Great Article by Larry Elder!

[SuperScout]

Nearly 70 percent of Americans, according to a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll, consider people more rude than 20 or 30 years ago. Over the last 20 years, according to two prominent Democratic strategists, Americans engaged in a kind of "great sorting-out" ? staking out hard, well-defined, even intolerant, ideological political camps.

Now it all makes sense ? only one side seems a tad more intolerant than the other.

Take last Friday. After work, I drove to a local watering hole for my customary vodka and cran. A couple of anti-war Democrats and I began talking politics. While I disagreed with their positions, they made sensible, if unpersuasive, arguments. You know the drill: Bush built a case for war on bad intelligence; the cultural complexity of Iraq makes America's "imposition" of a democracy unlikely; the Iraq war now serves as a breeding ground for terrorists; other enemies like Iran and North Korea pose even greater threats to America; etc. But then another man, eavesdropping, decided to join in. Within five seconds, he called the president "an idiot." I let it go. Moments later, however, he changed it to "moron." All right, enough.

"Sir, you don't know me, and I don't know you. You barged into a conversation, not a wrestling match. He gave his view," I said, pointing to another man, "and gave reasons. Calling the president 'an idiot' is not a reason. It is childish and shows your lack of ability to make a sensible argument."

He said, "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

"That's not an opinion. It's an attack. And in any case, you're not entitled to have me listen to it. So I suggest you move on and enlighten somebody else."

He glared, but walked away.

Now on to the next day, Saturday. A friend, a decorated Vietnam vet, celebrated his 60th birthday with about 50 festive party goers. I sat at a table of eight, and someone said something about the president's recent defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, calling the battle for her confirmation "uphill." To this, the 60-something woman sitting next to me, with whom, up until this point, I had exchanged pleasantries, suddenly blurted, "Well, I'm from Seattle, and we hate Bush up there ? "

I let it go.

" ? and the thing that we hate the most about Bush is that he claims people shouldn't pay taxes."

All right, enough.

"Excuse me," I said, "can you tell me when the president said, 'People shouldn't pay taxes'?"

"He says it all the time," she replied.

"So then it should be fairly easy for you to tell me when, or perhaps where, he said it."

"Well, it's in his budget."

"Do you mean the most recently passed budget," I asked, "the one that calls for spending something like two-and-a-half trillion dollars?"

"Yes."

"If the budget calls for that much in spending, where do you suppose the government gets the money?"

"What do you mean?" she asked.

"Well, you say the president says 'people ought not pay taxes.' If people don't pay taxes, how does the government get the two-and-a-half trillion?"

"Oh," she said, "I see what you're saying. Let me clarify. Bush says, 'Rich people should not pay taxes.'"

"Oh, really? And when did he say that?"

"Well, he implies it ? he's always seeking to cut taxes on the rich."

"Well," I responded, "as a member of the so-called rich, I welcome you to take a look at my 1040. I pay a substantial amount in taxes. And if there's some program or provision that allows 'the rich' to avoid taxes, perhaps I should consider firing my accountant." At this, the others at the table laughed, but not, of course, my debating opponent.

"Well, it's obvious," she said. "We see things differently."

"We most certainly do, and I think it's pretty much fruitless for us to continue the conversation. But, if you don't mind, I have a brief question for you."

"OK," she said.

"Of the top 1 percent of taxpayers, what percentage do they pay of federal income tax revenues?"


"What do you mean?"

"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice ? by percentage ? of that pie?"

"Oh, I see," she said. "Virtually nothing."

"Nothing?"

"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."

Later, during the party, several people told her that I hosted a nationally syndicated radio show and informed her of my "conservative" politics.

"I'm sorry," she said. "I didn't mean to anger you."

"No, I wasn't angry. I was disappointed that someone could go through the world so incredibly ill-informed."

She walked away.

For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent ? the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 ? paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.

People should know this. Even if you live in Seattle.

[BLUEHAWK]

Good one... thanks.

[Seascamp]

It is very fortunate that a lot of people are not burdened by the weight of what they know and the ever compassionate MSN keeps things compassionately simple, evidently really, really simple in Seattle.
And in the Midwest, CBS has been so very compassionate with their report, ?White supremacists riot?, and then tell of hundreds of ?white supremacists? rampaging in the streets. Shush now, lets not bring up the reality of exactly who was rioting, nope, cant do that. It almost seems as if ?Mother Mary Mapes? is back in the CBS fold and doing the pious, compassionate, deal again.

