The Futurist: Deconstructing the 'Leftist' Mind

Is it really a surprise that the wealthier a voter was in 2004, the more likely they were to vote for Bush? Bush was the champion of tax cuts for the wealthy, and the wealthier you were the more of a tax cut you'd get. Of course the rich voted for Bush. Yes, the rich probably do tend to be smarter than the poor on average, but it's not that smartness made people vote for Bush, it's pure self-interest. More telling would be polling data by educational level. The result there are a little odd (see http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). The no-H.S. Vote breaks down almost dead even, then it rises slightly in Bush's favor with some college to college degree, then it switches dramatically the other way with postgrad degrees. Since it's probably true that there is some correlation between educational level and income, and since income breaks dramatically in favor of Bush, it actually suggests that educational level alone actually strongly favors Kerry, especially when educational level is very high, meaning the very brightest people. The conclusion isn't necessarily that stupid people vote for Bush, or that Bush voters are stupid people, but that the smarter you are, the more likely you are to be a Kerry voter.

Posted by: Conrad | June 02, 2006 at 12:09 AM

Conrad, your analysis is so penetrating, so revealing and so comforting that one can only assume you are smart enough to be working on one of those post-grad degrees yourself.

They only let the smartest among us get them you know.

Posted by: spongeworthy | June 02, 2006 at 07:15 AM

Thesis 1 (Conrad's, slightly rephrased): The smarter you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

Thesis 2 (mine, drawn from observation of the graph): The poorer you are, the more likely you are to vote Democrat.

Synthesis: There is a proportional correlation in this country between being smart and being poor.

...I think I know where the Left's resentment of capitalism comes from.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 02, 2006 at 10:28 AM

All of this assumes that having a college degree means you are smart. I met some smart people in college. I also met some of the dumbest people on Earth in college. You go to college for a degree, which you can get and still remain dumb. You are on your own if you want to get smarter.

Posted by: CT | June 02, 2006 at 10:32 AM

Conrad,

You conclusions can be demolished in at least 4 ways :

1) YOUR OWN LINK shows that under 'Most Important Issue', only 5% chose 'Taxes', and of those, only 57% voted for Bush. Yet, you claim that the 'wealthy' voted for Bush primarily for this reason. By your logic, any President can win an election just by 'cutting taxes for the rich'. Hmm.. maybe the Democrats could try that..

2) You claim that the tax cut was for 'the wealthy', and that the middle class didn't benefit much. Yet you are avoiding answering why the MIDDLE CLASS, making $50K to $75K, voted 56% for Bush.

3) It is funny that leftists consider the more degreed people to automatically be smarter. Do you actually believe that someone with a Bachelor's degree, who rose up to become a manager making $200,000 a year, is not as smart as someone with a PhD in Gay/Lesbian studies who earns $30,000 a year somewhere and hates Bush?

Why is income less a measure of 'smarts' than education? People with PhDs in academia often have no skills in sales, negotiation, or management, which are all components of being 'smart'. I will grant you that the most EDUCATED people voted for Kerry, if you agree that the least PRODUCTIVE people also voted for Kerry. The people with average or high productivity (as measured by income) voted for Bush. Productivity and education are NOT that closely corelated, as YOUR OWN LINK shows.

4) The leftist talking point of Bush's tax cut being for the 'rich' is merely ignorant. I doubt you could tell me which tax bracket dropped by how much. Also, Clinton's 1997 tax cut (which I strongly approve of) slashed capital gains tax rates from 39.6% to 20%, and housing gains up to $500,000 were made exempt of tax. Capital gains income and big home equity gains are much more skewed to the wealthy than wage income. Would that not make Clinton's tax cuts even MORE for the rich? Again, I liked Clinton's tax cuts too.

Please be man enough to admit that you were at least wrong about point 1), as per your own link.

Posted by: GK | June 02, 2006 at 10:48 AM

Rorschach,

Yes. It is funny how they are oblivious to the irony. Read the Ace of Spades link about how leftists are religiously convinced they are so smart, no matter how many times it is disproven.

Posted by: GK | June 02, 2006 at 10:53 AM

"...it actually suggests that educational level alone actually strongly favors Kerry."

I would suggest that, while those belonging to this group take this to mean that the more intelligent people (i.e. people with post-graduate degrees) voted for Kerry, many others would take this to support the notion that academia is populated by people with near-homogenous leftist political views.

Count me among the "many others."

Posted by: McBrick | June 02, 2006 at 11:37 AM

"Please be man enough to admit that you were at least wrong about point 1), as per your own link."

GK, you obviously do not understand the "Progressive" mind. Admitting when you are wrong is not in the playbook. You WILL be sent to a reeducation camp!

Posted by: Tushar D | June 02, 2006 at 07:30 PM

Thanks for all the feisty responses. Keep in mind that using statistics like this is only useful in the grossest generalizations. I am not trying to imply that educational level is equal to smartness, only that it is a better correlate than wealth is, as GK is trying to suggest in the original blog piece. Everyone jumps on me for generalizing, but no one criticizes GK for the sloppiness of implying that income level is an accurate correlate for intelligence. I'm sure there is a correlate there, just not a very reliable one. Educational level is a better correlate, but certainly not a foolproof one, for all the reasons people have brought up.

What is interesting is how the two demographics differ. The problem with measuring voter preferences by wealth is that it strongly measures the self-interests of wealthy people, and it makes it difficult to isolate intelligence from self-interest as a voting indicator. Educational level is also problematic, not just for the reasons others have brought up, but because educational level also strongly correlates to income. In other words, the more highly educated you are, the more likely your income is to be high. Still, educational level primarily measures in a broad, generalized sense, intelligence, and only secondarily corresponds to wealth. Based on this data its impossible to fully isolate intelligence alone as an indicator of voter preference, but it does suggest a stronger trend towards Democratic voting in this election among the more highly educated.

