Compulsive Commenter

Okay, so my last three posts in a row have had titles along the lines of "Something Day". Time to break that streak! This has been an interesting past couple days for me. Today, within minutes of coming to work I was in a political debate with both of my coworkers (my usual coworker, Dawn, and a trainee, Derek). Mainly it was over whether Obama's plans were good for the economy, the merits of Obama as president, and the economy in general. What I found most interesting was the completely pessimistic attitude of one of my coworkers, who claimed he had no more faith in humanity, and that whoever was president it can only go badly. If everyone was pessimistic, things would only go badly! That is why the economy suffered as little as it did after 9/11, because our country remained optimistic under Bush's leadership, and his encouragement to continue spending money kept us afloat. Note that individuals spending real money is quite different from the Obama plan of the government spending money that doesn't exist, and is the true economic stimulus.

A face-to-face, rapid-fire vocal debate is quite the adrenaline rush, and I hadn't had a good one in a long time! It's good to keep the wits sharp, sparring with someone with opposing views, much more satisfying than the typical conversation with a fellow Republican, which can quickly devolve into "Aren't Democrats dumb?" "Yeah, Democrats suck!" It doesn't always go that way, but it can in any conversation on a hot topic with a like-minded person. This is part of why I so much enjoyed the year I worked at Barnes & Noble, which is hostile territory for conservatives. I loved the job and my coworkers, got along great with them, and had many interesting, friendly debates. At one point, tired of them blaming everything bad on George W. Bush, I began to take it a step further with comments such as "Damn that George Bush, icing up the roads like that! It took me forever to get to work because of George Bush!" Occasionally they would catch themselves almost agreeing with me reflexively, which was always fun.

Yesterday, upon arriving at work, I logged into Facebook and immediately found myself in three political debates all along the same topic. No good debates in many months, and suddenly four in two days! It occurred to me that the thousands (probably closer to five or six) of people who follow my blog regularly, eagerly awaiting the next brilliant post, are probably dying to know the outcome of these debates, and are also wondering exactly how good are my debating skills. Well, I'm no professional at it, but I can hold my own, thanks to the sage tutelage of Professor Rush Limbaugh of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, at which I have been a student for many, many years. More than half my life, in fact! There are no graduates, no degrees, just continuous learning of conservative principles from the Master of Democracy.

So how well have I learned from Rush? It occurred to me that the thousands of people (closer to five or six) who regularly read my blog, every day eagerly awaiting the next brilliant post, must be dying to know how my Facebook debates went. So, because I've been so flooded with requests (I requested of myself that I do this), I am posting the most interesting and involved of these debates yesterday, which began when I commented on my friend Beth's status, and one of her liberal friends (with whom I debated) commented back. I have made no edits beyond formatting for the blog, a minor censor of one of my posts to clean up the language slightly for some of my more sensitive readers, and I have removed most of the names. My full name remains, and Beth's first name, but all other commenters are referred to only by their first initial. I think I caught it all. You will see that I am a compulsive commenter; I can't keep my comments to myself. I love leaving feedback almost as much as I love receiving it. It feeds my ego! I say several times in the debate that it is my last comment, then I leave a dozen more. So read away, and I will leave it to you to judge the merits of the arguments on either side, and whether I managed to hold ground in the debate or not.

Enjoy:

Beth is sickened by liberals
Yesterday at 12:02am · Comment · Unlike
You and P like this.

L: I agree

Dan Little: I'm sickened by the liberals in power, and baffled and saddened by the well-intentioned but misled liberals who vote for them.

D: That's alright. We're sickened by conservatives. Personally, I'm sickened by this, "us against them" mentality, with the perpetual disregard for the differences within each party, and the constant blindness by everyone to how bad things actually are for most families just because they haven't personally experienced it.

Dan Little: Haha, read my comment more carefully, D, you'd be surprised how many conservatives agree it isn't "us against them". Many of my closest friends are liberal, and they don't sicken me, I feel they are misguided but well-intentioned and I hope they come around at some point. It is the Nancy Pelosis, Tom Daschles, Harry Reids, Barney Franks, Ted Kennedys, Hillary Clintons and Barack Obamas of the world that truly sicken me. I honestly believe all those names I mentioned are truly evil people. Oh, and John McCain pretty much sickens me as well.

