Skip to main content

Support for Obama's middle class tax cuts, and ending the massive tax cuts the rich got from the Bush administration and Republicans, remains high. The poll, which kos posted on earlier about the general dissatisfaction with the GOP agenda included the tax cuts, and Greg Sargent chronicles it as the sixth major poll to show majority support for the proposal.

We now have a sixth poll: The National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center, finds the same.

The numbers: Twenty nine percent support ending only the tax cuts for the rich, and 28 percent ending all the tax cuts -- meaning a total of 57 percent support letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. Only 29 percent, or less than a third, support the GOP position of keeping all the tax cuts in place.

Support also runs strong among independents, with 28 percent supporting ending the tax cuts for the rich, and 31 percent supporting an end to them all -- a total of 59 percent.

Again, a political winner, particularly when you've got Mitch McConnell saying things like this:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, announced Monday he will introduce legislation that would ensure that no one pays higher income taxes next year.

"We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats' two-year adventure in expanded government," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

Again, everybody's wealthy in the Republican view of the world, so of course in his mind the people in the top two percent of income in the country are the ones who were hardest hit in the recession. The other 98% might take exception to that. This is a winner for Dems, and has Republicans in disarray.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:16 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  #1 reason to Tax the Rich: (22+ / 0-)

    They have all the money!

    Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:17:13 AM PDT

    •  Sutton's law (11+ / 0-)

      Q: "Willie, why do you rob banks?"
      A: "'Cause that's where the money is."

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:21:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And that works! (0+ / 0-)

      Remind people who got the trillions in bailout money.  It wasn't you and me.

      Remind people who got the profit when jobs went overseas.  It wasn't you and me.

      Remind people who got the money when the housing market was booming.  It certainly wasn't you and me.

      And ask them how many they know that make $250K or more a year.

      It works.  And it works well.

    •  Because that's where the leverage is (0+ / 0-)

      Corporations can move overseas to avoid taxes, but people are must less likely to do so.  That is where the U.S. Gov't has leverage.

      Cut corporate tax rates to keep them here.  Give them incentives to hire Americans.  Then, go after individuals (to European levels).

      Feyman once said, "Science is imagination in a straitjacket." It is ironic that...the people without the straitjackets are generally the nuts. - L. M. Krauss

      by Nicolas Fouquet on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:43:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  #2 reason (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP

      The Political Party of the Rich passed these tax cuts and explicitly made them temporary.  

      We should not thwart the intention of the people who passed this legislation which, obviously, is that the cuts should expire.

      "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

      by gsbadj on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:55:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They made them temporary because they had to, to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mmacdDE

        avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. They were passed as part of a budget reconciliation measure, which is not subject to filibuster.

        •  Sure they did (0+ / 0-)

          But it's the sign of enormous hypocrisy that the same GOP'ers who go apoplectic over any spending on the poor and middle classes because it leads to "rampant deficits as far as the eye can see" have no problem with running up far huger deficits by giving cash to people who A) are benefiting most from society, B) are not now using their savings to benefit society (as in creating jobs) and B) can most afford to do so.

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:07:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They ALWAYS wanted to turn around (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JesseCW

          and make them permanent after getting Dems to sleep with them.

          Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot.

          by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:07:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  how does one respomnd when told that taxing the (0+ / 0-)

      rich is communism and will destroy America?  I have run out of rational responses but this is someone I cannot just ignore or 'snark' away.

      "can you please continue the petty bickering...I find it most intriguing" DATA

      by KnotIookin on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:58:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  TAX the rich B/C ADAM SMITH says so (0+ / 0-)

        "It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in proportion."

        from "wealth of Nations"

  •  Repubs judge others by how they see themselves. (16+ / 0-)

    They suspect vote tampering...because they engineer vote tampering.

    They suspect people are perverts - because they are perverts.

    So yeah, they'll think everybody has money....because they have money.

    Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot.

    by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:18:39 AM PDT

  •  Do we have any graphs of how the richest (4+ / 0-)

    1% have done over the last 30 years, compared to the middle and working classes?

