(Reuters) – Most Americans think the United States should raise taxes for the rich to balance the budget, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll released on Monday.
President Barack Obama last month signed into law a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millions of Americans, including the wealthiest, in a compromise with Republicans.
Republicans, who this week take control of the House of Representatives, want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts “permanently” for the middle class and wealthier Americans. They are also demanding spending cuts to curb the $1.3 trillion deficit.
Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed. The next most popular way — chosen by 20 percent — was to cut defense spending.
http://www.reuters.com/article…
People are finally in enough pain that they’re thinking concretely (“take it from them, dammit, I don’t have any left!”) rather than abstractly (“Rush told me that taxation of anyone is Socialism!”).
I suspect there will be a major paradigm shift soon, as there was in the early 1930s, as people finally realize that the current paradigm is crushing them like an egg under a steamroller. This shift might or might not be good, hopefully we end up with FDR and not Hitler. I suppose that it’s up to each of us to push it in the right direction.
(as is so often the case regarding disconnect between issue agreement and voting habits)
<
p>Why did they not vote that way two months ago?
The same interests that hold nearly all of the nation’s wealth also own the technology that manipulates our opinion — the mass media and the culture it creates. B.F. Skinner asked a very provocative question decades ago in “Beyond Freedom and Dignity“: What does “freedom” for an individual mean when external agents control a technology for manipulating the desires of that individual? By the way, I profoundly disagree with the “answer” that Dr. Skinner put forward.
<
p>The optimal opinion split for maximum revenue generation from privately-owned advertising-driven mass media is 50/50. The opinion split between the GOP and the Democrats has been almost exactly 50/50 since the 2000 election.
<
p>I suggest that owners of our mass media and the advertisers that control it have worked very hard to accomplish this impressive feat. The question, now, is what we do to change that unfortunate reality.
…wouldn’t the people also have and express those opinions? Your answer would work if the people believed things that aren’t true, but this poll seems to indicate people know what they want, but won’t vote accordingly.
The evidence is that voters do, in fact, believe a great many things that are not true.
…but this particular poll isn’t it.
The Dems wimped out. They should have scheduled the tax extension vote in September.
<
p>First, vote for a tax cut extension for those making under $100k. Then $250k. Then the rest. Three separate clean votes in the House. Force everybody on record for who supports the middle class and who supports (the middle class and the rich). Then, for kicks, throw in an additional tax on the mega-income earners — a new higher bracket for those who make over $1M a year or whatever.
<
p>The problem is that the Democrats didn’t take the popular position. They simply didn’t take a position.
In decreasing importance:
<
p>1. Most importantly, they hate to think hard.
<
p>2. They are increasingly angry at the status quo.
<
p>3. They believe in pretty much all Liberal policies (but they hate the word “Liberal” – see 1. above).
<
p>In the election, 1. and 2. triumphed.
a. “tax someone else” to fix it
<
p>and give me my pork
<
p>I mean, who wouldnt believe in free everything, for everyone, paid for by someone else?
<
p>Then we grow up.
is far too complex for the average man. Only really smart people could believe something so stupid.
Then why don’t the American people hate professional sports – with its high draft picks for losing teams, taxing successful franchises, and restricting the player’s right to choose his own team?
<
p>Maybe because they know that without those things, a couple of franchises would quickly dominate everyone and it would suck to watch because there was no chance of ever winning? The owners have figured this out — the NFL — arguably the most socialistic of the 4 major sports — is the most successful.
<
p>Why can’t people see the parallel between the economy of sports and the economy of life?
not “equal results”!
Conservatives are not about “equal opportunities”. Not even the smallest bit.
<
p>If they were, they would support a very high estate tax, to prevent children of success from starting out way, way ahead of everyone else.
<
p>If they were, they would support public education that is the same for everyone — they would not send their kids to private schools, and would not support community-based segregation.
<
p>If they were, they would support free college education — get in, and it’s paid for, no matter your family’s background.
<
p>If they were, they would support single-payer health care, everyone gets the same service, and therefore no one is encumbered by illnesses that only some can pay to treat.
<
p>No, conservatives are all about “unequal opportunities”. They believe that a person’s worth is measured by the amount of money they have, and that money should dictate what opportunities people have, and what opportunities they should be able to give their children.
