I’m reading the transcript of the 2nd presidential debate right now, with one eye on Factcheck.org for sanity checks. Commentary as I read:
First, the obligatory bitching: where the hell are Nader, Badnarick, et. al? Down with the two-party duopoly!
Kerry’s on about Bush cutting taxes to the rich. Sometimes I suspect I’m the only middle-class person who doesn’t have a problem with this. It seems reasonable to me that the 5% of citizens who pay 50% of all taxes should see the first, and most, relief. Sales taxes hurt the poor far worse than income tax, but I’ve yet to hear either candidate talk about that.
An aside: those who complain about the rich getting tax cuts also see the widening gap between the poorest and the richest as a problem. Again, I don’t see the problem. Without obscenely wealthy people, who can safely blow millions or even billions on projects that may never have a tangible return, we wouldn’t have SpaceShipOne or the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Moving on…
Blah blah, flip-flop, didnt flip-flop, yes you did, no I didn’t…
Kerry is right to keep the spotlight on Bin Laden, who Bush has tried to downplay. On the other hand, Bush is right to say it’s not just him we’re after.
Bush’s response to the failure to fully plan and provision for the Iraq war? [paraphrased] “My generals told me they had it covered. It’s their fault”. BZZZT! Wrong answer! Let’s have a little accountability from the Commander-in-Chief, hm?
Kerry’s answer to what he’ll do if UN Sanctions fail to contain Iran is incredibly weak. Half of it is what Bush has done wrong, and the rest is vague hand-waving about getting together with the British, French, and Germans. For what, a round of golf? The question was what happens when international sanctions fail, dumbass.
In fact, Kerry continues to be exasperatingly vague on questions of national security and fighting terrorism. Just as when I heard him a couple weeks ago on NPR, when the interviewer became audibly annoyed at his repeated refusal to simply answer the question, his answers are 90% what Bush has done wrong and 10% vague statements about “diplomacy”. If he really believes that a new president will substantially alter the rest of the world’s willingness to assist us in tangible ways Iraq and elsewhere, he’s badly mis-advised. Bush is not exactly popular, but as various analysts have pointed out, every country which has refused us help of one kind or another has political and economic reasons above and beyond simple dislike for the guy who’s asking. Sure, they’ll be happy to mug for photo-ops with Kerry, but don’t expect any sudden shifts in foreign policy.
Bush is strongest when he talks about how the Europeans view him and his policies. He admits, at least, that his decisions were unpopular, he doesn’t try to hide behind “it depends on who you ask”. And the thing is, on most of the issues of contention he lists, he was right. He was right to refuse to deal with that gangster Arrafat. He was right not to join the ICC. He doesn’t mention it, but he was right to stay out of Kyoto as well. Bush’s willingness to say “it doesn’t matter what you think, America comes first” is his biggest selling point to me, because that’s the president’s job – to represent the interests of the United States. Not to please the world community.
OK, Bush has now put himself on record re: the Draft: “We’re not going to have a draft, period.”
Kerry is right to oppose the way the Patriot Act is being exploited. However things turn out, we need to keep the government’s feet to the fire on that one…
Bush dodges when asked to name three mistakes he’s made. Come on man – show some backbone! On the other hand, he’s smart enough to know that admitting a mistake on national TV, other than facetiously, is political suicide.
*yawn* OK, I give up. I thought I could make it through, but I can’t. Good god, if we could use hot air for power, we could kick our dependence on foreign oil in a heartbeat. Enough of this, I hear my braincells dying…
OK, Bush has now put himself on record re: the Draft: “We’re not going to have a draft, period.”
[[[I thought about this…and the one reason I could come up with for a draft would be a super-hit by a terrorist group on a mass-scale (nuclear/chemical on the level of tens or hundreds of thousand Americans dead.
Then I realized….he still wouldn’t need the draft. I think there would be so many Americans (if not half the able-bodied men in the south) lining up to serve that a draft would not be necessary.
As for the ‘back-door draft’ the military is for the defense of America…NOT…a college scholarship. Yes…we try to benefit those who serve. But service is first and foremost. If you joined the service with entirely self-seeking motivations…yes it does suck for you. Perhaps…you should go back and read the Mission Statement for your service.
And Avdi, don’t you think it’s funny that Kerry criticizes Bush for NOT doing in N. Korea what he’s doing in Iraq. (And constantly criticizes him for Iraq.) And that alone is reason enough not to vote for the man.
If he cannot see the difference between Iraq and N. Korea than he is incapable of being a good president.