Of course, the best way to measure this would be to get a direct reading on voter preference by IQ, and then correct for the statistical influence of wealth and other factors, to try to get a statistically “pure” measure of intelligence as a voter indicator.

I don't have a problem with the notion that high intelligence tends to lead to greater income which often leads to Republican voting patterns, or that lower intelligence leads to poverty and democratic voting patterns. But it would also appear that high intelligence, alone, removed from its wealth correlate, leads to democratic voting patterns, and that lower intelligence, removed from its poverty correlates, leads to Republican voting patterns. Everyone here assumes that anyone challenging your ideas has some kind ulterior agenda. I think this is projection. You guys seem to have an ulterior agenda, and want to bend statistics to achieve it.

What's interesting to me about these statistics is the oft-mentioning criticism of the lower classes who vote for Bush for social-values reasons, and end up supporting policies that are not in their own best interests. This is seen in the stat showing those who have no HS diploma voting 50-50, whereas their economic interests ought to skew them towards the democrats.

Also, I didn't mean to suggest that lower taxes were the ONLY reason that wealthy people would vote republican. It's just one example of the well-known general trend of Republicans favoring the wealthy and Democrats favoring the poor. Does anyone really have an issue with that generalization? There are many reasons that wealthy people vote Republican, taxes only being one. Another amazing statistic from the 2000 Election that I think explains an awful lot about voting patterns is that when asked whether people thought they were in the upper 1% of income earners in this country, 19% of the people said yes. When asked if they thought they would someday relatively soon be in the upper 1% of income earners, another 22% said yes. This means that fully 41% of the population thought that they were or would someday be in the upper 1% of income earners. This is, of course, a statistical impossibility, but it explains well why Gore's criticism of Bush, that his tax cuts would strongly favor the upper 1% of the population, fell flat. It turns out that most Americans actually imagine they ARE or will soon be in that upper 1%! There's something touching about that. For one, it suggests that a lot of Americans just aren't very smart, but they sure have high hopes.

I'm sure you all will launch the appropriate bromides in my general direction now.

Posted by: Conrad | June 02, 2006 at 08:12 PM

Conrad,

You wrote :
"Yes, the rich probably do tend to be smarter than the poor on average, but it's not that smartness made people vote for Bush, it's pure self-interest. "

then you wrote :
"There are many reasons that wealthy people vote Republican, taxes only being one. "

At least you rephrased better here. Only 5% of voters said taxes were the top issue for them.

You said :
"What's interesting to me about these statistics is the oft-mentioning criticism of the lower classes who vote for Bush for social-values reasons, and end up supporting policies that are not in their own best interests. This is seen in the stat showing those who have no HS diploma voting 50-50, whereas their economic interests ought to skew them towards the democrats. "

What about Clinton's tax cuts of 1997, which only cut capital gains tax rates, not income tax rates? That helped the poor even less than Bush's tax cuts did (which dropped even the lower tax brackets). How does this fit into your view that Republican tax cuts are not in the interest of the poor.

I, of course believe that both tax cuts helped the poor by lifting ALL boats indirectly, but that is a different topic.

Also, offer an opinion on why the middle class, earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, voted 56% for Bush.

Lastly, I think education corelates to income up to a point, but after that point, things like sales skills, negotiation, and management ability do more to boost income than having a PhD in some unmarketable humanity or social science. The data shows that many with the most advanced degrees don't have very high incomes (and probably voted for Kerry). Hence my earlier example of the Bach.Sc. manager earning $200,000 vs. the PhD in Gay/Lesbian studies earning $30,000.

Posted by: GK | June 02, 2006 at 10:08 PM

GK,

Glad you're being more reasonable.

1)“What about Clinton's tax cuts of 1997, which only cut capital gains tax rates, not income tax rates? That helped the poor even less than Bush's tax cuts did (which dropped even the lower tax brackets). How does this fit into your view that Republican tax cuts are not in the interest of the poor.”

Clinton's tax policy was one of give and take. He raised taxes on higher incomes, but balanced it with capital gains taxes. The idea there was to trade tax money from disposable income and give incentives to put it into investment – a good policy as far as I can see. Investment money does end up creating more jobs for lower income people, and you can see that Clinton's popularity came from the sense of economic fairness he engendered with moves like this. Personally, I think his economic policy was great, trading bad tax breaks for smarter tax cuts, tax increases balanced with deficit reduction, etc. It led to the biggest boom in our history. If I could pick the next President out of a hat, it would be Lawrence Summers, Clinton's Treasury Secretary, and one of the best ever. He's a bit to impolitic for elective office, however, as witness his tenure as president of Harvard, but he's just what we need.

Point is, some Republican tax cuts are in the interest of the poor, but not the ones Bush has put into effect. Although the 1997 capital gains tax cut was a Democratic cut.

2) “Also, offer an opinion on why the middle class, earning between $50,000 and $75,000 a year, voted 56% for Bush.” Too many reasons there to give an easy answer. Economics wasn't the only major issue in the 2004 election, unfortunately. It was more about the war, “values”, and character issues. I'm not sure if the middle class vote can be attributed purely to some rational decision about which candidate would be best for the economy. But in general the middle class is actually more “conservative” than either the rich or the poor, in the sense of being more afraid of losing what they have, and Bush went a long way towards promising people gthe things they wanted to hear. A lot of that may not have been true, but it ties into the survey I mentioned in 2000 that showed how people think they are doing much better than they actually are, and that they imagine they will be getting much better than they will. Americans are naïve an optimistic by nature. So Middle Class people aspire to be rich, and tend to vote for policies that actually favor the rich, because when they get rich they want to keep the money they earn, even though in reality most of them never do get rich. The problem is that politicians who actually tell people they aren't going to get rich will be rejected as real downers, which makes it hard for Democrats or any realistic voices to be heard about economic matters. People don't want to be told that the American dream isn't all it's cracked up to be for most people.

