Most Americans say tax rich to balance budget: poll

[Joanne98]

Source: Reuters

(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.



Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7022AK20110103

---

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN! Will the Republicans do what the American people want them to do? Or will they CRAM SOMETHING ELSE DOWN THEIR THROATS?

I can't wait for the Townhall meetings!

Where's my Hitler sign? YEE HAW!

[Uncle Joe]

1. No screaming puppy poop.

Thanks for the thread, Joanne.

[zbdent]

75. I like your line ...

but I've been saying "Three words ... starts with 'No' and ends with 'Sherlock!'."

[Evasporque]

93. Tea Party disagrees so does the RNC...nt

[theophilus]

2. But, seemingly, those in control (mostly rich?) won't allow it. Isn't that

special. Boomers arise! We are many...they are few! We must force our "leadership" to do what is best for the vast majority of Americans!

[FreakinDJ]

3. No - Lets continue the "Failed Economic Policies" of Reaganomics

its working ever so wonderfully for China

[onehandle]

4. But they voted to give the House to the GOP, so clearly they're idiots. nt

[JDPriestly]

7. The Democrats did not offer a real alternative.

Obama would have had the great majority of voters behind him had he held out and not compromised.

[onehandle]

9. Yep. Mandate wasted. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Guess he didn't have our backs after all.

:shrug:

[Frisbee]

49. Sure he did, and he stuck a knife right in it. n/t

[Enthusiast]

56. It could have been a

winning strategy. Instead he caved in to the right wing noise machine.

[Amonester]

62. Maybe the machines 'tweaked' their votes.

As long as these 'proprietary' and 'secret' tweaker$ will remain, there's no way of knowing.

[Devil_Fish]

64. +1

[gratuitous]

5. Tax the wealthy and cut defense spending

What are two methods of deficit reduction that most decidedly won't be tried by the House, Alex?

[Roland99]

6. Goes right along with "It Up The Ass"

as in, "I'll Take It Up The Ass for $1,000, Alex."

[Hydra]

17. Or by the WH, or anyone else in Washington

Sacred cows...to whom?

[NewJeffCT]

22. I know - they had to jump through hoops just to cancel

one defense program for an extra engine on a new fighter for the air force. The Pentagon said it did not want the extra engine. Yet, it was a huge battle just to cut this program for an extra engine that the Pentagon itself did not want. Imagine how tough it would be to make real cuts?

[PhillySane]

37. This is where Republican "earmarks" get spent

Whenever they talk about cutting earmarks, its never those pork barrel defense projects. i.e. osprey and other junk they hold onto.

[NewJeffCT]

44. it wasn't just Republicans

plenty of Democrats wanted to continue the extra engine for the new fighter... and, not just conservative Democrats.

[PhillySane]

52. True

but these are earmarks the Republicans will never cut

[Enthusiast]

57. That two method action

should be adopted even if we didn't have a massive deficit. The MIC is out of control.

[zbdent]

76. yeah, I remember that advisory panel recommending, along with Medicare/SS cuts

cuts to military spending ...

where did that part of the equation disappear to? I guess the multi-billionaire-owned corporate media doesn't want to remind the people about that ...

[obxhead]

8. Part of the problem is that rich Americans vote on how

rich Americans are treated and taxed.

[SammyWinstonJack]

32. And working class wannabe rich Americans vote on how rich Americans are treated and taxed.

Another part of the problem.

[Release The Hounds]

69. That is the crux of the problem right there.

Hell, I know people on food stamps who vote Repuke.

[Kingofalldems]

10. K and R

Repubs and their sympathizers won't like this one.

[droidamus2]

11. One misleading statement in OP

The misleading statement is that the Repubilcans want to make the tax cuts permanent for the middle and wealthy classes. I don't think the Republicans give a damn if the cuts are made permanent for the middle class given their choice I think they would rather the middle class just go away.

[soryang]

19. Right, they're succeeding in making the middle class go away

That's the plan! Shift the tax burden onto the middle class. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

[heliarc]

39. Step 53... tack fees onto average checking account...

Check... Just got the notice from Chase. I have to pay 10 dollars a month for my previously free checking account unless I keep $1500 dollars there all the time. Starting conveniently one month after the Repugs take control. Go figure.

[lark]

27. They are doing everything in their power to destroy the middle

They want only serfs and masters and guess which they are.