– Iraq, 12 yrs of negotiation…unsuccessful…a continued intent and activity to violate the protocols. Negotiations FAILED!
– N. Korea, yrs of violation, however, current talks do have the possibility of a peaceful resolution due to China’s ability to influence N. Korea policy.
I disagree with your facts…
1. North Korea has continued to violate international protocols just like Iraq did.. however, there was no way to compel them to cooperate, unlike the flawed, but essentially effective system of international monitoring that totally destroyed Iraq’s military over the past decade…
2. Why is it inconsistent to believe that you should have been more alarmed about a country where you have solid information about it producing nuclear material (a country that does actually have nuclear reactors, mind you) than about a country where the majority of the evidence shows that it doesn’t have nuclear materials.. (and has no working nuclear reactors..)
3. Concretely–North Korea admitted to enriching Uranium, while Saddam disputed it.. Weapons experts have confirmed that Saddam didn’t have the capability–even if he had a great desire–and that it most likely would have been at least a decade for him to acquire this capability.. North Korea–according to the same experts.. NOW HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS–and North Korea–unlike Iraq–actually has a long history of selling its technology to anyone on the planet who will pay them (missile technology for example..).. which comes from the fact that N. Korea is dirt poor overall, whereas places like Iraq ooze money in comparison and don’t need to sell their tech.
4. What outside evidence do you have that these talks are going to be any more successful than the previous 10 years of talks with North Korea on the subject… Because Bush says so? Last I read in the papers, North Korea was adhering to the policy of direct negotiations with the US, all the members of the group talks now going on have stated that direct talks would be more productive, and the US refuses to engage in direct talks…
I fear N. Korea far more than I do/did Iraq.. N. Koreans, with hardly anything to lose are more likely to American troops in South Korea, or Japan, or even–using the long range missiles they now possess–hitting our west coast ( see http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/02/12/us.nkorea/ ) than Iraq which had neither of these technologies.. nor really stood much to gain from attacking us…
If you want to intervene in the world.. then N. Korea would have been the place to do it.. I, in my liberal hawkishness, would have supported that option LONG before going into Iraq..
Re: I disagree with your facts…
1. North Korea has continued to violate international protocols just like Iraq did.. however, there was no way to compel them to cooperate
[[[You are completely ignoring the China factor.
a) We can’t just stroll into N. Korea…particularly without the support of China without creating a risk of conflict with China.
b) China has the ability to exert force and influence on N. Korea. This is understood in the geo-political world. The truth of the matter is that if we can negotiate a positive agreement (most likely one of economic benefit) with China. Than China will instruct N. Korea to disarm. N. Korea will do so because 1. China provides much of their support structure. 2. No one would lift a finger to defend N. Korea if China invaded it to ‘eliminate’ said threat. N. Korea knows this. So it will heed China. Our ‘negotiations’ are really…what will it take to encourage China to give absolutes to N. Korea.
]]]
2. Why is it inconsistent to believe that you should have been more alarmed about a country where you have solid information about it producing nuclear material (a country that does actually have nuclear reactors, mind you) than about a country where the majority of the evidence shows that it doesn’t have nuclear materials.. (and has no working nuclear reactors..)
[[[It is not inconsistent. And mind you, when George W. Bush first mentioned the axis of evil “Iraq, Iran and N. Korea” people chided him. “Why N. Korea….?” Funny…all the criticism then and now it’s the big issue.
It’s not that there is not concern with regards to N.K. It is that all available options have not been exhausted. See above…]]]
3. Concretely–North Korea admitted to enriching Uranium, while Saddam disputed it..
[[[Yes…your argument here? You are stating a fact. I don’t disagree. It is my belief all three regimes need to be handled.
Mind you, most of N. Korea’s achievements in this area were done while U.N. weapons monitoring programs were in affect. In fact, I believe N. Korea is the PERFECT argument for going into Iraq.
The policies people keep stating should have been continuued in Iraq are the same policies that led to N. Korea’s success. Now, combatting N. Korea is a much more challenging issue than Iraq. And must be handled “differently”…on a unique basis. Rest assured.
]]]
Re: I disagree with your facts…
4. What outside evidence do you have that these talks are going to be any more successful than the previous 10 years of talks with North Korea on the subject…
[[[They may not be. But you see, Iraq did not have a national guardian power as N. Korea does. We can’t simply go into N. Korea as we did in Iraq because there are too many string entanglements with China. ]]]
“I fear N. Korea far more than I do/did Iraq..”
