Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:11 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
I will assume permission and copy this excellent perception from Defensive Indifference:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
I disagree. Trump is the pure distilled essence of Republicanism. Anti-Trump Republicans aren't pissed at what he's doing or saying. They're just pissed that he doesn't pretty it all up for the OpEd page of the WSJ. His supporters are pure Republicans.

Believing that the media and academics are biased? Started with Goldwater, continues right through to "fake news!"

Regressive taxation? Laffer sketched a curve on the back of a napkin; Trump enacts tariffs that are tantamount to a national sales tax.

Racism? It's a short step from the Southern Strategy to Trump. Ronald Reagan argued in the 60s that landlords should be able to discriminate against blacks; Trump actually did.

Belligerent jingoism? Every Republican president since Reagan has had a hard on for killing brown people in the Middle East.

Anti-intellectualism? Reagan -> Palin -> Trump

Catastrophic deregulation? We went from "the government is the problem" to gutting every agency and moving the USDA and BLM out of DC and refusing to fill key positions.

Human rights abuses? GWB ran his gulags in secret; Trump does it in the open.

Trump is the Platonic ideal of Republican. The "good Republicans" are the ones who finally realized the truth about their team.
Trump is not an aberration from conservativism, but the culmination of it. All he's done is strip away the genteel veneer that let them avoid the real human consequences of their views. That includes a deflective insistence on their own definitions of "politeness" and how it is lacking in criticisms of them rather than on the actual content of those views and their effects. They can't credibly disavow Trump, because they are Trump and have been so for quite some time.
  #202  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:12 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Not at all. Maybe Dad enjoys watching the game a lot more than Little Timmy. Maybe Little Timmy would rather play Candy Crush or step on ants. But the important thing is that he should not be functionally and systematically barred from watching the game at all just because he was born (temporarily) tiny.
I think most conservatives would believe in the "temporarily" thing if things were actually temporary.

What usually happens is that these things aren't temporary and what starts off as a temporary solution becomes permanent.

He's a child, so temporarily he is short but what happens if he never grows to be tall enough to see over the fence?

Do you lower the fence? Do you have the ticket cost him less? Do you find him a better seat at the same price as the fence ticket holder?

Life. It isn't fair like that. And will never be fair like that. The best thing, IMO, that people can do is realize this and work around life's deficiencies to make their life the best version they can obtain.

It requires work, not governmental 'permanent' assistance. Temporary assistance is fine with me (for legal US citizens anyway)

It's the same basic argument.

Equality of opportunity can be given.

Equality of outcomes can not be guaranteed by any stretch of the word 'equal'
  #203  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:15 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
He's a child, so temporarily he is short but what happens if he never grows to be tall enough to see over the fence?
The liberal will want to cut everyone's legs off to make everyone the same height.

We're doing absurd ridiculous parody now right?
  #204  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:31 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
It's the same basic argument.

Equality of opportunity can be given.

Equality of outcomes can not be guaranteed by any stretch of the word 'equal'
I think the scenario can be adjusted to be more reflective of Liberal thinking.

You have one guy standing on the ground looking over the fence. The other guy (equally tall) is standing in a hole, and can't see over the fence.

You can say "That guy should climb out of the hole, or fill in the hole with dirt." but that implies he should do more work to get the same view as the other guy. That's not equality of opportunity.

You can give the guy a box, but the other guy will complain that you gave him a box, and he should have simply had the good sense to not stand in a hole.

Of course, the hole and fence are metaphors, and one doesn't actually choose where one stands at the fence. It's also true that the hole didn't appear in this guy's spot by accident. But that doesn't stop the complaint, it's not like the first guy personally dug the hole, or anything, it's been there for centuries, and you want him to contribute to a "box fund" to help the second guy out?
  #205  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:34 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
The liberal will want to cut everyone's legs off to make everyone the same height.

*nod* It's only fair.