[Capitalocracy]

12. You reap what you sow.

So the deficit is the most important thing in the freakin' world, right? Well, if the Republicans are going to convince us that that's the case, the ONLY working solution is to increases taxes, especially on the rich, and to drastically cut their precious defense spending.

[bvar22]

13. Nothing new.

In fact, the American People thought that is what they voted for in 2008.

Here are some polls from 2005:

"
In recent polls2005!!!) by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

[Lordquinton]

102. Is it just me...

Or does this look like a checklist of what the right wingers have been targeting sense then?

[MannyGoldstein]

14. This is what drives me fucking nuts

Our President is unable to legislate that which an overwhelming majority of Americans want. And he doesn't even try, as far as I can tell.

It's unbelievable.

[Kweli4Real]

46. That's what drives me nuts ...

That supposedly politically literate people would argue that "Our President is unable to legislate that which an overwhelming majority of Americans want. And he doesn't even try, as far as I can tell.

It's unbelievable."

Shouldn't you be angstful with ... you know ... the Democratic LEGISLATORS?

[MannyGoldstein]

48. I'm angry at them, too

But at least some of them try. Obama doesn't hustle, doesn't want to break a sweat (unless it's for bankers, of course).

[Kweli4Real]

51. Okay, that makes no sense ...

Well actually it explains a lot about the mentality around here of late -- It is far better/more important to look like you're doing something (that you can't), then actually work on accomplishing what you can!

[MannyGoldstein]

61. Not what I said

Please read it again, thanks.

[Kweli4Real]

86. So what are you saying ...

I'm pretty good at this reading for comprehension thing ... so help me out; what are you saying when you say that it is unbelievable that PRESIDENT Obama can't legislate what a majority of the electorate wants, nor does he try, i.e., Obama doesn't hustle, doesn't want to break a sweat (unless it's for bankers, of course)?

Apparently, for some it is far better/more important to look like you're doing something (that you can't), then actually work on accomplishing what you can.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. It's action we want; not looks

I'm not sure how you're reading into what I wrote, what you claim that I wrote.

It's pretty clear that Obama's not working at achieving good outcomes.

[Kweli4Real]

106. Not True ...

I'm sure we can recount the list over and over again, all of which are positive outcomes for America; and specifically, the middle and working classes.

While he may not be doing the chest-besating, tough-talking B.S. that we had seen of the past administration, any honest assessment would conclude that PRESIDENT Obama has, in fact, accomplished a lot of his campaign promises.

[Bugenhagen]

90. I am with Manny. Sounds like

you are trying to jump through hoops to interpret what he wrote in your own special way.

[Kweli4Real]

107. Well then you ...

please tell me what manny is saying that I am missing.

[lonestarnot]

79. Just unfuckingbelieable! You said it!

[Doctor_J]

15. Too bad the government doesn't work for "most Americans"

any more.

[Kweli4Real]

47. It never has! n/t

[bossy22]

16. this poll IMO is worthless

the "rich" constitute less than 5% of the population in the U.S., so ofcourse you are going to get those results. Its like going around a neighborhood, knocking on doors ans asking people "would you like to pay for your own mortgage or have your neighbor pay for it?". Given the choice about paying or having someone else pay most people would choose someone else.

Also, i put rich in quotation marks because we really need to get a fair definition of what constitutes rich. Right now we seem to go at it through the tax bracket- basically anyone making anyone making over $200,000, any family making over $250,000 we consider rich. So we are lumping a person making 200,000 in with a persion making 20 million. This is not accurate to reality. Depending on where you live- $250,000 may afford you only a middle class life style.

We need to re-do the tax brackets- schumer had a good idea of adding another bracket at 1 million.

[lfairban]

20. Agree/ Disagree

I agree with the first paragraph, but not the second.

I doubt that cost of living can provide a justification for more than %60 discrepancy:

http://www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/cost_of_living/index.stm

The only justification for not extending the Bush tax cuts for this bracket was because it would hurt small business. Not even the republicans claimed this level of personal income was middle class.

[bossy22]

110. well it is middle class

especially where i grew up. My family made that much before the recession and we were no where near rich. $250,000 a year for a family doesnt mean you wipe your asses with 20's. Add in a mortgage, car payments, uber high property taxes, college tuition and there isnt much left of the 250,000.

