Alpe d'Huez said:
Uh, I don't think that was the cause of the revolution in this country. A hopeful effect, yes, but cause, no.
Having said that, I find the Christian conservative concept of zero public support, zero government support, to be surprisingly Darwinist. In effect creating a society firmly rooted in survival of the fittest (or most ruthless, or connected). Actually, that sounds like much of the US today. Where if you're connected through money to the politicians you're in much better shape than the rest of us. Interesting that these same people on the so-called right supported the push for Citizens United, and turn a blind eye to campaign finance issues under this same guise.
Well, I was actually thinking more along the lines of what we may truly consider the modern democratic state: namely, that which emerged from the industrial revolution and post-Great Depression (and then, ultimately, in Europe at any rate, from the post Fascist) periods.
In terms of society conquering new ground and rightfully harboring higher expectations from the system and the governing powers that administer it, perhaps this has its roots more so in the French Revolution than in the American one. Oh yea, that other one.
And perhaps if more Americans were aware of this history of modern Western democracy, then perhaps the idea of universal healthcare would ring rather less "crazy," when in fact throughout the rest of the civilized world it is decidedly normal; and, in many ways, is both the mark and measure of civility in the system - whereas the lack there of appears to be incivility personified.
Regarding the US conservative thinking in this regard, I think Alpe regarding what you wrote (which stated it rather perfectly) can be summed up with the following three words:
me, me, me. Or maybe
mine, mine, mine is better.
Either way, other than being Darwinian, it is just puerile. In this sense, I must say, there is a significant part of Americana which needs to simply grow up and join the rest of the civilized planet.
As to Scott's rather Byzantine way of interpreting the tax revenues (and one knows how the numbers are always open to interpretation to suit ones argument), I can only hope then that the government continues to give the rich a break. That way the corporate world will begin to liberate the 2.5 trillion dollars it's just sitting on, stimulate the job market, reduce unemployment, begin to pay down the country's exorbitant debt, fix the healthcare system, give dignity back to the public schools, manage the deficit, mollify the social discontent that has finally begun to grip America, encourage Wall Street to engage in less greed driven and risky investment practices, give the rusty, capitalist machine that well needed lubrication to get the engine running smoothly again, and so forth. And of course, what a cheerful image this portrays to the guy making 30K per year. I'm sure he'll continue to be most understanding and empathetic to the hardships of the rich, burdened as they are with having to assume the onerous task of economic leadership.
Of course I have no idea why taxing the rich more adequately leads to decreased federal revenues, other than what is said about this lowering the total economic output due to such practice and hence federal income from taxes on that now depressed economy.
But it has been this way for last 30 years or so and look where that has ultimately taken us.
I'm, therefore, skeptical about folks who preach this message and am inclined to think that it is merely the fruit of one's ideology, rather than grounded in actual reality.
Funny how US Christian conservatives (evangelical especially) are generally convinced of this world view, though, when I seem to remember one of the fundamental doctrines of Christ being this: “It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of the needle.”
But call me crazy, I don't know.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram