Public opposition to tax bill grows as vote approaches

[mobeau69]

Last edited Tue Dec 19, 2017, 09:06 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: CNN

Opposition to the bill has grown 10 points since early November, and 55% now oppose it. Just 33% say they favor the GOP's proposals to reform the nation's tax code.

Two-thirds see the bill as doing more to benefit the wealthy than the middle class (66%, vs. 27% who say it'll do more to benefit the middle class) and almost four in 10 (37%) say that if the bill becomes law, their own family will be worse off. That's grown five points since early November. Just 21% say they'll be better off if the bill becomes law.

President Donald Trump, the bill's salesperson-in-chief, lands at an overall 35% approval rating in this poll, his worst mark yet in CNN polling by one point. Trump's approval ratings continue to be the lowest for any modern president at this point in his presidency. As of December of their first year in office, all first-time elected presidents back to Eisenhower have approval ratings of 49% or higher except for Trump.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/19/politics/cnn-poll-tax-bill-opposition-grows/index.html

---

35% Dotard approval rate? That's hard to understand.

[underpants]

1. PPP has support only at 29%

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029998957

[titaniumsalute]

7. So average it is 31% approval

That is pretty damn pathetic. Huge tax cuts and it has 31% approval by the voters. Hell only 6 in 10 Republicans think it is good. That is a bad sign for them.

Once this passes if people don't seen immediate, quantifiable differences in taxes then they will be double fucked in 2018. Also if people start losing healthcare...ugg.

[mobeau69]

9. They'll see it in their paychecks pretty quickly. But how long will it take until they comprehend

what they gave away in exchange when their cuts expire or sooner?

Medicare eligibility age of say 68 or so.

Full SS retirement age of 70 or so.

And let's not forget the effect of killing Obamacare on the country and their pocketbooks.

[karynnj]

11. The problem is they will see more money in their pay checks

next year. They will not see the rise in Obamacare until Fall. I will bet that they might wait until after the election to touch Medicare and Social Security because that will be very unpopular. The risk in that is that we retake the Senate and House and demand roll backs on some of these cuts rather than unpopular cuts.

Additionally, the 2019 rates for ACA will be out before the election. If the mandate being pulled affects 2019, insurance rates will factor in the insurance company's expectation of the impact. This is NOT good timing for the Republicans.

Consequently, I predict the popularity might start to rise early next year whenever the accounting systems start changing the withholding and people see they have more money in their paychecks. However, that will be swamped by anger if they start legislation on entitlements. Consider that one of the groups that consistently votes is the group over 65.

Then the group of middle class people buying non subsidized health care plans will see their options become more expensive by far more than their puny tax cut. Many people in this group are Republican.

One job for Democrats will be to connect the tax cut to its consequences and to dispell the idea that a tax cut was needed to stimulate the economy. In fact, we are 7 1/2 years into an expansion. The problem was not growth, but that the gains were mostly given to the top. Their tax plan makes income inequality worse.

Add to that, all the things like the Corker kickback and other gifts to their donors, the Republicans could be facing something as bad or worse than 2006, where except for TN, we won every Senate seat that was remotely competitive.

[mobeau69]

15. Spot on, karynnj. The market correction, which is coming

sooner rather than later, will add to their difficulties.

[karynnj]

18. I think people are already being advised to be a bit more conservative anticipating a correction

This tax bill is poorly designed to counter that. Corporations are already flush with cash and would invest it if they saw that potential gains justified it. Giving them more money will not - by itself - make opportunities look more potentially profitable. Giving moneyto the top 1% (and a lot of that to the top .1%) will not lead to surge of spending. In fact, if they expect a market correction, they are unlikely to start investing it starting new companies.

If there goal was to prolong the expansion, it would have been better to give a payroll tax holiday (with the money lost replaced by the general revenue (which the current tax cuts directly deplete) for everyone below a certain income and a tapered reduction of the segment right above them. THESE are the people that would go out and spend the money - giving the businesses they patronize money etc. Alternatively, instead they could have funded a very needed infastructure effort. We are near full employment, but these would be better jobs for some now in marginal jobs and we would get something valuable out of it.