Scamp

[exlrrp]

Originally posted by SuperScout Nearly 70 percent of Americans, according to a recent Associated Press-Ipsos poll, consider people more rude than 20 or 30 years ago. Over the last 20 years, according to two prominent Democratic strategists, Americans engaged in a kind of "great sorting-out" ? staking out hard, well-defined, even intolerant, ideological political camps.

Now it all makes sense ? only one side seems a tad more intolerant than the other.

Take last Friday. After work, I drove to a local watering hole for my customary vodka and cran. A couple of anti-war Democrats and I began talking politics. While I disagreed with their positions, they made sensible, if unpersuasive, arguments. You know the drill: Bush built a case for war on bad intelligence; the cultural complexity of Iraq makes America's "imposition" of a democracy unlikely; the Iraq war now serves as a breeding ground for terrorists; other enemies like Iran and North Korea pose even greater threats to America; etc. But then another man, eavesdropping, decided to join in. Within five seconds, he called the president "an idiot." I let it go. Moments later, however, he changed it to "moron." All right, enough.

"Sir, you don't know me, and I don't know you. You barged into a conversation, not a wrestling match. He gave his view," I said, pointing to another man, "and gave reasons. Calling the president 'an idiot' is not a reason. It is childish and shows your lack of ability to make a sensible argument."

He said, "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion."

"That's not an opinion. It's an attack. And in any case, you're not entitled to have me listen to it. So I suggest you move on and enlighten somebody else."

He glared, but walked away.

Now on to the next day, Saturday. A friend, a decorated Vietnam vet, celebrated his 60th birthday with about 50 festive party goers. I sat at a table of eight, and someone said something about the president's recent defense of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, calling the battle for her confirmation "uphill." To this, the 60-something woman sitting next to me, with whom, up until this point, I had exchanged pleasantries, suddenly blurted, "Well, I'm from Seattle, and we hate Bush up there ? "

I let it go.

" ? and the thing that we hate the most about Bush is that he claims people shouldn't pay taxes."

All right, enough.

"Excuse me," I said, "can you tell me when the president said, 'People shouldn't pay taxes'?"

"He says it all the time," she replied.

"So then it should be fairly easy for you to tell me when, or perhaps where, he said it."

"Well, it's in his budget."

"Do you mean the most recently passed budget," I asked, "the one that calls for spending something like two-and-a-half trillion dollars?"

"Yes."

"If the budget calls for that much in spending, where do you suppose the government gets the money?"

"What do you mean?" she asked.

"Well, you say the president says 'people ought not pay taxes.' If people don't pay taxes, how does the government get the two-and-a-half trillion?"

"Oh," she said, "I see what you're saying. Let me clarify. Bush says, 'Rich people should not pay taxes.'"

"Oh, really? And when did he say that?"

"Well, he implies it ? he's always seeking to cut taxes on the rich."

"Well," I responded, "as a member of the so-called rich, I welcome you to take a look at my 1040. I pay a substantial amount in taxes. And if there's some program or provision that allows 'the rich' to avoid taxes, perhaps I should consider firing my accountant." At this, the others at the table laughed, but not, of course, my debating opponent.

"Well, it's obvious," she said. "We see things differently."

"We most certainly do, and I think it's pretty much fruitless for us to continue the conversation. But, if you don't mind, I have a brief question for you."

"OK," she said.

"Of the top 1 percent of taxpayers, what percentage do they pay of federal income tax revenues?"


"What do you mean?"

"Assume this is a pie," I said, cupping my hands in a circle. "The top 1 percent contributes what size slice ? by percentage ? of that pie?"

"Oh, I see," she said. "Virtually nothing."

"Nothing?"

"Maybe 1 percent, maybe 2 percent."

Later, during the party, several people told her that I hosted a nationally syndicated radio show and informed her of my "conservative" politics.

"I'm sorry," she said. "I didn't mean to anger you."

"No, I wasn't angry. I was disappointed that someone could go through the world so incredibly ill-informed."

She walked away.

For the record, since my table companion doesn't know or doesn't care, the top 1 percent ? the taxpayers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) over $295,495 ? paid, for 2003, 34.27 percent of federal income tax revenues. The top 10 percent (with an AGI over $94,891) paid 65.84 percent, the top half (AGI over $29,019) paid 96.54 percent. The bottom half? They paid 3.46 percent.

