Monday, November 7, 2016

What I was thinking before election 2016

What I’m writing below is not really for anybody else to read.  I want it to remind myself of what I was thinking on the day before election day of 2016.

I judge Facebook friends based on the quality of the source of information they quote.  In earlier times, when someone tried to use evidence gleaned from a super market tabloid or fringe political publication I refused to listen and considered them to be irrational and/or misguided.  This hasn’t changed because of Facebook, but more and more people seem to think it’s OK to pass off nonsense or propaganda as proof of “whatever”.   If you do this, by all means feel free to continue the practice as it often can lead to chuckles or anger, but it will make it very difficult for me to be convinced of anything you say or write when you start to get serious.

I have disliked Donald Trump since the mid-80s.  My first discussion with a fellow college student, who had just read the Donald’s book, came about when he tried to convince me that DJT was a great role model because he became so successful.  My argument was that it was unfair to lavish such praise on a guy that was born into wealth and just continued his father’s business.  That’s not to take away from his accomplishments.  However, if you start in life with literally less than nothing, which includes debt from college, then it’s hard to see using DJT as your role model for how to succeed in life.  I only write this here as a memory… it’s not a reason for or against voting. 

I have never liked DJT’s style… his bragging and grotesque displays of wealth.  The very rich people that I knew when growing up didn’t talk about their money or show off what they had.  They didn’t have to.  If you saw them walking through a mall or down the street they looked like anybody else, possibly even a bit less dressed up as they saw no need to convince anyone of their standing in life.  I’m not sure why this bothers me so much.  But it does.  And I have no interest in deep-diving my psyche to figure it out.  But I don’t like his style.

There are three key factors about DJT that won’t allow me to vote for him.  First, his leader of the birther movement was enough to make me see exactly what kind of a political leader he would be… drawing conclusions with no evidence and/or leveling a charge at someone because it had the feeling like it could possibly be true.  I would have understood if this was a normal part of vetting before an election.  However, Trump did this after Obama had already been president for years and no evidence of his “unAmericanness” existed.  His only purpose was to raise doubt about a sitting US President, which I found to be extremely dangerous for this country.  Next, his lack of any experience working at any level of government is disqualifying.  Period.    Finally, his refusal to release tax returns makes it impossible for me to support him.  He will never release his tax returns because he is hiding things that would get him arrested and jailed.   He would spin paying no taxes into a positive.  He would probably even figure out how to spin a lack of charity similarly.  But he knows that there is information in there that would get him convicted, so we will never, ever, see his tax returns.  Even when the “audit” is complete.



Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Critical Thinking

I've been reading +The American Spectator lately in order to educate myself on what conservatives are saying.  I have found that this, as well as similar right wing media outlets (Fox, Rush, Sean H, etc....) are constantly trying to prove their point through the use of statistics.  In some cases, the stats are just wrong.  But even when they are right (or arguably right) the conclusions are incredibly suspect.

As an example, this is an article about how Obama is a Marxist (I know... again).  That conclusion is arrived to by citing statistics that show that the top 1% of Americans pay 39% of federal taxes although their national income was only 13%.  Coupling this with President Obama's statements about the rich not paying their fair share and that the rich don't need a tax cut, the conclusion is that he isn't just liberal, but a Marxist.

Let's play a little thought experiment.  Imagine a society of 100 people of which 1 makes $1 Million and 99 make $10,000 each.  Also, let's say that the cost of a very modest living is $9,500 per year.  Finally, assume the government requires $200,000 per year.  Now let's look at a few tax scenarios:

What would a flat tax look like?  Well each of the 100 individuals would have to pay $2,000 per year in taxes, which would severely hurt the livelihood of 99 people as they would be in a deficit of $1,500 per year.

Let's say we do it based on % of national income, which the author appears to think is the definition of fair.  In this case 99 people have to come up with $100,000 as does the millionaire.  Now the millionaire has a surplus of $900,000 and 99 people have deficits of $500.  This is fair?  

Finally, let's say that the Marxist Obama wants to make it so that 99 pay $500 per year, which would produce just under $50,000.  The millionaire has to now pay $150,000.  So there are no deficits among the 99 and the millionaire still has $850,000 in surplus.

 Does this sound like Marxism?  Only in the Twilight Zone.