Pew Poll: Americans Oppose Tax Cuts For The Wealthy By Nearly 2-1

National Journal:

30 percent of Americans believe all of Bush's 2001 and 2003 cuts should stay in place. That compared to 31 percent who believed that all of them should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent take the route Obama campaigned on: Tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, while the others should stay in place. [. . .] Independents hewed closest to the overall sample. Twenty-seven percent said all the tax cuts should be kept in place. Thirty-two percent said they all should be repealed. Twenty-seven percent said the tax cuts for the wealthy should be repealed, but the middle class cuts should be kept in place.

It's a no brainer politically. No tax cuts for the rich. Dems should try and make this the central issue of the midterms.

Speaking for me only

< Rod Blagojevich: Still Signing Autographs | Crybabies >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    ANOTHER no-braner, that is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:28:42 PM EST
    And yet it means that Dems will have to be willing to face the "class warfare" charge that will no doubt come from the right.  Which, of course, will be even more laughable in this economic climate, but the Repubs ARE that stupid, I have no doubt. Still, the fact remains that the Dems have no recent history of standing up for the masses in courageous fashion, much less of defeating this type of Republican nonsense rhetorically.  I wouldn't be surprised if in "negotiations" (don't make me laugh) the definition of "the wealthy" gets raised just enough to make it all a wash.

    Let's see if Obama and Congressional Dems can summon their own "And I welcome their hatred" moment. Or if that type of moment is even on their radar.

    This one should ne as easy (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:36:58 PM EST
    as it gets though - they get to say the BUSH tax cuts.

    Get to run against W again.


    I still think they should call it (none / 0) (#32)
    by steviez314 on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:20:09 PM EST
    "Restoring the Clinton tax policies."

    Maybe that would get people hoping it would restore the Clinton economy too.


    Then Dems get to (none / 0) (#69)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    claim "shared sacrifice"

    Bring back Perot's charts (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:46:35 PM EST
    Top     1% own 40% of wealth

    bottom  40% own 1% "    "

    In tougher economic times (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:34:30 PM EST
    those Perot numbers probably have a little more impact with the average citizen, but we're also talking about finding some way of undoing years and years of insidious propaganda, the constant underlying message of which is that these blessed, upper caste brahmans, through their mere existence, magically sustain us all and represent the apotheosis of everything the American Dream is about and everything we should aspire to..

    That particular bone is buried very deep in the consciousness of much of America at this point. It's also very tied up with a Pavlovian fear of, and reliance on power.


    From Politifact: (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:40:06 PM EST

    1. When it comes to the federal income tax (which is only one of many taxes -- more on that later) Frank's "over half" estimate is high.

    According to IRS statistics from the 2007 tax year, the last year available, slightly more than 40 percent of federal income taxes are paid by the top 1 percent.

    (For that year, it took an adjusted gross income of $410,096 to make it into that elite 1 percent.)

    So, the top 1% own 40% of the wealth and also pay 40% of the federal taxes.

    Seems symmetrical, no?


    symetrical, yes (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:47:51 PM EST
    fair, no.

    That 1% also get to "make the rules."

    And you undoubtedly know what I mean.


    My wife and I made over 250K for a couple years but like many, those things sort of come and go.

    What rules did I/we make?


    I hope (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:38:07 PM EST
    You're just playing with me, but o.k.

    Do you have a problem with the generalization that "rich" people make more campaign contribution than mid/poor people? That "rich" people have more influence in the halls of power than mid/poor people? That "rich" people (btw, who hires the countless thousands of lobbyists & for what purpose?) get laws enacted that unfairly benefit them over others?

    Now you may have been an exception, but if discussions can be marginalized by exceptions and outliers then we just can't have meaningful discussions.

    I agree that $250,000 in certain places and under certain circumstances wouldn't fit my description of "rich"..........until you look around at your fellow countrymen, and see how many are above, and how many are bellow that number.

    But we know that everything is relative. To someone making $10,000/yr, $20,000 would be "rich." And to someone making $10,000,000, the $20,000,000 his neighbor is making makes him feel "poor." But as for me, having experienced both ends of the spectrum, it still humbles me; every year, at tax time, when I see the box that says, "total taxes paid" and the number is something like $65,000, I don't feel outraged that the number is so much greater than I ever hoped to make as an "Income," I just feel so blessed & humbled that I'm able to contribute that much to the country that enabled me to make it in the first place.

    Like Spock always said, "it's just logical"


    I wouldn't be so sure... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    that your 65 large (good god!) was a "contribution for your country", my good man.  What if it is funding the demise of the country you love?

    That's a question I ask myself all too often...and I'm only kicking in a measley 4 large and change. Is it your civic duty to pay your taxes, or is it a crime against humanity?  


    as an immigrant (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:26:10 PM EST
    I try to look at the bright side.

