Me

[Brian Todd]

Hi,

My name is Brian and I live with my wife and two year old son Carter Dean in Covington, Ga. I am fascinated with the subject of framing and cognitive science as it relates to politics. It was devestating to me, when I saw the post on the Rockridge website that it was shutting down. I want to participate in the discussions here, but with a two year old and a night shift job, time is a limited quantity. So anyway, that's it, just wanted everyone to know I'm here.

More to come hopefully soon.

Brian

[Amy Meier]

Welcome and know that others here have little ones too. Participate as you can.

Amy

 

> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:20:35 -0700
> From: gulliv...@yahoo.com
> Subject: [annex] Me
> To: rockridge-an...@googlegroups.com

[janine kovac]

Welcome, Brian!  I just wanted to echo Amy's message.  Join in when you have the time. 

[BEZERKO]

Thanks Amy and Janine,

I live in a district where one of the co-authors of the Fair-Tax
legislation and the Fair-Tax book lives. I'm not sure about the
rules, so to be on the safe side, I won't mention his name or party
affiliation, but I'm sure you already know his name (it's not Neal
Boortz). It's Orwellian language for sure, and I know the
fundamentals of how to respond to Orwellian framing, shine a light on
it and rename it for what it really is. The natural inclination is to
call it the "UN-Fair tax," but is that what I really want to do?
Would be calling it the "Unfair tax" fall into the negating a frame
trap, whereby you reinforce the idea that it's a "fair" tax? Most
people wouldn't know what we mean if we called it a "regressive" tax.
We're in close counsel with a candidate running against him. I think
if I told him how to frame this proposal, he'd be receptive. I'm just
struggling with the right way to handle it. Actually, I think I'll
contact

On Jul 18, 1:35 pm, "janine kovac" <janine.ko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Welcome, Brian!  I just wanted to echo Amy's message.  Join in when you have
> the time.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Amy Meier <amyadaml...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Welcome and know that others here have little ones too. Participate as you
> > can.
>
> > Amy

> > **

>
> > > Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 09:20:35 -0700

> > > From: gulliverfo...@yahoo.com

> > > Subject: [annex] Me
> > > To: rockridge-an...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > Hi,
>
> > > My name is Brian and I live with my wife and two year old son Carter Dean
> > in Covington, Ga. I am fascinated with the subject of framing and cognitive
> > science as it relates to politics. It was devestating to me, when I saw the
> > post on the Rockridge website that it was shutting down. I want to
> > participate in the discussions here, but with a two year old and a night
> > shift job, time is a limited quantity. So anyway, that's it, just wanted
> > everyone to know I'm here.
>
> > > More to come hopefully soon.
>

> > > Brian- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[BEZERKO]

Thanks Amy and Janine,

> > Amy
> > **

> > > Hi,

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[janine kovac]

Hi, Bezerko -

A couple of thoughts - first of all, yes, "unfair" as a response to "fair" most certainly reinforces the "fair" frame.  Also, anything with the same kind of cadence will also reinforce the other frame (hence "lie and die" in response to "cut and run").

Additionally, "fairness" is a contested concept.  Is it one child one cookie?  (even distribution)  Is it a cookie for the good kid and no cookie for the bad kid?  (merit based fairness).  Lakoff has some more examples toward the beginning of Moral Politics.  One of the biggest problems that Affirmative Action faced is that they touted "a fair playing field" or an "even playing field."   Well, if your idea of fairness is even distribution, this works.  If your idea of fairness is merit based, then Affirmative Action is wrong.  Calling Affirmative Action a route to an even or fair playing field is actually giving some an "unfair" advantage, since they didn't earn it.

Also, Berzerko, if you are explaining this to someone else it's easier to talk about how different people perceive fairness differently than it is to convince them that "unfair" reinforces "fair" and that's a bad thing -- trust me.  (This is partially because we have different yet readily available frames in which to understand different kinds of fairness).

Last note - anything about taxes is tough because it reinforces the frame of TAX AS A BURDEN and we have very few metaphors for taxes as something else.  Amy mentioned one: "Taxes are the membership fees we pay not to live in a third world country."  Another would be taxes as an investment. 

