Not paying their share (0.00 / 0)

Under Eisenhower, corporate taxes paid 27% of Federal revenues; under W it rose back to 14% (falling to 13%).  These "malefactors of great wealth" (T Roosevelt) want unlimited powers and unlimited looting of our money.  In return they offer us ... many trillions of subsidies and 17% unemployment.  What makes these folks so "special"?  They need regulation and taxing and they need it badly.  

One more thing.  The Supreme Court is apparently about to disembowel any limits on corporate spending on politica nsd elections (yes, probably 5-4).  The Constitution does not even mention the word "corporations" never mibnd giving these turds more rights than "natural born" persons.  "free speech" does not equate to buying and selling elections.  Corporations are not only free to say whatever they want, they spend billions doing it.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:12:08 PM CDT

This has a lot of meaning for the healthcare debate, too (4.00 / 2)

Whenever conservatives bring up that bogeyman of, "Do you want a government bureaucrat deciding what healthcare you receive?" it makes sense to remember that as it stands now, a WALL STREET bureaucrat is deciding what healthcare you receive. Given the choice, I'll gladly take an the guy not motivated by profit to make those calls.

---

by: Starving Student NYC @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:36:37 PM CDT

Not exactly (0.00 / 0)

Not to sound too pedantic, but the government is not "us". We elect it, and it works for us, but it's not "us". We're a republic, so we elect politicians to represent us. Sure, we participate in it, by contacting politicians, attending town halls, signing petitions, etc. But the actual work of government is done by people other than us.

And it's this representative form of government that Republicans--in what has to be the ultimate in irony, given their party's name, which literally refers to this form of government--attack as working against our interests. They distinguish between the state, i.e. government, and the nation, i.e. people, setting up an us vs. them dichotomy, in which we're the hapless victims of the state, which is nothing more than the very people we elect to represent us (and the people that they appoint and hire to carry out the day to day work of government).

Theirs is of course a dishonest, not to mention moronic, take on government and its alleged inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption. For one thing, to the extent that it is inefficient, wasteful and corrupt, it's often when, unsurprisingly, it's run by Republicans--surprise surprise! But more importantly, their solution to such alleged inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption is not reform, but reduction. It's really quite brilliant (until it's not, as they've learned over the past few election cycles).

Basically, their MO is to lie to the public about how evil government is and how they intend to "reform" and reduce it in order to get into power (reform was the promise behind the '94 takeover, of course, however phony it was). Then, once in power, they proceed to make government as inefficient, wasteful and corrupt as possible, as if to prove their point, and use this as a pretext to dismantle it. Except, of course, that never happens. Government invariably grows under GOP control, and the inefficiency, wastefulness and corruption only get larger. Which, eventually, sours the public on them, and they get booted out of office, which is what's happened. And now they're trying to do this all over again.

Fool us once, shame on you, fool me twice...won't get fooled again...

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 12:45:54 PM CDT

less and less representative (0.00 / 0)

since 1911, when Congress realized they had a sweet deal and froze the size of the House, the number of citizens per Representative has increased - and so the influence of any citizen on their Rep has decreased. you have roughly 1/3 as much representation now as someone in 1911.

that's just one simple example. there are lots of others. i know that in theory We, The People are in charge, and in some moral sense we are responsible. but surely the last couple of decades have demonstrated how little real power ordinary citizens have in controlling how this country is run.

did I want to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? no. do I want to throw people in jail for decades for growing or using marijuana? no. do I want a never-ending copyright regime to protect the profits of Mickey Mouse. no. can I stop these things, can I prevent these actions? no.

when the Feds are listening to your phone calls and reading your email, is that "people making decisions for ourselves monitoring your communications"? somehow that does not make me feel any better.

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

---

by: tatere @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 14:14:37 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

"We the people" might morally be in charge (0.00 / 0)

But constitutionally, we are not. Our elected officials are. And once in office, they get to do whatever they want, within the limits of the law--and, as we all know, often beyond them. This might not be morally right, and if they ignore the will of the people they will eventually be booted out of office (if conviction or impeachment doesn't do that first). But absent these mechanisms, we have no lawful control over their actions. We do not own or run government. We can only vote them out of office, and apply political pressure via various means when they're in office. Formally speaking, there is no direct democracy at the national level.

From a practical point of view this makes sense. We can't be consulted on every vote, or government would crawl to a halt. We govern by proxy. It's far from perfect, but no one's figured out a better way to my knowledge in a country this big (perhaps in Lichtenstein it's better). And yet, as imperfect as it is, it managed to give us a Lincoln and FDR, and the New Deal. The key is to elect as many good people as possible, and them push them to do what we want them to do. As FDR was alleged to have said "Great idea, now make me do it!".

He wasn't being flippant.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

---

by: kovie @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 03:06:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The government may not literally be us (0.00 / 0)

but its job is our interests.  The government's job is literally to take care of the people's interests and needs.  It says it right there in that Constitution.

Whereas, for-profit corporations' jobs are to make money, whether that's good for the people or not.  And yet for some reason they're entrusted to all kinds of things where making money should be the last concern.

I don't understand why Democrats can't just say in every stump speech: "We Democrats support the government because its job is to take care of you, the people.  The Republicans support the corporations because their job is to make money, often at your expense.  Vote for Democrats."  How simple is that?

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 23:58:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's a really easy test. (0.00 / 0)

I always replace the word "government" with "democracy" in all the Republican talking points.

