EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts
Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.
It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.
We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat", "cut out the waste", "shrink the government", and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the U.S. population. How can this be?
The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:
An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.
The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):
- Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education
- Pass legislation that cripples public schools
- Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing
- Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.)
This strategy demonstrates how cognitive policy works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot)
Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts, we can apply this insight to see that conservatives want people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.
Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.
First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)
Taxation as Conservatives Understand It
I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, what I'll call Taxes Are A Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:
Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.
This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.
Taxation as Progressives Understand It
Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are An Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure, and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths) Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:
Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.
This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.
Truth and Consequences
Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.
What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance, and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, non-profits, and the private sector.
Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.
The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.
And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.
Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare, and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.
Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.
I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.
The Hidden Agenda Exposed
The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself... everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama Administration.
I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're over taxed. This claim is absurd!
Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon Administration.
Banks haven't failed catastrophically through over-sized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)
Companies haven't been driven to huge lay-offs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.
What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.
We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.
Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


133 Comments so far
Show AllThere's a hidden agenda behind tax cuts?
We pay too many goddamn taxes!
Personally, I think anything over a 2% tax rate is funding for totalitarianism. Too many unconstitutional programs being sponsored by the Federal Empire as a way of forcing their will on localities. It's funny how you libs want to buy local vegetables but want federal government regulating and interfering with every portion of your life. I say - local produce and local government is best.
Calm down, Dammerung -- have some peanut butter cookies...
Well then go and live here http://www.dancingrabbit.org/
Oh wait, they're all liberals there. Well, you could always convince a group of conservatives to abandon their cookie-cutter McMansions, two cars each, and weekly BBQ's and found a village based on local governance and producing/foraging your own food. HAH! Fat chance. So shutup and be part of society, or go move to a developing country where government is incapable of providing anything for its citizens, but you will be "free" from its taint, more or less.
What do you mean "we" pay too many taxes? In Alaska, residents get a rebate from the state. Texans don't pay any income tax either.
Do "we" pay enough taxes to cover the services "we" desire?
Do you mean the wealthy pay too much in taxes? But how many taxes do the wealthy avoid paying, via loopholes and offshore investments?
Don't "we" need to pay MORE taxes to pay down all of our DEBTS?
I agree that WE, the working class pay too many taxes. In 1970 corporations paid 29% of the US income tax burden. Today they pay 6% and within a decade they will pay 0%. Somebody has to pay the taxes and YOU have to make up for what the corporations don't pay.
We need to examine what the tax money is used for in order to get rid of costs like weapons programs that produce obsolete weapons but create jobs in an influential congressman's district. Taxes should be spent only on things the government can do better than the private sector, like inspect food processing plants, and keeping the finanacial industry from destroying the global economy while making a fortune for themeselves in the process.
Dammerung - how do you feel about financing the military industrial complex? ABout corporate tax loopholes? About hidden offshore accounts created to circumvent the law?
>>Dammerung - how do you feel about financing the military industrial complex?
Hate it. A Hezbollah-style militia model is the cheapest, most effective, and most efficient way to protect our country from attack.
>>ABout corporate tax loopholes?
With a 2% tax rate there'd be less incentive to cheat. Likewise, cheating on taxes is fraud and should be severely punished. But I used to cheat on my taxes all the time when I was a waiter - the Federal Empire takes too much damned money!
Collecting a little revenue from a lot of people is more effective than a lot of revenue from a few people. When Disneyland raises prices, profits go down.
>>About hidden offshore accounts created to circumvent the law?
Fraud is illegal. But the Federal Empire is buttbuddies with the megacorps and they don't enforce their own laws. But they still tax us upwards of 20% to fail to do it!
Yes, the Hezbollah militia works to a fashion. But look how Lebanon has been piss-pounded over and over. I believe you might want to rethink that idea.
I agree with Greg R. Local militias are powerless against invasion and occupation by a well-trained, professional military. The power of a local militia is just NRA hyperbole to empower men with small dicks and security moms who think that their SUV is like a tank.
Unless Canada and Mexico are thinking of invading the US, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans are our best defense against invasion and occupation.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Uh, local militias worked pretty damn well in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq against a well-trained, professional military.
I agree...sort of.