[[[As do i…but I am intelligent to know that the N. Korea situation is a much much much more delicate situation. As we are endeavoring to prevent an asiatic cold/world war.]]]
“If you want to intervene in the world.. then N. Korea would have been the place to do it..”
[[[Okay, I am done. You seem unable to grasp strategic issues. No one is saying N. Korea is not a threat. The exact opposite. Rather, that it is a more complex issue requiring much more delicate handling. The same reason Germany invaded Poland before Russia. Poland was easier.
All three are threats, Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea.
But each needs to be deal with differently.
Iraq was easiest….so we invaded.
The tactic for Iran is to try to establish democracies around it (Afghanistan and Iraq). If you know Iran’s history they were once (before the coup) a fairly pro-U.S. state. They were in fact one of our main allies in the middle-east. The only nation in the world to ever be sold F-14 Tomcats. And every 4th of July Iran struggles with putting down pro-U.S. riots. So the idea is to help that regime collapse from within.
The tactics for N. Korea is to try to convince China to act on the matter and neutralize the threats. Bi-lateral talks will result in a military conflict in N. Korea. We are trying to avoid that. Military action is last resort. China offers a potential avenue of resort before war. Hence it is being pursued and why we are trying to keep talks multi-lateral.
]]]
“I, in my liberal hawkishness, would have supported that option LONG before going into Iraq.”
[[[I know…and Kerry thinks similarly to you. And that is why I hope to God we’d never have someone like you or Kerry in the Whitehouse. Because you are unable to look at things from a long-term perspective (10-20 yrs+) instead of only a short-term (1-5 yrs)]]]
Re: I disagree with your facts…
he said it not me!
The same reason Germany invaded Poland before Russia. Poland was easier.
Iraq was easiest….so we invaded.
thanks saj for helping make the point i actually edited out of two sections of my own reply.
Re: I disagree with your facts…
No prob…
I am first to admit the reason we went into Iraq before N. Korea or Iran (the other two on the axis of evil list) was cause it was easier.
We’d been there before, we knew the terrain, the targets, etc.
And there was the added benefit in dealing with the latter two of that we mean business and will, if need be act with military force.
I don’t deny that…never have…
Re: I disagree with your facts…
sorry saj i should have been more clear that i was being somewhat tongue in cheek. i removed two anologies between bush and hitler to rein in the inflammatory element and was therefore amused to see you inadvertantly make the connection i had edited out.
Re: I disagree with your facts…
LOL
no prob
Re: I disagree with your facts…
🙂
Re: I disagree with your facts…
4. I grasp the strategic issues just fine.. What I’m pointing out is that if you are going to take on nuclear-proliferation–then you start with the nation where this proliferation is most dangerous.. N. Korea clearly trumps Iraq here..
And, I must admit, I cannot believe you just justified the US’s ability to invade Iraq by linking it to the Nazi invasion of Poland–the main process that got WW2 started..
Perhaps, you would like a different analogy??
In any case, while on a practical level, you are correct that we do have the power to invade Iraq, because it doesn’t have any big powerful friends, you are ignoring the bigger message that this sends to the world–namely that the US doesn’t really give a shit about things like national Sovereignty or International Law and that it comes off as a Bully picking on the weak guy…
This process will actually create sympathy for someone as despicable as Saddam Hussein and alienate countries around the world.. (as it has done…)
Might doesn’t make Right.. at least not in the long term…
As for Iran.. I know Iran’s history, and yes.. it was a fairly Pro-US dictatorship under the Shah.. and I know the recent stories about the burgeoning democracy movement there…
I also know that the more we scream at Iran about nuclear weapons.. and the more we threaten it.. the more ammunition we give the conservative clerics who are fighting these goals..
In my view.. Iran is now, 100% certain to succeed in creating nuclear weapons.. and we have just given Iran every incentive in the world to do so.. We have made it clear:
a) Don’t have nuclear weapons, and you can be invaded
b) Do have nuclear weapons, and you will not be invaded..
thus.. I would argue that what we have done is exactly counter-productive to the regime change that you hope for in Iran.. By physically threatening Iran–you increase its need for security and this plays into the hands of the conservatives there.. (just like here..)