__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #206  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:42 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You can give the guy a box, but the other guy will complain that you gave him a box, and he should have simply had the good sense to not stand in a hole.
He'll also go to some lengths to make it illegal, or at least difficult, to fill holes or get boxes. Why should that other guy get a special right to use a shovel or a box? You people who want to allow it are the real heightists!

The sheer spitefulness that drives so much of what passes for modern US "conservatism" appears to have become fundamental to it. But it now has a political outlet and a party that caters to it.

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-18-2019 at 10:45 AM.
  #207  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:47 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Isn't this what conservatives talk about all the time? It's the fact that while liberals will argue that they want equality of opportunity, what they really want is equality of outcome.
How is it "equality of opportunity" if there's a fence designed so that short people have no opportunity to see the game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I think most conservatives would believe in the "temporarily" thing if things were actually temporary.

What usually happens is that these things aren't temporary and what starts off as a temporary solution becomes permanent.
There are always children. And there are some people who will always be short. So it's always necessary to consider what the fence is doing, yes. Why does that mean that we shouldn't consider what the fence is doing?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Do you lower the fence? Do you have the ticket cost him less? Do you find him a better seat at the same price as the fence ticket holder?
You redesign the fence -- in the process both making it possible for the short person to see, and better protecting the tall person from being hit in the face with a ball.

That's not only a possibility limited to this specific metaphor, either. The person who at the moment is perfectly capable of paying their own medical bills may at any point be hit with an unexpected problem which prevents them from being able to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
Life. It isn't fair like that. And will never be fair like that.
Life will never make all people the same size, no. But human societies can be designed to accommodate people of different sizes; or not to do so.
  #208  
Old 07-18-2019, 10:55 AM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey View Post
Or, perhaps, a large number of republicans are insufficiently self aware that their stated positions and attitudes are racist and feel put upon when confronted with the fact.
Oh come on - read the OP. No matter what the stated position or attitude, some Democrats are going to respond with accusations of racism.

Regards,
Shodan
  #209  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:11 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Interesting poll in USA Today yesterday.

70% of Republicans and 31% of Democrats polled agreed with the statement “accusations of racism are usually made in bad faith.”

So, I would say that a conservative value is that they think liberals are biased, insincere and unreliable in their accusations of bigotry and racism. Apparently, this is also a significant minority view among liberals.
Hey, you don't appear to have answered my question from the last page - why do you think minority groups so overwhelmingly favor Democrats, given that the Republican party is so wholly devoid of racism or bigotry?
  #210  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:26 AM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
To whom shall I point? People who mistakenly believe that conservatives want to "tax people equally"?
A flat tax, a conservative proposal, doesn’t seek to tax people equally?

I question why you feel the need to claim childish bromides such as “treating people equally” for liberalism when a super majority of all mainstream ideologies support some conception of it. Very strange.
  #211  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:28 AM
DrFidelius's Avatar
DrFidelius is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 12,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Not at all. Maybe Dad enjoys watching the game a lot more than Little Timmy. Maybe Little Timmy would rather play Candy Crush or step on ants. But the important thing is that he should not be functionally and systematically barred from watching the game at all just because he was born (temporarily) tiny.
Shouldn't we just remove the opaque fence?
__________________
The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not represent any other persons, organizations, spirits, thinking machines, hive minds or other sentient beings on this world or any adjacent dimensions in the multiverse.
  #212  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:34 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 23,069
No, because then you're changing the objective of the game, and treating life as it is a competition with inevitable winners and losers definitely is a solid conservative value
  #213  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:37 AM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
A flat tax, a conservative proposal, doesn’t seek to tax people equally?

I question why you feel the need to claim childish bromides such as “treating people equally” for liberalism when a super majority of all mainstream ideologies support some conception of it. Very strange.
A flat tax doesn't tax people equally, even by its own definition of equal, unless it taxes all entities and all income. Which is I presume why manson1972 asked about capital gains, inheritance income, and corporate income; all of which most conservatives want to tax unequally from wage income. (I suppose you could argue that corporations aren't persons, except that most conservatives don't seem to be complaining about court cases declaring that they are.)

