Why are Democratic Candidates SO afraid to say, Yes, I WILL raise Taxes...

[Up2Late]

...On Rich people? And by Rich I'm talking people making $1,000,000.00 or more per year.

I, personally would say GREAT!!! I LOVE Higher taxes for Rich people.

Do they think this would drive people away from the Democratic party???

I don't!

[snowbear]

1. They did say it throughout the last campaign....

If you go to Google you can find tons of articles by using key words like:

Democrats raise taxes on rich

It just wasn't newsworthy enough to stick in anyone's head.. You know.. like the swiftboaters were.. :puke:

[kodi]

2. um, are you old enough to remember Mondale in 1984?

if not, read up.

if so, prepare for the rest of the class a rhetoric that can articulate the value such a tax increase provides via beneficial societal health, the short-and-long term economic efficiencies it brings, and its ethical and moral underpinning that can withstand an onslaught of attacks from the right centering on accusations of class warfare, reduction in investment capital, and be able to counter effectively the myriad arms of propaganda at the disposal of the rich that will lie thru its teeth.

oh, and be able to do it in 30-45 secs, because "harry and louise" will be gunning for you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

24. But Mondale did worse than that

During his acceptance speech, he said with what looked like great glee, "I'm going to raise YOUR taxes."

I knew then that it was all over. :-(

[jmcon007]

42. I can remember what Mondale said when he was...

debating Reagan, He said that both he and Reagan were going to raise your taxes, but the difference was that he (Mondale)was being honest and telling the American public now, but that he (Reagan)would not.
Well, Reagan raised taxes.
Honesty doesn't work in politics sometimes.

[dorktv]

3. Should i put Fuck the Rich on my next platform?

[Up2Late]

7. Yup! Fuck the Rich and I will appoint 20 Special Prosecutors to...

...immediately start investigating and sending to Jail the Corrupt Members of the U.S. House Representatives.

[dorktv]

10. How would you do that?

[Up2Late]

13. Executive Order, or don't you think people see corruption among...

...U.S. House members?

I'm talking from the perspective of the newly elected Democrat President, January 21, 2009

This is campaign promise I want to see.

[dorktv]

25. Um, the President cannot butt in that much in Congress.

Seperation of powers remember?

It would be nice but we do want to remember the consitution.

Electing better reps would help though.

[Up2Late]

26. I wouldn't be so sure, but you may be right...

...but the last 5 years of * and the 1993-98 medaling Congress has set a lot of very scary precedents. * and Knute Gingrich have set a lot of bars, very low over the last 12 years.

[libodem]

4. I don't think it's so much raising taxes

as redistributing the ones we have. I don't think any Democrat should go in saying he's raising taxes on anyone. I'm pretty sure *'s taxcuts expire after a while. I see his taxcuts as a way to buy peoples votes with taxpayer money. Sure it was a good investment he was buying votes for his next election. I've never seen such a thing as a 500.00 rebate on your taxes from the Federal government. I bet we'll never see that again. Borrow and spend, borrow and spend, the damn repubs probably own the banks we borrow from. Can you imagine the interest?

[1932]

37. I agree. "We'll alocate the tax burden fairly so that secretaries don't...

...pay a bigger percentage of their income in taxes than their bosses who sit by the pool and cash dividend checks" -- that's the right phrasing.

[tritsofme]

5. See one Walter Mondale, 1984.

He spoke responsibly, told the truth that taxes would need to raised (as Reagan later did after reelection) and he went on to lose every state in the union, save Minnesota.

[jsw_81]

6. Two words: Walter Mondale

And here's what happened on election day:

[Up2Late]

9. Screw the Walter Mondale example, that was over 20 years ago

He could have promised Legalized Marijuana, Legalized Prostitution, and A Brand New Car for everyone, and he wouldn't have won!

He had the personality and charisma of a Tree Sloth.

And he was up against Reagan, who had finally cut the 70% Tax bracket(Tax Rates meant to pay for Vietnam) down to something reasonable.

In New Jersey, the Democrats run on the platform of, "Hell yeah, we're going to raise the taxes of the Rich." and Democrats dominate N.J. politics.

The RW Hate machine say, "The Democrats are going to raise you taxes..."