Two people who are completely equal… one of them better him/herself by working harder in school… and as a result gets a better job than the other. At this point, they are no longer equal. Now the person making more money with the better job may go on to get even more “unequal” and THAT is the reward for doing better than the other person. I have no problem with this story because they had an equal opportunity, no impingements on either party. The “better off” person will have more to give their kids, can send them to better schools and yes provide all sorts of other “better” things because of their efforts, risks and luck. I do not want to handicap that “better off” person in an attempt to cause “equal results”.
The first person lives in a better school district, has more committed parents, and ultimately is in the right place at the right time. You still assume that hard work is the answer to every thing. How is it then that yours truly has been near the top of his class, is an Eagle Scout, and has a masters degree, but has been chronically underemployed. It’s fine to take advantage of opportunity and get ahead, but those people should turn around and make sure that others have the opportunity.
<
p>Also your equal results complaint is another one of those straw men you’re so good at putting up. Nobody is arguing that everyone is or should be equal in every result. Nobody has said that everyone should have the same college degree just cause. Nobody has said there should be a standard salary regardless of what the job is. We HAVE advocated giving every person basic services, such as education and health, so that they CAN get to work advancing themselves.
equal opportunity n. a right supposedly guaranteed by both federal and many state laws against any discrimination in employment, education, housing or credit rights due to a person’s race, color, sex (or sometimes sexual orientation), religion, national origin, age or handicap.
<
p>Some of us will enjoy the benefits of good parents, good family members, good role models, more money, better looks, much better genes, better guidance, better housing, better vacations… but that’s life. Should I complain and somehow get compensation since I’m not as good looking as “fill in your blank”? Should I be able to compete in professional golf teeing off from the ladies tees since I don’t have the genes of professional golfers?
<
p>Equal opportunity means not being denied an “opportunity” because of “who I am”, “who my father was/wasn’t” , “what color my skin is…”
<
p>Equal results is a fool’s road to mediocrity. Many of our public schools still suffer from this goal by holding back the overachievers to “help out” the underachievers resulting in a system which ranks poorly in a very competitive world.
But one must acknowledge that there ain’t no bright line, which makes achieving “equal opportunity” complex and difficult.
give me my pork and pay for it with tax cuts, which is the Republican approach.
An enormous portion of federal spending is pork for defense contractors and the industries that support them.
<
p>I’m glad to hear that you support slashing such pork.
<
p>The total federal spending for FY2011, according the White House, is slated to be about $3.8 T. The FY2011 totals for all defense-related categories are about $1.1-1.4 T. So the US government spends 28.9-36.8% of its total expenditures on defense and defense-related categories — about one third of total federal spending.
<
p>This is far and away the largest spending category in the federal budget. It is therefore the starting point for any serious effort to cut “pork”.
Although, I don’t all it pork. But yes, we need to stop spending money on things because “we always have”. Let’s take our soldiers home from Germany, Japan… let’s stop sending Foreign Aid to countries all over the world. People justify that we should help developing countries but nobody seems to understand we are borrowing the money from China to send to all these countries. let them borrow their own money for Christ’s sake. We should “slash”, not cut defense.
<
p>And let’s also stop dismissing “any” cuts in spending as “insignificant”. Every so often someone will propose cutting program “X” and the response it “that will only save $45 million and only represents 0.0003 of the budget…” SO WHAT? If we are spending $100,000 needlessly then we should stop spending it, no matter how small it.
that give me my pork and [pay for it with a bond issue/pay for it by taxing somebody else] is marginally better, in that at least the arithmetic works
I think your statement that Americans hate to think hard is wrong.
<
p>I have found in designing our budget and tax policy trainings, they are hungry for ways to understand complicated, complex policy materials in plain language. Especially when the policy negatively affects their families and their communities. They want to fix it. Fast.
<
p>Here’s some sample stuff from ONE Mass and Mass Budget and Policy Center
<
p>We are rewarded when we witness many “AHAH! moments” and even more rewarded when we see our newly informed activists go on to advocate with their elected officials for progressive tax and budget policies with confidence.
A number of years ago I took a course on Hindu theology, and we were taught that all people primarily seek three things: knowledge, consciousness, and bliss. As far as I can tell, that claim seems to be accurate – people love to learn new things.