People should know this. Even if you live in Seattle.

Anecdotes don't prove general rules at all and if this is allyou got to prove your case, you'llhave to do better. What IS the point here? Liberals are clueless?
I can come up with all kinds of encounters Ive been in where conservatives are completely clueless "Saddam is responsible for 911" "There are WMDs in Iraq" "We will be greeted as liberators" " The insurgency is in its last death throes"or my favorite "Who ever would have thought they would fly airplanes into buildings" Condoleeza Rice, 9/12/01 You want the sources for all that? Just ask!
I also want to know the source for Elder's numbers--where did he get those? Youd think he would havce sourced that if he wanted people to be sure. Elders also conveniently leaves out that the tax cuts have created the highest budget deficits ever while government spending has risen 37% since the conservatives took over.
I know this is the kind of article conservatives like--there's no verifiable facts at all, only Elder's anecdotes about liberals.
Stay good
James

[BLUEHAWK]

I'll step back in on this...

I don't think the point being made was that "Liberals are clueless..."

I think the point being made was that often times that which is repeatedly held out as rock solid truth is not based on any facts that exist, can be known or communicated. Indeed, many times the exact opposite is true... as in the case cited above. And, when that happens on really serious matters, then there is a good reason to show, factually, in exactly what precise ways the premise or the conclusions are utterly false... in the hope that such evidence might be persuasive.

Now, when a sincere person with a clear heart makes false charges (as we all have done from time to time), and are shown to have done so, they ordinarily should find it best to own up to that and make a change in their thinking, if not make other amends.

So, when that fails to occur, then the only possible conclusion that can be reached is that they who refuse to own up, have something else in mind entirely.

Then the question becomes, "Just exactly what IS that other agenda?"

Therein lies the rub-a-dub Dubya, eh?

As to the case in point raised in the piece originally posted, and without desiring to get into the topic of income distribution... I frankly do not give a rat's butt who pays what percentage of the taxes. Why?

- 10% of $1,000,000,000 means a heck of a lot less than 10% of $10,000.

- Intentionally DEcreasing income in a time of war while INcreasing expenses is, to put it gently, lunacy.

- The people must bear the financial burden of our elected (duly and otherwise) government's policies and our indigenous people's legitimate needs, and bear it fairly according to their skills and abilities. Not everyone can be a successful capitalist, by any means. Or, alternatively, everyone can be a successful capitalist... Now what.

If all we had in America were people who earned more than $1,000,000 annually, how would taxation be made fair?

If all we had in America were people who earned $10,000 annually, how would the bills get paid?

The "Fair Tax" proposal... consists of, so far as I have been able to determine, a rather substantial (23 - 35%) tax on consumption. Imagine that... imagine paying THAT much more for every single thing Americans purchase, of any kind at any time.

See what I am getting at here?

I'm guessing it all got started when our forebears allowed America to become a Federalist Republic. The further away from home the responsibility gets placed, the less likely will be a positive result.

Let us consider another angle...

The context in which the original post made sense (in various ways to various people) is THE contemporary context of all our lives. That is to say, to accept or reject the post, is to have accepted or rejected the premise upon which it is based.

MUST we?

I think not.

[Seascamp]

One test of truth is always the ?truth? tellers strength of resolve. With the WMD issue, I?m still waiting for one of the Liberal name-names to demand that all Airport, Port and Coast Guard authorities, Border Guards, etc., immediately cease inspecting and screening ships, aircraft and cargoes. And demand that all WMD preparedness programs across this land be suspended and that all WMD reports from the UN, French, Brit, etc., be branded as a pack of lies. And make sure that all Intel sources just forget about it and stop wasting time.

Sure would save tons of money and get this issue off the table once and for all, maybe, or at least for the moment, eh.
But something tells me that that strength of resolve is not intrinsic to the assertion and no one is going to put his or her ass on the line or take that level of risk to test his or her own supposed truth. Maybe Boston and San Francisco want to lead the way and suspend all such activities and show some spirit of resolve, who knows.

Scamp

[BLUEHAWK]

Originally posted by Seascamp ... no one is going to put his or her ass on the line or take that level of risk to test his or her own supposed truth.

I will.

Abolish:

- Electoral College
- Gerrymandering (aka "redistricting" or "reapportionment")
- Closed Primaries
- Sovereign Immunity
- Eminent Domain