3) “Lastly, I think education corelates to income up to a point, but after that point, things like sales skills, negotiation, and management ability do more to boost income than having a PhD in some unmarketable humanity or social science. The data shows that many with the most advanced degrees don't have very high incomes (and probably voted for Kerry). Hence my earlier example of the Bach.Sc. manager earning $200,000 vs. the PhD in Gay/Lesbian studies earning $30,000. “

Of course education doesn't preciselly correlate to wealth. But the fact remains that the higher the educational level, the higher the average income. Of course there are huge exceptions all over the place, but the general rule remains the same. It doesn't mean that the richest people are those with advanced degrees, only that advanced degrees increase average income. I'm not sure what other factors are more important, I haven't seen stats on such things. I'm sure the most important factor has to be being born to rich parents. In fact, if I remember correctly, the single most important factor in economic success, by far, is the economic success of one's parents. I'm pretty sure it outweighs even advanced degrees. So much for the idea that we can all live out the rags-to-riches dream on our own merits. It doesn't really happen that way, but people like to believe it anyway because it feels better. As the say about Bush, he was born on third base and thought he hit a triple.

Posted by: Conrad | June 03, 2006 at 03:47 AM

"Adolescence is a relatively recent thing in human history -- a period of years betweenthe constraints of childhood and the responsibilities of adulthood. This irresponsible period of adolescence is artificially extended by long years of education, much of it wasted on frivolities. Tenure extends adolescence even further for teachers and professors." -- Thomas Sowell, here

"Nothing so offends the doctrinaire intellectual as our ability to achieve the momentous in a matter-of-fact way, unblessed by words." -- Eric Hoffer

Posted by: Rick Gaber | June 03, 2006 at 07:56 PM

Conrad,

1) Nope. Clinton raised income taxes in 1993, which kept the economy slow in 1993-94. By the time he moved to the center and cut taxes, it was 1997.

Bush cut the lower part of the 15% bracket to 10%, and cut the 28% bracket to 25%, so he definitely returned money to people in the lower brackets.

Gore also proposed similar income tax reductions in 2000. It seems to me you are still driven by partisanship than principle.

But if you are such a fan of cap. gains tax reduction, then would you be happy if Bush cut cap. gains taxes further? Or would you say that is also a 'tax cut for the rich'?

I like Larry Summers. The far-left hates him, smearing him as a sexist over something minor.

2,3) A claim that one needs rich parents to get rich is the classic statements socialists use to find an excuse for their own failures.

Read 'The Millionaire Mind', which interviews many millionaires to find what their common traits are. Also check out the profiles of the Forbes 400 richest Americans (all who have $900m or above). Only about 20% of America's wealthy had rich parents. The rest were not advantaged, and started businesses. Wealthy parents is certainly not the most important factor in becoming rich in America. In most of the world it is, but this is where America is unique.

So many of the richest are immigrants, who started with nothing. Andy Grove, Sergey Brin, Pierre Omidyar, etc..

Plus, the wealthiest group in America is not whites, it is Asians, of whom almost all are immigrants or 1st generation.

I still notice you are avoiding an admission that skills like salesmanship, negotiation, management, and networking are extremely important to achieving wealth - more so than education or parental wealth.

Your last comment about Bush is mere partisanship.

Out of 5 siblings, why have only George and Jeb risen? What about the other 3?

Why have no other children of recent Presidents risen this far? What about the children of Reagan, Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Eisenhower, etc?

The Kennedy family is even more suspect of the nepotism you suggest for Bush. Yet, the 3rd generation of Kennedy's is remarkable only for its relative underachievement. The most successful is actually Maria Shriver.

Posted by: GK | June 03, 2006 at 08:22 PM

GK,

1) My comment about Clinton balancing his economic policies applies to his overall actions, not confined to one single bill or year. His tax increase in 1993, coupled with spending cuts, was right at the time, and set the stage for the 90's boom. His 1997 capital gains tax cut was also a good move once the economy had gotten going. And yes, I'm in favor of further reductions in the CG tax, balanced by consumption taxes, until the deficit is handled, then a phasing out altogether of such taxes.

Bush II's tax cuts did give some relief to the middle and lower classes, but was heavily weighted, dollar-wise, to the very wealthy. Gore's tax cut was not so generous to the wealthy, and of course both were originally proposed when the government was in surplus and booming, thanks to Clinton. In general, I would have to say I'd love to end income taxes altogether, but the way to start is by eliminating them from the bottom up. Originally, income tax was only supposed to be on the very rich, and it's a crime that it evolved into a general tax on everyone. If it remains at all, it should return to its original form, and be restricted to the rich. I'm not in favor of soaking the rich, of increasing taxes on the rich further, but I'm not in favor of giving them breaks on the consumption side either. Breaks on investment are fine with me, such as eliminating the CG tax, and even the corporate dividend tax, as long as these are balanced with spending cuts and cuts on taxes for the lower end. I don't claim to be an economics wiz with all the answers, however. In general, I think Bush's economic policies are disastrously ill-conceived. You think I'm a socialist? GWB is running the economy on deficit spending, pure Keynesism. He's the opposite of a solid economic conservative. He's worse than Johnson.

2) “A claim that one needs rich parents to get rich is the classic statements socialists use to find an excuse for their own failures.”

