Does it even matter where you stand on the issues??

[kentuck]

But only how you "frame" it or sell it in the media?

I just saw Senator Mitch McConnell on TV this morning "framing" the issue about why we should keep the tax rates for the millionaires and billionaires where they are and make them permanent. After all the talk and wringing of hands about debt and deficits, the real problem is not the tax rates but rather the "spending". We cannot "raise taxes" during a recession, he said.

So, does it even matter if these tax rates are presently costing our Treasury over $3 trillion dollars over a ten-year period? One would think these vast transfers of wealth to the top would be an automatic win for those opposed but obviously not. They simply cannot make the sell.

Under this logic, they could sell anything to the American people. They could tell us that a dictator in the Middle East has weapons of mass destruction and is very close to a nuclear bomb and we would agree. Or they could tell us that "waterboarding" and torture were only techniques of "advanced interrogation" and we would believe it. It's all in how it is sold.

How do you counter such tactics if you are unable to "frame" the truth in a way people can understand?

[dkf]

1. Not raising taxes in a recession is basic economics. However that doesn't mean you don't raise them

At all. You just have to give the economy a little bit of recovery time first.

[kentuck]

2. But I have heard that the economies of other countries are growing...

at a much healthier rate than America. Why is that? Is it because of our debt? If so, then it would behoove us to change that, would it not??

[HughBeaumont]

4. Empires are expensive.

Empires which rely on speculation, finance and low-wage service for their incomes and even lower taxation . . . well, you'll just see how we end up.

Other countries aren't empires. They'd rather just do good by ALL of their people rather than a select few.

[dkf]

10. No that isn't the right correlation. And GDP can be increased by debt.

[kentuck]

11. How so?

?

[JVS]

12. Because GDP is a composite of several numbers.

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

So the government (or companies/individuals for that matter) going into debt to spend more increases GDP.

[kentuck]

15. So are we to assume the GDP is all that matters?

Is everything relative to the GDP? Or is that perhaps a false measure? Does it tell us where the wealth is located? Is it at the top or the bottom or in the middle? Is it spread equally throughout our economy? Or is it mostly layered on the very wealthy?

I understand this may be off-topic a bit but something to think about.

[dkf]

18. Here is what they were claiming about the impact of the stimulus on GDP

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/stimulus-boosted-us-gdp-b_n_693150.html

[JVS]

14. Debt only effects GDP insofar as paying for it can ten cut into government spending

Like I posted elsewhere in the thread
GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Right now the government is taking on debt, so the net effect of our debt is to increase government spending. Eventually when we are paying it off, the effect will be to lower GDP because the government will be spending less than it could be otherwise.

[Winterblues]

5. I do not by that basic economics stuff

That is exactly what they told Clinton when he submitted his first Budget..Clinton also inherited a bad recession. Clinton's budget did pass, by a single vote, and America went on to experience the "Greatest Economic Expansion in History" basically putting the lie to everything the Republicans were saying at the time..They are saying the exact same things now, but America has a very short memory.

[kentuck]

9. I think you make a good point.

We should remind the voters of what the Repubs said about his tax "rates" way back in 1993. They said it would send us into a deep recession with high unemployment. Every single Repub voted against it and we went on to a long period of growth, perhaps the best in our history. That was the law of the land and is still the law of the land once the Repub "temporary" tax rates expire.

[OHdem10]

3. Is it the ability of Democrats to frame the issue or the unwillingness

of Democrats to frame the issue.

One problem may be that there are DLC and Blue Dogs
who agree with the Mitch McConnells. Therefore
the Democrats as a whole do not have one position.
Since they do not have a position accepted by the
entire party, they do not even appear on TV to frame.
We cannot let Liberals get on TV and represent the
Democratic Party.---Oh, My Gosh, what would people think??

[kentuck]

6. So, how should the Democrats respond to McConnell?

Surely they would not surrender such a great issue as this?

[BeFree]

7. yep

You allow the Left on TV and the frame would be:

Rich folks, listen up. Either you share the wealth freely, or we will have to forcefully seize it. Your choice.

We are giving you a choice. Do it nicely, or else.

[L0oniX]

8. Who were the ones that made out like bandits during the great depression?

The same ones that don't want their tax cut eliminated. The rich! They are our enemies.

[lonestarnot]

13. In Arizona it does not matter. Goofball or nongoofball, that's the way we are divided.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. All logic is in service of the underlying imperative: concentrate wealth.

Everything else is strategy.

[kentuck]

17. Bingo!

Concentrated at the top. GDP is meaningless if it is only growing for those at the top of the pyramid.