Tell me why the entire Democratic Party is not all over this?

[kentuck]

What are they waiting on?
=================

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/large-majority-of-americans-including-most-republicans-support-raising-taxes-on-the-wealthy.php?ref=fpa

Large Majority Of Americans, Including Most Republicans, Support Raising Taxes On The Wealthy

<snip>
As the debate about how to deal with the federal deficit heats up, two new polls show that large, bipartisan majorities of Americans support raising taxes on the wealthy, as President Obama has proposed doing.

A central piece of Obama's deficit reduction plan calls for raising taxes on annual income above $250,000. Though tax hikes are generally thought to be unpopular, both a Washington Post/ABC News poll and a McClatchy-Marist survey found that a majority of Americans supported that proposal. What's more, even a majority of Republicans in the Washington Post/ABC News poll said they favored raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

.....more

[bobbolink]

1. We've. Been. Had.

That is why.

Over.

[mod mom]

44. Exactly. The two party system, which feverishly prohibits 3rd parties,

has been set up by elites to protect theirs at the expense of everyone else. Once in a while they throw us a couple bones, but real change...no way.

[RegieRocker]

46. That my friend is the will of the people nothing else.

[mod mom]

53. Not w/o an election system that reflects the will of the people, it isn't.

[2banon]

57. exactly

:thumbsup:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

60. we need a publicly funded election system..tax payers provide each candidate equal campaign money...

Wallah problems solved....no more corporate control of our government!

[humanityisfree]

88. AGREED!

Done and Done!

[RegieRocker]

66. There are more than two parties on ballots, do they get elected? No.

That is the will of the people. Stay on topic.

[RaleighNCDUer]

70. And why is that? Because the monied elites control who gets the

electoral support.

Do you really think the Green Party or the Libertarians get the same funding the Dems and Repbubs do?

Who the people get to vote for is the LAST act in the charade. It is, quite seriously, no different than the old days in Mexico, where you could vote for any member of the PRC on the ballot.

We are, effectively, a one-party state, and that party is the monied elite - nevermind if they have an R or D behind their name.

[2banon]

73. It is precisely on topic.. it answers the question of the OP.

The reason why the entire party isn't all over this issue is precisely because they don't have to be. They can ignore the majority of the people as their offices are largely protected by those that paid for them.


Multiple parties might have a chance to be elected if there were any coverage of their campaigns

The televised debates is where any exposure might be allowed, but that is a rarity. The level of moneyed involved in financing this pretense of a two party system is obviously prohibitive.

Without media exposure, those names on the ballot are largely unknown. People want to cast a "safe" vote. better "vote for the devil you know than the devil you don't".. and that is one reason why the Dems can feel free to ignore the will of the people.

[mod mom]

81. They are quashed by the 2 parties & their media lapdogs. I know as I was...

a campaign manager for a 3rd party candidate that ran for governor in Ohio in '06. Before anyone gets all out of shape about this, remember that Ken Blackwell was the SOS at the time and the Dem candidate, Ted Strickland, who was running against Blackwell refused to agree to contest the election if there were obvious issues like 2004. In Ohio, you need to be a candidate in order to contest the election. My candidate ran as a Green and was a strong voice against the corrupt elections under Blackwell. We needed a candidate who WOULD PROMISE TO CONTEST the election. (note Blackwell was SO UNPOPULAR and divisive that there was no way he could have stolen it without exposing the entire corrupt system as obvious. That said there was virtually no coverage of this candidate and the 2 parties refused to allow him into the debate (despite the fact he has a Phd in Political Science, is an attorney and a professor)

Even when Dems run that are progressives, the party elite work to quash their chances. Case in point in my state is the progressive Democrat Jennifer Brunner, who as sitting SOS (who cleaned up after Blackwell) and a former elected Judge was certainly a worthy candidate. There had to be an email campaign to stop the party elite from endorsing their choice (who won but couldn't even muster over 39% of the vote against now governor Kasich-a Lehman Brothers investment banker at a time when Wall Street was despised). As it was, during the primary her Dem opponent's team ran a smear that they KNEW to be false on the eve of the election. Got that? A Dem campaign running a false smear against another prominent but progressive Dem.