    And I hear you, maybe I'm delusional, but I can hope.

    Oh, and btw, the "65 large" is not an every year quarantee. I'm self employed now, and that number is certainly not an every year occurance.


    I've started about 4 responses (none / 0) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:59:58 PM EST
    and then stopped each one.

    Let's just say there's other/more logic that you do not address, and leave it at that.


    o.k, whatever n/t (none / 0) (#80)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:27:08 PM EST
    Why do people keep messing up that figure? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 08:14:49 AM EST
    You quote Politifact correctly, but apparently ignore this term in your quote: "income taxes".

    The top 1% garner 40% of the income and pay about 20% of federal tax revenue.

    Yes, they pay 40% of federal individual income taxes, but individual income taxes are about 45% of federal tax revenue.  So they're paying about 18% of federal tax revenues in their income taxes.

    Another 36% of federal tax revenue comes from payroll taxes - which don't apply to wages/salaries above approximately $105,000, and don't apply to dividends, capital gains and other "unearned" income.  The top 1% average less than 1% of their income in payroll taxes.


    I messed up/ignored nothing. (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    Top 1% earners (reportedly) own 40% of all wealth and pay about 40% of all federal income taxes.

    I couldn't find any analysis of it, but I assume the same is generally true for state income taxes.

    No argument with your point, but your point is not my point...


    Except the word "income" (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 05:48:00 PM EST
    But that's an easy omission.  The inaccuracy I perceived was in "...pay 40% of the federal taxes", when that's true of only the personal income tax, not federal taxes as a whole.

    ...but your intent may have been to imply that this was only about income taxes, since your quote specifically mentioned personal income taxes.


    No more tax cuts (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    for the wealthy, plus filibuster reform, plus Eliz Warren -- there you have a much better basis from which Dems can take the battle to the country club BP-defending Repubs in the fall.

    Ds will need to pick up the pace a bit with the rhetoric as we enter the fall, and Obama should be out there actually bully pulpitting in Trumanesque/FDResque ways about the do-nothing Repubs in Congress and their passion for defending the "economic royalists" in the land.

    Obama needs to find the cojones to speak bluntly and clearly on these matters, and put away the even-keeled professorial, post-partisan detachment.

    Tac cuts tip of the spear though (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    I hope Warren energizes people, I think it does not really matter substantively.

    As for procedural reform, well, no one is going to get out of bad for that.


    Filibuster reform (none / 0) (#11)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    is gaining attention at the grass roots level, from what I sense checking out the lawns of neighbors.  And remember, voters in midterm elections tend to be a little more engaged on the issues than voters in pres'l years.  

    Still, Obama and key articulate surrogates can start using their clout to educate the voters, in simple terms, about the GOP filibuster abuse that's been going on in Congress since Ds took control.  Put the Rs on the defensive for a change.  Allow Ds to imagine, plausibly, all the progressive good that would be accomplished if they maintain majority control and can get the rule reformed/abolished come Jan.  Contrast that with what happens if the Rs take over -- impeachment and Clinton redux.


    one thiing to consider (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CST on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    i know this is not what you're talking about - but the tax cuts for the middle-class can be passed using reconciliation if the rethugs really try to block it.  It would be really interesting to hear the "ramming it through" complaints on that one :)

    considering that's how the original bush tax cuts were passed


    Filibuster reform (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:40:17 PM EST
    I wish it would be reformed so that they actually had to filibuster and not just "signal".  

    It will only energize (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Activists - those who are going to vote anyway. Warren will not get indies or casual voters off their couches to go vote.

    Dunno about that. (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:24:58 PM EST
    Eliz Warren has garnered a fair amount of pub in the last year or so, and her name is probably seeping down well into the type of voter who might make the effort to show up at the polls if only there was that one additional motivating factor.  

    And in midterm years, with roughly only 40%, or less, of voters turning out, any little bit of positive momentum helps.  EW is an overall positive, and a sympathetic and respected face to put on the positive matter of the new consumer agency.

    A no-brainer pick for Obama.


    I agree about the pick (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    But I don't see the pick as a reason voters will go pull the lever for a D unless they were going to anyway.  Those people will just be more enthused.

    Most people haven't heard of the Commission, nor Elizabeth Warren.


    i think she could help (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:39:36 PM EST
    energize the base.  It's not gonna convert anyone who would have voted republican, but it might make disaffected Dems more likely to get off the couch and show up at the polls.

    I think Warren could get the indies (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    She makes a lot of sense on the teevee.