[BEZERKO]

Yes, I think you've pointed me into the right direction. And although
I didn't mention the concept of TAX AS A BURDEN, even punishment, I
was thinking that was an pothole in the debate I definitely didn't
want to drive into. Unfortunately, it becomes trying not to think of
an elephant. When that happens, I try to remember Drew Westen's
observation that activating one neural network (or frame) inhibits the
other. So, if I can wrap my head around one frame, I concentrate on
thinking within that framework, and that helps. Hm, now that I think
about it, everytime the subject is brought up is an opportunity to
talk about taxes as membership dues, investment in and maintenance of
the public infrastructure which pays huge dividends to all of us, more
than we've put into it by far, especially the wealthiest. I guess I
need to shift the discussion away from the intracies and possible
outcomes and use the opportunity to reinforce the frame that taxes are
investments that pay dividends. It's simple stuff really, it's just
that you have to talk your brain into it.

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

How about figuring that paying taxes is like feeding your family?

Actually, I've been a participant in the Common Message Project, an
ongoing research study that is funded primarily by the Ford
Foundation. We're trying to figure out what phrases work best to move
people toward a more progressive mindset. They've done extensive
polling, and I was surprised to see some of the results. For instance,
the concept of taxes as INVESTMENT worked well in the northeastern US,
but worked poorly in the southeastern US (where I am); I don't really
know why. I have no idea how well it worked in California, which I
guess is the residence of most people in this listserve.

Here's another interesting result: Talking about how taxes help PEOPLE
tends to backfire, because many people hearing it will react with the
conservative frame that you're giving your hard-earned money to the
lazy. Some people will react by thinking in terms of charity, which
does evoke good feelings but only evokes the rich helping the poor
without changing the social structure that makes some people poor. It
turns out to be much more effective to talk about how taxes help
THINGS such as roads, schools, etc.

The project results will get published eventually.

[janine kovac]

Remember, framing matters.  Talking about how taxes help people only works in the progressive/cooperative model.  In the conservative model, the other people *are* the problem.  So if you want to resonate with conservatives, you have to speak to them in their frame. One points out that taxes help *you*. 

Great example with same-sex marriage.  It is always more effective to say, "Do you think the government should tell you who you should marry?" than it is to say "Should the government be able to tell people who they can't marry?"  Because of course, *other* people might want to marry their sister, or both sisters, or their dog!  Goodness gracious!!!!  But *you* would never do that.  So the government has no right to tell *you* who you can marry. 

But the really big difference is that one evokes empathy - (The government should not tell me who I can marry, therefore the government should not tell you who you can marry.)  The other evokes fear (which is part of the larger competitive picture).

[Greg Lawless]

I'm not sure I'm clear on how either evokes empathy, at least in conservatives. In conservatives, the answer to the first AND the second question would be "Of course the government shouldn't tell ME who to marry, I'm a fine upstanding citizen. But it's ok for the government to stop those PERVERTS from marrying."

 

And I also thought our point was to speak to everyone in progressive frames, not conservative frames. I thought that was what the whole flap on this list about Obama was, that he was speaking in conservatives frames instead of progressive frames.

[Moriji]

By the way, I'm sure you guys have noticed that McCain is catching up
on Obama. Why? Because Obama is invoking conservative values more
and more. And when the conservative world view is activated, people
will choose the true conservative, i.e. McCain.

Great job, Obama. Looks like we're well on our way to losing another
election.

But oh, of course, it's not his fault. It's the fault of progressives
who don't embrace his move to the right. Ha!

On Jul 24, 10:19 am, "Greg Lawless" <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure I'm clear on how either evokes empathy, at least in
> conservatives. In conservatives, the answer to the first AND the second
> question would be "Of course the government shouldn't tell ME who to marry,
> I'm a fine upstanding citizen. But it's ok for the government to stop those
> PERVERTS from marrying."
>
> And I also thought our point was to speak to everyone in progressive frames,
> not conservative frames. I thought that was what the whole flap on this list
> about Obama was, that he was speaking in conservatives frames instead of
> progressive frames.

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 11:37 AM, janine kovac <janine.ko...@gmail.com>

[Moriji]

Look, in Colorado, where Amy lives, McCain now has a 2 point lead over
Obama. So if Obama loses in Colorado, you can all blame her if she
doesn't vote for him.

-----

New state polls show good news for McCain

During a week he's struggling to wrestle media attention away from
Barack Obama's trip abroad, new polls out Thursday show John McCain
has narrowed the gap in four crucial battleground states.

New surveys conducted by Quinnipiac, the Washington Post, and the Wall
Street Journal suggest the Arizona senator is in a more favorable
position in Colorado, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin than he was
one month ago.

In Colorado, McCain now holds a 2 point lead over Obama, 46 to 44
percent — a significant reversal from a similar poll conducted last
month that put the Illinois senator on top there by 5 points.

