Some political conversation

An Excerpt of a Facebook Debate with Alex Daily.






First, find me a credible study that showed that a cut in tax for the rich caused more jobs. It doesn't happen. It does considerably more to remove a large chunk of income from the government, something we literally can't afford right now. The wars cost trillions of dollars across both administrations while giving us little, if any, return, only putting us deeper in debt. Now obviously that doesn't make up all of the debt, somewhere around 40-60%. And I was unaware of the elaborate bank policy structure dating back decades, thank you for informing me, it was quite interesting and intellectually provocative.

Second, most of the top 1% are *not* business owners. In the top 1%, around 15-20% are actual business owners, the remaining being medical professionals, lawyers, managers and supervisors, those involved in the sciences, those in sales, those in real estate, respectively, as according to a study conducted in November of 2010. I'm for subsidies for small business and for those in the sciences. I'm not for excessive subsidy for large business and then for the top 1% as a blanket at the expense of the majority of the people. The government's policies should always satisfy the majority of the people. Not the top 10%, not the bottom 20%. Welfare should exist, but not in spades. Big business should be given incentives, but because they are businesses, incentive for them to stay in the US, not simply for being are rich as it would apply to the majority of the upper class.

And understand, these high taxes relegated to the rich are *wage* taxes. Over the past decade, capital gains have increased from 2.1% to 8.0% for the top percentile. These are taxed at a lesser rate, as "investments" are held to be separate from "wages". Not to mention there's no lack of loopholes in the tax code (I'm disappointed in Obama's failure to address this, as well as his inability to stop the sharp class divisions that continue to form, with benefit to the rich).

And obviously the top 10% will pay more (71%) of the nation's taxes; but as according to a study, again taken in 2010, they own 70% of the nation's wealth. There's no huge sense of disproportionate giving in that regard. And they pay roughly 6.5% more in taxes than the average American, (~18.5 to 12.5); it's not highway robbery.

Not to mention that the American Dream of "moving up" has been deteriorating for years. In the sense of manufacturing as most people think, it requires a very large amount of capital to start up. In the sense of political office, where the people are represented by the people, I challenge you to find me one politician who was not born in a well-educated, rich family. Obama was perhaps the most surprising, but even his father was a well-connected professor. Additionally, look at raw social mobility. I apologize, on short notice I found a relatively old study from 2001, but the data trends upward and downward at a rate of 5% (retaining class) and 3% (moving all the way up or down), with similar trends in the other categories, per decade: 45% of those in the bottom quintile stay there. 40% of those in the top quintile stay there. Only 6 percent only both sides move from top to bottom, and 25% and 30% of poor/rich respectively only move a single quintile (remember, the median income for working Americans is around $42,500). This study, taken before most of the effects of the Bush Tax cuts and before this recession, which has doubtlessly hit the poor and middle class harder (you should understand this as an economist), and most likely is only a token of the socioeconomic immobility in this country. A quick note, these numbers are lower than those of the average European nation.

I dismissed your other claims largely due to the fact they were not supported with information despite apparent detail (" Business are so afraid of Obamacare.....that they have no incentive to hire new workers", which is partially fallacious as it implied they are not hiring, which they are; unemployment is dropping), outright fallacious (Ooh, Obama has thrown away more money than most countries, disregarding our comparative GDP and what "most countries" means, or "obviously his trust in the people in the Middle East telling him how the situation in the Middle East is in order to make his decision on the Middle East was a bad thing, or something that everyone would have done when Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, and Mitt Romney on tonight's GOP debates stated they want to re-invade Iraq), were irrelevant (Golf? Simple hesitation on where to hold a trial as to not cause criticism, taken as the entirety of his legal competence and character? Really?) or ridiculous ("If Obama gets reelected, America as a land of opportunity will be gone, the country will face bankruptcy and when riots break out in the streets you had better value your 2nd amendment rights").

I'm not against presidential despotism when it's effective; obviously the actions of Adams, Jackson, Nixon (who I didn't mention due to it being obvious) and Hamilton, as well as people like Buchanan, though he was less of an offender and more a terrible President, were corrupt and meant for personal, financial gain. The actions of FDR, Washington, and Lincoln were quite obviously more directed towards public reform. Funny thing, those latter people would be classified as liberal (well, Washington was more moderate, but he was most definitely left-leaning), while the former ones would almost exclusively be conservative (Adams, Jackson, and Hamilton might almost be Tea Party conservative). And while I don't condone frivolous disregard of a "written legal letter", Lincoln was given a "written legal letter" from the goddamn Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, but actively, illegally disregarded it so he could ARREST THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WITHOUT TRIAL. That's more despotic than anything Obama's done, it doesn't matter how you want to twist it, and Lincoln's an idol.

I do not agree with out President on the bank bailouts (nearly all that money was a waste, and while I see the reasoning, bad corporate policies should be punished, not "balied out"), Solyndra was terrible (although minutely countered by a somewhat successful Cash for Clunkers and auto industry bailout, which in addition to the Toyota braking disasters sent our auto manufacturing industry into a boom), he hasn't reformed the tax code, he hasn't ended the Bush tax cuts, he hasn't made it easier for seniors to retire as he stated in his campaign, he hasn't establish any sort of effective, long-term recovery plan, and by and large his healthcare bill was very lackluster. I think he's been on par with Martin Van Buren, who took office after Jackson initiated the Panic of 1837 and the subsequent recession; that is to say with little impact on the state of affairs, despite good intentions and ideas at the beginning of office. I don't agree with his executive actions, I forget what it was called but that extension to the Patriot Bill (which he should have ended) that he signed was a mistake, he hasn't abolished No Child Left Behind, and he and the new Congress haven't really accomplished anything since they went into office (and though blame falls on both sides of the aisle for that, the absolute refusal to raise taxes on the rich by abolishing the Bush Tax Cuts and the hairline passage of the pre-existing cuts on the working class by the Republican House aren't actions that are going to fix anything).