In Vietnam, local militias were provided with weapons, intelligence and a command-and-control structure by BOTH the VC and an unwitting US military.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, the US military are operating under a glass dome of international media scrutiny. The US is not operating with impunity, which they would if faced with an armed uprising in the US. Think of 100 Waco sieges, but without the nonsense of negotiation.
The US Govt knows the membership of local militias, what they spend their money on, how they communicate. Most gun-owners are in a database, that can be quickly linked with other databases (credit/ATM cards, telephone conversation, digital-data tracking, etc).
It would take only one night of long knives to remove the leaders of these militias, make known that all digital and RF communications will be tracked, and the GPS constellation to be reconfigured to disallow hand-held units to knacker any armed uprising in the US.
Militias may be well-endowed with patriotism and enthusiasm, but they fall well short in the areas of command-and-control, team-work, weapons capability and delivery, intelligence (not IQ). They will also find trouble in mustering the will to kill their fellow-country men, something that will cause little concern to many soldiers .
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
One more thing; the militias you mentioned are not composed of angry white American men.
Overweight and overconfident best describes these so-called militias.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in their moccasins - Native American proverb.
Good point. Arabs and Vietnamese are far more accustomed to genuine hardships than rural/suburban American white men are.
Tax property not income. Any property one has or controls should be taxed. One has a house, car, boat, summer property, stocks bonds, bank accounts, gold, silver, furniture, plane, any property.
And it should be taxed at the same rate for everyone each year. This is as fair as one could hope for, too. No income tax and everyone pays the same rate. And the rate can be fairly low, too. One half percent maybe?
Is this a good idea, Mr. Dammerung?
"The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that..."
...Is that it's mostly all many people have been/are exposed to, over and over again, for 30+ years. It used to be called brainwashing...
Yes, "brainwashing" is why my jaw drops every time I see how much the Federal Empire withholds from my paycheck every month. I'm "brainwashed" to think that I am not getting any reasonable protection or value for my dollars.
Please libs, please - assume just once that your political opponents might also be thinking adults who have good reasons for their points of view. You treat conservatives like children - no wonder they despise you.
"I'm "brainwashed" to think that I am not getting any reasonable protection or value for my dollars. "
That's because conservatives have been cutting every program that can protect or have value to you for a couple generations now. What do you expect?
I wonder at the free use of an opinion regarding an entire body of political thought. I doubt that "all" conservatives hate any group universally, just as I doubt you to be a true conservative yourself. The 'neo' seems to have fallen off somewhere, look around I'm sure you'll find it.
A flat tax is a great idea, but 2% seems to be a hasty number and probably stems from a disliking for social programs for the needy, for children, for seniors, for unwed mothers, etc., etc. Perhaps you might ponder how little tax those who can afford it most actually pay.....
Being treated as a child simply means that that particular poster sees your post as childish, just as you see a group mentality that doesnt exist.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
A 2% tax rate wouldn't pay for squat. Your roads would be gravel, at best, mud most likely. You wouldn't have any courts, nor would you be able to pay for police or any form of national defense. You'd have no way to pay people to make sure that the local produce was indeed safe for people to eat, nor would you be able to pay for water treatment plants to get clean water. Dammerung, you're nuttier than squirrel poo if you think that any government could survive with so little cash.
>>Your roads would be gravel, at best, mud most likely.
Great! The Soviet Socialist road system destroyed the autonomous communities of this country and led to an environmental disaster. People used to live above their merchant shops - now they commute 60 miles a day. We need to reboot civic life from the ground up in this country, and actually living and working with your neighbors would go a long way.
>>You wouldn't have any courts
No, courts would be used to prosecute murder and fraud and not marijuana users.
>>You'd have no way to pay people to make sure that the local produce was indeed safe for people to eat
Because the FDA does SUCH A GREAT JOB! They persecute raw milk producers while letting tainted peanuts into the food supply. not to mention, against all evidence they claim marijuana has not medical benefits.
>>Dammerung, you're nuttier than squirrel poo if you think that any government could survive with so little cash.
I don't want the Fed to survive. It has a constitutional mandate to do a HANDFUL of things
-regulate international trade
-assure free commerce between states
-organize national defense
-make treaties
That's about it. I don't want to fund anything else.
"I don't want the Fed to survive."