And what people are pointing out, repeatedly, is that there's more than one legitimate definition of "treating people equally". You can argue that one of the meanings is more important than the other; but claiming that only one of the meanings exists is not a good argument.
  #214  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:47 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius View Post
Shouldn't we just remove the opaque fence?
If you remove the fence then they both equally have the same chance of getting hit in the face with the ball.

However, by removing the fence and Timmy (playing Candy Crush), gets hit much more often.

Removing the fence certainly gave equality of opportunity. But outcomes still are not the same .
  #215  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:48 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,917
This all boils down to equality vs. equity.

Equality = everyone is treated the same
Equity = everyone gets the same outcome


Both things sound good in theory, but the latter is problematic. Look at this incident, for instance - a concert event deciding that it will charge white people $20 for tickets but people of color only $10 for tickets.
  #216  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:54 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnT View Post
No, because then you're changing the objective of the game, and treating life as it is a competition with inevitable winners and losers definitely is a solid conservative value
Hmm, life is not a zero sum game. Both sets of people can be winners.

But people entirely reliant on the government, should never be viewed as what others aspire to be.
I will likely go check but does anyone have a source for the people on governmental assistance and the rate which they get off of it due to bettering their position financially?
  #217  
Old 07-18-2019, 11:56 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrFidelius
Shouldn't we just remove the opaque fence?

Sure, works too. It's just that boxes represent a faster and more immediate solution which addresses the problem *right now*. That doesn't preclude looking into better fence designs in the long term. Or into nationalizing ball parks and hanging the last tall person with the guts of the last fencemaker for that matter .

But conservatives, caricaturally speaking, go "why should we do anything ? *I* can see over the fence just fine, other people who are taller than me too, why can't Timmy ? Sounds like a Timmy problem to me. Plus that fence has been here for generations. The fence is fine. The fence works ! And the Redskins are going to pay for it !" (ok, so the last part is in jest and possibly unfair. But you get my drift)
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #218  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:08 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
A flat tax, a conservative proposal, doesn’t seek to tax people equally?
No, for reasons already explained to you, futilely. It's marketed that way to make it sound fair, but it is not.
  #219  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:11 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Hey, you don't appear to have answered my question from the last page - why do you think minority groups so overwhelmingly favor Democrats, given that the Republican party is so wholly devoid of racism or bigotry?
Did I say wholly devoid? Imply such? Have I said anything in any way that makes that appear to be my position? Maybe I didn’t answer the question because it looked to me like it was asked poorly and in bad faith.

Try asking a question that is worthy of a response.
  #220  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:12 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No, for reasons already explained to you, futilely. It's marketed that way to make it sound fair, but it is not.
IMHO, it would be better to describe a flat tax as "unfair but necessary." It's not fair that Bob has to pay 35% tax while John only has to pay $10%, but if Bob is far wealthier, then it's the only way to fill the nation's coffers. If Bob is earning a billion dollars every year, the nation needs that tax revenue to fund all of its various programs. It's practicality overriding fairness.
  #221  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:12 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,641
The liberal principle is that equal treatment isn't fair. To paraphrase, everyone should be treated equally, but some more equally than others.

Regards,
Shodan
  #222  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:19 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
If I had to take a guess at the general conservative/republican view of this, I would say that the overwhelming majority of them have come to the conclusion that the left can safely be ignored when it comes to their accusations of racism/bigotry.

They do not have a reasonable definition. They do not apply their standards equally. They make the accusations in bad faith and for political power. They went after Bush, Romney, McCain.

This thread itself is evidence that the left’s definition of racism is everything that is not in lockstep with their beliefs and agenda.

An accusation of racism or bigotry from the left carries no weight.
  #223  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:21 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, it would be better to describe a flat tax as "unfair but necessary."
Maybe you could explain the "necessary" part a little more clearly. Yes, taxation is necessary - and the most money can be obtained from people who have the most, would be least affected by paying it, and have benefited the most from the contributions of the rest of the people (including systematic upward wealth redistribution like we've had in recent decades. Why shouldn't that be the case?

