Watch as jynxyjoe carries out a scripted debate with himself. And wins.
Joe has made it clear that he doesn’t want to debate me. Insult me? Sure. Respond to my posts by calling me a jackass? Sure. But actually carry out a mature discussion? No way.
It should be easy to see why. Every time he has tried I’ve given him a well deserved rhetorical bitch-slap that has him revert to fourth grade name calling. Silly me not sticking to his scripts.
For future reference, let me point out the flaws with that argument. That way, the next time you debate yourself, you can be even more certain in your victory against yourself. Maybe someday you’ll be able to have a discussion at the adult table.
- The debate conflates wealth with income mobility
- Income Mobility masks things like retirement. A billionaire that retires and lives off savings alone; rolling any capital appreciation back into savings, might qualify as being in the bottom quintile for income while still being a billionaire.
- The statistical argument for income mobility is based on a single, very flawed study where the numbers literally don’t add up.
- More on income mobility from Washington Monthly. Follow that to the NYT to see how little mobility there really is.
- It assumes that the Dept of Health and Human Services only helps the 10% at or below the poverty line. This is laughable.
- It talks up union mismanagement as a cause of economic problems in blissful ignorance that the three biggest corporate failures of the past 20 years; Enron, Tyco and Worldcom had nothing to do with Unions.
- With Heritage talks up income mobility, they also seem to support a number of policies that would exempt wealth from taxation; focusing only on income. And they act like this isn’t counter intuitive.
- Can anyone take seriously the argument that the wealthy don’t have undue political influence in a system where politicians have to raise money to run for office?
- Most people don’t own their homes. Most homes are mortgaged. If you don’t believe me, call the bank and ask them to show you some sample mortgage contracts.
I could go on but what would be the point? Some people accept things as facts because the methodology is sound. Others accept things based on the truthiness of the argument.
