Is a Progressive Tax System Really the Answer to Reducing Wealth Inequality?

  • News
  • Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation touches on the presidential campaigns of John Kerry and George Bush. Kerry was initially leading in polls but faced criticism for his war record and lack of action as a senator. Meanwhile, Bush's campaign has been well-run but not top-notch. The conversation also discusses the strategies used by Democrats and Republicans, with Democrats appealing to intellect and Republicans appealing to emotions. Overall, it is suggested that the Republicans' success can be attributed to Kerry's incompetence and the Democrats' failure to change their approach.
  • #1
wasteofo2
478
2
In the public eye:

Before the Democratic Convention, John Kerry had marginal leads in national polls, and was leading most states that really could go either way. He was a war hero, he got shot up in Vietnam, came back, protested the war because it was being fought horribly, and fought for tons of stuff for the veterans in front of the Senate. Now, thanks to some republicans handi-work, John Kerry lied and cheated to get his medals, was never even shot at, much less actually hit by a bullet, came home, fought against the troops and veterans.

Before a week ago, George Bush got into the national guard on favors from his dad and his friends, was a chicken hawk who supported the war but didn't want to fight, skipped out on even going to the guard, got a sketchy OK to leave. There's even a $50,000 reward for anyone who can personally account for George Bush serving in the guard, and no one had taken it up. Now, George Bush served honorably, got into the guard totally legitimately, did everything he needed to do and passed with flying colors.

All of this, and on top of it, they've managed not to talk about the past 4 years in any more depth than nationalistic rhetoric. Despite recent cencus data showing between 2002 and 2003 1.4 million Americans fell into poverty, 1.3 million lost health-care, despite Bush being the first president since the Great depression to loose jobs in a term in office, the Republicans have convinced an astounding number of people that the economy is the best we've ever had in our lives.

God, they're so good at...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Getting a bounce from your convention is to be expected, so I wouldn't say there was anything special about Dubya's performance at the RNC. The corollary to that though, is that the lack of a bounce for Kerry from the DNC points to some major incompetence on his/his campaign's part.
 
  • #3
I don't think it's the intelligence of Bush, but rather the stupidity of Kerry. He simply has ran a lousy campaign. But it ain't over until the fat lady sings.
 
  • #4
JohnDubYa said:
I don't think it's the intelligence of Bush, but rather the stupidity of Kerry. He simply has ran a lousy campaign. But it ain't over until the fat lady sings.

I would agree on this.
Dubya's campaign has been run well, but by no means top notch. Kerrys has been a complete failure. I can't figure out WHY they continue hiring the people they do?! Shrum has a 0-7 losing streaking for campaigns. Why would you hire such a guy to run your's?! :rofl: :confused:
 
  • #5
russ_watters said:
Getting a bounce from your convention is to be expected, so I wouldn't say there was anything special about Dubya's performance at the RNC. The corollary to that though, is that the lack of a bounce for Kerry from the DNC points to some major incompetence on his/his campaign's part.
I wasn't talking about their conventions, but their ad campaigns, stump speeches, general lies/deceptions. They're double plus good duck-speakers, that's for sure.
 
  • #6
I wasn't talking about their conventions, but their ad campaigns, stump speeches, general lies/deceptions. They're double plus good duck-speakers, that's for sure.

Damn fine policticians they are! :biggrin:
 
  • #7
That's okay. Someday Kerry will discover his true talents too.
 
  • #8
The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started.
 
  • #9
Gokul43201 said:
The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started.
You've got to be kidding me.
You should be a campaign or whitehouse spokesperson, for it seems those guys get off on telling you something that you KNOW is false. The thing is, they know it's false too, but they will sit there and just say it.
I remember Ari Fleisher(sp?) once responded to questions about aid to nations that helped with Iraq with "Are you hearing yourself? What you are saying is that other nations can simply be bought off, and we know that just isn't the case!" This was met with a subtle laughter from the press corp. ahhaha.

Anyways, you want to talk emotions?

