Obama and Race

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Everyone wants the smallest government possible to achieve what the country needs. Everyone wants the lowest taxation possible to achieve what the country needs.

 

 

 

I don't believe those two to be true. I have had discussions with liberals before where they basically said they really don't care how big the government is because the basics of what it does is good and they really didn't care what they pay in taxes because what they pay in is for the better good.

[EbylHusker]

First of all, anecdotal evidence isn't useful. Second, the people you're talking to are either idiots or just exaggerating their claims because they're in a political discussion with someone who sees things different than they do. It happens all the time. You're in error by taking what they're saying as representative of liberals as a whole.

 

Edit - An easy exercise to expose the problem with their statements is to extend those possibilities to an extreme. Do you really believe they think every single thing the US Government does is good? Do you really believe they'd be happy if they were taxed 95% of their paycheck. Of course you don't, and neither do they believe that. A little bit of logic and common sense is all that's needed to cut through what are most likely exaggerations like that.

[BigRedBuster]

First of all, anecdotal evidence isn't useful. Second, the people you're talking to are either idiots or just exaggerating their claims because they're in a political discussion with someone who sees things different than they do. It happens all the time. You're in error by taking what they're saying as representative of liberals as a whole.

 

Edit - An easy exercise to expose the problem with their statements is to extend those possibilities to an extreme. Do you really believe they think every single thing the US Government does is good? Do you really believe they'd be happy if they were taxed 95% of their paycheck. Of course you don't, and neither do they believe that. A little bit of logic and common sense is all that's needed to cut through what are most likely exaggerations like that.

 

I know a lot of liberals that would be fine if rich people were taxed at 95%.

[EbylHusker]

Anecdotal, strawman, and most likely another exaggeration from those people. Not worth a response beyond that.

[carlfense]

I don't believe those two to be true. I have had discussions with liberals before where they basically said they really don't care how big the government is because the basics of what it does is good and they really didn't care what they pay in taxes because what they pay in is for the better good.

You need to find better people to have discussions with. Haha.

 

I don't think that I've ever heard anyone say that.

[BigRedBuster]

Anecdotal, strawman, and most likely another exaggeration from those people. Not worth a response beyond that.

 

So, any example I give of liberals I have known thus giving me my view of liberals is going to be classified as "straw" or "anecdotal".....gotya..

[carlfense]

I know a lot of liberals that would be fine if rich people were taxed at 95%.

Marginal rate? It was close to that in the 50s. Worked out alright then. I don't think that it should be that high . . . but I do think that we should have higher rates in (new) higher brackets.

[EbylHusker]

So, any example I give of liberals I have known thus giving me my view of liberals is going to be classified as "straw" or "anecdotal".....gotya..

Look up the definition of anecdotal. And while you're at it, strawman as well. Again, your error is in not educating yourself about real politics and assuming the people you've spoken with are somehow representative of the whole. Whether you like it or not, what you have posted is anecdotal, and once was a complete strawman. I don't make up the definitions or terms, I simply apply them where appropriate.

[BigRedBuster]

So, any example I give of liberals I have known thus giving me my view of liberals is going to be classified as "straw" or "anecdotal".....gotya..

Look up the definition of anecdotal. And while you're at it, strawman as well. Again, your error is in not educating yourself about real politics and assuming the people you've spoken with are somehow representative of the whole. Whether you like it or not, what you have posted is anecdotal, and once was a complete strawman. I don't make up the definitions or terms, I simply apply them where appropriate.

 

I know what they mean. I am using personal experiences as examples of liberal people I have come in contact with. However, to call them strawman is not accurate. Personally, I believe I have conservative views of things but I am pretty much in the middle of the road when you lump everything together.

 

You claim that liberal and conservative is relative. So....how can you discuss these without being "relative" to where you are. AND, how can you come up with those without discussing your personal experiences with various people and their views?

[BigRedBuster]

I know a lot of liberals that would be fine if rich people were taxed at 95%.

Marginal rate? It was close to that in the 50s. Worked out alright then. I don't think that it should be that high . . . but I do think that we should have higher rates in (new) higher brackets.

 

So, you are fine with them being that high if needed. My more conservative view is that if they were that high, it would be outrageous and should be illegal.

[tschu]

Is your view based on economics? Or is it just based on "dadgum gubmint stealin my monies?"

 

The 1950s-60s were the most prosperous time in American history, and, oddly enough, had the highest taxes for the top brackets and the smallest wealth inequality gap. It's not a coincidence.

 

Sure, 95%, probably high. But 70% is totally legitimate.

[tschu]

Remember that research paper the carl posted showing that those who identify as conservatives tend to have views that are "ideology" based whereas those who identify as liberals have views that are "outcome" based? This argument is an example right here.

[BigRedBuster]

Is your view based on economics? Or is it just based on "dadgum gubmint stealin my monies?"

 

 

Nice condescending comment.

 

It's basically based on the simple belief that taxing something that high is wrong.

[BigRedBuster]

Remember that research paper the carl posted showing that those who identify as conservatives tend to have views that are "ideology" based whereas those who identify as liberals have views that are "outcome" based? This argument is an example right here.

 

 

I believe there should be a balance between the two and anyone who ridicules the other side is being unrealistic.

[EbylHusker]

The comment about knowing liberals who would want 95% taxes on the rich was a response to an imaginary comment (or more accurately a twisting of my comment), or a strawman. Whether or not they feel the rich should be taxed at 95% had nothing to do with my comment about believing they wouldn't care if they were taxed at 95%, unless you're going to claim these people are in the bracket that would be taxed at 95%? I doubt it based on your wording. It was a strawman, straight from any definition.

 

We have this wonderful thing available called the internet. And television. And newspapers. And just about any form of media. Doing any kind of actual research on what the majority of liberals really want (aka liberals as a whole), which doesn't mean turning on Fox News and swallowing everything they spout with a big grin, will give you a far more rounded opinion on what is actually going on (with liberalism) than listening to whoever these "liberals" are that you personally know.

 

Discussing personal views with others is one thing, but it is not the same as using anecdotal evidence to support your claims or beliefs. I know a handful smokers that beat their wives, so I conclude that all smokers beat their wives. That's anecdotal evidence (among other things), and as you can see, it's useless when you attempt to apply it to larger populations.