<
p>On the other hand, people almost go out of their way to avoid thinking through problems and have no problem with holding mutually-impossible beliefs (such as hating the size of government but not wanting to cut any specific program). Maybe they like to learn, but don’t like to think.
<
p>In any case, thanks for your work!
…but only a certain kind of person, already predisposed to really want to understand something, attends budget and tax policy trainings.
who are already community and neighborhood activists are the ones already predisposed to attend our trainings through their community organization. Correct.
<
p>They are the ones we want because they are already experienced in advocating with their local and state policy makers about ways to improve their schools, or their water systems, or their roads and bridges, or their homeless.
<
p>And they are the ones who NOT incidentally have the most power and access to their local policy makers.
I’m going to pull away for politics for a second and delve into the subject of… light beer. OK, that’s going to be painful for many of us, myself included, but please bare with me.
<
p>Suppose Company A came out with a new advertising campaign for their light beer, and just suppose that it was based on a simple slogan: “Tastes Great, Less Filling”. As a result, their beer sales increase.
<
p>Company B is losing market share as a result. Someone at Company B, who thinks a lot like a progressive/Democrat, shakes his head in wonder. Blind taste tests show that our beer is preferred over Company A’s beer, and ours actually has fewer calories. If only we could get people to think, they’d see the light (pun intended) and choose our beer.
<
p>So this fellow puts together a campaign that is heavy on data showing how test subjects prefer Company B light beer and charts showing the Calorie comparison between their product and the competition. Commercials are filmed that look like a PowerPoint presentation at a company meeting. And… people still keep buying Company A light beer.
<
p>Beer companies don’t do this because they know better. Instead, they come up with a campaign that pushes their brand, something that will resonate with the light beer drinker so that when the decision comes to select a beer, they’ll pick Company B.
<
p>Selling beer is different than selling progressive politics, but they both are aimed at the same human brains. And until our “sell” efforts take into account how humans actually process information, we’ll get outsold by our competition, asking ourselves, “If they like our positions, why did they vote for them?”
<
p>George Lakoff’s explanation is that we’re stuck in the centuries-old theory of a rational brain – the Old Enlightenment, he calls it. If we could just get them to think. Totally ignoring all of the research since then as to how the brain really works.
<
p>If the Republicans can do it, if advertising and marketing professionals can do it, why can’t we?
…but there are products that advertise their nutritional virtues and/or the fact they prevailed on a blind taste test. I don’t know what the research shows on how successful such ad campaigns are.
<
p>Maybe, our leaders don’t “want” us to be able to think. People are very busy in their lives working, taking care of their kids, their homes (and golfing, going to Disney…). We have politicians who write 2,800 page bills like HCR and even they don’t read the bills before they vote on them. How exactly is Joe Sixpack suppose to “think hard” about something as complicated, convoluted and bewildering as HCR? Maybe during the 1930s-1970s, constituents could rely on their politicians to handle this “complex” world but today people don’t trust their leaders, nor should they. They have poisoned the people’s trust with so many scandalous stories of kickbacks, inside deals, hidden jewels and outright lies. We have things like the Stimulus Bill which has just as many “experts” on one side saying the bill was a success as their are experts saying it was a failure. So when Joe Sixpack, proudly displaying his GED on the wall, listens to two Economists telling him why something is great and is a disaster on a talking head show, how is he suppose to “think hard”? What news source show he be pursuing in between his 7:00am-6:00pm commute/work/commute… drop the kids at gymnastics… snow blow the driveway… put the kids in bed and spend 10 minutes with his wife/husband before passing out.
<
p>My take… our leaders don’t make it easy to understand things and our leaders have lost their ability for us to trust them at their word.
<
p>
<
p>No, they are angry because our leaders can’t get things done. Our leaders have ZERO sense of urgency. The remind me of Union leaders negotiating a contract while the rank and file are striking. the union leaders are taking their time because they get paid during the strike while the workers walk the line getting nothing. Our pols have huge issues to deal with and yet they take their winter/summer/spring/holiday breaks like everything is just fine. We’ve had 2 years to get “shovel ready projects” shovel reasy, but noting is happening and people gets impatient.
<
p>
<
p>Not buying this at all. The country continues to be a right leaning country and it just leaned “our” direction in a big way. The whole Liberal/Conservative thing gets hazy since I think we agree on certain major issues but disagree on the margins. Can you give me examples of how the masses agree with “Liberal policies”?
