Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Okay, but you didn't answer the question... What was Bush's agenda?

Posted By: Lu on 2009-02-06
In Reply to: Just ask Ann Coulter about the 911 widows..... - sm

?


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Bush had a personal agenda for this invasion.
Al queada is in 80 different countries, mostly Pakistan.

No, this is about the children. Because if we cannot get this country straightened out now, it could send the entire globe into a recession since it is a dollar based economy world wide for the most part. Imagine: Tube socks at Wal-Mart costing 55.00 rather than 5.99. Imagine, a dollar having the value of a nickel.
Imagine empty store shelves. This is what is at stake.

You need to read more books from both sides. Tune into all stations. I force myself to listen to Bill O'really and Rush ::gags:: when major events take place just to see what their perception of events are.

There really is two Americas and you and I, we live in the same one. McCain doesn't consider a person rich unless they have 5 million dollars - doesn't that say something?

did you watch the 9-11 coverage on national geo? Did you see the errors made prior to the attacks and during the attacks? It was due to an unsophisticated system which the military used. Two fighter jets were out over the Atlantic ocean while the 2nd jet flew into the 2nd tower. "We were confused" "fog of war" how many lives that would have saved.

No, militarily the U.S. is weak and just about every general has said this that wasn't hand picked by Bush as a puppet. And have you heard: Iraq has a 63 billion dollar surplus but is not paying back the U.S. because "they destroyed the country." What????

Beating a dead horse. I can hear you now.

There are even wealthy democrats who would like to see McCain win - for the tax cuts. I am very suspicious the delegates who voted for Obama may have considered that. Even Keith Obermann, who actually read Obama's speech minutes before he hit the stage, ruining the ability for the audience to experience a thoughtful speech. He read it off like it was a lunch menu. And he is supposed to be a liberal democrat.

When the rich are against the poor, a country ends up corrupt. And that is what McCain is representing, the wealthy class.

Republicans = the rich and the fools.
What exactly was President Bush's agenda for locking them up?

Somebody has to pay for 9/11.  Somebody has to pay for the USS Cole.  The right people are locked up.  Excuse me for not crying about their civil rights or worrying about how they are interrogated.  National security is why President Bush locked those terrorists up, national security and justice. 


And I do have a grip -- a firm grip on reality.  I don't live in Obama-land.


EPA slants analysis to favor Bush's agenda

Report Accuses EPA of Slanting Analysis
Hill
Researchers Say Agency Fixed Pollution Study to Favor Bush's 'Clear
Skies'



By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday,
December 3, 2005; A08


The Bush administration skewed its analysis of pending legislation on air
pollution to favor its bill over two competing proposals, according to a new
report by the Congressional Research Service.


The Environmental Protection Agency's Oct. 27 analysis of its plan -- along
with those of Sens. Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.) and James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.) --
exaggerated the costs and underestimated the benefits of imposing more stringent
pollution curbs, the independent, nonpartisan congressional researchers wrote in
a Nov. 23 report. The EPA issued its analysis -- which Carper had demanded this
spring, threatening to hold up the nomination of EPA Administrator Stephen L.
Johnson -- in part to revive its proposal, which is stalled in the Senate.


The administration's Clear Skies legislation aims to achieve a 70 percent cut
in emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide after 2018, while Carper's and
Jeffords's bills demand steeper and faster cuts and would also reduce emissions
of carbon dioxide, which are linked to global warming. The Bush plan would also
cut emissions of neurotoxic mercury by 70 percent, while Jeffords's bill reduces
them by 90 percent.


Although it represents a step toward understanding the impacts of legislative
options, EPA's analysis is not as useful as one could hope, the Research Service
report said. The result is an analysis that some will argue is no longer
sufficiently up-to-date to contribute substantially to congressional debate.


The congressional report, which was not commissioned by a lawmaker as is
customary, said the EPA analysis boosted its own proposal by overestimating the
cost of controlling mercury and playing down the economic benefits of reducing
premature deaths and illnesses linked to air pollution.


EPA estimated the administration's plan would cost coal-fired power plants as
much as $6 billion annually, compared with up to $10 billion in Carper's measure
and as much as $51 billion for Jeffords's. It calculated that Bush's proposal
would produce $143 billion a year in health benefits while Carper's would
generate $161 billion and Jeffords would yield $211 billion. Carper's measure
would achieve most of its reductions by 2013, while Jeffords's bill would enact
even more ambitious pollution cuts by 2010.


EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said the agency based its cost estimates on
mercury controls by gathering comments from boilermaker workers, power companies
and emission control companies, whereas the Research Service used a single study
to reach its conclusions on mercury.


Clear Skies delivers dramatic health benefits across the nation without
raising energy costs and does it with certainty and simplicity, instead of
regulation and litigation, Witcher said. Because of our commitment to see this
become a reality, EPA went above and beyond to provide the most comprehensive
legislative analysis of air ever prepared by the agency, so it does a real
disservice to this discussion to have a report that largely ignores and
misinterprets our analysis.


But aides to Carper and Jeffords said they felt vindicated by the
congressional study.


The CRS report backs up a lot of what we initially said about EPA's latest
analysis, that it overstated the costs of controlling mercury and understated
the overall health benefits of Senator Carper's legislation, said Carper
spokesman Bill Ghent. The report clearly states that there's no reason to settle
for the president's Clear Skies plan because the legislation doesn't clean the
air much better than current law.


© 2005 The Washington Post
Company

You still didn't answer

 The Billy Graham/Mother Teresa reference was made only to say what if one of them asked the question. If one of them did, a) we would not have character assassination for days on end so we could cut straight to the chase. What I am saying is that if a person pretty much all Americans admire were to ask the president, "why did _____ die in this war?" what would his answer be.


Are you going to Iraq to help nation-build?


 


Didn't think anybody answer that
because it's obvious that a parent can't sacrifice their own child to the military---that's why very few people take Cindy S. seriously.
Too bad for her she didn't just answer
the way most contestants try to:  Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah... world peace.
I didn't answer it because I wasn't here. sm
It's answered above.
You didn't answer MY question.

LOL. You still didn't answer the question. nm
nm
and still you didn't answer the question about...
if it was YOUR money they were taking. Furthermore, 10% for a millionaire is $100,000 (that's one hundred thousand dollars) per million. That same 10% for someone making, say, even 60K is only six thousand dollars. Anyway, no one pays 10% in taxes so let's make it more realistic. Let's make it say 25%. Now you've got 250,000 per million in taxes. Why should it be a higher percentage? It is an equal share. Where is the incentive to continue earning if you are doing it simply to pay more in taxes to benefit someone else and not for your own earning? Then what happens when that incentive is gone?

The moral thing to do is to treat people equally regardless of their socioeconomic situation. The right thing do is to let people decide for themselves what they can do to benefit others who may be less fortunate economically.

I will ask again: What if it were your money? what if they decided that any working person should pay to support those not working? How would you feel about that. Or are you just jealous because someone has more than you?
His teleprompter didn't give him an answer
/
I nearly didn't answer this out of the sheer lunacy of such a claim. sm
 I am not sure what is so complicated about the fact that in a world of good and evil, the forces of good must sometimes temporarily ally themselves with certain unlikable forces against the most terrible and dangerous evils of the time.  Of course, the problem is that people like you and most who post on this board have no real understanding of the enemy we face and will shudden in true horror when it's face is finally clear to you. Your complacency and willingness to blame all the world's woes on one single man, no matter who that man might be, is fatally short-sighted. In an effort to hate all things Bush, you have neglected the monster in the closet. 
nice dodge. You didn't answer the question.
nm
That's good that you are still deciding, but you didn't answer my question. nm
.

Oh, more "blame Bush" - except Bush didn't send these out, now did he?
Here's a news flash for you since you apparently haven't heard: BUSH IS NOT IN OFFICE and just today Gallup did a poll showing that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS THINK OBAMA SHOULD START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON HIS WATCH.

G E T A C L U E.
Bush's Answer? Change the War Crimes Act!

August 29, 2006


Retroactive Laws Invoked to Protect Administration Officials from War Crimes Prosecution


Bush Turns His Terror War on the Homeland


By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS


When I was a kid John Wayne war movies gave us the message that America was the good guy, the white hat that fought the villain.
Alas, today the US and its last remaining non-coerced ally, Israel, are almost universally regarded as the bad guys over whom John Wayne would triumph. Today the US and Israel are seen throughout the world as war criminal states.


