Pages

Thursday, August 23, 2012

Republicans Out of Touch on Taxes


The Republican candidates keep on beating a horse that died along ago; that horse being, let’s lower taxes for the rich from 35% to 25%. Who on earth, aside from the filthy rich buys that baloney? I did a little research.

A CNN poll last year had 63% saying the “super committee” should  increase taxes on higher-income Americans and businesses. Two thirds want no major changes in Social Security and Medicare. They somewhat split on military spending.


The Wall Street Journal/NBC new poll said that 81% of Americans think it is a good idea to increase taxes on incomes of more than $1 million a year.

Another Gallup Poll had 62% wanting higher taxes on the wealthy and 72% wanting changes in the tax code to increase taxes on those making over a million a year.

Then you have the Hill Poll who says 3/4s of the people want lower taxes for the wealthy. I wonder who they polled? FOX news has the public for a 30% tax rate for the rich; of course, they show no bias.

A CBS Poll say 64% of Americans want mare taxes on rich folk. They also like the Buffet Rule.

Bruce Bartlett used to be a supply side economics dude compiled a list of polls that say the rich should pay the fair share. He has written 7 books  included the NY Times best seller, Imposter: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. His latest book The New American Economy: the Failure of Reaganomics and a New Way Forward. He say there are about 20 polls the show the public want higher taxes on the wealthy and that taxes should just be raised period.

The list of polls compiled by Barlett is below. We recommend you go to his site to view the supporting links, all provided in his posts, as well as the full details, as we don't want to take away from his site. This list ends in early June, but it is doubtful that any serious changes would have occurred since then. In fact, there was another poll just two days ago that said the same thing. Nearly 80 percent of voters in the four states backed the idea
Main Street wants the rich to pay their fair share.
June 9: Washington Post/ABC News poll: 61 percent of people believe higher taxes will be necessary to reduce the deficit.
June 7: Pew Research: strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations.
May 26: Lake Research poll of Colorado voters: 44 - 25 percent support higher taxes on the rich to help Social Security.
May 13: Bloomberg poll said two thirds of people believe reducing the budget deficit will require higher taxes
May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll: three-fifths would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit.
May 4: Quinnipiac poll found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin.
April 29: Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of people believe the budget deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending; 76 percent say that higher taxes must play a role.
April 25: USC/Los Angeles Times poll of Californians found that by about a 2-to-1 margin voters favor raising taxes to deal with the state’s budget problems over cutting spending alone.
April 22: New York Times/CBS News poll found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. It also found that 66 percent of people believe tax increases will be necessary to reduce the deficit.
April 20: Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and it is far and away the most popular deficit reduction measure.
April 20: Public Religion Research Institute poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, people believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class. Also, 62 percent of people believe that growing inequality of wealth is a serious problem.
April 18: McClatchy-Marist poll found that voters support higher taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit by a 2-to-1 margin, including 45 percent of self-identified Tea Party members.
April 18: Gallup poll found that 67 percent of people do not believe that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and 59 percent believe that the rich do not pay their fair share.
April 1: Tulchin Research released a poll showing that voters in California overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich to deal with the state’s budgetary problems.
March 15: ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 31 percent of voters support the Republican policy of only cutting spending to reduce the deficit; 64 percent believe higher taxes will also be necessary.
March 2: NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit, and 68 percent would support eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000.
February 15: a CBS News poll found a majority of Americans with incomes of $100,000 or more expect it will be necessary for them to pay higher taxes in order to lower the deficit.
:January 20: CBS News/New York Times poll, two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare. The poll also found that if taxes must be raised, 33 percent would favor a national sales tax, 32 percent would support restricting the mortgage interest deduction, 12 percent would raise the gasoline taxes, and 10 percent would tax health care benefits.
January 3: a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that 61 percent of people would rather raise taxes on the rich to balance the budget than cut defense, Social Security or Medicare.
If the big money can sell lower taxes for the rich to the public by getting Republicans elected and to be proof positive that we live in an oligarchy.

I thought I'd add this from Robert Reich to further demonstrate the Republicans being out of touch.


