Anyone switching to a credit union with what's going on?

[J T]

Frank Luntz, a Republican strategist, gave this advice recently in a speech to The Republican Governors Association, instructing other Republicans in how to talk about/talk to Occupy protestors.

I like this guy. I'm not sure if this was posted as "gasp...look what they're doing now", but seems to me this guy gets how people think.

It was a bit of a "gasp", but moreso just to highlight how political spin works. I think people need to be very clear in what they believe, or it's very easy to get bamboozled by a slick talker. Most of what he is talking about is just a subtle turn of phrase to use word connotation to persuade towards a conservative Republican position. Obviously, everyone uses vocabulary to their advantage in debate, it's just interesting to see a carefully crafted word game designed to mush up a topic I care about. Though this sort of wordplay comes from both sides, it feels more grotesque when you firmly oppose their overall message, but can see how the lingo gets flipped to make their position appear more appealing (though it's just polishing turds imo).

A few things to consider when you start hearing these word games:

"Tax the rich" vs "Take money from the rich":
Well, taxes are always about taking money away from people. But while "tax" is already an unpopular word, saying "take" just makes it sound more like stealing and seems devoid of the notion that the money will be used for societal benefit. It makes the act sound greedy, as opposed to being deemed for the greater good. I think taxation is important when the money is spent wisely because there are programs that benefit society, but would not be profitable on the free market, so they need tax money to operate.

"Middle Class" vs "Hardworking Taxpayer":
This phrase change is to remind everyone that they pay taxes and don't like to see their paychecks dwindle in the face of their hard work. True enough. This one could backfire on them though, because it's clear that taxing the wealthy could potentially relieve some of that tax burden from the middle class... err, I mean, hardworking taxpayer.

"Jobs" vs "Careers"
This one resonated with me. Yes, I would rather have a career than a job. A career provides long term security. However, I don't trust Republicans to create careers for me. I just think it is hollow wordplay coming form them. They are generally not as concerned for employees as they are free enterprise, which can be seen in their opposition to labor unions and requirements to provide benefits to employees.

"Government Spending" vs "Waste"
This turn of phrase presumes all government spending is wasteful spending, which I disagree with as a global statement. Certainly there is wasteful government spending, but there are things funded by the government, such as public education, that simply requires federal assistance because it's not something that would be profitable in the private sector (while still providing education to all).

"Occupy Washington" vs "Occupy Wallstreet"
This is a blame shifting phraseology that attempts to turn your attention away from the fraud happening in the financial district. It is true that the government has poorly regulated the financial district and been bought out, but let us not forget who bought them out so they could avoid the regulation and get away with fraud. This is not an either-or problem, so don't let either side convince you that it is. The problem is both in Washington and on Wall Street.

[MrPopo]

"Occupy Washington" vs "Occupy Wallstreet"
This is a blame shifting phraseology that attempts to turn your attention away from the fraud happening in the financial district. It is true that the government has poorly regulated the financial district and been bought out, but let us not forget who bought them out so they could avoid the regulation and get away with fraud. This is not an either-or problem, so don't let either side convince you that it is. The problem is both in Washington and on Wall Street.

I understand where you're coming from here, I just think it's a bit naive to expect a company to act nobly, especially as more and more money is on the line. I think from the perspective of getting results you're better off trying to get the regulations changed by taking your message to Washington then you are by telling CEOs "shame on you".

[J T]

I understand where you're coming from here, I just think it's a bit naive to expect a company to act nobly, especially as more and more money is on the line. I think from the perspective of getting results you're better off trying to get the regulations changed by taking your message to Washington then you are by telling CEOs "shame on you".

I agree with this, but the blame still falls on both sides. Corporations always bitch and moan about government regulation and oversight because they add cost and time to doing business, which inihibits their ability to be profitable. But then when we have something like the subprime mortgage loan crisis, they say "don't blame us. We're just trying to make a profit. Blame the government for not regulating us better." They are against regulation when it's best for them, and for it when it's a convenient way for them to shift blame away from themselves for hurting the economy.

[Stark]

"Tax the rich" vs "Take money from the rich":
Well, taxes are always about taking money away from people. But while "tax" is already an unpopular word, saying "take" just makes it sound more like stealing and seems devoid of the notion that the money will be used for societal benefit. It makes the act sound greedy, as opposed to being deemed for the greater good. I think taxation is important when the money is spent wisely because there are programs that benefit society, but would not be profitable on the free market, so they need tax money to operate.

I don't disagree that taxation is important when the money is spent wisely either, but I am in the same camp that feels that the money that is collected for taxes now should be sufficient and if more is required, it is because it is being spent unwisely. The top 1% of wage earners currently foot over a third of the US tax bill at ~38% according to the IRS and you think it should be more than that? If you expand that scope to the top 10% it jumps to almost 70%. It just seems to me that the "government waste" topic should be focused on, not how taxed the rich are. (Source: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04 ... e-percent/)

[Jmustang1968]

Excellent post Stark...

