“…disagree about whether overstating an opponents plan to make it seem more scary…”
That is not the distinction I was trying to draw. I will try again. I view overstating opponents plans and understating own plans or vice versa the same.* What I consider on a different and worse level is language specifically designed to make the political atmosphere more caustic and to divide people on a deeper level than simple policy differences. Mislabeling political opponents socialists or racists or fascists or anti-American or any of the other loaded words that get tossed around seemingly every election cycle. Both sides do it and both sides should stop. Unfortunately if one stops and the other does not they lose.

* To be honest, I probably get more exercised about it when it supports policies I don’t like as it is 2 things I don’t like as opposed to just 1 (human nature and all).

“all a matter of degrees is it not? I can take your views and with simple degrees match you up to the greatest figures in our time – or the most horrific person produced by mankind.”
So all is black and white and there are no shades of grey in between? No evil or good is greater than any other evil or good?
Of course there are degrees. Some things are worse/better than others.

to the person who see’s through the BS – the differences are easy to spot.

But FICA payments weren’t meant to be progressive because they’re supposed to represent payments into the system by current workers in order to support drafts on the money from the retirees (speaking about SS here specifically.) Even FDR couldn’t have sold this as a welfare program and instead it was meant for everyone who worked to pay in as a secure retirement fund. This just illustrates how these things morph over time, because now there’s an assumption that there should be a progressive structure to this just like income taxes. And my complaint is that a lot of the reason for these slippery slopes is that the euphemisms are used so much that the initial rationale for the program is changed over time- an idea is initially sold to the public as a minimalist one but once it takes hold it can only grow, not be curtailed.

So we’ll have to agree to disagree about whether overstating an opponents plan to make it seem more scary, or downplaying your own plan to make it sound more acceptable, are unequal problems because I think both sides should be called to more honest rhetoric so that the voters better understand the underpinnings of the policies.

“now we have 40% of wage earning adults getting a net positive payment from the federal govt (some of them even getting more than 100% of their FICA payments back).”
Only the parenthetically mentioned people are getting a net positive payment from the Feds and that is a rather small and very poor component of the population. I suppose we disagree on the wisdom of this policy.
Re: increasing single parent households I very much doubt the EITC has any measurable effect. On the other hand welfare rules intended to protect children of single parents have likely had a role in increasing single parent families among the poor. This may have consequently made the situation they intended to help worse.

“…you seem willing to criticize one type of distortion (exaggerating by calling this redistribution full blown ’socialism’) but you are fine with distortions of a different type (calling a tax credit a tax cut.)”
It is a matter of degrees. I am strongly opposed to using politically charged rhetoric to create a caustic atmosphere and divide Americans. I am annoyed by euphemisms that create a distorted image of policies like tax cuts that may actually end up being some tax cuts and some tax rebates or things like the Healthy Forests Initiative or Clear Skies Act. The political landscape would be better without either, but I find the former much more troubling.

No, not as far as I know. The EITC was initiated by Dem Russell Long in the 70s, and Reagan attempted to roll it back but eventually caved in to the Dem Congress and increased it. Ditto for GB 41, as I recall…and then Clinton expanded it (without GOP support.)

I could be wrong about some of the details, but I definitely don’t think you’re accurate to portray EITC as something that’s had great support from the GOP. Some conservatives I think have felt that it was at least a better approach than welfare because it goes to those who are working instead of making payments to the chronically unemployed, but many people have raised serious concern about the extent of it and the encouragement of single parenthood (basically putting the marriage penalty on steroids.)

And lo and behold, the percentage of households that qualify for the EITC has rapidly risen, so that now we have 40% of wage earning adults getting a net positive payment from the federal govt (some of them even getting more than 100% of their FICA payments back). Funny how when tax policy and social programs reward certain behaviors (single parenthood) you get more of those behaviors, huh?

“As you can see here, there’s been a healthy debate about EITC as part of our tax policy for the past few decades, and some have raised concerns about the growth of this social spending”
There certainly has and it both should and will continue.

“I can appreciate your comment in the last paragraph of #9, that using politically charged rhetoric isn’t helpful-”
Thanks

“but neither is the use of creative euphemism to hide the actual agenda…”
This works for all agendas and is an unfortunate part of sound bite debates. Most people don’t have or won’t devote the time to participate in reasoned debate or to even read or listen to full explanations of policy proposals. This requires politicians to debate with sound bites if they want to win.

Interested,
“…your comments designed to meld the two parties as indistinguishable from each other.”
No there are definite differences in both style and substance between the two parties, but those differences are much smaller than many on either side care to admit. The differences between R and D are noticeably less than between either R or D and almost any other national government and are less than the differences between many of the major parties in other developed nations. To give an example Michael would be quite familiar with the differences between the VVD and Groen Links are far greater than between American Republicans and Democrats.

As you can see here, there’s been a healthy debate about EITC as part of our tax policy for the past few decades, and some have raised concerns about the growth of this social spending (which ballooned under Clinton.)

I can appreciate your comment in the last paragraph of #9, that using politically charged rhetoric isn’t helpful- but neither is the use of creative euphemism to hide the actual agenda of increasing social welfare spending.

Try it again.

Since at least the 19 teens there have been federal social welfare programs in the US so, yes since there has been a federal income tax in the US the federal government has been in the business of redistributing wealth. The question since then has been not if, but how much.

No rational actor of any stature in American politics today is seriously talking about ending Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment insurance, public schools, etc that would have to be labeled socialist if one is to label Obama’s proposals socialist. He is not talking about nationalizing the means of production and to claim that he is by trying to label his a socialist is silly at best.

BTW Even infrastructure and military spending takes our money and redistributes it to other people, so yes technically all taxation is redistribution of wealth.

That said, there is a real debate to be had about tax policy and social spending, but harping on he said “redistributionist” or calling one side socialist or the other side fascist is not a productive part of that discussion.