This is the way I segment the pro-tax crowd:
1. Ideological elitists: This group consists of those who are engaged in an ideological war on the financial markets for whatever reason. Examples include DeFazio, Baker, and Krugman.
2. Pragmatic elitists: This group does not care much one way or another. They are simply looking for a source of revenue to fund their ever expanding number of political programs. An example in this group is Pelosi.
3. General public: The middle class taxpayer, that may or may not have a liberal bent.
4. Crackpots: This group varies but a common theme is replacing income tax with a 1% tax on transactions of all kinds. I think it is safe to agree that this will never happen unless a revolution occurs and society descends into anarchy.
There is no way to convince the ideological elitists. They are married to their positions, sometimes for strange reasons (like DeFazio, who is holding onto an almost 50-year grudge against "rich" people from when he worked as a caddy as a teen). Moreover, many of them have been waiting for a crisis like this for years to use as a pretext for pushing for implementation of their agenda. It's no different than the political cabal that took over the White House under Bush and exploited 9-11 for a preexisting neoconservative agenda. This is exactly the same, just from the other end of the political spectrum.
The pragmatic elitists will go wherever the political winds blow. This is the group where the efforts earlier in this thread (writing letters, etc.) can be effective. If the IMF were to come back with a report indicating that the tax is a bad idea (thus making agreement at the G20 level more unlikely), then this group would not stick their political necks out for a position that would put American financial markets at a comparative disadvantage. Even Pelosi will fall in line here.
Incidentally, the reason I call both these groups "elitists" is the remarkable fact that all of those arguing for this tax are either rich or set for life in some other way. It's pretty easy to argue for positions like this when no harm will come to you personally from supporting them. The hypocrisy in pushing for such positions while ignoring the harm they cause to others is rather repellent.
The general public that supports this tax does so because they are angry at Wall Street, understandably so. They don't have enough financial literacy to understand how it is they and not Wall Street that will end up paying this tax, one way or another. I have had success in individual discussions with members of this group. What I have found is that once this is carefully explained people in this group (even those with extremely liberal sympathies) come around because they realize the reality does not match the rhetoric.
As for the crackpots, it's safe just to laugh at them.
1. Ideological elitists: This group consists of those who are engaged in an ideological war on the financial markets for whatever reason. Examples include DeFazio, Baker, and Krugman.
2. Pragmatic elitists: This group does not care much one way or another. They are simply looking for a source of revenue to fund their ever expanding number of political programs. An example in this group is Pelosi.
3. General public: The middle class taxpayer, that may or may not have a liberal bent.
4. Crackpots: This group varies but a common theme is replacing income tax with a 1% tax on transactions of all kinds. I think it is safe to agree that this will never happen unless a revolution occurs and society descends into anarchy.
There is no way to convince the ideological elitists. They are married to their positions, sometimes for strange reasons (like DeFazio, who is holding onto an almost 50-year grudge against "rich" people from when he worked as a caddy as a teen). Moreover, many of them have been waiting for a crisis like this for years to use as a pretext for pushing for implementation of their agenda. It's no different than the political cabal that took over the White House under Bush and exploited 9-11 for a preexisting neoconservative agenda. This is exactly the same, just from the other end of the political spectrum.
The pragmatic elitists will go wherever the political winds blow. This is the group where the efforts earlier in this thread (writing letters, etc.) can be effective. If the IMF were to come back with a report indicating that the tax is a bad idea (thus making agreement at the G20 level more unlikely), then this group would not stick their political necks out for a position that would put American financial markets at a comparative disadvantage. Even Pelosi will fall in line here.
Incidentally, the reason I call both these groups "elitists" is the remarkable fact that all of those arguing for this tax are either rich or set for life in some other way. It's pretty easy to argue for positions like this when no harm will come to you personally from supporting them. The hypocrisy in pushing for such positions while ignoring the harm they cause to others is rather repellent.
The general public that supports this tax does so because they are angry at Wall Street, understandably so. They don't have enough financial literacy to understand how it is they and not Wall Street that will end up paying this tax, one way or another. I have had success in individual discussions with members of this group. What I have found is that once this is carefully explained people in this group (even those with extremely liberal sympathies) come around because they realize the reality does not match the rhetoric.
As for the crackpots, it's safe just to laugh at them.