I love the way you distorted what I said and then linked it to “socialist” ideas. If socialists think the sky is blue, does that make it green? Are you that fanatical? Of course I didn't say one NEEDS rich parents to get rich, but I did say that the single biggest factor in financial success is the success of one's parents/ Of course skills are important, but skills don't generally come out of nowhere. They are taught, and they are taught by example. Kids with strong parents have a huge advantage over others. The problem with your ideology is that it imagines that individuals have complete control over their own destiny. This is part of the American Dream, with emphasis on the dream. Of course the most exceptional individuals do break out of their limitations, but most people do not. Giving examples from the Fortune 400 only perpetuates the illusion. It's like suggesting that all women can win the Miss America contest if they try hard enough. Sorry, only those with certain bioloogical gifts can even get in the running, much less win. Similarly with economic success. And the biggest advantage of all is not just good genetics, but good upbringing. The example of GWB is completely apt, because if he had been born in virtually any other family, he would never have risen to the top of anything. He's a rich-kid mediocrity, plain and simple. Fortunately for him, he had not only great family connections, but a family that was dynastic in its intentions, and not bad at following through. Why he became President and not Jeb is hard to say, since Jeb is clearly smarter and more talented. I think he was chosen because he's more maleable and likeable. Your comparison to other recent presidents is silly. The Kennedy kids grew up fatherless, in case you forget that JFK and RFK both died when they were very young. Their mothers were more interested in fashion or domesticity than politics. And there was a clear fear of rising up to high and attracting another assassination. Johnson, Nixon, and Carter only had daughters, not sons, in an age when that mattered hugely. Reagan was a lousy absentee father who showed no interest in raising his kids properly. Clinton, who knows, may Chelsea will follow in their footsteps, maybe not. Only Bush has made real efforts to build a dynasty, and put the time and energy into it. Which is exactly what I mean. All of the Bush children are way-overachievers compared to their actual talents and merits. This is due to their family, not to them as individuals. Look at Al Gore, also a relatively mediocre guy whose family connections elevated him far higher than he deserves to be. But this is simply they way America works. Look at the Senate, filled with rich dingbats in both parties who really don't belong there based on merit alone.

The point is, I am talking about overall realities, you are trying to argue by individual anecdote, which simply has no relevance. I agree that individuals must take responsibility for their own lives and make the most of them, but the fact remains that innate advantages confer hugely advantageous results overall, and even the skills you cite are more widely held by those who come from advantaged backgrounds. The guy you mention with sales skills, etc., could be far brighter and more talented than Donald Trump, but Trump's father was a real estate tycoon, and he had a huge head start, so your more talented guy from a poor background is far less likely to make it. Some exceptional characters do overcome all odds and succeed hugely, but they are the exception that proves the rule, rather than disproving it. Class mobility is not at all what you imagine it to be in America. The exceptions are not the rule, no matter how inspiring their stories may be.

Your bringing up Asians is also an example of exceptionalism. Asians coming to this country are among the most exceptional from their own countries, the smartest, the most ambitious, the most willing to take risks, and also the most family oriented. They pass those traits on to their kids, and this produces a highly successful group. If you just took average asians and plopped them into America, they would not do nearly so well, as was the case with earlier generations who came over essentially as slave labor with little opportunity for advancement.

Posted by: Conrad | June 04, 2006 at 02:22 AM

I find it very interesting to read through the comments between GK (whom I presume is The Futurist) and Conrad. A very worthwhile exchange.

I read this site because it's excellent food for thought. It's also clearly skewed to the right, which doesn't bother me (even though I'm not a rightie). That said, the exchange above reveals GK to be inflammatory and injudicial, calling out a commenter rather than merely engaging him. Conrad, OTOH, has maintained his composure and neutrality, looking mostly at issues as they are rather than how he might wish them to be.

On intelligence/education: they aren't really the same thing, and trying to correlate them with voting behaviors is impossible. Too many tangled variables. Polling numbers on why people voted they way they did are also mostly unreliable, sorry. Biases present in the questions or outright lies in the answers (far greater than margins of error admit) make polls meaningless. So what if only 5% said taxes are their primary voting concern (why not secondary or tertiary)? Taxes are still a significant issue -- especially to those positioned to benefit the most. (It's a luxury of the rich, BTW, to pretend that money means little to them.)

On parental success: as a teacher, I sometimes get to see the kids of the rich and successful and the kids of the highly educated (again, different things, though not mutually exclusive). They clearly value different things, but in either case, parents' influence on kids is unmistakeable. High level of education tends to be preparation for life, whereas high level of success tends to be preparation for careers. The careerists in particular benefit from parental oversight and connections via entry into prestigious colleges and jobs, no doubt about it. For the most driven (or merely lucky) kids without parental advantages, breakthroughs do sometimes occur. But they inevitably begin a few steps behind.

Posted by: Brutus | June 04, 2006 at 09:46 AM

Conrad,

"Bush II's tax cuts did give some relief to the middle and lower classes, but was heavily weighted, dollar-wise, to the very wealthy. "
Dollar-wise? ANY tax cut is weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise, because tax payments are also weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise.

Clinton's was extremely weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise.

Even if the 15% bracket were cut to zero, the dollars going back to those people would be small, as they pay little to begin with.

The only real way to get tax breaks to the poor is to eliminate the sales tax on all non-luxury items. But no Democrats are proposing that either.

Are you saying your only problem with Bush's tax cuts is that he should have lowered the CapGains tax rate further, rather than lowering the top income bracket from 39.6% to 35%? I can agree with you there if that is what you mean, but I think either still benefits mostly the same group of people.

If you don't agree to that, then I am still not convinced that you are putting principle above partisanship.

2) The Forbes 400 is a very diverse sample size, with many immigrants, women, and people of every possible industry. Plus, I also suggested you check out 'The Millionaire Mind'. A comprehensive survey of rich people shows that under 20% had wealthy parents. You are the one using anecdotes like Donald Trump, whereas I am providing actual statistical data from credible sources. You fixate on the 20%, avoiding the 80% that rose up despite not having the advantage of rich parents.

