So, hypothetical. We have a capitalistic society with a particular set of laws and regulations. At some particular point in time, 10% of the population have incomes below $20,000, 80% have incomes between $20,000 and $100,000, 8% have incomes between $100,000 and $500,000 and 2% have incomes above $500,000. The income tax rates are regressive with a top income bracket of 35% kicking in above $2,000,000. This has all remained constant for some time.
Then, there’s some change in lobbying law which (some alarmists say) makes it easier for the rich to wield political power. Various subisidies for big banking companies and oil companies are passed. School lunches are cut. Public education is cut. The tax code is revamped with lots of loopholes added for the rich.
Twenty years later, the household income (adjusted for inflation) of the bottom 10% has remained constant, the next 80% has remained constant, the next 8% has gone up some, and the top 2 % has gone WAY up. But cuts in various social programs mean that the actual quality of life of the bottom 10% in particular is significantly lower than it used to be, and poorer public education means that people born in the bottom 10% are more likely to remain there. Meanwhile the tax rates in terms of taxes actually paid have remained constant for the bottom 90% and gone down for the top 10%.
In that world, two citizens on a message board are arguing over whether the economic situation they live in is fair, whether the rich have it “too good”. Here’s the thing: every argument you’re making in this thread could be made by someone living in that world with 100% validity. Sure in that world rich people are often rich because they work hard, and sure in that world it’s “unfair” to “take money away” from the rich via raising their taxes. And yet I think it’s entirely reasonable for residents of that world to bemoan the turn their society has taken, and the influence the rich clearly wield in politics. Do you not see anything disturbing or unfair about such a situation?
Now, I just made all those numbers up, no idea to what extend they correspond to the USA today. But you seem to be implying that, no matter what, as long as there is even the slightest possibility of social mobility and a vaguely functional court system, it’s impossible for any system to be “unfair”. You seem to reject prima facie the idea that any amount of political influence, tax breaks, and so forth could possibly actually be a bad thing as long as for every person there’s an outside chance that they might possibly be able to work hard and succeed and become fabulously wealthy.
You link to an op-ed piece that is apparently relating the results of some survey conducted in 2006, which pre-dates the Tea Party, and some kind of subsequent research, which is never explained or cited.
But while I am not a Tea Party member, it’s the case that (if you’ll forgive the phrase) some of my best friends are. And as a conservative who’s been reasonably active in local and state politics for years, I have never been subject to anything that I would consider a racial or ethnic slight from anyone in the political right.
The article is about a study that was started in 2006. They did a followup recently, with the same set of people and found that the best predictor for who became a Tea Party member was being a religious, white, Republican who is uneasy with minorities and immigrants.
I assume there was no link to the data, because they’re writing a book about it.
In any case, feel safe in the knowledge that the Tea Partiers you know probably do think you’re a great guy. You’re probably who they use to convince themselves they aren’t prejudiced.
Also, you’re a fucking idiot if you think that link says anything other than you’re a petty dipshit who carries a grudge for what, seven years?
First, it’s not a grudge. It’s a memory. I remember that the way to say, “Release the prisoners,” in Koopekai is pulu see bamgoobah. That’s because I watched “Gilligan’s Island” and remember the episode in which Gilligan’s head is carved atop a Koopekai totem pole. Rest assured I carry no grudge against Sherwood Schwartz, Russell Johnson, or Bob Denver. But since I have that memory, if anyone ever asks about Gilligan, totem poles, and headhunter indigenous language, I will use that as a basis to support my answer.
In the same way, if we’re discussing racially-based comments directed at me, I remember them – not because I have a grudge, but because I have a memory, no more or no less effective than my memory of Gilligan’s Island episodes.
Secondly, then, I offered up that link to support my thesis: that while I don’t recall every getting that kind of commentary from the right, I get it from the left every once in a while. Some people on the left seem to regard a Hispanic conservative as a betrayal – that as a minority, it’s especially wrong of me to be conservative.
Your reaction is very palatable: you think they think I’m a great guy – undoubtedly because I am! You just think that I’m a rare case in their eyes.
But contrast your reaction with Jack Batty, who appears much more confident that the slur seven years ago was accurate.
Fair enough. I agree, that it is a memory, not a grudge. It however, is a meaningless tidbit seemingly designed to cloud the issue and create the illusion that the left is where the racists are. Wouldn’t you agree that factually there are more racists among the Republican base than the Democratic base? That’s certainly the impression I get. If for no other reason than the Republican base is full of older white people.
And many conservatives think Jewish people being liberal is a betrayal. So? Besides, you’re Cuban descended, right? That’s a whole different deal. I think the right likes Cubans because of anti-Castro (and thus communist) history.
I think the vast majority of Tea Partiers want to take draconian measures against Mexican immigrants. That doesn’t apply to you because you aren’t one of those. And you have no accent, a high status job and roots in the community. I suspect your experience might be different if your particulars were different.
It’s certainly possible they are just nice to your face. But you also might just be dealing personally with some exemplars of the Tea Party set.
The intent of the past is meaningless. Those people are dead. we are left with the interpretations of today. No one of the past is so holy or all knowing that we can’t ignore their intent anyway. People of the past got a lot of stuff wrong too.
The founding fathers can go fuck themselves for all I care. If they have a problem with they way things are done they can register to vote like everyone else and we’ll still be where we are at today. Their work is done. It’s up to the people alive today to decide our future not them.
It was clearly the intent of some of them, yes. The ones who styled themselves “Federalists”, for the most part. Hence, the name. Not all the Founding Fuckups were Federalists. You could look it up.
So we should do away with the presidency and the Congress and the Supreme Court (and the separation of church and state :D) and plunge the country into chaos so that the government which no longer exists can give you money it took from someone else?
If that’s what the people of today want to do sure. We follow the constitution because we choose to. No greater power is forcing us to follow that document and nothing prevents us from changing it to suit our needs.
Yes anyone of the opinion only white land owning men should have the right to vote is an ass in my book.
You don’t say all the founding fathers just happened to be white land owning men that would benefit from overthrowing the current government and putting themselves in it’s place.
Sorry I don’t adopt the mantra that they were all knowing wise men looking out for the good of humanity. They were politicians just like the ones of today.
And the third explorer said “Bah, a fig for your threats! I’m made of sterner stuff than these two, I will choose death rather than bagoombah, and be damned, sir!”
And the chief said “Very well, so be it! Death! Death by bagoombah!”