And there you have it. To each their own. Damn the common good. Damn public services. Damn the protection of rights, tranquility, and the pursuit of happiness. The strong will survive, and rule. The strong (not the just) will lead us in all things. If you're too weak to survive and make it on your own, then you deserve to be taken advantage of, to be enslaved, to die. And if your smart enough and strong enough to impose your will on others successfully, then you deserve all the riches and power that you can get. it was good enough for the Egyptians, it's good enough for us.
To hell with it all - hit that bong dude.
>>And there you have it. To each their own. Damn the common good.
Is the common good locking up the largest percentage of its own people of any country on earth?
Is the common good starting relentless wars and bombing our own allies?
Is the common good funding black holes of moral depravity like Blackwater and Halliburton?
Is the common good letting war criminals from previous administrations go unpunished?
What COMMON GOOD has the government provided that hasn't been a double edged sword?
The government feeds PET PROGRAMS and CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS. Trust me - you don't matter any more to the Federal Empire than any Iraqi civilian. Than any Afghani or Lebanese civilian. You are delusional if you think that you somehow matter more to your masters than any of the massacred civilians in the barbarian satraps.
>>If you're too weak to survive and make it on your own, then you deserve to be taken advantage of, to be enslaved, to die.
Funny that you say that now, when Rahm Emmanuel wants to enslave America's children for 2 years under the moniker of "civil service."
To put it simply - any form of voluntary association and voluntary contract should be permissible and legally enforceable. No kind of involuntary association or contract should be permitted.
The same ones doing these things you complain about are the ones who want to reduce government so it can be drowned in a bathtub, including cutting the FDA's ability to inspect and regulate foods and drugs, and cutting regulation of finance so they can steal.
The problem isn't government -- it's bad government, and insufficient government where it's needed. That's a result of conservatism, authoritarianism, and reduction of the power of the people to act politically.
Got a clue for you: government IS a volutary association and contract -- at least until the gangsters take control as they have in the US now. You are barking at the wrong animal when you complain about governmen instead of the big corporations, the wealthy, the oligarchy, and the crooks in government and who control it. You can't come up with solutions because you don't understand what the problem is. You have swallowed this nonsense about 'small government' which has been fed to people by the same ones who are starting wars for profit, putting people in jail for profit, and generally being authoritarian so they can control people for their own benefit. You have toss THOSE cookies up and find some ideas which actually are nutritional, not poison.
"Is the common good locking up the largest percentage of its own people of any country on earth?
Is the common good starting relentless wars and bombing our own allies?
Is the common good funding black holes of moral depravity like Blackwater and Halliburton?"
All done by conservatives, not liberals. At least in recent decades.
"Funny that you say that now, when Rahm Emmanuel wants to enslave America's children for 2 years under the moniker of "civil service.""
Sounds better than the 4 year to death enslavement in the military that many of America's children face now. And many of my friends from college are thrilled by the prospect of being enslaved for 2 years under the moniker of "civil service", ie, Peace Corps or AmeriCorps.
Can there be any doubt over the very idea of a "Common Good" as we see the above futile example of arguing what things are included and what aren't?
'We need to reboot civic life from the ground up in this country, and actually living and working with your neighbors would go a long way.'
You sound a bit like some of those fundies who argue that the ancient way of life was better than life today. You'd have people forced to live their entire lives within walking distance, as most of our ancestors did? Do you not realise that the roads and rails were built with gov't support to get trade flowing? Hardly a 'soviet' ideal.
'No, courts would be used to prosecute murder and fraud and not marijuana users'
At that rate of taxation, you wouldn't be able to prosecute anyone for any crime in a court of any sort. Theft would go unpunished, unless you caught the person in the act and shot him yourself. The stock market would pull a crash every thirty years, and no government would exist to prevent it.
You're an anarchist. Might sound like a good idea now while you're young and foolish, you'll change your mind; unless of course you join the other anarchists in the Republican party.
'the FDA' has had its funding cut by the other anarchists in the repuke horde, that led to the peanut poisoning (and others). You're actually going to argue that if that body didn't exist at all you'd be safer? If you do you're smoking something much stronger than pot. Greenspan has argued that the companies themselves would self-regulate, and he's a big one for cutting taxes and cutting back the government regulations.
'I don't want the Fed to survive'
no you don't, not if you advocate not having any taxes at all. None of what you expect you'd be able to pay for. Your skys would be a free for all with planes crashing into each other due to the lack of air traffic controlers. Your highways would go without any policemen on them, not to mention no fire service, nor any ambulances. Your kids wouldn't be able to read or write, as they wouldn't be in school. There'd be no research that couldn't produce an immediate profit.
