Or is it?
Larry Bartels of Princeton shows that more often than not average Americans side with businesses and the wealthy in tax debates–voting for tax cuts they will never receive and against tax increases they will not pay:
“What is most remarkable is that this massive upward transfer of wealth has been broadly supported by ordinary Americans, despite a good deal of public suspicion that the benefits would go mostly to the rich. For example, a CBS News Poll in April 2001, shortly before the first big tax cut was passed, found that 51% of the public favored President Bush’s tax cut plan, while 55% said that “rich people” would “benefit most” from it.
“A Harris Poll in June 2003 found that 50% thought the 2003 tax cut was “a good thing,” while 42% said it would help “the rich” a lot and only 11% said it would help “the middle class” a lot. An even more recent survey in which respondents were reminded that “President Bush and Congress have made two major cuts in federal income tax rates” found that 54% of the public approved of those cuts, while only 37% disapproved.”
One way around this is to keep the conversation focused on what the taxes are paying for. The Vote Yes for Oregon campaign used this technique:
“You know that you want to protect Oregon's schools, health care and public safety services by voting Yes! on Measures 66 & 67.”
Their campaign was focused on tax increases for corporations and families making more than $250,000 a year. While they highlighted the fact that the measure would not increase taxes for 97.5 percent of Oregonians, they were able to keep a message of supporting services at the forefront. Check out this letter to the editor by Oregon State Representative Chris Harker:
“As a small-business owner, I'm convinced that in order for Oregon to prosper we need to have the courage and the will to create an environment that's profitable both for businesses and for the communities on which our businesses rely. Unless we properly fund our education system and protect working families and the services they need, we're going to struggle to compete in the growing global economy. The days in which low skills could generate high pay are disappearing. These tax measures are the next necessary steps to promoting the health and well-being of our state as a whole.”
Cross posted on ONE Massachusetts.
It is difficult to poll people who point to Austrailia and say we should bomb Iran next. It is also impossible to stop the current predatory globalism as these people own governments, the US one included.
That seems to indicate that they don’t want money, they just don’t want the government to have money. Obviously they are afraid of what the government is going to do with it, even if it is rich people’s money that the government is going to grab and spend.
<
p>When they say it’s for “schools, health care, and public safety”, people hear “government plot to turn kids gay, pro-sex sex ed, condoms”, etc. So my theory is the best way to get people to vote for a responsible level of taxation that is in their interest is to convince them that the money the government gets is not going toward unnecessary and immoral or icky government programs that God would rain fire and brimstone down on us for.
People who hear those things are insane, and the government should use some rich-people money to provide mental-health treatment for them.
I don’t think that’s feasible, there are far too many people who oppose liberalism and would rather see the country fail than have it keep pushing that agenda. The treatment wouldn’t cause them to change their belief, because the belief is grounded in fact. Change the fact, prove that the government isn’t beholden to crazy liberal agendas and maybe people will trust the government with rich people’s money again.
Get help.
I’m saying that’s why people are reluctant to support “schools”, and government in general, because they think it is controlled by people intent on normalizing and promoting a radical gay agenda. The issue isn’t whether kids can be turned gay, or even if there is a government plot to do it, the issue is, why are people against a functioning government, and what can we do about it? It’s a serious question that needs a serious response. Giving the population drugs and therapy is a bad answer.
People are not simply against a functioning government. While anti-government sentiment is easy to tap into, it’s also easy to tap into pro-government sentiment. Peoples approval/disapproval of government goes up and down. When Obama was elected it was high. In the depths of a recession, it tends to be low.
<
p>People’s attitude toward government is low when they have trouble seeing it’s mission and role. Providing education, preventing the spread of infectious diseases, creating jobs, regulating business — these are among the things people believe government can and should do.
You hit on it when you note that attitudes toward government go up and down when they have trouble seeing its mission and role. My point is that when they don’t like what they perceive is its mission and role, then they don’t want a functioning government, and oppose efforts to give it the revenue it needs to fulfill those goals. They want it to fail, they want the country to fail. They would rather there be a massive collapse than let it achieve what they consider to be an evil or immoral goal. And, since we are seeing that attitude, as you pointed out in this diary, we need to analyze what it is that might be causing it. I really really don’t think it is that they think “providing education, preventing the spread of infectious diseases, creating jobs, regulating business” are evil or immoral goals that need to be opposed, so I think we can rule those out as the reason people are trying to starve the government of its ability to function. But they certainly are opposed to normalizing homosexuality, and – here’s the thing I plead to be understood – if they could be assured that government was not synonymous with the elite (gay) agenda, they’d support government again. What we need to get a functioning government is for people to back off the gay agenda. Fire Kevin Jennings, stop that program, cut the drug research budget, stop trying to repeal DADT and DOMA, and distance government from Pam Spaulding and huh and other radicals. That’s how he won the election, and that’s how he’ll get the country back on his side.
