The Democrat Book of Genesis
Since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, supporters on both sides of the abortion issue have been vigorously and often violently debating when life begins. It’s safe to say, though, that the true answer can never be known. There is another genesis-related phenomenon that is equally perplexing—exactly when does Democrat life begin? Of course, some say it happens after years of exposure to various environmental factors; others suspect it’s hereditary. For me, I’m convinced it has something to do with elementary school math.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are many legitimate reasons for holding Democrat viewpoints. I harbor many myself. I’m just intrigued as to why illegitimate, counter-factual arguments are frequently used to make the case for their positions. The best I can tell, it’s largely because of our national mathematical ineptitude.
Talk about low hanging fruit.
No doubt it’s a lot easier to say that those in the upper income bracket are not paying their fair share of taxes because they receive a dramatically larger absolute dollar benefit from a tax cut, even though their proportional cut is smaller and they are progressively paying a higher and higher percentage of all taxes. Guess it’s just simpler to play the class warfare card than to meaningfully describe why asking more from the upper end can benefit those on both ends and those in between.
Thank goodness most people never really learned ratios in elementary school math.
It’s got to be a lot easier to convince people that the oil companies are evil and must be inflicted with a windfall profits tax because their returns in raw dollar terms are astronomically large, despite the fact that their profit margins are right on par with the average of all S&P 500 companies. Guess that’s simpler than explaining why government intervention into a functioning market makes sense.
Thank goodness most people never really learned ratios in elementary school math.
It has to be a lot easier to convince people that sacrosanct entitlement programs are being gutted when in fact only a reduction in the rate of growth is being requested.
Thank goodness most people never really learned ratios in elementary school math.
Politicians and policy advocates should think long and hard before sponsoring legislation aimed at improving our national aptitude in math. Who knows what might happen if we actually begin to see through the nonsense they’re promulgating?
Just for the record, I blame everything that comes out of O’Reilly’s mouth on paint chips and an over-doting mother. Thank goodness for paint chips.
Chuck, makes light of that which is at the heart of the “liberal” purpose, a purpose that I know you hope that your economic opinions and policies would ultimately support: making our country as rich and healthy as possible. I can’t speak for everyone, but the great majority of people I know understand this ratio precisely. When you look at the widening income disparity in this country, and when you think about the American people who are trying to make due with under 50K a year for their entire family, then only to the coldest businessman could national tax policy be a pure question of “ratios.” One percent of someone’s income living in the bottom 30 percent means a lot more to their quality of life than the same percent of income to someone in the 95th percentile. The issue of progressive taxation cuts (at least partly) towards quality of life and where our government can fund its actions without visiting too great a cost on its citizenry. I think that while you can make (and have made) great arguments for the benefits to the nation of a trickle-down, growth based economic policy (not trying to put words in your mouth there), this “it must be simpler” language doesn’t engage any of the human reasons that you know these policies are meant to serve. If you think that they won’t work, that is one thing, but this just reads like a mean-spirited jab at an different attempt to do that which you also want.
Reply to this
You misinterpret my words and intent. I'm not making light of the liberal purpose. In fact, I support it wholeheartedly. I simply believe that it's better achieved through other means. I do not, however, support intellectual dishonesty on either side of the isle. I implore both sides to make arguments that are based on the merits, rather than counter-factual nonsense that plays on the ignorance of people who don't have the time or inclination to fully understand these matters.
Nothing is more important than policies that legitimately lift up the lower and middle classes. But, facts are stubborn things. The data is crystal clear on taxation. Higher taxes generally stunt economic growth and deliver less revenue--defeating the very purpose for which they are intended. We CANNOT tax our way to greater income equality. The gap will only be closed with creative and sustainable education and pro-growth initiatives.
You and other smart people would be better served by figuring out and supporting proposals that have a chance of making a real difference, rather than propagating economic myths with little/no basis in fact.
Reply to this