crowd out, or both? Or simply hypocritical with your self righteousness? Those are rhetorical.

I don't mind responding to rhetoric.

I revel in confrontations. I don't think Archie Moses enjoys wallowing in the rhetorical mud nearly so much as I, so I don't think he would be capable of trying to shame or crowd out. That probably speaks better of him than of me. On the conservative side, that's more of a babe/DutchJazzer tactic.

Was it hypocrisy to ask him to be open about the positions he was endorsing? I think I am pretty open about my positions.

I disagree with what you've portrayed as a philosophy.

OK. It keeps life interesting.

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

Lots of interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a little late to the party, but had a few thoughts.

Trump's tax cuts (predominantly benefiting the wealthy) did not reduce federal tax revenue. They reached record highs in 2017 and are projected to be even higher in 2018.
https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax-revenue-3305762

Liberals trying to associate the tax cuts that Trump implemented with the alarming deficit numbers should be focused on the spending, not the tax cuts. I think many Libertarians and Conservatives anticipated he would cut spending..........not increase it.

If you are not familiar with the concept, research "Hauser's Law". Since WWII, federal tax receipts have consistently stayed between 15-20% of our GDP. This has occurred despite wildly fluctuating marginal tax rates.

In other words, adjusting the tax rate, taxing the rich, whatever...........doesn't have the impact that most believe it should. Why? Because changes in tax policy and rates impact behavior. In times of high tax rates, the wealthy simply engage in less profit generating activity (because they won't keep a large percentage of it). They will also defer as much of their revenue as possible, take advantage of tax breaks and incentives, save for retirement, invest in areas that provide tax relief, etc. I say this not just as someone who has done research, but as a CPA who has seen individuals do it for years. If you honestly think that Bernie can successfully pay for medicaid for all and free public universities by taxing the rich, you are ignoring what has occurred over the past 70 years of American history.

The only way, outside of massive tax reform (not just a tax increase......), to solve the National Debt problem is to shrink government. I'm not sure how this ever happens considering the high percentage of our population that rely on the government to survive. These individuals, understandably, will never vote for someone that campaigns on cutting back on programs they take advantage of. Democracy at work.

Meanwhile, we continually kick the can down the road for our children, or our grandchildren, to have to deal with. If you have a child today, they are blessed with being born with $60,000 of debt. This is their portion of the federal debt that someday has to be repaid.

 

[One Brow]

Lots of interesting thoughts on this thread. I'm a little late to the party, but had a few thoughts.

...

If you are not familiar with the concept, research "Hauser's Law". Since WWII, federal tax receipts have consistently stayed between 15-20% of our GDP. This has occurred despite wildly fluctuating marginal tax rates.

...

In other words, adjusting the tax rate, taxing the rich, whatever...........doesn't have the impact that most believe it should. Why? Because changes in tax policy and rates impact behavior. In times of high tax rates, the wealthy simply engage in less profit generating activity (because they won't keep a large percentage of it). They will also defer as much of their revenue as possible, take advantage of tax breaks and incentives, save for retirement, invest in areas that provide tax relief, etc. I say this not just as someone who has done research, but as a CPA who has seen individuals do it for years. If you honestly think that Bernie can successfully pay for medicaid for all and free public universities by taxing the rich, you are ignoring what has occurred over the past 70 years of American history.

I looked up Hauser's Law, and it's accuracy is disputed on different grounds.

Ultimately, many modern democracies manage to do better than Medicare for all and offer free university educations. If we can't raise that money, it's because the tax code is being set up to allow people to avoid taxes (several examples of how you have just given). It's not a question of ability, but political will.

That's beside the point that Medicare for all costs less than the current health insurance industry in the US. If you divert all the current health insurance premiums into Medicare, you over-fund Medicare for all.

 

[Stoked]

I looked up Hauser's Law, and it's accuracy is disputed on different grounds.

Ultimately, many modern democracies manage to do better than Medicare for all and offer free university educations. If we can't raise that money, it's because the tax code is being set up to allow people to avoid taxes (several examples of how you have just given). It's not a question of ability, but political will.

That's beside the point that Medicare for all costs less than the current health insurance industry in the US. If you divert all the current health insurance premiums into Medicare, you over-fund Medicare for all.

