Why are Democrats afraid to ask for tax increases on the wealthy...?

[kentuck]

...and deep cuts in the Defense budget?

The Defense budget under Clinton was about half of what it is today. That is about $300 billion dollars a year that we could cut the deficit in Defense alone, if we went back to the level of spending under Clinton. That would be $3 trillion dollars over the next ten years.

And how many Democrats now regret extending the Bush taxcuts? Does President Obama regret it also? Who really thinks it has anything positive to do with our economy?

We could cut the deficit another $1 or $2 trillion over the next 10 years by letting the taxcuts for the wealthy expire? In fact, they should never have been done in the first place and it was reckless to extend them for another two years.

The Republicans want to cut Medicare and Medicaid and education and Planned Parenthood and NPR and heating assistance for the poor and everything except what really needs to be cut. This is the debate they are having with the Democrats at this very moment. Where is the debate about Defense spending and taxcuts for the wealthy? Where is the Democratic Party??

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good questions, all of them!

I wonder where the Democratic Party has gone.

I wonder what FDR would say?

It makes me angry and sad.

Recommended.

[RedCloud]

57. Perhaps they should say, "It's a revenue shortage dummies!"

By cutting back the gummint, Republicans pave the way for major big business corruption, robber baron type corruption.

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. In America....

...everyone is going to be rich. And what they already pay all goes to ungrateful people who look, sound, worship differently than they do. Whom they don't know. And hate if they do know.

So there's no political advantage to announcing you're going to tax the rich. None. Zilch. Nada.

Default, and the prospect of bondholders going to the wall, will be the only thing that puts the issue on the table, and we're decades away from that.

And that's before any consideration of campaign financing....

[kentuck]

8. Not if you're a Republican.

:shrug:

[Enthusiast]

91. You are way wrong! There is an advantage to saying

you will tax the rich. This was Obama's largest talking point during the campaign. This extra revenue was going to be used for all the right purposes. And by a huge margin the American people want to increase taxes on the wealthy. Not only Democrats but all Americans, all the ones that are not filthy rich already, want taxes raised on the ultra wealthy. So it is a winning strategy. Only a Republican/Tea bagger would not know this. So I suggest you return to Freeperville and take your right wing talking points with you.

[peace frog]

3. Because they answer to the same corporate masters

as do Republicans. Ergo: tax cuts for the wealthy, deep cuts for services to the little people.

[Davis_X_Machina]

6. If corporations vanished overnight...

...popular attitudes towards taxation would remain completely unchanged.

[kentuck]

7. I'm not sure I agree with that...

I don't think it is as unpopular as you say. I think it could be a winning issue for Democrats.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. I live in Maine..

...we have a clean-elections law. You can run, and win a seat in Augusta, on just the money that you raise in small donations, plus the state matching funds.

And that's what made our GOP-majority-in-both-Houses legislature possible. A lot of small donations -- but from people who are positively, anaphylactically allergic to taxes.

You could reform the campaign finance system -- here we did reform the campaign finance system -- and have politicians every bit as bad, or worse, than the status quo elected anyways.

[pam4water]

42. You have to clean the corporate lies off the air at the same time or it doesn't work.

What part of Maine do you live in? I got relatives up near Ogunquit. Yeah, I know it's a tourist trap XD

[rhett o rick]

55. And if pigs could fly......... What's your point? That the public doesnt like taxes?

Of course not. That isnt a reason for not pursuing fair taxation.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Costs a lot of money to run a campaign these days, and...

the 50 bucks or so you and I send in just doesn't pay the bills. One way or the other, if they are hit hard they will get their revenge.

Besides, everyone writing the laws knows that the "rich" are very good at hiding their money and never did pay much in taxes no matter what the rate was.

Having said that, however, there really was no reason to eliminate their hated death tax and every reason to call inherited wealth unearned income while raising, or at least not reducing, the taxes on unearned income.

[KoKo]

68. Force the FCC to Force those who "run and control" our airwaves to do Free Campaign Advertising!

It's the TV and Radio Ads that suck up all that money. The Media loves that money coming in. But, it's unfair that those who raise the most get the biggest air time. It also means that the Coporate and other Special Interests run the Campaigns and get the big voice,rather than the people.

