Nice.

I'm not sure I completely agree with number 9 (I think that too much of the dialog today lacks historical perspective), but I need to consider it a bit more. I wildly agree with 10--inasmuch as I think the biggest danger to the system is apathy and that apathy is fueled by cynicism and laziness.

And I'd hate to know what the breakdown is between people who think I'm a principled soul and people who think I'm a rigid ideologue.

Very nicely done.

Most voters are far smarter, more sophisticated, and full of common sense than many people want to give them credit for.

I dunno about that...

"Two-thirds of voters — including two-thirds of Democrats — were unable to name any of the Democratic candidates for president, said the CBS News poll out Sunday."

Yeah, I know it's early yet...but jeez.

I agree with Dave. I read once that 2/3 of Americans don't know how many stars there are on the American Flag or how many states there are. Their best guess is 52. Further, they don't know the relationship between the number of stars on the flag and the number of states--or even that there IS a relationship.

I'm afraid people often vote for reasons unexplainable--such as a good looking man, etc.

I'm ready (and would be happy) to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see it the way you do.

What? I get the very distinct feeling that I have missed something.

Why on Earth should the average voter have clue one who any of the Democratic candidates are? A perversion of our current system--wrought primarily by the campaign finance "reforms" that have done so much to straitjacket candidates and destroy the possibility for mavericks and unknowns to credibly get into the field--is that anyone is running for President at all right now.

The time you should give a damn about the candidates is a few weeks before the primaries happen in your state. Then you look at the candidates, their literature, and what's in the paper, and go vote for one of them--if you're a registered partisan, or in a state that allows voters to have a say in selecting candidates (unlike Michigan Democrats, for example).

Other than political junkies, who watch politics like most men watch sports, why would a sane person keep track of such things?

Similarly, why would knowing all the state capitals or how many stars are on the flag correlate to your sense of the honesty and integrity of a candidate, or whether or not he was talking horse sense to you?

Our system of government forces moderation. I like that about it, even when I have issues I am not at all moderate on.

Good thoughts. You're swimming magnificently upstream against lots and lots of conventional wisdom. Have to agree with others, though, that you missed number eight - at least as regards what I think you MEANT to say - that voters vote wisely and intelligently. The average voter, American etc. is probably smarter than he/she is given credit for, but politicians of the last half century have perfected the tactic of appealing subtly to emotions. Everybody snickered about Bubba biting his lip and wiping away an imaginary tear, but I damn well guarantee you that a bunch of intelligent, otherwise hard headed Republican women went in the booth and pulled the "big big D" lever.

Now if you want an unconventional thought, how about deep sixing all this baloney about how everybody should vote. Bullsh*t! The fewer that choose to vote the better. If you are smart enough to want to vote, smart enough to have figured out who to vote for, and have enough gumption to get off your butt and go vote, its probably good that you do. However, if you are voting because of some sort of touchy/feely sense of belonging or because your minister, local political boss, mom or dad or whoever tells you to, or someone pays you to (God forbid!) then we would be better off w/o your input. Think of it as electoral Darwinism.

To Mrs. du Toit: Remember, only about 50% of Americans actually vote, My guess is that most of those clueless americans you speak of never vote anyway, which excludes them as a counter to Dean's number 8.

To Dave: Lack of interest is not the same as lack of intelligence. In many ways Dean's no. 10 helps to explain the lack of participation in the process.

To Dean:
My qualifications and comments:
1) Most politicians begin as honest people.
2) absolutely
3) good point - If everything we said was carved in stone, never to be taken back, I bet we'd all talk like politicians
4) Yes, but I think the problem is that politicians promise things they know are out of their control. They fully intend to try but they know, or they should know that somethings are unrteasonable to promise.
5) Right on!
6) here's where I disagree, but my thoughts on it are to convoluted right know to bother wasting your bandwidth.
7) No kidding...
8) Possibly the most important point in the list. Pundits and academics have a real bad habit of looing down their nose at the average voter. Yet, most voters know how to do all sorts of intelligent things that we pundits, scholars, and windbags, could only dream. The fact that we have different levels of interest in learning about the political system doesn't make has more or less intelligent ... just different. I cannot express this enough. To envoke Hayek, smart people shouldn't take their own intelligence too seriously.
9) Yep, the discourse is healthy if you look for it in the right places. I always love it when people complain about the lack of political depth and discussion while reading TIME Magazine.
10) Right on target ... again!

Having parents that are politicians, even if they are Democrats, has given me an inside view of our political system. I agree with with your post.

Mrs. du Toit:

You have to make the distinction between citizens and voters. I agree that many Americans aren't informed, but I believe most voters, at least in my area, are. In order to vote here in the major elections, you have to stand in line for hours. To vote, you need to WANT to vote.

1) Most politicians lie very little as a percentage of the total volume of words they say, but more often per unit time than other non-lawyers citizens.

2) Waffling is not lying, but is slippery. An honest person can almost always convey the nuances of his or her opinion by saying "Yes," "No," or "It depends on the following factors . . . ." if his or her primary mission is to honestly convey his or her true opinion.

3) Being evasive with an answer to a direct question is a sign of a slipperiness made necessary by the fact that any given direct statement has greater potential to alienate voters than to please them. This is a rational response to the workings of the system.

5) Campaign contributions in the modern American system are almost always intended to prevent the free market from functioning in a fair and neutral manner. This applies to both parties.

9) Sound bites and campaign commercials, as a rule, are shallow because the viewing public has demonstrated an unwillingness to wade through the subtle nuances to each side's arguments. Television shows showcasing thoughtful exploration of various political views consistently rate worse than shows geared towards shouted conflict. Political discourse has declined dramatically since the days of Abraham Lincoln, when an entire town might turn out to watch public debates as their primary form of entertainment.

I have no issues with the other opinions.

Campaign contributions in the modern American system are almost always intended to prevent the free market from functioning in a fair and neutral manner.

When I give money to a candidate, it's because I agree with enough of what he or she is saying that I want that candidate to win the election, and I want to help.

I think that's almost always the case. And I think contrary statements constitute a corollary of sorts to Dean's #7, to wit:

The only difference between "corrupting special-interest money" and "principled grass-roots support" seems to be whether you agree with the politician receiving the money or not.

