home

Fox News Poll: 2/3 Of Americans Want Repeal Of Bush Tax Cuts

Memorandum

To: Evan Bayh

From: American People

Re: Repealing Bush Tax Cuts

Do you support or oppose raising taxes on households earning over $250,000 a year and, at the same time, lowering taxes for most other households?

Support 66
Oppose 33

Speaking for me only

< Think Good Thoughts for Robin Williams | Sanjay Gupta Says "No Thanks" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Isn't this a bit rhetorical? (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:31:12 PM EST
    Since most americans don't make that kind of money why would'nt they be in favor of the tax increase?

    Seriously.... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    All this poll tells us is that 66% of those polled don't think they have a snowballs chance in hell of making 250k a year, and 33% are making that kinda cheese or think they might in the future.

    Parent
    That tells us a lot (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:49:05 PM EST
    It is a good thing in fact.

    Parent
    It also tells us that the meme/theme (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    being bruited about by the media that Americans see rescinding Bush tax cuts as somehow punishing those who achieve etc., or fall for the class warfare indictment, that this theme is wrong.

    Indeed, it tells us that, better yet, Americans may not be afraid of class warfare, having endured so many years on the receiving end of that war as waged by the very wealthy.

    Parent

    Well said DFLer (none / 0) (#84)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:07:09 PM EST
    Common sense at last.

    Parent
    All it tells us for sure... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:55:16 PM EST
    is that nobody likes taxes.  Beyond that we could guess at some interesting theories.

    Parent
    kdog (none / 0) (#83)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:03:29 PM EST
    You've forgotten Oliver Wendell Holmes and many other Americans who are willing tax payers, patriots who will pay whatever it takes to keep the nation strong.

    Parent
    That's one way to look at it.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 08:30:18 AM EST
    Another way is that paying taxes to the government we've had for 50 years is the act of a traitor.  A traitor to American ideals, a traitor to the teachings of Jefferson.

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
    The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
    wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
    they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
    it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
    And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not
    warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
    resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
    to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
    in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
    time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
    It is its natural manure."


    Parent
    Traitors? (none / 0) (#98)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:52:44 AM EST
    How totally ridiculous and grossly insulting to people who take their responsibilities as citizens seriously.

    Since when is it traitorous to place Jefferson in proper context?

    Ad hoc quotes are meaningless.

    You wouldn't know American Ideals if they came up and bit you in the a$$.

    By the way if you think the absense of government is some advantage for the common folk you are tragically mistaken.

    Parent

    How insulting... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:55:50 AM EST
    to the people who take life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seriously.

    If you think the thoroughly corrupted government we have represents our ideals, we just fundamentally disagree cal.  

    Parent

    People (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by cal1942 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 02:50:50 PM EST
    who willingly carry on paying the freight are putting it on the line for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    Don't think for one minute that your down with government ideas in any way shape or form support life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    What "libertarians" don't get is that weak or absent government means real liberty for the very few.  The overwhelming majority are screwed, they don't have the wherewithal for liberty and they can expect to be exploited with impunity.

    The Koch family that founded the Libertarian Party is the biggest polluter in the nation.  They feel they should be FREE to dump their toxins anywhere they please without consequence. Why that thar guvmint is always in their way.

    People like the Koch's are the winners in a libertarian "paradise."  Everyone else loses.

    The real insult is the scam of weak government and absolute freedom to loot, pillage and destroy.

    Parent

    There could actually be (none / 0) (#11)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:59:25 PM EST
    a few in there that feel 250 is enough of a cushion to actually pitch just a little more for a country that provided them with some oppurtunities.

    Im not ready to completely buy the to-be-human-is-to-be-radically-self-absorbed paradigm just yet, shiftless dreamer that I am.

    Parent

    Considering the economy... (none / 0) (#20)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:19:21 PM EST
    I would like as much cushion as possible.


    Parent
    Kids in Haiti (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    eat dirt pastries.A little perspective, please.

    Parent
    Sorry to sound like a grinch. (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    It is not just kids in Haiti but in many parts of the world. Unfortunately my tax dollars does not go to feed the kids, it feeds wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. My charitable contributions OTOH go towards the kids. Or at least I hope it goes to them and not to line the pockets of some corrupt beaurocrat.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#33)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:38:34 PM EST
    subsidize agriculture!!!  Yay tax enabled neocolonialism!  Yay tax enabled murder!  Increase taxes, increase suffering.  