Tax regressiveness is not a new subject of discussion, btw - it has existed as long as taxation.

Quote:
It's not fair that Bob has to pay 35% tax while John only has to pay $10%
Whose life is affected more? The guy who has to sell one of his yachts, or the guy who can no longer buy life-saving medicine for his kids? What is your definition of "fair"?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-18-2019 at 12:22 PM.
  #224  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:25 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
If I had to take a guess at the general conservative/republican view of this, I would say that the overwhelming majority of them have come to the conclusion that the left can safely be ignored when it comes to their accusations of racism/bigotry.
Only because they find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to address. If the response were "The accusation is mistaken because of [fill in facts] etc." instead of "No, YOU'RE the real bigots!", then the conservatives would have some ability to engage and fight ignorance. But you're not doing that, are you?
  #225  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:26 PM
thorny locust is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kearsen1 View Post
I will likely go check but does anyone have a source for the people on governmental assistance and the rate which they get off of it due to bettering their position financially?
First, define "governmental assistance".

Does that include assistance to businesses, which benefits their owners?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
The liberal principle is that equal treatment isn't fair.
For the sixth or maybe the six hundredth time, the liberal principle is that doing the same thing to different people in different circumstances very often isn't equal treatment.

Let me try putting it this way: the liberal principle is that you're not treating people equally by letting people start the footrace from six different positions, and then claiming that the reason the people who start nearest to the finish line almost always win the races isn't due to inequality because everybody got the same chance to run fast.
  #226  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:27 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Whose life is affected more? The guy who has to sell one of his yachts, or the guy who can no longer buy life-saving medicine for his kids? What is your definition of "fair"?
If Bill Gates steps into McDonald's and wants to buy a Big Mac, he should only have to pay the same price for it (say, $4) that Average Joe standing in line also has to pay. It wouldn't be fair for the cashier to say, "Well, Mr. Gates, you're a billionaire so this Big Mac is going to cost you $200." That would be unequal treatment.

When it comes to taxation, though, the fairness has to take second priority to practicality. There is no way to effectively fund the nation's budget if Bill Gates only paid 17% (or however much) tax like most Americans. I'm totally in favor of taxing the rich more heavily; I just think we should stop calling it "fair." Just call it "unfair, but the right thing to do."

What's so wrong about calling it "unfair but necessary?" Is it that it's bad PR, doesn't sound like a good slogan?
  #227  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:35 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
So 70% of Republicans have had experiences similar to reading the OP and many of the posts in response. That I can believe. And 31% of Democrats have enough insight to recognize it, or are at least honest enough to 'fess up. Better, frankly, than I expected.
As a conservative, why do you accept this? Why don't you guys tell your elected representatives, "Listen guys, we like all the good stuff that you're doing. But could you drop the bigotry? It serves no good purpose and being associated with it makes us all look bad."

We could say it but they're not going to listen to us; we're Democrats and we don't vote for them anyway. But if Republican voters told Republican politicians to knock off the bigotry, they'd pay attention. So why don't you?
  #228  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:37 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
When it comes to taxation, though, the fairness has to take second priority to practicality.
The point is that it isn't even unfair.
  #229  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:38 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Did I say wholly devoid? Imply such?
I would say that you strongly implied it, yes.

Quote:
Have I said anything in any way that makes that appear to be my position?
Yes, your initial response to me, where you implied that I'm a racist for noting that the Republican party is awash in racism and bigotry, made it appear very strongly that you think there isn't a problem with racism in your party. Also, the fact that you're a member of that party.

Quote:
Maybe I didn’t answer the question because it looked to me like it was asked poorly and in bad faith.
Do you think I showed more or less bad faith than the post where you implied that I was a racist for noting the overwhelming prejudice of the Republican party?