McGehee: and what candidates do you support, for what reasons?

If you're a union member, you most likely want to relieve yourself of the burden of competing against identically-skilled workers overseas.

If you're a CEO, you most likely want special tax breaks for the corporation which you manage.

Very few consumers step forward and contribute to a politician, requesting that he/she ensure that special interests "just get the h**l out of the way and leave me alone." It's not tangible enough to rally around.

In Imaginative Qualities of Actual Things, Gilbert Sorrentino has a great line about politics. He says the problem with journalists is that they lack imagination -- they can't imagine that politicians do things for political reasons.

I found that to be a surprising insight ... that journalists expect politicians to act for philosophical reasons, or business reasons, or this or that priniciple, and condemn politicians for conducting ... politics.

Number 6 is just flat-out wrong. The two-party system is all about polarization and extremes. The "big money" contributors demand that the Democrats become more liberal and the Republicans more conservative. Meanwhile, those who don't represent political ideologues - IOW, everyone else in the country - is left in the middle of two parties flipping a coin for "Which side is less unattractive than the other".

I agree with Derek. What makes you think the two party system is the best system yet invented? Wouldn't it be better with, let's say, three parties, or gasp, four? And what happens when one side totally fails (like the Democrats of late)? It becomes a one party system. Surely you don't think a one party system would be any good...

In a two-party system, the extremist elements have less traction, not more. Look at the prominence given to the Greens, Haider, and LePen in Europe. How much real influence do the likes of Buchanan, Nader, Falwell, and Sharpton have on policy? Despite the disproportionate amount of airtime they generate, what's the last major piece of legislation passed, or even debated, by congress which bore their fingerprints?

I plan one day to write a complete article on why the two-party system is best.

But the short answer is: we actually have dozens of political parties in this country. The "problem" -- and I don't believe it's really a problem -- is that most voters have the horse sense to know that if you vote for the candidate you agree with on 99% of the issues, you're going to lose, based on the way the system is rigged. Therefore, you're forced to choose the one you agree with most, even if that's only 55%... or 45%... or whatever.

Look at systems like Israel's, or the United Kingdom's. Yes, they have far more political parties which exert power. Yet for all practical purposes, they have two parties anyway: the "conservative" and "liberal" parties (whatever those labels mean), plus some outliers who apply pull in various directions.

What we have with the two-party system is that everyone is forced to compromise. The compromise merely happens within the two parties, rather than with separate parties.

Our system has given us an unprecedented level of stability and dependability to our government. It has many flaws of course, and I'd be happy to provide you with a half-dozen Constitutional amendments I'd like to see passed in order to make it better. Problem is, you probably wouldn't agree with all the things I think would make it better.

No Fascist dictator could truly take control of our government. Neither did Communism ever really stand a chance here. There is a reason for this. Whatever its frustrations, our elaborate, byzantine, multi-layered, first-past-the-post wins system has led us not just to stability, not just away from the worst extremes that have plagued other liberal democracies, but has also coincided with our becoming the economic and military superpower of world history--with very little sign that that's really about to change any time soon.

I'll also repeat #10, which I think is my most important point: cynicism is laziness. It's cheap thinking. It lets you seem intelligent and thoughtful while you're not. Which is probably why I can't stand buffoons like Bill Maher, just for starters.

Dean, in your excellant defense of the two-party system, you omit the fact that parliamentary systems often encourage more extremism than our system where the fringe parties are necessary to form a government.

Robin: Yes, you are right.

Jonathan: At least so far as the Republican Party is concerned, their average donation is about $50. Which is about what I gave them last year, given that I pretty much like most (not all) of the Republican agenda. FOR THE MOMENT. THat could change later, since most of my money used to go to Democrats.

So am I a consumer, or not? Before you answer, keep in mind, I'm an hourly worker at a big corporation, and not in management and live in a firmly mid- to lower-middle class area.

By the way, you do realize that EVERY DOLLAR taxed to a corporation is paid BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and never by anyone else. Right? Every single dollar taxed to a corporation comes out of it's customers' pockets, and nowhere else. At all.

I mean, where else would it come from?

Also BTW, Corporate CEOs give millions to Democrats every year. And to Republicans. But why shouldn't they? They represent the interests of their stakeholders--the stockholders, their customers, and yes, even their workers. What's illegitimate about that?

Oh, and another point for Jonathan to ponder:

An honest person can almost always convey the nuances of his or her opinion by saying "Yes," "No," or "It depends on the following factors . . . ." if his or her primary mission is to honestly convey his or her true opinion.

This is so incredibly easy to say. Until you confront that "honest person" with a bunch of complicated arguments that they haven't thought of.

Then they begin to back off, and consider more.

That has almost always been my experience. How about you?

Governing is complicated business. Does not being able to give a straight "yes" or "no" answer to a complicated question really mean you're being slippery? Or does it just mean that the question's tough? Or that you haven't thought very hard about it?

If you don't believe me, let me just posit a simple question for you:

Define "rape." Then define "assault." Then define, "excessive taxation." Then define who's right and who's wrong when your son shrieks, shrieks, "DADDY! SHE'S LOOKING AT ME AGAIN!" when he's gotten into another argument with your daughter.

...I can't stand buffoons like Bill Maher, just for starters.

And don't forget that twit Dennis Miller.

Naw. One thing Dennis Miller is not, is a cynic. Not anymore. I dig that about him.

I remember a quote from Dennis Miller seven or eight years ago, saying that he knew he was very shallow about politics, and he treasured that about himself. He's stopped that now, and I appreciate that.

If you'd said Janeane Garafalo or Denis Leary or Drew Carey, I'd have been on your side.

Don't agree with you on number 10, well sort of. I think that bureaucracy is a major hurdle to politicians being able to complete their promises (ex: Lady T). The reason people say "nothing will change" is that bureaucracy stymies any change that will mean 1. they have to work harder 2. they are streamlined 3. anything significantly changes.

Dean,

You nailed it!

I wonder about #4. It might apply to the first term, but after that I have to believe almost all politicians feel a tremendous pressure to get reelected to a second term. I guess I've seen a few too many reversals on issues that caused me to vote for someone in the first place.