On August 23 the BBC reported that Amnesty International has brought war crimes charges against Israel for deliberately targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure as an integral part of Israel's strategy in its recent invasion of Lebanon.


Israel claims that its aggression was self-defense to dislodge Hezbollah from southern Lebanon. Yet, Israel bombed residential communities all over Lebanon, even Christian communities in the north in which no Hezbollah could possibly have been present.


United Nations spokesman Jean Fabre reported that Israel's attack on civilian infrastructure annihilated Lebanon's development: Fifteen years of work have been wiped out in a month.


Israel maintains that this massive destruction was unintended collateral damage.


President Bush maintains that Israel has a right to protect itself by destroying Lebanon.


Bush blocked the attempt to stop Israel's aggression and is, thereby, equally responsible for the war crimes. Indeed, a number of reports claim that Bush instigated the Israeli aggression against Lebanon.


Bush has other war crime problems. Benjamin Ferenccz, a chief prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, recently said that President Bush should be tried as a war criminal side by side with Saddam Hussein for starting aggressive wars, Hussein for his 1990 invasion of Kuwait and Bush for his 2003 invasion of Iraq.


Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush is definitely a war criminal. The US Supreme Court also exposed Bush to war crime charges under both the US War Crimes Act of 1996 and the Geneva Conventions when the Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld against the Bush administration's military tribunals and inhumane treatment of detainees.


President Bush and his Attorney General agree that under existing laws and treaties Bush is a war criminal together with many members of his government. To make his war crimes legal after the fact, Bush has instructed the Justice (sic) Department to draft changes to the War Crimes Act and to US treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions.


One of Bush's changes would deny protection of the Geneva Conventions to anyone in any American court.


Bush's other change would protect from prosecution any US government official or military personnel guilty of violating Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 3 prohibits at any time and in any place whatsoever outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment. As civil libertarian Nat Hentoff observes, this change would also undo Senator John McCain's amendment against torture.


Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice says that Bush's changes immunize past crimes.


Under the US Constitution and US legal tradition, retroactive law is impermissible. What do Americans think of their President's attempts to immunize himself, his government, CIA operatives, military personnel and civilian contractors from war crimes?


Apparently, the self-righteous morally superior American Christian public could care less. The Republican controlled House and Senate, which long ago traded integrity for power, are working to pass Bush's changes prior to the mid-term elections in the event the Republicans fail to steal three elections in a row and Democrats win control of the House or Senate.


Meanwhile, the illegal war in Iraq, based entirely on Bush administration lies, grinds on, murdering and maiming ever more people. According to the latest administration estimate, the pointless killing will go on for another 10-15 years.


Trouble is, there are no US troops to carry on the war. The lack of cannon fodder forces the Bush administration to resort to ever more desperate measures. The latest is the involuntary recall of thousands of Marines from the inactive reserves to active duty. Many attentive people regard this desperate measure as a sign that the military draft will be reinstated.


According to President Bush, the US will lose the war on terror unless the US succeeds in defeating the Iraqi terrorists by establishing democracy in Iraq. Of course, insurgents resisting occupation are not terrorists, and there were no insurgents or terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded.


Bush's unjustified invasion of Iraq and his support for Israeli aggression have done more to create terrorism in the Muslim world than Osama bin Laden could hope for. The longer Bush occupies Iraq and the more he tries to extend US/Israeli hegemony in the Middle East, the more terrorism the world will suffer.


Bush and the Zionist/neocon ideology that holds him captive are the greatest 21st century threats to peace and stability. The neoconized Bush regime invented the war on terror, lost it, and now is bringing terror home to the American people.


Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com


Bush HID those who didn't
So you think Bush was an open book? LOL!!!!!

If there were tax evaders on Bush's team we would never know about it. He was the King of Cover-Up!
It's not our fault...At least, I didn't vote for Bush. LOL!nm
x
I didn't say he blindly supports Bush.
Scarborough is objective and honest, and if something is wrong, he tells people.  He doesn't blindfold himself and play follow the leader like so many Bush supporters.  He's not a Bush apologist.
Uh Bush didn't wiretap the Kings
Bush Jr. wasn't president then, although you all like to blame him for things that happened before his presidency. I think the Kennedy's had everything to do with the King wiretappings...