Bush's Field Marshall Grover Norquist says:

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Becomes what it really means:

"I don't want to abolish democracy. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

I would support style guides that automatically did that in newspapers and TV. It would clear up a lot misconceptions.

In addition, I saw this today posted about the Senate's vote to turn a law making gun permits issued by any state have to be accepted in every state:

"People should let States do what they want with guns not the government."

Which I found both delightful and very concerning.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 13:02:19 PM CDT

Exactly. (0.00 / 0)

Thank you!

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

---

by: DaveJ @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 13:21:48 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Its depressing, but empowering when you realize they don't have a moral basis that is founded in our culture. (0.00 / 0)

All they want is rules that mean: "I told you to."

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:30:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

But government ISN'T us. (0.00 / 0)

Since a future where people have a directly democratic say over their productive and social lives is important to me, I'm going to keep making that distinction.

We should prefer gov't power to corporate power because while gov't power is at least nominally accountable to the public, corporate power isn't at all. Until we can transcend both, generally speaking I'll support the former over the latter.

Join the fight to give students a real voice on campus: Forstudentpower.org.

---

by: Liberaltarian @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 13:15:55 PM CDT

Giving up on transparent, responsive democracy that serves us -the people (0.00 / 0)

is betraying your father, you mother, tyour ancestors that doied on the fields of Ypes, Normandy, Gettysburg, Vicksberg, Boston, Iwa Jima and The Stonewall.

Giving up on responsive transparent democracy that is organized by us and for us all is giving up on six thousand years of hum,an progress. It is giving the great power ever assmeb;led to bastards who control far too much and couldnt care less if we are lied into war, as millions die.

Its hard. Yep. Suck it up. Your children, who dont want to spend the next hundred years in heel kinda rely on you.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:37:28 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Giving up on transparent, responsive democracy that serves us -the people (0.00 / 0)

is betraying your father, you mother, tyour ancestors that doied on the fields of Ypes, Normandy, Gettysburg, Vicksberg, Boston, Iwa Jima and The Stonewall.

Giving up on responsive transparent democracy that is organized by us and for us all is giving up on six thousand years of hum,an progress. It is giving the great power ever assmeb;led to bastards who control far too much and couldnt care less if we are lied into war, as millions die.

Its hard. Yep. Suck it up. Your children, who dont want to spend the next hundred years in heel kinda rely on you.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:37:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

to your point (0.00 / 0)

yes, we the people are the government however, we (all) the people never agree.  that is why we (all) have elections.  if we the people (all) were in agreement about our government, then we would not need any elections to replace failed politicians.  We the people in its context means "the majority".  The governemt in power is there because of the will of the people in the majority.  When Reagan talked about government has failed, he was right.  The previous government in power failed to deliver what we the people elected them to deliver.  Therefore, we the people elected for a government change.  When government once again failed during the Bush years, we the people made a choice to change that government in the HOPES (no pun intended)that a new government can deliver what we are looking for as a current majority.

When governemnt fails us, we the people act.  We the people did not elect politicians to be in bed with special interest groups, to steal funds, to take kickbacks, to go to phony wars, to smoke big cigars recently freshened up by an intern.  Government is not the people because government has never and will never represent all of the people.  We the people, however, have all the power to change the government and make them work for us for a change.

---

by: RR @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 14:09:31 PM CDT

Reagan was as wrong as you are. (0.00 / 0)

And I see you have a hard time defending your "we the people" while hating democracy.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:39:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

we the people (4.00 / 1)

well, at least we are told in high school civics classes that the government is us, and yes, we go to the polls, and certainly the government is supposed to be "us."

but these days the government is bought and paid for by oil, pharma, insurers, banksters, and big agra.

---

by: interlude @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 15:17:20 PM CDT

Time to git rid of big pharma, oil, health insurance and banks then (0.00 / 0)

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

---

by: HousesofProgress @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:39:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It doesn't have to be that way (0.00 / 0)

And frankly, I hate it when liberals (not necessarily you, but in general) blame "government" itself for misuse of government power.

If you got hit by a reckless driver, would you blame the car for being out of control?  Of course not.  The driver is the one at fault.

Similarly, when government gets taken over by special interests, throws millions at millionaires, gets us stuck and killed in unnecessary wars and spies on us, it's not because the institution of government is supposed to do that, it's because the institution of government is being run by a drunk driver (e.g. President Bush, who himself was an actual drunk driver, perhaps not coincidentally).

It's fashionable to blame "government", even for too many liberals.  But liberals should be the last people to be adapting right-wing anti-government rhetoric when there's really so much good that government has done, is doing and can do, if and when it's being run by the right people.

Government is us, but it's just under the control of "evildoers", as Bush used to say.  Let's focus on getting rid of the evildoers instead of getting rid of government.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Thu Jul 23, 2009 at 00:08:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

THANK YOU (0.00 / 0)

I've been saying all along that we need a fundamental change in the way we think about government in this country.  The anti-government mentality conservatives have successfully indoctrinated Americans into having is, IMO, the single biggest reason why we can't ever seem to get anything done. (Yes, even bigger than special interest money.)

But I don't think we should run away from "government" and replace it with "people" or "democracy" the way we ran away from "liberal" and started using "progressive" instead.  We need to embrace government and do so openly and explicitly.  We need to take the word and idea of government back.

---

by: liberalmaverick @ Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 23:53:57 PM CDT