Democrat response, "Your Damn Right, If you're rich, your Taxes are going up, It's time you started Pulling your own weight around here!":evilgrin:

[tritsofme]

18. Mondale wouldn't have won

but he certaintly wouldn't have lost 49 states if he didn't pledge to raise taxes.

[CityDem]

8. Very few want a tax increase

1. Very few people look forward to a tax increase, regardless of the need.

2. While you want to raise taxes on the rich, the media and repukes will spin it as an across the board tax increase. See point #1.

3. Increasing taxes on people earning more than $1 million will not accomplish much unless you raise the capital gains rate (which was just reduced) and tax on dividends. Most wealthy people avoid the income tax by sheltering their assets.

[Up2Late]

12. Well I doubt many people want to see total economic collapse...

...either, which is coming if we don't reverse the direction of what * has done to this countries economy.

When Economists say, "This is not sustainable." This is what they are talking about.

As interest rates continue to go back up, so will the cost of financing this 500 Billion Dollar Budget deficit and 7.7 Trillion Dollar National Debt.

I'm not sure where the tipping point is, but once we reach it, the Debt will start to snowball.

[tedoll78]

11. We need to spin it thusly:

If you want a slight tax raise on the very wealthy now, vote Democrat.

If you want a LARGER tax raise on EVERYONE in the near future (to pay for the interest on the national debt), vote Republican.

[Up2Late]

33. Or something like that. n/t

:hippie:

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Most 04 primary dems called for tax increases on the rich.

One even went so far as to call for a tax increase on the rich and tax **elimination** up to 40 or 50K income. That was Clark. Kerry called for an increase in the top bracket out into the general campaign, if I recall correctly.

I guess you must have been getting a snack on the day the media say they reported it.

[Up2Late]

15. Yeah I know, I was a Big supported of Clark, then reluctently...

...setteled for Kerry.

But just having the Presidential candidate support it, is not enough, I think all the Democrats in 2006 and 2008 have to be 100% behind Screwing the Rich this time.

3& 1/2 more years of getting screwed by * and the RW Hate Machine, and I think it going to be time.

If Democrats want High voter turn out, It's Tax the Rich, if Democrats want declining turn out, just keep going with spineless politics.

[Up2Late]

16. Kick n/t

:kick:

[1932]

38. Clark only wanted to tax earned income over 1 million dollars.

Say that Theresa Heinz made 50,000 bucks a year from being employed by some charity, and the rest was dividend and capital gains income from her trust funds, because she had three or four kids (for the sake of argument, let's say they're dependants), then Clark's tax plan would have REDUCED her income tax burden.

Any plan that did that is not sufficiently progressive to address what's wrong with America today.

[iwantmycountryback]

17. Kerry said that many many times

The media just ignored it or tried to spin it in a negative way.

[Up2Late]

31. Sorry, "Cocoa" pointed out I hadn't gotten back to you, I don't want to...

...repeat what I responded to her with, so I'll just say, see below at #22, same answer.:blush:

[Canuckistanian]

19. It's all about a myth - Rich people supposedly create jobs

I've never understood this reasoning - if you raise PERSONAL taxes on the very-rich, they won't be able to hire more people.

I say, raise their taxes NOW and give them a rebate IF they can show they hired more people and created useful wealth.

[Up2Late]

20. That might be the way to go

That's an Idea I've not heard before.

Good one.

[Canuckistanian]

23. Thanks, it's all yours. n/t

[ChiciB1]

21. EEEOOOO, EEEOOO, I Know Mr. Cotter!

Walter Mondale!!! In his 1984 debate with Ronnie RayGun he made the statement that "he won't tell you that we need to raise taxes, but I will"! Mondale lost in a landslide.

Having said that, it's almost irresponsible NOT to raise taxes, or at the very least TAKE BACK, the tax cuts to the very Rich and The Big Cat Corporate Whores! They've sold our country to the "lowest bidder"!

[Cocoa]

22. Kerry did say it

as other posters, whom you've ignored, have pointed out.

[Up2Late]

28. I didn't ignore them, I just haven't come up with a good answer for...

...them yet.

See, I think a major problem is, He (the presidential Candidate) was the only one saying it, so the RW Hate Machine had an easy time spinning it as, "Oh, he's just saying that to get elected."

One of the major problems (or differences from Congressional Democrats and the the RW) is that we need to get ALL the Democratic Senators and Congress people to agree that this is necessary and to start saying so.