Virginia Postrel wrote (http://reason.com/9603/dept.edit.VIP.text.shtml) about the voter part of this a few years ago. I don't know that I'm quite as sanguine as she seems to be, but I agree with her essential point, which is like Mr. Esmay's: voters know that they can't directly affect most of what goes on in politics even if they memorize the name of every intern in Washington. Tuning it out is not necessarily a sign of ignorance. However, it would be nice if people knew what the flag meant--though I might just think so because I'm from one of the stripes.

"Look at systems like Israel's, or the United Kingdom's. Yes, they have far more political parties which exert power. Yet for all practical purposes, they have two parties anyway...."

Another thing to remember is that a lot of parliamentary governments are effectively run by appointed bureaucrats, not elected officials. We Americans may do lots of griping about how bills are really researched and written by congressional staffers, but at least competition and turnover keeps people from becoming too entrenched.

Dean: So am I a consumer, or not? Before you answer, keep in mind, I'm an hourly worker at a big corporation, and not in management and live in a firmly mid- to lower-middle class area.

Dean, do you think you typify the average political donor, or more importantly, the average large-sum political donor?

By the way, you do realize that EVERY DOLLAR taxed to a corporation is paid BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and never by anyone else. Right? Every single dollar taxed to a corporation comes out of it's customers' pockets, and nowhere else. At all.

I mean, where else would it come from?

From the shareholders and/or employees. Any given rise in a company's costs is borne by the company's consumers to the extent the company exists in a competitive environment which permits this, and by the shareholders and/or employees to the extent that it doesn't. If the increase in costs causes the bankruptcy of the company such that bondholders fail to recuperate their investments you can make a case that they bear the cost as well.

Also BTW, Corporate CEOs give millions to Democrats every year. And to Republicans. But why shouldn't they? They represent the interests of their stakeholders--the stockholders, their customers, and yes, even their workers. What's illegitimate about that?

The fiduciary duty of the CEO is to his or her shareholders. "Stakeholders" is a bullsh*t sociology term coined by people who felt envious of the shareholders' profits but not of the risks undertaken in the earning of those profits. If you don't believe me, look in the articles of incorporation of any company not incorporated by the Ben & Jerry's crowd.

To the extent that corporate donations cause politicians to raise tariffs and subsidize inefficient enterprises to keep them from having to face the music of global competition, I'd say they were incredibly awful. How much money do you personally want to pay to subsidize buggy-whip manufacturers? Typewriter manufacturers? American automobile manufacturers? The sugar industry? The correct answer in all cases should be "zero" if you understand that inefficient producers who want government protection are just screwing consumers.

And how long do you want to deny third-world farmers and manufacturers access to our markets, access to which is probably the greatest long-term tool we have to fight terrorism?

If you don't believe me, let me just posit a simple question for you:

Define "rape."

The crime of non-consensual sexual intercourse.

Then define "assault."

In its original sense, "a violent attack, either physical or verbal." In the legal sense, it is the threat of force which may or may not precede an actual attack.

Then define, "excessive taxation."

"Excessive" is a subjective term, and is therefore useless in any discussion between disagreeing parties unless qualified as a subjective opinion.

Then define who's right and who's wrong when your son shrieks, shrieks, "DADDY! SHE'S LOOKING AT ME AGAIN!" when he's gotten into another argument with your daughter.

Last I heard, looking at someone is not a crime in this country (though invading someone's privacy or stalking them certainly is). Someone's son would be well-advised to toughen up and permit females to look at him. Especially if he's attractive.

Dean,

As a staffer for a state legislature, I think you're got this exactly right, as long as (and I think you've made this clear) these are recognized to be generalities to which there are always exceptions.

Jonathan,

Define "rape."

"The crime of non-consensual sexual intercourse."

Then define "consent" and especially "sexual intercourse": by your definition, a criminal defense attorney would have quite a strong argument that one could only be raped by penile penetration of the vagina. Every state's statutory definition that I'm familiar with, and certainly the Model Penal Code, is considerably broader. Is oral or anal penetration rape? Is penetration with another body part or an object rape? Your definition leaves that decision to the courts: if you want to do that deliberately, that's a valid legsialtive choice, but simply to leave it so vague usually suggests sloppy legislation, not a conscious decision.

Then define "assault."

"In its original sense, 'a violent attack, either physical or verbal.' In the legal sense, it is the threat of force which may or may not precede an actual attack."

Not quite: are we talking criminal or civil assault? The CRIME of assault is either a threat of force or an attempted battery (a battery being, in turn, an intentional, unwanted and unexcused contact with the person of another). As an act against the state, the crime does not require that the victim actually even be aware of it. The TORT of assault is an intentional threat of force that can reasonably be expected to cause apprehension of the imminent use of force, and THAT ACTUALLY DOES CAUSE SUCH APPREHENSION.

Not really all so "simple," is it? Now if you can get all the differences straight between a criminal and civil conspiracy, you can have my job, or perhaps a seat on an appellate court, since they don't seem to have completely figured it completely either. ;-)

Dean,

Your statement that "EVERY DOLLAR taxed to a corporation is paid BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and never by anyone else ... Every single dollar taxed to a corporation comes out of it's customers' pockets, and nowhere else. At all" is incorrect.

As it's difficult to explain without graphs (which aren't allowed in this comment space), I'll instead point you to the following URL:

http://www.revisionguru.co.uk/economics/tax.htm

Also, check out this PowerPoint file from Georgia State University:

http://www.gsu.edu/~ecorlcx/Colander-ch07-Taxes&GovtIntervention.ppt

Suffice it to say that you're wrong, and that both producer and consumer share the burden of taxation.

I notice that Jonathan dodged every one of my difficult questions.

Cub4Bear's questions will require more research and contemplatin--essentially, I haven't the time to look at his graphs right now, but will.

Dean:

We are all consumers. We have no choice in the matter, so long as we remain above room-temperature. Many (but not all) of us are producers as well. Would you say that your donation is primarily to keep producers or other special interest groups from interfering with your ability to consume what you want to at the lowest possible price for quality? I would guess not, but I could be wrong. Consumers tend not to act as a concerted group, the way that other, narrower special interests do.