Plenty of other places to cut spending. Like the program where the gov. will pay for their employees to get new glasses. Or god forbid we reign in lavish spending by politicians, ambassadors and the like. But F it. 70k curtains is completely valid.

Sure each of those is small fry. But it starts the ball rolling. And there are hundred if not thousands of programs like that. Often hidden in agency budgets.

Then there is all the military spending...

 

[AlaskanAssassin]

I looked up Hauser's Law, and it's accuracy is disputed on different grounds.

Ultimately, many modern democracies manage to do better than Medicare for all and offer free university educations. If we can't raise that money, it's because the tax code is being set up to allow people to avoid taxes (several examples of how you have just given). It's not a question of ability, but political will.

That's beside the point that Medicare for all costs less than the current health insurance industry in the US. If you divert all the current health insurance premiums into Medicare, you over-fund Medicare for all.

I think most of the criticisms of Hauser's Law suggest that it's implying something that it's not. It's not suggesting that it's impossible to collect more than the established range, rather that changes in the marginal tax rate, under the current progressive tax system, will not bring revenues outside of the established range. It's hard to argue with the 70 years of data we have on it. We certainly could implement a flat tax, national sales tax, vat tax, etc., but most agree that a change in that direction will disproportionately impact the poor. Of course, Bernie hasn't suggested implementing anything like that, which is the only way to generate the tax revenue needed to run the programs he's suggesting. You can't just increase the highest tax rate to 75% and think that everything will be covered.

Your point on diverting insurance premiums is a good one. If government hadn't "married" health insurance with employment (requiring it to be offered to employees) and people had to write a giant check to the health insurance company every month (instead of the cost being hidden by "employer" contributions) people would have been rioting in the streets a long time ago. Most people don't recognize that employer contributions is basically money coming out of your pocket.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Plenty of other places to cut spending. Like the program where the gov. will pay for their employees to get new glasses. Or god forbid we reign in lavish spending by politicians, ambassadors and the like. But F it. 70k curtains is completely valid.

Sure each of those is small fry. But it starts the ball rolling. And there are hundred if not thousands of programs like that. Often hidden in agency budgets.

Then there is all the military spending...

I want to stab you in the left eyeball for this.

 

[Stoked]

I want to stab you in the left eyeball for this.

Hahahahaha. Why lmfao

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Hahahahaha. Why lmfao

I'm generally against the attack on government employees. Vested interest though .

 

[Stoked]

I'm generally against the attack on government employees. Vested interest though .

Same. Doesn’t mean I can’t see them as wasteful.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Same. Doesn’t mean I can’t see them as wasteful.

The way I look at that is a mismeasurement of what waste actually is. Government employees are not productive in the typical sense of making things to take to market. That's waste from a purely physical, hold it in your hands and own something tangible perspective. Their value lies in what the voters decide to "waste" resources on in order to accomplish a goal. That structure is basically waste in that traditional sense by design, but it's what we have decided as the best course of action so why do we call it waste? I liken it to a firefighter. The typical view is a bunch of muscled hunks sitting around playing cards, bbqing, lifting weights like a jug head, waiting for a fire. Waste? Sure in the tangible sense but I damn well want those emergency responders ready and waiting. The value look f their production actually is something tangible so come to think of it maybe I need an analogy update.

I also appreciate how gov't employees protect the sanctity of a fair market. That's not waste IMO, and something far long forgotten about what a government employee is. So there's something for the free mar minn et capitalism crowd.


Blah, blah. You asked.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

As as I said in the first paragraph, I don't know how serious you specifically were. I even pointed out a reason for the doubt. Still, your diatribe certainly resembled diatribes from many people who are perfectly serious and quite unaware of their privileged status.

.

Why continue assuming you know the thoughts of this group you allege is unaware of whatever privileges yet to be defined that you assume they are unaware of?

For all I know, assuming you are in all the categories you listed, you could still be disadvantaged in any number of ways. I'm lucky enough to be on the positive axis of every category of privilege I've seen described, except for religion, and it has given me tremendous social power I did not earn. I do make efforts to use that power for those with fewer privileges.

And you assume others of unlike disposition dont?

If this were a board game of trying to win votes, I would care. I think it's sad that people who get enormous social advantages can't take the time to appreciate them and help others.

Agreed. I it is sad when people with an advantage in life don't use it to better humanity in the way they think to.