[bobbolink]

86. I think FDR did more than toss a few bones, but, of course, it can also be said that he

prevented socialism from getting a foothold, too.

Your observation is correct, and is why so many are just cynical and don't vote.

I'm afraid it is going to have to get much worse..... to the point of another Egypt.....before people get desparate enough to really fight back. :cry:

[Cascadian]

103. In the words of Johnny Rotten....

Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?




John

(The Cascadian is back!)

[leftstreet]

2. Is Obama calling for raising taxes, or just letting the cuts expire (again)?

This M$M framing is confusing

[Donnachaidh]

5. from what I can tell, letting them expire

and of course, you have to vote again before it's actually done. Kind of like two years ago. :eyes:

[leftstreet]

9. So they can pull the same OH NOES CAN'T RAISE TAXES ON LITTLE GUY!111

God this is getting old

[sofa king]

41. I think there's a plan for that.

Run on the plank of splitting the next tax cut extension into two votes, one for the rich and one for everyone else. Introduce a bill doing just that in the House and tell GOP Senators it won't come to a vote until it passes the House first, forcing all of them to run on their record of voting against it in 2010 (if you start in the Senate, they get to vote for it, knowing the House will never bring it to a vote).

The GOP in the House can't vote for it, the GOP in the Senate risks losing seats in an otherwise favorable year if they don't, and it's all anyone wants to talk about. The President, who has the election in the bag unless Zombie Ronnie forms an exploratory committee tomorrow, gets to campaign in every single House district that has a chance of being won over, on this issue, blasting the Republican Senator from that state every single time whether there's an incumbent Republican in that House district or not. And in the meantime whatever clown they pick to lose for President will be twisting balloons on a corporate jet.

But you don't want to mess with this now because the idea will go stale if you pound it for eighteen months. So, you let it percolate. It's not a secret, it's been the obvious Democratic plan ever since they snookered the Republicans into agreeing to an expiration date in early 2013, with all the time the Democrats need to run on the issue in this election, and not one vote needed to make sure it dies in 2013 even if the plan doesn't fully work, because a lame duck President Obama can veto any further extensions.

It's going to work, and it can't be stopped.

[lark]

90. Sorry, this all sounds good

but I don't believe it for a second. They could have done this the first time when Dems controlled both houses, but didn't for a good reason. They wanted the rich to keep the money and don't care aobut us. Nothing has changed. It's the same talk and I'd be shocked, truly shocked, if he didn't do pretty much exactly the same thing this time - wah, bad old Repugs made me let the rich keep trillions while poor die in the cold from no heating oil. I'm not happy that this is true, but how many times does a man have to cheat on you before you figure out, he's just a cheat. That's how I feel about Obama right now. Wishing he were different, but recognizing the Repug in Dem clothing as the man who is our president.

[RaleighNCDUer]

71. But they would NEVER hold them hostage again this time around, right? nt

[Donnachaidh]

3. Could be that they don't want to be the ones to actually RAISE taxes on the wealthy?

Talk is cheap. We'll get two years of *we need to raise taxes on the wealthy*, but once the elections are over -- let's see who keeps their promise and actually does it.

[ThomCat]

23. Yes, I think you are right. Obama doesn't want to be tagged

as the guy who raised taxes, because he is buying into the Republican framing (AGAIN) that raising taxes is a really bad thing to do.

Someone needs to slap that damned coward to wake him up, and tell him that he's supposed to be a @#$%&! Democrat!

In times of economic hardship and nation-wide economic downturns, we need to spend our way out of this, and raise taxes on those who have money and are not paying their fair share!