In equally good news for McCain, Obama now only holds a two point lead
in Minnesota — the state that's playing host the Republican National
Convention in early September. A similar poll one month ago had Obama
on top by 17 points. The new poll result has prompted CNN to switch
Minnesota from a state that is "leaning" Obama to a "toss-up" in its
electoral map.

The race also remains tight in Michigan, with Obama holding a 4 point
lead there, 46 percent to 42 percent. That's down from the 6 point
lead Obama held there last month.

The Democratic presidential candidate still holds a significant lead
in Wisconsin, though there too the gap has narrowed over the last
month. In June, Obama led the Illinois senator by 13 points, 52 to 39
percent. Now that lead is down to 11 points, 50-39 percent.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/07/24/new-state-polls-show-good-news-for-mccain/

[janine kovac]

On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Greg Lawless <gr...@gvlawless.com> wrote:

I'm not sure I'm clear on how either evokes empathy, at least in conservatives. In conservatives, the answer to the first AND the second question would be "Of course the government shouldn't tell ME who to marry, I'm a fine upstanding citizen. But it's ok for the government to stop those PERVERTS from marrying."

point taken.  So how should we frame it? 

 

And I also thought our point was to speak to everyone in progressive frames, not conservative frames. I thought that was what the whole flap on this list about Obama was, that he was speaking in conservatives frames instead of progressive frames.

In the case of the tax frames, both cases use the progressive framing of taxes, that taxes are a kind of contribution so that we are all better off.  What changes is the frame that is evoked with when the point of view differs.  So saying that taxes help PEOPLE (capitalization borrowed from Eric) evokes the pro frame of taxes but doesn't resonate with cons b/c people are supposed to help themselves.  Changing the p.o.v to "you" hopefully makes a little more headway with cons because "*I* pay the taxes and *I* get something in return for my money."

Taking this example and talking in conservative frames (as in the discussion re. Obama) would be something like, "Tax breaks are bad."  or "no more tax breaks," which reinforces the frame that taxes are an affliction.

Thanks for the question, Greg.  I really had to mull over that for a bit!

 

[Rikard]

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:19 AM, Greg Lawless <g...@gvlawless.com> wrote:
> > I'm not sure I'm clear on how either evokes empathy, at least in
> > conservatives. In conservatives, the answer to the first AND the second
> > question would be "Of course the government shouldn't tell ME who to marry,
> > I'm a fine upstanding citizen. But it's ok for the government to stop those
> > PERVERTS from marrying."

People are not conservatives or progressives. People BELIEVE in
values, for example progressive and conservative values.
Someone might believe in conservative values when it comes to marriage
and homosexuality. The same person might believe in progressive values
when she thinks about forests and the climate, valuing nature, clean
air and fresh water to swim in and catch some fish. So evoking empathy
in this person will be effective when talking about nature but not
about homosexuality. However, evoking empathy in ANY area will
strenghten the person's belief in empathy, it will become a more
important value for that person in ALL areas. So evoking empathy in
one area, like reducing greenhouse gases to create healthy forests,
will make that person's belief in empathy stronger in all areas, even
marriage and homosexuality. It won't convert someone over night of
course, maybe not in an entire lifetime but it will make the populace
more empathetic and will make people believe stronger in empathy and
solutions based on empathy. So instead of trying to convert people to
believe a certain issue try to evoke empathy in them.
Some people have progressive beliefs when it comes to marriage and
homosexuality and presenting the progressive view is the right way to
evoke empathy in these people. But the person who thinks gays are
perverts is best "treated" by evoking empathy in some other area,
maybe worker's rights or human rights or things like environmental
protection to lessen the amount of childhood asthma or something.

Rikard

[janine kovac]

Thanks, Rikard.  I knew there were good reasons for emphasizing empathy but I couldn't remember what they were!