Carter is a tool and one biggest failures of a president in American history. The only thing of substance he's ever done was Habitat for Humanity, and I think he would do himself and everyone else a favor by sticking to that.
Of course BUSH didn't wiretap the Kings...
...and nobody including Carter claimed that. Is that the best you can do? How lame. Bush was embarrassed by the REFERENCE and rightfully so. And if you know anything about Hoover's FBI, blaming the Kennedys for the rampant intelligence abuses at the time is even more disingenuous.

Not going to argue about Carter's record - Repugs have always hated him just as they anybody who demonstrates intelligence, bravery and a dedication to public service. No surprise there. George Bush Sr. is the only Republican President in recent times who has not simply retired to live in reclusive luxury - not surprising either that he and Clinton get along so well. Kind of a thorn under the shrub's saddle isn't it?

Those Democratic Presidents though (not to mention the Democratic vice-presidents) - they just seem to keep on giving and contributing in the public arena. Must be the result of a basic difference in ideology between the parties.
EXACTLY. Bush didn't want SCHIP but he darn
healthcare for children is socialism but this is not. He is about 5 beers short of a 6 pack!!
Bush didn't do anything before it was not a democratic congress.
.
Sorry honey.....I didn't vote for BUSH
@@
Didn't vote for Bush, can't blame me for that...nm

Bush didn't create the federal reserve......
xx
Why didn't the Bush bashers leave then? Did you feel the same about them?
//
If it Clinton screwed something up - why didn't Bush fix it? He had 8 years!

As much as you want to blame Bill Clinton......don't forget who held the reins for the last 8 years......who let them run amuck? Why was nothing done?


Check out the mortgage failures.
Tell me which failed more, prime or subprime
Tell me what is the rate of failures under the CRA or even Bush's ADDI (which i attack alll the time)
Once again, REALITY AND THE DATA doesn't fit ya'lls claims.




Basically what happened was.. we reformed bankruptcy laws.. so that people who ran into dire straights could not restructure.





We packaged the loans into commodity derivatives. These are sorta mirror bets on the loans. Sorta..as the same loan will be sold many times in many derivative packages.. that's why the housing derivatives are worth more than all the real estate in the US. Derivatives are actually not that bad.. when a market is stable and only has to deal with natural forces. The housing market was bubbled.. partially due to low interest rates that encouraged everyone to buy, even the rich, and partially due to the CRA and the ADDI.. which did add customers to the market (helping form the bubble was the extent the CRA and the ADDI had in this mess)




All it took was a few failures to pop the bubble..and make real estate prices drop,. and mind you, it was mainly prime loans (READ not loans given to poor people and not loans under the CRA) that failed. The derivative market.,.which like I said, is really mirrors of the same loans.. cause the defaults to explode with ten times the ferocity, because one loan could effect the price of dozens of derivatives.




Really the poor and even irresponsible people .. simply did not have the economic ability to cause this mess. Pool all their money together and waste it on hookers.. it would have zero effect without help from the rich elites and their magnifying packaged derivatives.




THE CRA and ADDI both had stricter requirements than loans you got from normal banks.. both required income data.. where many prime loans did not.. they also greatly limited you on how much home you could purchase..whereas private banks did not care if you tried to buy something you could not afford.
Don't believe me?.. Look in the phone book.. call your own housing authority - you can get a loan for 106% the purchase price of a home even today.. if you're poor enough.
 



Ask to hear the red tape and hoops you must go through.. Heck, it is probably easier to just get a real job and earn real money than go through the FHA.


Yeah and Bush's policies got us in a fine mess didn't they?

Conservatives believe Bush didn’t act in time because God told him to get rid of poor black people

on welfare and old people on Social Security because they cost taxpayers too much money.


A radio talk show host just said that…and I agree. They can’t admit that Bush has shown us all how he will refuse to protect Americans in a national emergency, even though he used that as a campaign promise, and that Bush doesn’t even have to care any more since he can’t be President again. I hope they can live with their collective conscience. That is if they have one. I’m starting to believe they don’t.


They have the same agenda. The only thing different sm
about Democrats and Republicans are the issues, and the issues are what divide us. The issues cause arguments, which distract us - the old divide and conquer tactic better known as the false left right paradigm. The Bush and Clinton families are quite friendly, even vacation together.
I merely posted who they are and what their agenda is...
that is not attacking the messenger. That is presenting the other side. Why do you object to presenting the other side?
Behind the Obama Agenda....sm




http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/election/546-behind-the-obama-agenda
a bold agenda

and worthwhile getting started but I believe you have to be dead 100 days or 100 years to get a national holiday. Something about historic prespective or some such.