D: See, I disagree strongly. I think you're the misguided one. I admire Obama in particular because of his community service work. He's actually been on the streets and has seen how people are living. Or you could take the entire RNC, who laughed and insulted him over his community work. You've obviously never had to listen to your children crying because you couldn't feed them, or worried about losing your house because you can't make your rent. No, the current "conservative" movement is all about greed and selfishness. THAT is evil.

P: They're going to hell and we're not. That's all that matters.

Dan Little: No children yet, but I grew up in poverty. Look at our senators, the rich, greedy ones are nearly all Democrats. I have a lot of compassion for the poor, and even though until recent months I have worried every single month that I can't pay my rent, I have never failed to give 10% of all I earn to my church, whose judgement in assisting the poor I trust far more than the government's pork spending. Governments are wasteful, and are there to get in a man's way, not to help. Charitable spending is always higher in times with lower taxes, as was proven in the 80s, the so-called "Decade of Greed". I don't want to depend on government, live my life the way they tell me, just for a pitiful handout at the expense of my freedom and independence.

D: Frankly, there are rich greedy bastards on both sides. To say they're mainly in one party is just not true. Churches are just as bad as any government when they have enough power. Jus look to the middle ages, or any modern theocracy to see that. Even then, I disagree that a church is the best place for charity. How many mouths could the LDS church have fed with the money they spent fighting gay marriage? How many roofs could they have built for the homeless? Regardless of your feelings on that subject, there are about a thousand better things they could have spent it on. No one is saying that you need to give up freedoms; taxes are specifically for using to help the common good. Don't forget that a government is just an organization created for the purpose of helping as many people as it can, be it through traditional charity, defence or public works. It isn't just there to control and be reviled.

P: Wow D, you're awful judgemental about how LDS has been spending their charity money when what we should be focusing on is the wasteful spending of the United States government.

Dan Little: You're misunderstanding me again. It is of those in power that I accuse liberals of being greedier, not us common folk. Remember, liberals vote every time for more control over your money and mine, with the arrogant attitude that they're smarter than you and I at spending it. Even if they are, it isn't their right. Conservatives (I'm tired of Democrat vs. Republican because so few Republicans are conservatives anymore) want less control over our money, leaving it more in our hands. Don't forget that before I accused liberals in power of being greedier, you made the assumption that since I am a Republican I never experienced poverty. The difference is that a liberal looks to government to save him from poverty while a conservative looks to himself and his network of friends and family. Guess which one has his best interests in mind? If not for high taxes, not only would my rent in every case have been less, but I would have had more cash in hand to pay it. Taxes hurt everyone.

Dan Little: http://darkcenteroftheuniverseblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/tax-day.html

D: I simply chose that as an example because it was a very recent spending spree by a church that I can think of. Others have examples too, I'm sure. I agree that the government should cut spending, but this was a counter argument to the idea that churches are a better option than government.

Dan Little: Red Herring.

First you assumed that since I am a Republican I have never experienced poverty.

D: Incorrect. My assumption was that you knew Beth through work and had done the standard parents -> college -> decent job thing.

Dan Little: Wrong either way. I am happy for Beth that she is doing so well financially, and though I am struggling, I don't resent her affluence. I don't feel that because she chose to work very hard at a career that pays well the government needs to decide she makes more than she needs and I make less than I need and therefore her money after a certain point goes to me. That would only make her work less hard, meaning less "excess" money for me, and make me not need to try so hard since my basic necessities are paid for by someone who has more. You cannot tax the productive part of the economy, reward the unproductive part, and expect anyone to benefit.

I'm working on the parent -> college -> decent job thing.

If you really want to know what I think, I'm tired, so read that link, feel free to let me have it, and watch this guy say what I'd like to the British PM what I'd like to say to Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3axC6pmF4cY

D: I apologize for the incorrect assumption. But for many people it still stands. They honestly don't know what it's like to have no recourse, nothing to fall back on. I grew up in a VERY small rural MO town, and I know plenty of Republicans barely scraping by. And it saddens me to see them vote to give millionaires tax breaks while screaming about liberals wanting to give them healthcare.

D: The problem is, those wealthy people aren't "productive." most of them fell into there jobs or wealth, and with the exception of a few, they're using that money to buy polititions to keep everyone else down while writing themselves loopholes. Heavy taxes on the poor hurt us, but no taxes hurt us more.

Saw the video, honestly didn't see a big deal of it.