[Rikard]

Thanks. Your post enlightened me and triggered my thoughts so I should
thank you:-)

Rikard

[GregJL]

Yes, there ARE progressives and conservatives. And bi-conceptuals. And
conservatives who think progressively in some areas. And progressives
who think conservatively in some areas. But that is neither here nor
there. People call themselves what they want, and other people will
call them things too. Like Stinky-face McPoophead. Or whiny little
pain-in-the-ass. Or overbearing pushy authoritarian radical liberal.
~~I will label you, will you label me?~~

As far as the tax frame goes, now I get what you're saying. And I
don't think it will work on true conservatives, unless you can tie it
to something where they use a progressive worldview. As far as die-
hard conservatives are concerned, their whole point is that they don't
NEED government doing things for them. THEY should be able to do it on
their own. For example, THEY should decide how to educate their kids,
and the government should let them have THEIR money to do it. THEY
should buy health insurance on their own, and if the government wasn't
taking so much of their money, they could. And by gosh, when THEY
strike it rich (about 35% of those NOT in the top think they will be
someday) and become part of that top 1%, they SURE don't need the
government taking all THEIR self-made, hard-earned cash. Yup, if it
weren't for the government, THEY could do it all on their own.

I understand evoking empathy. I just don't see how it is possible to
evoke empathy in an area where conservatives..ummm..don't really have
any. However, the progressive frames above would work on those
conservatives and bi-conceptuals who think progressively in those
areas. And I do understand that finding the places where they DO have
progressive values and evoking emapthy there will strengthen those
connections and help to evoke empathy in places where it did not
formerly exist (or more accurately, where the values of the Strict
Father morality (obedience, etc.) overrode it to such an extent that
it SEEMED to not exist).

So yes, we need to evoke empathy, in any way, in every person and on
any issue that we can. And we need to make sure a certain someone who
is running for a very high office realizes that the reason he got as
far as he did is because he spoke as a progressive, from the heart. He
still does it, but not as much as he should (which would be EVERY word
he utters).

Or we could just threaten to vote for someone else. I'm sure that
would help. It's such a progressive way of doing things. :P

> > > Rikard- Hide quoted text -

[Moriji]

Will you cut the passive-aggressive sarcastic bullshit, please?
Thanks.

[janine kovac]

If we're talking about winning over conservatives, or anyone, for that matter, with facts, it's a lost cause.  But even true conservatives have brains.  :-)  which means they, too, have dopaminergic systems and mirror neurons.  In short, even true conservatives respond to empathy!

[Greg Lawless]

Janine,

Eventually, yes. And of course, evoking empathy is definitely a better course of action than telling them the system of values they live by has failed (even though it has and will continue to do so), or even worse, that their values are things like hypocrisy, greed, hate, etc...

[Amy Meier]

So here's a question, does the empathy need to be at least loosely connected to the main point or can we just ask them about how their mom's doing in the middle of a discussion about developing infrastructure (to switch on their empathy mid conversation)?

Amy

 

---

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:28:41 -0700
From: janine...@gmail.com
To: rockridge-an...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [annex] Re: Fwd: Me

If we're talking about winning over conservatives, or anyone, for that matter, with facts, it's a lost cause.  But even true conservatives have brains.  :-)  which means they, too, have dopaminergic systems and mirror neurons.  In short, even true conservatives respond to empathy!

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 12:57 PM, GregJL <gr...@gvlawless.com> wrote:

Yes, there ARE progressives and conservatives. And bi-conceptuals. And
conservatives who think progressively in some areas. And progressives
who think conservatively in some areas. But that is neither here nor
there. People call themselves what they want, and other people will

call them things too. Like Stinky-face...

---

Stay in touch when you're away with Windows Live Messenger. IM anytime you're online.

[Greg Lawless]

I would think that while discussing development of infrastructure we would be speaking from our own empathetic point of view which, at some point, activate THEIR empathy. The point is for us to try to always speak from that view, no matter the subject. I know it's a very difficult thing to do and that sometimes we will slip back into using their frames. It's exhausting trying to keep it all in mind, all the time. But the longer we do it, the easier it becomes, right? And of course, some subjects will click with people, others will not. But once we click with someone on ONE subject, we can build a connection from it to others.

 

Anyone who thinks this process is going to be easy, or quick...conservatives have been doing this for 40 years or longer. The advantage WE have is that their model goes against the natural wiring of our brains. I mean, why else would Dobson and other "experts" on child-rearing talk about "breaking the will" of a child? But we can't expect things to happen overnight. Conservatism is NOT going down without a fight, but they are on the losing side....of course, that would also make them winners, too, since everyone benefits from a progressive worldview...so then would losing be winning? Argh! Bad movie flashback!

 

Hey, I saw an interesting video the other day. A dog nursing kittens. Then they showed some other clips, and there was a big cat taking care of the baby of a baboon it had just killed. Seems to me that humans are not the only ones that can empathize. I guess evolution is still taking place, eh? I'll put up the link if I remember when I get home.

