tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post6705655714492304942..comments2024-03-27T14:20:05.905-04:00Comments on Montclair SocioBlog: Quote, er Insult, of the DayJay Livingstonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06652075579940313964noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-29485834186584493122012-09-18T19:51:17.608-04:002012-09-18T19:51:17.608-04:00Jay,
Nice summary. I think your points 4 and 5 ar...Jay,<br /><br />Nice summary. I think your points 4 and 5 are closely related – the Thomas Frank “What’s the Matter with Kansas” voters have been thoroughly indoctrinated to see everyone else as the moochers, regardless of what benefits they (or their city, or state) receive from other taxpayers. If anything, I think it’s worse than being like advertising –it’s tribal affiliation and resentment all the way down. I’m reminded of a conversation I had last night in Zucotti with a young woman who described an inherently American mindset among those who are struggling economically that they are not *really* poor, but are just pending entrepreneurs who are temporarily down on their luck (she might have been citing a study, but it’s out of my bailiwick and I can’t find a link). It’s not such a big jump from there to the rampant cognitive dissonance you describe. <br /><br />And for a chuckle, it’s hard to beat the Onion’s take on the whole mess:<br /><br />http://www.theonion.com/articles/romney-apologizes-to-nations-150-million-starving,29603/Anchardhttp://aluation.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35248477.post-62425627691896620032012-09-18T10:39:25.328-04:002012-09-18T10:39:25.328-04:00Even that 47% number is problematic because it'...Even that 47% number is problematic because it's actually 47% of "tax units." So, it includes a mixture single filings and married joint filings. It's hard to say for certain what percentage of voting-eligible individuals pays income tax.andrewnoreply@blogger.com