'-regulate international trade
-assure free commerce between states
-organize national defense
-make treaties'
At a 2% tax rate how would you pay for any of those things? You'd not be able to afford to pay the diplomats to negotiate any treaty, nor would you be able to buy guns for the organization of national defense, nor would you be able to regulate any trade - let alone international commerce.
That's part of the problem with having a written constitution, it inhibits the natural growth of a state. If the state doesn't have some avenue for growth, it will die (from internal revolution usually, as the people get sick of dealing with economic turmoil).
Do you study or do you use a ouiji board to get your opinions? That "Soviet Socialist road system" about which you prattle was the product of the Eisenhower administration.
That short list you posted forgot about a small feature of our preamble, allow me to refresh your memory:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Its that general welfare thingie that you want to bypass it would seem. How is Ron Paul these days? See him at any Stormfront meetings?
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
I'd just like to take a moment and point out something about a fellow commenter on this thread. We have a person posting here who comes around every time I write an article and antagonizes my central claims in a manner that only clarifies what I mean about conservative thought. (You know who you are)
This person has already posted in this forum with several comments that exemplify the "Me First" perspective. This person seems to ardently believe (1) that you are on your own; and (2) that you SHOULD be on your own. Ignoring all observations about the benefits of cooperation, this person deftly applies grotesque stereotypes with words like "socialist" and "communist." Yet, the arguments are hollow. They are not intended to challenge the reasoning of my arguments, but rather to direct your attention away so that you don't dwell on them.
For example, you might notice that I end my article with several examples of how something other than taxes is the underlying cause of hardship in our current economic crisis. Yet this person says things like "We pay too many goddamn taxes!" I'd love to see how the argument goes for claiming that our economy is unraveling because personal W-2 forms are too big. The mental gymnastics involved would be quite impressive.
Hope this helps ease the minds of other passersby who experience the negativity of this person's rants. There are many more of us who resonate with progressive values here. Some lone voices just stand out and dominate from time to time. But they are no more influential for the size of their presence in the forum.
I hope you don't mean me. Don't tell me that I've fallen into the trap of arguing with another troll, I think I've noticed that for myself... Perhaps he's got a new name for his posts?
No worries to you, Saturnalia.
The culprit has posted more comments in this thread than everyone else combined. Funny isn't it? How they seem to know where to go and create havoc?
;-)
Do they get paid by the post? If so, where can I get a job like that? I've got a great name picked out for it.
It is intensely interesting to me that on "conservative" sites, people with perceived liberal opinions get this exact same accusation leveled against them.
I came to this site years back because I was interested in their anti-war message. But what passes for economic theory here drives me to distraction, and the economy has become as big a threat to the safety and well-being of Americans as the war.
"wack a mole and up it pops....
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
You guessed it! that'd be my name for anyone who wants to pay me enough coin to sell out everything I really believe in. 'Whack-a-Mole'
It'd allow for many humane posters to call me whacky, whacky for cash that is. (disclaimer; said morals will be sold to the highest bidder, bidding starts at 24 billion dollars, cdn funds only.)
I'm fairly new here, but Dammerung's comments, although many, do not seem particularly troll-like to me. He's not trashing or flaming anyone. I think his comments serve a useful function in helping others sharpen their arguments. I mean, tens of millions of people, including a lot of antiwar and civil liberties activists, fear the power of government, and with some reason.
The basic contradiction in all the extreme anti-governmentism is that the corporate oligarchs and the government elites are the same people, two divisions of the same company. Hence the term "revolving door." It only makes sense to be anti-government if you're anti-corpoate as well. But, I get the feeling Dammerung is anti-corporate, unlike Right Wingers,. But then, how do you disempower the corporations without government intervention? How else can that be accomplished?
Given that government consistently supports the rich and powerful and always has, what can those of us who want solutions from government say or do to reassure those who are afraid of state power?
"Dammerung's comments, although many, do not seem particularly troll-like to me. "
Not to me either. He merely disagrees with the main slant of CD. That's not what a troll is. The best thing for the regulars to do is to get out of the conga line for a bit and discuss the issues point by point. Or say nothing.