That means raising taxes on the rich, who pay lower tax rates than their staff.

That means tax unearned income at least at the same rate as earned income, not less.

That means raising taxes on corporations, that often don't pay much or any taxes at all. If they want to be persons, tax them as people, with their income taxed at the same rate as personal earned income tax.

That means closing a long list of tax loopholes that exist only for wealthy people and corporations because they are unfair and unnecessary.

That means shutting down access to tax havens, and ending tax subsidies to companies and people who use tax havens.

[spooked911]

91. Quite right-- and did you see the weaselly way he even mentioned raising taxes

in his recent speech?

"The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/13/text-of-obama-speech-on-the-deficit/

[Fuddnik]

48. Follow the money.

Look at the cabinet. Look at the Senate. Look at the House.

Follow the money.

[BobbyBoring]

84. The key is framing the issue

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is not raising taxes. It's just restoring them to pre Bush levels when everything in the USA wasn't so bad.

That's the Dems biggest problem. That can not frame the issues.

[spooked911]

92. I find it hard to believe they *can't* do it

I think they don't want to, for whatever reason.

[librechik]

4. Incumbents are still in thrall to the rich. Those are the real constituents

not us humble citizens. For the umpteenth time, we need public financing of elections.

[Dr Fate]

6. Because they disagree with a large majority of Americans? (See both wars as well) n/t

n/t

[Poboy]

16. OT -Hello Mr. Fate. Nice to see you.

Yes, the Dems have sold us out.

[lunatica]

7. Money talks

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. They're "waiting on" their next bribe..er, campaign contributions from the lobbyists.

So, they'll have air time to tell the people they "tried" to fix the deficit but need more sacrifices from the middle-class and poor.

[tkmorris]

10. I'm sure you know why kentuck

It's because the primary concern of every Congressional officeholder, from the day they enter office, is raising funds for their re-election campaign. A great deal of those funds come from the same people the majority of Americans want to raise taxes on, and that makes it a very difficult thing for them to stand in support of. Some do of course, but a great many are too afraid to anger their major donors.

The system is broken.

[villager]

11. The people they really work for won't let them.

n/t

[theoldman]

12. Why not just close all of the holes in the tax laws.

Very few people would appose making things more honest. I guess the main problem is that congress would argue forever over which holes to close. It is much easier to raise everyones taxes.

[JuniperLea]

13. Campaign funds... bottom line...

They are still operating under the assumption that no one checks up on such things.

[2banon]

59. beautiful peace sign! did you do that?

:thumbsup:

[nykym]

14. OK so let me get this stright

We are asking a group of people in the $250,000.00 income bracket to raise the taxes on people just like them.
Good luck with that!

[SDuderstadt]

22. Members of Congress do not make...

$250K.

[nykym]

27. True

but if you check on their worth you will find an awful lot of millionaires with one or two billionaires. And most are worth more than $250.000.00, Additionally they can hold another job as long as it is not a Government job.

[SDuderstadt]

30. So what?

Their net worth has nothing to do with tax rates on income.

Your claim about them being able to hold another job "as long as it is not a government job" is false.

Outside Employment Income is generally limited to 15% of member pay. There are, however, certain prohibited categories: Members may not receive compensation for employment in real estate, insurance sales, the practice of law, the practice of medicine, or service as an officer or board member.

http://www.thecapitol.net/FAQ/payandperqs.htm

Given the hours a member of Congress puts in and the travel required, I'd be willing to bet that outside employment is rare to non-existent.

[nykym]

31. Honestly I do not think

that the majority rely solely on their pay as legislators. They do have outside interest, houses, stocks and land among other assets which puts them in the same category as a person making over $250,000.00/yr. They are in that bracket.
I concede the employment part as your link was different from what I read elsewhere and a better source.

[SDuderstadt]

32. With the exception of interest and...

dividends, how would ownership of houses. land and stocks produce taxable income? I think you have capital gains taxes confused with federal income tax.