    I saw Maria Bartoromow lead Tony Blair with a question about class warfare.  As much as she strokes her wall street buddies, I'm surprised she hasn't come in with carpal tunnel.

  •  Again, I suggest this (15+ / 0-)

    Put two bills on the floor.
    One is a tax cut for those making less than $250k.
    The other is a tax cut for those making more.

    And let it be known that they will be voted on in that order. If the first is filibustered, the second will never even be considered.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:19:27 AM PDT

  •  Tax everyone (5+ / 0-)

    $13 trillion deficit.  

    Infrastructure needs of $2.2 trillion to maintain current infrastructure.

    Add HSR, subway capacity in DC, combined sewer overflows in the Great Lakes, gov't owned solar fields and wind farms...

    Higher taxes please.

    Or maybe I'll just move to Sweden or one of those socialist countries.

    •  We're gonna have to figure out sooner (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joedennis, newleaves

      or later that reinforcing the Reagan spawned "convention wisdom" that taxes are simply an evil to be reduced as much as possible will, over the course of time, literally destroy our Republic.

      Not Hyperbole.

      I'm with you - it's time to get back to explaining to people that what they get in return for their taxes is at least as important as how much they pay.

      Ask the CPC why they're not trying to defund the Catfood Commission.

      by JesseCW on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:24:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shift the burden somewhat (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      newleaves

      Change the standard deduction again. Adjust the rates. Add another rate above 1mil. And another above 5 mil.

      Those affect very few people, and those it does affect don't even notice it's gone.

      Money isn't money to them - it's just numbers. Taking another 50k or so won't impact their lifestyle in the least. Won't stop them from doing anything they want.

    •  Problems (0+ / 0-)
      1. We need to run a deficit right now.
      1. The rich have enough money. If we only eradicate the loopholes and mthe maximum rate to what it was in 1980, we'd be running a surplus.

      Corporations are people; money is speech.
      1984 - George Orwell

      by Frank Palmer on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 09:01:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  NOT! "Ending the massive tax cuts the rich" (12+ / 0-)

    Is!  "Allowing the GOP tax cuts for the rich to expire."

    We're not asking to "end" anything - only to let the billionaire bailout EXPIRE as planned.

    Framing, framing...

    GOP answer to insurance premium hikes: "Die quickly."

    by Richard Cranium on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:20:12 AM PDT

    •  ...and, it's not TAX THE RICH (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluegrass50, QuestionAuthority

      It's "require the wealthier among us to pay their fair share".

      If we could somehow frame this concept as...

      Living in America allowed the weathiest among us to accumulate and grow their wealth.  They couldn't have done that anyplace else in the world.  And because of their good fortune, they have a moral responsibility and obligation to contribute their fair share to the common good - as the founders intended.

      ...in five words or less, that did not include the word TAX, there would be zero opposition to the concept.

      GOP answer to insurance premium hikes: "Die quickly."

      by Richard Cranium on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:29:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, but they are not making their money (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsbadj

        here.  They are making it all over the world, with cheap labor.

      •  Any time you start talking about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gsbadj

        someone paying his fair share, Republicans immediately make the mental leap to evil socialism and redistribution of wealth.

        I don't know where it comes from, maybe other kids were mean to them in kindergarten and wouldn't share, but every R I've ever know just goes ballistic whenever anyone suggests that some people have too much and others not enough.

        My whole family is Republican. They all think we poor folks should just try harder and stop being jealous of the rich who made it to the top all on their own.

        Yeah, I don't speak to my family much.

        "The difference between the right word and the almost-right word is like the difference between lightning and the lightning bug." -- Mark Twain

        by Brooke In Seattle on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:45:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like I said, 5 words or less...and yes... (0+ / 0-)

          you're right about the 'fair share' concept.  Maybe there's a way to frame the concept in biblical terms.  "I got mine, fuck you" is not in the King James version, last time I checked.