Another major problem is, the Democrats in congress have to stop taking money (even though it's less than what the ReThugs are taking) from the same RW Lobbyists and Special Interest groups.

It has ruined their credibility.

[NightOwwl]

27. It's not about raising taxes....

it's about supporting our country, our troops, and our children.

Dems need to frame this issue in terms of:

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."
-- John F. Kennedy

instead of "We're going to raise your taxes."

[Up2Late]

30. Exactly, we should create a Speech Writers group or something...

...We need to find that person who can frame the debate like that.

[PermanentRevolution]

29. The problem is Horatio Alger

Working-class Republicans (and a few Dems, I guess) won't vote to raise taxes on the super-rich because they still believe the myth of the American Dream - that hard work and determination will one day elevate them to multi-millionaire status. They won't pass a tax hike that would hurt them once their ship comes in. It's a mythology that's been very effectively used to keep the working class in line, using them to help keep in place the very institutions that are keeping them from ever achieving the dream they're seeking. Yet another example of how the rich and powerful manipulate the poor into doing their wishes against their own self-interest.

I would love to see a restructured income tax that eliminated all tax on those earning under $30,000 a year and rolling back everyone earning under $100,000 by creating a few new tax brackets, since the tax system stops at $319,100 right now.

Anyone earning over $1,000,000 a year gets hit with a 75% income tax. Earnings between $500,000 and $999,999 gets a 50% rate. I call it Robin Hood Economics. No idea if it's economically feasible or not, but I like it.

[Up2Late]

32. Can't argue with that, that IS the problem

Your Tax brackets are similar to what we had Pre-Reagan (except the wages were a lot lower), I doubt we'll ever get back to there again.

See, they keep screaming for more Tax cuts, but EVERY YEAR that Taxes are NOT raised, IS a tax cut for the Rich, because back in 1981 or whenever that $319,100 figure was set, $319,100 was a LOT more money than it is in 2005 Dollars.

Also the $90,000 FICA Salary cap, even though, I think it moves up a little each year, has NOT kept up with inflation either. The last time it was adjusted, it was a lot more money too.

It's just like the "Minimum Wage," $5.25 per hour was a Hell of a lot more money in 1991 than is is now in 2005.

[Pepperbelly]

34. ask those who have had their asses handed to them for that. nt

[ClassWarrior]

35. BECAUSE IT'S A RADICAL RIGHTWING FRAME.

We need to say that it's the responsibility of the blessed to pay their fair share for all they've received.

NGU.

[1932]

39. I totally agree with that.

[1932]

36. Is that $1,000,000 in earned income? Is capital gains and dividends in-

cluded?

The kind of people who make more than 1 million in earned income, I'm not so concerned about (athletes, doctors and lawyers, who are all working hard, sacrificing their time, and are probably rewarded relatively close to their value to whomever is paying them).

It's the people making millionS of dollars from capital gains and dividend income whose contribution to society my actually be inversely proportionate to the money they make -- that might be the first place I look for a bigger contribution to pay for the society that's making them rich.

I'm not saying I wouldn't look for a more progressive earned income tax structure too, but I will say there weren't many Democrats who were talking about progressively taxing capital gains and dividend income in 2004, and the ones who did (and the ones who do for 2008) are going to get a lot of extra attention from me.

[WMliberal]

40. Bartcop's rule #1

In a political campaign, never EVER tell the truth.

[Up2Late]

41. That's the Bush Family rule too, passed down from Prescott, sort of

<http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/BFEE>

Deny Everything.
There's three things to remember:
claim everything,
explain nothing,
deny everything.
Senator "Granddad" Prescott Bush

[bluestateguy]

43. One reason: the soundbite

You are right in theory. In theory. However, in this political universe of soundbites and emotional attack ads such nuanced rhetoric as you suggest can be easily morphed into, "he will raise your taxes". Remember that the purpose of a political ad is not to educate or enlighten the voters, but to win elections.

[Totally Committed]

44. We can't even get most of them to own up to being "Liberal",

fercripessake! If they run from a word like that... running from raising taxes almost makes sense. (Almost)

TC

[blm]

45. They ALL said it during the primaries AND the general election.

Press wasn't interested in REAL Dem issues reaching the American people.

Why didn't the press give economic issues much coverage at ALL?