I agree wholeheartedly with many that the majority of American people are essentially left-leaning and agree with most “Liberal policies.” They just don’t know it.
<
p>First, it is a fact that about 40% of American voters self-identify themselves as conservatives, about 40% as moderates and only about 20% as liberals.
<
p>BUT, they support the following “liberal policies” anyway:
<
p>1. Tax Policy: While virtually everyone would prefer lower taxes (in an ideal world), only about 25% of Americans supported extending the Bush Tax cuts for those >$250,000. (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024494-503544.html) More generally, about 50% of Americans think they pay about the right amount in taxes considering what they get from the federal government, compared to about 40% who think they pay more than their fair share. Very few people (about 3%) will admit that they pay less than their “fair share.” (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1700.
<
p>2. “Spreading the wealth”: This is the big one, I think. It ranges but about 60-70% favor “additional government assistance to the poor. Only about 35-30% are opposed to increasing aid, with even fewer supporting cuts to government assistance. (See: http://people-press.org/report…
<
p>3. On a wide range of other more detailed policy questions, in 2010 surveys, the majority of Americans hold the “liberal” viewpoint. (http://people-press.org/reports/?year=2010) About 60% favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. A slight majority either support or have no opinion on same sex marriage. About two-thirds support a “path to citizenship” (amnesty!) for undocumented immigrants. A huge margin (80%+) favor stronger environmental laws and regulations. (See:
http://people-press.org/report…
<
p>4. Finally, abortion: Americans are split about 50/50 “pro-life” verses “pro-choice.” HOWEVER, only about 20% think it should be always illegal, a slightly smaller percentage than those who think it should be always legal. The majority are closer to the “liberal” pro-choice position. (See: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157…
Healthcare. The war in Iraq. Ending tax cuts for the rich. Wall Street reform.
On the right, the Nuke a Gay Terrorist for Jesus Party
<
p>On the left, the We Want Free Stuff Party.
<
p>Plow your streets, Bloomberg, your country needs you
The wealthiest Americans paid federal taxes at 2x-3x the rate they do now. Working Americans paid at half the rate they currently do.
<
p>The economy was booming, and median real wages increased yearly. A family could live a middle class lifestyle on a single typical income, and retire without fear. Usury was illegal, and banks were not allowed to take wild chances with our savings.
<
p>Other countries still have this structure, and they’re doing fine.
<
p>I’m not sure why this translates into We Want Free Stuff.
and pay extra taxes, at least 2 or 3 times as much as you do now.
<
p>That would get us part of the way, anyway.
And further cut taxes on the wealthiest. I think it’s part of that trickle-down hypothesis of yours.
<
p>We’ve been doing that for 30 years, and most of us think it hasn’t worked out well. But you can take heart that our president and most of Congress agrees with you.
<
p>1980 versus 2010. Are you better off now, than in 1980? You.
Those lower rates on the rich aged you, no doubt. Shame. Damn those rich.
it’s about balance in the economy, we had it and now we are off course, we need to balance it. It’s pretty simple.
So, it’s nothing to do with the rich. It’s because we’re off-balance.
<
p>But the question I asked is this: Are you better off now, than 30 years ago?
<
p>Faster computers, personal computers and devices, internet, better cars and roads and rails, cheaper air transport, better schools and more educated population, more home ownership.
<
p>Yet, there’s a graph that shows imbalance; you, don quixote, intend to fix it? There’s a medical expression: treat the patient, not the symptom.
I was also very young (2yo) in 1980, but seeing as how we are in the worst recession since the Great Depression I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet we were economically better off in 1980. Just ask Meg Whitman. She ran around CA saying she wanted to restore the state to how great it was 30 years ago. My favorite campaign ad from last year was from Jerry Brown who used a clip of her making such remarks, then proceeding to point out that HE was Governor of CA 30 years ago!
You answered in plural.
Are you better off now than 30 years ago?
<
p>You say you were 2. Did your folks own a house? Is it as nice as your current home/apt/condo…? Your car as nice as theirs? How many? You earn as much now as your folks? More? Less?
