You asked Tuhl the question, not me - but let me ask you one all the same.
You said what your brother said bothered you. Why? Why did his contention - that people become more right wing when "they see how large their tax bills are" bother you?
You use the glib phrase "OPM", Other People's Money. You say your brother is successful, and like you, he came from a less than fortunate household and presumably attended public school and state college.
This is a breakdown of the Ohio state budget:
For many years you were both reliant on Other People's Money. Simply enough there is absolutely no way you could have survived, much less been successful, without it. Show him the graph and ask him - if there's no way that he could have made it without what was 'OPM', then why now think his money belongs to him?
If he responds that he paid for college with loans and got a job, then point out that his job is viable only because of spending on education both for workers and himself, that the loans were probably issued by the federal government below market rate, and that state colleges aren't financially solvent without 'OPM' (further proof: compare in-state and out-of-state tuition for Ohio State):
Quote:
Regional campus/ATI: U.S. freshmen and transfer students
Billed expenses
Ohio resident Nonresident
Tuition and fees $7,140/7,104 $22,548/22,512
If he says that there's a lot of waste in government, then point out that public colleges are uniformly much, much cheaper than private colleges (even with subsides factored in):
http://www.rpia.ohio-state.edu/cfb/docs/cfb-2012.pdf Page 9 indicates that when you graduated, state support was about 50% of OS' operating revenue; today it's 29%. I don't know when or from where your brother graduated, but if he's older it's likely that his share was even more paid for by 'OPM'.
If he wants to take issue with the HHS costs that make up the plurality of the budget, then point out that with your domestic issues, you were completely reliant on that budget to get by...or you could point out that state solutions are, in fact, more economical than private sector ones. You can go about this by looking at administrative costs, or you can go with the more obvious fact that countries that go full state are sufficiently content with their systems that they are not considered controversial, and their budget situations are not as bad as our own. You could also point out that a
full one-third of that big plurality goes to family and child care.
You said he's successful. The funny thing about American 'success' is that for all but a very few people, success is very fragile.
Most Americans can sustain one tough break - say, getting fired, or disabled, or being sued, or divorced, or accused of a crime, or a serious illness, or an unexpected pregnancy, or having your car totaled or your house flooded. Two, however, is almost always a washout. If you get fired and also become unable to walk you are done for. Or fired, and sued; or fired, and your car breaks down; or, you still have your job, but you get sued and lose your car, or your house, or have a stack of medical bills, at the same time. And God help you should you get
three tough breaks within the space of a year.
Would you say you or your brother pass this stress test? Your father certainly didn't.
A second question, then: ask your brother, or pretend to, why he clings so tightly to this glib notion of 'OPM' when it's so obviously contrary to reality. Why it seems to exercise such great influence over your thinking.
I would surmise that in reality you both have great difficulty coming to grips with your mortality. Assuming a pretense of self-reliance, the idea that all you have is yours and attributable to you alone, is your way of making yourself feel strong against a world in which you are provably quite weak. That, and of course to validate your contribution to society. No offense, but if you both dropped dead and your jobs went unfilled how big a difference would it really make? But if you presume that what you do is indispensable then of course it validates one's self-gratification. No?
I doubt you'd presume to Aestu your own brother, but it's interesting to contemplate nonetheless.
I'll share a funny story about my own brother here. Back in 2000, we bet fifty dollars who would win the election. I was convinced Bush would win. When the election played out, my brother refused to pay, claiming Bush had cheated. I argued that whether he cheated or not was immaterial; he was now president, and my prediction had been predicated on the belief he would do so. Ultimately, my parents paid up just to put an end to it.
Twelve years later, Aaron, who graduated from UCLA with a BA in political science, would wash out of politics because of his profound lack of fight and inability to distinguish himself, and also be unable to go to law school due to dismal performance on the LSAT. Meanwhile, my parents insist I should apply for disability rather than borrow to go to UCinn for a MSA (which was originally their idea) and are adamantly opposed to supporting my efforts in any way, preferring to continue to pay for my idle upkeep, in the apparent belief I will fail at whatever I try.
I sharpen my pike for more heads. Life goes on.