 


Radical Agenda...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/


 


 


Since you seem to know, just what is the "conservative agenda", please? sm
..and kindly provide references from the conservative sources themselves, not from liberal sources that are a little too prone to misinterpretations and mischaracterizations.

Thank you. I apologize in advance if this request imposes a burden on you to get your facts straight, but you'll be better informed for having made the effort.
I do not understand what the agenda
is when scientists around the world have already declared their findings do not support gore's. We are not doing anything to effect melting of ice caps on jupiter. The sun has just entered its new 11 year sun spot cycle with the peak about halfway through and as a ham operator I know what this does to communications. why is this myth persisting. what a bunch of youknowwhat. take the old nursery rhyme of "black sheep, black sheep have you any wool" and change it to black sheep, black sheep, have you any bull. yes sir, yes sir, 3 bags full". and before anyone even goes there, I have heard that in my mind for years and it has nothing to do with O. I do have a question for someone: On my phone bill since I came up to stay with Mother, I am being charged $5 a month for NOT using long distance. This is now taxed city, state and federal. Does this seem legal?
I'd appreciate it if you would leave my daughter out of your agenda.

I mentioned nothing of her political opinions or what she "thinks." I merely said I baby-sit for her occasionally and use her computer.  for you to try to drag her into your accusations is typical of what I have seen happen on the other board.  It's inflammatory and untrue, but it's how you people seem to create your "facts." I can assure you that my daughter has her own political opinions, and she and I don't always agree, unlike you, but we at least respect each other's right to their opinion and often have respectable, interesting, informative debates with each other.  She was taught respect and learned it very well. You can't hold a candle to the intelligent, respectful young lady that she is, so don't even try because you're way out of your league. As far as going back to the conservative board, thanks, but no thanks. I've already explained my reasons for not going back there any more. People are much more respectful of differing opinions on this board.


My post to gt was simply to tell her that I understand what it's like to be accused of all sorts of things simply because you post on a board.  It happened to me on the conservative board on my first (and last) visit there, which is why I won't return.


Do I think some of the things gt said were over the top?  I sure do.  Do I understand why she said them?  My guess is that she was trying to communicate with you in the only way you seem to understand, since civil attempts don't seem to work with some of you people.  I think I can "understand" her motives, just like some of you "understand" why Eric Rudolph murdered innocent people. And between the two, I'd much rather try to "understand" gt than "Eric" (as he appears to be affectionately referred to elsewhere on this board).


Americans tired of GOP agenda.
From pensitoreview.com where full story can be read:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sen. Nelson: Americans Are Fed Up with GOP
Posted October 5th, 2005 at 10:06 am by Jon

Boston.com:

The nation has become fed up with Republican leadership and the United States can still free itself of foreign oil in 10 years if it focuses on alternative fuel like ethanol, Sen. Bill Nelson said Tuesday.

In a wide ranging interview with reporters, Nelson, D-Fla., cited Republicans’ intervention in the Terri Schiavo case, the skyrocketing federal budget deficits and the war in Iraq as reasons why public opinion is turning against the GOP.

“It started with Terri Schiavo,” Nelson said. “I think what you’re seeing is a reaction — that people are saying I have enough of this intolerance and trying to cram their agenda down the people’s throats. People are getting tired of that.

He also points to the White House not responding quickly enough when Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans and Mississippi and failing to work with oil companies to reign in rising gas prices.

“I can’t tell you how many Republicans have come up to me and said ‘I am off the reservation because of the fiscal policies of this administration, spending so much money like a drunken sailor,’” Nelson said. “All of these things are coming home to roost.”
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Better late than never, I guess - now all we have to do is get rid of those hackable electronic voting machines and we can do something constructive about it.
No, it's not an evil agenda...I agree...sm
And in a perfect world America would be 100% Christian and we all would believe and think the same way, but we don't. Along with bringing their faith, our leaders have to bring the wisdom on how to be a leader for 100% of the people, and that includes the 49% that didn't vote for him.