Cub4bear and I are saying exactly the same thing regarding the inaccuracy of your claim that consumers bear 100% of the cost of all corporate income taxes. It doesn’t require review of graphs, this is Microeconomics 101. This stuff often comes up in the discussion of elasticities of demand. I’m willing to bet, based on your strong demonstrated knowledge of adjacent subject areas, that you’ve actually learned this stuff and temporarily forgotten it. In any event, you asked that “difficult question,” I’ve answered it, and now I’m standing by to either hear you rebut or concede this point, and to admit that, contrary to your assertion above, I did not in fact “[dodge] every one of your difficult questions.”

Dave J: was I requested to “define” rape and assault, (which I did) or “provide an exhaustive and detailed legal definition of the terms ‘rape’ and ‘assault’ in all their criminal and civil variations,” something that is beyond the scope of my legal knowledge? If I had to do the latter as a politician, it would still represent an honest answer that a politician could give without waffling, though if he or she did it too often on subjects about which he or she is expected to have expertise, it would call into question his or her qualifications for the elected position in question.

I think everyone reading this blog is smart enough to recognize the difference between the five-paragraph-essay style of a politician trying to organize and convey his or her thoughts on a complex and nuanced subject and the stream-of-consciousness, meandering-away-from-the-question non-answer that most politicians give when avoiding divisive questions. The acid test is: "when the politician finally shuts up, do we know his or her opinion?"

Should Bustamente repudiate his ties with the racist organization MeCha? Obviously. Does the American rank-and-file have a God-given right to taxpayer-sponsored health care despite the fact that the top 6 causes of death (as of the last survey I saw on this topic) are elective diseases and over 65% of Americans are medically “obese,” 30% "morbidly" so? Obviously not. But every truth almost always hurts or offends someone, and is best avoided by successful politicians seeking the broadest possible centrist appeal.

All I see, Jonathan, is that you've still dodged all my difficult questions.

Define "rape," please. And do it in a way that will stick in a court of law, before any randomly-selected jury of reasonable men.

NO. Let's be even more specific: before any reasonable jury of WOMEN. Go on. I dare you. Just show me how easy it is.

I'm waiting. But here's what I'll bet you come up with: "I don't know exactly what it is, but I'll know it when I see it." Same exact problem as trying to define "assault" or "pornography," or "child abuse," as it happens.

And by the way, I stand by my position: 100% (or 99+%, anyway) of corporate taxes are paid by one party, and one party only: consumers.

There is no other place for the money to come from.

By the way, please also account for the fact that in countries with MUCH higher corporate income taxes, CEO salaries are generally much lower. Which would tend to indicate a much greater share being borne by consumers, with less to go around for everyone, so far as I can see.

Which, funny thing, most such countries tend to have higher rates of unemployment, and lower rates of economic growth.

Go on. I'll be waiting right here.

"ALL corporate income taxes are paid by one party, and one party only: consumers."

I'm an economist the way Madonna's an actress, but this sounds iffy to me. Money paid in taxes is money that can't be used to hire employees or give existing employees raises, for example. If you figure that these employees would turn into consumers when they used the money if they had it, but they don't because they don't (or however a non-Madonna economist would put it), then I can kind of see it. But wasn't your original statement that it's the company's own customers that pay for its taxes?

Dude, listen to me. I've run a corporation. A small one, mind you. Very small. But let me tell you one thing:

Any significant rise in my taxes gets passed on to my customers. Or--and let me be very explicit and direct with you--on to my employees.

Yeah, sure, maybe something small, I decide to just take the bite. Or maybe I'm a bit more stingy with my employees when it comes raise time. But ultimately? It's all about dollars in vs. dollars out vs. what I can charge my customers. If all my competitors are taxed at the same rate? They make the same calculations and come up with very close to the same results.

ALL my income comes from my customers. Period. So if my cost of doing business rises, what do I do? If it's very small, maybe I put up with it and take a bit less for myself--or pay my people a bit less more. Otherwise, if my cost of doing business goes up, what I charge goes up. It's basic math, Sean. You cannot charge me more for doing business without me deciding, in some way, somehow, to find that money somewhere, and it'll usually come out of my employees (if it's a small amount) or out of my customers (if it's more than a small amount).

Unless you've got this weird idea that CEO salaries are computed by how much the corporation is taxed? Maybe, but let me tell you, that's the LAST place the company looks. Besides, how much of a percentage of GM's annual gross income REALLY goes to the corporate officers? 1%, maybe? At most?

That's just the way it works. Unless you've got this idea of me as some sort of monocle-wearing moneybags guy from Monopoly, where the hell ELSE am I going to get the money? Out of my butt?NO! Out of you, my friend, if you ever do business with me. That's the nature of the beast.

All business taxes--ALL OF THEM--ultimately are paid by the little guy, whether they see it or not. That is just reality.

Failure to understand this is the biggest hurdle to most people understanding basic economics.

Dean, when you pass GO you get $200. Any idiot knows that.

By the way, having been the CEO of a small corporation? I must tell you: the "stakeholder" concept is not just grad school bullcrap.

My people were real resources. I knew full well if I treated them like crap, I would have a hard time holding on to them. I knew talent when I saw it, and if I lost them, I'd be lost myself.

Similarly, the community in which I did business? That mattered too.

Of course, my company eventually failed. But not because I treated my people too well. If anything, I still think I could have done better by them. It was my customers who dried up, because, as I eventually realized, the product I was selling wasn't what the market demanded, and I couldn't adapt quickly enough to new circumstances.

But my stakeholders always mattered--not just my stockholders, but also the people who worked for me, the people I did business with, and the environment I worked in and the reputation I held. They all mattered. They were all stakeholders.

Dowingba: D'oh! I forgot about that part!

"Out of my butt? NO! Out of you, my friend, if you ever do business with me."

I'm not sure I take kindly to that particular equivalence. Can't you just say money doesn't grow on trees like everyone else? : /

Wow, I vehemently disagree with you (Dean) on virtually every one of those (although I'm not going to bore you with my individual takes on each item). And yet I still generally like your blog!

Interesting list.

Hey. I have trees growing out of my butt. Don't you?

Dean:

Your statement that consumers do NOT pay "EVERY DOLLAR taxed to a corporation ... and never ... anyone else" is still wrong, despite your repeated denial. This is clearly explained by both of the links that I posted previously.