Quote:
Try asking a question that is worthy of a response.
I already did. Sam Stone asserted that Democrats are playing identity politics, and that that's a bad thing, with a heavy implication that we're the only ones doing it. I pointed out that, pretty much across the board, every time the Democrats are playing "identity politics," its with a group that the Republicans have explicitly singled out and attacked as a matter of political policy. You implied that I was racist myself for making that observation. Which implies that you think there's a different reason, other than the apalling bigotry of the Republican party, for the vast disparity in minority support for the two parties. I think asking what you think is the reason for that disparity is an entirely worthy question.

I mean, do you genuinely think that the Republican attacks on gay right through the '90s and early 2000's had nothing to do with there being very, very few gay people who identify as Republicans? Do you think passing constitutional bans against gay marriage in states where it was already illegal was not "identity politics?" Do you think Trump's not playing identity politics when he gets one of his rallies chanting, "Send her home," about a Muslim congresswoman? Because when you call me racist for pointing that stuff out, it pretty strongly implies that you don't think any of those things are true - that the lack of support for Republicans by minority groups doesn't have anything to do with how Republicans have historically (and contemporaneously) treated those groups. If you don't think there's a link, then how do you explain the disparity of support? If you do think there's a link, why did you get on my tits when I posted about it earlier?
  #230  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:41 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 81,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
When it comes to taxation, though, the fairness has to take second priority to practicality. There is no way to effectively fund the nation's budget if Bill Gates only paid 17% (or however much) tax like most Americans. I'm totally in favor of taxing the rich more heavily; I just think we should stop calling it "fair." Just call it "unfair, but the right thing to do."
You appear to be unfamiliar with our current tax policies.

Most of us live off of income. The income tax rate goes up to 37%.

Most wealthy people live off on investments. The capital gains tax rate goes up to 20%.

So what's fair about wealthy people paying a tax rate that's barely half of the tax rate people like you and I pay?

Let's not talk about taxing wealthy people more heavily. Let's just talk about taxing them at the same rate most people pay.
  #231  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:43 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 270
The way I think about progressive taxation is that the point isn’t to equally apportion the burden, but to equally apportion the suffering caused by the burden. Imagine if the government instituted a new $1,000 per year tax on all working adults. Billionaires and minimum wage workers would all suffer, but the suffering of the billionaire would be utterly negligible. Therefore, the tax isn’t fair. The same reasoning applies to flat taxes, generally.
  #232  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:48 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
IMHO, it would be better to describe a flat tax as "unfair but necessary." It's not fair that Bob has to pay 35% tax while John only has to pay $10%, but if Bob is far wealthier, then it's the only way to fill the nation's coffers. If Bob is earning a billion dollars every year, the nation needs that tax revenue to fund all of its various programs. It's practicality overriding fairness.

It's absolutely fair that Bob pays more if he earns that much more. He demonstrably is profiting more from society as it currently exists than John (for any number of reasons, not most of them "fair"). Society allows him to safely enjoy more creature comforts than John. Society also protects him from John, should John get the notion that maybe Bob's life experience could be vastly enhanced by, say, getting hanged from the nearest lamp post and his riches divided equally amongst the misfortunates.

I mean, this isn't overly complex, it isn't even fucking new. Aristocrats of Ancient Greece/Rome actively competed against each other over who could make the most lavish public spending. It was even ultimately self-serving (because your gold isn't worth tin when the Persians raze the city on account of you skimped on arming the militia, or didn't placate the gods well enough).


ETA : @UnreconstructedMan : bingo.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.

Last edited by Kobal2; 07-18-2019 at 12:50 PM.
  #233  
Old 07-18-2019, 12:50 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
Most of us live off of income. The income tax rate goes up to 37%.

Most wealthy people live off on investments. The capital gains tax rate goes up to 20%.
Hmm, I don't think I've heard them called earned and unearned income for quite some time. Did the IRS drop those terms?