[nykym]

47. CApital gains are part of your taxable income

as well as houses or land you sell. Really what interest do you have in defending rich legislators?

[SDuderstadt]

58. Do you understand the difference between...

federal income tax and capital gains tax? Beyond that, what makes you think that I am "defending rich legislators"? If you can't or don't want to debate on the facts, fine, but I will ask you politely to refrain from questioning my character and motivation.

"Why are you defending xyz?" is an attempt at "psychic foreclosure" and a rhetorical device aimed at avoiding actual debate.

[nykym]

83. What I think I am saying is

that our elected reps are rich people those in the above $250,000.00 bracket. I do not have the resources or time to find out who individually is above that or under that, it is just too hard (I have tried) but if you want to take a look at this from roll call it lists their wealth.
http://www.rollcall.com/news/-202702-1.html
Now maybe I need to rephrase my original point but it still comes out as do we trust these rich legislators to have our best interest in tax negotiations or policy when it will directly affect them adversely? The Democrats had two years to fix this, granted the republics blocked their efforts but we supposedly had the majority.
I apologize for the defending comment. As far as Fed Income Tax & Capital Gains tax yes I do understand the difference one is on your total income the other is on your investments which is part of your total income.

[SDuderstadt]

97. The issue is people believing the reason..

that Democrats can't be more effective is because they don't want to be because "they are rich". It is far more complicated than that and I disdain those of us who are not willing to find out the facts.

[Marrah_G]

55. How many have household incomes less then 250,000?

[SDuderstadt]

62. They earn...

$174 K/yr. That is nearly 1/3 below $250K.

[Marrah_G]

67. You did not answer my question- I didn't ask how much their congressional salaries are.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Your question is irrelevant...

The OP implies the reason that the Bush taxcuts on individuals earning over $250K/yr were not allowed to expire is because even Democratic members of Congress would not raise taxes on themselves. However, that is simply not what happened in the last days of the previous Congress, with the Democrats almost unanimously supporting letting the "Bush taxcuts" expire for those making over $250K/YR. The problem was that the GOP would not allow an extension of unemployment benefits without an extension of the Bush taxcuts for all income levels.

[Marrah_G]

77. "Your question is irrelevant..."

:eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

79. It IS irrelevant...

studying the actions of both houses of the last Congress clearly demonstrates that the Democrats were eager to let the Bush taxcuts for those making over $250//yr expire.

Do you deny that?

[riderinthestorm]

78. Its not irrelevant and you are dodging the question.

The GOP's refusal to separate the unemployment benefits from the Bush taxcuts (for the over $250k folks, be honest about this) was a brilliant political maneuver but to continue insisting that the average Congressperson didn't have their own personal financial stake in the outcome is ridiculous.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Bullshit...

that is refuted by simply studying the legislative record.

[riderinthestorm]

82. Then the Dem majority under Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

should have been able to detach the two sticking points: unemployment benefits and letting the Bush tax cuts expire for the over $250k crowd. And had separate votes on each.

But they didn't. They said they "couldn't". They used bullshit excuses and didn't get it done. Why do you think that was?

[SDuderstadt]

95. They weren't "bullshit excuses"...

educate yourself about the rules of the Senate and you'll understand.

[riderinthestorm]

104. I'd really love to hear your interpretation then of the cave-in

Honestly, I would. Because if you are going to use stuff like the threat of a filibuster (just one example), that rule could have been changed by the Dems when they gained control of the Senate right after Obama's election.

But I'll wait your answer. I've got to go do chores and won't be back on until later.

[SDuderstadt]

105. That only makes sense if...

you don't think about the Democrats needing to use the filibuster against future GOP abuses.

Sorry the rough-and-tumble world of congressional politics isn't black-and-white enough for you.

[riderinthestorm]

106. So no answer from you. nt

[SDuderstadt]

107. I just did...

you're more than welcome to your fantasyland version of how Congress works.