Democrats:
Class warfare
Class warfare
Class warfare
Europe doesn't like us
Muslims don't like us
AD NAUSEUM
 
  • #10
Kerry's latest campaign strategy? The assault weapons ban! 3 days now of chastising Bush on it. Pssssttt, Kerry! Iraq, Security, and all at once now deficitjobseconomy. I can't believe he chose a campaign manager that has a record of 0-7

But noooo, focus on how terrorists are going to suddenly buy the legal post 1994 AK-47, when they wouldn't be willing to get the pre-1994 ak-47 before! Wooh! Not to mention the losing strategy of blaming Bush for it, since he says he supports it and will resign it if congress will bring it up.
 
  • #11
Honestly the Republicans didn't need any great campaign strategy other then to let Kerry and terry stab themselves in the foot repeatedly. It was obvious from very early on that as long as Kerry didn't have to speak and Terry was behind the curtain (so to speak) his polls remained high. Every time Kerry came out and started speaking and allowing the press to question him his numbers dropped.
The only reason he showed any convention bounce at all (minimal that it was) is that the the polsters re-weighted their polls, which showed a false bounce. When using the same poll weighting he actually had a negative bounce.
I'm afraid the Repubs can't really take too much credit, other then knowing when to keep their mouths shut.
 
  • #12
Gokul43201 said:
The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started.

OK - if the democrats are the 'undercover' smart ones – i.e. if their craniums are bigger – they simply change the play to intellect blueprint and, instead, use the proven 'play to your emotions' cource of action. Why on Earth do these smart guys continue to employ a strategy they know doesn't work? Maybe I'm too emotional to figure this one out, but truly, if your statement is true this has me stumped. I mean, they could use their big heads to figure the proper mix- you know split it up, 25% intellect, 75% emotion – or a more powerful 15% / 85% mix – just whatever works best. Put Gore on it – he's Kerry’s dirty little s^$+ dog, he’ll get it done -
 
  • #13
In the meantime, Kerry's getting no press time. Is he still running for President?
 
  • #14
Gokul43201 said:
The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started.

This is really Kerry's weakness - facts and logic are boring. Lies and double-talk win the day. It is difficult to compete with those willing to take the lowest road.

I think Kerry should focus on the real cost of the war and Bush's idiotic refusal to build a true coalition. We are going to pay, and pay, and pay and pay... I doubt if the real cost of the Iraq war will be known for a couple of decades but an extrapolation seems possible. Also, this war undermines national security. I think Kerry should focus on this as well. We see our forces spread too thin and soldiers overtaxed and hyper-extended. Iraq is breaking down and now civil war seems imminent; and we are stuck. This should have been everyones problem but Bush just had to play cowboy. So now it all hangs around our necks like a lead weight and empties our pockets like a thief. In short, GW gave away the farm - a real genius.
 
  • #15
Oh yes, then we still have the real problem of terrorism. Almost forgot...
 
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
This is really Kerry's weakness - facts and logic are boring. Lies and double-talk win the day. It is difficult to compete with those willing to take the lowest road.
Actually Kerry's problem is his double talk.

I think Kerry should focus on the real cost of the war .
Kerry can't afford to focus too much on the war. His supporters do not agree on how he should approach it and no matter which way he flies on the subject he risks allienating a large percentage of his supporters.
 
  • #17
kat said:
Actually Kerry's problem is his double talk.

This is an example of what I mean. Republicans choose to ignore the specific details of each vote. Kerry's so called waffling is really a matter of making different decisions about different proposals. To lump them all together is a typical lowest road tactic. But, people fall for it. It makes things easy.

Kerry can't afford to focus too much on the war. His supporters do not agree on how he should approach it and no matter which way he flies on the subject he risks allienating a large percentage of his supporters.

Well obviously I should be his campaign manager. :biggrin:
 
  • #18
phatmonky said:
You've got to be kidding me.
You should be a campaign or whitehouse spokesperson, for it seems those guys get off on telling you something that you KNOW is false. The thing is, they know it's false too, but they will sit there and just say it.
I remember Ari Fleisher(sp?) once responded to questions about aid to nations that helped with Iraq with "Are you hearing yourself? What you are saying is that other nations can simply be bought off, and we know that just isn't the case!" This was met with a subtle laughter from the press corp. ahhaha.