    I think it's important to have (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:53:14 PM EST
    someone like Warren who is not afraid to speak her mind in a prominent position. It's my understanding -- correct me if I'm wrong -- that there are lots of provisions in the Dodd-Frank bill that leave much to be worked out, so perhaps Warren could have some impact there.

    after more than 18 months (none / 0) (#12)
    by The Addams Family on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    & a lot of water already under the bridge i'm not holding my breath

    Obama should be out there actually bully pulpitting in Trumanesque/FDResque ways about the do-nothing Repubs in Congress and their passion for defending the "economic royalists" in the land. Obama needs to find the cojones to speak bluntly and clearly on these matters, and put away the even-keeled professorial, post-partisan detachment.

    but go ahead & hope


    Obama got his (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:28:09 PM EST
    stimulus package and it has not worked.

    So why should anyone believe anything else he says about the economy??

    He is a lame duck.


    I often wonder how many (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:56:50 PM EST
    'support' the Bush tax cuts out of a (barely conscious) fear that questioning one aspect of the 'thug platform could suggest that there are things about the "christian nation", intelligent design, pro-life etc stances that also could be critiqued..

    Without any way of knowing for sure, I'd venture to guess that this is true for at least half of those who go unquestioningly along with the entire program regardless of the details.


    What you don't grasp in your continual (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    attacks on Christians is that salvation is an individual matter. It has nothing to do with your political beliefs.

    As for taxes, such polls remind me of the old saying:

    "Don't tax you
    Don't tax me
    Tax that fellow
    Behind the tree."


    Conservative Christians (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:38:54 PM EST
    make their religion about politics.....Scratch a a conservative activist and find a religious conservative....

    Our politics in the U.S. is all about religion.  You conservative folks learn the truth on Sunday and use facts as useful tools on Monday through Friday--if they are not helpful, you discard them.  It is all a game and there is no respect for facts or science.

    What amazes me is how ignorant most conservative Christians are about their own religion.  For example, the Gospel of Mark--the first Gospel written according to those who subscribe to Markan Priority, which is virtually everyone--did not originally end with the Ressurrection but with an empty Tomb.

    That you wade into religion here on a political blog to defend the faith, so to speak, makes my point.


    Who are you calling a conservative? (none / 0) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:40:33 PM EST
    I am a social liberal and have stated my position on liberal issues time and time again. Your inability to either read and/or remember is boring.

    And why should Jondee comment about religion if I am supposed not to?

    Really, your double standard is showing.

    There are several passages in the Bible regarding that.


    Just none that come (none / 0) (#67)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:13:50 PM EST
    immediately to mind..kinda like Bush's memories of his Bible Study group.

    Refusing to condemn (outright) in-the-closet Republicans - or the people who who forced them there in the first place - only makes you a "social liberal" in the absolute narrowest meaning of the term. It's all subject to expediency; as in, whatever's expedient in getting another wingnut regime elected into office.


    Bring me a liberal (none / 0) (#72)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:06:50 PM EST
    There are no liberals left in the Democratic Party. It has been consumed by the Left.

    Possibly in THEORY (none / 0) (#28)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:49:28 PM EST
    it "has nothing to do with politics" - in which case, I'd think you'd be a little more riled up about people like Ole Jerry, Robertson, Hagee etc than you've ever expressed at any time in memory..

    What is it? the old "the (superstitious, bigoted) enemy of my enemy (the Left) is my friend" syndrome? I think it is.  


    I have never considered (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:33:36 PM EST
    any of the so-called Christian leaders of any importance in my life, political or spiritual.

    I note again that salvation is individual, not group. Yet you keep on ranting about things that are meaningless.

    Enjoy yourself but don't expect any results.


    Letting the Bush tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:20:23 PM EST
    for those of great wealth expire will not happen by just putting the idea out there and assuming most everyone will see the merit.  It will take work, particularly anticipating the Republican squeals and turning their own positions (e.g., we need to reduce the deficits) to Democratic advantage. Perhaps the Democrats can make a "Debt Tax" as successful as the Republicans did with their "Death Tax'.

    Support the Troops Tax (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:50:29 PM EST
    Earmark that money for the wars.

    And yes, I WOULD make (none / 0) (#38)
    by ruffian on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:52:20 PM EST
    continued financing of the wars contingent on letting the bush tax cuts expire.  Or at least that would be my opening position. I would fall back to only letting them expire for the rich.

    I'm a proud graduate of BTD's Political Bargaining 101


    I agree, a "war tax" (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:21:01 PM EST
    is important not only for the needed revenue (it is only in a topsy turvy world that we have wars, and taxes are cut), but also for the national attention and ownership it would give. The  "war tax" should be placed on all workers even if it starts with a dollar.  No "free wars", just putting them on our Chinese credit card.  It might even give pause and an ordering of priorities to our national defense.  After all, our deficits at the moment and foreseeable future are due to the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bush tax cuts, and the reduced revenue and expenses of the great recession.