You'd have to divvy the time up, proportionately and fairly, though. There used to be a Fairness Doctrine so there is a precedent.

[DJ13]

5. Because they suck on the same teat as the GOP

[upi402]

9. Democrats aren't. Republicans occupying our party ARE. n/t

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

11. It's they're own class.

Congressional pay puts you in the top tenth percentile.

Plus a whole bunch of other obvious bullshit that you probably don't want to hear about.

[kentuck]

13. Do you think they are overpaid??

They are supposed to be "representatives" of the people.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

16. Depends on who it is.

:think:

[walldude]

18. Not in salary...

But kickbacks, donations, lobbying money, free trips, free golf memberships, jobs for the mistress and the wife...


How do "the people" compete with that?

[NorthCarolina]

12. They aren't "afraid" at all. They don't want to tax their benefactors any more than the GOP does,

but they are more than willing to stay quiet and let the GOP garner the public ire over the issue.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shanti]

14. isn't everyone in congress wealthy?

D & R both? they won't vote against THEIR best interests, but "we" will. :(

[Shiver]

15. Because the media and the right-wing message machine

will spin it into 'raising taxes' without clarifying on who. Defense cuts will be spun into seeming 'soft on terror/national defense'. It doesn't matter that they are lying, or not telling the whole truth - that is the simplest version of the message, and it's what will become the meme.

The internet is helping to change this, however, but most politicians still seem to think that television is how most people learn things. After all, the new networks are honest, intelligent journalists, and the internet is unreliable, since anyone can post anything and claim it to be fact.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Politicians swim in the pocketbooks of lobbyists.

With apologies to Chairman Mao who said, "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea..."

[Octafish]

19. If they did that stuff, it'd sure set them apart from the repugs.

Yours are very important questions the Democratic leadership needs answer, kentuck.

[Peter1x9]

20. Because we have the best government that money can buy

n/t

[AndyTiedye]

21. We Did Ask. The Repiggies Blocked It in the Senate

Now that we lost the House, it would never get nearly that far. These have to be introduced in the House, AFAIK.

[kentuck]

22. It's funny I remember things so differently...

I recall that the taxcuts would have expired without any action at all at the end of 2010? The Democrats were still in control. They didn't have to do anything and the Bush taxcuts would have been gone and our deficits would be much smaller than today. Where am I wrong??

[Ramulux]

23. You aren't

The apologists just dont like having their revisionist history questioned. Obama agreed to an extension of the tax cuts without ANY political fight.

[AndyTiedye]

33. What Do You Think Would Have Happened After the Tax Cuts and the Unemployment Expired?

You seem to think that we should have just let it all expire and it would all be good.

Except for the umemployed, and the people who are working but just barely making it and would have had their taxes go up,
but never mind them.

The double-dip recession that would have resulted from such an ill-timed broadly-based tax increase wouldn't exactly work wonders for our electoral prospects either.

[Ramulux]

36. What are you talking about?

Why do you automatically assume that the only two options were to either extend all the tax cuts or let them all expire?

Obama could have actually attempted to make the case for why tax cuts for the top income bracket is a bad idea. He could have take the issue to the public, he could have made his case, but no instead he just gives the GOP everything they want in exchange for a small extension of unemployment benefits. It was pathetic, there was no political fight, no actual compromise, just complete and total capitulation by the democrats and Obama.

The dems and Obama were on the right side of that debate, the public was on our side, a majority of people in this country wanted to end tax breaks for the wealthy, we could have won this debate. We could have very easily framed it so republicans would have been blamed if all the tax cuts expired, because it was their fault. But we didn't, we didn't even fucking try and then when the republicans made it clear that they were holding unemployed people in this country hostage in exchange for everything they want, democrats didn't even complain.

Ending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and extending unemployment benefits are two completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another, the GOP tried to make it seem like they were mutually exclusive so they can control the debate. It worked, because democrats didn't fight back.

[AndyTiedye]

38. Because of the Republican Filibuster, Obviously

Why do you automatically assume that the only two options were to either extend all the tax cuts or let them all expire?

A tax cut that excluded high-income taxpayers was passed by the House, but fell to the Republican filibuster in the Senate.