Anyways, you want to talk emotions?

Democrats:
Class warfare
Class warfare
Class warfare
Europe doesn't like us
Muslims don't like us
AD NAUSEUM
It's not just liberal class warfare to those on the loosing side. You do realize there are an immense amount of people who are very poor, right? From 2002 to 2003, 1.4 Americans fell into poverty. And yet, when any democrat points it out, you republicans just dismiss it as "Class Warfare", and thus invalidate it, as if people being poor isn't a problem at all.

You've got a point about Democrats playing on the emotions of people by pointing out that Europe and Muslims don't like us though. I mean, afterall, it's not that Muslims not liking us has ever been detrimental to us in the past, right? And nearly all of our traditional, powerful allies hating us and not alligning with us in our causes anymore, leaving us to go fight wars nearly alone and pay for it all, is no problem either, we can do it alone just fine. Fighting in Iraq alone is great, it's not like paying for it has hurt us economically, and hardly anyone's even died there, it seems to all be going real well on our own.
 
  • #19
The Republicans are campaigning geniuses. I don't think the presidency has ever changed parties with as strong an economy as we had in 2000. Four years later, the economy and Iraq are going badly enough to ensure defeat for anyone occupying the White House. Sure defeat in both elections and Bush narrowly squeaked out a win in 2000 and is still leading in 2004.

Additional comment: Are Bush supporters voting for Bush or for Rove?

Do most people's favorite beer coincide with their favorite beer?
 
Last edited:
  • #20
wasteofo2 said:
It's not just liberal class warfare to those on the loosing side. You do realize there are an immense amount of people who are very poor, right? From 2002 to 2003, 1.4 Americans fell into poverty. And yet, when any democrat points it out, you republicans just dismiss it as "Class Warfare", and thus invalidate it, as if people being poor isn't a problem at all.

not wasting time with sarcasm.

Rich people didn't MAKE poor people poor. Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money :rolleyes: The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

Look, let me put in terms that are easier to understand.
Imagine the US, with the largest percentage of the world's wealth for any single country, going to African nations and saying "Those rich guys, they are making all the money while you suffer. I'm here to help you fight them." How do you think that would go over? I have a feeling some smart Africans would realize "hey, the person telling me this IS the person they are demonizing".
John Kerry is not working class. He likes to act as if he is thought. If he just said "I've been very fortunate, and I want to use my power for the good of those who haven't been as fortunate", then I'd have no complaints. Even Bill CLinton had the balls to say "Bush wants to give the tax cuts to people like ME. I'm the one who will be benefiting from this, I don't need it". Kerry still refers to the rich as if he weren't part of them.
 
  • #21
BobG said:
The Republicans are campaigning geniuses. I don't think the presidency has ever changed parties with as strong an economy as we had in 2000. Four years later, the economy and Iraq are going badly enough to ensure defeat for anyone occupying the White House. Sure defeat in both elections and Bush narrowly squeaked out a win in 2000 and is still leading in 2004.
As has been stated - if the dems had a single good contender, or even played Kerry's campaign right, they would win. Bush is mediocre, and while the Republican machine is well tuned, Bush is a liability that could be taken advantage of.
Too bad Kerry's campaign, or what's left of it, is just floundering now
 
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
This is an example of what I mean. Republicans choose to ignore the specific details of each vote. Kerry's so called waffling is really a matter of making different decisions about different proposals. To lump them all together is a typical lowest road tactic. But, people fall for it. It makes things easy.
Ehh, except when he publicly fights against a bill, then votes for it. I've heard some great rationales for that, but they all just boil down to 'I have no spine.'
Gokul43201 said:
The Democrats play to your intellect, while the Republicans play to your emotion. It was over before it even started.
That's absurd. I see so many bumper stickers that say "War is not the answer" (we have a thread on this subject), I need to get one that says "Well then what is the answer?" I started a thread asking for real engineering solutions to our energy problems and got an emotional 'people are the problem' response (since deleted). How is that helpful?

No, recently (well, as long as I can remember), the democratic party has been mostly about emotional responses to problems without ever giving real solutions.