The Fanatical GOP


TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 2012
We’re witnessing the capture by fanatics of what was once a great and important American political party. 
The Republican Party platform committee now includes a provision calling for a constitutional amendment banning all abortions, without an exception for rape or incest. This is basically Missouri senatorial candidate Todd Akin’s position. (At least the GOP platform doesn’t assert that women’s bodies automatically reject “legitimate” rapists’ sperm.)
Paul Ryan, Romney’s selection for vice president, has co-sponsored 38 anti-abortion measures while in the House of Representatives, including several containing no exception for pregnancies caused by rape or incest.

But the GOP’s fanaticism goes far beyond the its growing absolutism about abortion.
Ryan’s proposed budget, approved by almost all House Republicans, is also an exercise in fanaticism. It replaces Medicare with vouchers that won’t possibly keep up with rising healthcare costs — thereby shifting costs directly on to the elderly. 
That budget also harms the poor and rewards the rich, but does little or nothing to reduce the federal budget deficit. Over 60 percent of its spending cuts come out of programs for lower-income Americans. Its tax cuts for the rich reduce revenues by $4.6 trillion over the decade while saving the typical millionaire hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

The GOP’s looniness doesn’t even stop there. Republicans remain unwaivering in their support of state laws allowing or encouraging the profiling of Latinos. And unrelenting in their war against gay rights. 
It’s not just women, seniors, budget hawks, the poor, Latinos, and gays who are catching on to the Republicans’ extremism. Americans who don’t fall into one of these categories are becoming alarmed, too — as they should.

Although the GOP lurch to the right-wing margin of America may bode well for Democrats this coming Election Day, it bodes ill for America. The capture of one of our great parties by fanatics is nothing to celebrate. A democracy needs at least two sane political parties.

13 comments:

  1. It's not that they're out of touch per se -- they know they have the minority opinion. This is why they want more and more regulations, red tape and restrictions on voting and voter registration, more restricted voting hours in democratic districts, voter purges, etc. -- all under the guise of an imagined epidemic of voter-impersonation supposedly sweeping the nation.

    If you can establish a de facto one-party system, suddenly public opinion doesn't matter anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Voter fraud is real, with bad names clogging the voter rolls. Senator Franken was in fact put in office by a narrow margin which included hundreds of fraudulent "voters" who put him over the top.

    As for the polls showing people generally in favor of more overtaxation, I can find several showing the people (on average) opposed to it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Describe your basis for claiming Franken was elected by persons impersonating eligible voters. Cite objective, verifiable non-partisan sources. Wishing something were true doesn't make it so.

      Delete
  3. Voter suppression is real; ask iowa , florida , pennsylvania ,etc. Vote fraud is minimal, compared to the huge numbers of legitimate citizens that
    cannot meet the new requirements; citizens denied their
    rights in the same old retread politics of suppressing the legitimate vote. It
    may work, billions in anonymous $$$ may work, stacking
    SCOTUS with partisans may work. ...and we will know why.


    ReplyDelete
  4. SCOTUS? I don't care what party they are, as long as they take their oaths seriously and protect our rights.

    As for so-called 'voter suppression', what you are referring to (such as the one who had her ID stolen in her purse) are merely minor problems that need to be addressed during efforts to get rid of voter fraud. Not a reason to throw our hands up in the air and abandon efforts to stop this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 'voter suppression' is thought to affect millions of legitimate citizens. "prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting."
    "There are "very few documented cases," said UC-Irvine professor and election law specialist Rick Hasen. "When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can't prevent," he said."
    "According to the Brennan Center, about 11 percent of U.S. citizens, or roughly 21 million citizens, don't have government-issued photo ID."
    "NYU's Brennan Center for Justice cites primarily big Republican gains in the 2010 midterms which turned voter ID laws into a "major legislative priority." Aside from Rhode Island, all voter ID legislation has been introduced by Republican-majority legislatures.

