Chess
"First of all, you really aren't asking for facts as used in common political parlance. You are asking for the equivalent of scientific proof. If you insist upon the objective reality denotation of "facts" then, of course you are right. But we are talking about policy, which means how you would shape the facts to afffect the future. Policies are by nature speculative."
This is part of the core problem of politics in general, the acceptance of facts based on figures which are always too narrow in scope. I'll take two seperate issues that do have direct relation to each other but are not seen as such with the exception of the most simplistic elements, Social Security and taxes.
Taxes being reduced solely for the rich in real world terms tends to benefit the poor and middle class overall as much if not more then the economic elite. Sounds foolish but let me explain.
The rich already have a very high standard of living, does Bill G live that much better then say Steve Jobs? Hardly, they can both easily afford pretty much anything they want, and providing the basic requirements for life are something that they need give very little thought to in regards to their own family. A 50% tax cut for them isn't going to change much at all for them in real world terms, certainly in may aid them in increasing their own net worth, but that benefits the lower income brackets by and large the most.
The reasons are many, but all of them are core principals of capitalism. How do people get rich? Many different ways, but with the exception of the lottery(and even then not entirely) they don't do it by themselves. They need other people to help them out. What do these people get out of it? Jobs, and the richer you want to be, the more you tend to be willing to pay to get the right people. By upping the amount of salary for the people you desire you increase the demand for labor which in turn raises the level of pay across the board. A single billionaire has a comparitively miniscule effect on the economy, but combined their importance, and the impact they have on "laymen" is enormous.
So after these people are already rich, what do they do? A great deal of them spend a large amount of time, or hire others to, find tax shelters to protect their money. When this same group of people are "given" a tax break they look for ways to make money, and the best way to make money after you already have it in our society is to invest. Start up companies need funding and hire people, again increasing labor demands and giving people jobs. With the explosion in technology companies in particular, many people are seeing their incomes increase greatly because of investments coming from wealthy looking to expand their net worth.
I know of several people pulling in six figure salaries working for technology based companies who simply have no business being in the industry, but because of the immense job market pressures and massive investments in start up companies the market has become far too slim for employers to be too picky. This, in turn, again raises more people up the economic ladder. This condition can be expanded by giving the wealthy, who are overall the smartest with their money, a tax break. This effects the midlle and lower classes more in real world terms then it does the wealthy who mainly are looking at "paper" gains. Of course across the board tax cuts are much easier to apply for real world benefits, problem with politics is that people are listening to sound bytes far too often.
Social Security was a poor long term plan at its' inception and it hasn't changed in the least bit. The entire idea behind the workings of Social Security is flawed in that it is supposed to be a trust fund, with no fund. I'm sure that everyone reading this understands the principles behind how it currently works, and if you think about it for more then a minute or two then it is easy to see why this needs to be fixed with a viable long term solution.
Privitizing a small portion of SS now, and increasing that portion over a period of time is not only a smart thing to do, it may be the only way to provide any sort of certainty to this program for future generations. Simply depositing the money in a bank from each tax payer in a private account would be a big improvement over what we have now(run through the numbers for yourself and compare to the return on a CD). Of course we need to do something on those that have made plans based on it being there, the longer we wait the more serious the problem becomes.
This shouldn't be a partisan issue, it is very simplistic and both Gore and Bush have supported it at some time, it is what should have been done in the first place(with short term being overcome by general funding). If it was, then we wouldn't be talking about this and it could be pointed to as one of the feds success stories instead of the constant political fight it is now.
The two issues relate in many different ways. Economic expansion via increased investment combined with the continual evolution of 401K type plans which in itself is further economic investment can both fuel a reduced reliance on SS an in turn generate more tax revenue for the government.
Every bit of what I said can be conutered with other arguments, I know that. The point is that most numbers look solely at one issue at a time. For instance reducing taxes isn't seen as a way of effecting future needs for SS, though it could be. Reducing the percentage of GDP that the government consumes can aid several different problems we are having now, but you can't hope to get that across to the general public.
Whose numbers are more accurate when discussing the issues? If we plan on Gore implementing everything he wants then perhaps his numbers will be correct. If Bush were to implement everything that he has planned then perhaps his numbers would be correct, taking things issue by issue and trying to determine numbers based solely on that particular issue will not be accurate unless by luck, and that is unfortunately how too much of what politicians use is based. When is the last time we have seen numbers match up with CBO projections? It doesn't happen.
"Furthermore, given your views, voting would be impossible. No "fact" would be of sufficient weight to justify a conclusion. I consider voting more like going on a blind date. I was always prepared to be disappointed, but also always held out hope."
I don't see either candidate as that far apart. I see one taking some very small steps in the right direction and the other very small steps in the wrong one. I would rather be headed in the right direction.
"Great military leaders usually have great communication skills. Eisenhower is just one of many examples. In today's military, great communications skills are a big plus. I have served in the military and have one son in the Navy. I'm not unfamiliar with the requirements for a strong commander."
Patton was feared more then Ike, and he was notorious for his horrible "communication"(and lunacy, but that is another matter
). Great communication is a plus, but it is not needed to be a great leader in a particular area.
"You think the President of Ford Motor Company didn't have to muster substantial verbal talent to appear before Congress and defend his company's handling of the Firestone tire problem?"
I would say reading would also be thought of as a requirement for leadership. Are you aware that the CEO of FoMoCo has a severe disability and can barely read at all? Common perception versus true needs.
Sorry to ramble on, this post went way longer then I expected and probably reached into the babbling range sometime ago, the summary is that I don't trust any of the numbers, just the general direction that the particular policy will place us in. Hard numbers like actual rates are one thing, their impact based on piece mail portions of various policies when creating projections are fairly worthless.
Facebook
Twitter