Obama could have actually attempted to make the case for why tax cuts for the top income bracket is a bad idea.

Like ANYTHING he could say would convince the Republicans to cross party lines.

He could have take the issue to the public, he could have made his case, but no instead he just gives the GOP everything they want in exchange for a small extension of unemployment benefits.

Has any Democratic President been able to do that in living memory? I don't think so. I don't think it is even possible
given the level of pro-Republican bias in our media.

It was pathetic, there was no political fight, no actual compromise, just complete and total capitulation by the democrats and Obama.

There is no way we could have gotten anything better past the Republicans.

The dems and Obama were on the right side of that debate,

Since when has that ever mattered?

the public was on our side, a majority of people in this country wanted to end tax breaks for the wealthy,

Does not matter. Most of us weren't in those Republican Senators' districts, and even if we were, we know the Repigs only pick up the phone for Koch.

we could have won this debate.

Not with the Republicans controlling the media, we couldn't.

We could have very easily framed it so republicans would have been blamed if all the tax cuts expired, because it was their fault.

We don't get to do "framing". We don't have nearly enough access to the media to do that.

But we didn't, we didn't even fucking try and then when the republicans made it clear that they were holding unemployed people in this country hostage in exchange for everything they want, democrats didn't even complain.

Of course they were. That sort of thing works, and we have no corresponding leverage over them.

Ending the bush tax cuts for the wealthy and extending unemployment benefits are two completely different issues that have nothing to do with one another, the GOP tried to make it seem like they were mutually exclusive so they can control the debate. It worked, because democrats didn't fight back.

They were bound inexorably together by our inability to pass the unemployment extension (or anything else) without Republican support. The "stand-alone" bill had no chance of passage whatsoever.

[JDPriestly]

72. AndyTiedye, watch what comes down in Wisconsin.

The Democrats in the Wisconsin legislature were few. They did not have the power that Obama has. But they stood their ground and went to the people. And look what is happening across the country.

Obama has ceded on every issue. He is a weak president.

I remember Truman. I remember Eisenhower and Johnson. Truman was stubborn and succeeded in difficulty because he stood his ground.

Eisenhower had earned the respect of the nation before he took office and was trusted.

Johnson was the consummate politician. Corrupt, maybe but on the side of the little people.

Obama -- weakwilled, unproven and not much of a politician. What does he really bring to the table?

We need a real Democrat to challenge him if only to put the American dream back on the table and re-energize the Democratic Party.

[Egnever]

80. The situation in wisconsin was reversed

and is not the same at all. The tax cut issue wasnt one in which Obama could have done nothing the pain for the unemployed and lower income bracket would have been very real had the tax cuts and unemployment expired. You wanted him to inflict that pain on the hope that he could get the new incoming house to do the right thing....LOL one need only look at what the new house has done since taking office to see how wildly unrealistic that would have been.

Its one thing to take a stand against legislation you have no chance of stopping its another to suggest ending legislation you have no chance of restarting.

[JDPriestly]

105. Tax issues should have been resolved as soon as Obama came into office

when he had the support of the country as few presidents have had.

His first focus should have been to clean up Wall Street.

Was Obama's focus on shoring up the health insurance industry due to his great compassion for the American people or perhaps due to Michelle Obama's role in the health care industry or both?

Mrs. Obama went on to work for Mayor Daley of Chicago and then became a hospital administrator at the University of Chicago Medical Center, and served on the Board of Directors of a food company.

http://www.theglasshammer.com/news/2008/02/13/michelle-obama-worklife-balance-in-the-public-eye/

Let me be the first to warn that Obama may not have an easy time of it. We need a back-up candidate who is truly independent of lobbyists and specific business interests.

My instincts tell me (partly because of the eerie silence on this sort of issue) that we could have some nasty surprises come Fall 2012 if not before. There is just too little criticism about Obama's ties to certain business interests and to the Chicago Daley crowd. I don't think that we should put all our chips on one horse.

[Enthusiast]

93. Unless Obama signed the bill

the tax structure would have automatically returned to a pre-Bush tax cut level. So Obama had to buy into this Republican bill. And he was way way wrong for doing it. This revenue loss framed the RW deficit argument. Extending Bush tax cuts was the worst possible action for Democrats and the nation.