    If history is a guide (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by dk on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    it has less to do with what the American people want, or what the Republicans want, but rather what the big Democratic party doners allow, no?

    The Golden Rule (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:53:07 PM EST
    as in, whoever has the gold makes the rules.

    The Repubs are just the velvet-gloves-off version.


    A belief in God (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:53:05 AM EST
    does not mean that you don't belief in a secular government.

    It is the religiousphobic among us that are the reverse of that.

    key words (none / 0) (#1)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:23:31 PM EST
    "should try"

    let's see what they'll do with this softball.

    Wealthy (none / 0) (#4)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:45:42 PM EST

    So is a family of 6 in New York city with a $250,000 income before tax and $100,000 in student loans to pay off "wealthy"?

    The problem with silly polls like this one is that a very large part of what is being measures is the respondents understanding of the word "wealthy."

    Describing the family above as wealthy and describing Bill Gates as wealthy just means that word is too elastic to have any real meaning in this context.

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    Wealthy is a relative term.

    What percentage of Americans earn 250k/year and can get 100k for student loans? Less than 1%.

    FTR, I live in New York.


    What percentage? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 02:20:00 PM EST

    Is your point that as long as the percentage is small its OK to discriminate against them?  

    Racking up $100,000 in student loans between husband and wife in order to land jobs together totaling $250,000 is not far fetched by any means.

    Well BTD, you are a perfect example of why folks don't trust Dems to raise taxes only on the wealthy. You consider a family with per capita income before tax below $42,000 and living in a very high cost of living location as being wealthy, and right there in the same class as Bill Gates.  


    in the grand scheme of things (none / 0) (#8)
    by CST on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 12:55:11 PM EST
    they are doing more than fine.  There are a whole lot of people that live in NYC (yes even there) and make a whole lot less than that and are also doing just fine.

    They may not be wealthy in the way we have all come to associate with the Gates's - but I'm certainly not gonna cry for them if their taxes go up.


    But I will cry... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:11:56 PM EST
    if the DEA gets another budget increase next year thanks to the tax increase on the wealthy.  

    A clear concise explanation of why the fed needs more money would be nice...if not the cancellation of the occupations and the drug war as a good faith measure that times are indeed very tight.

    Nobody likes taxes for the sake of taxes...but if you spell it out clearly, like "we need 5 billion to feed old ladies" most people will come around and gladly cough it up.  But when you've got a federal spending list a mile long that causes actual harm to people, including taxpayers, don't be surprised when they balk and balk hard.  It's not necessarily selfishness and greed that cause people to reflexively oppose tax increases, there are very good reasons...and the sooner big government folks understand and address these reasons the sooner higher taxes will not be such a hot button.


    well if you think about it (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by CST on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    the political argument right now is that this is supposed to address the deficit.  So they are already spending the money, they just aren't taking it in.

    I guess what I'm saying is, a lot of the time, the budget seems to have no relation to how much money is being taken in.  If they want to spend it they will spend it.  This just means we end up owing less to the Chinese at the end of the day.


    Well said... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:28:27 PM EST
    the DEA is getting a budget increase even if we abolished the federal income tax...who am I kidding.

    But then people with views akin to mine are in the position of wishing for utter national bankruptcy to see the end of the damage being done by federal spending...if there gonna spend what they're gonna spend all willy-nilly regardless of receivables.  


    Have you come up with a plan... (none / 0) (#100)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 08:34:10 AM EST
    ...to tell the rest of America that you want to allow people in New York and San Francisco and other high-cost-of-living cities to pay lower tax rates...and be subsidized by rural and small-town America?

    One problem here may be the term "wealthy", because wealth is an accumulation that is not directly taxed and is not always income-related.  (I know a couple of farmers who are wealthy in terms of the value of land they own, but their incomes are below $30K/year.  That wealth does not translate to income for them.)

    But many people would not understand the question if the poll asked about taxing high-income earners....


    The numbers in the polls don't bear out (none / 0) (#21)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    the premise.

    Only the Rs go over 50% for keeping all in place.

    Even with the + of the +/-4 spread, the Ds only rise to 40% who say repeal the cuts for the wealthy.  In fact, the D is even larger for all cuts to expire.

    The poll is not a slam dunk for any position, much less one that is a "winner" as an election issue.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    You add up those saying let all be repealed with those saying repeal only for those under 250k, and you get a huge majority.

    Those who say let all stay in place--the Republican position--are a small minority.

    This is what is so frustrating with you conservatives--you would argue that the Sun rises in the East if it were against your position....