Dan Little: I agree, it is sad. But you can't give a tax break to a poor man who doesn't pay them, you can only give it to those who actually pay taxes, and the rich pay more than their fair share. I say this much better in the link I posted, but most rich people aren't Scrooges. They employ people, and when you tax them, they pass it on to the consumer and employee, by raising prices, lowering wages, and hiring fewer. Taxes on the rich hurt the poor more than the rich. It seems counter-intuitive at first, and I honestly respect those of you who see the poor and want to help them; I just think you are looking to the wrong source.

Most of the rich are not Kennedys, who fall into their wealth, and most who do don't manage it well and lose it. Most work from "some", a few from "none" to achieve true affluence. Even if that wasn't the case, it is not the government's right to mandate generosity.

D: The problem with trickle down economics is that the rich don't do those things. They hoard the money instead. I think that education, hralthcare, and public works do infinitely more for helping people. You're making the assumption that the people getting the help just don't want to be productive. I was a teenage father trying to support my family. If I hadn't gotten help through food stamps and college grants and loans, I'd still be poor and barely scraping by. Because of that help, NOT because of tax breaks, I can make good money now, donate to charities, and can volunteer my time.

Dan Little: If you honestly think that the rich hoard the money, there is nothing I can do here. I have never been employed by a poor person. Even if the rich hoard their money, the government has no right to tell them not to. It is not the government's money.

D: They do. That's why the first Bush got elected by arguing against Reaganomics. I suspect we'll never see eye to eye on this. You're not just conservative; you're an anarchist. Taxes are a necessary evil (think funding EMS for example), and that necessitates taking funding.

Dan Little: Haha, I'm no anarchist.... "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." - Thomas Paine
I am a Reagan conservative. Believe it or not, the reason Bush's approval ended so low was that he was NOT a conservative, and had by the end alienated conservatives such as myself, who were only glad he was President because it meant Kerry and Gore weren't. Reaganomics works, and he proved it in the 80s. He brought the top marginal rate down from around 70% to around 30%, which put more rich people money in the economy, and increased IRS revenues from about 440 billion in '81 to about 950 billion in '89. Charitable giving also went up in the 80s, since people had more of their money in their pocket. If lowering taxes raises IRS revenue by encouraging more spending, I think that proves that it is raising taxes that causes the rich to hoard their money against the fear of losing it to the government.

D: And honestly, you've probably never been hired by a rich person, either. Most people are hired by corporations: organizations of people working together to make money.

Dan Little: Who runs corporations? Rich people. Who invests in new technologies and new businesses, even small ones? Rich people. Who buys the fancy new electronic gadgets before they are affordable to the general market, thus providing the capital to launch mass production (i.e. cell phones and TVs and every other thing you and I take for granted).

D: That quote can be used in nearly any context. I could use it to support universal healthcare. I could use it to support a dictatorship. I like the quote, but it's open to be used in whatever context you want.

I wasn't talking about the second Bush, FYI. Conservatives are a relatively small portion of the populous, and not enough to explain his popularity alone. Anyway, not worth arguing over.

Quite frankly, you can't say the government has no right to tax without being an anarchist. Sorry, you're an anarchist.

Only the largest corporations are run by rich people. And most of those shouldn't have been allowed to get that large (microsoft for example, abuses it's size horrendously) and they keep other small corporations from competing.

Dan Little: Whoa! Labels! No, not an anarchist, just want as little government as possible to do the job, which is to protect our freedoms (not grant them, not limit them) and defend our borders (don't take that as an immigration comment). You'd be surprised how many conservatives there are, even among Democrats. I'd say we're 50/50 in this country.

Even smaller corporations get their starts often from investments from rich people. I have never felt threatened by Microsoft, either, I have always had the option to use a Mac. It is consumers who decide which businesses live and which die (and now Obama decides), Wal-Mart has driven no company out of business. Consumers such as myself do that.

You're right that "best state" of government is debatable, but there is no ambiguity in that quote as to how much power a government should have. If it is a necessary evil, it should have as little power as possible, be it dictatorship or democracy or whatever.

D: I agree with a minimal necessary government, but a government can't exist without taxes. If you believe the government shouldn't tax, you believe the government shouldn't exist. Believing that governments shouldn't exist is anarchy. Therefore, you're an anarchist according to your statment that the government doesn't have that right.