Th government spends on so much BS it is maddening at times.

The well off pay their dues in taxes and many had to work very hard to get where they are. Are there some trust fund kids? Sure. But those top 10% of the countries earners fund the government.

[BoneSnapDeez]

I'm wondering if any else on this forum is actually at an occupy protest? If not, stop by the one in the nearest major city, talk to the folks, and gain some perspective. You can learn more from these people face-to-face than you would by reading some article about them (especially one by Frank Luntz!).

As for the "government vs. wall street" argument, the U.S. government and the major U.S. corporations are symbiotic entities, they cannot exist without each other. Call it a military-industrial complex or whatever you like. Right-wingers love to pretend that the two are separate and independent, which enables them to rally against "big government" while extolling the virtues of "free market capitalism". Total bullshit of course, any government is "big" and there is no "free market" of any kind in this country.

Most of the protesters I have met, including myself, are opposed to all exploitative, oppressive, and violent actions carried out by our "leaders" whether they be politicians or CEOs.

[o.pwuaioc]

Not only are close friends of mine at some big ones (had friends at Oakland, LA, and Santa Ana), but also I've been down to the place where it all started.

[o.pwuaioc]

"Tax the rich" vs "Take money from the rich":
Well, taxes are always about taking money away from people. But while "tax" is already an unpopular word, saying "take" just makes it sound more like stealing and seems devoid of the notion that the money will be used for societal benefit. It makes the act sound greedy, as opposed to being deemed for the greater good. I think taxation is important when the money is spent wisely because there are programs that benefit society, but would not be profitable on the free market, so they need tax money to operate.

I don't disagree that taxation is important when the money is spent wisely either, but I am in the same camp that feels that the money that is collected for taxes now should be sufficient and if more is required, it is because it is being spent unwisely. The top 1% of wage earners currently foot over a third of the US tax bill at ~38% according to the IRS and you think it should be more than that? If you expand that scope to the top 10% it jumps to almost 70%. It just seems to me that the "government waste" topic should be focused on, not how taxed the rich are. (Source: http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04 ... e-percent/)

So do you have any actual figures on what is waste v. what isn't? Because if not, there's really no reason for you to have the opinion you hold, is there?

[J T]

The top 1% of wage earners currently foot over a third of the US tax bill at ~38% according to the IRS and you think it should be more than that?

Yes. They've traditionally had to pay higher percentages of their income and the spread between the top 1% and the 99% has grown considerably over the past few decades. They only have the most to lose because they have the most to begin with. The fact that republicans are fillibustering the Americans With Jobs Act and won't budge on their desire to make Bush's tax cuts to the rich permanent means the rest of us without millions of dollars are going to see a tax increase in the next month due to the expiration of our tax cuts (which would be extended by the Americans With Jobs Act).

If you want to see how much you will be paying, click here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/jobs/we-cant-wait

I agree that wasteful spending needs to be reduced, but you're not going to quickly fix the deficit as quickly that way as if you would just tax the rich back at their pre-Bush-era levels. And you can't just stop everything the government provides in terms of social services anyway without creating new costs created from the damage of their absence.

I don't think people realize that the Republicans that are always gaining supporters by saying we shouldn't be taxed so much are making it so that people like me (and many, if not all, of you) will have to pay over $1000 more in taxes next year so that the rich can maintain their privilege. That's a stiff bill for me.

[Stark]

Yes. They've traditionally had to pay higher percentages of their income and the spread between the top 1% and the 99% has grown considerably over the past few decades. They only have the most to lose because they have the most to begin with. The fact that republicans are fillibustering the Americans With Jobs Act and won't budge on their desire to make Bush's tax cuts to the rich permanent means the rest of us without millions of dollars are going to see a tax increase in the next month.

If you want to see how much you will be paying, click here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/jobs/we-cant-wait

I agree that wasteful spending needs to be reduced, but you're not going to quickly fix the deficit as quickly that way as if you would just tax the rich back at their pre-Bush-era levels. And you can't just stop everything the government provides in terms of social services anyway without creating new costs created from the damage of their absence.

I read somewhere (yes, probably the Internet) that if we were to revoke the Bush tax-cuts, that they would end up paying less of the overall bill, somewhere around 31%. I'll see if I can find where I saw that and see if it actually makes sense.

So do you have any actual figures on what is waste v. what isn't? Because if not, there's really no reason for you to have the opinion you hold, is there?

I'll see if kind find something, but in the end most of it will be opinion any way, there is no avoiding that. JT may think that we need to have a Department of Agriculture, where I do not, etc. One that I personally think is pretty cut and dry (but again others may not see it that way) is that government employees make too much money and got a raise this year, despite being in recession. I'll look up a source on that too.