I had a very interesting conversation today with a gentleman I see on Sunday's at the Museum.
The conversation started normally discussing interest rates, the market, and his account at another investment firm.
Somehow the conversation turned to politics and Mike's (not his real name) Distaste for the current president.
I asked him why he spoke with such venom for George Bush.
He said that he did not believe in what we're doing in Iraq, and that he didn't think we could possibly succeed.
So I asked him how long it took to rebuild Germany. Mike is a World War II veteran and a bomber pilot who was captured by the Nazis. He went on to tell me how years after the war, you can still see the devastation in the German countryside. He told me how entire cities were leveled, cratered and annihilated, and how the situation had not improved noticeably even by 1947.
I quickly pointed out that even in Nazi Germany, there was a significant amount resistance after the war. Mike disagreed saying he was nowhere near the level of resistance we've encountered in Iraq. I said that was probably not true, but because of the Internet and the proliferation of television, it simply seemed like they were more postwar casualties in Iraq, where they're probably were many more in Germany, simply because the size of the occupying force. Those casualties simply were not broadcast on a daily basis, nearly instantly.
I asked Mike how long it to before Germany really started to progress. He simply rolled his eyes and said it had to be at least four years. I said to Mike you do realize we've been in Iraq for 18 weeks.
Strangely enough, he changed the subject. The economy, he thought, was President Bush's greatest downfall. Why is that liberals have a tendency to change the subject so quickly, instead of exploring the opposition's feelings on-topic? Instead of trying to see it from another point of you, soon as they sense resistance to their cause or their believe structure, they suddenly become defensive and want to talk about something else.
So we started discussing George Bush's recent tax-cut. Mike said he was of the belief that the tax-cut, and the Republican Party simply favor the wealthy. My first thought and comment was, " but Mike you just finished telling me he got $2 million in municipal bonds at that other investment firm. Youre a wealthy men." Mike disagreed and said he wasn't. I said you do realize that the average salary in United States for family of four is about $35,000 per year. He was surprised to hear this but simply continued saying that the the wealthy did not need tax-cut. I asked him why as this made no sense to me. It's my understanding that the more you pay and taxes, the more you should benefit from a tax-cut. I went on to describe how a person who pays $2000 a year in taxes should not yet the same amount of money back as someone who pays $200,000 in taxes. Everyone getting back the same, regardless of how much is earned or paid, sounds a little bit like the redistribution of wealth, or a Communist system.
Mike said he believed that if you cut taxes for the lower and middle classes, you are much more likely to spur the economy as these people will spend the money,while the ultra wealthy will not. I simply cannot see this, because I see a person who makes $1 million a year, having a lot more spending power, and putting more money back of the economy than some who earns $20,000 a year. Not that one person is better than another, but that one simply drives economy more.
It's like a story I heard recently about a baseball game. Imagine a ballgame, where there are four different grades of seats. You got the bleacher seats that cost $10, the upper tiers that cost 20, the fieldlevel boxes that are 50 and the Diamond club suites that cost $100. Now imagine the game is rained out. According to the way I see it, everyone should get back what they paid. The Diamond club owners get $100 and on down to the bleacher seats that get back $10. This is not how the liberals see it. It was up to them, the Diamond club ticketholders would get back nothing. Why? Well they don't need the money they're obviously wealthy, and it's up to them to help everybody else. The field level boxes would get back $25, because there still pretty wealthy and really don't need all their money back. The upper tiers, they're the middle class and they need almost every dime they can get so they get back a full $20. Now the bleacher seat ticketholders will get back $20. They did not pay as much but obviously they're not doing so well. They need all the money they can get so will give them twice what they paid.
It seems to me that Democrats and liberals are very generous with my money. Mike has no problem voting in a democratic candidate, who may bring about the flat tax, or even pass legislation, that takes aim at the upper middle-class or wealthy. Apparently, success should be penalized in this country. Why should Mike worry? He's got $2 million in tax free municipal bonds paying him $70,000 a year in tax free interest. I guess it's easy to be generous with other people's money.