At any rate, how is it fair to tax money you worked for at a higher rate than money you got by sitting on your ass?
  #234  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:01 PM
Shodan is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 39,641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
As a conservative, why do you accept this? Why don't you guys tell your elected representatives, "Listen guys, we like all the good stuff that you're doing. But could you drop the bigotry? It serves no good purpose and being associated with it makes us all look bad."
I think you missed the part about "in bad faith".
Quote:
We could say it but they're not going to listen to us; we're Democrats and we don't vote for them anyway. But if Republican voters told Republican politicians to knock off the bigotry, they'd pay attention. So why don't you?
See above.

Read the OP again; it is an example of the sort of thing I mean. No matter what the conservative principle to be put forth, it was going to be met with accusations of bigotry, and I think we all knew that.

So no, I am not going to contact my Republican politicians and say "knock off that stuff about personal responsibility and equal treatment" because they aren't bigoted. The accusations that they are, lack credibility.

It isn't really possible to separate "the good stuff" that Republicans are doing, or trying to do, from "bigotry as defined by liberals". I support, for instance, the death penalty. Many liberals would insist that this must be rooted in bigotry, because a third of those on death row are black. But I happen to know that black people commit about half the murders in the US, even though they make up only about 13% of the population. So the accusation that the DP is racist holds no water for me. I am certainly not going to contact my representatives and say "stop supporting the death penalty because it upsets me that liberals accuse me of racism". I don't care.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that accusations of racism are "usually" made in bad faith, but it's hardly rare. And I can "usually" spot when they are.

'All conservative values are based on bigotry, so I should contact my representatives and tell them to knock off the bigotry' is not a worthwhile statement. Because no they're not, so no I won't.

Regards,
Shodan
  #235  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:04 PM
Scylla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Only because they find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to address. If the response were "The accusation is mistaken because of [fill in facts] etc." instead of "No, YOU'RE the real bigots!", then the conservatives would have some ability to engage and fight ignorance. But you're not doing that, are you?

It is both uncomfortable and inconvenient. That fact seems to actually be the underlying purpose of making the accusation in the first place.

Each specious accusation erodes credibility until there is none left. At which point the left is nothing more than chicken little or the boy who cried wolf.

The right can now simply ignore these accusations and use their own judgement, like they did with Steve King. Considering how Ilhan Omar skates, it appears the right’s standard is higher than the left’s.

Again, what is there to be said beyond the thread title? According to the left everything the right believes is racist. That being the case, why would they bother listening?
  #236  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:11 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
The more reflexive denialism you spout at us, the more strongly you confirm the point. Try an actual argument, please.
  #237  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:15 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorny locust View Post
A flat tax doesn't tax people equally, even by its own definition of equal, unless it taxes all entities and all income. Which is I presume why manson1972 asked about capital gains, inheritance income, and corporate income; all of which most conservatives want to tax unequally from wage income. (I suppose you could argue that corporations aren't persons, except that most conservatives don't seem to be complaining about court cases declaring that they are.)

And what people are pointing out, repeatedly, is that there's more than one legitimate definition of "treating people equally". You can argue that one of the meanings is more important than the other; but claiming that only one of the meanings exists is not a good argument.
Perhaps you meant to respond to the other poster. I have been trying to explain to him that there are more ways to interpret “treating people equally”, but he insists on digressing into whether or not conservatives treat people equally in his conception of the phrase.

I pointed to two policies to compare them. The progressive tax and the flat tax. I said nothing of other taxes, my point was to illustrate something for him in a simple way, I think most people understood the intention.

The conservative conceives of equal treatment differently than the liberal, so to say that liberals can claim the mantle of the hallmark pleasantry “treat people equally” is very strange.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
No, for reasons already explained to you, futilely. It's marketed that way to make it sound fair, but it is not.
What was explained to you, before you began quoting commies, was that conservatives view fairness as arbitrary. “Fairness” is a rhetorical concept used by the left. Conservatives supposedly believe in equal treatment under the law.

Fairness is judged only by the indignant foot of the stomping teenager.

