will have a difficult time getting elected.
David Stockman was fired from the Reagan administration for suggesting we were living beyond our means. In 1990 when George H. Bush did the right thing and abandoned his "no new taxes" pledge by acknowledging that new or increased taxes were necessary. His popularity ratings fell immediately, and this was after coming out of his Iraq War, where the U.S. populace viewed him favorably despite that reckless adventure, where the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, assured Hussein we would take no position if he invaded Kuwait, and then did.
George H. Bush lost that election to Bill Clinton, and while there were other factors involved, most analysts believe taxes played a big part. It divided the republican party, along with Ross Perot independent run, and Bill Clinton won.
Bill Clinton raised taxes, decreased the deficit, and won two terms as President, in spite of raising taxes. A big part of Clinton's success was a booming economy, and because of that, the raising of taxes did not face much resistance with the public.
One side claimed the economic success on deregulation and free trade agreements, and the other side credited the economic success on the internet boom, and a responsible fiscal policy.
The OP compares the 30's to today, and I am not sure that is comparable. Out of the 1929 depression I believe FDR's policies gave birth to the middle class.
Whether a campaign on "raising taxes" for healthcare, education, etc. is viable is dependent on the middle class.
The middle class has been shrinking since Reagan. They still comprise a sizable portion of the populace, and by Gallop polls the majority believe either taxes are about right or too high. Very few believe that taxes are too low, and for that reason, I suggest that in todays environment, it will be very difficult to run a campaign on higher taxes, no matter what the reason for that increase is:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspx
I also do not believe people understand what a failure Reagan's supply side economics were and are, and that is a big part of the problem
= new reply since forum marked as read