Now, if you agree that strong or hardworking parents teach their children things that give them an advantage, then I agree, but this is NOT what you were saying before.

"Reagan was a lousy absentee father who showed no interest in raising his kids properly."
What? What proof do you have of that? This is probably the most factually inaccurate piece of partisanship you have said yet. Reagan was probably more loved by his wife than any other President was, and he hand-wrote letters full of wisdom to his grandchildren even while President.

Your continued claim that GW got to where he is because of his father is more Bush-hate than anything else. Again, why did the other siblings not rise to the level of Jeb and GW? What about the SONS of Reagan, Ford, and Eisenhower? And for each GW, there is a Dick Cheney or Condi Rice that had no such advantages, yet still rose to the top.

Plus, you said in your first post that the 'brightest' people are the most educated. Well, Bush's GPA at Yale was higher than Kerry's. By your logic, why would you not say Bush is smarter now? And don't try to pull something like 'Bush copied other people's homework because his father was important'. Bush's father was NOT famous in the late 1960s when Bush II was going to Yale. Plus, Kerry's family was quite wealthy as well, as are many families of Yale undergrads. Neither was an anomaly among the Yale undergrad population at the time of their attendance.

Asians - what you said is true, but this contradicts your previous point about needing rich parents to succeed. Many Asians start from the very bottom when they come here.

They also prove that America is not a racist society, where whites have advantages over others (another favorite myth of many on the left).

Posted by: GK | June 04, 2006 at 01:54 PM

"That said, the exchange above reveals GK to be inflammatory and injudicial, calling out a commenter rather than merely engaging him. Conrad, OTOH, has maintained his composure and neutrality, looking mostly at issues as they are rather than how he might wish them to be."

GK addressed and rebutted nearly all of C's points with stats, facts and figures.

Projection isn't healthy.

Posted by: Good Lt | June 04, 2006 at 03:44 PM

I find almost all of Conrad's messages to consist of some typical left-wing myth (like 'Liberals are smarter' or 'one has to have rich parents to be rich' or 'Bush's tax cuts were giveaways for the rich, but Clinton's caused a great boom that Bush ruined'), only to have GK nail him on each attempted fib. This results in many of Conrad's statements being in direct contradiction to each other.

To Conrad's credit, at least he backs away from his defeated positions and restates them, rather than just run away like most lefties who get demolished here by GK.

Posted by: Toaster | June 04, 2006 at 07:09 PM

GK,
1) “Dollar-wise? ANY tax cut is weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise, because tax payments are also weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise.”

That depends on how the tax cut is designed.
“Clinton's was extremely weighted to the wealthy, dollar-wise.”

Not overall, and not nearly as much as Bush's. As you say, the wealthy will get more in most tax cuts since they pay more taxes. It depends on how its weighted.

“The only real way to get tax breaks to the poor is to eliminate the sales tax on all non-luxury items. But no Democrats are proposing that either. “

That's not the only way. There is no federal sales tax, so it isn't a national party issue. It's something each state would have to consider. But if they did eliminate such taxes, they would have to be made up for somehow, probably by an increased state income tax. Is that what you are proposing?

“Are you saying your only problem with Bush's tax cuts is that he should have lowered the CapGains tax rate further, rather than lowering the top income bracket from 39.6% to 35%? I can agree with you there if that is what you mean, but I think either still benefits mostly the same group of people.”

Yes, it benefits the same group that was hurt by the increase in the upper income tax rate. He difference is that the increase in income tax is a tax on frivolous consumption by the rich, whereas the cut in CG encourages investment which generates jobs. The overall effect is no serious increase in tax burdern, but a shift in where the money ends up to the greater benefit of the economy.

2) I have no problem acknowledging the great fortunes are made by people with tremendous drive and many admirable qualities. But even your own stats betray you. When you say that only 20% came from wealthy families (I will assume that means the upper 1%), that means it's twenty times more likely that someone from the wealthy class would make it on the Fortune 400 than other people would. That's not exactly a meritocracy. Now it's true that 80% were not from the wealthy class, but I bet there's a sliding scale of representation based on class.
“Now, if you agree that strong or hardworking parents teach their children things that give them an advantage, then I agree, but this is NOT what you were saying before.”

Correct. What I was saying before is that the best single statistical indicator of success is class background. There are all kinds of other indicators that statistically point to success, but none is as powerful as parental economic class. I know you don't like hearing that, because it goes against various myths you hold dear, but it's the simple fact. It doesn't mean that people can't overcome class disadvantages. They can and do. But it takes exceptional talent and energy to do that. The people on the Forbes 400 have that. Most people don't. You make the error of judging a class of people by their most exceptional members.

"Reagan was probably more loved by his wife than any other President was, and he hand-wrote letters full of wisdom to his grandchildren even while President.”

Nancy was his second wife. His first wife, Jane Wyman, divorced him because she said he spent all his time pursuing political activities, and spent no time with him or the children. He continued this pattern in his marriage with Nancy, leaving the children to her, and spending almost all his timeout on political speaking tours. His children have spoken out about how negligent and emotionally distant he was as a father. He didn't exactly live the family values he later preached, but of course that was rather typical of his generation of fathers.

“Your continued claim that GW got to where he is because of his father is more Bush-hate than anything else. Again, why did the other siblings not rise to the level of Jeb and GW? What about the SONS of Reagan, Ford, and Eisenhower? And for each GW, there is a Dick Cheney or Condi Rice that had no such advantages, yet still rose to the top.”