If you think I'm wrong, just ask Steny Hoyer or James Clyburn.

[riderinthestorm]

108. Nope, the explanation was to be from you.

Instead I got a blanket statement that I am an idiot about how Congress really works. You did not provide a single explanation, timeline or other indicator that explained what happened in your opinion last fall, and why Pelosi nor Reid were unable to separate the unemployment benefits from the tax cuts for the rich.

You want to slam those of us who believe there are two sides of the same corruption in Washington DC, and that big money is involved. I believe there are ample examples of this with one good example being the Dem leadership suddenly being "forced" to vote for bill structured this way (even though they really hated it, snort).

You disagreed and blamed Congressional rules and procedures that forced them to vote that way. I asked you to explain that. I think if we actually exposed the timeline of what happened, it is obvious the Dems never really cared much about letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

You have declined to specifically outline what happened other than to offer up some amorphous "rules" thing.

Fail.

[SDuderstadt]

109. No one called you an...

idiot.

In the Senate, it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture. We did not have 60 votes. We also knew that the control of the House was handed over to the GOP in the next Congress, so we could not wait until then. The Dems DID try to separate the matters and wanted to let the Bush taxcuts for those making over $250K expire, while extending it for those earning less. At the same time, unemployment benefits were running out for even more people. The GOP knew this and would not permit the extension of the unemployment benefits and the taxcuts extension without also including the higher tax brackets.

The Dems had very few choices. They could have elected to simply let all the taxcuts expire, at a time when middle class and lower brackets would have been hurt badly and STILL not gotten the unemployment benefit, which would have plunged even more people into misery. Or, in order to get the extension of middle class and lower bracket taxcuts, extended unemployment benefits for people who desperately needed them, as well as other concessions like ratification of the START Treaty, they had to reluctantly allow the GOP to tack on the extension of the higher income taxcuts. I'm not explaining it further.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear your fantasyland scenario of how the Dems could have done it differently. And, I'm not talking about some generic and naive, "well, they could have done it if they wanted to" bullshit.

Let's hear your detailed strategy. I'm all ears.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

99. I will ask you politely one time to...

refrain from calling me an "apologist for the elite".

The reason the Bush taxcuts were not allowed to expire has everything to do with the rules of the Senate, how the GOP exploits them to their own ends, and little to do with the Democrats in Congress being rich and not wanting to vote against their own economic interests. Alan Grayson would be a perfect example.

[riderinthestorm]

75. Members of Congress are amongst the wealthiest Americans

They get paid perks like travel expenses and limo expenses, franking fees, other less tangible items like free health club memberships and free parking in DC, their spouses are placed in powerful positions, and free "junkets" that are really fully expense paid vacations for them and their families to name a few of the items they get that aren't added into that $175k/yr figure that easily boosts them over the $250k mark.

“Congressional representatives on balance rank among the wealthiest of wealthy Americans and boast financial portfolios that are all but unattainable for most of their constituents," said Sheila Krumholz, the Center's executive director.The period covered is December 2008 to December 2009.

The median wealth of a representative was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008, while that of a senator was almost $2.38 million, versus $2.27 million the previous year.

That is sizable considering that by law members of each chamber receive an annual salary of $175,000. They do, however, qualify for a number of perks, including paid travel expenses."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40233691/Members_of_US_Congress_Get_Richer_Despite_Sour_Economy

This link also has some interesting factoids about how much Congress is entwined with their corporate masters, including stocks they own.

[lapislzi]

89. In fairness...

There are some good legislators out there (the recently fired John Hall comes to mind) who probably WOULD do the right thing and vote themselves and their class a tax increase because it's in the best interest of the nation.

Unfortunately, the majority of Congress is far too indebted to its corporate overlords. That's the real problem.

