I have debated health care. I have debated socialism. I have debated taxation. I have debated and debated and debated. After all of the back and forth in person and on social media, I have learned two things which are rock solid.

1. People who want big, expensive social programs have their hearts in the right place, but couldn’t care less about the heart that disagrees with them. It is one thing to want to provide quality health insurance / housing / care, etc. for those who are less fortunate. It is something else, to in the same breath, paint anyone who disagrees with the method in which you propose to offer the insurance as a heartless, evil bastard whether explicitly or through the use passive aggressive snark. The desire to help others is admirable, noble and aligns with the teachings of most of the world’s religions. However, legislating compassion is morally disingenuous and does more to foster resentment than to fuel charity. Becoming angry to the point of rage when a social program you love in theory is queued for the trash bin is ridiculous, self-serving and ultimately worthless. There is more than one way to care for the country and its population. To vocally announce the doom of a segment of the population simply because you are unwilling to look outside of your ideological box is dangerous.
2.  When engaged in a debate with someone who is appealing to sentiment rather than reality, it is in your best interest to fight fire with fire. Ask the following question; how much tax is a private citizen supposed to pay before they can be allowed to say, enough is enough? Basically; when are we allowed to admit that we have a hard enough time managing our own lives and that while we don’t wish ill-will on anyone, we have to focus on ourselves and our own families? Why is wanting to provide for the people you love and in turn receive love from selfish? Why is self-sufficiency a dirty term these days? Caring for yourself and your loved ones is not selfish. This forces the debate into a bottleneck in which the only acceptable answer is one that the person you are arguing with will not want to give. Don’t allow deflection. I have made that fatal mistake before and ended up debating climate change before the conversation was over. The answer will more than likely be buffeted by the statements, “it [tax] won’t be all that much” and “it’s worth it for the good of the country.” Problem is; who decides how much we should pay for these programs? Who decides how much of the money we earn we are allowed to keep? Why are we allowing people who decided that becoming a politician was the best path to an honest living to gouge our paychecks in order to placate the perennially whiny and chronically sullen? We should be asking these questions already and if we aren’t, then I’m not even sure we are allowed to debate tax issues.

Happy Friday.

J.M.