Is $250,000 well to do- yeah, it affords you a very comfortable living but in many places it doesnt afford you a "rich" life style- just upper middle class

[NewJeffCT]

26. People could have said a lot of other things

cut/privatize Social Security
cut/privatize Medicare
cut Medicaid and programs that help the poor
disband the EPA
privatize any number of other gov't programs

[daleo]

80. 250 grand is good money anywhere. n/t

[DFW]

18. Here are some statistics to compare:

Most Americans are not "rich." Plenty of Republicans in Congress are rich, and all of the people who
finance them are rich. Guess how they will be voting, once in office?

OK, so why do we need a poll to figure out the ramifications of this?

[Starckers]

28. Rich

More Dems than Republicans are rich in the Senate. Why not
make a suggestion on what to do with them?  

[DFW]

71. That is not the important statistic

Ted Kennedy was filthy rich, but he voted with (and for) those who are not.

Republicans of similar financial status do not vote the same way. They tend to vote the
Republican mantra: "If you're rich, you deserve it, and if you're poor, you deserve it."

[JohnWxy]

21. Don't expect to hear this mentioned on M$M news or news discussion shows.

recommended.

[totodeinhere]

23. This is puzzling because another recent poll said that 70% of Americans support the tax deal

negotiated between the GOP and the White House. And as we know that compromise included tax cuts for the very wealthy.

So how can they support that tax deal which cuts taxes for the rich and at the same time say that we should tax the rich to balance the budget? It's crazy.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/12/13/5642272-poll-most-americans-support-tax-cut-deal-

I have said for a long time that you can get any result that you want in a poll depending on how you do it. So I won't pay much attention to either of those contradictory polls.

I have noticed that many at DU hype polls like the one quoted in the OP whose results they like. But if a poll comes out that they don't like then they call it BS.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. You do understand that those are two very different questions, don't you?

1) Should we tax the wealthy to address the budgetary crisis?

and

2) Should we compromise to keep the government functioning?

The two polls are not contradictory at all.

[totodeinhere]

82. No, I don't understand that. The tax cut compromise was not necessary to keep the government

functioning. If Obama had put enough pressure on the GOP IMO they would have eventually caved. There was no excuse for continuing those obscene tax cuts for the rich, period. I stood with the almost unanimous opinion of the House Democratic Caucus that the so-called compromise should have been shot down.

The bottom line is that the compromise cut taxes for the rich yet at the same time people are saying they want to raise taxes on the rich. You can't have it both ways.

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Oh, I agree, the compromise was not necessary.

But it was framed by the media as essential, and Obama presented it as essential, therefore when the public is polled on it they (grudgingly) agree that it is better to give the Repukes their tax cut so we can move on to DADT, military funding, etc, etc, that the Repukes were holding hostage until they got their tax cuts.

It's about public perception, not reality. We had the Repukes saying, in concert, that they would do NOTHING, allow NOTHING to pass, and the public believed them. Whether they would have backed down or not was short-circuited by Obama conceeding without testing it, so we will never really know. And the public, getting all their news from Fox and CNN, is left with the conviction that it WAS necessary, so they back the president and back the compromise whether they like it or not.

IOW, they were conned.

[Cutatious]

24. Is there a dollar amount that would result from taxing the rich higher?

Has anyone come up with the numbers that taxing >250k at the higher rate would produce? Is it in the hundreds of billions/year or are we talking a few billion?

[totodeinhere]

25. Taxing the rich alone won't be enough to close the budget deficit.

We could tax everyone who makes over $250,000 at 99% and it still wouldn't be enough to close the deficit. Taxing the rich is no magic bullet. But it's a start and combined with other measures such as deep cuts in the defense budget it would help. Plus it would have great symbolic value. The rich really do need to pay their fair share.

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. Not to mention that if corporate rates were higher the way to avoid

paying them would be to re-invest in the company - resulting in a stronger economy (only valid if the loopholes are closed, discouraging the companies from going off-shore).

[defendandprotect]

29. For decades, the corporate-press has been ignoring what the public thinks ....

and so have the corporate-political parties --

Why would you expect change now?

[DeSwiss]

30. If enough Americans had participated in the only poll that counts:

- This would already be the case.

K&R

[udbcrzy2]

33. They should pay their share like we do

Also, the same on SS tax.