    Parent
    Yikes.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:46:53 PM EST
    should be....."tax dollars DO not"" and "bureaucrat"
    I really need to use preview.

    Parent
    There's a difference (none / 0) (#32)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:36:37 PM EST
    between feeling "250 is enough of a cushion to actually pitch just a little more for a country that provided them with some opportunities" and voting to have the government put a gun to someones head and force them to do it.  If you don't think humans are radically self absorbed - and I agree with you in that they aren't - let them decide what to do with the money, not mob rule or politicians that never face real accountability.  There's no such thing as a golden gun that shoots virtue.

    Parent
    So,if no one forces (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by jondee on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:53:44 PM EST
    those making 250 a year to pay more, in no time at all no one will have to pay taxes anymore and the Libertarian millenium will be upon us; when Milton or Fredrick return.

    Meanwhile back in the real world, the staus quo ante prevails, cuz it's all or nothing for us folks.

    Parent

    You don't know the first thing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:57:31 PM EST
    about libertarianism if you're gonna drop the name Milton.  

    The rest of your comment - well - ignores the points entirely.  Call violence what you want, it's still violence.  Golden gun's don't exist - no matter how virtuous you think you are, you can't put a gun to someone's head and improve the world.

    Parent

    If you think your tax dollars.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:57:31 PM EST
    help the country...I don't believe that, not anymore, not in a long time.  We're enablers man.

    Parent
    They sure seemed in favor of those (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:20:21 PM EST
    tax cuts in 2001. Maybe back then they still had dreams of making that much money. Reality has hit them now.

    Parent
    Were there any polls like the one above at that (none / 0) (#48)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:57:22 PM EST
    time, that you know of?

    Parent
    And what would the answer be if (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:32:43 PM EST
    the question asked only about tax increases w/o specifying those below $250,000/household may see a tax decrease?

    Parent
    I am assuming.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:01:53 PM EST
    they would still be in favor of it.

    OTOH, here's an anecdote that belies my previous post....
    I was taking the shuttle from my condo to the PATH station a couple of days ago and started chatting with the driver. The topic came around to the economy and among other things the driver mentioned he was not happy that Obama was going to be raising taxes on the rich because he felt then they would donate less money to charities,hospitals,etc. I was really surprised to hear that. At first the slightly cynical part of me thought that he realized that most of his passengers were probably in that income bracket and so he was just playing to the audience. But the longer I talked to him he came across as really sincere in his belief.

    Parent

    Loose segue: Metropolitan (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:04:03 PM EST
    Opera is using the marvelous Chagall murals in the lobby as collateral on a loan.  Consequence of backers backing out.

    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#53)
    by DXP on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:10:05 PM EST
    I can't recall this happening before. Is this new? Wonder how they are valuing the pieces when the art market is crashing and is as volatile as the market? I've never seen them in person - in photos they are magnificent.

    Parent
    Here's yesterday's NYT article: (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    Met's Chagall Murals

    I hope you do get to see the murals; a peak experience.

    Parent

    Art as collateral (none / 0) (#74)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:19:21 PM EST
    was the topic of a recent feature story in the New York Times.
    Annie Liebowitz, for example, used the rights to all of her photographs as collateral for a $5 million loan.

    Parent
    $15.5 Million (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:30:39 PM EST
    She is shrewd, from what I have heard, very shrewd.

    Parent
    Here's one view (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:18:09 PM EST
    From the paper that reports on the non-profit world, The Chronicle of Philanthropy:

    President Obama's tax proposals -- including a limit on charitable giving deductions that could be taken by America's wealthiest people -- could cause giving by America's wealthy to drop by several billion dollars a year, according to estimates released today by the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy.

    SNIP

    But the center cautioned that giving is far more likely to be affected by the condition of the stock market than by President Obama's tax proposals. It noted that every time the stock market declines by 100 points, giving declines by $1.85-billion. Charitable donations rise by that same amount when the stock market increases.

    President Obama's proposal to limit charitable-giving deductions would apply to people with $250,000 or more in income. The center said that approximately 4 million tax returns, or nearly 3 percent of tax returns, came from individuals with incomes of $200,000 or more.

    In a statement, Patrick M. Rooney, interim director of the Indiana center, said he worried about the effect of the tax change at a time when the downturn in the economy has put a squeeze on many donors and the charities they support.

    "Tax incentives do stimulate more giving," Mr. Rooney said, "and the challenges facing the nonprofit sector in 2009 suggest that this might be a good time to provide additional incentives, rather than reduce the value of the tax deduction for high-income households, so that the donors with the greatest capacity to give have more reasons to do so."



    Parent
    Sorry OT (none / 0) (#31)
    by NJDem on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:36:22 PM EST
    but 'shuttle to the Path'--do you live in (north) Hoboken?

    Now for something more on topic, "Jewish Nonprofits Cautiously Push Back on Obama Tax Proposal"

    From the article:  "This could be a problem for many struggling nonprofits vital to our communities that are already facing a very difficult fundraising environment," said Diana Aviv, president and CEO of the charity watchdog Independent Sector, in a statement. Aviv is a former head of UJC's Washington office.

    Parent

    Jersey city. (none / 0) (#36)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Ugh......"wouldn't" (none / 0) (#3)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:32:50 PM EST
    Rhetorical? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:48:01 PM EST
    I do not understand your question.

    Parent
    Anne said it better than I did... (none / 0) (#15)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:10:58 PM EST
    Everybody wants the "other guy" to pay more, and themselves to pay less, so there shouldn't be anything surprising in these numbers.

    And since almost everybody is in the $250,000 and under crowd, the numbers should not be surprising.

    Parent

    Sure, could be (none / 0) (#95)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:56:08 PM EST
    But that's not the point. Support for something is support. Or should pollsters now only include people who support something on morally pure reasons?


    Parent
    Cute (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:34:05 PM EST


    Sen. Bayh needs to stop reading WSJ (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:47:51 PM EST
    much less writing anything for the opinion side of Rupert's Rag for the Richest.

    Perhaps this silly son of a Birch Bayh needs an object lesson in game theory (per John Nash).  He holds a common silly opinion about debt, big debt.
    From Big Tent's link:

    Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy. The amount of U.S. debt held by countries such as China and Japan is at a historic high, with foreign investors holding half of America's publicly held debt. This dependence raises the specter that other nations will be able to influence our policies in ways antithetical to American interests. The more of our debt that foreign governments control, the more leverage they have on issues like trade, currency and national security. Massive debts owed to foreign creditors weaken our global influence, and threaten high inflation and steep tax increases for our children and grandchildren.

    Actually, when other governments loan money to the USA they lose leverage. Any skilled negotiator may, can, will tell them to keep their "leveraged" opinions to themselves if they want to get paid, otherwise . . . they can hang on to those T-bills & T-bonds until the 22nd century.

    If I have your billion dollars & you have my IOU, guess who has the leverage?

    [Corollary: if you have oil & I need to heat my home, who has the leverage?]

    What a pile of WSJ class drivel.

    You remind me (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:26:53 PM EST
    of this guy.  Not the greatest intellectual company to be in.

    It's true to some extent that you have leverage over the bank if you owe them a ton of money.  But really all it means is that each of you has the power to destroy the other.  Defaulting on our T-bills would seriously damage China, sure, but it would wipe out the U.S. economy altogether.  Heck, right now the full faith and credit of the United States Government is the only thing that keeps this economy functioning at all.  It's a f'in valuable thing, you might say.

    Parent

    Your comment about my intellect in (none / 0) (#81)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:44:48 PM EST
    comparison to some rightwingnutz writer serves no purpose.

    If I have your billion & you have my IOU, you have no ability to do anything to me.  If I've pledged some collateral, such as a cubic meter of Steve M comments on TalkLeft, then you could seize the asset---& your welcome to it.

    And, in game theory, your best bet is to sell my IOU to a bigger chump--if you can find one.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:54:14 PM EST
    Your analogy seems to omit the part where you are dependent on me to loan you billions and billions more with each passing year.

    You seem to believe that once you owe me a billion, you have so much leverage over me that you can basically say "do whatever I tell you, loan me however much I want, or my economy goes kaput and you'll never get your billion back!"  That's not how it works.  If the Chinese see fit, they have the option to monkey with us in countless ways that wouldn't go so far as to destroy our economy.

    And you don't seem to appreciate the difference between you defaulting on a single non-recourse loan and the U.S. Government declaring that T-bills are no longer a dependable investment.  Let's just say it's a really really big difference.

