A majority of americans agree that taxes need to be raised on the corporations and the rich
190 replies, posted
[img]http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2011/07/14/news/economy/debt_ceiling_taxes/eric-cantor.gi.top.jpg[/img]
[release]House Republicans who refuse to consider tax increases as part of a debt ceiling deal are out of step with most Americans, according to two new polls.
That's bad news for Republicans who are betting the farm on resisting Democratic efforts to raise taxes on the rich.
When looking to reduce debt, politicians can employ two tactics. The first is to cut spending. The second is to raise taxes. Most budget experts say you need to do both.
But House Republicans -- an overwhelming majority of whom have signed a pledge to this effect -- refuse to consider any kind of tax increase, not matter who it hits.
Turns out, most Americans don't share their conviction.
A full 67% of Americans favor a deal to raise the debt ceiling that includes taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations, according to a poll released Thursday by Quinnipiac University.
And according to Gallup, only 20% of Americans want a deal that consists only of spending cuts. That's the position of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and many of his colleagues.
Instead, most Americans want the deal to include a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, something that is much closer to the bargaining position staked out by Democrats.
What kind of tax increases are being discussed?
The White House wants to close loopholes that benefit the owners of private jets, and raise taxes on hedge fund managers who pay lower tax rates on so-called "carried interest."
Additional proposals would change how business inventory is taxed, eliminate government subsidies for oil and gas companies and limit deductions taken by the wealthiest Americans.
Closing those loopholes would raise a relatively modest amount of revenue, especially compared to the monster spending cuts that are on the table.
But because the elimination of those tax breaks would result in higher taxes, Republicans are bound to oppose them by an anti-tax pledge designed by Grover Norquist, president and founder of Americans for Tax Reform, that nearly all of them have signed.
Republicans say that raising taxes inhibits economic growth, arguing that increasing the burden on "job creators" now would derail what has already proven to be, at best, a shaky economic recovery.
So far, House Republicans, led by Cantor, have stuck by their guns. Cantor walked out of negotiations with Vice President Joe Biden last month after Democrats "continue to insist that any deal must include tax increases."
Not much progress has been made since. On Wednesday, Cantor reiterated GOP opposition to higher taxes.
But another consideration is starting to creep into the political calculus as the Aug. 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling approaches: Fear of being blamed for a default.
For historical perspective, Republicans have only to look to 1995, when Newt Gingrich stood firm against former President Bill Clinton and briefly caused a government shutdown.
Clinton was able to blame Republicans for the economic peril, a move many observers say helped him win re-election.
Mitch McConnell, the top Republican in the Senate, said Wednesday that he doesn't want to repeat that particular piece of history.
"The reason default is no better idea today than when Newt Gingrich tried it in 1995, is it ... would give the president an opportunity to blame Republicans for a bad economy," he told conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.
"If we go into default, he [Obama] will say Republicans are making the economy worse," McConnell said. "And all of the sudden, we have co-ownership of the economy. That is a very bad position going into the election."[/release]
[url=http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/14/news/economy/debt_ceiling_taxes/index.htm?iid=HP_LN]CNN[/url]
[url=http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really]Here are a bunch of other polls for your perusal[/url]
take that jenkem
Unfortunately, that majority of Americans aren't the ones with the money to lobby for their interests.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31130447]Unfortunately, that majority of Americans aren't the ones with the money to lobby for their interests.[/QUOTE]
I love their political system, what a shining and excellent example of democracy.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31130447]Unfortunately, that majority of Americans aren't the ones with the money to lobby for their interests.[/QUOTE]
why you gotta be a downer
It wont happen as long as a Republican super majority is in power. Basically, any conservative republican that votes for anything remotely similar to a tax increase on [i]anyone[/i] would deem them as a 'traitor' or a 'RINO'. Even moreso with all these freshman tea-party elects.
In the past, taxes were just one of the basic things needed in order to keep the country strong. Now it's this 'Evil Anti-American Anti-Freedom Islamofascist Homo-Agenda' pushing tool that want's to literally murder every rich white heterosexual christian american family.
Lol america, why do the people expect their representatives to represent them if the only reason they win elections is because of big corporations and the wealthy?
I love how the people in the USA don't have any power unless they have loads of money.
[QUOTE=neos300;31130586]I love how the people in the USA don't have any power unless they have loads of money.[/QUOTE]
Its the sad truth with every government based on Democracy.There always was a power struggle between the rich and the average civilian. Sadly the rich seemed to always get the upper hand...
[QUOTE=Neo222;31130649]Its the sad truth with every government based on Democracy.There always was a power struggle between the rich and the average civilian. Sadly the rich seemed to always get the upper hand...[/QUOTE]
You mean it's the sad truth for every government that operates on a 2 party system with unlimited funding allowed?
