Techniques of the Left, by Charlie Gruner

I have to express my gratitude to Christian Schock of Galesburg. His letter in the September 17, 2011 R-M, he gives me an opportunity to show examples of techniques he uses when he runs out of facts for his arguments.

The first technique is to try to marginalize your opponent.  Near the beginning of his letter, Schock writes that I am a TEA Party leader,assuming that many people will find that enough to dismiss my opinion. Then he adds that “facts don’t matter very much” to the TEA Party. Trying to marginalize me and/or the TEA Party makes the second technique easier if you succumb to the first.

The second technique is called mis-direction. Here’s how it works: Point out an opponent’s argument and then subtly change the subject.  In Schock’s first attempt at this he calls attention to my contention that insurance company officers would be jailed if their companies were run like Social Security. Schock then changes the subject to the relative administrative costs. My observations were on the fraudulent nature of the “product” and Schock focuses on administrative costs rather than the subject of the argument.

The next example of mis-direction is when Schock talks about the amount of income that the Social Security tax was to be levied on. He discusses the effects of inflation (though this was never explained in the promises of the original act) and says that the $3,000 figure is equivalent to$45,000 today. Granting Schock’s numbers, how does he explain that the maximum today is $106,800? That’s over three times the rate of inflation. He also ignores the fact that the rate of tax has also gone up over 600%.

After running out of gas on the subject, Schock then talks about the debt incurred to Social Security and blames Republican administrations. This is another subtle change in subject because I never specified party. In fact you will find that I and most TEA Party folks hold both major parties responsible.

In no part of Schock’s argument is there any factual information refuting the actual comparisons that I made between Social Security and Ponzni Schemes. In fact, at the very end of his letter Schock says that it is not a Ponzi scheme but blames the “Bush administration” because it is one. I’m not sure how that makes any sense.

Charlie Gruner

Galesburg 9/12 Group Member