The trollish part is his insistance that the government can be run with a 2% tax rate. He makes the claim, then argues for it, but fails to explain how that would pay for anything you expect a modern state to accomplish. You couldn't field an army at that rate, but he claims you could defend your country with that amount of money. I agree he's not a right winger, I say the lad's an anarchist. Believes in no government, no taxes. If you want to make that type of arguement, then you should expect to be ridiculed.
Joe_Brewer:
Your attempt to reframe debate between “progressives” and “conservatives” based on the mass psychology is well intended and cannot be argued against. Alas, I suspect that being well trained psychologists, both you and your partner Mr. Lucas either deliberately limit your dose of medicine you administer to people ill-prepared to tell truth from false or you yourselves not prepared to accept to accept that psychology alone cannot rectify our current crisis. There are more profound reasons for the profound mess our planet is in and any attempt to apply band aid is counterproductive for it misleads people.
You said in your commentary about one shill that "this person deftly applies grotesque stereotypes with words like "socialist" and "communist." This comment implies that words "socialist" and "communist" are “grotesque stereotypes”. Well, so long as those word remain grotesque stereotypes, We the People are not ready yet for better life. Look across the Pond and find out how French people react to capitalistic happy ending and compare their understanding of root causes of so called “economic crisis” to your professed understanding. I am sure that understanding you displayed here is just for consumption, sort of self censorship. But now is not the time for hesitation.
v.purto
I had thought that Dammerung was a progressive masquerading as an anarchist in order to promote debate and jog us into thinking enough to be able to negate his 'strawdog arguments', his characture being played sufficiently extreme to leave Rush looking somewhat reasonable. Making us progressives think is a good thing and I applaud it, though in some of these threads I think Dammerung is overdoing it.
Well, obviously the oligarchy's trolls are on the hunt for articles that spell the truth about their propaganda, and make sure they write as many posts possible spitting their tax cuts non sense.
To all those who complain about paying taxes, they should walk the talk by becoming TOTALLY self-sufficient: no sewage, no police, no fire department, NOTHING for them. Since they worship individualism I want to see them leading their lives like that, otherwise shut the fu(k up!
No wonder people are so disempowered and disenfranchised in the US, they don't believe they deserve to be given human rights (health care, education, infrastructure). Welcome to the Third World!!!
>>Well, obviously the oligarchy's trolls
Look at the Obama shills, not me. I hated Raygun, I hated Bush the Greater, I hated Clinton, I hated Bush the Lesser, and now I hate Obama. Really, I hate the entire Federal Empire bureaucracy. I hate being told what to do, I hate being told what not to do, and I hate paying so damn much for the privilege.
>>To all those who complain about paying taxes, they should walk the talk by becoming TOTALLY self-sufficient: no sewage, no police, no fire department, NOTHING for them
I am arguing exactly the opposite. That the best organizations to handle these matters are local - local government, local citizens organizations, et c.
>>No wonder people are so disempowered and disenfranchised in the US, they don't believe they deserve to be given human rights (health care, education, infrastructure).
I am truly tired of the government "giving" me things "for my own good," and the government "protecting" me from freedom. I think prosperity arises from a free people naturally, it is not GIVEN to us on a platter by a benevolent autocracy.
Some matters are handled well locally, but others can't be. There's no way the local government here can monitor bacterial contamination in plants in other states. There's no way they solve any number of other nation-wide industries, nation-wide needs and problems, or deal with world-wide problems.
The problem isn't big government, but bad government -- and you find that on the local level as well. The difference is that the people usually have more power to clean up a local government (but not always). The problem is that government tends to be taken over by gangsters and people with money -- at any level -- and people have allowed that to happen by being brainwashed into thinking they are just 'consumers' and peasants who have no power. If money people or a big corporation decides to control a local government the people often have no chance at all of fighting it, unless they can use federal law and power to help them -- but that assumes there is a functioning federal government which cares about people instead of just corporations. The problem isn't government; the problem is fascism.
I thank you for a very insightful post, bluepilgrim, though the intended recipient may fail to comprehend the lucidity it contains.
I am constantly amazed at this not so rare glimpse into extreme selfishness. I guess this poster has no use for good roads, police forces, fire depts, schools ( horrors public school, what a concept), the FDA, the EPA, oh heck the list is too darn large. Or more precisely, he avails himself of such services quite unconciously never considering he is betraying his entire political foundation.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
Dammerung , it looks like you don’t necessarily oppose all forms of government. You just don’t like the federal government, or the big government.
One problem that I have with your approach is that small, local governments wouldn’t be able to confront problems that we are faced with in the modern world. The issues are too complex, and solving some problems is too expensive to make small governments viable. Your approach might have been good 300 years ago, but we are here and now, in 2009, and, barring some major global catastrophe, there is no going back a few centuries.
I don’t have a problem with paying taxes. What I do have a problem with is how my tax money is spent, and this is where most people who post here seem to agree.
PDJ below hit on something in his comment: “it isn't surprising that US attitudes about taxes are so hostile compared to other industrialized nations - they genuinely don't get any value from them.” I think, that’s what it boils down to.
Also, it's a fallacy that the government will "give" you anything. You subsidize the government, and you elect officials to decide how to spend the money. They in turn can subsidize your health care, or war, schools, or the military, etc. - you get the picture.
Dammerung--
I used to work in a restaurant, and resented the foolishness of my having to declare my tip income for taxes. I couldn't even afford a car at the time!
But why blame the government for that? For every person who represents us in Washington, there are 62 people representing wealthy special interests. What chance do we have, really? We lost control of our government, and now it's largely corporate-run.
If we got control of our government back, we could make it serve our best interests instead of letting corporations loot the treasury at our expense.
Yeah, I think you just might be a liberal after all.
This is why the Founders in their wisdom so limited the power of government. It will ALWAYS belong to the biggest campaign donors. It will ALWAYS be infested with political parties and shady alliances. That is why - precisely why - the Constitution only allows it to do a handful of things!
-regulate trade
-form treaties
-declare war and organize defense
Why - oh why - do people look to an illegal, unconstitutional bureaucracy to solve the MANY problems we have today?
It appears Dammerung didn't read the article. The author is attempting to explain why the conservative mantra that "taxes are bad, taxes are bad, taxes are bad" is a bad idea in itself and needs to be revised so that the country can recover from thirty years of neglect. The U.S. has traditionally spent 8% GDP on infrastructure. In the last decade or so that has dropped to 4% (and three bridges collapsed in the past year -- what's next?). China is currently spending 9% on it's infrastructure (hint, hint.)
Conservatives often look back longingly at the 50's as a time when America was great, women could stay home with the kids, prosperity galore. Let's never forget that that was also the time of the 93% tax bracket. Quit whining, shoulder some responsibility to your community and country and maybe we'll stop treating you like the spoiled children you've been for the past thirty years.
Which part of "We really need to invest in one another." didn't you understand?
We should not forget the other lie about cutting taxes -- that the money will "trickle down." Usually all that trickles down is selfishness or cruelty, though sometimes those come in a flood.
Also, in addition to taxation, I think "freedom" could use some new framing. To me, the most important freedom is the freedom to come together with others to form a government that will protect us from predators, the common street variety or the corporate or bankster variety, and to build a better future for all of us. I see those who stand in the way of forming such a government as enemies of freedom.
The government is the biggest predator of all. The government runs interference for the loan sharks - Obama voted for the original "stimulus" too! And what did the banksters do? They cut it up and put it in their own pockets. Will Obama hunt them down and give them the hanging they deserve? Nope - we "have to look forward" not punish criminals who flagrantly abused our laws and taxpayers.
The government is like the Mafia. It acquires territory and then collects "protection" money from people at the barrel of a gun. It will KILL YOU if you don't pay them. The main service the government provides, if you bribe them well enough, is to leave you alone.
What most of you aren't getting is that
-I agree with you about the problems we face
but
-I disagree with you about the cause. It's not bad governance, it's government with too much power. Power will always, always, always, always be abused. It's human nature. So don't give anyone very much power.
There are powerful predators within the government and without. Minimizing government does not help, as then the powerful predators without eat you up. Maximizing government is dangerous, as then powerful predators within the government may eat you up.
It would be great if different localities could experiment to come up with different solutions, different balances and different rules and regulations applying to the government and the general society and economy. However, I generally come down on the side of experimenting with more government as I think it is difficult but not impossible to design a non-abusive powerful government, but it seems impossible to develop a system with weak government that is non-abusive. With weak government, the least principled, the most ruthless, and the most self-serving will have an advantage and ultimately gain the most power, and the most powerful players will inevitably warp the rules and the environment (social, political, and economic) to suit their interests.