As for my views over the long term–you misinterpret me.. I think in the long term.. I see the fact that by invading Iraq, we have created/motivated a whole new generation of terrorists…
Also.. don’t count your democracies before they’ve hatched.. I have some severe reservations about the “new democracies” in Afghanistan and Iraq.. One election does not constitute a democracy.. maybe after 20 years of elections you can be sure…
Thus.. while I see democratic change as great thing in the Middle east.. imposing it from the outside without out truly broad support from surrounding nations is not necessarily the best strategy…
As for N. Korea… I think we are truly fucked here… and I think our level of fucked-upedness has only increased due to the serious lack of attention paid to it.. (due to the fact that we concentrated on Iraq… ) A bigger engagement earlier with a credible threat of military invasion… would have set up a far stronger negotiating position… As it stands, we cannot even begin to act tough with them.. we don’t have the troops or the resources now… and N. Korea knows it…
I see the long term–and that is why I’m pissed…
ps-My view on Iraq is that if we wanted to create democracy there.. then we should have stated that from the beginning and been honest about the costs it would involve–like saying “we are going to create democracy in the middle east–Iraq’s the place to do it, and so we are going to send in a half a million troops to make sure the country is secure–they will, in all likelihood be there at least 10 years, perhaps longer, and its going to cost us at least 500 billion dollars. Afte this expense, we will have succeeded in creating a model that will lead to greater security in the future by completely undermining the foundation of fundamentalist terrorism by creating a working democratic arab society…”
If that had been the case.. I would have been much more able to support the war in Iraq.. however.. that was never the case made.. and everying the Bushies have done has been half-assed…
That’s more of my problem with it…
Time will tell.. hopefully you will be right… and it will all work out swell.. but I don’t see it…
Re: I disagree with your facts…
“then you start with the nation where this proliferation is most dangerous.”
[[[That is not strategy. Strategy is the course you pursue toward winning. In which case, you fight the battles in the order that will most allow you to win them.]]]
“Perhaps, you would like a different analogy??”
[[[Nope, cause it was only referencing the concept of establishing an order of targets. And for that it was valid.]]]
“I would argue that what we have done is exactly counter-productive to the regime change that you hope for in Iran.”
[[[That is your interpretation, I see things differently. But hey, I do believe that regardless with have a very difficult road in front of us.]]]
“I see the fact that by invading Iraq, we have created/motivated a whole new generation of terrorists..”
[[[The motivations have been there. We’ve just drawn them out. In the case of roaches, the first thing you do is spray mixture of caffeinated water or other activant to get them to move (mobilize) so you can see where they are nesting.
You then come back later and eradicate the nests.]]]
“and I think our level of fucked-upedness has only increased due to the serious lack of attention paid to it.. (due to the fact that we concentrated on Iraq… )”
[[[I think if we invaded N. Korea we’d be in a much worse place than we are in Iraq.]]]
“My view on Iraq is that if we wanted to create democracy there.. then we should have stated that from the beginning and been honest about the costs it would involve”
[[[We did, The President did….my goodness go listen to the speeches. The costs were mentioned. And frankly, I think we should drop 500 billion into rebuilding Iraq. But that’s a Congress issue.]]]
Hey I just kept reading and came to your $500 billion dollar figure. Funny, that’s been my figure for sometime now….LOL
“Afte this expense, we will have succeeded in creating a model that will lead to greater security in the future by completely undermining the foundation of fundamentalist terrorism by creating a working democratic arab society”
[[[Agreed…in truth, the plan was close to that. I believe originally I heard $200 billion being tossed around. But then politics go into it and it became a fight just for $80 billion. And most of that was immediate military need.
]]]
Never the case made? That was the whole reason I supported it cause that was what I had heard from the President… *ponder*
Re: I disagree with your facts…
Actually.. If you could.. could you go back to before the war and find a cite where Bush tells us how much this is going to cost us..
The biggest number that I ever remember hearing concretely was “1.4 billion” and mostly Rumsfeld stated–when asked–that the majority of the costs would come out of Iraqi oil revenues…
If you can prove me wrong here, I’ll admit my mistakes.. but I’m pretty sure that the administration never came clean about the costs until after the war–and that the main reason pushed to the public–not just the UN, go back to Bush’s state of the union speeches–is that Iraq “clearly had WMD’s”… (and was somehow linked to terrorists…)
Re: I disagree with your facts…
well i remember hearing estimates of $200 billion being circulated as the long term cost. Not necessarily by Bush. But i’ve said since we went in that we need to spend $500 billion to do it right.
if time allows i’ll see if i can find some of the statements by various government, political and news reporting agencies on the matter. But it’s now 2-3 yrs and a bit time consuming. But if i can get the time i’ll see what i can do.
