Planning: Eventually, I plan to bring in the part of the conversation that has to do with how we are taxed, where the money goes, the role of politicians, and perhaps what we should do about it? Keep in mind- I don't yet have a connection between the rising costs of goods and expected big ticket items (furnaces, vehicles, homes, etc.) where the pricing of things is up to the capitalists in any given field, and my disgust with taxation, where the state and national government sets our tax rate, but I'm working on it. The two issues combined, in my opinion, will over-burden the coming generations of the middle class in such a way that they will not be able to compete with the rich for jobs, among other things, and we will see a widening gap between the rich and the middle class- economically. I'm letting the subject matter take me where it will, and have no strictly defined procedural approach currently in mind. In that way- you might compare me to a CEO of a large company that is paid $126 million as a buyout for having nearly run the company into the ground, while the middle class employees that make sure the day to day operations run smoothly are asked to take pay cuts. Ah, perhaps I shouldn't be so honest.
The Rebuttal in summation: Over the course of a week- his responses consisted of what appears below; I have left nothing out and that is an important point, for there was little in the way of what one might call- a compelling argument to begin with. The text that is in parenthesis, is my comment now, basically what I've already touched on in my argument with some sarcasm thrown in. This is the equivalent in print of what many talk-show hosts will do if they disagree with you. Keep in mind- this is a local talk-show host who is fairly well-versed in political discussions- who has interviewed bankers, economists, historians, and politicians, if this were an idiot-savant who stood on the street corner holding a sign- "Will werk 4 food" I wouldn't have brought his toreador style of skirting the issue into the fray:His "Points"-
1) the middle class is not shrinking or endangered; (this was never my point- it was that the income disparity between the upper and middle class will continue to grow; I continually corrected him on this point; perhaps he thought disproving a theory about the shrinking of the middle class would be easier for him);
2) “You can send me articles on medical costs all day”- (I was not aware that I had been so remiss in stating my point- all five of the links I sent had to do with the rising costs of college tuition; a kitten unleashed in JoAnn Fabrics that has never seen a ball of yarn in its life has more focus);
3) told me I “couldn’t prove my point,” “couldn’t prove it,” “can’t prove it,” “you haven’t proven it” about 15 times; (he is very intent on putting someone on the defensive, so much so that he offered not one shred of information disproving any of my assertions; he said that he could disprove them, and I wonder how that is any different than me not being able to prove them. Truth be told, I will attempt to approach the beloved proof, but keep in mind, on certain subjects, such as war, how tax money should be spent, scientific issues, sports, religion, history, philosophy, how to discipline a child, whether you should subscribe to online pornography, (man, I need an editor), there is a complete grey area where opinions reside that cannot ultimately, finally, and unceasingly be proven. If all of these topics could be proven- we wouldn’t have much to talk about would we? And we would have little use for talk-show hosts. I must admit- I have figured him for a cross-breed- yeah, that typical Ostrich-Parrot mix. It is a little known combination referred to as either the Ostrot or the Parrich. This strange bird has the behavioral trait of burying their head in the sand when they are afraid of anyone digging around them for the truth and still has the speaking ability to say things like: “caw, caw, prove it, prove it;” see, it wouldn’t be able to hear the proof because its head would be buried in the sand- those of the Ostrich species are said to do things like that);
4) he mentioned that a dumb poodle could out-debate me- (I neglected to remind him that I was making an analogy- with the pit bull comment- and didn’t ask him if he thought poodles could speak. Also, you may need to be the judge on who is winning the argument);
5) wrote that he has interviewed bankers and economists who told him to ask people attempting to advance an opinion like mine to prove it (I inquired into what economic class a banker and an economist might normally be fitted into- he made no answer; anyone care to wager a guess?)