    The data here is clear--why argue with it?  Why not just say something like it is just one poll, or the opinion will change, or whatever--anything except deny the facts as presented....

    Facts are only useful tools when they support the conservative position; otherwise, discard or deny them....The Truth is learned on Sunday.


    argue that the Sun does NOT rise... (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:04:21 PM EST
    Directly from the linked article (none / 0) (#46)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 04:16:12 PM EST
    All respondents:

    Remain in place:  30%
    Repeal for wealthy:  27%
    Repeal for all:  31%
    No opinion:  12%

    The point is that not a single group (not subjectively adding groups together) does not break 50%

    The data does not indicate that all those who are in one repeal group automatically agree with the other repeal group.  Very simple logic concludes that there are people who are adamant about repealing for the wealthy but are just as adamant about retaining the cuts for the lower income levels.

    Your position supports the "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics" concept.


    Hopeless (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:46:46 PM EST
    Why would you expect any answer to break 50%?

    Especially when you do not have a binary, yes or or no question, but the ability to select from several responses....

    You do realize that all the answers were to one question and add up to 100%?

    Deliberately obtuse.....because the data does not support your position....

    You prove my point.....


    You are making a fool of yourself with (none / 0) (#50)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:57:04 PM EST
    that argument.

    There are many polls that have more than a binary response that result in a majority of one position over all others.  

    I see you decided to ignore the issue of your arbitrary combining of different groups without any factual basis to do so.  That is known as deflection in all accepted debates.

    The point, again is that if the Ds want to bank on repealing the tax cuts as a midterm issue, the numbers do not support a majority (aka greater than 50%).   If you believe that is a good strategy for your party - go for it.


    You toss off jargon (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    but make no sense.

    It is not arbitrary to combine the groups.....It is arbitrary not to.  Combining answers like this is done all the time by you folks on the abortion question.

    If one wants taxes raised on everyone, they would generally approve of raising them only on the rich.

    Raising taxes on everyone is the uber liberal position.  The more moderate position of raising them only on the rich should be an acceptable compromise.....

    Tell me how many people you think are so adamant about raising taxes on everyone that they would not agree to raising them only on the rich?  Would that be a conservative position?  No, of course not.  You conservatives learned that Bible says all taxes are bad.

    Who would want all taxes raised?  A liberal.  Why would such a liberal oppose raising taxes only on the rich?  Give me a scenario where that would occur.....

    You resort to name calling in your title--then resort to jargon to try to sound reasonable....Very dishonest.

    Just another Evangelical promoting Christian values of lower taxes for the rich.....


    The numbers in the poll do not support (none / 0) (#55)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:34:07 PM EST
    your position.  Go get the numbers then you will have a solid position from which to make your case.

    Combining the groups is completely arbitrary, sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

    All of your comments appear to be based on emotion and partisanship and are not supported with a rational view of the numbers presented.  All the "what ifs" are the same as IF a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt.

    As to "name calling", your Evangelical/Christian card has become very boorish and has zero impact with me.  



    Provide me with (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:41:27 PM EST
    the scenario where one would want all taxes raised but oppose raising them only on the rich....

    You have avoided answering this--fair enough, there really is no answer that will sound reasonable.

    It was you who self-identified as an Evangelical here on a progressive political blog.  It must carry some weight with you--with respect to your political arguments.

    You do not come here in good faith.  This much is clear now....


    It only takes a short journey (none / 0) (#59)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:52:25 PM EST
    through the left blogisphere to find many who want to specifically target the wealthy with, to quote "progressive" tax structures.  That focus on purely the wealthy tax increases while specifically exempting the lower levels categorically proves that the poll groups cannot be combined.  To argue any other position is an argument against progressive tax structures.

    Is that a clear enough explanation of my original point?  

    For the last time, your ad hominem religious based comments are completely out of line.


    No, it's the opposite issue (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:41:41 AM EST
    or maybe the converse, if we are to get fancy, of what you say.

    BTD is arguing about the support for an increase in the taxes of the rich only.  Would the people who support an INCREASE in taxes for EVERYONE also support a tax increase only on the rich?  That is the question.  

    I have asked you at least four times to provide me with the scenario where someone who wanted to raise taxes on everyone would oppose raising taxes only on the rich.  In our world--the real world, who would such a person be?  You have yet to answer.  Your latest answer talks about progressives favoring a progressive income tax and raising taxes only on the rich.  Sure.  Of course.  But that wasn't the issue.

    I have concluded you really don't get this.  Religious conservatives don't generally do well with inductive reasoning.  See my longer comment to jondee re deductive reasoning of the religious versus the inductive reasoning of scientists.


    "Zero impact with me" (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:47:29 PM EST
    Of course it does.  I would be shocked if it had any impact on you.