Re: I disagree with your facts…
1. I think you overestimate china’s roll in all of this in a number of different ways…
a)Yes.. there is the problem of invading Korea because of its ties with China… But you seem to think that China doesn’t want a nuclear north korea…
Why wouldn’t it? What would be a better way of making sure that the US wouldn’t invade Korea than to have a nuclear armed North Korea…
b) China does give support and aid to N. Korea.. mostly to keep them from collapsing… Chinese aid keeps the millions of starving North Koreans from overruning their borders.. Thus.. it is not as if China can really cut off this aid… (to do so would invite a collapse and a completely unstable situation..)
Also.. there is no way China’s going to consent to some “Economic incentive” from the US to invade another country.. To accept a “bribe” in such a situation would make China appear like a US lackey… Furthermore.. what makes you think that China is the one without the Economic muscle… It is the chinese and Japanese that continue to buy up US saving bonds so that we can finance our debt.. China would just have to stop doing this and WE would be the ones who are fucked…
2. Um.. George Bush mentioned N. Korea as a part of an Axis of Evil and then did nothing about them.. When he came into office he stated categorically that he would not deal with them.. Then, the Koreans announced that they had secretly begun enriching uranium and had nukes and suddenly Dubya pays them a bit of attention.. but not nearly the amount that he has paid to Iraq…
In any case.. you are the one who claimed that Kerry was being inconsistent.. I was pointing out that Kerry was very consistent.. stating that N. Korea was a far more important policy matter than Iraq…
3. My point here is that Iraq was not crucial at all.. and definitely not worth what we have done there…
In addition, Bush’s rationale for this war was wrong–and if you objectively evaluate all of the intelligence information that was available before the war.. then it would have been clear that Iraq was not a priority..
Furthermore.. to argue now that “Well, we need to invade Iraq because there might, at some point in the future, be the possibility that they make weapons of mass destruction” as a rationale as a justification for invasion.. THEN we need to invade Iran now… (also.. I am 100% sure that this kind of reasoning would not have gotten public support behind the invasion…)
Pre-emption is not a valid doctrine in my book.. at least not when it has such shaky footing.. (and for historical analogies.. Pearl Harbor was also a pre-emptive attack based on Japanese calculations of their own foreign policy goals… )
Here.. you do have a point about the monitoring.. I don’t think the solution was to invade Iraq, however.. the monitoring situations in both places were–as you point out in a different context–unique… Iraq was basically a helpless country with a built in monitoring apparatus there.. N. Korea’s monitoring was entirely voluntary and they could violate it entirely at will…
Thus.. you cannot–well perhaps, should not–state in such a blanket fashion that the failures of monitoring in Iraq and N. Korea are the same and justify a pre-emptive attack in Iraq…
more in your next post..
ps–it’s fun to debate with you.. know that I mean nothing personally.. 🙂
Re: I disagree with your facts…
Yes.. there is the problem of invading Korea because of its ties with China… But you seem to think that China doesn’t want a nuclear north korea…
Hmmm… granted, China and N. Korea are happy commie buddies, but I think even the Chinese realize how nuts the Dear Leader is. I doubt they really want him to have nukes… he’s probably not above sticking them up for cash along with the rest of the world, and they know it. Secondly, the analyses I’ve heard have said that a nuclear N. Korea would lead in short order to a nuclear S. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, which China really doesn’t want.
Re: I disagree with your facts…
Good point…
I think China litteraly has a monster child on its hands and it is just trying to avoid as many problems as possible…
I don’t actually foresee a good solution to the N. Korea problem.. the longer this goes on.. the more unstable N. Korea will become.. and the greater chance that the Great Leader will freak out…
We can hope for a coup–that would be my preferred solution…
Re: I disagree with your facts…
a)Yes.. there is the problem of invading Korea because of its ties with China… But you seem to think that China doesn’t want a nuclear north korea…
[[[Oh, quite contrary. N. Korea is China’s illegal arms outlet. I believe China is tickled pink from having a nuclear N.K. And I think they allowed it, knowing they’ll likely have to “solve” the issue. Thus earning them added global status. So I think this is a win-win for China.
Basically, I see the negotiations us finding a suitable “bribe” for China…either to have China force N. Korea to surrender said arms. Or to at least be willing to stand on the side and not get involved if we act.
]]]
“Also.. there is no way China’s going to consent to some “Economic incentive” from the US to invade another country.. To accept a “bribe” in such a situation would make China appear like a US lackey…”
[[[Politics and treaties are nothing more than accepting bribes and trying to find a way to make neither side look weak. That’s the whole point. ]]]
“Furthermore.. what makes you think that China is the one without the Economic muscle.”