Go to Obama's web site to see his agenda. sm
There you will find very detailed solutions that he lays out for America.  Of course experience is a good thing, but the trouble is the longer a person is embedded in the political establishment the more entrenched they become in "business as usual." Business as usual has netted little in this country, especially regarding the middle class.  I can't say Obama is the magic bullet here, after all he too is a politician, but a little less entrenched, and maybe it's worth a shot to see if someone with a little less "insider experience" could start to turn the country in a different and better, direction.  What do we have to lose?
And LOUDLY indicative of O's agenda! nm
nm
Freedom agenda in the Middle East?

Did Bush campaign promising a freedom agenda in the Middle East?  I must have missed that during the debates.  In fact, he specifically said he was against nation building when he debated Gore, although in all fairness, he didn't say he was against nation wrecking.


I guess he doesn't understand that the decider created more suiciders than he got rid of.


I can't wait to see how his base spins the long awaited truth from Bush's own lips that there were no WMDs and that Iraq had no ties to 9/11.


May God help us all.


Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts

by: Joe Brewer, t r u t h o u t | Perspective


photo
The way that taxation is viewed by the public has a lot to do with the way politicians frame the debate. (Artwork: inventions-guide.com)



    Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

    It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

    We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat," "cut out the waste," "shrink the government" and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the US population. How can this be?

    The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world. Our experiences shape what seems legitimate by reinforcing (or undermining) our ideas about the way things work. So, for example, a progressive politician may speak honestly and forcefully about the positive role of government in our lives. But this will fall on deaf ears if our typical experience is at odds with such claims. This observation demonstrates a key element of what George Lakoff and I have dubbed the Cognitive Criterion for Public Support:

    An effective policy must be popular if it is to stand the test of time and it must be popular for the right reasons, namely because it promotes the right long-term values in the minds of citizens, reinforced through the lived experience.

    The reason many people accept conservative claims about taxation and government is that they hold up for many common experiences, especially when conservatives are in control of the government. Conservative officials enact policies that make life worse for people while claiming that things will get better. Then they draw upon these negative experiences to advance their agenda. No Child Left Behind is an excellent example. The strategy works like this (a more detailed analysis can be found here):

1. Declare that the agenda is to "improve" public education.


2. Pass legislation that cripples public schools.

3. Cry out for "reform" when people see how bad our schools are doing.

4. Get rid of public schools and replace them with private schools, especially schools that teach conservative ideology (e.g. elite charter schools, religious schools, etc.).


    This strategy demonstrates how *cognitive policy* works. Emphasis is given to how people understand what is happening. The goal is to ensure that our experiences are interpreted through a conservative lens. It is not literally the case that taxation is a burden (a provocative metaphor), but rather that our common sense is influenced by a combination of our experiences in the world and the interpretive filters that give them meaning. (A key feature of how the political mind works, as I discuss in The Great Political Blind Spot.)

    Back to the hidden agenda behind tax cuts; we can apply this insight to see that conservatives *want* people to have negative experiences with government. Why? Because it supports decades of propaganda - and an underlying belief that stems from their worldview - that government is the problem. In the early 1970's, conservative elites started investing heavily in the creation of idea factories to spread their views far and wide so that they eventually became the new common sense of our culture. They had to work tirelessly for years to change the underlying values of American citizens because our long history has been devoted to advancing our most cherished values, which happen to be progressive. But, as we can see by the pervasiveness of their ideas today, this effort has been catastrophically successful.

    Now is the time to nip their bankrupt idea about taxation in the bud. The way to do it is simple. Take their reasoning to its logical conclusion and see what happens if it is applied to the real world. We can test the conservative belief about taxation against our own and decide what's best by looking at the outcomes.

    First, we'll need to be very clear about just what conservatives and progressives mean by taxation. Then we can apply these understandings to the world to see their consequences. (The insights that follow come from linguistic analysis of cognitive "frames" that shape political thought.)

    Taxation as Conservatives Understand It

    I've already alluded to an interesting metaphor that helps make sense of conservative thought about taxes, which I'll call Taxes Are a Burden to make it explicit. The understanding of taxation that follows from this metaphor can be seen in this story:

    Hard-working Americans are in need of some tax relief. Years of mismanagement by tax-and-spend liberals have taken money out of the hands of working people and put it into bloated government programs that serve special interests. We need to cut taxes, return fiscal responsibility to government, and put money back in the hands of taxpayers who know best how to spend it.