There is an old saying that if you're not a democrat at 18, you have no heart and if you're not a republican by 28, you have no brain. Its not far off. I see the democrats as the party of pessimistic idealism and the republicans the party of optomistic realism. That's the reason democrats protest more than republicans - its easier to complain about problems than it is to propose solutions.
This is really Kerry's weakness - facts and logic are boring. Lies and double-talk win the day. It is difficult to compete with those willing to take the lowest road.
Facts and logic? How is "Reporting for duty!" at all about facts and logic? He was trying to play up an emotional angle to help the perception that he's weak on defense and he miscalculated on it.

Regarding campaign strategy, Clinton was right: "its the economy, stupid!" Kerry's best chance was to focus on the economy and convince people its not as good as it should be (it isn't). His second point should be specific solutions to security issues, which he can do without mentioning Vietnam (since dodging the draft didn't hurt Clinton, it should be clear to Kerry 'Nam isn't important enough to bring up in a campaign, much less make your centerpiece). Propose a plan for restructuring the FBI and CIA. Propose a plan to modernize the military. Propose a plan to refocus the war on terrorism.
wasteofo2 said:
It's not just liberal class warfare to those on the loosing side. You do realize there are an immense amount of people who are very poor, right? From 2002 to 2003, 1.4 Americans fell into poverty.
The problem with 1 year statistics, wasteofo2, is that there is an economic cycle that typically last 5-10 years and thus 1 year stats don't mean a whole lot. But as I indicated above, Kerry should be playing that up and he isn't. Its flawed economics, but its emotional content can sway a lot of voters.

edit: that last part may seem a contradiction. Let me explain. While I want real plans, real goals, and real solutions, I'm not blind to the fact that emotion is what sways a large percentage of the voters. So what I want as an individual voter is not the same as what I'd do if I were Kerry's campaign manager.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
russ_watters

Great Post!
 
  • #24
the neo-cons are better and bigger LIERS
their use of the BIG LIE [swiftboat flip flop ect] is the big story
when it should be all about BuSh2's poor record on jobs and lies about the war
 
  • #25
Okay, my previous post was clearly an over-generalization (and I meant it not too seroiously), but I do believe there's a kernel of truth to it, especially concerning Al Gore's approach in 2000. He was repeatedly shooting himself in the feet by trying to rationalize this and that. Now, of course, he seems to have lost that habit.
 
  • #26
phatmonky said:
Rich people didn't MAKE poor people poor. Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money :rolleyes: The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

Look, let me put in terms that are easier to understand.
Imagine the US, with the largest percentage of the world's wealth for any single country, going to African nations and saying "Those rich guys, they are making all the money while you suffer. I'm here to help you fight them." How do you think that would go over? I have a feeling some smart Africans would realize "hey, the person telling me this IS the person they are demonizing".
John Kerry is not working class. He likes to act as if he is thought. If he just said "I've been very fortunate, and I want to use my power for the good of those who haven't been as fortunate", then I'd have no complaints. Even Bill CLinton had the balls to say "Bush wants to give the tax cuts to people like ME. I'm the one who will be benefiting from this, I don't need it". Kerry still refers to the rich as if he weren't part of them.
Ok, Kerry is rich, does that mean he's incapable of helping poor people? I get your point about his argument being somewhat phony by not admitting he's filthy rich, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wants to help poor people out.

I think if a bunch of Americans went to Africa and said to the poor people all over that the reason they were so poor was because greedy African politicians/buisnessmen were siphoning off all the money for themselves, and that the Americans would help the Africans fight these greedy people, that the African's would not take a principal stand and reject American help, even though Americans are rich.

Since you didn't feel like wasting your time with my sarcasm, let me put it in terms that are easier to understand.

It IS a problem that Muslims and our Allies don't like us. Because Muslims don't like us, 9/11, and tons of other terrorist attacks have happened, Muslims not liking us is the whole reason we're in a war on terrorism. Saying Muslims not liking us is a problem isn't just playing on people's emotions, it's diagnosing a huge problem. It's also a problem that Europe doesn't like us. While Republicans like to totally dismiss Europe as having any importance, our most powerful allies are in Europe. If Europeans liked us more, they would have been more likely to allign with us against Iraq. If the European nations liked us more, we wouldn't have had so many American troops in Iraq, and we wouldn't have spent so much American money on Iraq. Iraq would be less a mess in general because we'd have more troops as a whole, being able to better secure the country.
 