You've been harmed more by Microsoft than you realize. They've abused their monopoly significantly, mainly as a weapon against corporations that wanted to use other operating systems of programs. You think most people use Windows because they thought it was the best choice? Or Internet Explorer? They're pretty much constantly in court. They've even been ordered by the US courts to break up for violating monopoly laws once (second Bush stopped that, oddly).

I agree with you on Walmart though.

D: Last poll I saw on how people identify had 33% conservatives in the US, 41% moderate, 18% liberal, 8% chose not to identify.

So given party sizes, yeah, that's a significant numer of Democrats (Democratic party is quite a bit larger than the Republican party for whatever reason)

Dan Little: Holy [crap], you agree with me on Wal-Mart? I am very pleasantly surprised! Common ground at last. :)

I have been harmed zero by Microsoft. I have always had the choice to use Apple, and so has everyone else. It is Apple's fault they didn't corner the market, because they have often made bad business choices despite making amazing products. Apple almost went under at one point because of stupid decisions by Apple, not because of any pressure from Microsoft, ever. I use MacOSX because it is the best, and Safari because it is the best, and at school I use Windows because that's what the school bought. You think with that statement I lost my argument, but more and more schools and businesses are realizing they have a choice, and Apple's market share has done nothing but grow since Steve Jobs came back. That is all on Apple, none on Microsoft. There are always options. As much as I despise Microsoft products, I wish people would vote with their dollars instead of taking them to court.

Dan Little: Yes, but conservative candidates get a lot of votes, which is how I judge that (lots of people like to say they're "moderate" no matter what), which is how Democrats got control of Congress recently: by nominating relatively conservative Democrats.

The Republican Party will shrink even more if they nominate another Democrat like John McCain in 2012. They will lose me for sure if they continue down their path of getting along by compromising beliefs.

Jindal/Palin 2012!

Dan Little: Anyway, we've found SOME common ground, and I have exhausted my willingness to debate for now. I will continue letting the rich be rich and hoping I can be well-off someday, not looking to the government for help, using Apple products, shopping at Wal-Mart, complaining about taxes, voting for conservatives, counting down Obama's days in office, and you're welcome to think I'm wrong on any or all of those things. Live and let live, but I hope someday you will see as I do, or if I am truly wrong, that I will realize it. I don't think I'm wrong, though. :)

Dan Little: Thanks for the good debate, it keeps my wits sharp, and I was bored today.

D: True about the Democrats. Honestly, I've been expecting the Democrats to absorb enough Republicans that the Republican party will die and eventually break off of the Democratic party again later. Who knows?

I'd agree with McCain from this last race. I liked him in 2000.

/shudder. Just say no to Jindal/Palin. Please make sure your preferred candidates have a basic sense of geography before letting them run ;-)

D: It's been fun, at least :-D

Dan Little: Hahaha, no, 90% of the crap you hear about Palin is dirty politics by the McCain campaign, making her the scapegoat, which is most of why I am so disgusted by McCain. I hated him since he started playing dirty in 2000 when he lost the nomination. I'm a huge fan of Palin, but sadly I don't expect her to run again. She can just continue doing well in Alaska. At least she didn't ever claim to have campaigned in 57 states.... ;)

Dan Little: Okay, done for reals! I am so easily goaded into debate, hahaha. :)

Beth: Wow. I just got home from work and Facebook said I had 36 comments on my status. Nice going, guys. Dan, your arguments are beautiful. D, you arguments are flawed and uninformed. I still like you, though. :)

D: Ha! The only flaws in my arguments are typos from doing that all on my phone ;-)

Don't you just feel loved with that much e-mail though? :-D

Dan Little: Haha, it kept me occupied for four hours during my usual boring day at work. :)
I haven't had a good debate like that in awhile.

Beth: D, I know what it's like to not have money. Growing up, my family never had extra money. My daddy is a car mechanic and my mom is a part-time teacher. I got a job that paid $5.50/hr the minute I turned 16 years old. I worked for 3 years there washing dishes. I then worked at a gas station, a school, and a restaurant during college. I have NEVER been without a job since I was 16. Because of my work ethic, I was able to save for college and pay my way through. I had NO monetary help from my family. I got a BS in Nuclear Engineering with only $8000 in school loans to pay off. I'm now making good money because of my thrift and hard work. This is the American Dream. Its not a dream of handouts; but of hard work and reaping the benefits of Capitalism.