Yeah in that case I could see your point.
[QUOTE=Miskav;31130666]You mean it's the sad truth for every government that operates on a 2 party system with unlimited funding allowed?
Yeah in that case I could see your point.[/QUOTE]
There isn't really a alternative without straying into a one-party system with a chance that whoever is in charge goes crazy with power. But the best chance is that we should put in a civilian party with good intentions and are smart to bring someone who knows what they are doing and are willing to do anything to do good despite another party saying otherwise.
[QUOTE=Neo222;31130722]There isn't really a alternative without straying into a one-party system with a chance that whoever is in charge goes crazy with power. But the best chance is that we should put in a civilian party with good intentions and are smart to bring someone who knows what they are doing and are willing to do anything to do good despite another party saying otherwise.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? We here have dozens upon dozens of parties, each with an equal shot at getting in to the government. Even the tiny parties like "Be nice to trees and animals-party" got a seat.
Democracies have only been around for 2 centuries. (Minus a few oddities before that most nations on earth were run by monarchs) Maybe a better government system can be created in the future.
It's the sad truth in any government. Whoever has the gold makes the rules.
That 20% that agrees with Republicans? They hold 80% of the wealth in this country. Therefore, they will be catered to and the rest of us will be ignored.
[QUOTE=Miskav;31130567]Lol america, why do the people expect their representatives to represent them if the only reason they win elections is because of big corporations and the wealthy?[/QUOTE]
I'd guess 20% of the american government is actually knowledged in their work, as the other 80% are ex-bank owners and old CEO's of Tycoons.
Didn't USA have like a 90% income tax on the richest of the rich back when your economy wasn't dead as fuck?
[QUOTE=nikomo;31132024]Didn't USA have like a 90% income tax on the richest of the rich back when your economy wasn't dead as fuck?[/QUOTE]
We also were the number 1 boot exporter.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31130805]Democracies have only been around for 2 centuries. (Minus a few oddities before that most nations on earth were run by monarchs) Maybe a better government system can be created in the future.[/QUOTE]
aren't you the guy who wants the "better government system" to be a giant computer?
If there's anything positive to draw from the current political state of the US, it shows how a supposed democracy should NOT be run.
How fucking shocking
[QUOTE=demoguy08;31132254]If there's anything positive to draw from the current political state of the US, it shows how a supposed democracy should NOT be run.[/QUOTE]
I dunno. It seemed pretty ok. Then all of the sudden we have 400 million people.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;31130805]Democracies have only been around for 2 centuries. (Minus a few oddities before that most nations on earth were run by monarchs) Maybe a better government system can be created in the future.[/QUOTE]
You can't just excuse those 'minor oddities'. The Greek and Roman democracies, some over 2 millennia old, were a major influence on modern democracies, and even they were bound by corruption between the rich. This is nothing new, disgusting as it is.
It's not a flaw in the system, per se, but a flaw in human nature.
[QUOTE=Nikota;31132070]We also were the number 1 boot exporter.[/QUOTE]
USA's number one competition also happened to be a pile of rubbles due to war back then, if I remember correctly.
It's easy to be number one when there's no number two.
Every system is flawed.
America's democracy was made to practically be uncorruptable- three different branches of government, one of them having two separate branches that each have lots of people and representatives. What happened is that we just assumed that since it was so hard to corrupt, it wouldn't be corrupted. Then all of the super rich came into being, people with enough money to buy the world and then ship it to mars and back, and with that much money it barely made a dent in their pocket to buy ou the hundreds of people who work in government.
[QUOTE=Nikota;31132453]I dunno. It seemed pretty ok. Then all of the sudden we have 400 million people.[/QUOTE]
Exactly. And two parties can hardly represent the opinions of those 400 million.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;31130447]Unfortunately, that majority of Americans aren't the ones with the money to lobby for their interests.[/QUOTE]They don't need it there are PACs and what have you on every side of every issue honestly this pessimism about the American government is ridiculous and kind of out of touch with reality.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;31130477]I love their political system, what a shining and excellent example of democracy.[/QUOTE]Oh right because Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, and UK are all in so much better shape. :rolleyes:
Tax's pay for shit. I vouch for raising the taxes on the top 5% of the rich, and start issuing tariffs on companies that outsource.
Honestly. We are about to default on our debt; politicians have to stop lobbying and start doing their job like we elected them to do so. :911:
Taxes are high as shit in Europe, and that creates a higher class society. Seen it first hand. USA is so fucked up and inefficient.
[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;31133532]
Oh right because Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, and UK are all in so much better shape. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Financial problems has brought them down, not their political issues.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.