Sorry, but when white people tell black people when and where to protest, it always seems to be "in the time and place where I don't have to bothered by it". When men tell women what feminism means, it always seems to mean something that makes the men more comfortable. Real social change creates bother and is uncomfortable. Not telling people the actual effects of their whitesplaining/mansplaining is not doing anyone a favor.

I dont live in the world you describe so I cant relate, really. On a political note, I'm of the opinion that our current Republican party should do all in its power to support protests and actively support measures that help underprivileged vote even though that would likely cost them seats. I dont know the legal aspects there but it seems not right for a political party to sponsor quick, easy voting locations. People would be way too leery.

While I don't claim to know everything about anyone life, I do know what privilege does for that life and the many ways it can help a life even when times are rough. It's my lived experience, and I'm not going to stop talking about that simply to make other people comfortable.

This is more assumption of the mind of others. Both on the POV that you think others dont realise their station in life and that your opinion makes them uncomfortable. I'm not discomfited by you expressing yours, are you? I appreciate that you do.

Only one of us is casting "listening" as "assumptions" and casting "help others" as "divisiveness".

Yes I am casting a philosophy based on dividing people into groups based on a scorecard as divisiveness, by their very own definition. What of it?

I eagerly wait your long list of injustices done to "the other side", after you calculate in the effects of years of social planning, redlining, exclusion, etc. I mean, you're not going to pretend that everyone gets an equal start right now, equal treatment in elementary schools, etc., are you?

If you believe that marginalizing, castigating, and systematically attacking large swaths of people isnt an injustice then the entire notion of standing up for those similar classes of people is empty. It's a philosophy centered on your opinion of who deserves your protection and focus. Broken philosophy.



Enough of my high horse. My main goal here is to explain the thought process of a group of people who generally do a terrible job at it on their own.

 

[One Brow]

Why continue assuming you know the thoughts of this group you allege is unaware of whatever privileges yet to be defined that you assume they are unaware of?

Multiple interactions over many years where they tell me they don't have such privileges. I suppose they all could have been lying.

And you assume others of unlike disposition dont?

If by "assume" you mean "have observed", many times. Men who talk over women in meetings, white people who express irrational fears of black people, straight people who equate homosexuality with weakness, etc.

I dont live in the world you describe so I cant relate, really.

You don't live in a world where people try to stop NFL players from kneeling during the national anthem?

On a political note, I'm of the opinion that our current Republican party should do all in its power to support protests and actively support measures that help underprivileged vote even though that would likely cost them seats. I dont know the legal aspects there but it seems not right for a political party to sponsor quick, easy voting locations. People would be way too leery.

I would not expect Republicans nor Democrats to act against their self-interests. For many people, power is the most addictive drug of them all.

Both on the POV that you think others dont realise their station in life and that your opinion makes them uncomfortable. I'm not discomfited by you expressing yours, are you? I appreciate that you do.

I did not quite follow what you meant here. I would agree that very few statements I make about how white people/men/etc react apply to every single white person/man/etc., if that's what you meant.

Still, it's true that the discussion makes people uncomfortable. You may not have noticed, but I make it a point to never directly insult other people on this board, nor have I ever told someone "this is what you think" (except when their posting history belies their claims), yet I am still regarded as antagonistic by many. A large part of that is because what I say make people uncomfortable.

Yes I am casting a philosophy based on dividing people into groups based on a scorecard as divisiveness, by their very own definition. What of it?

My philosophy is based on uniting people and bringing them together by recognizing the artificial separations currently imposed by culture.

If you believe that marginalizing, castigating, and systematically attacking large swaths of people isnt an injustice then the entire notion of standing up for those similar classes of people is empty. It's a philosophy centered on your opinion of who deserves your protection and focus. Broken philosophy.

You can't marginalize those with social power, and I don't attack any people at all. I agree "castigating" is a fair description of what I do at times. I don't consider it an injustice to remind people of their many be

Everyone deserves protection and focus. Some people already have sizable access to it by virtue of their privilege, others have much less access. I do focus on those who have less access.

Enough of my high horse. My main goal here is to explain the thought process of a group of people who generally do a terrible job at it on their own.

That is also a commendable and important thing to do. I have no complaints, and great respect, for the undertaking.