6) mocked my reasons for not calling, and told me I didn’t have the balls to call in to debate. (This was the first response to my initial email and then he feigned being offended that I began a personal attack. Huh, I wonder why I would have done that. I don’t know, of the debates I have seen, usually you are allowed to make your case, before a moderator, under guidelines that allow all the debatees relatively equal time. The flow of a debate isn’t usually dictated by an unreasonable conservative who thinks that everything worth discussing should be provable; incidentally, I thought about putting him on the defensive by telling him I was lucky to have survived testicular cancer, but decided against it);
7) mocked that I “talked” to people about how real, frustrated middle class people are doing in life financially. (I didn’t get the chance to remind him that he is a TALK-show host. I was not aware that you could major in pomposity, minor in proof hypocrisy [demanding it while never providing it] and dismiss real exchanges people have with one another about the state of affairs in this country in favor of the accredited and apparently certified radio variety where private citizens are only allowed to speak when they agree with the host. How much is a bachelor’s degree in communications from Brown college? In fifteen years, my kids probably won't be able to go there either; Brown college is where many of our fine, quick-trigger-fingered talk show hosts matriculate in order to adopt their narcissistic radio personalities);
8) after I brought up all of the big-ticket items from my letter (e) from my previous column, he says that not all the prices are going up- how about big screen televisions, cell phones, toasters (I asked him- "when was the last time you financed a toaster?" Didn’t get an answer on that one either);
9) stated that economists do not measure the size of an income class according to the potential costs of any good, or service. (no, you designate an income class based on how much NET money they have coming into the home- anyone who measures it any differently is as naive as a red-necked Alabaman virgin on prom night when the guy goes to the trouble of borrowing his cousin/father's Chevy Cavalier hoping to get lucky in the trunk. Hey, hey, hey, this is a family blog- I was talking about the trunk of a car. This naivete is not restricted to goof-balls like me, but apparently to those in the business of defining political and economic terms- and I don't care if Adam Smith* defines an economic class based on gross income, the size of house they live in, what they do for a living, how many opposable thumbs their sheep have, or how much they earn from their profession. It should be defined by their net income relative to what part of the nation they live in. This may be as controversial a viewpoint as any in this series of columns so far, as the learned economists would look upon the idea of circumventing their economic monarchy of powers in the area of providing all things fiscal with definitions as sacrilege . . . tough friggin' hop! If I leave the house with 100% of my clothes on and return with 25-33% of them gone (because the metaphorical tax bracket has physically stripped them away), I may feel as if I was taken advantage of . . . I'd also feel fairly guilty about subjecting the neighbors to such a sight);
10) Asked me, “based on pre tax income, prove your point.” (Oh boy, that is the problem, I’m not basing it on pre tax income- because the whole thing revolves around goods and services becoming more expensive so that the middle class has to finance them for a longer period of time- which I think everyone will agree is more expensive. See, because the longer you are paying on it- because of the interest, which you always have to pay on first when you take out a loan or finance something, the more expensive everything is going to be).
And why would I base my argument on pre-tax income? The only money that counts is what we have left after the government takes it. You don’t ask a hungry man if his stomach is full, or if he enjoyed his meal after you have pretended to give him food. If the experts in the economic field are basing everything on pre-tax income levels then this initially, and perhaps purposefully distorts the numbers for people trying to ask questions I’m asking, and to what end, to keep the public in the dark perhaps? Shocking!
11) I listen to him once a week- to listen to, sometimes point on, sometimes misguided, opinions about politics and current events. A month or so after the exchange was over Bob admitted on the air, perhaps without this topic in mind, that he didn't finance anything anymore. Now, how does a middle class person do that, unless they are a petless, childless, vegan with no idea what is on cable television, walks to work, lives in a cave, has no wants or needs and perhaps was immaculately conceived. See, because then he wouldn't have to buy food and supplies for a domesticated animal, pay for the food, care, clothing, entertainment, marriage and education of an offspring, wouldn't own a television, have a car payment, a house payment, have home repair issues, property taxes, and wouldn't have to bury his parents- well, at least one of them, for the other would likely be immortal.
Any remote possibility this guy would get your vote if there were an election held on the basis of this debate? Wow!
___________________
*Adam Smith wrote what is still considered a masterpiece in the area of political economy- the short title of which is- The Wealth of Nations.
No comments:
Post a Comment