[Juche]

34. A combined 7% said cut medicare & SS

4% for medicare and 3% for SS. Sadly in this country the GOP has been totally at odds with the public on the issues and never really had any negative consequences for it. Even on issues like DADT, corporate funding of elections, supply side economics, etc the majority of republicans (let alone dems and independents) disagree with the GOP story line but those peopel vote GOP anyway.

So it really doesn't matter. The GOP could make a national holiday devoted to setting kittens on fire and I don't think it would really hurt them electorally.

Most people barely pay attention to politics and don't understand the issues or what the 2 parties actually stand for. So what actually happens is irrelevant, only what people think is happening.

[kestrel91316]

35. The Powers That Be don't give a rat's ass what "most Americans" want.

This has become glaringly obvious.

Our democracy has become a laughingstock.

[aquart]

36. Tax or guillotine. I'm flexible.

My mom would like a demonstration tumbrel to make its way down Wall Street every day. But she hasn't seen the security on Wall Street. There are obstacle turntables built into the street.

[Doc Martin]

38. Happy to see #2 as well: Cut defense spending! NNTO

[PhillySane]

40. Right in line with the CNN poll released on 12/20

62% of those polled oppose the two-year extension of tax cuts for the wealthy

59% oppose the reduction in the estate tax for wealthy Americans

51% believe the policies proposed by the Republicans will move the country in the wrong direction

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/20/rel17a.pdf

Why is it called compromise when the MAJORITY of Americans have to give in to the 1% wealthy and their Republican lap dogs!?

[man4allcats]

41. Re: "Will the Republicans do what the American people want them to do?"

Why should they? The Democrats won't even do what the American people want them to do!

[humbled_opinion]

42. This will not fix the problem

The RICH don't pay their fair share of taxes now... it always boils down to the middle class picking up the tab in one form or another, i.e., higher income taxes on the rich the rich hire accountants to hide their money and take advantage of dozens of tax loopholes, the upper middle class can't afford high class atty's to hide their income and wind up paying the tax. The super rich (banks and corporations) pass tax increases along to consumers in the form of cost increases for their goods and services that they produce, again this is a hit on consumers mostly those in the middle class. The rich (small businesses) also control the employment, so tax increases result in more layoffs and increases in costs to consumers.

The only way to fix this situation is to fix the tax code. Make it fair straight 10 percent across the board no ifs ands or buts you earn it and it is taxed at 10 percent. Everybody pays.... Then the next time Congress wants to approve money for some idiots ill thought out wars the politics will be too tough when you are asking every American to pay for the war with a tax increase.

[rfranklin]

65. The flat tax is the next Republican objective...

Having attacked the liberal accomplishments of the Great Society and New Deal, congressional Republicans are preparing to eliminate a reform that stretches even further back into history: the progressive income tax. Republicans in both houses of Congress have introduced plans for a flat tax, claiming that its simplicity and fairness will be a boon to all. Majority Leader Dick Armey, presenting his plan, states that "millions of taxpayers are taken off the rolls entirely, and middle Americans receive a tax cut."
The first part of that claim is largely true. Since Armey's plan does not tax income from interest, dividends, or capital gains, those taxpayers who live completely off of investment income would be taken off the rolls entirely. The second part of the claim is, by any serious accounting, wrong. Armey's plan has two parts: It replaces the progressive income tax with a flat tax, and it replaces business taxes with a consumption tax. Both elements would dramatically shift the tax burden from the wealthy toward the middle class and the poor.

If not for stunning misrepresentations, this would be obvious to everyone. Our personal income tax now starts with a zero effective rate on lower-income families (families of four currently earning up to about $23,200 pay no income taxes) rising to a 39.6 percent top marginal rate on the incomes of the richest 1 percent. Replace that with a flat rate of, say, 20 percent and clearly the rich will pay far, far less in taxes. That has to be made up somewhere.

http://www.ctj.org/html/flatdstr.htm

[Drale]

43. What listen to the American people?

Their Corporate Masters would not be happy with that, no not at all. John McCain might get a beating for going along with that crazy idea.

[BrklynLiberal]

45. Too bad no one in DC. gives a crap what "the people" want....that includes

Legislative and Executive..and even Judicial...eg..Bush v Gore
Money talks. Nobody walks. That is the truth about our govt these days.