Let me quote an example from one of the links:

Suppose the federal government institutes a 10% excise tax on luxury boats. Suppose the consumer pays the tax up front: on the purchase of a $100,000 luxury boat the consumer pays sales taxes of 5% and a luxury tax of 10% for a total price of $115,000. But what if the boat builder had to lower the price from $110,000 to $100,000 to sell the boat? In this case, the buyer appears to pay the luxury tax but in reality the boat builder pays the taxes. The entire burden of the luxury tax falls on the boat builder.

The exact proportion of the tax that's paid by the consumer and the proportion that's paid by the producer vary according the elasticity of supply and demand of the good/service in question, but your statement that consumers pay 100% of any tax on the producer is false. Period. End of story.

This is basic, simple Economics 101.

Dean,

Allow me to take a stab at it:

cub4bear,

Dean is actually completely right - any tax on any business eventually translates into higher costs and/or lower wages somewhere along the line. The effect of a tax is eventually spread around equally throughout the economy - and its the poorest who get it in the shorts the worst.

That $100,000 tax on the million dollar item a rich guy buys doesn't really hurt the rich guy - he's got plenty more where that came from...but the $100 less in a month that it becomes for some poor slob at the bottom is the difference between making it and not making it.

Taxes there must be, but don't even think of trying to sell us on the concept that you can tax one particular thing and have no effect on anything else.

Dean,

Wait a minute.. that list was SERIOUS????

Mark Noonan,

You write:

Dean is actually completely right - any tax on any business eventually translates into higher costs and/or lower wages somewhere along the line. The effect of a tax is eventually spread around equally throughout the economy - and its the poorest who get it in the shorts the worst.

That isn't what Dean said. Dean said that "EVERY DOLLAR taxed to a corporation is paid BY ITS CUSTOMERS, and never by anyone else," which is not the same as "$100 less in a month ... for some poor slob at the bottom."

First of all, you're agreeing with me -- the producer pays his/her portion of the tax in the form of lower revenue, and that ultimately filters down to the person at the bottom in the form of lower wages.

Second of all, I never denied that taxes on a good or on the producer of that good result in a higher price for that good. It's beyond obvious that a higher price is the result. What I argued is that the burden of the tax is shared by the consumer and the producer and is not paid "out of it's customers' pockets, and nowhere else. At all," to use Dean's words.

Third, I did not say "that you can tax one particular thing and have no effect on anything else." Straw-man arguments don't work well, and that's not what I said. What I said, and which you do not appear to understand, is that although the consumer pays in the form of a higher price, the producer also pays in the form of lower revenue. Please read the links. They explain this basic economic concept in terms of supply and demand.

This is not some lefty-versus-conservative thing here, this is basic, simple, elementary, Economics 101. This is what any student of Economics 101 learns, and if you don't believe me, then read the links I sent or look it up in an economics textbook.

This is not controversial to anyone who has taken a basic course in economics.

It seems to me that the CEO can cut his salary to $0.00, but if the consumer doesn't buy the product the taxes don't get paid.

It depends on your definition of "is".

Dean, in your "all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer" premise, you also ignore the trend of the last 20 years or so of working smarter, not harder, of economies of scale, of increased efficiencies and productivities.

FAced with higher taxes you are right, the CEO certainly ain't gonna take a hit, but there are a LOT of other places to lay off that loss, and layoffs is a big one. Ultimately that is an overused tactic, one that will likely backfire bigtime, thus hurting the company. But, all in the name of the bottom line.

Ultimately, I don't care where the money comes from, private donations have no business in a public election. The only way it comes out fair is in the "Black Sox Theory" that says politicians will take the money from special interest with the "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" they do, then turn around and ignore that special interest in legislative votes.

Either way you look at it, private donations that fund public election campaigns only serve to enforce the golden rule, "Those with the gold make the rules". I don't want Enron lobby controlling the vote any more than I want a tree hugger environmentalist lobby controlling the vote. Neither of them have my vested interest in mind and likely if either of them gets their way, I the average citizen am getting screwed.

If everybody's opinion counted the same, then fine, lobby to your hearts content. But when that lobby comes with the implied or guaranteed campaign donation, let alone sponsored trips and gifts, then the system suffers.

Your opinion in #5 is hopelessly naive.

Also, I don't mean to denigrate your former company, Dean, but a small corporation with a few products to sell does not exactly have the same impact as a multi-billion dollar corporation does. And there are a LOT of them.

If taxes go up, a corporation certainly has a decision to make. But when your assets and liabilities are in the millions or billions, that set of possibilities is HUGE. As a manufacturer I can cut any number of things on the O&M side, or I can defer capital spending. There are a LOT of things I can do short of raising the price of my product.

Your premise is true only in the sense that if the consumer doesn't buy my product then I have no revenue that can be taxed.

Hey Dean:

cub4bear already took you apart on the question of "who bears the corporate income tax," so I probably don't need to belabor the point unless you're still clinging to your belief that only the consumer, never the shareholder nor the bondholder nor the employee, bears the entire cost of corporate income taxes.

Macroeconomics (Keynes vs. Supply-side, etc.) is still the subject of much disagreement among economists. Microeconomics just isn't. Not this part, anyway. Please have the good grace to admit you're off-base on this one particular question.

As to point #3, let's go back and re-read it:

3) Being evasive with an answer to a direct question is not usually a sign of slipperiness. It's a sign of a politician still thinking through an issue, or still negotiating it, and trying to avoid being trapped by someone in the press looking for a reason to hurt him and/or interfere with the deliberation process.

Where does it say that I would have to come out with an all-encompassing legal definition in response to any question I'm asked? How did this come to be part of the requirement for a "direct" response to a question? Have you ever seen a reporter bust a political candidate by saying "I know you've directly answered the question, but your answer simply isn't legalistic enough to inform the electorate of what your true beliefs are?"

I simply never have, and I don't think a lack of legalism is what people complain about when assailing politicians for weaselspeech. I interpret your statement #3 as addressing that specific complaint from voters. If a politician said "I feel that men, women or children can the victims of rape, and that anyone consenting to sex has the right to withdraw that consent at any time," that would be enough for me to have a solid feel for the candidate's position as regards 95% of alleged rape cases, and if he or she answered my clarifying questions directly and as concisely as possible, I would be satisfied with his or her honesty.