[Vincardog]

15. Ask the DLC

[notesdev]

17. Lemme see...

let's go push through a new law that reinforces the image of Democrats as tax-hikers, yet at the same time will be written by people working for the very people that the law will aim to tax... end result, the tax ends up something that primarily falls on the middle class, and the regular not-rich Joes who end up getting the business end of things all swear to vote against us.

The problem with the rich is not their tax rate, but the fact that the whole economic system is rigged to shovel such a huge percentage of the nation's productivity into a group of people who in number are less than a statistical rounding error for a countrywide scope.

The problem, again, is NOT the tax rate. It's the fact that the way to get rich in America in the year 2011 is to make others poor. Not to produce. Not to create. But to siphon, steal, embezzle, and divert the production of others to one's own use - that is the path to wealth that is left to people in this country, unless you win the actual or metaphorical lottery.

[Poboy]

18. Oh well, lets all just stop this silliness of getting these fuckers to pay their share.

[leftstreet]

19. +WOW This should be an OP

:applause:

[kentuck]

21. Yes, frozen in fear...

of how we may be portrayed as big taxing liberals - not defenders of the working and middle-class. Not a Party with a backbone. But one that is too fearful to ever do anything brave or right for this country. Too nervous to demand the wealthy pay their fair share for fear of political consequences. The recipe for eternal failure.

[2banon]

69. nervous or greedy...

not all congress critters are members of the bourgeoisie (a few are not) but most are more interested in protecting them as well as the ruling elite. Since the interest of the bourgeoisie are in sinc with the interest of the ruling class, (cuz they aim to be members of that class) to hell with the working class. It's extremely short sighted in so far as their interests are concerned, but that's the way I see it.

[2banon]

68. Bingo!

:thumbsup:

[myrna minx]

98. .

:applause:

[classysassy]

20. Until money

is removed from politics the criminals will continue robbing the people.

[GeorgeGist]

24. The ritch must pay ...

or everyone will die.

[SDuderstadt]

25. What does your post...

mean?

[spanone]

26. most would be raising taxes on themselves...ain't gonna happen

[Contrary1]

28. Because it's not the large majority of Americans that line the politicians' pockets with millions...

It's the minority that benefits so much from doing so.

[Odin2005]

29. because both parties are controlled by the Corporate Elites.

[Solly Mack]

33. k/r

[Terra Alta]

34. They are waiting on their corporate masters

to give them the OK to raise taxes on the rich.. but they never will, so the rich will continue to get richer and the poor will continue to suffer.

[MedleyMisty]

35. because they're on the side of the rich

[Modern_Matthew]

36. The forming of political parties ruined government. nt

[Enrique]

37. some of the dems even lie, and say Americans don't support those tax increases

Kent Conrad, most recently.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x829783


Senator CONRAD: I think the biggest impediment to doing what has to be done is public opinion. If you poll the American people, they say they want to get the debt under control. They want to reduce the deficits.

When you then start asking specific questions about what might be done, they first of all say, well, don't touch the entitlements. That's 60 percent of federal spending. Next they say, don't touch defense. That's another 20 percent. Then they say don't touch the revenue side of the equation at all, even if it's tax reform that lowers rates. They say don't do that.

The only thing that enjoys majority support in among the American people in terms of spending cuts is to cut foreign aid. Well foreign aid is less than one percent of the federal budget. So when you're borrowing 40 cents of every dollar that you spend, you're not going to solve the problem cutting foreign aid.

[MedleyMisty]

39. Isn't he going to be surprised when we revolt?

[2banon]

63. I wonder when that will happen?

Just curious.. just how bad do things have to be here before the low wage/slaves & working class finally have said ENOUGH! BASTA!

[fascisthunter]

38. because too many of them are controlled by wealthy special interests TOO!

on edit: they ALLOW themselves to be controlled.

