Check the assumptions at the door…
I think I just hit on the fundamental disconnect in the dialog between the various positions around where the country is headed. A wise strategy sage once told me that when someone fundamentally disagrees with a plan of action you’re recommending (i.e., a strategy) – the ASSUMPTIONS you’ve based your strategy upon are really what they disagree with. The actions you take are really logical steps towards accomplishing a goal with game plans to deal with unexpected disruptions. The logical breakdown in strategy debates tend to stem from fundamental disconnects between the parties on goals, data, facts, unintended consequences and their severity.
Some examples:
- On one hand, there are a bunch of ‘benefits’ that the Democrats and their supporters in the media are trying to foist upon the country – completely mystified why no one is over the moon on gratitude for their wise leadership. Assumption: socialism has many more benefits than capitalism/democracy – you should like it more! UPDATED: it’s as fundamental as refrigeration! (Michelle Malkin)
- On the other hand, there are tea parties, independents, libertarians, who are not at all thankful for all the Democrats hard work pushing something on them they didn’t ask for. Assumption: Socialism breaks down at some point when the beneficiaries get fatter than those funding the benefits and a huge mess ensues – don’t go there in the first place. UPDATE: Doc Zero goes further (update, promoted to Hot Air) – don’t pay, don’t vote. Intriguing idea and prevents the situation I mentioned yesterday w.r.t. Roman legion eligibility
this Hot Air post is a great example: “Matthews and David Corn decide that the real problem is that the Democrats haven’t explained all of the wonders of the “social state” to benighted voters”
- Assumption: an aggressive attitude and approach to the rest of the world is what made everyone mad at the USA. If we operate slowly, in the open with a clear statement of what we will / won’t do, the rest of the world will reciprocate. – redefine the taxonomies – again from Hot Air and Pajamas Media and a VIDEO from Hot Air (watch them sign it away!)
- The people who are stunned by the treatment of Israel and our allies, who disbelieve the Russians will disarm because they said they will are looking at longer patterns of behavior. Assumption: “it doesn’t matter what our enemies SAY, their actions speak otherwise“
Another example:
- Democrats truly believe the world is hitting a boiling point – literally. Assumption: All data and all weather changes (except cold snaps) stem from the fact that the earth is warm and about to self destruct
- Assumption: If it’s all about good science, then the data must be real, solid and capable of standing public scrutiny! Pirates Cove has two examples today of these disconnects: Higher Hurricane Risk and Greenpeace Damage control
I’ll add more as I find them – but the point here is that these are fundamental disconnects in ASSUMPTIONS – of course they can’t agree on what actions to take
Finding Ponies... 
From what I’ve heard, the VAT Tax is going to be in ADDITION to the income tax.
The VAT tax is more of a ‘stealth’ tax. You really don’t know how much you are being taxed, you just know that what you used to be able to buy for $2.00 now costs $3.50.
IMO the VAT Tax would hurt the poor more than any income tax. In the income tax code, not only have things been built in to limit (i.e. progressive tax tables) the amount of tax that lower wage earners are subjected to, but there are items that actually ‘redistribute’ (i.e. EIC-earned income credit) the wealth to the lower wage earner.
COMPLETELY correct – all these taxes to provide things TO the poor end up getting passed down to them. If ObamaCare causes the over the counter meds to increase in cost – will the poor have to stop buying advil? If you tax the wine/beer, food – who does it hit more? Taxes on goods or production of goods never hit the intended victims – they hit the people whose benefits drove the tax increase in the first place. it’s very sad
Remember the old movie ‘The Blob’ from the 50’s (see: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051418/)? The ‘Blob’ reminds me of how Obama’s tax policy is shaping up.
Beware of the Blob! It creeps, and leaps, and glides and slides across the floor.
Indescribable… Indestructible! Nothing Can Stop It!
Indescribable… indestructible… insatiable
The indestructible creature! Bloated with the blood of its victims!
It crawls…. It creeps…. It eats you alive!
I keep meaning to write more on VAT. But I think that most supporters (liberal and conservative) believe that VAT is a fair tax because it’s flat for everyone. My general take is that the tax the rich rhetoric is just that… people who want more taxes will take it from whoever is giving as long as the money is green.
In the more liberal case of the VAT, the assumption is that rich people spend more money and therefore will take on a more proportional VAT. I’m not sure that’s a good assumption. Sure there’s more spend, but the VAT doesn’t account for savings or investment, which higher incomes do more often.
All this said, there’s more to Lynn’s point, and I’d bet we’ll touch on it more as more come up.
I’m confused about their assumptions. If their goal is to take from the rich to give to the poor, then why the talk about enacting a VAT tax? Sales taxes are considered regressive. I guess they can no longer tax the rich through income taxes, when individuals making more than $300K and couples making more than $350K are already paying more than 70% of all income taxes, with 47% of all Americans paying no income tax according to a recent CNBC report.
To break it down to the simplest terms, would you say that the Dems fundamental assumption is that they (and only they) know what is best for us?
The rest of us, whether we be Republicans, Libertarians, Tea Partiers, etc., believe that the freedom to lead our own lives is central and unique to the ‘American’ way of life.
I am fairly certain they truly passionately believe that they are the good, the right, the well intended. My niece was THRILLED when healthcare passed (my first thought was “well, it’s a good thing because you’re 18 and you/your kids will be paying for it for the rest of your lives”…but I digress). Her perspective was one of compassion on the people she believes have needs that are unmet. I genuinely believe that while there are many Al Gores who cynically make millions on the appearance of good, there are many liberal voters who believe they are carrying on the work of Christ (Buddah, whoever) and who think they should “try to believe the best about others”. Frankly it’s much easier than recognizing there are people who will choose to do wrong and implement evil simply because they can get away with it. If you don’t personally work closely with the poor and disadvantaged (or unlike me, you aren’t from that background with relatives still living in it), there is a romanticism about thinking of yourself as Plato’s “benevolant philosopher kings.” It’s much easier to vote for someone ELSE to go help the poor or to give them money – like a 21st century indulgence than it is to leave your $1m house in your $50k Lexus and to interact with the disadvantaged only to discover that many of THEIR choices were what kept them in poverty.
I too come from a similar challenged background, but I have seen more people better themselves and their place in the so-called ‘socio-economic’ hierarchy than anything that the government has done for them. Or, should I say to them?