<
p>Certainly life expectancy is marginally longer. Health care, probably better, communication better, entertainment better, mobility better, racial and gender equality better. Tell me, what is it that is not better. For you.
<
p>Rather than point to a graph that shows something about the top 1% or some such, could you just answer the reasonably simply question?! Because Meg Whitman says it was better 30 years ago, you believe that’s somehow relevant? And if you think the current recession bad, then compare it to the one in 1980-each is quite similar at least in unemployment figures.
<
p>And yeah, like you say, ‘technology has advanced’. Well, you never know, but perhaps that’s in part the result of the wealthy (i.e. Gates, Jobs, et al) in silicon valley being allowed to amass and leverage significant wealth since 1980, much the same as those nasty robber barrons brought rails and steel and ships to the US in the century before.
<
p>
We have the same house, which almost got foreclosed, but have cut back on other things, like number of cars. My father was employed in 1980 and now has been without work for several months. I originally intended to say for us its about the same, but upon reflection I realize that we are indeed worse off than in 1980. Besides this IS the kind of thing you want statistical rather than anecdotal evidence.
Well, I was 3 in 1980, so instead I will answer my current family (as I currently have a 3-year-old) vs my family of 1980 when I was the 3-year-old.
<
p>The answer is no. We were better off when I was a kid in 1980 than now. My parents worked less for a better standard of living. They got to come home in the evening and not do work but spend time with the family. My wife and I are both expected to always be available via email. (And no, we do not have “on-call” jobs like doctors etc.)
<
p>Our house was bigger than the one I have now, though it was farther from a major city so I’ll call that a wash. We had more “mad money” for vacations etc than I do now. Our only family vacations in the last few years have coincided with a work-related conference, so the hotel was free and airfare was free for one person. But then that one person didn’t actually have a vacation.
<
p>And my parents had job security. My father worked for the same company from before I was born until after I graduated from college. My mother never left a company except when she wanted something better. Me? I’m always looking over my shoulder, worried about when the next round of layoffs will come and will I be next?
<
p>Are you sure this is the question you want to be asking people?
Earlier you talked about “thinking hard” so could you acknowledge we don’t live in the world of the 1930-1970s anymore. We have a true global economy now, even though we tinkered with global trading back then. We didn’t have countries chasing our basic industries such as the auto industry, we didn’t have a manufacturing competition from low wage countries stealing all the appliance jobs as we do now. The world is very different and our country is also different so you can’t simply revert back to a structure from a time long past because “most of us” want it.
Bush economic policy – sucked
Clinton economic policy – good
<
p>Get rid of suck and go back to good. Tax cut structure was moved, it didn’t work, go back to where is was before when the economy was going well. It was balanced enough where we had disposable income in different classes. That’s really what’s going on here.
It looks like the Clinton years (1993-2001) show a substantial widening of the “wealth gap” which continues into today… I am not saying this widening did not happen through both Bush Presidents terms or Reagan’s but there is not change during Clinton’s either. But I would support returning the tax rates to the Clinton year’s tax tables.
<
p>
Does “capital income” mean “wealth”?
<
p>My wealth is primarily tied up in my home… and isn’t earning me squat. Heck, my home has lost value since I bought it.
He raised taxes a bit on the wealthiest, but didn’t go far enough (then he apologized to the rich, of course). He also created all sorts of time bombs for working Americans – repeal of virtually all laws regarding banking safety, “free” trade agreements, etc.
A fascinating aspect of the way the corporate media generally reports this story (see quote from Reuters above) is that they almost always omit the fact that the Obama tax deal actually increased taxes for one group in society, the poorest. Raw Story:
<
p>
Next stop – slashing Social Security. Obama will be “held hostage” again by the need to raise the debt ceiling.
One way or another the middle class and now the poor will use their blood and treasure to support the wealthiest. And, verily, they will be called by the former Senator Alan Simpson, a great Republocrat, as “The Greediest Generation”.
<
p>The economic majority in this country is being turned quickly into debt slaves. The young forced by economic circumstance to military service to support the aims of the banks and military/industrial complex. Our complacency is guaranteed as we turn from one television ‘reality’ show to the next ignoring life’s reality. We are asleep at the switch.
<
p>The guy with the little mustache won. Only it isn’t him this time. It’s the voices in the boardrooms and briefing rooms. Pulling the financial power strings to move the government their way.