    Parent

    Steve..... (none / 0) (#88)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:08:35 PM EST
    read wurman's other comments on this subject and you will realize that you are wasting your time.

    Parent
    Dude (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:58:58 PM EST
    I'm commenting on a blog.  I realize I am wasting my time ;)

    Parent
    He's not the only Dem with reservations (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:29:46 PM EST
    Not all Dems are

    Parent
    So if China owed us money (none / 0) (#37)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:45:25 PM EST
    we'd be worse off?  

    Parent
    Yeah! How would we collect it? (none / 0) (#73)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    Also (none / 0) (#39)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:47:29 PM EST
    "If I have your billion dollars & you have my IOU, guess who has the leverage?" The US doesn't have China's money - they can only borrow it from China or print garbage currency (which would wreck our economy).

    Parent
    Uhhh . . . we do have their yuan. (none / 0) (#75)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:19:58 PM EST
    And our people are trying to get their people (finance & trade & diplomatic people) to let the yuan float against the dollar, etc.

    Read a newspaper or magazine or website in the last 15 or 20 years with articles about balance of trade, etc?

    Parent

    Are you serious? (none / 0) (#43)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:53:08 PM EST
    Actually, when other governments loan money to the USA they lose leverage. Any skilled negotiator may, can, will tell them to keep their "leveraged" opinions to themselves if they want to get paid, otherwise . . . they can hang on to those T-bills & T-bonds until the 22nd century.
    If I have your billion dollars & you have my IOU, guess who has the leverage?

    How long is that billion going to last and who is going to lend you more money if they think your IOU's are worthless?

    Parent

    That billion will last forever (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:32:56 PM EST
    if it's not repaid.

    And I'm serious.  Any nation will lend the USA more "money" when they look at the other currencies, economies, & trade partners that are available to them.

    OPEC is trying to switch to the euro for crude pricing & it isn't moving because the dollar is still the desirable currency.

    C'mon read the financial section in your local Sunday paper or check out Business Week, or something.

    You seem not to understand the situation you would be in if I've got your billion dollars.  The Chinese are stuck with the old British proverb, "in for a penny, in for a pound."  It's the very most elemental game theory.  That's why the OPEC nations hold T-bills, notes, & bonds & keep buying them.  It's very close to being the only game in town.  And, furthermore, the nations that hold US debt are in the same boat our US Treasury Dept. is with AIG--can't let 'em go under because the collapse would sink every ship in the sea.

    By the way, ever heard of Lee Iacocca?  Decades ago he wished for a "nickel yen."  Shuffle the inflation rates & he may have reached his goal.  And the Japanese still hold our paper as "assets."  Incidentally, they still buy US debt.

    Parent

    I would recommend that you read (none / 0) (#80)
    by vml68 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:42:10 PM EST
    Steve M's comment #76.

    I don't think I can say it any better than that.

    Parent

    Yup! (none / 0) (#82)
    by wurman on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:48:40 PM EST
    Steve has a chance to find a buyer & cut his losses.

    Whyn't you buy my IOU from Steve for $900 billion & put it in your money market account at CitiBank.

    Parent

    This memo (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:52:46 PM EST
    needs to go to a lot of the MSM talking heads as well.

    Everybody always wants the (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 03:56:06 PM EST
    "other guy" to pay more, and themselves to pay less, so there shouldn't be anything surprising in these numbers.

    Interesting question would be: "Would you still want your federal taxes to decrease if it meant your state income and, possibly, property taxes would be going up?"

    We all have two pockets, and what Uncle Sam puts into one, the state often takes out of the other; if it's a net gain for people, that's great, but I don't think people should be looking for any kind of net windfall, unless the states decide to deliver the second punch to those over-$250K earners, as well.

    The states are hurting, and those that won't directly raise income taxes will be resorting to hidden taxes: higher fees to register cars and obtain licenses, and the not-so-hidden things like increases in property and sales taxes, and so on.

    It's a mess.

    Bayh's stated rationale (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by magster on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:02:44 PM EST
    is cover for his jealousy at being as influential as Ben Nelson in undermining his own party.  It's all about notoriety and power.

    What this poll means is that Bayh will change his cover story to parrot some other Fox News talking point.