          I dunno.  Just throwing some stuff out there this morning while I have some time available.

          GOP answer to insurance premium hikes: "Die quickly."

          by Richard Cranium on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Curious (0+ / 0-)

          Is all your family that filthy rich?

          It always strikes me how many PWT, who don't have a pot to urinate in, will still blame minorities for being lazy and uneducated while ignoring the fact that they are as exploited by the economic system as minorities.  But, hey, at least, they have white skin.

          "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove." P.G. Wodehouse

          by gsbadj on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:02:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Just as long as the vote is soon (7+ / 0-)

    I really want to see the middle-class tax vote come up before November.  Get the epublicans on record if they vote against it and let them explain it to their constituants.  The tax cuts for the wealthy are a seperate issue, the Republicans can only justify opposing middle-class tax cuts if they lump the two together.  Let's not let them.

    ...honor is a harder master than the law. It cannot compromise for less than 100 cents on the dollar and its debts never outlaw. - Mark Twain, a Biography

    by billd on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:21:07 AM PDT

  •  A clear majority want to tax the rich? (7+ / 0-)

    Well shit...now it's NEVER gonna happen.

  •  All that republican deficit scare talk (5+ / 0-)

    is now biting them in the ass.

    Poor bastards.

    I'll look at my navel after the midterms.

    by citizenx on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:22:58 AM PDT

  •  the ones hardest hit in the recession? (8+ / 0-)

    they really are out of touch, I thought all the statistics showing the upper group getting richer not poorer and in the layer just below that, those folks didn't lose jobs at anywhere near the rate of the young, the over 50 middle class worker, or minorities in already economically depressed areas.   A fact free existence.

  •  Haha (2+ / 0-)

    I think McConnell was referring to two different groups of people with that comment, but goodness that sounds bad, doesn't it?  Freudian slip, I'd bet, omitting the second "those".  And maybe I'm giving him too much credit, at that.

    Regardless, somebody make him explain himself!  Preferably at length!

  •  Republicans want a Teabag Tax Cut for the Rich (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, QuestionAuthority

    Ouch.

    Reading that's painful in all sorts of ways. :)

  •  too bad our Dem senators are goofballs (9+ / 0-)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/...

    Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Jim Webb (D-Va.) -- have voiced support for the Republican proposal to extend all the tax cuts.

    What happened to "economic fairness," Mr. Webb?

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:26:53 AM PDT

  •  The Wall Street banksters (6+ / 0-)

    who crashed the economy should have been the ones to suffer. Instead we bailed them out.

    The GOP thinks working people who lost their jobs and collected unemployment are lazy, while rich people are SUFFERING at the very thought that taxes might revert to Clinton era rates. Meanwhile the usual "Democratic" suspects are wringing their hands trying to appease the supply side lunatics. Hey "concerned" Democrats--you make me sick!

    •  Speculators need to be taxed. (7+ / 0-)

      It's not just wealth: it is how the money is made.

      Democrats can appeal to the Calvinist conservatism of the working class, the Reagan Democrats by hammering home the outrage of the working class paying more in taxes than speculators.

      The issues.
      Long term capital gains.
      The massive tax write offs for losses used by the rich as they short term speculate.

      The fact that profits from speculation are not subject to SSI and Medicare taxation [the should be, which would easily fund both of these programs in perpetuity].

      Total income means testing of profits from speculation is important: some middle class and working class people do speculate a little: they can be exempted.
      [it's really only a tiny part of the overall market, still]  

      It's the filthy rich who need to be taxed.

      tryin to make it real, compared to what

      by shpilk on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:34:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Dems... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    orson, QuestionAuthority

    Are still being to cute on this issue.  When KO interviewed Van Hollen last night, he still hedged his bets.  Even after the Dem polster said not only is this good politics, it's good policy.  Every Democrat should be as outraged as their President (who is showing that he still knows politics and is willing to fight by this issue).  How hard is it to attack that asshole McConnell by making the unbelievable statement that the rich have 'suffered the most' under this recession (when the exact opposite can be explicitly shown)?  I think there is a good chance the WH will pick up on this.  The congressional Dems?  Good money says they will continue to proceed with extreme caution.  Here's a clue - nobody votes for a wimp.

    Does Aqua Buddha wear Aqua Velva or is he an Old Spice man?

    by RichM on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:27:17 AM PDT

    •  Oh and... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mmacdDE, QuestionAuthority

      They should be doubling down.  Create a new tax bracket for every dollar over $1 million.  50% tax rate with NO DEDUCTIONS.  

      Does Aqua Buddha wear Aqua Velva or is he an Old Spice man?

      by RichM on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:29:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I'd also apply that to (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RichM

        ALL income, regardless of source.

        You make 2mil in cap gains? 1mil taxed at regular cap gains rate, that second mil taxed at 50%.

        I'd also add another 5% for every mil after that.

        You make 6 mil in cap gains?

        first mil - regular rate
        second mil - 50%
        third mil - 55%
        fourth mil - 60%
        fifth mil - 65%
        sixth mil - 70%

        So you get
        1mil - 15% = 850k
        1mil - 50% = 500k
        1mil - 55% = 450k
        1mil - 60% = 400k
        1mil - 65% = 350k
        1mil - 70% = 300k
        total = 2.85mil

        I'm sorry, but if can't live on 2.85mil, that's YOUR problem

  •  Actually it doesn't matter... (3+ / 0-)

    what the public wants, or what polls say.  The actual bills that pass will have been approved by the wealthy, otherwise they don't pass.

    Corporate PACs, not just bribery but a lifestyle!

    by rubine on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:27:37 AM PDT

  •  the framing isn't quite right .. (6+ / 0-)

    roughly a third support ending tax cuts for the wealthy only, another third want them all ended.

    There's a big difference between those positions.

    Mitch is trying to obfuscate.

    Where's the jobs that that Bush tax cuts generated?

    Democrats need to frame this right, or they'll buy into Repug BS. The purpose of tax cuts is not to "grow the economy". That's hog snot.

    That idea needs to be rejected outright, it's trickle down bullshit.  

    tryin to make it real, compared to what

    by shpilk on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:29:02 AM PDT

    •  Where's the jobs the Bush tax cuts generated? (6+ / 0-)

      In the Defense sector.

      Enriching the already rich.

      Spray tons of carcinogens into the ocean to hide petroleum spewed from a hastily-drilled hole from a greedy corporation, but don't smoke pot.

      by xxdr zombiexx on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:30:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Paul Krugman warned years ago that . . . (0+ / 0-)

      we were not creating enough jobs to compensate for immigration, poplulation growth, etc.  In other words, he was complaining about a jobless recovery while Bush was still president - even before the crash in the fall of 2008.  In other words, this jobless recovery is not Obama's fault; it's been going on a long time, and the mess of late 2008 certainly didn't help anything.

      •  Then why are (0+ / 0-)

        12 million illegals still here taking jobs?

        Why is the H1-B visa program still going on 3 YEARS INTO THIS DEPRESSION?

        Get rid of those two segments of people and over half of the unemployment problem would be solved.

        •  His point was that . . . (0+ / 0-)

          because of immigration (legal, not just illegal) and other reasons, population was growing faster than new jobs were growing.  This trend started years ago under Bush.  

          Many Americans don't want some of the jobs illegals take, so there are still some jobs available for them.  Also, as bad as America might be, Mexico is worse.  The grass looks greener to them, so some keep coming.  As for H1-B visas, if there are more jobs of this type available here than in their home country, legal immigrants will want to come here.  Also, if the general conditions are better here (freedoms, standard of living, etc.), they might be willing to stay here and take a job.  On the other hand, there might be plenty of Americans to fill positions with warm bodies, but how many have the skills to fill the H1-B visa jobs.  The point of the H1-B visa is that the company can't find a qualified American to fill that position.

