Tweet
As it stands today, . . . the consensus framework over the tax revenue debate goes; “Should the 98% get a tax cut while the upper 2% pays higher rates?”
WRONG!
What appears to be on the table is that EVERYONE will continue to get the same Bush era tax cuts, until an individual’s income goes over $250,000. Then, income over $250K will be taxed at a slightly higher rate than the Bush cuts specified.
The rhetoric that BOTH sides are using now strongly implies that the top 2% are losing their tax breaks. Careless wording of the situation lets them insinuate that they are not going to continue to get the tax cuts that everyone will still continue to receive from the Bush cuts.
Their servants in the media are portraying their masters as being singled-out and punished while other citizens continue to benefit from tax cuts.
The fact is that they will not continue to be overly favored by extending the expiring Bush tax cuts into higher brackets that ONLY benefit the very wealthy.
They are fooling plenty of people into partial sympathy by playing themselves as martyrs fighting against a left wing “class warfare” attack.
13 Comments
Democrats are rhetorically incompetent because they choose to be.
It is easier to move right when you allow the other side to frame the debate.
Democrats want to use a tax increase for the wealthy – whether a small increase, an even smaller increase, or a sham increase with lots of loopholes – as license to gut the safety net, so they can say “See, shared sacrifice!”
It helps the Democratic narrative to have spokespeople for the wealthy complaining about increased taxes.
It’s up to us to point out that there’s no reason to demand any sacrifices from sick, elderly, and poor people, who didn’t cause the debt, the deficit, or the tanked economy.
I think the first two responses have it nailed: Democratic disenguousness.
Their rhetoric is aimed less at defeating the aims of the Republicans than it is at deceiving their own Democratic base. (An old story by this point).
A) Minimal clawbacks imposed on the rich, (who, let us remember, most of these Representatives and Senators have either recently joined, or came from originally, or soon plan to join when they cash in.) greasing the gears for…
B) Painful cuts to the safety net imposed on the 99% who already lost their jobs, purchasing power, homes, prospects and who did nothing to create the financial meltdown and did not benefit from the various deliberately created bubbles which caused the meltdown. Revolutions have been started over far less insult and injury. Hence the need for extremely deceitful Democratic rhetorical snake oil.
It only looks weak – because its strength is directed against an unexpected victim.
Wow . . . are the D’s such weasels that they are out to gut their own constituents?
I’m putting incompetence up as the reason, . . . and maybe because they don’t have a Frank Luntz of their own doesn’t help . . .
. . . but I have noticed that it IS almost across the board . . .
Both sides use the Rethugs phrase “right to work state” all the time. What that means is that laws in those states have been passed to make union organizing very difficult, if not impossible. Every D should label the issue as the “right to organize”, or something even more to the pro-labor point of view.
Let me think of a couple of other ways the D’s follow the Rethug rhetoric to label issues . . .
. . . any suggestions ?
Another obvious one . . .
No Democrat should let the Rethugs alone use the phrase “pro-life”.
D’s must at least insist that EVERYONE is “pro-life”!
That is a strong Rethug framework if they are the only side that gets to use the phrase.
To be against “pro-life” is to be “anti-life”. You are behind in the debate as soon as it starts.
Always label the Rethugs as “anti-choice”. Or “against personal control of a woman’s medical decisions”. “Not allowing a woman to control her own womb.”
D’s should NEVER hand them the high sounding cover of being “pro-life”.
Why is social security called “an entitlement”?
It is a retirement plan that has been paid for by decades of having payroll deductions allocated into a government controlled fund.
Social security is actually a PRODUCT that has been paid for in full!
The word “entitlement” reeks of the aroma of an “undeserved handout”.
It evokes the image of a whining grifter claiming something that he hasn’t worked for. Something he just wants, even though it is really not deserved.
If D’s and Rethugs are claiming that “EVERYTHING is on the table” when deciding what spending needs to be cut . . .
Why isn’t the FIRST chunk of the cut going to come from the largest part of the pie???
The MILITARY!!!!
Fire 500 generals for a start. (Are there that many?) They will all land very softly with big pensions. The ones who still want to work will be hired as lobbyists by the military/war complex. Reduce the entire office corps by 20%. There are WAY too many guys in the military who aren’t carrying rifles.
And if government doesn’t create jobs, I don’t want anyone to start crying about how many jobs will be lost by Boeing, and Northrup, and General DYnamics, if a substantial part of the military slush funds get whacked.
Ed Schultz just did it again!
His question for the audience tonight is “Should Rethugs cave in and pass tax cuts for the middle class?” (Schultz was polite and called the Rethugs “Republicans” when posing the question)
His framing makes it appear that ONLY the middle class are going to get tax cuts!
Shultz is one of the worst when it comes to mindlessly aping Rethug talking points; using their slanted vocabulary to define the issues.
. . . and “the fiscal CLIFF” rhetoric . . .
Whatever happens . . . it’s Nothing that can’t be quickly undone and corrected as soon as the next congress, which will contain MORE D’s than the current lame duck session, gets seated.
Like Steve Karnacki has been saying for the last two months; it’s not a cliff, it’s a fiscal CURB.
Thank you for not joining in the sleep walking the military budget is full of fruit ripe for the pickings. Everyone else its time to wake up as well. Snap out of it.
Miami Cubans booted out two hardliners January 14, Cubans living Cuba no longer need an exit visa, by then retirees should be able to retire to low crime Cuba as well,
http://my.firedoglake.com/richardkanepa/2012/11/27/don-t-forget-the-huge-military-budget-vastly-larger-than-social-security-with-ripe-spots-easier-to-cut/
“. any suggestions ?”{
Should not allow the R’s to get away with “income re-distribution“.
D’s should say they are for “right distribution” in the first place.
All great points. I hear you and agree. That is why I’ve been working to get higher viability for Anat Shenker-Osorio. Her new book, Don’t Buy It! The Trouble with Talking Nonsense about the Economy. Is great and addresses some of the phrases you mention.
I hosted a book Salon here at FDL because I also am frustrated with Democrats word choice and rhetoric.
A lot of people on the left understand that we need someone who will come up with and run focus groups to test phrases like “death taxes” Anat is that person.
So how to we make that happen?
1) Start using the better phrases today and incorporate them in your writing
2) When you hear a congress critter or democratic law maker using the rights phrases write them and tell them to stop it and suggest that they hire someone, Anat, to work with them.
3) Contact Ed Schultz with your comments and suggest that he have Anat on as a guest. Anat has done radio and TV spots talking about this issue. She could talk about why Ed shouldn’t use “Fiscal Cliff” and what to use instead.
You can listen to her here on In Deep Radio with Angie Corio
http://lftlc.com/sites/default/files/media/podcast2/InDeep_AngieCoiro_120929_H2.mp3
Oh and of course buy Anat’s book. Here is a link