  • #27
phatmonky said:
Kerry was on TV last night talking about how Executives keep making more and more money :rolleyes: The guy, via his wife, is worth a LOT more than most executives.

This is a pointless point. :grumpy:

So, no rich person dare talk about economic reform ?? :devil:
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
This is a pointless point. :grumpy:

So, no rich person dare talk about economic reform ?? :devil:
No, no rich person should demonize others for making money.
 
  • #29
phatmonky said:
No, no rich person should demonize others for making money.
Kerry wasn't saying rich people are the problem, he was saying that Executives, who pretty much get to decide their own salary, are getting more and more money, which takes away from profit the company makes and money their employees could earn.
 
  • #30
Kerry's stance on rich versus poor is just the cliche that is always trotted out during election years.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

"The gap between the rich and the poor is widening."

"America's middle class is vanishing."

"The rich aren't paying their fair share."

These slogans have been repeated by Democrats so many times over the past forty years that I don't even think they bother to parse the meanings. Democrats just say it, and the crowd claps.
 
  • #31
wasteofo2 said:
Kerry wasn't saying rich people are the problem, he was saying that Executives, who pretty much get to decide their own salary, are getting more and more money, which takes away from profit the company makes and money their employees could earn.
Executives are paid what the market will bare. They do NOT decide their own salary, the corporations board does. A companies internal parate is created by that company, and with the exception of minimum wage, are not dictated by the government.
As such, Kerry is no position to demonize them because he can't/won't/shouldn't add any legislation that will affect the salaries of the CEO's.
If the CEO's performance isn't worth the price, the board will vote them out, and they are fired.
Kerry's pathetic demonizing of those that are making millions in a recession is immoral and disgusting. It's just one of the many things that it actually stopping me from voting for him just outright. He's still on the plate, but I'm happy to be critical of him and his hyporcisy.

Atleast Bush made the "The call you the have's and the have more's...I call you my base" :rofl: Partially true, but atleast he doesn't act as if he's not one of the same a la Kerry and his workman's jacket.
 
  • #32
JohnDubYa said:
Kerry's stance on rich versus poor is just the cliche that is always trotted out during election years.

"The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer."

"The gap between the rich and the poor is widening."

"America's middle class is vanishing."

...

It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau
 
  • #33
Gokul43201 said:
It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau

Can you tell me where the income of the top 20 percent of americans begins at?
 
  • #34
About $88,000, and the bottom 20 percent ends at (ie : the 20 percentile income) a little below $18,000
 
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
It may be cliche', but that doesn't make it untrue, or irrelevant :

The wealthiest 20 percent of households in 1973 accounted for 44 percent of total U.S. income. Their share jumped to 50 percent in 2002. For the bottom fifth, the share dropped from 4.2 percent to 3.5 percent.

Source : US Census Bureau
But that only addresses one of the cliche's (the second). The first cliche' is, in fact, false. The third is a product of the second and is largely irrelevant, since the middle class is getting smaller because people are moving up and out of it.

I also read a pretty compelling criticism of the use of "hoseholds" in income stats: It gives the false impression that the bottom 20% of "households" is the bottom 20% of the population. It isn't. I'm single and I'm a household. A family of 4 is also a household. Households toward the bottom are generally smaller than households at the top, so that bottom 20% of households is actually significantly less than 20% of the population while the top 20% of households is significantly more.
Ok, Kerry is rich, does that mean he's incapable of helping poor people? I get your point about his argument being somewhat phony by not admitting he's filthy rich, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wants to help poor people out.
Kerry is a politician and Bush is a politician. Politicians, first and foremost, are interested in votes (yes, I really am this cynical). Kerry isn't necessarily interested in helping the poor, he's interested in getting the poor to vote for him. To that end, its not solutions that Kerry wants (if the poor people become rich, he loses that voter base), but its complaining about problems without fixing them.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
12K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
932
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top