  •  This reminds me of the public option... (4+ / 0-)

    polling high, supported by a majority of Americans, the smart thing to do,...and, nada.

    Hopefully history doesn't repeat itself...

    I did campaign on the public option, and I'm proud of it! Corporat Democrats will not get my vote, hence I will not vote.

    by Jazzenterprises on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:30:29 AM PDT

  •  Now, I normally have a snarky comment, but (7+ / 0-)

    We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession

    this has left me speechless.

    Someone actually said that.  About the rich.  And it wasn't in The Onion.

    Huh.

    The best I can come up with is, "go fuck yourself, McConnell."

    America's military went to war. America went to the mall.

    by talismanlangley on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 07:30:56 AM PDT

  •  My 10/2 sign: We need the jobs the (8+ / 0-)

    rich have NOT created.

  •  "This is a winner for Dems,...' Maybe....depends (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Augustine, QuestionAuthority

    on how it gets framed. Could come out as "Republicans hold tax cuts hostage," or "Democrats hold tax cuts hostage." Whose got the loudest, firstest shout, the most motivated voters and the public's ear.

  •  The right thing to do would be to (3+ / 0-)

    end all of the Bush tax cuts now. They were a total failure as the deficit exploded and job growth was the worst since Hoover. The Democrats must wean themselves off the failed polices of supply-side economics that the Rethugs have pushed for the last 30 years. Trouble is too many Dems who say they worry about the deficit still support the tax cuts which makes them complete frauds.

    •  If one were to compromise, however, surely (0+ / 0-)

      the best compromise would be to retain Bush tax cuts for the middle and working classes--- while letting the cuts expire for those who are "rich."

      It is the only logical mid-way step if one were not going to end all the cuts across the board right now.

    •  The problem with that is that it would hit (0+ / 0-)

      the way the original rejection of the TARP did...with millions of middle-class Americans howling when they realized that it's not just the rich whose ox was gored...an awful lot of just-scraping by families would see their taxes go up by hundreds as the child tax credit was halved and and two-earner families saw their taxes go up..

      One of the problems with Obama's pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making over $200K/$250K may be that to most Americans, that's a f***ing lot of money (yes, I know it's "middle class" in NYC and LA and other big cities, but it still looks "rich" to median-income families). That may account in part for the large number of "let them all expire." The other thing driving that number is that an awful lot of middle class voters are stunningly ignorant of economics and are more worried about deficits (which, even if the threat of inflation were real, which it isn't) which are mainly a threat to the rich (the ones with hoards of cash are the ones with the most to lose from inflation).

      Frankly, I find those poll numbers a lot less comforting than the diarist (though I understand the need for cheerleading). What it tells me is that less than a third understand that Obama is looking out for their interests, about the same number are more worried about deficits than economic survival, and an equal number support keeping taxes low for the rich. What I see is almost two-thirds buying the deficit/"rich create jobs" bulls***.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:01:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, had this been promoted (0+ / 0-)

      when the Repubs were doing the deficit dance and
      explaining how little most of us would see a difference
      in our taxes, we would not be having this problem.  Now
      it is too late and the best outcome would be the
      Obama solution.  I'm not holding my breath about that
      though.

  •  Facts Are Irrevelant -- Believe the Rich OR (0+ / 0-)

    a whole lot of ordinary people and their opinions.

    (Only the opinions of the Rich matter!  Just ask them!  Peons' opinions don't count because they don't have any money to back them!)

  •  the msm keeps saying (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Crazy like a fox

    That americans are sick of "out of control spending" by the government. Sure they are sick of some spending, illegal wars and bailouts for one, but they never mention that.

  •  McConnell statement completely illogical: (0+ / 0-)

    "We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it..."

    If they're the ones who can create jobs and get folks out of a recession, then why haven't they done it yet?

    Why haven't the rich CEOs and megabusiness owners created more jobs during the last decade?

    Why have GOP policies actively promoted the outsourcing of jobs overseas, and the taking-away of jobs for Americans here in America?