It's not Bush-hate to speak the simple truth. It's perhaps unfair to single Bush out though, I did so only because he is our current President, and seems like one of the more egregious examples. Most of our Presidents have come from either the very wealthy or the upper middle class. A few came from the middle class, and only one, Andrew Jackson, came from what could be called the lower class. JFK, for example, would never have become President without his father's wealth and connections. He seems far brighter and more gifted than GWB, but he'd never have gotten that far on his own merits. Same with FDR or Teddy Roosevelt. The fact is, wealth confers huge advantages. It's not that some people, such as Jackson or Lincoln, couldn't overcome disadvantages and rise to the top, but it's much rarer than our “American Dream” makes it out to be.

“Asians - what you said is true, but this contradicts your previous point about needing rich parents to succeed. Many Asians start from the very bottom when they come here.”
I never said that anyone NEEDS rich parents to succeed, only that statistically it confers a huge advantage. Recent (legal) Asian immigrants have distinct advantages, because our legal immigration policy requires immigrants to have money, education, jobs, degrees, family support here, or other means that make them exceptional in some way. They are not the “average” asian. Illegal Mexican immigrants, on the other hand, do not have the same success rate, because they tend to be the poorest and least advantaged of Mexicans.

“They also prove that America is not a racist society, where whites have advantages over others (another favorite myth of many on the left).”

Whites do have advantages over most other races, but this can be overcome, even by specific groups, such as asians, by taking advantage of their own exceptionalism ( The product of the evolutionary “selection” process that brought them here). As mentioned, this success was not the case for early asian immigrants who came from the lowest classes as virtual slave labor and were subject to strict racial discrimination. But it certainly is true that America is far less racist than it has ever been.

Posted by: Conrad | June 04, 2006 at 08:56 PM

"Not overall, and not nearly as much as Bush's. As you say, the wealthy will get more in most tax cuts since they pay more taxes. It depends on how its weighted."

No - it depends on how much taxes are paid. More taxes paid? More money back for you. Less money paid? Less money back. All proportional to what percentage you chipped in. Proportionality is something the simple minded economics of pseudo-Marxism have never been able to grasp - opting instead to give some more than they are proportionally entitled to and taking from others because "they have enough."

"But it certainly is true that America is far less racist than it has ever been."

Perhaps the only sensible thing posted here. In addition, America is far less racist than any country on Earth. Period. Ever watch a soccer match in Spain when a black player goes onto the field? Listen to the crowds. THAT is racism, and America, despite its flaws, looks saintly.

"It's not Bush-hate to speak the simple truth."

I love when lefties invoke their own brands of self-styled "truth." They never seem figure out exactly what the "truth" is to be able to communicate it in any palpable way, but they claim to own it regardless. And they speak it to power. Its funny, but their "truths" always seem to be little more than the same tired DNC/left blogosphere talking points. Amusing.

"that means it's twenty times more likely that someone from the wealthy class would make it on the Fortune 400 than other people would. That's not exactly a meritocracy. Now it's true that 80% were not from the wealthy class, but I bet there's a sliding scale of representation based on class. "

That's called the free market. The wealthy start with more, and know how to obtain and retain more. What's your point? The meritocracy is still intact - it doesn't matter that some people have it "easier" than others. The free market allows for such possibilities, and allows for strident economic mobility regardless of initial class or wealth. Now go acheive your goals legitimately - and nobody but a Stalinist will tell you where you are required to stop.

"I never said that anyone NEEDS rich parents to succeed, only that statistically it confers a huge advantage."

Really? AND.....?

When, exactly, does one family cease to be "poor" and start being "rich?" What is the number? 50k per year? Some people make 49k per year. Are they (or their offspring) poor, and therefore at a greater disadvantage than the person who makes 50k? You have not shown a convincing causation between "rich" success and the proportional success of "other income brackets besides 'the rich.'" Rich people have it easier in any country in the world (ask Saddam Hussein before he met our military), not just here. Nobody is denying that the "rich" have an easier time. So what? That is the result of a free market economy (operative word being "free," as in freedom). People are not required to equalize anything here. This includes chances for success in chosen endeavours. No? Tell me where I'm wrong.

"Whites do have advantages over most other races, but this can be overcome, even by specific groups, such as asians, by taking advantage of their own exceptionalism ( The product of the evolutionary “selection” process that brought them here)."

"Their own exceptionalism?" Isn't that a little racist to lump people into a group by their origin from a different place in the world than America? You mean their willingness as a cultural and socio-economic group to work their asses off, save money, pass wealth onto future generations, foster competition, etc.? What does any of than have to do with "race?" I'd say it has more to do with culture and tradition, which are not exclusively tied to race. Not coincidentally, the success of many Asian families and individuals in this country is related to their adherence to American cultural norms like hard work, capitalism, education, perseverence, freedom to acheive, etc.

Eugenics is so 1940's. Race is a socal construction anyway, right?

Posted by: Good Lt | June 05, 2006 at 03:47 AM

"Well, Bush's GPA at Yale was higher than Kerry's." - GK

I've heard this fact thrown about a lot, even thrown it around myself. Generally when I use it in argument, people don't believe me. Do you have a link to something which proves this? I've found some sites about SAT scores, and I've also heard that Bush scored higher than Kerry on the test to get into the army. I can't find any credible articles about this though. I'll keep looking, but I was wondering if you happened to know of a place to look up GPA and SAT info about different politicians in the public sphere.

Posted by: Maddy | June 05, 2006 at 08:17 AM

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student?mode=PF

Boston Globe - Kerry's "hometown" paper.

http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=29505

Yale Daily News. Excerpt:

A grade transcript attached to Kerry's Navy file said he averaged a 76 during his undergraduate career, a time when Yale grades were strictly numerical. Bush averaged a 77 during his first three years and a roughly similar average under a short-lived non-numerical system introduced during his senior year, according to his Yale transcript published in a 1999 issue of the New Yorker magazine."

