| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over | ||||
| ||||
Context: Here, John Stewart is criticizing conservatives claim that raising the taxes on the rich would not help balance the budget.
1.) He shows how conservatives contradict themselves when they say that "we have to start somewhere" (meaning cutting programs), but say that raising taxes on the rich will not produce enough revenue to help the budget. "When its cuts its a million dollars, but when its taxed its 700,000,000 milion dollars. . ."
2.) Rather than taxing the rich, the conservatives argue that we should consider that "51%" of Americans pay nothing at all. The solution: we should "broaden the base,' which means that we need to make sure everyone pays something in income taxes. This yields the claim: The poor are on a 'free ride'
a sub point that Stewart makes between the main arguments is that these people don't have a job. Furthermore, his rhetoric "esta over" is a (not so) subtle claim that the poor are mexican immigrants (who are purportedly 'taking our jobs away'). This is not so much an argument, but a suggestion by Stewart that the conservatives may be targeting a particular class of people--immigrants. This is significant because immigration is another important issue in today's political climate.
3.) Conservatives: Taxing the 'poor' (euphemistically said 'broaden the base) will help balance the budget.
4.) Stewart: The poor control 2.5% of our nation's wealth. Stewart rounds this figure to about 1.4 trillion dollars "of everything they have on this earth."
5.) Stewart proposes let's take half of that. That's a 50% tax on the poor's income, which is an insane tax rate that would never pass. The conservatives are merely calling for a contribution, but surely even they would not tax 50%!
6.) Half of 1.4 trillion is 700,000,000 ---Where does this number sound familiar?
7.) 700,000,000 dollars is the amount of revenue (within 10 years) that would occur if we raised the tax rate on the top 2% only minimally (at least that's the way I understand it. For more information about this see: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/18/us/politics/obama-tax-plan-would-ask-more-of-millionaires.html?pagewanted=all).
8.) Conservatives claim this is only a "fraction" of the government's budget, but this is precisely the amount that we would be able to generate if we took half of what the nation's poor owned in this world.
So, even if the tax base is "broadened" and everyone pays something (the bottom 50% included), considering that no sane person would consider taxing the poor 50% of what they own, this will generate less revenue in order to balance the budget.
The bottom line: a wavy one at that. . .
Since the conservatives can no longer appeal to an economic incentive, their argument can only be justified by what one might call "fairness." The question we would then have to ask is, is it fair for the "makers" to carry the "takers" in the society? Is it fair for the rich to be burdened with balancing the budget?
This is a complex question and one that depends on your beliefs of the role of government, the role of business, and the role of the nation's wealthy. As Stewart points out in another segment regarding our "first world" status, we may be considered "third world" in that we have a VERY large gap in income inequality.
Now, the argument we might make is that these "rich" people are job creators and producers in society whereas many of the poor are not. However, we have to ask if our society would even function if all of these people stopped working their more mundane jobs that are supposedly created through the rich's benevolence. Who is more "productive" in society: the cleaning ladies at a hotel or big investors?
I want to make clear that this is not an easy question and it rests on one's values and definitions. However, there does seem to be a kind of misunderstanding or disregard for people we consider poor. Before we claim that it is "unfair" for the rich to carry such a burden, we need to remember that we are not all on an equal playing field. Rather, there are historical circumstances that have advantaged some people at the expense of others. To claim that the status quo is not already implicated in a kind of "class warfare" does not take into account the socio-political history of this country.
Furthermore, the fact that the "poor" have "modern conveniences" just show how necessary it is to have things like cell phones to participate in today's society.
Rhetoric of the Animal
Indeed, if these people did not have these "modern conveniences" we may consider them more like "animals" because they are still using "primitive" methods. So, it seems as though we are saying that having these modern conveniences doesn't make them any less of an animal. As Stewart points out, this rhetoric is already employed in conservative arguments. The poor are described as:
Parasites
racoons
"irresponsible animals"
Ascribing animals status to those of us who are different than us in order to persecute them is a common tactic when we want to commit some sort of injustice against them. As an analogy, we used the same kind of language to designate Jews (they were "rats") who were destroying the economy. I make this statement NOT to suggest that the conservatives are like "Hitler," but rather that the use of these terms have justified some pretty horrible stuff. I refuse to engage in the hyperbolic rhetoric that calls Obama Hitler or Bush Hitler, but it is a fact that calling the poor "parasites" and "racoons" resonate with historical rhetorical tactics.
Compare this "animal rhetoric" with the way Buffet (and sometimes conservatives) claim they are being treated:
"These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species" (Buffet, "Stop coddling the rich").
Buffet is not the only one to use this rhetoric, as Stewart points out in another segment.
The Rhetoric of the Endangered Species
So let's recap here. We have a contrast between 2 types of animal:
The Poor are parasites, racoons, , 'animals' (in general)
These are all animals that we consider "pests" who mooch off those who are "producing." But, of course, we would have to take into account that racoons are only mooching off, say, the middle class, who are not producing that rotten produce that they throw away because its a day old, but bought it at a grocery store. A grocery store that probably shipped that rotten tomato from some poorer country, who are producing the 'produce' we sell in the store.
The Rich are endangered species
Why do we protect endangered species? Do they add something essential to our ecosystem? Have we forgotten the idea of natural selection?
I'd like to suggest that perhaps we protect endangered species because they are beautiful to behold. To be really cynical, its as if we protect them so we have a more diverse zoo for human beings to look at. Endangered species are the "exceptions" to the animal realm--they are the rare ones that are difficult to attain. Sound familiar? Are we creating diversity or are we valuing these animals because they are rare like how we value people of an exceptional nature and in the same way that we except ourselves from the designation "animal"?
To end my exploration, I'd like to return to the response to Warren Buffet's article:
"The best way to balance the budget is for the economy to produce a lot more American success stories like Warren Buffett." (Stephen Moore, "Warren Buffet is wrong on Taxes").
Just as we see endangered species as exceptional, rare, and important, we see millionaires/billionaires as exceptional, rare, and important. Why do we look up to these people as if they were superhuman beings? Do we really want to be them?
No comments:
Post a Comment