Posted by Racer on March 4, 2004, at 23:58:02
In reply to Re: ABB Anybody But Bush » Racer, posted by Elle2021 on March 4, 2004, at 23:05:05
I don't have the energy to get into a squabble with you, and after your response on psychology to me a while back I don't quite trust that you're looking for dialog rather than another chance to tell me that I'm offensive to you. I'm going to suspend that mistrust -- which is different to distrust -- and say a few words in explanation.
As an introduction to these remarks, I'm going to point out some definitions, and how they apply to the current campaigns.
Most important is "like" and "equal" are not the same thing. LIKE means similar; EQUAL means the same as. "The Economy" and "The Stock Market" are not the same thing at all, the stock market is one part of the economy, but it is not even the largest part of the whole. Anyone who says, "The economy is in recovery, it's just a jobless recovery" is lying, because the economy as a whole is not recovering, the stock market is recovering. Dishonesty in a politician is expected these days, but that doesn't mean it's either inevitable or ethically acceptable.
This administration is behaving very much like another administration in the past, which I'm old enough to remember and sound like a crank when I say anything about it. So, I won't, especially as it's only a partial resemblance. What I will say it that deception and secrecy have been such a strong theme during their tenure it's very difficult to believe that it is not deliberate and calculated. There are so many examples of this consistently unethical behavior that are seen on the news daily that it's impossible for me to muster up one single issue that can't lead to a flame war of one sort or another.
The greed is quite apparent, as is his utter comtempt for The People. Now, one of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, said, "The People is a great beast" and meant it. He, along with some other FFs believed that direct election would be too dangerous, that too few enfranchised voters had the intelligence and knowledge to vote wisely, thus we have the electoral college to this day. GWB has taken it farther still: he doesn't believe that we understand the concept of averages: "90 million people received an average tax cut of $1000..." Sure, and if Bill Gates walks in here tomorrow, the average net worth of everyone here goes up by a billion or so. One third of taxpayers received nothing -- zero, zip, nada. More than half the people who received anything at all, received less than $100. Guess why the average was so high? Those people in the top 2 percent of taxpayers by income received so much in the tax cuts that the averages made everyone feel nice and cozy.
Let's look at estate taxes for a moment. Ah yes, saving the family farm. What a noble idea. Do you know how many family farms are lost each year to estate taxes? I don't, but I do know that, in the history of the estate tax, fewer than 200 family farms have ever been lost as a result of estate taxes. Very few family farms are in any danger of any kind from estate taxes. The worth of the operation must far excede the mean worth of family farms in this country. Those estate taxes benefit one class of people, and one class only: those who have inherited very great wealth. Not in the $100K range, but in the $1M range and above. Not only that, but the argument that, "well we're taxed when we earn it, then we're taxed when it passes into our estates" is also deceptive. In many cases, the only people whose estates are worth enough to get onto the estate tax radar are those whose wealth comes from investing, rather than working. Wage income is taxed at the time it is earned. Investment income can evade taxation at any stage. We're not asking anyone to sell the family farm and old Bessie the milch cow, we're asking for some equity in the tax laws, so that people earning $12K per year do not pay more taxes than those who sit back and allow their investments to provide an income of millions per year. Do you understand that?
Then there is the question of the WMD. I'm not going to get into it. It was a show war, choreographed, and certainly suspicious in view of Paul O'Neill's disclosures about staff meetings.
Cruel? What else do you call it when a man who can provide real assistance to the people of this nation instead tells us so clearly that he thinks we're too stupid to see his basic dishonesty? Add on, he's showing us the bread we so desperately need, and then throwing it away in favor of cake for his buddies -- and don't think they're not laughing at us as they eat it.
My dear, whether you posted because you truly believe in the man or simply wanted a chance to attack me again, I recommend that you look a little more critically at the big picture in this country, and maybe take a critical reasoning class for fun. Or just watch TV commercials and ask yourself what they're really trying to tell us. I saw an IKEA ad the other day that apparently advocated cheating an insurance agency which was trying to provide assistance to a couple recovering from damage from a fire. Is that moral? In what way is that moral? And remember, advertisers had not gone that far before our fearless leader bought his appointment to office.
By the way, if you do respond to this, please be aware in advance. If I perceive your response to be anything other a genuine request for further explanation of my views, I will not answer. Once burned, twice shy, but I'm giving you a second chance here. It's up to you what to do with it.
poster:Racer
thread:320233
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040219/msgs/320449.html