[Selatius]

44. Even when Democrats held 60 seats, they didn't have the votes to pass such a bill.

Because right wing Democrats would've objected to the idea of letting the tax cuts expire for the top 1% and keeping it for people who make less than 250,000/yr.

It is exactly the same reason why the Public Option never survived the Senate. Right wing Democrats would not tolerate the idea of a Public Option in the health care bill that was ultimately passed, so it was deleted entirely in a health care bill that Obama finally signed.

[JDPriestly]

74. We would be better as a minority party with integrity.

If we were smaller but had some integrity, we could actually build a movement. The right-wing Democrats are a heavy load on the party and the country.

The real problem is that the Republican Party has become so radical that Republicans have become Democrats. It bloats us and makes us ineffective.

[Egnever]

81. Yea thats working out real well in places like wisconsin

sure next election there the dems should do much better but the damage done in the meantime is hardly worth it.

[Enthusiast]

94. All Obama had to do was refuse

to sign the bill to extend Bush tax cuts. A pocket veto.

[Selatius]

112. He could've done that, but then Republicans would say Obama hates the middle class.

And they would point to him allowing the tax cuts to expire as proof that he hates the middle class, despite evidence suggesting that Republicans are truly less friendly to working class/middle class interests than Democrats historically. Given that the news media is dominated by corporate interests, the notion that he dislikes the middle class would be repeated into infinity, and people, who generally trust corporate news outlets, would buy it.

As if that weren't bad enough, you could probably assume that right wing Democrats would join in and say he is against the middle class as well.

[Enthusiast]

117. The media has already

led people to believe Obama has raised their taxes anyway. Most people surveyed believe Obama has raised their taxes.

[JDPriestly]

71. Yes. Obama's big problem is that he is nearsighted and near deaf.

He only sees and hears what is within a few feet of him. And since he is in D.C. right now, he only hears the noise of D.C., i.e., the voices of lobbyists -- wealthy lobbyists who represent wealthy interests.

Obama seems to have forgotten that there is a country out here with hungry people who need jobs that will pay enough to put kids through college and provide for young children and older people. All he sees are lobbyists and diplomats. We are forgotten.

[Egnever]

83. Someone is deaf

and I dont think its Obama.

"Obama seems to have forgotten that there is a country out here with hungry people"

Thats exactly why he didnt just let the lower tax cuts expire.

[Enthusiast]

95. The American people, when polled,

believe that Obama raised their taxes. It did him no good politically to protect lower income tax cuts. He got no credit and it didn't stimulate the economy one bit. Oh, maybe people could afford a single pack of cigarettes a week. Big whoop.

[JDPriestly]

106. He should have changed the tax code during his first two years in office.

That should have been the first thing he changed.

And he should have imposed taxes on hedge fund managers when he did the reform of the financial sector.

[AndyTiedye]

28. Yes they Would Have Expired. For Everyone. Not Just the Wealthy

the reverse of an economic stimulus. For which the Democrats would get 100% of the blame.

No middle-class-only tax cut could get through before it expired, none could have gotten
through after letting it expire and taking all the political heat for that.

What part of "we didn't have the votes" don't you understand?

[kentuck]

30. And that is very troublesome...

Liberals are no longer brave enough to demand more from their employers. Instead, we need the Bush taxcuts to survive. There was no need for a vote. Workers have to demand more from their employers, rather than waiting on a taxcut in their FICA taxes or a small taxcut from President Obama or their small share of the Bush taxcuts. It seems they have us just where they want us. We can all hurrah the taxcuts of the conservatives, rather than demand pay increases from our employers. Unfortunately, that decision will come to a dead end.

[AndyTiedye]

34. Let Me Get This Straight

We should have made everyone's taxes go up, let the unemployment extension expire,
and then all "demand more from our employers". That would have worked real well
for the unemployed who would be losing their benefits.

As for the employed demanding more, good luck with that. Even those workers with
strong unions are still in a give-back mode these days.

[kentuck]

43. Let's get real...

The majority of unemployed were not getting unemployment to begin with.

We will have to face this same debate before the next election. Either we fight or we surrender. If everyone that makes $250K and below are exempt from higher taxes, our government as we have known it during our lifetimes, is dead.

[fasttense]

49. Instead only the very poor, those making less than $20,000 a year, got a tax hike.

That was such a better outcome.

[Autumn]

75. Not everyones. Just the poor and

retired. Ours went up by close to 50 bucks a month. By the way, a neighbor of mine benefited from the unemployment for 3 weeks,until hers ran out. Now she receives food stamps and aid.

[Enthusiast]

92. Any course other than extending

Bush tax cuts for the wealthy would have been better than where we are now.

Those piddling tax cuts for the middle class have done NOTHING to stimulate the economy. As a matter of fact a majority of Americans actually believe their taxes have gone up under Obama. So what good did these extensions do us? None. Absolutely nothing was gained.

[Autumn]

73. Thought it was just me.

That's what I remembered.

[hfojvt]

24. those wouldn't pass now, but they still ought to ask

Rep. Pence was on PBS Newshour saying that we have a debt crisis and because of this crisis, $61 billion needs to be cut from the budget. Well, if this is really a crisis then why did Pence and crew just recently vote for $200 billion in tax cuts for the rich? Where was the crisis then? Isn't $200 billion a whole lot more than $61 billion?

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Becaue THEY'RE WEALTHY too?

Just a guess though. :(

[closeupready]

64. That's a fact, not even a guess. Look at Opensecrets.org

That demonstrates that the majority of Congress people of both parties are millionaires.

[butterfly77]

26. They're where they always have been...

working with their real party,the republiCON party making backroom deals and giving in to all of their demands.

[AndyTiedye]

31. What You Ask for Passed the House, and Was Blocked by Republican Filibuster in the Senate

To claim that there is no difference between the parties is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

There WAS a bill to let the taxes go up for the high-income taxpayers while keeping them
down for the rest of us. It overwhelmingly passed the House (before the Repigs took over)
and would have passed the Senate except for the Republican filibuster.

To claim that the two parties are the same on this issue is absurd.

Why are you spreading the "there is no difference between the parties" meme?
Do you want the Democrats to lose? What do you think that would accomplish?

[butterfly77]

103. I am not spreading anything...

just stating facts. I don't mean all of the Democrats but there are many who are on these committees who make weak deals are no where near where progressives are. Many make deals and don't stand together when it really counts they come out every time like they are on the defensive. I was waiting for Schumer to apologize for the media listening in on his conversation.(surprise).

Heath Schuler came on MJ the day after the election and basically told everyone he is a republicon and he was happy with the election results and now they could get things done. Who were the they republicons,his real party. Evan Byah and this Senator from Mississippi were at there town halls during the health care debate telling their constituents not to worry they would never vote for Obama's bill.

Claire McCaskill and countless others who no doubt have shown us that they are working for and with the republiCONS I could give other examples. Harry Reid is weak and there should have been someone else on the Democratic side to run against him and why does he have to be the majority leader,the weakest whinest guy they chose to be the leader.

After the president took office I began to see how he had no help from a lot of so called Democrats. Some were/are still angry about the Hillary thing and now are crying their asses off because the republiCONS are taking their benefits,well,Oh well..

I kept asking where are the Democrats during the healthcare debate and what I soon found out was that they were behind doors making deals. Many were going on every show talking down the President and claiming he had to make a speech for every little issue and acting as though the people voted them in to be spectators and Obama was doing some type of audition or that they didn't have any part in fighting the republicons,it was the Presidents' job.

Now,there are some good Dems and we lost a lot of them but,from what I have seen a lot of them are really just running as Democrats when they really are working for the republiCONS...

[PufPuf23]

27. Congress and other pols are not afraid.

The vast majority are wealthy and do not believe in economic justice or any long term environmental or social interests.

They are croney's and revolving door financial monarchies that have shifted wealth, income, and power so that social good is not a priority. Chaos and violence are fine if money can be made and power obtained.

The Nation is on serious war footing regards to budget and extention of military. One can find a conclusion that threats are greater and major powers other than the USA are in keen resource and mercantile competition.

I am anti-war.

[liberal life]

29. the wierd thing is, Dems are already being blamed for raising taxes if you hear a nutjob rightwinger

talking out of their ass(rush limbaugh)...so they might as well raise taxes to fix the mess the bastards made.

We are already being blamed for the mess, we might as well fix it. Who cares what the lying media or stupid moron pundits will say? There comes a time when you have to do what is right.


One thing they could do is look into the waste fraud and abuse by the pentagon contractors, but they won't even bother to do that. They keep rewarding no bid contracts to the same companies that are ripping us off.



http://fucorporatemedia.com/

[belpejic]

32. Obama doesn't have it in him.

The supposed head of the Democratic Party has given up on making any substantive policy changes--including to tax policy--and is focused on winning a second term. If he gets one, why should we think he'll make any more of a difference then? His track record isn't really encouraging. But I'm sure he'll continue to work on "changing the tone" or some such nonsense.

[flvegan]

35. Spines are too expensive. n/t

[Skittles]

37. oh I dunno, because they are wealthy, selfish bastards?

[steelmania75]

39. The United States spends around 800 billion dollars a year on defense, including the wars

Cut it down to 200 billion by pulling out of Iraq and Afganistan, shutting down useless bases across the globe, and bringing our men home, and put an end to nuclear weapons and weapons projects to fight the Soviets. There, we save 6 trillion dollars over a 10 year period. Republicans, LEAVE MEDICARE ALONE. The day they finally cut Social Security, they're done.

[stockholmer]

88. actually it spends over $1.2+ trillion a year on the total miltary

What if you went to a restaurant and found it rather pricey? Still, you ordered your meal and, when done, picked up the check only to discover that it was almost twice the menu price.

Welcome to the world of the real U.S. national security budget. Normally, in media accounts, you hear about the Pentagon budget and the war-fighting supplementary funds passed by Congress for our conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. That already gets you into a startling price range -- close to $700 billion for 2012 -- but that’s barely more than half of it. If Americans were ever presented with the real bill for the total U.S. national security budget, it would actually add up to more than $1.2 trillion a year.

Take that in for a moment. It’s true; you won’t find that figure in your daily newspaper or on your nightly newscast, but it’s no misprint. It may even be an underestimate. In any case, it’s the real thing when it comes to your tax dollars. The simplest way to grasp just how Americans could pay such a staggering amount annually for “security” is to go through what we know about the U.S. national security budget, step by step, and add it all up.

So, here we go. Buckle your seat belt: it’s going to be a bumpy ride...................................

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175361/tomgram%3A_chris_hellman,_$1.2_trillion_for_national_security/

[pam4water]

40. Cause most of them are as devoted to the corporate overlords as the repubs. They just give l

lip service to the old Democratic Party platform issues.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Citizen Worker]

45. The Military Industrial Congressional Complex won't let it happen, that's why. And this is a prime

example of why we need an alternative political party.

[ipaint]

46. The cushy overpaid post politician jobs would disappear and their stock portfolios would suffer.

Pure greed.

[Skidmore]

47. Because Dems do the same thing Rs do...elect millionaires to

office rather than take ownership of the campaign finance reform effort.

[Scuba]

48. Remember folks, the reason for the Democratic Party....

...is so there is no alternative to the Republicans.

[Search4Justice]

50. Very good questions, all of them...

... and I personally wonder when (other than a brave few) of the people who claim to represent The People will even ask, let alone answer them? The attention HAS to turn to the needs of The People here, NOW, or there may not be any turning or slowing the impending crisis that anyone living outside the bubble can see coming.

[Chris_Texas]

51. Because a lot of them are wealthy

[fascisthunter]

52. because many of them turned their backs on us and now work for them

... this is why money in politics needs to end!

[lonestarnot]

53. Bottom line is always dough.

[lutefisk]

54. I don't think it's fear. Check out these "net worth" estimates of members of Congress

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009&filter=C

And this from the NYT a few years ago:

"The average net worth across the Senate was $13,989,022.98."

"The average net worth across the House was $4,670,831."

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/25/your-senator-is-probably-a-millionaire/

[grahamhgreen]

77. BINGO!

[Harriety]

56. It makes sense to raise taxes on the wealthy

I don't get why this is happening. Is everyone in government so out of touch with reality that they don't realize the people who can least afford it get cuts to programs that can help them, while the people who can most afford it get cuts in their taxes?

[grahamhgreen]

78. 81% want to increase taxes on the wealthy. 81%

[Enthusiast]

99. Thank you!

There are some stealth right wing assholes on this thread that want us to forget your little factoid.

[Demeter]

58. The Democrats Aren't Afraid--Just the DINOS

[TheZug]

59. this guy sums up the tax situation nicely

but don't click if you don't like bad words:

http://screedster.blogspot.com/2011/04/get-your-class-war-on.html

[sad sally]

60. Think our Leader has become bashful...

Q: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on millions of Americans.
OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.
CLINTON: Absolutely
OBAMA: I suspect a lot of this crowd--it looks like a pretty well-dressed crowd--potentially will pay a little bit more. I will pay a little bit more. But that investment will pay huge dividends over the long term, and the place where it will pay the biggest dividends is in Medicare and Medicaid. Because if we can get a healthier population, that is the only way over the long term that we can actually control that spending that is going to break the federal budget.
CLINTON: It’s just really important to underscore here that we will go back to the tax rates we had before George Bush became president. And my memory is, people did really well during that time period. And they will keep doing really well.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 30, 2008

[certainot]

61. because dems let 1000 radio stations dominate the media

1000 unchallenged radio stations decide what is and what isn't acceptable in the US. the limbaugh megastations are the GOP power centers

and because the left gives the right's most important weapon a free speech free ride and ignore the radio they strategize and compromise as if the coordinated 'populist rage' (like the one that stopped public option and made single payer 'unacceptable') that raising taxes is unamerican socialism is real instead of just a few well-coordinated dittohead/teabagger screamers yelling limbaugh hannity heritage foundation talking points.

challenging the limbaugh stations with local sponsor boycotts and picketing of the stations themselves and unrelenting discrediting of limbaugh and sons will help the dem politicians to step up past the GOP obstruction- otherwise the billionaire think tanks are going to be able to keep taking free pot shots at any serious efforts to fix this situation,

[Kablooie]

62. If they did they might lose Republican votes and that is intolerable.

Even though they get no Republican votes anyway.

[defendandprotect]

63. Is it fear, or is it collaboration?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. Because the Dems have accepted the idea that military spending

(let's not call it "defense," since it rarely is used for actual defensive purposes) somehow doesn't count as government spending.

In the popular mind, "wasteful government spending" is giving money to unemployed dark-skinned people and to artists who create art that Joe Rube doesn't understand.

I think that attitudes would change if we went back to the old, truthful name and called the Department of Defense The Department of War. It wouldn't be so easy to overfund it then.

[jwirr]

66. It would get used but the rethugs in their "tax and spend" propaganda. nt

[pansypoo53219]

67. it will make a great 2012 campaign push. letting the turds dig the hole to nowhere.

it is giving the sheeple a look at HOW THE REPUBLIKKKLAN WAY WON'T WORK.

[RoccoR5955]

69. The excuse that I keep hearing is

that if you tax the rich, they will move away. That's from politicos on both sides on ALL levels. Local, County, State, and even Federally elected officials have been stating that if they tax the rich, they will move to a place where they are taxed less. There is no evidence of this. No study, no actual facts, just the fear that they try to induce.
It's gotten to the point where, when they say that the rich create jobs, and shouldn't be taxed. I tell them the actual fact, that rich people don't create jobs, but demand for goods and services creates jobs. If there is a real demand for the goods and/or services that these people who are too good to pay tax avoid, then they should just move out, because someone else will fill the void. It's so simple when they are told like that, that they just don't argue.

[DianeK]

87. My Governor

in Vermont said the same thing..he did not want to tax the rich because if he did they would move away so the rich got a petition together telling the governor to go ahead and tax them rather than cut the much needed social services. They had no intention of moving away. The governor refuse to acknowledge the petition. That is not going to stop them. They intend now to go to the state capitol with their request that they kick in more.

You may read article here : http://www.7dvt.com/2011rich-people-rescue

[RoccoR5955]

109. Well that's because you live somewhere where there's actually SANE people!

Vermonters are some of the best people I have ever known. The salt of the earth. It does not surprise me that the rich folks in the Green Mountains did such a laudable thing!