 

Greg

[janine kovac]

I think that the more you can incorporate systemic causation, (of which empathy is a subset) the better. And the better one is able to talk about opposite things instead of reinforcing the opposite frame by simply negating it (so to the 18 mos old -- "put it in your mouth" instead of "don't put it in your hair" the stronger your points come across.

So ya, if your common point of empathy is "how's your mother?" (provided said relationship with mother will evoke empathy! :)  ) it's certainly better than creating a common ground with an "us against them" icebreaker: "So how 'bout those bastard terrorists?".

A couple of thoughts:  I don't know at what point one can do this off the top of their heads.  I certainly can't.  In fact, if I don't have a "put it in your mouth" comment prepared ahead of time, I am literally speechless to come up with something other than "don't put it in your hair."  (Which kind of goes to show you that the visual frame is so strong, it's impossible to think of an opposite frame).  So if this is me with a toddler, you can imagine how hopeless I am talking politics with adults. 

Also -- when you can hit on a concept that is both "moral" from a empathetic, systemic causation pov and a conservative pov, you've really hit on something.  For example, I made my husband call in sick this morning.  The man has never missed a day of work due to illness in his entire life.  Ever.  Yes, he's very healthy, but he will also go to work with a cold, cough or flu.  Yesterday and today he has a cold and cough and feels lousy.   But it's very important to him to be the amazing workhorse, come rain, come shine, no matter what.  This is valued highly in the conservative moral order, in Lakoff terms, it's a way to build up lots of moral credit.  Anyway, he called in sick this morning and his boss told him, "Good.  You sound terrible and I don't want you infecting the rest of us."

When he told me, I saw thought that it would be a story I could tell my in-laws.  In this statement, she (the boss) evokes empathy for the fellow workers: one helps them by taking care of himself, which in this case, means staying away.  From a cons view, it's moral to stay home bc he obeys his boss and does what's best for the overall organization, the cog in the machine mentality. 

She could have also said, "Good.  You sound terrible and I want you to take care of yourself."  This is immoral from the cons view: it's akin to the misconception that nurturance is coddling.  So while it would have been moral to obey his boss, the statement doesn't evoke empathy for anyone else and there's no indication that it will do anyone else any good if he thinks of himself first. 

Idk if this story makes any lights go on for anyone else.

ANyway - gotta get back to work.

Greg -- love the story about the animals!!!

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

Greg, I thought that this little passage of yours said so extremely
well something that has been on my mind:

"So yes, we need to evoke empathy, in any way, in every person and on
any issue that we can. And we need to make sure a certain someone who
is running for a very high office realizes that the reason he got as
far as he did is because he spoke as a progressive, from the heart. He
still does it, but not as much as he should (which would be EVERY word
he utters)"

that I've started quoting that passage in a few places on the
internet, and then explaining what it means. (For the source, I merely
said "a Lakoffite discussion group that I belong to.")

Eric

[GregJL]

The light it throws on I think is that we have to be CONSCIOUS of what
we say in all situations...at least for another 10-15 years, more
likely much longer than that. We need to think about everything we
throw out into the public square. The thing is, it's all well and good
for us to come up with ideas on how to frame this thing or that thing,
but promoting an understanding of the concept of framing seems to me
to be more important in the long run. Without that understanding, all
that happens is a recitation of talking points, and they won't be able
to react correctly if something unexpected gets thrown at them. Look
what happened to the McCain guy who was asked what was different about
McCain's economic policy from Bush. He didn't know the talking points,
and couldn't think of a damn thing to say. The rank and file
conservatives don't understand this stuff any better than the rank and
file progressives. The difference is, progressives don't mind sharing
information and decision-making and conservatives have their "need to
know basis" and the lower you are in the food chain, the more all you
"need to know" is how to follow orders.


Eric,

Some days are diamonds, some are duds. And of course, you can't please
all the people all the time.

Oh, I was just thinking about why the "taxes as investment" might not
play so well in the southeast. Cuz they REALLY don't much like Yankees
down there (though they more than likely won't admit it), and when
they hear the word "investment', Wall Street is the first thing that
comes to mind. :shrug: Just a hunch, and of course one that is based
on the stereotype of southern states people. :)


On Jul 31, 1:03 pm, "Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)"

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[janine kovac]

Investment: ya, that won't play well with the wary of Wall Street crowd.

So what else can we say?

What else gives the image of putting a little something in so we can all reap the benefits?  Like the moral of Stone Soup, but where cons would buy it? 