Beth: Wow! You did all that on your phone? I'm really impressed. And yes, I do feel loved.

Dan Little: Wow! Beth, that is amazing. I was better off when starting school, yet have racked up more loans and it'll be awhile before I make as much as you, if ever!

By the way, I think everyone should watch "Pursuit of Happyness". It is an AMAZING true story of rags to riches, with NO government help. Plus, Will Smith is just an incredible actor and all-around person.

Beth: I love that movie!!

D: Imagine proud you pulled it off, and it's less common than it should be, but you didn't have it that badly.

Ever try it while raising kids? Without a home? Did you honestly do it without any grants or unsubsidized loans? You know the government paid half your tuition anyway, because you went to a government school? Did you do it with out using government property?

I agree, it's hard, and what you did is something to be proud of. But it SHOULDN'T be hard. Everyone should be granted an equal chance. If they blow it, fine, but we have to help people get there, first. As is, children are going hungry, primary and secondary schools are in disrepair, programs are cancelled constantly, limiting options they can even learn about.

How can future kids work to be nuclear engineers if they don't even know what an atom is?

Dan Little: Blech. I have only one more comment, and that is that government subsidies raise prices to the point that they are unaffordable without government subsidies.

D: Anyway, let's agree to disagree.

My phone is going to die soon, but this has made this train trip less boring. :-d

Beth: I never said that I had it badly. I grew up well taken care of, but I wasn't spoiled with any frills, and my parents never gave me any money. And yes, I honestly did not have any grants (my parents "made too much", ironically, for any government aid). I believe I had one unsubsidized loan of $300, and the rest were unsubsidized. I had about 30% of my tuition paid for by scholarships, which I worked hard to earn. I think it should be hard, otherwise we would take things for granted. What do you value more, something that was easily given to you, or something you toiled long and hard for? People should have a sense of pride, and they can't have that with handouts. I agree that some have to work harder, but everyone still has a chance. You're proposing that everyone starts out the same, with "equal" chances. Well, that's impossible unless we have a complete redistribution of wealth so that everyone makes the same amount of money. (I'm afraid we're not that far away from that.)

Beth: The truth is, not everyone is going to be a doctor or lawyer. We need people flipping burgers at McDonalds, otherwise where will we get our Quarter Pounders? We need people as janitors otherwise we live in filth. Everyone's job has a purpose, be it with or without education. The cool thing about America, though, is that janitors have oppurtunities to go to college if they choose, through thrift, saving, and hard work. The oppurtunities in the country are limitless.

Dan Little: Supply and demand applies to labor as well as goods. Fortunately, the burger flipping jobs are typically entry level to the workforce, occupied by high school and college students for the most part. McDonald's was my first job.

Pride in ownership is what the original Pilgrims learned that first hard winter. They tried to have everything common, everyone equal, and found that no one was motivated, no one worked hard, and they almost all died. So they threw out the original charter, divvied up the land, imposed personal ownership, found pride in what they produced and traded, and began immediately to thrive. Why do we never learn even from our own history?

D: I find your last statement pretty funny. The opportunities are very limited in some places.

And we're nowhere near equal redistribution of money. That vast majority of money in this nation belongs to less than 1% of the population. I suppose we're near it if you think an exponential curve looks the same as a horizontal line.

Some people have it FAR worse. (I had it pretty good, luckily, and of was hard as hell.)

Dan Little: Ironic that the majority of the tax burden also falls on 1% of the population.... "plurality" I should say. The majority falls on the top 10%.

Dan Little: Ah! I keep saying "this is the last comment" but I'm a compulsive commenter, with easy to find buttons to push to make me respond! ;)

D: Why do you think a janitor has the options you did? Worst cast you'd have gone back, lived with your parents while saving cash to go to school.

What if the janitor is supporting his family? How much of that janitor's income goes to feeding children and paying rent? About 300%. Most likely, he and his wife are both working two jobs. They not only barely have the money to feed themselves, but because they're working multiple jobs they don't even have time to go to get a higher education.

I happen to be a big fan of food stamps and government support for childcare (it's tax free), because this I'd VERY common.

D: Unrelated note, my signal sucks and battery is under 10%. ;-)

Dan Little: It's not tax free, it's tax paid.

D: Sorry, I meant tax deductible.

The End.