Who is “they” and how do you know this?
<
p>As to this:
<
p>
<
p>You do know that repealing DADT was an Obama campaign promise, right?
<
p>I’m touched that you think I have any influence on government, but, at the end of the day, you’re just projecting your bigotry onto policy.
<
p>
You’re proposing a solution to a “problem” you’ve conjured up out of your own bigotry. Come back when you have evidence to support any of the following:
<
p>- people are against a functioning government
– government is controlled by people intent on normalizing and promoting a radical gay agenda
– ditto for schools
– kids can be turned gay
<
p>I’ll leave you with this quote from Simone de Beauvoir
<
p>”Man is defined as a human being and a woman as a female – whenever she behaves as a human being she is said to imitate the male.”
<
p>I’m guessing you won’t understand how it applies to your claim of a “radical gay agenda.”
Most people don’t, they just internalize their discomfort and come up with other rationalizations for why they are opposed to the direction and priorities of government. In the privacy of a voting booth, when the issue is clear and in front of them, people feel free to express their homophobia, but no one likes admitting it, even to themselves, because they have learned the lesson that being concerned with the gay agenda gets one ridiculed and the people that do that are all latent homosexuals themselves. So, ironically, their own homophobia prevents them from dealing with the issue directly or discussing it at Tea Parties.
<
p>People want a functioning government, they fear government is controlled by gays, they oppose schools teaching about homosexuality or encouraging kids to be gay, and of course kids can be turned gay. Hardly any kids were gay 40 years ago, now it seems fifty percent are. You would agree that maximizing the number of gay students is the goal of Kevin Jennings, et al, right? If getting 25 students to identify as gay is good, getting 26 is even better, right? There’s no limit, right?
It couldn’t possibly be that kids were gay 40 years ago and were just afraid to identify as such (gee… why would that be?), but rather you’ve uncovered the secret plot to wipe out the human race by making homo the new hetero using the clever guise of tolerance, respect, and civil rights.
<
p>But for those damn kids and their damn dog. Curses! Foiled again!
Wow, those recruiting efforts are REALLY paying off.
<
p>And to think I was opposed to printing up brochures.
See? Handing out brochures in bus stations like the Hari Krishnas really works!
This conversation didn’t go where I hoped it would go. And I am saddened by the homophobia expressed by dc.
believe there’s any use to labels like “liberalism.”
When progressive positions on social problems are presented to them without labels like “liberal,” a majority of people approve of those positions. To whatever extent the populace are opposed to “liberalism,” it’s the word they don’t like, not the policies – including raising taxes on the rich.
In spite of the cartoon I posted, I don’t think people are stupid. But I think the arguments we have around taxes are confusing. I think it’s on us to present information in a manner that’s clear.
<
p>The challenge is that people are bombarded with negative messaging about government — in talk radio, in blogs, in newsmedia. People will support government when they have a clear idea of what they’re supporting.
<
p>Keep in mind that people in Oregon voted for new taxes during a recession. In that case, the people there were able to make the case that the state needed to invest in education, health care and other public systems.
<
p>Also, People in Dedham voted to raise property taxes to pay for schools. There, the override advocates were able to make compelling arguments for investment in their education system.
It was a specific item, tangible, and of direct benefit to the local taxpayers.
<
p>Contrast that the the vagueness of ‘education’, ‘health care’ and ‘public systems’.
<
p>You are right that people are bombarded with negative messages about government – and that bombardment has not even BEGUN to exhaust the ammunition on the subject. People feel they cannot trust large bureaucratic systems that propose solutions like charging cash in order to speak to a governmnet-approved human that will usually turn out to be indifferent or unable to address the problem.
<
p>And, as I’ve said many times before, the continual disparagement and belittling of those who feel that distrust by Democrats and media alike is a fine way to make friends and influence people.
and 40 years of bombarded messages go a long way when the goal is starving the beast ala Grover Norquist
<
p>
<
p>from Yawu’s comment above:
<
p>
The American people were told to throw away cynicism and embrace hope, supporting Barack Obama. Do you think what has happened in the intervening 15 months has increased or decreased cynicism among those voters?
……so says the little sign over my desk.
<
p>Starting with Senator Goldwater’s campaign for President we have listened to over 40 years of small government rhetoric incessantly pounding away a simple simple message like the set of my grandson’s drums.
<
p>Can’t turn it around entirely in 15 months, I think. Takes more than a simple message to begin to rebuild the public’s confidence in their own government.
<
p>But the President is doing a pretty good job of leading the way as our own “Drum Major for Justice”, to quote Martin Luther King. I’m just trying to keep in step.