Take the case of Howard Dean. I think a lot of us feel he's hopelessly confused and/or full of crap, but he comes across as direct and plain-spoken, and he never (to my knowledge) has had to resort to legalism to convey his opinions.

"As a manufacturer I can cut any number of things on the O&M side, or I can defer capital spending. There are a LOT of things I can do short of raising the price of my product."

But why wouldn't you have already done these things?

That's what I never understand the thinking of those folks like you who say that in response to a tax increase, a business will/can merely reduce another of his expenditures in a like amount.

But if he could do so after the new tax, why couldn't he do so *before* the new tax???? And why wouldn't he have? Why didn't he? Explain to me why the business would have left money on the table---money that was just sitting there for the taking, until the new tax got him to get off his duff and pick it up.

Ray:

1) Because the corporation may exist in a competitive environment, and if the tax hits all competing businesses equally, they can respond to it in symmetrically in ways that were not possible before. When all airlines leverage technological investments to force GDSs to curtail booking fees, the GDSs (as a group) have more latitude to reduce the incentives they pay agencies.

2) Few transactions in business are completely cut-and-dried. I behave differently if I think I can squeeze a supplier vs. if I must squeeze a supplier in order to make a profit.

3) A reduction in research, while possibly rational as a short-term response to a given situation, will ultimately destroy the seed corn of the firm unless that research was unlikely to generate new revenue-producing products.

Thanks, Jonathan, you are right on. Simpler still, a system at rest tends to stay at rest. A system in motion tends to stay in motion. An action is opposed by an equal and opposite reaction.

While companies often tend to try and improve the bottom line, there is a point at which some will become satisfied. That period of stability will be upset if new taxes are imposed. At that point a company may decide to take steps to improve the bottom line that weren't necessary previously.

Business is a dynamic system, not a series of static systems, that is evolving in multiple dimensions, including time. What is appropriate today wasn't necessarily appropriate yesterday, and not necessarily tomorrow, either. Nothing, really, is that simple.

Sherard:

Ultimately, I don't care where the money comes from, private donations have no business in a public election.

I don't see that you propose any alternatives. Are you just of the opinion that public elections don't work, or do you propose some other source of money for candidates?

If what Dean says is true then anyone who favors a national sales tax, should also have no objection to higher corporate taxes. Since the consumers pay in both cases the two taxes are an economic wash. Now if I were to propose raising corporate taxes and lowering income taxes in a revenue neutral fashion, there should be no objection from corporate America or from any one who favors a national sales tax? Correct?

Hey Rick:

Even if Dean were right, which he isn't, your assumption would not necessarily hold true.

Internet companies are largely immune to sales taxes, and would strongly favor an increase in sales taxes (which neither they nor their customers would pay) to offset a decrease in corporate income taxes (which they would directly benefit from). Offline businesses would be disproportionately penalized for the same reason.

cub4bear,

Just don't want to admit that taxes, all of them, are regressive, do ya?

Slice it and dice it all ya want, but the tax eventually comes out of the consumers, who are all of us - and its the poorest consumers who get hit the hardest. There is no such thing as "tax the rich" - its just borrowing money from the rich who will get it back later by increasing the costs on the poor and/or lowering their purchasing power.

The fundamental point to be made is that everyone has to drop the class-warfare mentality on taxation - we have to have taxes in order to pay for the things we want government to do and thus our only concern is to tax in a manner which causes the least damage. So, we terminate all corporate taxes (its like taxing a ghost), all taxes on investments (this is like mixing your gasoline with 10% water) and all taxes upon basic life (gasoline taxes, utility taxes, etc). This, then, leaves us with one of two things - either we tax on sales (a consumption tax) or we tax income. Personally, I like the income tax (shrieks of horror from my fellow conservatives) - provided we only tax it once and we tax everyone's income at the same rate, then its the best thing, in my view.

Mark:

Where on earth did cub4bear assert that? Sure poor consumers pay a greater percentage of their income for staples. If they didn't, the affluent would have to be ridiculous gluttons to keep pace. And the affluent and the rich contribute disproportionately more to charities (witness Bill Gates' jihad against disease in Africa), for what that's worth. It is societally useful for them to have lots of money.

The fundamental point to be made is that everyone has to drop the class-warfare mentality on taxation

It's probably more accurate to say "[I] would enjoy it if everyone drops the class-warfare mentality on taxation."

- we have to have taxes in order to pay for the things we want government to do

Yes, but we differ widely as to which things we want the government to do.

and thus our only concern is to tax in a manner which causes the least damage.

No, our main concern in taxation should be to "internalize externalities," to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior so that every individual actor with a choice is motivated to do the right thing for his/her/its benefit and that of society.

Our secondary concern is to limit the scope of government so as to minimize taxation of all kinds.

So, we terminate all corporate taxes (its like taxing a ghost), all taxes on investments (this is like mixing your gasoline with 10% water)

Frankly, your analogies here make no sense to me whatsoever. Corporations have legal personhood. How is taxing investments analogous to mixing anything with anything? I'm indifferent on these proposals, but would love to see nearly all taxes eliminated except for a 100% inheritance tax. This would go against your "no tax on investments" plank.

and all taxes upon basic life (gasoline taxes, utility taxes, etc).

Why should these items escape taxation? Why further subsidize the use of fossil fuels? What societally useful goal does increasing the consumption of energy for its own sake serve? Let's all use the fridge to cool the kitchen, eh?

This, then, leaves us with one of two things - either we tax on sales (a consumption tax) or we tax income. Personally, I like the income tax (shrieks of horror from my fellow conservatives) - provided we only tax it once and we tax everyone's income at the same rate, then its the best thing, in my view.

So you want to punish hard work and subsidize gluttony? The "taxing once and at the same rate" idea is very attractive, but why not cut people loose to work hard and earn like lunatics, but have to be somewhat judicious in how many thousands of gallons of gasoline they churn through their SUVs? Or how many Little Debbie(TM) products they hydraulically pack down their throats? We could probably fund a cardiac wing for every hospital in the land from a $.25 on each box of french/freedom fries.