Posted by: Good Lt | June 05, 2006 at 08:34 AM

Wow, thanks so much! A perfect addition to my bookmarks.

Posted by: Maddy | June 05, 2006 at 08:49 AM

Lt,

Why this constant bickering that tries to achieve petty partisan advantage at the expense of serious discussion of the real issues? What are you trying to prove to yourself?

1) Taxes. Obviously, as I already conceded, the rich pay more taxes and will get more back with an across the board percentage tax cut. But there's no law that tax cuts have to be designed that way. One could do a tax cut that would simply eliminate taxes at the lower end of things, and keep them the same at the higher rungs. You could reduce taxes on the poor and middle class, and have no upper bracket reductions. I tend to advocate that sort of direct tax cut. TO give the rich some benefit, I'd do things like eliminate CG taxes and even corporate taxes. You also ignore the history of the income tax I brought up, namely that it was originally a tax on only the very richest Americans, and it was promised that it would never be made into a general all-purpose tax. That changed over the years, the promises were broken and income taxes have become a huge intrusion on ordinary people. I tend to be capitalist/ libertarian in my views, and I think the income tax should go back to what it was originally intended to be, a “taking” from the very rich, who can indeed afford it, along with tax breaks for investment, to help steer those huge accumulations of capital where they should really go in a capitalist system – towards investment. You call me a Stalinist leftist, and I have to laugh at your self-proclaimed idiocy. If I'm an economic leftist then you right wingers have no hope of ever winning another election.

2) Class advantages “I love when lefties invoke their own brands of self-styled "truth." They never seem figure out exactly what the "truth" is to be able to communicate it in any palpable way, but they claim to own it regardless.”

I don't claim to own it. I simply argued what I understand to be incontrovertible facts about the advantages of wealth, which you not only didn't contradict, but even agreed with. But somehow you have to keep up the attitude of disagreement anyway, God knows why.

“That's called the free market.”
Yes, it is. Did I ever say it wasn't? Did I ever say I oppose free markets? I was simply stating simple facts, facts you seem to agree with, but have to somehow denounce when the come from me, because of course I'm a Stalinst DNC Satanist. Don't you ever get tired of shouting from soapboxes about the evils of the left? You make so many idiotic presumptions, not just about me, but about the “left”, it's staggering. I'm a businessman, running a medium sized business, with employees, assets, tax issues, regulation issues, investing a lot of money in expansion, dealing with all kinds of real-world issues that to you are just silly abstractions, and I bet I make more money than you and have more wealth than you. So cut out this stupid dogmatic crap about Stalinism.

“The wealthy start with more, and know how to obtain and retain more. What's your point?”

My point is that class mobility in this country is not very great, nowhere near as great as you like to think it is. In economic surveys (I don't have the links, sorry) of major industrialized nations, The US ranks near the bottom in class mobility (the ability to rise from one class to a higher one). And yes, that is a statistical fact. It doesn't matter where you draw the lines of income, $49,000 or $50,000, whatever, the statistics hold up.

You seem to be mathematically challenged, and have no comprehension of what statistical realities mean. You keep trying to challenge statistical categories by referring to individuals. But statistics are not directly applicable to any individual, they are only broadly applicable to groups, and the group characteristics of individuals.

Calling America a meritocracy is simply not apt. Do you really believe that the best Americans rise to the top and become President? I noticed your thread about Bush and Kerry's GPA battle of 77 vs 76. Man, isn't that sad? We have an election for the Presidency, and all we get to vote for is two fucking half-wits with C averages and wealthy parents? Doesn't that make you a little mad? I mean, the country is full of geniuses, really smart people that neither Bush nor Kerry could even touch in virtually every significant category, and yet these are the guys who rise to the top. That's not the sign of a meritocracy. It's not that merit has nothing to do with success in America, it does, but it's only one factor, and unfortunately not the biggest or most important factor. That's one of the liabilities of the free market system. You can't stop parents from conferring huge advantages on their children, such that even the mediocre offspring of the well-off will, on average, outperform the smarter and abler offspring of the poor and middle-class. Is that unfair? I guess. Do I have a socialist agenda I'm trying to piggy-back on top of that? Not really. I'm just arguing for some sober realities, and suggesting you not be so idealistic and defensive about your politics. If you really wanted a more meritocratic society, you'd have to favor policies that you probably don't like, and that even I wouldn't like. So let's not pretend that we are trying to create a meritocracy here in America. We aren't. Not seriously, at least. As mentioned, other industrialized nations have a more meritocratic system in place. In Japan, for example, the average pay differential between company CEOs and the average company laborer is about 15-30:1, depending on various factors. In the US, it's skyrocketed to 200-300:1 Could it be that American CEOs are really that much more valuable than Japanese CEOs? Of course not. It's not merit that gets those huge salaries, it's connections and corporate graft. You could also say its “free markets” in CEOs. But is the market in CEOs really free, or is it an example of wealthy people rigging the system to their own benefit? I suspect the latter.

“The meritocracy is still intact - it doesn't matter that some people have it "easier" than others. The free market allows for such possibilities, and allows for strident economic mobility regardless of initial class or wealth.”

That is the issue. First, do we have a meritocracy? Second, do we have a truly free market based on individual merit? Third, how much mobility does our market really have? You keep arguing the ideals of the system, but you don't address the realities. Sure, in a truly free market everyone would rise or fall based on merit and occupy a place in society commensurate with their merit. Is that the way America actually is? To what degree is it true? To what degree is it false. Clearly, America allows class mobility, such that exceptional individuals from any class can conceivably rise to the top, and some do. But what about overall class mobility? Is it really true that people will simply rise or fall to their proper station in life based on merit? No. There's movement, clearly, but there's also a lot of inertia and friction. What is the source of that inertia and friction? I think that's a question worth considering. You seem to regard it as an heretical question, it's so un-PC to even bring up the existence of class in America, as if class was invented by Marx and produced by Stalin, as if anyone even bringing up the existence of class in this country was necessarily an anti-American leftist. Rather than argue about class advantages, you simply bring up the old Horatio Alger myth, as if that's how life in America works. Does it really work that way? To a degree it does, but to a larger degree it doesn't.