    I write hoping to have others read this, not so much you.  Your mind was made up long ago.


    For your position to make any sense (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:55:08 PM EST
    those who want the entire tax cut to expire are so adamant that they would not take half a loaf and agree to an expiration only for the rich?

    Really, you know people like that?  

    People who want the entire tax cut to expire agree with liberal economic philisophy--actually it is to the left of what the Democrats are proposing.....Ecnomic liberals would generally be happy with an expiration for the wealthy only too.

    There is no reason not to aggregate those wanting the entire tax cut gone with those who want to see it gone only for the rich.  None.


    Aahhh, a second thought perhaps? (none / 0) (#51)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 05:59:43 PM EST
    Again, you are arbitrarily and subjectively making assumptions on groups of people without any facts to back up the position.  Anecdotal would be your closest chance.


    There is no reason not to aggregate those wanting the entire tax cut gone with those who want to see it gone only for the rich.  None.

    Pure speculation and conjecture.


    Provide me one example (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:18:17 PM EST
    where that would occur.....Just one.  What kind of voter would that be?.....A very, very far left voter, no?

    This exchange is what I have been talking about.....You use facts and statistics as tools but do not honor or respect them as valid.  Thus, you can make illogical and cockamamie arguments like this one.  Because it is all a game....

    Again, your title on your post: "Second thoughts?"  A little taunt?  Trashtalking....See, it is a game to you.  You guys don't give two figs for facts or evidence or anything but your own dogma that you swallowed whole long ago...

    A reasonable conservative would concede the point.  The dogmatic Evangelical/Religious conservatives concede nothing.....


    Selective use of a very high burden (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 06:35:06 PM EST
    or proof.  Another standard cosnervative tactic.

    You are arguing because the poll itself does not aggregate the answers, there is no reason to do so.  I argue that it is reasonable to aggregate the answers.  You call this speculation.

    Where have I heard this before?  Theory of Evolution.  You see, Evangeicals argue, you don't have proof of every step in the evolutionary chain--there are gaps in the evidence.  So, the theory of Evolution is flawed.

    Accepting data also entails making reasonable assumptions.  

    But you demand iron-clad proof of each step--this is the conservative way of disgarding science and facts......Most liberals understand that with science and fact gathering, you are not going to get the dogmatic 100% certainty that you are used to on Sunday.  Hence, the belittling of science and studies that don't give you 100% certainty.

    In the meantime, society moves forward based on science and studies that, although less than 100% ironclade certain, have shown the way to greater inventions and progress.....

    If you hate modernity, demand a very burden of proof that throws out studies you do not like.....That way Sunday Sermons remain the only truth.  


    Majority still want to get see Bush taxes go away (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by marvc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:16:23 AM EST
    Yet they don't need no facts to believe in talking snakes and men walking on water? All that requires is just plain ol' faith. You only need facts to prove science and if even one piece is missing, then it all is wrong. Back to dead people coming back to life and boats taking two of each animal on board for forty days and forty nights... Jeeze, wonder how long those days were back then? Were they the same length as those six days it took to create the entire planet and everything on it? Or maybe time was different back then and that explains why some men lived 900 years before they died.

    The point of this discussion is actually very simple: only 30% of the people in the poll wanted to keep the Bush tax cuts unchanged. The other 70% wanted to see them go away, either for everyone or at least for the very rich. Kinda hard to twist that into any other kind of pretzel. The fact remains: most people don't won't to keep the taxes are they are right now.


    "pure speculation and conjecture" (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:09:39 PM EST
    or making logical connections between sets of closely related data; the way everyone does out in the real world everyday..

    It is funny though, to hear from evangelicals with no toleration for any degree of conjecture and speculation..:)


    Well said (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:29:51 AM EST
    You have said succinctly, clearly and elegantly said what I have been trying to say for awhile now.  Thanks for the clarification.

    I think that (many) conservatives have trouble with inductive reasoning.  They can do well (the brighter ones) with deductive reasoning if given the base assumptions to begin with.  Thus, conservatives can be given the key assumptions on Sunday and then mechanistically draw deductive conclusions on Monday through Friday. This is the "logic" of theologians.  But they cannot follow the inductive reasoning of science and are left unable to make "logical connections between related sets of data," as you so aptly put it.

    The inductive reasoning of progressives sees the world as it is and tries to improve it; the deductive reasoning of conservatives sees the world as it should be as told to them on Sunday, and then tries to impose that vision on everyone else.....

    Reductive and generalizing of course, and there would be exceptions.....But it does tend to explain a lot imo.  Call it the Unified Theory of Conservative Thought.  


    OR... (none / 0) (#89)
    by marvc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:07:15 AM EST
    Reducto ad absurdum!