[slipslidingaway]

40. knr nt

[Kablooie]

42. But a large majority of politicians want to cut taxes for the wealthy even more!

[tomp]

43. because the democratic party is not our friend? nt

[Le Taz Hot]

45. Because they are not beholden to us.

We're a minor inconvenience every 2 years. Nothing more. And if we don't vote the way we're SUPPOSED to vote, they have ways of dealing with that as well as we've seen very recently in Wisconsin.

[Harriety]

49. I don't understand why this isn't on the main table right NOW

[elleng]

50. You know, 'herding cats!'

I do expect Prez O to make use of it. Wonder what D. Wasserman-Sch has to say.

[harmonicon]

51. You know exactly why.

Most of them would probably wind up paying more in taxes themselves, and more importantly, the people who finance their campaigns certainly would. Members of both parties operate this way, so it's not as if one can use this against the other in a campaign. They are hypocrites, and they hate you; sad, but true.

[SpankMe]

52. And...we really wouldn't be raising taxes.

Rather, all that's being talked about is allowing a prior tax cut to expire. The top rate would go from the mid 30's back to the high 30's. This would cut in to the deficit without really hurting the economy.

[valerief]

54. If only the Democratic *Party* was democratic. nt

[Deep13]

56. Because they still get campaign money from our corporate rulers.

And because they think staying away for the issue will somehow insulate them from a well-funded RW attack.

[Poll_Blind]

76. And because they will get even more money from corporations due to Citizens United ruling

Just as simple as that.

PB

[DainBramaged]

61. Because they are complicit in the criminal activities of the elite

[Yo_Mama]

64. Because the Democratic party does not want to do it

That's the truth.

[Marrah_G]

65. Because they are wealthy people who rely on other wealthy people

[Better Believe It]

74. Because they oppose increasing taxes on the rich. Next question.

Not hard to figure out at all.

[HardWorkingDem]

85. Read the article at Vanity Fair regarding the 1 Percent....there is your answer...

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

[DirkGently]

87. Corporate taxes are even more important. Billions not paid by taxpayer-dependent corps.

Seems like another bulletproof argument. And yet, oddly, no one seems prepared to take up that cause in this pre-election news cycle.

Hmmmm.

:)

[LiberalLovinLug]

93. I have given up with an answer to the OP question

A 70% majority also wanted a public health insurance option.

Not only could Obama have risen in the polls by showing leadership in using the bully pulpit at the time by vocalizing that 70% desire, but it would have resulted in furthering Democratic ideals.

there are other instances where I have just thrown up my hands, flabbergasted.


There is one explanation but it is not easy to swallow. And that is that the core of the Democratic Party are fighting for/against the same things that the GOP are, but they play the good cop and the Rethugs play the bad cop to steer the conversation to the same place. And both parties try and shush up polls like this.

[Enthusiast]

96. It appears that our representation no

longer gives a fuck what we think.

[Zorra]

100. I take it that this is a rhetorical question? nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

101. Okay, so let me get this straight...

1] Last week President Obama came out with a big speech saying we should increase taxes on the wealthy.

2] New polling shows that the public agrees with him.

3] There is a post in the D.U. asking why the "Democratic Party" isn't all over this?


Ummm...... okay. Hey, here's an idea! Maybe the Democratic Party should get a really big politician to come out and say he's for increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Maybe.... say.... The President of the United States! That would be cool.


Too bad no "Democrat" like him will say he's for increasing taxes on the wealthy, which is why some won't vote for Obama... or something. Really, at this point, I'm completely at a loss to understand the reasoning.

I mean.... is there any reasoning at all going on? Or is it all Green-party Yeaaarrrgghhhhwhaaargaaarblederpderpderp?

I expect this from the GOP and the Tea Party. Not from people who are supposed to be on our side.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Cascadian]

102. For the same reason why the majority of Americans want universal health care.

Yet we're not going to get it. A lot of politicians have been bought off by the corporations and they now do their bidding as opposed to the people.




John

(The Cascadian is back!)