A Half-Arsed Apology

I appreciate apologies if they're sincere and genuine. I don't much care for them if I know the person is just doing it to please another person as opposed to actually meaning what they say. I got into a political debate with an owner of a bar on Friday night and after he angrily called me a socialist, I kind of laughed and left. He sent a couple half-hearted apologies via e-mail shortly after the situation. His wife sent a more sincere apology on his behalf via text. He then sent another e-mail yesterday and I think this one bugged me more than anything. I'll explain why after posting the e-mail:

"Craig, I apologize that I offended you. I thought we were friendly enough to disagree. I do get worked up about politics especially when drinking. I concede your point about Reagan although it is here nor there. We have a president who campaigned talking about redistribution of wealth, he is openly hostile to successful people. And chastises people for being wealthy. I have a huge problem with that. I think we can agree that current tax plan is not fair. That is the point that I so poorly tried to make. Again I apologize for offending you."

He starts off by saying he apologizes for offending me, but then follows that by saying he thought we were friendly enough to disagree. So, he apologizes, yet tries to guilt-trip me by saying he thought we were friendly enough to disagree. In other words, he was friendly enough to disagree, but evidently I wasn't, yet, he's sorry... Yeah, that sounds genuine. 

He then follows that up by saying he gets worked up about politics, especially when he's drinking. In other words, he partially admits to acting out of line, but excuses himself because he was drinking...yet he was friendly enough to disagree even though I wasn't and yes, he's sorry. Again, genuine...

He then conceded my point about Reagan, but that's not here nor there. There really was nothing to concede. I stated a fact. I didn't say, "I think taxes were higher under Reagan" or "I think Reagan was a socialist because of his high taxes" or "I think Reagan was a bad president." I made a factual claim about federal income tax rates for the wealthy under Reagan and backed that up with documentation, which he asked for and I provided. So, he finally admitted that the fact I laid before him was accurate (gee, thanks), yet followed that up by saying it's not here nor there. In other words, the fact I stated, which he angrily denied, he admits was accurate, yet it has no importance on the argument at hand. 

He then went into political talking points, saying that the current president campaigned on redistributing the wealth, that he is hostile to successful people and chastises the rich. Gee, that sounds familiar. Of course, I could ask for him to prove these claims with credible evidence, but I don't want him to take so much time away from his wife and children, so it's probably for the very best I don't ask. These are also opinions, so just as he'll be able to find some "evidence" to support it on right-wing websites, I'll be able to deny it on more liberal websites. Again, they're just talking points. 

This brings us back to the initial disagreement, which makes the Reagan reference relevant. Obama's proposed tax hike on the rich was said to be causing class warfare, that it was unfair to the successful, that he was punishing the rich. That's exactly what this man stated right here. YET when taxes were 15% higher under Reagan (10.4% higher if the tax hike goes through), that was perfectly fine. How is it punishing success by taxing the rich 39.6%, yet isn't punishing them with 50% tax rates? Again, where's the consistency? If he were to say that under Reagan and Obama, taxes are unfair to the wealthy, fine, I will accept that. If he were to say that taxes under Obama are more fair to the wealthy than Reagan, but still unfair overall, again, I would accept that. These opinions would show consistency. It makes absolutely no logical sense for a person to lambast a president for upping the taxes on the rich to 39.6%, claiming it's punishing success, yet to have no qualms about a predecessor taxing these same individuals 10.4% more. That's all I look for - consistency. I can disagree with a person's opinion all I want, but if within said opinion, there lies (m)any contradictions, I'm going to call those out and I won't be satisfied until the other individual either admits to their inconsistency or change their mind about one thing or another, so that his or her opinions actually make sense alongside one another.

He then closes by saying he thinks we can agree that the tax plan isn't fair and that's what he was so poorly trying to say. Generally speaking, yes, he's right. If we get into details, he's far off base. We may both agree that the current tax plan isn't fair, but he doesn't think it's fair to the rich and I think it's laughable to say it's not fair to the rich. Also, he ended the discussion by angrily calling me a socialist. How is that adding to the discussion? How's it proving the point that the current tax plan isn't fair? It's not. It has nothing to do with the conversation. I just pointed out facts regarding the history of federal income taxes under both Republican and Democratic presidents and showcased the inconsistency of his opinions and beliefs. 

He then ended by apologizing again for offending me. Right. Like I'm going to buy that. It seems quite obvious to me that his wife, who I consider to be a good friend, put him up to this. If he really meant what he said, he could have just said he was sorry for offending me, that he gets worked up about politics, that he concedes my "point" (fact) about Reagan and hopes to see me again soon...or something like that. By claiming my "point" was irrelevant to the discussion at large (it wasn't), excusing himself due to drinking, laying a guilt-trip on me for not being "friendly" enough to disagree and getting political again by providing me with talking points, I can't take his apology seriously. 

I did respond with a research paper of sorts. It provided a history of tax rates for presidents since Eisenhower, a Republican, who had tax rates for the wealthiest of Americans over 90%! Don't believe it? Look it up. This held true for Kennedy and Johnson, both Democrats. Taxes decreased to 77% under Nixon, a Republican, down to 70% under Ford and Carter, a Republican and Democrat. Reagan's taxes averaged to 50% during his tenure. Since then, taxes have been between 28 and 39.6% and are currently at 35%. I was just painting a picture of, well, it's debatable whether or not 39.6% or even 35% is an unfair tax rate for the wealthiest in this country, these numbers pale in comparison to tax rates of the past. 

Also, in response to his talking points about "redistributing the wealth," I went into detail about the income inequality in this country, the gap being the largest since the Great Depression and how the U.S. ranks 100th out of 140 countries in terms of income inequality (behind Russia, China, Iran, Nigeria, etc.), that a recent poll indicates 68% of millionaires want the tax hikes to go through, etc. to showcase the enormity of the problem at hand. 

I provided six sources, all very credible and I look forward to see if he responds. Call it a hunch, but I doubt he does much research and will take the time to read up on the links I've provided and do some research of his own to potentially rebut my claims (facts). In any case, I have to say it's quite fun arguing with someone using facts while they stick to talking points. I wonder who a judge would rule in favor of in such scenarios...