    I say, let the rich create some more jobs here in america.  Then let them come and ask for lower taxes--- AFTER they've actuall created jobs that families can live off of, and that decent people can survive on.

    •  Please, I hope everyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alice in Florida

      here takes this vow:

      EVERY TIME YOU POST HERE CALL A SENATOR OR CONGRESSMAN.

      DON'T just post here and think it means anything.

      •  Why wouldn't you "think it means anything"? Do (0+ / 0-)

        you not see that on this site, posters contact one another, learn from one another, organize group activities, etc.?  Do you discount all that?

        Yes, contacting one's senators and congressmen is important.  But part of the point of becoming active through political blogs is that one can make contacts, develop ideas, and work for change in ways that are not solely directed at our elected representatives.

        •  Talking to ourselves isn't going to do it. (0+ / 0-)

          These people in Washington need as much pressure as we can exert on them to actually do anything for us.

          More than 30,000 lobbyists are down there everyday hammering home what they want.

          Since the Left was so stupid to concede the change meme to the crazy right we need to get MUCH MUCH LOUDER!!!!

          •  It isn't an either-or, one-or-the-other situation (0+ / 0-)

            where doing one precludes the other.  There are many ways to be involved politically, many ways to contribute and make change.  If someone posts here, it doesn't mean that they're not also knocking on doors for candidates or phonebanking or donating money---- or writing to their representatives.

  •  If the rich creats jobs then (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mmacdDE, maryabein

    why are 20 million of us jobless?

    The rich put their excess money in off shore tax havens. Period.

  •  GOBPers living in their own manufactured (0+ / 0-)

    dream world...when reality hits, its a bitch.

  •  Politically, issues are irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

    Democratic positions on most issues are supported by most people. That doesn't matter when it comes to elections. Marketing is what matters.

    I just looked at 538.com and they have Republicans favored by 2 to 1 to take over the House, and project them to win 45.3 seats if the election were held today. Democrats are utterly incompetent at winning elections. They always underperform. Count on it.

    •  they underperformed in 2006 and 2008????????? (0+ / 0-)
      •  Absolutely. (0+ / 0-)

        Obama, by a measly 7 points, beat a geriatric geezer who was only barely supported by his own party, after that party created the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression. RIGHT after!

        Look at the 1932 election if you want a basis to judge whether 2008 was an underperformance. FDR beat a sitting president by 18 percent and 472 electoral votes to 59. Democrats and the Farmer/Labor Party won 101 seats in the House and 13 seats in the Senate. FYI, in 1930, Dems won 52 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate. And Hoover didn't even start an unpopular war!

        •  given the way the media in this (0+ / 0-)

          country has changed and given that Bush as President in 2006 and given that the country is still virulently racist I would say that they performed quite well in 2006 and 2008.

          And in 2007 who thought that Barack Obama would beat the great war hero? Who thought the Dems would get 59 Senate seats and a large House majority?  

          •  How the media have changed? (0+ / 0-)

            If anything, FDR faced worse vilification than Obama has. And in 2007, few foresaw the sudden collapse of America's most productive economic sector--financial services.

            I'll concede that the Dems didn't completely shit the bed in 2006 and 2008 (certainly not as bad as they did in 2000 and 2004), but given their opportunities, they didn't exactly overwhelm, either.  

            BTW, after those enormous gains in the House and Senate in 1930 and 1932, Dems gained even MORE seats in 1934. They didn't just say, "oh it's an off year election after we won the presidency, so we're bound to lose some ground." But of course, FDR actually did some shit.

    •  For One, They Won't Run Against Conservatism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Subterranean

      Marketing wise we have two parties of Reagan. Dems run more on incompetent Republican execution than core economic philosophy. So once the incompetents are safely off the ballot, as they are this time, conservatives and moderates are free to go back to the home of our modern consensus.

