Disgusting Democratic Partisanship in Ohio

Reader Comments
Back to blog

Lakerg of TX hit the nail on the head!
I began to learn to think critically in my late twenties and, by my early thirties, it ended up causing me to make a 180-degree change in my political thinking.
Today too much of what I hear during campaigns is pure soundbite-sized hokum and meaningless platitudes presented for people who have never learned to think critically. What's unfortunately missing is well-reasoned, clear arguments such as Lakerg puts forth.
About two years ago, I had heard that Newt Gingrich and his friend from the other side of the political aisle, former NY governor Mario Cuomo, were going to go on a sort of "Ideas Roundable" tour if it turned out that this election was not about ideas. I'm disappointed that this did not happen. Few big ideas are being discussed in this election. Instead, it's about who is who's friends and what kind of accent or wardrobe someone has. How about a frank discussion of "redistribution" and it's pros and cons? Or about what the role of government should be in our society. These topics would actually be helpful to America.
It seems to me that more and more American people, including many who are well educated, have very little conception of the basic principles behind either the conservative or liberal point of view. Instead of knowing the facts, theories, and historical precedents behind what each side believes, all most of us get is dumbed-down catch phrases.
Why not let each political side re-explain to America every four years what its belief system is all about, and then let Americans decide for themselves which party's belief system is closer to their own? That would make for a really intersting and educational campaign season!

Critical of FL 3:47PM October 30, 2008

Please, Mr. Lerner, don't let the cat out of the bag! You wrote, "Democrats believe in progressive taxation. We believe the rich, who have benefitted more from the structure society provides owe a greater debt to society. The wealthy benefit more from an educated workforce. They benefit more from our highway infrastructure, the security provided by our police and military. It is common sense that they should pay more, yet in the case of Social Security and other payroll taxation they actually pay less."
Mr. Lerner, you are providing the thinking behind Obama's recent "spreading the wealth" comment to the plumber. This election is not supposed to be about ideas. The mantra is: Times are bad. We need Change. Obama = Change.
The truth is that taxation is always progressive. If I make $50K and owe 15% in federal taxes, then I owe $7,500. If I make $150K and still paid only 15%, then I would owe $22,500 in taxes. Now, if a politician of either party cut the amount I owe in taxes by 10%, I'd save $750 a year if I make $50K, but a whole $2,250 a year if I make $150K. That's what we're supposed be believe is called "tax cuts for the rich" even though it's the same cut.
Now, if you argue that making $150K means you ought to pay-up more, because it's your patriotic duty as Biden believes, that's another story. It seems to presume that those who make more are somehow scamming the system and deserve to get knocked down a peg. I'm sure there are scam artists at nearly every income level, but it's not fair to brand everyone who has studied hard, worked hard, or even gotten lucky in order to earn a great income with the same label.
The conservative principle is that wealth isn't some finite-sized pie, where if one person gets a bigger slice of the pie it means another person must get stuck with a smaller slice of the pie. The pie can and should GROW bigger. But, again, that's an idea that I haven't heard expressed at all in this campaign, by either side.
I also don't quite follow your argument about how the wealthy benefit more from our highway system, or police or military protection. It seems that a highway is equally useful to me whether I drive a Bentley or a Chevy. It also seems that, if the police are unable to help me when I'm robbed and shot by a mugger, it won't matter much whether I have $10 or $1,000 in my wallet at the time it happens. If you mean that police protection is more useful to rich people because being rich makes one a target of criminals in a way that being poor does not, then you haven't seen many crime statistics. I agree that, in theory, a criminal would be more likely to prey upon the rich. But it just doesn't seem to be that way in practice.

Doubting Thomas of IN 3:19PM October 30, 2008

They're lying to you, Mr. Dede...
For decades, we've all been hearing how electing Republicans will mean that social security and/or medicare will be reduced or even eliminated. And yet, it's never happened. The truth is, any candidate from either party who seriously proposed cutting Soc. Sec. or Medicare would be committing political suicide.
As for investing in the stock market, I wish I had enough savings outside of social security to put something there now. Over the long-haul, including the Depression, the stock market has always risen about 7-10% over and above inflation. Right now, with the market tanking, it represents a good buying opportunity for those who have some extra $ to invest.
I read an really interesting quote from some investment person who said, "When the grocery stores runs a sale with 50% off toilet paper, people run out and buy extra toilet paper. But when Wall Street has a fire sale on stocks, people can't run away fast enough."

Not Scared of 2:53PM October 30, 2008

"am worried Mccain will tke our social security & invest it in stock mkt & Wall st."
What on earth would make you worry about that? You must have fallen prey to some extremely dishonest propaganda.
Nobody has proposed "taking" anybody's SS, except in Argentina. Republicans have proposed allowing workers who are so inclined to invest up to 2% of their SS contributions in the market. The worst anybody could even mathematically do is end up with only 98% of their previous benefit, and that's if the broader market goes to zero, which is obviously impossible.
I'd advise you not to accept partisan propaganda uncritically. If you heard that McCain wanted to take your SS and invest it in the market that should have immediately clued you in that whoever is telling you that is lying. Learn to think critically, it will help you sort through the noise.