    This perspective is grounded in two beliefs: (1) The world is comprised of individuals; and (2) People are inherently bad and must learn right from wrong through self-discipline. I like to call this the "Me First" perspective because it assumes that people must help themselves before thinking about others. It can be summarized with the declaration, "You're on your own!" The Me First perspective assumes that any assistance from the community would be "coddling" or "spoiling" us. This claim is asserted as truth in the conservative worldview.

    Taxation as Progressives Understand It

    Progressives have a different understanding of taxation that can be expressed through a variety of metaphors: Taxes Are an Investment, Taxes Are Membership Dues, Taxes Are Pathways to Opportunity, Taxes Are Infrastructure and Taxes Are a Duty. (Read more about progressive taxation in "Progressive Taxation: Some Hidden Truths") Reasoning that emerges with these metaphors can be seen in this progressive story:

    Our great nation was founded on a promise of protection and opportunity. Through our shared wealth, pooled together by taxation with representation, we have invested in the public infrastructure that makes possible the creation of new wealth. We have a sacred trust to keep this promise alive throughout our lifetimes, expand it as we are able, and pass it along to our children.

    This perspective is grounded in the beliefs that (1) Individuals are influenced significantly by our communities; and (2) People are inherently good and benefit from cooperation with others. I like to call this the "People First" perspective because it assumes that people must help each other in order to enhance their ability to help themselves. It can be summarized with the declaration, "We're all in this together!" The People First perspective assumes that we are greater than the sum of our parts and that new opportunities emerge when we make wise investments with the common wealth we share.

    Truth and Consequences

    Now that we have a clear sense of what taxation means to conservatives and progressives, we can see what happens if these different ideas are used as governing principles for shaping society. This analysis accomplishes two purposes. First, it reveals key truths about taxation that complicate arguments made by conservatives, truths that don't get talked about nearly enough. And second, it exposes a covert agenda that deceptively exploits real concerns of people to advance an otherwise unpopular agenda.

    What happens if the Me First perspective is applied to taxation? Just look to the world we find ourselves in today. A problem defined as "too much spending" leads to budget cuts. This results in a diminished capacity to provide vital services. Public goods like education, civil and criminal courts, road maintenance and fundamental scientific research are too costly for individuals - or even multinational corporations - to afford. So these services are cut and people lose their jobs. Thousands of teachers no longer cultivating young minds. Countless construction workers laid off when city and state governments halt infrastructure projects. Graduates with advanced degrees unable to find work because public agencies are "tightening their belts" and cutting back on grants to academia, nonprofits and the private sector.

    Beyond the direct human suffering of disrupted lives, there is substantial reduction in government programs that protect the public against harm. The FDA cannot staff enough inspectors to keep toxic peanuts out of the food supply. The EPA lacks capacity to keep drinking water clean in cities and towns across the country. The SEC is unable to keep a watchful eye on runaway speculation and our economy spins wildly out of control. Bridges crumble and levies break because funds are in short supply.

    The consequence of conservative ideology is a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are forced to be "on their own" with no protection against serious threats and no assistance to get them beyond their current means. When disasters strike, there is widespread suffering and death because the tapestry of society - our precious safety net - has withered and decayed. Think I'm exaggerating? I'll just say one word - Katrina.

    And despite their claims to the contrary, conservative leaders want this to happen.

    Contrast this with the People First perspective. Again, we can let experience be our guide. A decade of rampant deregulation, perpetrated by a conservative mindset about the relationship between government and the economy, led to the great stock market crash of 1929. A visionary progressive leader, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, stepped in and vastly expanded a wide variety of public programs. The flood of revenues accompanying this expansion was enough to put millions of unemployed back to work. New programs that embody the spirit of progress emerged in the decades that followed. Social Security, the GI Bill, Medicare and the FDIC are a few examples of the legacy this pooling of resources delivered to the American people.

    Along with this massive investment in societal infrastructure, Americans experienced tremendous growth of shared prosperity. For the first time in our history, an entire generation of children from working-class families moved up the economic ladder with college degrees in hand. Home ownership skyrocketed. Literacy rates went through the roof and new skills emerged to expand the capacity of markets. And two generations of people experienced the benefits of cooperation in their daily lives, codifying the ethic that we're all in it together as a bedrock of sound reason.

