“I think we should…”

On Twitter, Jeff Brown asks:

If democrats/liberals like the idea of taxing everyone, do they themselves take any exemptions?

Of course they do.

I’ve had this discussion with folks who always think taxing more is a good idea.

My first frustration with them: They rarely acknowledge that government spending is a problem.

My second: They aren’t willing to voluntarily give more money to government and lead by example, which I take to be a revealed preference. It reveals that they don’t truly believe the government is the best place to put their marginal dollars. But, it cost them nothing to demand that others pay more to gain adoration.

I have heard a few claim that they aren’t “as aggressive as they could be” when it comes to claiming deductions. Bless their hearts. It’s for the greater good that they don’t bend the tax laws.

My third: They don’t think ahead. What do they think happens if tax rates are raised and that actually results in more tax revenue (which is a big if, at least over multiple years)?  Do they believe government, with its long history of irresponsible spending, is going to put that extra revenue toward cutting the deficit?

Government will find a way to spend that, too, and continue to run deficits.

Which, gets us back to my first frustration and demonstrates to me that these folks really don’t think much. Rather, they only parrot what sounds good.

It’s easy to spot these folks. They liberally use the phrase “I think we should…” to lead off the edicts they feel they are entitled to impose on the rest of us without ever giving due consideration to chance that they may just be wrong.


They made their own pies

Wealth redistribution is often discussed in terms of “divvying up the pie fairly.” Nobody seems too interested in where exactly the pie came from.

Recently, I saw this on Twitter from the Ayn Rand Bot (thanks to @downtownjeff for RT that one):

When great industrialists made fortunes on a free market…they created new wealth—they did not take it from those who had not created it.

Great point.

Bipartisanship that I might agree on

@downtownjeff (Jeff Brown) wrote on Twitter yesterday:

I’m for bipartisanship. Between Republicans and Libertarians.

Emma Sullivan ‘sucks and #sheblowsalot’

In this post, I wrote:

It seems a big problem in this country can be traced to the strong encouragement we give people to get their voice heard and vote, without first encouraging them to research their opinions, build well-reasoned arguments, listen to and fairly consider opposing viewpoints — and be able to address them without fallacy.

The Emma Sullivan story is great example of this. Emma tweeted:

Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot

What I found humorous about this story is how Emma tried to parlay her substance-free (and untrue) personal attack on Brownback into a meeting with him, as if she thinks she has demonstrated that she actually has something worthwhile for him to hear.

She is quoted in the story as saying:

It would be nice to kind of talk to the governor and let him know where I’m at and say things, let my opinion be heard and tell him that he needs to listen to more people in Kansas.  There needs to be an open door for more people to speak their opinion and be heard by him.

Here’s a word of advice, Emma.  If you really want to “kind of talk to the governor”, saying ‘he sucks and blows a lot’ is not the best way to begin that dialogue.

In fact, if you truly want to talk to Brownback, you could demonstrate that by acknowledging that saying he ‘sucks and blows a lot’ was not an effective approach to that talk and offering a genuine apology for your immature behavior.  Why should anyone want to hold forum with a petulant brat?

The fact that you hold steadfast to your disrespectful comment tells me that you are not serious about wanting to talk with him.