Mark Noonan,

I made absolutely no points regarding taxing the rich, class warfare, or the regressiveness of taxation. I will not comment on those topics here, and I defy anyone to read the comments that I made above and tell me that I wrote any comments regarding them.

I simply corrected Dean's statement, as it is incorrect. My point is a basic fact of microeconomics and has nothing to do with left/centre/right politics. There is no debating that the consumer of a good does not always bear the burden of the tax, as it is a simple consequence of the laws of supply and demand in a price economy that who bears the burden depends on the elasticity of the supply and demand. This is not a matter of debate, it is a fact that is accepted by anyone who has read and understood any introductory economics text. Period. PERIOD.

You have not read the explanatory links that I provided I do not wish to retype what you can find at those links, so all I can do is point you to them once again and hope that you read and absorb them. If you refuse to educate yourself by reading up on the subject, then there's nothing more that I can say, as a debate about economics with someone who knows nothing about it is pointless.

Read this PowerPoint presentation, specifically the portion on who bears the burden of a tax (starting on slide 26):

http://www.gsu.edu/~ecorlcx/Colander-ch07-Taxes&GovtIntervention.ppt

Damn, I disagreed with every one of your ten beliefs. And I'm not alone.

Hey Dean, my good friend:

Here's the only thing I know for sure about politics: you can't do a lick of good unless you win the election.

Does that mean it's all about winning? Of course not. But let's be clear about it -- nothing happens until you first win the election.

Everything else is governed by that basic tenet.

I generally agree with your ten points but have found when expressing these opinions people look at me like I am the village idiot and totally naive.

I think most people are just too cynical.

Here's the only thing I know for sure about politics: you can't do a lick of good unless you win the election.

You can articulate points of view important to your would-be constituents, forcing the winning opponent to acknowledge them (or acknowledge that he refuses to acknowledge them).

Nader walked off with enough of Gore's supporters to cost Gore the election. Think the Democrats are standing cavalierly in the center this time around? Ever heard of Howard Dean?

Nelson Mandella did his most important work for South Africa while imprisoned before it was even legal to put him on the ballot. So did Mohandes K. Gandhi, traveling the Indian countryside while he was just a lawyer. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. never, to my knowledge, even held elected office.

None of them ever "did a lick of good?" Or they weren't participating in politics?

Jonathan:

None of them ever "did a lick of good?" Or they weren't participating in politics?

You make a good point. But I have to say you're wrong anyway because none the folks you mention (Mandela, King, Nader, Gandhi -- and who ever thought Nader's name would be included in that pantheon of leaders??) were politicians in the accepted sense of the word. At least not when they did their greatest work, the work they will be remembered for.

In other words, they weren't participating in politics. Not as politicians, anyway.

Here's the M-W definition of politician:

1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons

Ara:

Thank you. I appreciate the acknowledgment.

But to begin with: your statement was that you can't do a lick of good in politics without winning the election. I never claimed that any of those listed were necessarily politicians, just that they had effected positive change in the political process without having won elections. Whether they were politicians or not is not central to your claim or my refutation.

That said, take a moment and think about the actions these alleged "nonpoliticians" were doing in this time before they became recognized as effective politicians. They were communicating with the electorate, listening to their concerns, advancing their ideals through word and action, and buiding momentum for political change. Your implied definition of them as "pre-politicians" creates an abortion-debate-like need to establish an artificial transition moment in their gestation.

Though I appreciate your taking the time to look up the dictionary definition, I reflexively discount any dictionary with the word "Webster" in the title because it isn't under copyright protection and literally anyone can publish a "Webster's" dictionary.

The AHD definition is similar but subtly different:

1) a) One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.

1) b) One who holds or seeks a political office.

2) One who is interested in personal or partisan gain and other selfish interests.

etc.

If you think about it, the broader AHD definition 1) a) makes much more sense. I would never hold Jesse Jackson up as an example of an effective politician (or even an effective human being) but he can really only be described as a "politician" despite violating the M-W's definitional requirements. He has neither held elected office nor displayed any trace of "experience in the art or science of government."

The people I noted above all fit the AHD definition 1) a) nicely.

Again, a good point. I didn't know that about the Webster dictionary.

Actually I was waiting for someone to point out the best example of your contention:

Huey Long. He meets all the criteria of your (and my) definitions.

And he was definitely a politician who brought about change without getting elected. His "Every Man A King" campaign was co-opted by FDR during FDR's first term.

Of course, Long didn't have a chance to get elected as he was rather inconveniently assassinated.

But I digress.

And I still think you are, unfortunately, incorrect in your thinking.

Gandhi a politician? Actively involved in politics? I think you are confusing him with Nehru and/or Jinna.

Nader a politician? Using your dictionary, I see your point. BUt I think it's a stretch. And what change did he bring about? Remember, Dean doesn't have the nomination. Yet. And if you think he gets it (and the $50 million that got him there) because he's appealing to the Nader faction of the Democrat party, well, I think you're mistaken. There aren't that many of them!

King wasn't a politician.

Jackson on the other hand has actually run for public office. As did Mandela. But Mandela did it at the end of his career (if being in jail for 30 years counts as having a career) and will not be remembered for his political skills.

But Jackson? He ran for office much earlier in his career. And his behavior is the closest of all to you model, except for Huey Long.

Thanks for the thought provoking discussion. Even though I'm right and you're wrong.

Hee.

Hey Ara:

I can see where your misperception that I’m wrong could come from. If we had been focused on which “politicians” had had to win elections in order to influence politics, then you may or may not have been correct. Since your original statement never specifically mentioned politicians, but dwelled instead on the impossibility of effecting positive change--“doing a lick of good” in your own words--without winning an election, you gave me gigantic latitude to prove you wrong by simply citing examples of anyone, politician or not, who has “done a lick of good” in the political arena without having won, or even participated in, an election.

And for this I thank you. It’s not generally so easy to prove you wrong. I consider this a belated birthday present.

So let’s revisit the examples: can we agree that the actions of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and countless other protesters and political activists, lead directly to abundant civil rights legislation?

Can we also agree that Mohandas K. Gandhi, who certainly was a politician and so much more (Indian nationalist, spiritual leader, exemplar of passive resistance) hugely facilitated the withdrawal of British forces from India and the shape of self-government to follow?