[[[They have muscle, but we’re still the big consumer.]]]
“When he came into office he stated categorically that he would not deal with them.”
[[[The same way we won’t negotiate with terrorists. And I agree.]]]
“stating that N. Korea was a far more important policy matter than Iraq.”
[[[Both are important matters. But require different handling.]]]
3. My point here is that Iraq was not crucial at all.
[[[It is a lever for which to move more crucial points (namely Iran). The priority is to establish Democracy and Western ideals in the middle-east. For that goal. Iraq WAS and still IS the easiest target. And the rationale still very very valid.
You’re thinking short-term (solve immediate problem of N. Korea). I much prefer long-term strategies. They tend to win in the long run. And trying to alter the balance in the middle-east. And trying to handle asia with a mind of a potential brewing asiatic cold war. (China vs. Japan).
WMDs were NOT the sole reason we went into Iraq. They were one of like 5 major reasons. However, it was the sole reason the U.N. would enter Iraq. ]]]
“THEN we need to invade Iran now…”
[[[No, we need to look at all the pieces. And play them as best we can. Chess is an interesting game. Doing the same move repeatedly usually makes you lose. Handling similar appearing situations uniquely is a key to winning in Chess. Kerry has shown to me (either for the sole reason of gaining political support or not) that his strategies are not long-term. And I believe he would lose the Chess game.]]]
“N. Korea’s monitoring was entirely voluntary and they could violate it entirely at will…”
[[[It was agreed upon, and U.N. was supposed to have monitoring access…and did. And it still failed. Nope…it’s too easy to hide today.
Truthfully, I often wonder if assasination is not a good option at times. In the case of Korea. Could you assasinate Pyong and then try to push for a Korean re-unification. I wonder if it’d work. It’d be challenging, a lot of potential catches. But i think easier than war. And I think it’d need the backing of the Chinese.
]]]
ps–it’s fun to debate with you.. know that I mean nothing personally.. 🙂
[[[brain stimulation is always a good thing…debates are fun, sometimes we humans go too far. and usually i mean nothing personal…..so thanks]]]
On your point about taxes…
I have a problem with it.. and have a number of different reasons why…
Historical reasons–Actually, the longest period of sustained economic growth (even taking into account 1 yr recessions) was from 1949 to 1972. Real GDP growth averaged over 4%/yr during this period, whereas since then, it has only averaged 2.9%. Importantly, this was a period of significant government spending and the creation of new probrams, and Income tax rates were significantly higher than they are now. Under Eisenhower, the highest income tax rate was 91% for those making over $400,000 ($2.5 million in today’s dollars) This rate hit %50 for those making $32,000 (~$200,000 current). In addition, economic growth in this period occurred in a broad spectrum of income levels–the real wages for non-supervisory workers increased 64% and family income levels increased 100% during this period.
This period is considered one of the most propserous in our history for the reason that such a large swath of the country got to enjoy it..
However, ever since then, things have changed… Since 1972, the real wages for non-supervisory have declined–in 1998, they were 12% less than they they were in 1972–and the only group to see a significant increase in real wages are those in the top 20% of the income brackets.. (family wages have only increased as more women joined the workforce so that we got the two-income families..)
This is exactly at the same time as income tax levels have declined dramatically for the highest income groups..
As for the millions and billions that these groups “blow” on special projects.. Here, history is also important…
If you look at the basic fundamental research that was done on most of the major technological systems today–it was mainly funded by the government, which then gave this information to private corporations–this is true in Computers (IBM projects were sponsored to a dramatic extent by the government, esp. the military), in air travel and space travel (do you think the know-how of how to have SpaceshipOne would exist if the Apollo programs hadn’t gone through all this work in laying the foundation of this info)–in computer networking (also greatly funded by the gov’t)–not to mention things like nuclear power and even oil companies (I have studied US Foreign policy on this score and can tell you that it pretty much conforms to what oil companies want it to do… )
Thus.. if you look at history–many, if not most of the basic technological foundations of our society have been created by government taxes… Corporations have been the beneficiaries of all this.. (Corporations have a really bad history at radical technological development.. they complain about government “interference” in the markets only after the government interferes by sponsoring their development of new technologies.. or even after the government has developed the technologies itself (like in interchangeable parts) and just gives it away..)
