On Facebook I don't hide my political leanings - I post and share all types of Democratic, liberal, progressive posts, some more heated than others. This, of course, leads to the dreaded Facebook political discussion/rant. I'm not great at Facebook discussion amongst actual friends - I personally know these people and associate with them, so saying what I actually think about their politics is a no-no, even though their comments and opinions drive me rabid. However, I keep trying with friends of friends to hone my persuasion and discussion skills.
Recently I managed to get a friend of friend to see the Democratic point of view, or at least see the non-RW point of view. She did like the post, so I'm hopeful that she did think about what I said. I tried a different technique for me - instead of political ideology and statements, I stated in a more impersonal manner what I felt was actually happening in the election and in our society. Below the squiggle for the discussion:
Occupy Poster as the post: How is it that a group of billionaire businessmen and corporations can get a bunch of broke middle-class white people to lobby for lower taxes for the rich and deregulation of Wall Street?
Friend of Friend Post
Before writing my thoughts here, let me go on record as saying I'm still on the fence here. Everybody is looking bad to me right now, so I'm not on Anybody's side. That being said, I think those "broke middle-class white people" are still working hard for what money they do have and don't like the idea of all the free handouts and socialist sounding programs. I don't think anybody "likes" lower taxes for the rich, it's all just part of the unfortunate package. I'd be interested in reading other people's thoughts.
Me: (I thought carefully about how to approach the conversation, and decided to try this approach about the economy):
The problem is that with the economy at a near-standstill, money has to start circulating again. If middle-class folks don't have extra money to spend (remember, we're a consumer economy - if people don't spend, jobs don't happen), someone/thing has to step in and put money back into the economy. If companies won't spend to create jobs (large companies have money, they just don't have customers, which means they don't have any need to create jobs), gov't has to so that the economy doesn't stall and crash. How does gov't do this? Jobs programs (defeated by the GOP), stimulus acts (too small because the GOP objected), aid to the poor (which the GOP has stalled on - remember, for every $1 in food stamps, at least $1.50 in spending happens (get the economy moving again)), transportation funding programs (defeated by the GOP).
She liked that post. I didn't rail and rant, and I kept in mind that not only was I talking to her, but also to those who might see the comment. A bit of swiping at the GOP, but every statement is factual.
Me: (time to address the tax cuts) The problem with the tax cuts that benefit the 1% is that it does not stimulate the economy. Businesses and services create jobs, not the wealthy. A wealthy individual does not create any meaningful number of jobs; a wealthy individual that creates a business does not create the jobs, the business that is created does (business taxes and income is separate from individual taxes and income). And the wealthy do not create businesses as a lark; they create a business to make money or to serve a need. Right now, if you (10%) have money invested in Wall Street, you will make more money by shovelling money in and out of funds (something that was the main impetus behind the crash that started in 2008) than you will by creating a business (and business = jobs (I know you get that, but too many others do not seem to realize that)). A tax cut that removes money from the 90% (remember, we have to get the economy moving, which means that folks have to be able to spend so that businesses hire more people so that more folks are able to spend) and transfers it to the 10% removes that spending ability from the 90%. Taxes on a percentage of income on the 10% (much less the 1%) are the lowest it's ever been since Eisenhower. They are taxed less (as a percentage of income) than the 90%, but they hold approx 75% of the money in the country.
That didn't go over so well, so I decided to try again. It's the standard argument against the 1% (I changed it to the 10% because that doesn't sound so insignificant as 1%) that I've seen and supported. Maybe this approach would work better:
Me: The main thing to realize is that the 10% is fighting a tax hike of 3% (currently the top tax rate is 36%, and the proposed tax hike is 39%). If you have over 250,000 dollars, a tax hike of 3% is negligible to you (I know that paying 5% more for convenience is not an issue to me, and I'm not anywhere in the top tier). And remember, that tax hike is on the amount you declare as income over $250,000, not on the entire amount. And there are many legal deductions that are taken to reduce your income so that the tax you pay is less (I know I take deductions, and there are so many that the 10% can take to reduce their income). 3% - that is what they are fighting against. That does start to fall into the realm of "spoiled-brathood", IMHO.
She liked that. Kinda hard to feel sorry for folks that are complaining about a minor percentage. Maybe it was time to push back against the "socialist-sounding programs".
Me: Sorry for the long posts, but as you can tell, this is something I feel strongly about and have researched/thought about. Taking the partisanship out of the equation, deregulated Wall Street financing led to the crash. Gov't has to step in to keep the economy on an even keel - and they do this by those "socialist-sounding" programs like aid to the poor, supporting vital companies (the Auto Company bailouts which are already being paid off and earning money back to the taxpayers), and infrastructure projects (no state or town can really afford the cost of many major infrastructure projects). Just as we have to spend to invest in our families and future, in times of crisis gov't has to spend to invest in our country and taxpayers. In a few years when the taxpayers earn enough money to pay taxes again, it will be paid off (very analogous to spending for a house or education (or sadly, healthcare)). The money that is put back into the economy and society will be multiplied in the economy and returned to the taxpayers (via spending in the economy and taxes).
She liked this too. She didn't return comments, but now she may be thinking about this. I'm pleased because I finally found a discussion method that seem to work and get the point across. Off to try this on another worthy person!