Chris replied to all in a reasonable tone and wrote about how our country, like many of our citizens, was living beyond its means. He conjured Americans subscribing to the premium channels on the TV, maxing out their credit cards, and ultimately giving to charity in spite of this level of spending being beyond their means. Chris is a true believer. He knows the government has been irresponsible and that the federal budget is inflated and must be cut drastically.
Given the nature of the messages average Americans get, from marketing and our schools, from our politicians and media and so on, it is understandable that Chris would believe as he does. There are a million messages out there and the one that portrays taxes as devilish and outlandish is pervasive if not ubiquitous in our society.
What is strange to me however, is the sense of privation I get from Chris’ message. Why does he automatically assume it should be okay for most people to do without? Without the goods purchased on credit, without HBO or Showtime, without the top sense of giving a neighbor money to pay their gas bill... Why?
I have more questions for Chris. If 70% of Americans demand a public health option but our representatives to government are beholden to corporate entities who fund their candidacy and so, refuse to vote as their constituency would dictate, where did the corporations get all that money to give, (to give,) to the politicians?
They get it from Chris, and everyone else. Once the software has been developed and the wires and satellites are in place, how much does it cost to deliver those premium channels daily? What if we nationalized that? Couldn’t we get all of the channels to be free or perhaps like 60 cents annually on our tax bill? That would probably cover the maintenance of all the technology it takes to deliver premium cable to all households in America.
Instead Americans are beyond willing to pay what amounts to exorbitant amounts of money as part and parcel to the sacred recurring revenue model of and for the private companies that have effectually purchased the wires and satellites, (and buildings and infrastructure,) and purport to maintain them.
Americans think they go to Walmart, (for example,) to get a great deal. Meanwhile three Waltons perch amidst the top 10 wealthiest Americans and Walmart invests vast sums of money into our political system. How great a deal are those Walmart products now if the company generates that much surplus capital? Couldn’t the prices be significantly lower?
To date Americans have been prone to accept the mark-up from Walmart and other similar companies but the federal government, despite running some of the most efficient and accountable systems in our society, is given the cold, lower-my-taxes shoulder.
It is laughable to blame President Obama for high taxes. In fact it is thinly veiled partisan politics at best considering the recent history of Republican administrations spending us into deep debt and Democratic administrations acting responsibly by digging us out.
Still, Chris is missing more key points. The American corporations which charge the prohibitive prices Chris alluded to also do not contribute to the tax base in a proportionately fair amount. Rather, American corporations pay amounts far below what is required by the tax code because they prefer to pay large amounts, (though relatively less,) to high-powered tax attorneys who shelter their money in a variety of creative ways. And yet Chris feels undeserving of these amenities?
I called my provider of high speed internet access yesterday to explain and describe in detail the error message I am getting when I try to send an email. I expected the technical support would be able to help me get everything working but on the contrary the person I reached by phone told me I should go to the Microsoft support website to look up the error message. (He could address a problem related to my connection or my IP address but he was not familiar with Microsoft Outlook.) I am going to fire my internet provider this weekend. They provide the connection, which cannot cost them much, for about $35 per month, and yet they provide almost no support. It seems their infrastructure is primarily occupied with billing.
Chris went on in his email to decry those who receive welfare benefits. He said he is a recovered drug addict who eschewed public benefits and quit his addiction through sheer will power. Chris makes no mention of those in our society who do nothing but rather have money which makes money for them.
I guess if I asked Chris if he thinks it is okay for society to collect an amount, a small amount of taxes to go to those who have addiction problems, I think he would say yes. Rather he is expressing an idea that we give people with these types of problems, problems of choice or pleasure, (we could call them,) too much assistance. This is odd from one who has suffered addiction. I mean what else should he spend his money on? By giving we receive a great feeling that makes our daily walk light. It is a reward. It’s better than a slightly better car.
Chris says nothing of the corporations which charge high prices for all the things he expects people to value, (cell phones and services.) He would prefer to blame the lowly and troubled who make poor choices, which they pay for one way or another, (through karma, health, hook or crook.) Even if it does our essence or spirit good and even if they are sometimes us, Chris looks in another direction Well, you know, maybe he is just expressing that he misses his addiction?
I understand how Chris ends up with the attitudes and opinions he espouses. Opinions are bought in large part. Money has been spent on spin in America. Corporations spend vast amounts of money on grass roots advertising, (as well as more conventional advertising,) again because of the outlandish amounts they charge for their wares, in order to impact the thought processes of Americans. Right wing talk radio, which jumped out to a head start on any liberal version of the same by about 15 years, daily gets the best radio ratings and pounds ideas into people’s brains along the lines of:
*taxes are bad
*the government is inept at operating any venture whatsoever
*tolerance is bad, or differences should be feared
*Clinton is evil because he represents the opposite of family values
That’s just the first four that come to mind, but all four of those are exact opposites of the truth. They are ideas that are sold and bought en masse everyday in America. Funny how a majority of Americans will suggest a majority of Americans are somehow dumb or ignorant and yet, few admit to being in that class.
The notion that modern "teabaggers," are in any way analogous to our founders who revolted against a higher tax rate than their English cousins and also lacked representation is like comparing the Chicago "Black Sox," to the righteous revolution of Fidel Castro in the Cuban Sierra Maestra. These are comic but dangerous partisans compared to a movement of men who lived lives fat with accomplishment and deserve to be admired.
No comments:
Post a Comment