For this reason.. I do not buy into the whole “let the markets decide” ideology that everything will get better… When that truly was the case (1880’s-1900), social conditions for the vast majority of the population sucked, and we were on the way towards a radical socialist revolution…
Also.. on a fundamental economic level, markets are great only in the short term.. Free markets will never tell a corporation “ok, invest in a process of technological development that may take 30 years and be unprofitable during that time, but eventually it will help you create a system that dramatically improves productivity.. of course, this system will be easily copied and you will never actually get your return on this investment…”
(This is the actual history of how the system of interchangeable parts occurred… it’s all in a book by Merritt Roe Smith named “Harper’s Ferry ” )
More in next post since it won’t all fit…
part 2!
Another fundamental point for me is that to really have a strong economy, it is better to have a more equitable distribution of wealth than a skewed one
a) On can look at the countries with the most skewed distributions of wealth and then compare them to the ones with the most equitable.. which countries have the higher standards of living…
Overall, you are going to end up comparing places like Brazil to Germany… and in these cases, I’d rather live in Germany…
b) Concretely, giving 10,000,000 families an extra $5,000 will do more to stimulate the economy than giving 10,000 families an extra $5,000,000 because the 10,000,000 families are more likely to spend all of that $5,000 on the basics of staying alive than the 10,000 are to spend the 5 million on luxury items…
It all comes down to values for me.. and I, as the fairly strong atheistic secularist, still think that social solidarity requires/is furthered a hell of a lot more by minimizing economic inequalities… not exacerbating them…
Although I think socialism is an entirely flawed system, going to the extreme in the other direction is not the solution.. in fact it tends to create the conditions where socialism can thrive…
Just my $1.49 in comments on the issue tho… 😉
thank you tricmstr, most especially for part 2, section b.
avdi – i am sorry but again, when i hear you say things like “It seems reasonable to me that the 5% of citizens who pay 50% of all taxes should see the first, and most, relief.” I do in fact think that you
1) can only believe that if you have never been truly, deeply needy – and no matter what you say, i bet if you stood before a group of uninsured workers with chronic, potentially lethal, unaddressed medical conditions and said “i really think someone who pays a lot of taxes but still has millions of dollars, several homes and could jet to sweden for medical treatment should get money back before you do” – you’d feel just how little sense it made as you tried to say it to them,
2) are confused about what those 5% do with their tax relief and are not keeping personal and business finance separate in your mind. If you want to support, say, Space One – you do it by providing tax incentive to such ventures themselves, not by giving back a few mil to people with several more mil and hoping they decide to invest it. Noone ever gets their privilege tax relief and says “gee a few mil back, how awesome – i think i’ll raise my employees pay and benefits”
I also think North Korea should have outranked Iraq. Frankly I think Singapore’s child sex trade is a greater threat to human rights than Iraq was, and we won’t even seriously sanction them because of the money involved. Several places in Africa have citizens who, almost as a whole, BEG us to intervene and provide relief and safety from constant terror, rape and torture inherent to their controlling factions – and we don’t go. Iraq didnt have WMDs. Sanctions were working. The presumption of what they might have done, in the future, if sanctions were lifted, as a premise for an invasion is ludicrous and dangerous. Extend that logic to citizens and you are already at thoughtcrime.
as an overall note – I will probably abstain from commenting almost all political entries for a while except for people I know well enough in person to know I won’t damage the friendship in so doing. I am very glad you are keeping so informed and providing so much to people to consider and weigh. I also know that even if Bush’s theories about taxation and business made sense, even if they worked as advertised and would improve anything economically – it would not make the least bit of difference to me relative to this election.
can only believe that if you have never been truly, deeply needy – and no matter what you say, i bet if you stood before a group of uninsured workers with chronic, potentially lethal, unaddressed medical conditions and said “i really think someone who pays a lot of taxes but still has millions of dollars, several homes and could jet to sweden for medical treatment should get money back before you do” – you’d feel just how little sense it made as you tried to say it to them
I respectfully I differ. I honestly believe that even if I, through some twist of fate became one of those poor workers I would still feel exactly the same. I don’t think you realize what a central part of my moral framework property rights are. It doesn’t matter how much I have or anyone else has – it is their money. Period. End of story. Unless they literally stole it, it belongs to them, and to forcably take it from them is as morally wrong in my ethical system as any other personal violation.
2) are confused about what those 5% do with their tax relief and are not keeping personal and business finance separate in your mind. If you want to support, say, Space One – you do it by providing tax incentive to such ventures themselves, not by giving back a few mil to people with several more mil and hoping they decide to invest it.