    I can attest to this from personal experience. Both of my parents came from working-class families. I was the first to get a college degree. Federal and state scholarships delivered me from the rural farm to the hallowed halls. And now society gets to benefit from the fruits of my labor as I work to transform our political system for the betterment of society. The cognitive policy of the People First perspective is a foundation of my identity in the world.

    The Hidden Agenda Exposed

    The progress of our nation is being held hostage by a malicious metaphor. Treating taxation as nothing more than a burden is tantamount to declaring that citizenship is nothing more than getting all you can for yourself … everyone else be damned. Conservative elites have undermined the responsibilities we have to one another to advance their agenda. They are fully committed to crafting the world in their image, as we've seen all too clearly these last eight years and throughout the current debate about economic recovery under the Obama administration.

    I say enough is enough. Let's call this tactic out for what it is. People are hurting in every corner of the land and they're looking for help where they haven't dared to look for quite some time - in the service of our representatives in the federal government. Conservatives will try to convince us that our hardships are caused by excessive government. The truth is that we are suffering under excessive conservative ideology of governance, which is a very different beast. They continue to claim that we can't get ahead because we're overtaxed. This claim is absurd!

    Not a single home foreclosure throughout this crisis has been caused by excessive taxation. The misfortune of illness in a dysfunctional health system has burdened people with horrendous debt. Where did this problem come from? Profit-driven health care created under the Nixon administration.

    Banks haven't failed catastrophically through oversized personal W-2 forms. Radical deregulation is the culprit. Who deregulated the market? Conservative ideologues from both political parties. (This is what the word "centrist" really means - conservatives who've infiltrated the Democratic Party.)

    Companies haven't been driven to huge layoffs because their tax burden is too high. They are victims of an unraveling market. What undermined the integrity of the global economy? An extremist philosophy of governance that is blind to the role of the regulatory frameworks that give stabilizing structure to our markets.

    What can we do to stop the conservative agenda? Call it out for what it is. When someone says, "People need tax relief," respond by letting them know that "We really need to invest in one another." Make it clear what the consequences of tax cuts really are - the destruction of our mechanisms for protecting and empowering one another. And let's stop taking their language for granted just because everyone is doing it. That logic didn't make much sense in middle school. It's all the more dangerous to follow as adults. Challenge the conservative meaning of taxation directly. Declare that we are decidedly NOT on our own. Point to the benefits we've taken for granted too long, things like education and schools and roads and courts.

    We mustn't stop with a critique of their ideas either. We need to fervently argue for our own. Together we are greater than the sum of our parts. A prosperous community is a place where neighbors pool their efforts for the greater good. Taxes provide resources for investments larger than anything we could build on our own. And these benefits create a space for new ideas to take hold and expand our wealth.

    Ideas matter. Words are important. We cannot afford to let a radical minority set the tone of public debate any longer. The time is ripe for moving beyond the era of misguided individualism. Let's take the momentum we've built in the last few years and place the United States back on a course that resonates with our deeply held values - caring for one another, expanding freedoms to the marginalized, and recognizing that our shared prosperity is at the core of our success as a nation.


They aren't pushing a "gay agenda"...(sm)
They're pushing TOLERANCE.....something you could obviously use a lessen in.
Well at least the blame agenda is still alive in the liberal movement. sm
Nice to see some things never change. 
What I find wrong is that he's pushing his own ego-driven agenda
regardless of what anyone thinks. I think this is called FALSE reassurance.
I guess it is the idea that in the spirit of Christmas the NRA is pushing their agenda...sm
Is nothing sacred? And that goes beyond politics.

Santa with a gun. Right over baby Jesus. Insinuating that Muslims want to blow up Christianity. All in the name of being able to bear arms.

I can't name ONE act of terrorism in American history in the last 100 years that a citizen bearing arms would have saved ONE person from a terrorist.

A gun wouldn't have helped anyone in the trade center, can't take them on a plane so wouldn't have saved any of the passengers, Oklahoma bombing, nope a gunn wouldn't have helped those victims. Just another scare tactic, exploiting 9/11 to push their agenda that was here before waaaayyy before the fact.


Bush didn't destroy Iraq. He helped to liberate Iraq.
m
why do you answer so stupidly, the right answer
if you had any brains, would have been......

'well, she made a mistake.'

But telling me that I need a job, is so stupid, yes, stupid AND a very weak point.
I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.