    News21 also has this report on the close affiliation between the bills’ sponsors and the conservative nonprofit group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

    Republican figures have championed such laws. For instance, Mike Turzai, majority leader of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, recently praised the state's legislative accomplishments at a Republican State Committee meeting last month. "Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done," he said.
    source
    I would think the possibility of fake photo IDs (heck, get 'em from those teens in the bars) would negate the
    movement. Proponents may worry about the 90 year old lady that has voted for the last 70 years in the same place, but I worry about who, what and how the votes are counted (thinking of the lady in Wisconsin who miraculously came up
    with 11,000 votes on her home computer to reverse a judicial election). Want to stop the 'problem'..national
    ID cards, issued to every citizen (if you can stand the heat from the ACLU and the libertarians)..perhaps the dreaded Orwellian microchip..if this fraud is so widespread?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And as for Mike Turzai, he clearly believes that election fraud would help Obama (as it would in the case of allowing illegal aliens to stay on the voter rolls, for sure), and that getting rid of the bogus votes and protecting real voters would benefit Romney in a 'swing state'.

      Delete
  6. Just reasonable efforts to reduce the fraudulent votes. A bunch of people should be in prison for the ACORN voter fraud scandal, in which they registered a bunch of fake names. They higher ups had the ones lower down fall on their swords.

    And this problem with "very few documented cases" has in recent years put a US Senator in office (Al Franken's victory due to fraud with hundreds of votes).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9% of US citizens in Pennsylvania have no gov't
      photo ID. Thinking such to be readily available,
      I with this
      and made myself a virtual citizen of the Penn town of DuBois. I found 72 PennDOT photo ID centers, but no map showing them. I found that
      I could not pay with cash or check, but would need a money order or check. I could not find the price. As much as I enjoy e-surf research,
      I grew frustrated and bored after an hour...
      and decided not to vote. Turzai wins, I lose.
      I, and 9% of Pennsylvania elderly. There will be no fraud (except that perpetrated by the GOP in
      disenfranchising legitimate voters) (a whole lot
      of them) (I'm old, but at least I can still drive
      for hundreds of miles looking for one of those
      Pennsylvania places with my blank money order...
      thousands are too old to do it..perhaps they can
      use their walkers in a search. (Unless in the name of winning elections, Turzai kicks their walkers out from under them). Did I mention that i have strong feelings on this issue?

      Delete
    2. Since the bogeyman of ACORN has been raised it must be laid to rest here. That wasn't voter fraud. It was registering fake names like 'Mickey Mouse' to goose their stats. Bad, yes, but not voter impersonation. We're talking about voter impersonation as the big threat here.

      You keep bringing up the election of Franken as a supposed example of voter impersonation while offering no evidence other than your wish that it were true.

      Delete
  7. People alleging voter impersonation also need to find a motive. You're talking about risking tens of thousands of dollars in fines and decades of jail time for each and every offense to attain... a single incremental extra vote for the perpetrator, infinitely unlikely to affect an actual electoral outcome?

    The risk-reward formula for that is seriously out of whack, entailing high personal risks and highly labor-intensive, time-intensive effort for no return.

    What makes more sense for a would-be vote spoofer is hacking the vote through those unauditable voting machines -- which is much easier, much higher return (thousands or tens of thousands of fraudulent votes for a perp's effort instead of one single vote), and, of course, immune to voter ID laws being proposed and passed everywhere.

    THAT's what they'd focus on if the intent were REALLY to improve the integrity of elections. But that's not the aim here. The goal here is to disenfranchise eligible, legal voters -- to put as much bureaucracy and red tape between the people and the right to vote as is legally possible. This is just the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. " You're talking about risking tens of thousands of dollars in fines and decades of jail time for each and every offense to attain"

    We had someone in my area vote in two different counties in a recent Presidential election. Nothing happened to him, let alone what you describe.

    " But that's not the aim here. The goal here is to disenfranchise eligible, legal voters"

    Not at all, That is why I support the efforts. Because the illegal aliens, ACORN-packed Mickey Mouse names, and the dead are not eligible, legal voters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ..nor are hundreds of thousands of folks who have been registered voters for years that have been found to have no state-mandated photographic ID. For every guy that voted twice,
      there are now dozens of WWII vets, thousands of
      old widows who have voted in every election since
      Truman, home-bound confused and no doubt unable to vote. The folks that want to shrink the government sure want to use it to hound legitimate citizens...using a shotgun to kill a
      gnat.

      Delete