You got my aside mixed up with my comment on lowering taxes on the rich. I wasn’t saying lowering taxes on the rich is what gives us things like SpaceShipOne; I was saying saying that the fact that we *have* obscenely wealthy people, no matter how highly taxed they are, means that certain low-short-term-return projects that otherwise wouldn’t be attempted get funding.
Your statement about providing tax breaks to those certain ventures doesn’t make sense to me. My whole point is that without these wealthy dreamers around to projects like SpaceShipOne wouldn’t have been funded in the first place, because for whatever reason government failed to either notice them or deem them worthy of funding. In that particular case, the government had gotten so attached to innefficient NASA that until Rutan&Co. succeeded they were paying no real (financial) attention to the field of private space travel. The virtue of having wealthy independant investors around is that they can take interest in oddball projects that may not have the political capital to be publically funded. Saying that government should offer tax incentives makes the assumption that government is all-knowing and can predict which projects, with perfect objectivity, which projects will provide the greatest payoffs. Which is not only demonstrably false, but impossible, because different results are valuable to different people. One man’s worthy goal is another’s pointless endeavor.
I don’t have any disagreement with you about the relative threats to national security and to human rights posed by Iraq vs. N. Korea, Singapore, Sudan, etc. I do percieve what appears to me to be a double standard in making that judgement when compared to an earlier statement of yours though, so maybe you could clear that up for me. When you say “I think Singapore’s child sex trade is a greater threat to human rights than Iraq was”, that’s a judgement of moral relativity. But I seem to recall you saying in the past that you eschewed statements of moral relativity, in the context of a discussion of US human rights abuses in Iraq vs. Iraqi human rights abuses. Now, it seems to me that in order to justify miliitary intervention primarily for humanitarian purposes, you by definition have to make at least two judgments of moral relativity: first, who is the worst abuser (i.e. where is the most urgent need), and second, will the disparity between what is going on there now and the inevitable abuses that accompany war be great enough to warrant violence-to-stop-violence? So I guess my question is, how do you reconcile these statements? What am I missing?
As always, I appreciate your insights and debate.
Unless they literally stole it, it belongs to them, and to forcably take it from them is as morally wrong in my ethical system as any other personal violation. Since i believe almost all ownership of land and money essentially originates with theft, war, or blackmail in some form, we probably can’t get far there. Perhaps you could clarify what defines legitimate ownership to you? In many countries, women still dont even have the right to own land.
because for whatever reason government failed to either notice them or deem them worthy of funding. NO argument there, i absolutely agree.
you eschewed statements of moral relativity, in the context of a discussion of US human rights abuses in Iraq vs. Iraqi human rights abuses. a misunderstanding i am happy to clarify. what I said was that I didnt consider iraqi offenses an excuse for our own and that it offended me to see ours dismissed bc theirs were worse. the essence being that it being worse did not make ours acceptable and that i expect higher standards from a country seeking to bring the world to supposedly greater peace and freedom. ranking them didnt bother me – using that ranking to excuse ourselves from real accountability given what we claim our goals are did.
Perhaps you could clarify what defines legitimate ownership to you?
I haven’t fleshed out my full philosophy of ownership, but off the top of my head: you own anything that is either part of your body, anything gifted to you, or any product of your talent and/or labor. So any wages you earn, and anything you purchase with those wages.
I’m undecided when it comes to intellectual property; on the one hand, it’s the product of your labor, but from a purely pragmatic point of view it’s impossible, or at least prohibitively impractical, to regulate it in any kind of free society in the digital age. Plus unlike tangible property you can give it to someone else and still have it yourself.
In regards to land? Do you deny that most land ‘ownership’ came about by highly questionable means and that such ownership is still restricted in unethical ways (like the point about women)?
Prohibiting women (or anyone) from owning land (or anything else, other than human beings) is unethical.
I agree that much, if not most, land was ill-gotten at some point; unfortunately in most cases it’s the ownership is too convoluted to iron out at this point, in most cases. I don’t think that’s sufficient grounds to say that all or most land, or the proceeds of that land, is up for reapportionment.
I completely forgot one of the first points that came to mind – just how much is the IRS taking from those workers, anyway? The people most in need of help aren’t paying taxes at all, so I don’t see how tax breaks are going to help them.
I believe that anyone who made approximately 6,000 or more paid taxes, especially if they don’t have kids. I also find it safe to say there are plenty of people over 6k a year who could use more money for essentials and basic ‘luxuries’.