Skip to main content

View Diary: Biden gives Republicans one last chance to avoid 'fiscal cliff' (330 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Somehow I'm just (4+ / 0-)

    not convinced that even in LA, the people making median and below are going to be concerned about raised taxes on that tiny % that makes 250+.

    The banks have a stranglehold on the political process. Mike Whitney

    by dfarrah on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 08:22:47 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  They elected Scalise with 66% (0+ / 0-)

      of the vote, when he promised not to raise taxes on anybody, not even billionaires.  And when he openly and vehemently supported the Ryan budget.  That's LA-01, his constituents.  

      What are you not convinced about?

      •  Who was his opponent and what (0+ / 0-)

        Kind of budget did he or she have?

        If his opponent vowed not to raise taxes, except on millionaires, vowed to make health insurance more affordable, and vowed to bring more good paying jobs to the area, I'd think they'd have a shot. Provided they had the money to get the word out, that is. And to find the dirt on the incumbent, because you know it exists.

        And I suspect most of their opponents didn't.

        •  You are just wrong. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I can assure you that anyone who supported the ACA would lose in LA-01.  Anyone who supported raising taxes would lose in LA-01, regardless of who paid those increased taxes.  I know the voters in LA-01.  Metairie, St. Charles Parish, Tangipahoa Parish, Washington Parish, are all largely middle class.  While there is a small section of Metairie that is very rich, the vast majority of the district is three bedroom, 2 bath, 1500 - 1700 square foot ranch houses built in the 1950's and 1960's that shout "middle class."  

          Look, the President promised all those things.   Said all those things.  And in those areas, the President lost by the same margin.  It's not like the people didn't KNOW the President's platform.  They affirmatively voted against it.  If you were correct, that the only reason that LA-01 voted 66% for Scalise is that there was no alternative, they why did they also vote in an equal landslide for Romney?  

          The reality is that there is a significant portion of this country that supports what the Republicans are doing.  It's just silly to pretend that there is not.  

    •  The issue is how they view the economy works (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coffeetalk, splintersawry

      The left believes higher taxes on the wealthy will not hurt the US economy's growth, employment and wages, while the left believes these higher taxes do not hurt and some believe these higher taxes help the economy.

      Similarly these two groups differ on how government spending impacts the economy.

      The non-wealthy conservatives are not voting against their interests, they are voting for their interests, but they differ with the left on how the economy works.

      The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

      by nextstep on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:25:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ahhh, there are actually studies (0+ / 0-)

        that the trickle down over 30 years has not worked and over the past 40 years, job creation under democratic administrations was about 20 million higher.

        Additional recent studies have validate that higher taxes on the wealthy does not hurt the economy.

        these are not "beliefs", they are published facts.

        as to non-wealthy constituents not voting against their interests, they are most definitely voting against their own financial best interests.....sucked in by faux outrage on social issues, fed by the right wing propaganda machine, sorry but when I engage these people in discussion, all I ever here are talking points.......brainwashed.

        mittens=edsel. no matter how much money is spent to promote it, if the product sucks, no one will buy it.

        by wewantthetruth on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 09:40:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Every Democratic Presidency after FDR has CUT (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coffeetalk, splintersawry

          Federal Income taxes on investors (Pres Obama not known as his time in office has not ended.).  This defines cut as a lower tax rate on the max capital gain tax at the end of his term than at the start.  

          All of the tax increases on investors during this time have been under Republican Presidents.

          This is a fact that Democrats and Republicans don't raise as it conflicts with how they present themselves.

          How do you resolve this fact with your comment that lower tax rates on investors don't improve the economy, while also asserting that the Economy performs better under Democratic Presidents?

          The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

          by nextstep on Mon Dec 31, 2012 at 10:48:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site