[beachbum bob]

2. conservatives serve their corporate masters, so what the american people want or need

never matters

We need to remind them Nov 2018

[mobeau69]

8. I think 2018 will be the whole ball of wax.

GOTV.

[OnlinePoker]

3. Public opposed eliminating net neutrality and look how much that mattered. n/t

[mobeau69]

4. Don't give up. That fight's not over! n/t

[karynnj]

19. That was more a niche issue -- because I would bet that fewer than 10% of the population

even heard about it enough to understand the issue. Not to mention the telcos behind changing it are able to argue that it is needed to give them the ability to do research etc to continue to make it better -- ignoring that the entire history of the internet, which created lots of fortunes as well as changed communication etc, operated in a "net neutrality" manner.

You can make a stronger case for demanding this for the internet than was made for decade for the phone network. The entire back bone of the internet in the US was funded by DARPA. It was NOT private money that created the internet - though companies like AT&T were involved. Net neutrality is a small thing for the government to ask for companies that have benefited from the government's (ie the people's) money being used to create the internet itself.

[Vinca]

5. It's a shame they don't care what their constituents want.

But, hey GOPers, just keep voting like mindless twits. Someday you, too, can live under a bridge.

[FailureToCommunicate]

6. Just think how much higher opposition opinion would be if the Media

-besides some on MSNBC- actually focused a bit more on this issue affecting EVERYONE.

[Augiedog]

10. Why would a criminal organization care what its victims think or want?

[FiveGoodMen]

21. And why does a third of America WANT criminals running our government?

THAT'S what we have to fix.

[progressoid]

12. They don't care what the people think or want.

[Bengus81]

13. Cons would vote to pass it with a 95% disapproval..........

Hell,MILLIONS in their pockets is better than doing what some Murikans want. Especially when thugs like Corker are not running again. 60% of Republican voters think this supports and helps the middle class and they only say that because they want ACA gone. That's good enough for Republicans to vote yes on.

[jalan48]

14. I think American's have a naive belief that our government works for their interests.

Too much "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" fantasy and not enough focus on millionaires and billionaires who live in guarded and gated communities.

[bucolic_frolic]

17. True to a substantial and implicit extent

The political system was set up by the propertied class, for themselves, and built on growth. They feared "mob rule" as in the Federalist Papers. Only white men of property could vote, only state legislatures could elect Senators.

On the plus side, it must be said, if you don't feed capital, the economy doesn't grow and there are no jobs. That is now compounded by the use of credit. So they've amplified the growth/recession waves.

Agrarian, subsistent communes work for poor people, who all remain poor. You want growth, products, quality of life, you need growth and incentive, and risk, and risk management or insurance. Tinker with one part, you change the other components.

This is the dilemma the country faces each day and each generation. I doubt 10% of the Senate truly understands it.

[bucolic_frolic]

16. Market crash within 2 months if this bill passes

Once they figure out the mass of workers won't have as much money to buy the output and
the tax cuts have all gone to yachts, portfolios, trust funds, and Switzerland, the bottom will fall out.

[karynnj]

20. The mass of workers will not immediately have less money

The ACA impact is NOT for 2018 plans - so that will not rise yet. Many might see a small increase in their paychecks because the tables will change to reflect the combined impact of the loss of personal deductions and the doubling of the standard deduction and the child tax credit (which is smaller than a personal deduction you had before, but part is refundable).

What will happen is that the deficit will immediately increase - as revenue (tax withholding) will be reduced. The FULL impact of this tax plan is that Republicans will allow security net programs - like CHIP (children's healthcare) or LIHEAP (that subsidizes heating for low income people) or the ACA subsidies for people above the expanded Medicaid level and those on Medicaid - expanded or not will be cut or eliminated ... because the "government has no money". The Republicans will not say why the government suddenly has less money -- this will be OUR job to explain the Republicans GAVE that money to the 1% and international corporations.

The impact of this bill is NOT JUST WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY, but what programs they count on will no longer be able to provide. We need to be sure they see what the cause of that was and - if we take the Congress in 2018, fight to roll back some of those cuts. That will ONLY happen if Republicans in Congress see a LOT of anger against those cuts in 2018 - because reversing this will need Republican votes to override a likely veto. (If not, it could be as symbolic as all the Republican repeals of ACA when Obama was President.