I think it's interesting to look around and take note of all the stuff out there that I use but don't own.  Like stop lights. Or trash cans in the street.  Sidewalks, pothole-free streets.  Fire hydrants that work.  Regulations that make sure that natural gas is infused (wrong word?) with a stinky component so I'll smell when it's still on.  Air traffic controllers so I can fly places.  FDIC and SPIC insured banks so I know that my money is safe and guaranteed insured when I put it in a savings account.  Regulations that make sure that vendors must recall tomatoes with salmonella.  Regulations that make sure that a doctor has gone to medical school and has passed his boards; not just any quack can bill your insurance and prescribe meds.  A system that gets rid of my trash for me (unlike the mess in Naples).  Oh yeah, and an Internet.  Not even Bill Gates or Warren Buffet are so rich as to not use every one of these things our federal, state, and city governments provide. 

[Leftymathprof (Eric Hussein Schechter)]

I have no idea why. I'm a transplanted Yankee, myself.

[Greg Lawless]

Same here...I dunnno what it is, but it seems I remember hearing about the major distrust of bankers held by born and bred Southerners. Probably stretches back to the Civil War. :shrug: Like I said, I could be basing this on a stereotypical misconception. As for what to use to replace it, still working on that. You were talking about how speaking about helping PEOPLE with taxes is not so effective as speaking about the THINGS taxes improve. And this may be an effective tactic. But I think we could use it as a place to tie in to how those THINGS improve the lives of the people to whom we're speaking, and then of course tie those feelings to how taxes improve the lives of others, and so on, until we're all just one big happy family singing "Kumbaya" (even the atheists).

[Greg Lawless]

Does anyone else have the messages from this group sent to their email? If so, I'm wondering if you've noticed that messages seem to be emailed at random...I just received one from two days ago, but I've already received the ones after that in the same thread. Is something stuck in the inter-tubes? Or do some things get left on the dump truck, or maybe they come by way of one of the other internets? Which also brings to mind the question, which Internet is it that Al Gore invented?

[Rikard]

> inter-tubes? Or do some things get left on the dump truck, or maybe they
> come by way of one of the other internets? Which also brings to mind the
> question, which Internet is it that Al Gore invented?

Probably the one sending those irregular emails to you.

[PowerToPeople]

Progressive taxation is based on the truism that those who make the
most money in our society can only claim partial credit from their own
hard work. Most of the credit goes to the infrastructure that our
taxdollars have created and maintain.

So the proper frame would be to characterize this as a tax give-away
to those fortunate recipients of the largess from our publicly
financed economic 'climate of opportunity.'

I would use terminology to reframe this legislation along the
following lines:

- The Tax Scuff-Law Legislation

- The Free Rider Give-away Bill

- The Public Treasury Raid Law

- The Tax Owers Renegging Law

- The Tax Discount for Public Service Takers Act

- The Tax-cut for those who benefit most from public services Bill

- The Take from the Givers and Give to the Takers legislation

- The Stiff Our Public Purse bill

See if you can polish something pithy out of the above off-the-cuff
suggestions, and let us know what you come up with.

Good Luck!

PowerToPeople in Maryland

> > > > Brian- Hide quoted text -

[Jon Phoenix Brookstone]

We can reframe Taxes as Progress!!

Think about all the great things taxes have given us: The first
pacemaker and the first artificial kidney (courtesy ofthe VA), AZT to
treat AIDS and 33 other Cancer treatments (courtest of NIH),
everything ever related to space (from NASA), the eradication of
Smallpox (WHO), the New Deal, Parks, Meat Inspections, Public Schools,
Libraries, as well as Radios and TVs (regulation necessary to prevent
overcrowding on the airwaves)

To say that Taxes Mean Progress illustrates and pays homage to the
fact that there are a lot of things ~ from the Post Office to Health
Security ~ that the capitalist market will never provide or provide
well. And when that's the case, thankfully we have other ways of
getting things done.

So that kind of relates to Taxes as Empowerment too.

That being said, another way to look at this would be "Taxes Can Mean
Progress" ~ and progressives could use this to point out a divide
between conservatives and progressives, that progressives want to use
taxes for things that benefit everyone, conservatives want taxes that
benefit the few.

Also, Taxes as Democracy, but that's another post.

[Rikard]

Hey that's an interesting frame. It could be Taxes as Common Progress,
where taxes symbolize our joint efforts, our cooperation, our ability
to build things together.

Rikard

On Aug 26, 12:16 am, Jon Phoenix Brookstone <JonPhoen...@aol.com>
wrote: