Democratic politicians have a stark choice -- raise taxes on the rich, or destroy their own base.

[highplainsdem]

And if they don't make the right choice, taxing the rich more, they'll eventually destroy our entire society, because this society will not survive if it's run by tame politicians serving plutocrats blinded by greed.

Robert Reich made a strong case for raising taxes on the rich in his blog post yesterday:

http://robertreich.org/post/4344201496

Here’s the truth: The only way America can reduce the long-term budget deficit, maintain vital services, protect Social Security and Medicare, invest more in education and infrastructure, and not raise taxes on the working middle class is by raising taxes on the super rich.

Even if we got rid of corporate welfare subsidies for big oil, big agriculture, and big Pharma – even if we cut back on our bloated defense budget – it wouldn’t be nearly enough.

-snip-

If the rich were taxed at the same rates they were half a century ago, they’d be paying in over $350 billion more this year alone, which translates into trillions over the next decade. That’s enough to accomplish everything the nation needs while also reducing future deficits.

If we also cut what we don’t need (corporate welfare and bloated defense), taxes could be reduced for everyone earning under $80,000, too. And with a single payer health-care system – Medicare for all – instead of a gaggle of for-profit providers, the nation could save billions more.

The NBC/WSJ poll in late February showed that the vast majority of Americans -- 81% -- are aware that we need to raise taxes on the rich, and they're in favor of it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41876558/ns/politics


We have an obvious solution to this budget crisis, a solution that's overwhelmingly popular with voters.

What we don't have, at this time, are enough politicians who are brave enough to frame the argument, bolster it with statistics, and REPEAT IT OFTEN ENOUGH AND LOUDLY ENOUGH to override the right-wing noise machine, which has in effect made taxing the rich the new third rail of American politics.

We've seen entirely too much compromise already. Continuing to compromise with the Republicans while they're the ones framing the debate might not destroy the Democratic base immediately, but it does lead to step-by-step destruction.

And for that matter, you can't have ANY hope of achieving a compromise that's in any way helpful to your side if you start out by letting the other side frame the debate.

It's time for Democratic politicians to return to traditional, populist arguments.

It's time for them to start reminding the public of what tax rates on the rich used to be, and emphasizing how much restoring those tax rates will help now.

[Taverner]

1. Agreed. But don't expect our party to see that until its too late

Partially because of the apologists who only care whether a candidate has a 'D' or 'R' after their name

[Bandit]

15. IMO it is already too late..

The pooch done been fucked..

[bvar22]

32. The Democrats have HAD that choice since 2006.

1)Raise taxes on the Rich (simply let the Bush Tax Cuts expire).
OR
2)Destroy their base.

The Democratic Party has ALREADY made their choice.
They chose poorly.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
Lofty Rhetoric, Broken Promises, and Whiny Excuses mean NOTHING now.
"By their WORKS you will know them,"
and by their WORKS they will be judged.

[Enthusiast]

40. Often we only see what we want to see.

Some Democratic Party candidates find it much easier not to see.

[bluebuzzard]

49. San Fran has no balls

Even Dems wont tax their own rich

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/04/05/s-f-set-for-vote-on-twitter-tax-break/

[villager]

2. interesting -- one of the oligarchy's dutiful friends on this site has already unrecc'd

I guess they have a stake in maintaining the illusion of the Democrats as a current "alternative..."

[Patiod]

8. Or someone who types and clicks too fast

I've un-recced several threads accidentally. Not always a vast conspiracy.
I wish the un-rec button were further from the rec button....

[highplainsdem]

13. I've done that, too.

[villager]

19. It's a point -- and heck, has happened to me...

Though that doesn't mean there aren't some "serial unreccers" lurking about... ;-)

[Blue Meany]

3. That's an easy choice, but we made need to elect a new breed

of Dems to make it.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. I know which one they'll pick, too.

[MedicalAdmin]

34. Maybe so - what we need is to take back the party from the ground up.

Ala Paul Wellstone.

It could be done and it might be the only chance we have. What's the alternative. Move to Canada?

[Skink]

5. Interestingly it would not even effect our base.

anyone in the top 1 percent that votes democratic isn't going over to the dark side.

[randr]

6. We are not putting a tax burden on the rich

we would merely be taking away their free ride on the American citizens that Bush rewarded them with and Obama chose not to allow to expire.
Put the taxes back to the levels of the Clinton years and start to repair the damage!

[Patiod]

9. We need to keep repeating: "lowest tax rates since WWII"

Over and over and over until the Independents and even dunderhead Tax Baggers understand (the non-teabag Republicans already know this, and they're still not happy)

Some stupid bitch from Congressman Ryan's office was on NPR today, and you could tell how painful it was for her to finally admit to the hosts' pressing her that yes, tax rates were lower than they had been since WWII. And then she went on to describe how great it would be to destroy Medicare and Medicaid.

[livingonearth]

46. Yes!

[highplainsdem]

21. +1

[AndyTiedye]

7. Yes, and They Voted For It Last Year, The Repigs Filibustered

It would never even get off the ground in the now-Repig-controlled House today.

[highplainsdem]

12. There'd be a lot fewer Republicans in office if Democrats framed the debate properly.

All too often we see them accepting the GOP's basic talking points and making a few polite demurrals, while the GOP keeps moving the goalposts farther right, more in favor of corporations and the rich.

[AndyTiedye]

18. We Don't Get to Frame the Debate as Long as the Repubs Control the Tee Vee

[Lorien]

23. But the media does listen to Obama when he chooses to speak. nt

[MedicalAdmin]

38. I would never suggest something like this...

... but in some alternative world, like a bizarro world, it could come to be that regular ordinary citizens decided to make it too expensive for network or cable TV to operate by throwing big monkey wrenches into the routers, substations, wiring, junction boxes, rebroadcast towers, etc....

Maybe in the Bizarro world the bizarro citizens will need to take back out airwaves by making it so expensive for the broadcast companies to operate (or change how they do bidness) that they go out of business or change...

It could be that in Bizarro world that there might be a website like www.antennasearch.com that will give bizarro citizens a nice list, arranged by type, owner and distance to local targets. ANd if this happened all over bizarro world, well the costs would be astronomical.

[AndyTiedye]

39. Cable is Also How Most of Us Get Our Internet Connectivity

[MedicalAdmin]

47. Well if I were to make a suggestion from someone in Bizarro world...

... I would suggest that someone who carried a set of side cutters (AKA electrician dykes) around while walking around could just snip a wire here or there, or open one of the green post cable boxes, unscrew all the cables and then crazy glue or epoxy the female connector ends.

I don't think anyone here should EVER do that, but someone concerned about info going over the airwaves and over the cable could find very easy ways to mess up the systems and cost the companies a lot of money. All of this stuff is, by law, in easily accessable areas and basically out in the open. Many of the them aren't even locked.

And if lots of people did this, if the entire progressive movement did this all over the country, at the same time and over and over, the disruption of service and cost would be astronomical. HUGE.

Not that anyone should do something like this. No sir.

[MedicalAdmin]

48. And of course there is also this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x830010

[HereSince1628]

10. I don't think they want to hold on to what has been the American Way

I think they are lost in the woods somewhere over to the right. They went overthere carrying water for the corporations thinking that they'd get well paid...sure looks like many of them aren't trying to hard to get back to our side of the road.

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. There's just one problem. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR "BASE." n/t

[Lorien]

22. Or rather, we're no longer their base. nt

[fascisthunter]

14. one problem is, they are looking for a new base

that's one that is unquestioningly loyal to their agenda of pushing the party agenda to the right, where the republicans used to be.

[reformist2]

16. It's not a stark choice, it's an obvious choice.

The only thing "hard" about it is getting some Democratic donors angry.

[Hannah Bell]

17. the rich *are* their base.

[truedelphi]

25. Bingo. n/t

[ThomCat]

28. Yes. Very true.

The sooner people realize that, the sooner everything will make sense. They only come to us for funding and votes. They don't answer to us, or care what we want or need. They certainly aren't going to fit their policies around us the way they do for rich people.

[Raksha]

41. And it's really only the votes that matter any more,

in order to validate the funding, which they can always get from the same corporatist donors who fund the Republicans. They don't need our nickel-and-dime donations, except as a sign of our enthusiasm or lack of it.

Re "They only come to us for funding and votes."

The votes OTOH are necessary to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy and democracy to the system of legalized bribery and propaganda we call "the electoral process" aka the quadrennial circus.

[harun]

42. +1, and in the case of the Senate, the rich are them.

[Donnachaidh]

20. Considering the fact that Obama's people are planning on *dancing with elites* for this next round

Do you really think they GIVE A SHIT about their *base*? We're obsolete - the coin jar is empty - they are moving on to greener (literally) pastures.

Locally we might still be able to get some attention. But the Goldman Sachs Boys Club has deleted our phone number from their iphones.... :sarcasm:

[highplainsdem]

24. kick

[upi402]

26. Democrats would, Republicans in the Democratic Party wont. n/t

[slay]

27. I'm afraid the rich now ARE their base

and we mean nothing to them - least not the Dems on the national level - they have sold us out for sure. Maybe local Dems? Maybe one or two national Dems will step up. I dunno man - Rahm Emanuel is doing the same shit in Chicago - seem both sides have been bought at the national level by the super-rich and mega-corporations.

[AmBlue]

29. The solution:

Democrats AND Republicans, all calling for taxation of the rich, is the solution because then there will be no one party or group of politicians for these plutocrats to blame, and then PUNISH by withdrawing monetary support. Instead, they've got our stupid elected officials all dancing to their tune and both sides treating the other party as the enemy.

I've always said this is not a right/left thing, but an up/down thing. Class warfare... plain and simple.

[Armstead]

30. It's both a right/left thingh asnd a right/wrong thing...and the right is wrong

The fucking Republican shitheads are NEVER going to do anything like that. They exist to placate the rich and mislead the stupid.

[Search4Justice]

31. This line sums my concerns up nicely:

"We've seen entirely too much compromise already. Continuing to compromise with the Republicans while they're the ones framing the debate might not destroy the Democratic base immediately, but it does lead to step-by-step destruction."

In case no one has noticed, the Rethugs are not only not proposing to make the very rich pay their fair share, they are proposing to give those bastards ANOTHER HUGE tax cut.

Who is going to stand up for us?

[progressoid]

33. So I guess that means were fucked then.

Based on their actions the past few years.

[GreenTea]

35. You are correct - No bullshit in a nutshell!

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

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

[hifiguy]

37. Reich is one of the smartest and most perceptive

analysts of today's politics and economics. Too bad he doesn't run for President. He'd have my vote.

[colsohlibgal]

43. Agree 1000%

With the bags of money now running Washington I don't think we will see any real change until big money is driven out of the equation. There are real progressive congress folk there watching our back, but as always not enough of them.

Things really get bogged down when you have an appeaser Dem in the WH who is not anywhere near the populist he led us to believe he was - he ran the bait and switch on us in 2008.

There is a civil unrest brewing now though, for the first time, at least to this level, since the 60's. We have to keep the heat on, to keep their feet to the fire, to let them know we're on to the big con. To call them out repeatedly.

Oh - boycott Koch products! http://www.boycottkochbrothers.com/

[russspeakeasy]

44. That would take organization and balls. Neither of which

are in abundance in the Democratic party, sorry to say.

[valerief]

45. Taking money from people who'll still have tons of it is not a "stark choice".

We need a progressive party.

[Amonester]

51. Actually, it IS a "stark choice" because....

that "chunk" of their money goes (in part) to politicians on ALL sides (but DOUBLE or more to the gop).

[Snoutport]

50. #50 means flames! I'm tired of all these alternative fees that cost the middle class even more.

In Portland they keep doing school bonds to make up the shortfalls in school budgets. So, even though we are not paying "taxes" we are having to pony up to cover the costs that aren't being funded because of corporate tax breaks. It is time to tax the rich, tax the businesses (fairly, but nationwide to stop all the states from cutting each other's throats with tax breaks.