[on point]

70. Raise them back to 70% for the wealthy to pay down the debt they caused

[Enthusiast]

100. 70% would be about right.

Maybe higher.

[RoccoR5955]

110. Screw that, they want to go back to the good ol' times, take it back to Eisenhower's times..

when it was 91%!
If it was up to me, any annual income over $2 million would be taxed 110%!!

[Initech]

114. And tax their fucking precious bonuses 100%.

That is - none of these corporate slimeballs should get an extra nickel until they pay back the damage they've caused.

[grahamhgreen]

76. Because most of thenm are the wealthy and they are greedy and selfish (not all).

[brewens]

79. The cuts have a positive effect on their economy. If you rely

on the same corporations and type of wealthy donors the Republicans do. It only makes sense to do what you've been bribed to do, if you plan on getting any more contributions.

[bertman]

82. Ummm, let's see. How about "they're part of the system" and "no spine"? nt

[WinkyDink]

84. The hypocrisy would burn. And also: Whence, then, Obama's re-election funds?

[kentuck]

85. 80% of Americans make less than $75K per year

http://www.bls.gov/cex/2009/aggregate/quintile.pdf

As of 2009.

Why do Democrats not want to raise taxes on the top quintile of Americans?? The votes are with the bottom 80%, I would think?

[Hubert Flottz]

89. Because people like Harry Reid have been too wimpy.

You can't play nice with the grim reaper types.

[davidwparker]

90. It is the party without the courage of its convictions.

I. WILL. WRITE. MY. OWN. NAME. IN. BEFORE. I. VOTE. FOR. OBAMA. IN. 2012.

This party had better give me an option during the primaries.

[watajob]

96. C'mon. Too easy!

"Why are Democrats afraid to ask for tax increases on the wealthy and deep cuts in the Defense budget?
Where is the Democratic Party??"

Because they are ass kissing, corporate lackeys of the military-industrial complex.

And, with very few notable exceptions, they're gone. Disappeared. Elvis has left the building. "Real" Democrats, like our parents/grandparents were accustomed to, no longer exist. FDR, LBJ, Wellstone. Hell, McGovern is probably on a "no fly list" somewhere!

[Deep13]

97. Some of them are--

--but most of too chicken shit to see what ought to be obvious.

[StarburstClock]

98. We're a criminal country now, we don't even prosecute torturers

Politicians in a criminal country care most about 1 thing: money.

[Enthusiast]

101. Good point. nt

[Orsino]

102. Because of their own ties to big money...

...and because of what the television would say about them if they stepped out of line.

[TNLib]

104. Makes me miss Clinton

nt

[harmonicon]

107. The Democratic Party isn't the one it was under Clinton.

It's sad, I know. Remember how he was touted as being a sort of right-wing Democrat who could bridge the gap between parties? Well, now his legacy makes him look like a lefty within the current Democratic party. So, where is the Democratic party? In Washington, running the government.

[w8liftinglady]

108. that is an excellent point.

[MasonJar]

111. Obama is afraid of the corporations. He'd be smarter to be

worried about his base. I won't work of him this time. My vote is all he gets.

[TorchTheWitch]

113. they aren't afraid to - they don't want to

Economically, Repubs and Dems are virtually no different. Dems sold out decades ago. Where ya been?

[lonestarnot]

115. Owned, that's where.

[BlueCheese]

116. In 1993...

Clinton and the majority Democrats forced through a collection of tax increases as part of the Clinton economic plan. Not one Republican in either chamber voted for it. A lot of Democrats ended up losing their seats in 1994 as Republicans took over Congress. That vote took courage.

In 2010, we decided to lose the House and almost the Senate first, and then worry about taxes. And even though the elections were over, and the Republicans were coming in, we couldn't muster up enough backbone to let the Bush tax cuts expire. All we had to do was nothing. The vulnerable Democrats had already lost their seats--they had nothing left to lose. But Obama and the Democrats caved in anyway, and now we have the Bush-Obama-McConnell tax cuts for the next two years too.

I still can't believe what an easy opportunity we let slip by.