    Everyone who disagrees with you (none / 0) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:55:02 AM EST
    is a Christian and a Conservative.

    What an interesting group of personal relationships you must have.


    Oh dear (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 11:50:28 AM EST
    A little "personal," isn't that comment?

    But not unexpected....


    Alas another (none / 0) (#61)
    by BTAL on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:29:53 PM EST

    Guess I was mistaken that those here could debate politics in a mature manner.


    I dont see much (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:46:58 PM EST
    INTELLECTUALLY mature - or intellectually honest - about characterizing as "pure speculation" the perception of a logical connection between a group that wants to repeal all tax cuts and a group that wants to repeal tax cuts for the wealthy.

    The point about (some) Evangelicals was that they practice an almost complete and utter acceptance of conjecture and speculation in one realm while claiming to have absolute, zero tolerance for it in some others. Something of a paradox, no?  


    It always amazes me to read (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:00:23 PM EST
    a non-Christian telling us what Christians believe.

    Try this.

    Salvation is a matter of belief and faith. It does not claim to be scientific or "provable."

    You may choose to not believe. Christians may choose to not believe that the theory of evolution proves that any NEW species has evolved. (Evolution within species is obvious.)

    They may even.... "gasp"..... demand that some theories be identified as theories when taught to their children...

    (What a concept. Parents having a say in what their children are taught. Who could possibly want that?) Sarcasm alert.

    And since the Church Police has not issued a warrant for your arrest I don't see why you demonstrate a phobic response to Christianity yet ignore the problems presented by radical Muslims.


    What happened to "faith (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 08:47:33 PM EST
    without works is dead"? I know, I know,.. just as long as it isn't works by bleeding heart liberals, treehuggers, peace creeps and socialistic Democrats..

    Also, there's some stuff in that Sermon on the Mount that would seem to back up the not-just-faith-and-belief theory of salvation. And Im not talking about the part where he says "Blessed are the Regime Changers"..


    You can have all the good works (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:04:41 PM EST
    but with out faith there is no salvation.

    that "works" (none / 0) (#74)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:18:01 PM EST
    thing was probably an after thought, inserted after the fact by the tenured radicals of the second century. Best not to place too much emphasis on it.

    Actually James (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:53:12 PM EST
    was the half brother of Jesus and his letter was to fellow Jews instructing them to be charitable, among other things, as a demonstration of true faith.


    But no place does he tell them to let the Bush tax cuts expire.

    So the question of amount of "work" remains.

    You should also read James 3:8 "But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison."


    I can tell you (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    that if it hadn't been so "unruly" the wife and I might've gone our separate ways a long time ago..

    Btw, that was James with the freckles? The way I  always heard it was that he was "almost like" a brother to Jesus. And quite the lady's man they say. And speaking of spiritually relevant trivia, I think you're right; as a matter of fact, I believe it says somewhere in II Timothy something about "woe unto those who letteth expire the Bush tax cuts..for they will be smitten with boils..and inner city subsidized housing will be their dwelling places" or similar words to that effect. We all know the G*d of Israel smileth down upon the works of Bush and calleth them pleasing unto him..    


    Ha! (none / 0) (#86)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:44:09 AM EST
    Unruly tongue.......

    Snort!  See, I knew it would be worth to read through these posts tonight.


    The key term isn't "theories" (none / 0) (#73)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:14:04 PM EST
    it's SCIENTIFIC theories, and if you're claiming that because the fossil record isn't 100% complete, that it means that creationism is automatically as valid a scientific theory as the evolution of species, this is like saying a divine intervention theory of history is as valid a model for historical scholarship as traditional historical scholarship because there are gaps in our knowledge of the distant past..

    I think you folks have the same neurosis as the jihadists, thier's is just a little more advanced down the same road.



    theory means that it has not been proven (none / 0) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 09:57:33 PM EST
    And no, I do not, as I have stated before, believe in "creationism."

    Simply put, God created everything. He did it in 6 days. What we don't know is the length of His days.

    And I think you over estimate your capabilities.


    creationism (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:22:37 PM EST
    being the more theological version of "God created everything in six days"?

    And, since you're pressing me, I shouldn't, but for what it's worth I can tell you that it all took exactly 6,473 years and 11 months and 4 days, reaching completion at approx 10 am on a breezy, slightly overcast Tuesday morning in late March.


    I will let you be the expert. (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:47:30 AM EST
    I haven't the vaguest of the details of creationism or the number of "years" in our time.

    Perhaps you will channel me after you have had a closer look at things.


    Haven't the vaguest (none / 0) (#101)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:12:19 AM EST
    of details..

    I don't know, "God created everything in exactly six days" sounds pretty unequivocal and straight forward to me.

