As Donald explained in a comment to me, he felt no need to explain why Obama's tax plan is class warfare because it's already assumed to be the case. But of course, that's not how arguments work. If I explain why Position A is wrong and someone wants to refute my argument, they don't just get to say "Position A is correct because I assume that Position A is correct." That's just lame and a complete embarrassment to online debates.
Not that we can't have assumptions in arguments, but this is the KEY assumption. This is the primary assumption that I was attacking in my original post. Yet Donald has now used it twice as the basis for his entire argument. It's like a guy who joins a gunfight by running unarmed into the middle of the street wearing a target. Donald already lost before he started and was so unprepared for the fight that he didn't even realize he got shot. That's what happens when you only practice against strawmen.
This time, he didn't even try making an argument. He merely asserted that my arguments were "pure Democratic baloney" and then outsourced his argument to two other people who also didn't address my point. Essentially, this consisted of conservatives who took two of Obama's statements and reprocessed them into something he hadn't said, based entirely on strawmen that conservatives invented years ago.
It was all about finding "trick wording and dishonest blame-shifting" that would expose Obama's true meaning. Trick wording? What kind of warfare is that? The whole point of "class warfare" is that someone is pitting one class against the other. Now it takes a Fox News Decoder Ring to figure out how Obama is rousing the masses against the rich? That hardly sounds like anti-wealth populism to me.
Here are those two Obama statements:
“A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy instead of an opportunity to invest in our future.”And while I suppose I can see how these could be interpreted as remarks against the upper-class, they sound much more like attacks on Republicans and their policies. Obama's not saying that the rich were evil for receiving tax cuts. He's saying that it was unwise for us to have given them tax cuts. And while I completely agree with that, that's pretty weak tea as far as class warfare goes.
"We are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin."
Even worse, neither of these people even mentioned class warfare. The first suggested that Obama's phrasing indicates that he thinks wealth belongs to the government, so even his interpretation of Obama isn't a direct link to class warfare. And the second person said exactly what I was saying; that Obama was blaming Republicans. I quote: "Translation: Blame Republicans, and tax cuts." Why Donald used her quote remains a mystery.
Back to the Beginning
And so we're right back where we started: Donald Douglas agrees that it's ok for the upper-class to pay more than the lower classes, but disagrees with the specific rate increase that Obama has requested. And because of this 3% disagreement, he assumes that Obama is making "warfare" against the rich. Again, this makes no sense. We all agree that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor because they can afford to pay more. Where's the warfare?
Now, if Donald wants to get around to explaining the assumption that I have been refuting from the start, this is the time to do so. Heck, even a basic definition of what he means by "class warfare" would be a start. And his answer would have to include why he thinks Obama's tax plan is classist, when he himself agrees that rich people should pay more than poor people. But I'm quite sure he's incapable of doing so or he would have done it by now. He has to "assume" that his point is correct because he can't actually explain his position otherwise.
But this isn't just the failing of Donald Douglas. The entire conservative movement is bereft of any clues and the best they can do is shout cliched mantras about "class warfare" and "socialism," and pray that someone will listen. But for as much as they need to believe that Obama hates the upper-class, the best they can do is sift through his sentences and make inferences based upon their need to find something there. But rescinding Bush's tax cuts are far from evidence they can use.
Now we just need to figure out why conservatives believe that the term "class warfare" is a magical weapon that scores points for them. Obama made this tax plan a pillar in his campaign and used it to trounce his Republican opponent. So why would anyone be scared of it now? Mysteries never cease.