Last edited by WillFarnaby; 07-18-2019 at 01:18 PM.
  #238  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:18 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
It isn't even equal.
  #239  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:24 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Conservatives supposedly believe in equal treatment under the law.

Very, very, VERY strong emphasis on the word "supposedly". As I'm sure, e.g. every LGBT Doper left will be prompt to explain to you at length, possibly while disembowelling you.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #240  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:28 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
You appear to be unfamiliar with our current tax policies.

Most of us live off of income. The income tax rate goes up to 37%.

Most wealthy people live off on investments. The capital gains tax rate goes up to 20%.

So what's fair about wealthy people paying a tax rate that's barely half of the tax rate people like you and I pay?

Let's not talk about taxing wealthy people more heavily. Let's just talk about taxing them at the same rate most people pay.
Do conservatives oppose dropping your taxes to 20%? Flat tax proposals I’ve seen are less than that.
  #241  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:30 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Perhaps you meant to respond to the other poster. I have been trying to explain to him that there are more ways to interpret “treating people equally”, but he insists on digressing into whether or not conservatives treat people equally in his conception of the phrase.
And it's been repeatedly explained to you that what you are considering "treating people equally" is anything but. Not sure how much simpler we can make it.

If you had an example that actually "treated people equally" then you'd have a point. But you don't, so you don't.
  #242  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:31 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Very, very, VERY strong emphasis on the word "supposedly". As I'm sure, e.g. every LGBT Doper left will be prompt to explain to you at length, possibly while disembowelling you.
Don’t know what you are alluding to, but I probably don’t care.

Conservatives have a few errors that need correcting. I had in mind their support of special treatment of police and other government workers.
  #243  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:32 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
Very, very, VERY strong emphasis on the word "supposedly". As I'm sure, e.g. every LGBT Doper left will be prompt to explain to you at length, possibly while disembowelling you.
During the US debate, we actually did see actual Dopers claim that gays have the same right as straights to marry people of the opposite sex, so there was no problem to fix.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Don’t know what you are alluding to, but I probably don’t care.
And that speaks loudly, doesn't it?

Last edited by ElvisL1ves; 07-18-2019 at 01:33 PM.
  #244  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:33 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
And it's been repeatedly explained to you that what you are considering "treating people equally" is anything but. Not sure how much simpler we can make it.

If you had an example that actually "treated people equally" then you'd have a point. But you don't, so you don't.
I don’t have an example of conservatives treating people equally in the liberal conception of the phrase.
  #245  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:35 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,655
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
I don’t have an example of conservatives treating people equally in the liberal conception of the phrase.
Exactly.
  #246  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:35 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
During the US debate, we actually did see actual Dopers claim that gays have the same right as straights to marry people of the opposite sex, so there was no problem to fix.
Another example of treating people equally in the conservative sense of the term.

Quote:
And that speaks loudly, doesn't it?
Why should I care about special interest groups who want to disembowel me?
  #247  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:37 PM
WillFarnaby's Avatar
WillFarnaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Baltimore
Posts: 5,266
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
Exactly.
I had no evidence of something I didn’t claim. For some reason I think this is not hitting home for you.
  #248  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:37 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby
Don’t know what you are alluding to

Yeah, dude, we know.


Quote:
but I probably don’t care.

Yeah, dude, we know.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
  #249  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:40 PM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Another example of treating people equally in the conservative sense of the term.
Further illustrating the indefensibility of the term as you use it.
  #250  
Old 07-18-2019, 01:53 PM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by WillFarnaby View Post
Why should I care about special interest groups who want to disembowel me?

Just to clarify (I know, I know, you're being disingenuously obtuse, and what witty fun it is !) : it was a joke, and they don't generally speaking. But they might just get the impulsive urge to when you pretend to have utterly missed the whole gay Thing over the past, oh, twenty, thirty years, thereabouts ? Wait, no, the seventies still keep receding, the judgemental agist assholes. Make that fitty.
__________________
--- ---
Assume I'm right and you're wrong - we'll both save a lot of time.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017