    Believe it or not (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by ironknee on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:16:11 PM EST
    Believe it or not, it is possible to make more than $250,000 a year, and still be in favor of letting Bush's tax cuts expire. In fact, you can do this and still do it for selfish reasons.  It is well established that when the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, then everyone, including rich people, are worse off.  There's a law of diminishing returns what you can do with more and more money, but there is no limit to the advantages of living in a beautiful, unpolluted country, with happy people (or at least, less unhappy people).  Greed as its own end is a dead end.

    And yes, my taxes will go up under Obama's plan, and yet I am completely in favor of it. In fact, I volunteered for his election. Money can't buy happiness.

    Political Irony

    Thank you. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    Well stated.

    Parent
    Yea money buys weapons and subsidies (none / 0) (#35)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:42:46 PM EST
    How about you give it freely and not vote to force others.  Some of us don't agree with the stimulus package and most of us don't agree with murder.  If you think that giving more money to the government will help people - go right ahead.  If I think it will result in an increase of suffering in the world - how about you don't FORCE me to fund what I find morally objectionable. In this scenario I respect your right to act and you respect mine.  

    Parent
    so in this world (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    do the poor get to go to school?  Or do I just have to hope I'm born into a rich family in order to be able to read, write and otherwise not live in a cave.

    Parent
    If I have the resources (none / 0) (#46)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:55:31 PM EST
    I would certainly coordinate and help poor children in a voluntary manner.

    But yea, poor kids have it great under the current system - great, great schools.  

    Parent

    and you think paying fewer taxes (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:59:57 PM EST
    might be the answer to the school system???

    The fact that our taxes support a network of public schools gives all people the shot to succeed (well, ideally).  School by private scholarship alone isn't going to get our society very far.  Fewer and fewer people equipped for success will be produced...and eventually there won't be anyone fabulously successful to so graciously volunteer and help.

    I mean, are you joking?

    Parent

    Look at the evidence... (none / 0) (#52)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:06:11 PM EST
    Federally funded schools produce terrible results.  Neither of us can say with confidence that a voluntary system would or would not work better - but I mean - it's about time to give it a chance.  

    Let a local community pay into a school system for their kids that isn't subject to ridiculous national testing and corrupt teachers unions that live off maintaining the 8 hours a day sitting in rows model developed in rural 1800's america just so they can max out those hours with minimal work.  

    I'm really not joking - and I only care because I do honestly think it would be better for kids.

    Just to be clear - I'm interpreting this as a productive conversation and my tone is much more open and interested than typing may make it seem.

    Parent

    It had a chance (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:12:21 PM EST
    Income taxes weren't widespread until the 1900s.

    You need to study that perioud of history.

    Here's a hint - it didn't work too well for the poor.

    Parent

    Check Mate! (none / 0) (#58)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:16:34 PM EST
    Pre 1900 education is not a good point of comparison.  Things have changed in the realm of education technology and philosophy since then - as well as productive increases allowing for more resources to be donated - that's why most things have improved around us.

    Income tax was 1913 to make way for the Federal Reserve system - I know - can you not just assume I don't know anything?  Say the fact and leave out the condescension.  You aren't really giving up anything when you give respect.

    Parent

    Public schools are not federally funded but (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:19:15 PM EST
    funded locally and in some cases, with help from the state.

    Parent
    Samuel (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    I'm really not joking - and I only care because I do honestly think it would be better for kids.

    If you think it would be better then you are completely clueless.

    By the way public schools are funded at the local and state (some states) level, not at the federal level.

    You should really try actually learning something and turn away from reading crackpots before making comments.

    I've heard all of the arguments you put forth. It's crackpot junk that's been around since long before you were born.

    Parent

    One other observation (none / 0) (#55)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:12:16 PM EST
    So we have this system that forces kids to sit idly when their natural instinct is to interact and talk and learn through much more active means.  Then when a kid starts exhibiting behavior like that at the age of 9 - we call it a disorder - and pump him full of dangerous/strong/violent medication so that he/she will conform.  

    The point being that maybe we should stop letting the  government tell us what mold to fit these children into and start letting local communities - people that might actually care about them and can actually do something - realize what is best for the child.  

    As far as funding - I mean, the idea that the concept of a school to a child in a poor area may change from a violent/boring/depressing setting to something they actively pursue is more than enough motivation for me to volunteer my time and resources to help.  