    He also, in his all-seeing benevolence, added the special feature of allowing you, Roger Ailes and Exxon the power to suspend at will the laws of chemical reaction in the atmosphere.

    This miracle is nothing to be questioned; it's a mystery that passeth all understanding.  


    as is (none / 0) (#81)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 10:34:19 PM EST
    GRAVITY a theory.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#88)
    by marvc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:04:31 AM EST
    Damn! You beat me to it!  People who don't believe in science don't understand the definition of the word "theory" as it applies to scientific investigation. Maybe in Creationist world gravity doesn't exist either, since after all, it is just a theory. Right? And all those other religions created by thousands of other civilizations throughout the history of mankind were all wrong, of course, cuz only the Jesus story is the real one!

    I sure do like that Earth and the Universe thing taking only six days to happen, too. Maybe when they say it's all about how you define a "day" they mean each day is about 3/4 of a billion years long, so it took only a little over 4 billion years to create the Earth, or in other words, six days. How long did it take to create all the rest of the universe other than our solar system? Or did that just sorta appear after all that darkness became light thingie? Wackos! Luddites! No wonder you guys don't like progress. It really upsets the apple cart to realize your primary belief system is, after all, just another man-made myth that will someday go the same way that Jupiter, Aphrodite, Apollo, Mercury, Mars, and Quetzlecoatle did. The dust bin of history as science marches inevitably forward.


    Faith is sometimes described as (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 07:18:15 AM EST
    believing in something that cannot be proven.

    I would say that you are as much a "faither" as Jerry Falwell ever was because you apparently believe in all kinds of scientific theories that cannot be proven.

    In the sciences, a scientific theory (also called an empirical theory) comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.[1]

    A scientific theory is a type of deductive theory, in that its content (i.e. empirical data) could be expressed within some formal system of logic whose elementary rules (i.e. scientific laws) are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[2]

    Echoing the scientific philosopher Karl Popper, Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory." The "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories is a necessary consequence of using inductive logic.

    And to specifics:

    The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable

    Kinda puts the skids to "man made global warming" as a scientific theory, eh? Of course believers accept it on faith.



    In other words (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:34:15 AM EST
    making the huge unscientific leap required to claim that gases which trap heat under artificial conditions would do the same in the atmosphere, puts you in the same category as circuit riding shysters who claim 9/11 was God's punishment for America's toleration of gays and unbelievers.

    Of course if that were really the case, you probably wouldn't have spent so much energy wildly flailing away attacking the research of climate scientists; since they're nothing more than men of faith like Jerry Falwell.  


    No gravity is a demonstratable fact (none / 0) (#95)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 06:50:00 AM EST
    Kindly jump off the nearest tall building for verification.

    Your misunderstanding (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 12:32:20 AM EST
    of Christianity makes you blind to certain realities.....

    Yes I do (none / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:47:11 PM EST
    Really, you know people like that?

    A bunch of them just big meeting and played the blame each other game.


    KISS (none / 0) (#65)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 07:50:21 PM EST
    jeez, this isn't hard.  Put together, those that support repeal is 58% versus those who want the status quo.

    Those that support repeal of taxes don't agree with those that support repeal of taxes. Ow.


    Funny, I heard Newt Gingrich (none / 0) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    on Fox last night bellowing that 70 percent of the public is opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire.  Maybe he thinks saying this stuff will make it true?

    The slimey pond dweller (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jondee on Tue Jul 27, 2010 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    proved a long time ago he has no problem whatsoever with outright, baldfaced lies in the service of his higher cause.

    These people have chutzpah, I'll give 'em that..But then, so do sociopaths.


    please be polite (none / 0) (#90)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:15:36 AM EST
    and don't use profanity. I just deleted one of your other comments.

    Some people just can't be convinced (none / 0) (#92)
    by marvc on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 01:24:31 AM EST
    The Millerites really believed Jesus was coming back to collect the faithful in the 1830s, too. They believed it so much, they sold all their possessions, put on white robes, and stood on hilltops or roofs and waited, and waited, and waited, and... Oh yeah, the world did not end, Jesus did not come, and they were just simply wrong. So they tried again a few months later, and guess what, got the same result. Kinda like the Creationists today who think if they just believe hard enough, evolution won't be true and they will eventually take over the world just in time for that rapture thingie. Think I'll keep my car and my house and keep moving into the future,

    Meanwhile, in the (none / 0) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 03:42:37 AM EST
    "why didn't I think of that?" department:

    "Left Behind" has sold about 60 million copies, and those "true believer" authors even had the good sense (G*d spoke to them) to make it into a mini-series; 16 segments so far, I think.

    Damn!! as in green with envy.

    p.s. Need a ruling; is the above word considered profanity here?