Did Mandela influence the political atmosphere of South Africa and effect positive change before being elected? You said yourself that his formal office-holding was but the icing on the cake of his long career under incarceration. Most of the many “licks of good” he did came before any SA election would even admit black Africans as candidates.

Dean seems to be doing quite well in the aftermath of Nader’s Democratic vote-splitting. It doesn’t seem as though he’s confining himself to the Nader contingent. I think he’s actually leading in some of the polls. He’s certainly billed as the candidate to beat. And yes, Nader is absolutely a politician, not that it matters to my refutation.

And Huey Long (who never really played into my thinking here) got elected plenty, just not to the presidency of the United States.

Jonathan, my friend:

Let's rewind the tape:

Most politicians are inherently honest people, and rarely lie.

I started from that point and went onwards. To me, the whole discussion was about politicians and politics.

So...regardless of how much positive change King and Mandela and Gandhi and Nader achieved, their plan did not encompass winning elective office. In other words, just because you effect change doesn't make you a politician, even if you end up dragging the politicians in your wake.

[shrug] I dunno. Do you think Jerry Falwell is a politician? Or just a politically savvy preacher?

And for this I thank you. It’s not generally so easy to prove you wrong. I consider this a belated birthday present.

You're welcome.

[pause]

Except I'm not wrong. You are.

Hey Ara:

Let's rewind the tape:

Most politicians are inherently honest people, and rarely lie.

I started from that point and went onwards. To me, the whole discussion was about politicians and politics.

AHA. This helps me somewhat. Literal accuracy is the hobgoblin of my small mind. I see you are not similarly afflicted.

So, let's re-define your original statement down from its original literal meaning of "politics" meaning "the great, crazy contest to the hearts and minds of men and women and influence the strategic direction and legal framework of the polity," to your somewhat more narrow "the individual electoral contest between only the declared candidates." I don't have my AHD with me, so am not certain whether this narrow definition would pass muster. But let's set that aside for the moment.

Let's use your narrow definition and examine the post-defeat career of former president Jimmy Carter for licks of good. In office he was an exemplary boob, despite superior intellect and highly-developed morality, he is routinely cited by rightists as the example of what not to do as a president.

But AFTERWARDS, he hopped over to Habitat for Humanity, picked up his hammer, and has been using his time to build inexpensive houses for underprivileged families. I can't think of a more loving, serving and honorable example for us all to follow, and I'm not sure I'd even know of the existence of Habitat (where I often volunteer) if not for having heard about him working there. Nor can I think of anyone who's done more to raise the public perception of the Office of the Presidency after the huge reductions made by skank-pronging Slick Willy.

Now, perhaps your lick-meter is calibrated to only register giant, rhinocerous-sized licks of good, played out on the scale of World Wars and Major Policy Decisions. If so, I invite you to recalibrate and open your eyes to the post-loss achievements of Carter and any other politician who shows us honor in defeat.

If you honestly think he hasn't "done a lick of good" despite having lost his second presidential election, go argue your case to the people living in the houses he's helped to build.

Jonathan:

Hm. No surprise that you and I would disagree about Carter's post-Presidency career. Agreed, he's done good with HFH (not that it makes your point about a politician's electability -- there you're still misguided).

My contention about Carter's career since 1980 is that he has gone horribly wrong by backing the likes of Yasser Arafat etc.

Not very statesmanlike at all.

I'll stand by my original point: before a politician can do any good, he has to get elected.

Lots of people can do good without getting elected. But they are either not politicians (and don't want to be) or they are failed politician wannabes.

Make more sense now?

Hey Ara:

Not "net" good. We're not asking whether the sum total of all of Carter's activities after losing his election net out in the plus column. For all I know, he spends his time away from Habitat blending puppies at a Smoothie store. This, and his support for Arafat, would fall under the category of "licks of bad," to be considered separately in a different conversation if necessary.

Let's spool back to your original quote again:

Here's the only thing I know for sure about politics: you can't do a lick of good unless you win the election.

Does that mean it's all about winning? Of course not. But let's be clear about it -- nothing happens until you first win the election.

Twice in the space of two paragraphs you specify "the" election. Not "an" election, or "your first" election, after which your fame is achieved and you can continue your influence outside of office. Is that a further caveat to the original statement that you wish to stipulate?

I don't think I have a point about electability, certainly not that Carter is now rehabilitated and electable. I am focused purely on the impact that politicians and non-politicians have on the political world without having to be elected.

Let's accept for the moment that your current original point is identical to your nominal original original point, though if it were, it wouldn't require re-statement. You are denying the impact that any of the "spoiler"-type politicians like Nader have had on subsequent political races. Yes Nader is absolutely a politician, no rational person could deny that his having run a national campaign to be elected President of the US makes him such. Yes, he has done a "lick of good" for liberals (though not, I agree, for the country as a whole) by proving to Democrats the necessity of trying to wrap in the wacko left under their big tent. Gore stayed close to the center, in the successful footsteps of Clinton, and lost enough Naderites to lose the election. Flash forward three years and no political pundits are openly discounting Dean's hard-left candidacy.

If Simons drains enough conservative votes from Ahnold, he'll have a conceptually similar but practically opposite effect on Republican politics . . . forcing the conservatives to concede that they have to moderate if they expect to hold office in blue states like California. And he will have done this without winning the gubernatorial election, because let's face it: he has no chance. The re-alignment he will produce will force the Republicans closer to the center. A "lick of good" for those wishing to see Republicans in California office, though certainly not the lesson that conservatives want to be learning, I'll grant you.

Jesse Jackson has used his comical candidacies to inject Black issues into the mainstream political debate. Whether or not Dean's run is successful, he is forcing the other candidates leftward in the primaries, and many pundits openly wonder how much this will prevent the winner from centering back up (with minimal hypocrisy) during the general election. Whether this is "good" is a matter of subjective opinion (as a right-leaning libertarian, I love it) but the influence is undeniable and he hasn't even come close to the presidential election. Whether or not he is successful, this part of his influence will be totally independent of his eventual success or failure in the election.

The bottom line is, almost all generalizations are wrong. You are fond of them because they sound cute, are highly quotable and stir controversy. But I've never yet seen one that stands up to close scrutiny without at least a few exceptions.

you r a gay faggot