    As long as my tax money is being spent on teaching second graders about how great Christopher Columbus was the the Indians and kids sit their not interested / getting drugged / being exposed to drugs / getting in fights - I mean I can't even take the federal school system seriously.  It's a joke.

    Parent

    I went to public school (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:14:32 PM EST
    I sure didn't learn "about how great Christopher Columbus was".

    Oh and the kids who went to private/catholic schools aren't "not interested / getting drugged / being exposed to drugs / getting in fights".  HA!

    In fact, I think I got a pretty good education.  I learned about the industrial revolution for one...

    Parent

    If you want to trivialize my points (none / 0) (#61)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:19:20 PM EST
    and gain nothing from a reasoned conversation that is your call.

    Parent
    I am trivializing your points? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    I thought that was your point.

    You are trivializing my education, which I think was pretty good.

    Yes, I don't think everything that the government does is good, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative, which is nothing.

    If you don't like laws, you can at least try to elect people to change them.  Which is more than I can say for private industry.  Are some politicians corrupt?  Sure, but so are the heads of industry and they are only accountable to the gov't - who is supposed to act as the voice of the people.  And if they don't, they can get booted.  I don't get to vote on who the CEO of a company is.

    Parent

    There IS NO FEDERAL SCHOOL system (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:23:04 PM EST
    and the word you want would be "there" not "their"
    as in: and kids sit their not interested

    Did you learn that in the federal school system?

    Parent

    No Samuel (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 07:27:40 PM EST
    we don't trust you to volunteer.  We really don't want to turn the nation into a jumbo sized version of Honduras.

    Parent
    What about the military? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:46:37 PM EST
    Or the Judicial systems? Should those being paid for by voluntary contributions?

    Parent
    Or.. (none / 0) (#94)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:50:59 PM EST
    Roads, bridges.

    And don't forget about law enforcement. I can see it now: "The PD needs more donations! Please give generously".

    Or hey, just privatize the police, Robocop-style.


    Parent

    Sure, fine. (none / 0) (#92)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:40:23 PM EST
    Let's start with the military.


    Parent
    You guys are missing the point (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by ai002h on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:17:32 PM EST
    This poll is important because the argument republicans have made has been that Americans are aspirational, that even if they make LESS than 250K they would still not want to taxes to go up on rich beacause thats where they would like to be one day. This was the whole argument raised during the 'Joe the plumber' debate. These poll results aren't trivial, republicans consistently make the argument that Americans would not be in favor of taxing the rich, this poll unequivocally refutes that..doesn't matter the reason.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    This same poll in 2001 would not have had these results. Hence the massive tax cuts to the rich in 2001.

    Parent
    The results are trivial... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    to the points made in Bayh's letter.  

    Parent
    Bayh's against Obama (none / 0) (#66)
    by ai002h on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:43:41 PM EST
    letting the Bush tax cuts expire and believes money should come from cutting programs, so this is very relevant to Bayh's op-ed.

    Parent
    Only in America (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 09:48:29 PM EST
    Only in the US does tax phobia rule supreme. Ask the rich to return to the level of taxes of 8 years ago, and we're doomed, DOOMED I say!

    Having the rich pay a little more for the good of the country is entirely accepted in most other countries. And it's entirely normal, and has certainly had no negative effects in the past. Show me some proof if you say that it did.

    Rich people: you can spare the change. Quit whining.

    Tax fundamentalists: taxes are a fact of life, and the main source of income for the government. You will never have a government that does exactly what you want. Go live on some island where there's no government and spare me your nonsense.

    Logic reminds me of Prop 8 (none / 0) (#16)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:11:51 PM EST
    "Proposition 8 is invalid because the California Constitution does not permit the fundamental constitutional rights of a minority to be stripped away by a simple majority vote."  Not that this is the United States of California.

    fundamental constitutional rights (none / 0) (#27)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:29:06 PM EST
    compared to paying 5% more taxes...

    Hah!

    Parent

    Where's it faulty? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:50:19 PM EST
    What is that response?  Just ignore me if it's so dumb.

    I was comparing the logical construct.  And also - not only is it the taking of money - it is what the money will be used for.  

    Parent

    How convenient (none / 0) (#89)
    by cal1942 on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    And (none / 0) (#41)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:51:00 PM EST
    where do you draw the "fundamental constitutional rights are irrelevant" line?  Be specific.