      Run on rolling back taxes, trade and anti trust to before Reagan, and you're out with the loons like Kucinich or Sanders.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:04:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Voters Are Too Biased Against Catfood Solution nt (0+ / 0-)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:00:41 AM PDT

  •  to quote Mitch McConnell (0+ / 0-)

    How can the _____-Party defy the will of the voters??

  •  Every Senior Citizen in America should be shaking (0+ / 0-)

    If democrats miss this opportunity then they are fools..The teaparty and some in the republican party have telegraphed their plans. If this doesn't motivate democrats especially seniors in both parties to vote nothing will.

    They have plans to shut down the govenrment to "STICK" it to Obama. They have several folks in their party who has stated that is their plan. The republican party are speaking to the fringe and they will shut down this government b/c it seems that is what part of the party wants and we cannot let that happen. How can ANY senior citizen in either party vote for them?

    You have TEA PARTY candidates who are running and WINNING and have stated they plan to GET RID OF MEDICARE, GET RID OF SS, GET RID OF THE DEPT OF EDCUATION, DEPT OF ENERGY, and want to continue to the tax cuts for the rich and corporate america.

    And the enthusiasm gap is wide? What in the hell? If this doesn't wake up democrats to vote this november, then they get what they deserve. Folks maybe angry with democrats, but we are dealing with something bigger than just  republicans party. We are dealing with folks who are so far out of the mainstream that it would set this country back before the 50's or 60's. The democrats and president obama need to HAMMER THIS SHIT HOME OVER AND OVER AGAIN!!

  •  Richie Rich has everything he wants except (0+ / 0-)

    the power of the people.

    TAX THE RICHIE RICH

  •  Call another meeting! (0+ / 0-)

    Bring in a political strategist!  Then send him on TeeVee to tell voters we'll consider possibly voting on tax cuts because polls say it's the right popular thing to do!

    By Jove, we've finally got this politics thing figured out!

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:12:33 AM PDT

  •  Somebody tell McConnell that the Dems are not (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bwren

    expanding government.  They are figuring out a way to pay for the eight-year long party that the Republicans put on a charge card.  Republicans knew that they were borrowing and spending.  They even built in a mechanism to pay for the charges - the expiration of the tax cuts.  So let them have them.

    Republicans own the debt, and they own the expiration of the tax cuts.  So let them pay for their party their way.  Let the tax cuts expire - all of them.

  •  Money quote. (0+ / 0-)

    "We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats' two-year adventure in expanded government," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

    Great quotation. Love to see a source, preferably the Congressional Record.

    That should go in at least one LTE from everybody on dKos this week.

    Corporations are people; money is speech.
    1984 - George Orwell

    by Frank Palmer on Wed Sep 15, 2010 at 08:57:05 AM PDT

  •  Tax the rich? DUH (0+ / 0-)

    That's what every civilized country does.  If they are going to be exempt, then the wealthy need to start paying fees for use:

    1. public utilities
    1. public roads
    1. garbage pickup
    1. street sweeping
    1. landscape maintenance (public)

    for instance.  City planners could probably give us a much better idea of the benefits of being a taxpayer.

    oh, and of course, if the wealthy don't pay taxes, then next time they piss all their money away by gambling in the stock market, NO BAILOUTS.

    Period.

  •  wow, the rhetoric is become entrenched (0+ / 0-)

    It is not "tax the rich", it is "make the rich pay a fair share per a percentage of their income".  People need to move the slogan to what the reality of the situation is.

  •  Has the media mentioned these polls .. (0+ / 0-)

    to the republicans on their shows??

    Or are they ignoring them like they ignored the overwhelming support for the public option?

  •  political Polls say tax the rich (0+ / 0-)

    republican tools say tax everyone BUT the rich

  •  Enough with this falsehood (0+ / 0-)

    "We can't let the people who've been hit hardest by this recession and who we need to create the jobs that will get us out of it foot the bill for the Democrats' two-year adventure in expanded government," McConnell said on the Senate floor.

    These people don't "create jobs."  They're greedy grabby keep-the-money-me types.  They do not create jobs. Dems should not let them get away with saying it time and again.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site