lakerg of TX 2:15PM October 30, 2008

Social Security is an insurance program. It is designed to make sure that our elderly and disabled do not fall through the cracks of society and become unable to support themselves. Thinking about Social Security as it were a bank account or investment is absolutely wrong. I can only imagine how terrible it would have been had Social Security been in privatized investments through this econimic crisis.
It is understandable why Republicans have had such little traction in attacking Social Security. The elderly trend Republican, but they also enjoy their Social Security benefits.
The government has been raiding the Social Security fund since Nixon created the unified budget, and since Reagan reduced income taxes and increased payroll taxes (a form of flat tax on the poor because payroll taxes are capped at a dollar amount) the tax burden on the poor and middle class has increased.
Compare the person who makes their income off of dividends and capital gains who are taxed at 15% and lower with the middle class who pay 7% to payroll taxes (14% if they are self employed) as well as their income taxation which caps at 35%
It is very possible for someone who earns millions a year to be taxed at a lower rate than someone who makes $80,000 a year. (A person who earns millions only pays payroll taxes on their first $100,000 of income making the payroll taxes a much smaller percentage of their income).
I wonder.... who talks about taxation as a percentage of disposable income? Shouldnt we factor in necessity to taxation? Democrats believe in progressive taxation. We believe the rich, who have benefitted more from the structure society provides owe a greater debt to society. The wealthy benefit more from an educated workforce. They benefit more from our highway infrastructure, the security provided by our police and military. It is common sense that they should pay more, yet in the case of Social Security and other payroll taxation they actually pay less.
Want to fix Social Security? Remove the cap on taxation and it is fixed. Want to be sure? Leave Iraq so we can balance the budget again (Like it was before Bush Jr. took office).

David Lerner of WA 9:31AM October 29, 2008

It isn't hard to understand the Democratic view of veterans. Democrats unlike Republicans do not conflate support for the troops with support for the war. Democrats do not conflate the war on terrorism with the war in Iraq. We Democrats also tend to address the whole truth of arguments rather than dropping what is inconvenient.
I cannot speak for the actions reported about Mandel's opponent. All I have is the one side of the story. The rest of your post though sets up a straw man argument and even then attacks it poorly.
The war in Iraq is partisan. A Republican majority joined some Democrats who voted on an Authorization to use force that was based on doctored and cherry picked intelligence reports. Look at all the defeated amendments proposed by Democrats attempting to reign in the broad authorization to a more specific cause. Amendments designed to ensure Iraq did indeed pose an imminent threat before force was used which it turns out did not.
The Iraq war authorization (AUMF) required Bush to write a letter to congress affirming that this use of force was tied to pursuing those who attacked us on September 11th. Bush writes in this letter
"I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001"
Bush had no solid evidence supporting this conclusion, this was written into his letter to congress to comply with the law, however this was a deception.
Moving on to honor of military service. Did you speak up when Republicans mocked Kerry's purple heart? When the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" slandered his name without evidence? When Republicans viciously attacked Max Cleland? Did you condemn Jean Schmidt when she called Jack Murtha a coward? I will rebuke the actions reported of Mandel's opponent if they are true, because I like many Democrats honor military service. There are indeed more members of congress who have military backgrounds who are Democrats than Republicans.
Perhaps this is why Democrats sponsored and passed a renewed GI Bill while McCain voted against it. McCain argues that added benefits should be reserved for those who re-enlist rather than fulfilling their obligations and leaving. Democrats who passed the bill believe that those who risk their lives for their country deserve more regardless.
You conclude: "These people want the United States to prevail only if there is a Democratic president and take delight in American defeat if the president is a Republican. I've seldom seen such a disgusting display of partisanship over country."
I too see a disgusting display of partisanship, however it's in your blog post not in any Democrats I know.

David Lerner of WA 9:12AM October 29, 2008

Reputlican partisanship is equally as disgusting as Democrat partisanship. Neither party has a lock on disgusting partisanship.
So, describing one party's disgusting partisanship does not deny the other party's disgusting partisanship.
Fair and balanced means there's nobody else involved in Washington politics than the disgusting Republicans and the disgusting Democrats. There is only one so-called "independent" and he's both.

HillbillyBill of TN 8:51AM October 29, 2008

So, Mr. Barone, why did you lose your place among the regulars on the McLaughlin Group? My sources tell me that John McLaughlin didn't want you on the program after you called the Clintons "trash". It was one thing when you jumped on the bandwagon with the accusers who falsely claimed that the White House was looted following Al Gore's loss in 2000, but personally slandering the President and First Lady was outrageous and (apparently) unforgivable. After all these years one would think John would invite you back on his program; however, I never miss it, and I've never once seen you there since you made those very uncharitable and un-Christian statements. Perhaps it's because you were never willing to apologize to Hillary or Bill Clinton.

kokuaguy of HI 5:08AM October 29, 2008

So, Mr. Barone, why did you lose your place among the regulars on the McLaughlin Group? My sources tell me that John McLaughlin didn't want you on the program after you called the Clintons "trash". It was one thing when you jumped on the bandwagon with the accusers who falsely claimed that the White House was looted following Al Gore's loss in 2000, but personally slandering the President and First Lady was outrageous and (apparently) unforgivable. After all these years one would think John would invite you back on his program; however, I never miss it, and I've never once seen you there since you made those very uncharitable and un-Christian statements. Perhaps it's because you were never willing to apologize to Hillary or Bill Clinton.

Kokuaguy of HI 5:00AM October 29, 2008

Mr. Barone,
Thanks again for stopping by the University of Toledo Law School yesterday and taking a photo with me. I can't wait to show my high school history teacher!
This weekend while I was home in Chagrin Falls, I saw a lot of Mandel signs in the same yard as Obama signs. The attacks on Mandel by the Ohio Democratic Party show how low the party is willing to stoop. It must be working, however, as the owners of the homes with Obama and Mandel signs in that area will likely have their taxes raised due to Obama's redistribution policies...

Jay Umerley of OH 12:57AM October 29, 2008