3) "I never said that anyone NEEDS rich parents to succeed, only that statistically it confers a huge advantage."
“Really? AND.....?”

Yes, and...? You assume a leftist agenda follows the “and...”? Why? If we can accept that wealth confers a huge advantage, why assume that requires a “leftist” agenda? Aren't you just being absurdly defensive? If you want a meritocracy, yes, it does imply a policy change of some kind to transform America into a true meritocracy, rather than simply a mythic one that the wealthy classes use to pretend we have no class system here. But I'm not sure what that policy change would be? Do you? You say that free markets are the answer, but if we don't have a meritocracy, how can you say we truly do have free markets?Wouldn't a truly free market produce a meritocracy? Or would it produce an aristocracy? What we have is something in between the two.

“When, exactly, does one family cease to be "poor" and start being "rich?" What is the number? 50k per year?”

It really doesn't matter, statistically, as long as you create income groups with some consistency.

“Some people make 49k per year. Are they (or their offspring) poor, and therefore at a greater disadvantage than the person who makes 50k? “

Obviously not. Using statistical groupings is a way to discern overall trends, not to define individuals.

“You have not shown a convincing causation between "rich" success and the proportional success of "other income brackets besides 'the rich.'"

I'm not trying to establish a causation, only a correlation. Again, you simply don't understand how to use statistics. Establishing the causes for the success of the rich isn't too hard to imagine. Partly merit, partly many other factors. What's not so pretty to understand is why the rich as a class remain a class, and why classes themselves persist at all levels through many generations, in spite of intermigration.

“Rich people have it easier in any country in the world (ask Saddam Hussein before he met our military), not just here. Nobody is denying that the "rich" have an easier time. So what? That is the result of a free market economy (operative word being "free," as in freedom).”

But it's not a result of the free market. It's the result of unfree markets. It's called aristocracy. Saddam is just a modern example of how people used to always get rich. Unscrupulous treachery and monopolizing of power and economic opportunity. The American Dream of toppling the aristocracy and replacing it with a free market meritocracy that stops people from monopolizing wealth and power for themselves and their own family, group, race, etc., and allows anyone to rise and fall based on their real merits is still a dream, not a realized fact. It's more real than it once was, but it's still far from being the way things are here. I use the example of GWB because its so illustrative. You ask why GWB and not Ford or Reagan's sons. Well, narrowly, the answer is because Bush pere and grandpere had a dream of creating a family aristocracy, and they raised their kids with that goal in mind. Same with Kennedy pere. It's not that their kids had more merit than millions of other kids, but they had parents who wanted to use their advantages to create a dynasty. Why GWB and not the other two? That's the wrong question. The real question is why GWB and not the millions of other smarter and better qualified people in this country? It's not as if GWB's ability to outcompete his two other brothers for the job is enough to explain his success. The question is why that's the talent pool we have to pick our Presidents from.

“People are not required to equalize anything here. This includes chances for success in chosen endeavours. No? Tell me where I'm wrong.” I've never even hinted that I disagree with that. I simply state that the outcome of that is not a meritocracy, since the advantages of wealth and family, connections, etc., manipulation of the marker to favor the advantaged mediocrities rather than the disadvantaged individuals of merit.

3) Immigrants “"Their own exceptionalism?" Isn't that a little racist to lump people into a group by their origin from a different place in the world than America?”

You're saying it's racist to look at Cuban immigrants as a different group of people than Chinese immigrants? Exactly how much interaction is there between the two groups, how much intermarriage, etc.? They are real groups of people from entirely different backgrounds, you moron!

“You mean their willingness as a cultural and socio-economic group to work their asses off, save money, pass wealth onto future generations, foster competition, etc.? What does any of than have to do with "race?" I'd say it has more to do with culture and tradition, which are not exclusively tied to race.

I never said it had to do with their race. It certainly has to do with culture and background, which is tied to race not causally, but circumstantially. More importantly, what I am arguing is that immmigrants into America from ANY country are exceptional in many respects, even genetically. There's been some interesting genetic studies done on human population movements, and some researchers have pointed to the existence of an “imbalance” in the gene pool, in that some people in every population have a genetic variance that favors risk-taking, adventurism, etreprenurialism, and that these people are most likely to take the risk of immigrating to a new country such as America. So these researchers are suggesting that Americans in general have a genetic inclination towards risk-taking, which certainly fits in with our entrepreneurial skills and our adventurous national “character”. What this means is that the immigrants we receive from other countries tend to be those who are the most adventurous and industrious, inclined towards entrepreneurship, and thus best suited for success in a country like America. I consider this a positive thing. It doesn't mean that “Asians” are more undustrious than other people, but that Asian immigrants to America are more industrious risk-takers than their fellow countrymen who didn't immigrate. And this is accentuated by the immigration requirements imposed by the US.

“Not coincidentally, the success of many Asian families and individuals in this country is related to their adherence to American cultural norms like hard work, capitalism, education, perseverence, freedom to acheive, etc.”

Yes, exactly. You neglect to note that these people were attracted to America because they saw it as a place where their specific talents would flower. Other Asians who may not have had these qualities to the same degree, were not attracted to America and did not immigrate. So America tends to attract immigrants who are most like America itself. Not surprising, really.

“Eugenics is so 1940's. Race is a socal construction anyway, right?”

Any other silly comparisons you'd like to make to prove your idiocy?

Posted by: Conrad | June 05, 2006 at 05:09 PM