    Parent
    I don't consider (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:55:59 PM EST
    not paying taxes a "fundamental constitutional right"

    Parent
    That's not what I said... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Samuel on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:02:18 PM EST
    The majority shouldn't be able to impose their preferences on a minority if the minority is not violating the rights of others.  Do you say that this does not apply in this specific case?

    Now you can argue that the system is rigged - and I would agree - but taxing the rich ain't addressing that whatsoever - it's just rigging the system more for the politicians.

    Parent

    you have it backwards (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by CST on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:10:38 PM EST
    the minority in the other case is having their own rights violated.  That's not the same thing as being able to do whatever you want as long as it "doesn't violate other's fundamental rights".

    if that was the case, there wouldn't be any traffic laws, or taxes at all.  I mean, I am not violating anyone's rights when I drive drunk or run a red light.  So are you saying that should be legal right up to the point that you hurt someone?

    Parent

    Fox (none / 0) (#26)
    by bocajeff on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:27:36 PM EST
    I don't trust the poll because it came from Fox News and they are just shills for the Republican Party. I won't watch their news nor do I want any Democrats to go on their show or for them to host a debate...Wait, the poll is in our favor? Yes! Post it!

    I wonder (none / 0) (#34)
    by dualdiagnosis on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:42:01 PM EST
    I wonder what the results would be if we just asked "Would you support raising taxes on the other guy and at the same time you get a nice tax break?"

    Bayh is clueless ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 04:55:18 PM EST
    and think we were a Georgian Crisis shy of him being Vice President.

    Washington borrows from foreign creditors to fund its profligacy ...

    The solution going forward is to stop wasteful spending before it starts. Families and businesses are tightening their belts to make ends meet -- and Washington should too.

    What decade does he thinks this is?

    Yeah, absent the "profligate spending" of the Government, we wouldn't be in this financial crisis.

    BTD, maybe you should attach a offer in that memo about a certain East River bridge you have for sale.

    Mob rule (none / 0) (#59)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:18:51 PM EST
    If some context was given and it was explained that small buisness owners would also receive this tax increase which would result in lost jobs the answer would be differnt.

    Never mind what they'd answer on cap and trade taxes being passed on in energy pricies.

    Or that the corporate tax rate will be the highest in the world and will also result in more job losses.

    What a silly question.  Not suprised by the answer.  Mr. Bayh's job is to realize that higher taxes can have bad reactions, namely continuing economic downturn, inflation and further loss of jobs.

    Isnt' that why we have elections?

    Let's see (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Steve M on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:13:23 PM EST
    Should we tell people that less than 5% of small businesses make over $250,000 a year and would be affected by the tax increase?  Or should we lie like the Republicans always do and tell them that millions and millions of small businesses would be affected?

    Of those handful of small businesses, how many of them would actually cut jobs because the tax rate goes up by a few percentage points?  Mine sure wouldn't.  We hire people because they're profitable, we don't intend to give those profits back.

    Parent

    BTD forgot another question in the poll (none / 0) (#63)
    by Slado on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:24:05 PM EST
    Still, three times as many people think raising taxes in an economic downturn is a bad idea (69 percent) as say it is a good idea (23 percent). Majorities of Democrats (58 percent), Republicans (86 percent) and independents (66 percent) agree on this issue.

    That is also Bayh's point and my point all along.  We can't afford to hamper our economy when it's already in a massive downturn.

    Another speech by Obama today and the market took another tumble.


    For the last time (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ai002h on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 05:45:23 PM EST
    The taxes will be "raised' in 2011. If we're still in a severe economic downturn 2 years from now, we'll have much bigger problems to contend with.

    Parent
    Yeah, the DOW fell because of (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by Radix on Thu Mar 05, 2009 at 06:04:41 PM EST
    Obama. Here I thought it was because of the poor business practices of the corporations comprising the DOW, who knew?


    Parent
    Did the poll actually say anything about (none / 0) (#96)
    by Green26 on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    repealing Bush tax cuts?

    Since only a few percentage of people make over $250,000, why wouldn't more people be in favor of raising taxes for those over $250,000, and lowering taxes for the rest?

    Does the middle and upper middle class realize how much the Bush tax cuts lowered their taxes?

    Would most people be in favor of repealing all of the Bush tax cuts, i.e. for all income brackets?