[valerief]

50. A mandate from the people means nothing unless Fox calls it a mandate.

:-(

[Bluenorthwest]

81. If you say so. But not many people really watch FoxNews

Their highest rated shows draw the same or less than an average Thom Hartmann radio audience. A few million in a sea of 300+ million. A drop in the bucket. Many hours of FoxNews programming draw fewer viewers than the Nation magazine has subscribers. Is the Nation wildly influential? Is Hartmann? Same sort of audiences. Wee. FoxNews Superstar Billo the Clown fails to out pace reruns of Sponge Bob Squarepants. Reruns.
I'm just sick of the silly, unsupported framing. Millions upon millions more watch TV News from other sources. FoxNews is not by any means the leading news voice in America. Each of the network news casts individually gets three or four or more times the audience of FoxNews best slot. Which is Billo who does not beat a sponge. There are three broadcast networks.
There are local affiliate newscasts in major markets that get more viewers than FoxNews does, and they do it in one market.
Less than 1% of the country, at their very best moment. Anyone afraid of that is afraid of shadows.

[pa28]

53. Time for another Gallup push poll.

60 minutes/Vanity Fair came up with the wrong answer.

[liberal N proud]

54. The republicans will not listen to the people

The people they say want them to balance the budget.

They will listen to the people who line their pockets however, the rich.

[Enthusiast]

55. K&R! Just imagine, in the face

of overwhelming right wing propaganda to the contrary, the American people still understand the RICH are not carrying their fair share. Color me encouraged.

[BlueJazz]

58. My take on this..

The hard truth is that the Poor and the Middle Class are close to being "Tapped out". The Deficit will have to be paid for by the Rich.
If not then we'll all go down..

[IamK]

59. Like most people, I support a tax on anybody but me.....

[rfranklin]

66. No, you are like most Republicans...

For instance, Reagan reduced the top tax rates and made up a large part of the difference by increasing FICA. The Social Security money collected was then dumped in to the general funds and Treasury Bonds were given for that money to the Trust Fund. Now, the uberwealthy do not want to pay back that money. Instead, they want to cut Social Security. They are thieves.

[freshwest]

94. Thanks for telling it straight. Thieves is right.

[Initech]

60. And why don't we tax companies like GE who make billions and pay nothing?

This profit over people mentality in this country is fucking disgusting.

[Odin2005]

63. The cheerleaders will be here shortly to bash the people for being "unpragmatic".

[c14444c]

67. Dissolve the People

Die Lösung
Bertolt Brecht
Nach dem Aufstand des 17. Juni
Ließ der Sekretär des Schriftstellerverbands
In der Stalinallee Flugblätter verteilen
Auf denen zu lesen war, daß das Volk
Das Vertrauen der Regierung verscherzt habe
Und es nur durch verdoppelte Arbeit
Zurückerobern könne. Wäre es da
Nicht doch einfacher, die Regierung
Löste das Volk auf und
Wählte ein anderes?

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writer's Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee

Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

[craigmatic]

68. Yeah because everyone is poor now. Before they weren't for it because we were all middle class.

What a difference a recession makes.

[grahamhgreen]

70. Taxing the rich and cutting defense to end the deficit - A FREAKING NO BRAINER!

[AllyCat]

72. Except the PTB won't listen. They don't care what we think, only what they tell us to think

[sabrina 1]

74. Well, we're a Democracy aren't we?

This should be easy then. Democrats need to block any legislation that even mentions cutting benefits for the poor, the elderly, the disabled and children. If Republicans were able to do it, or so we were told, while in the minority, I am looking forward to seeing Dems be total obstructionists against any kind of legislation that harms the people.

[daleo]

77. Politicians will quietly poll the rich

Who will say "take the money from everyone else". Guess which poll will be taken seriously.

[freshwest]

96. We know the answer. Sigh...

[jschurchin]

78. Do any of you guy's really think

the assholes in D.C. would use any increase in revenue to pay down the deficit? Do you really?

These idiot's, Republican's as well as Democrats, have proven time and again that ANY INCREASE in revenue that we give them will NOT be enough. They will spend ALL OF IT plus BILLION'S more, and apply a grand total of ZERO dollars to reducing the deficit.

Do I believe the ubber rich pay their far share? I DO NOT. This is a major problem. But I also do not delude myself into thinking that increasing the revenue into the hands of Boner or Blowsi will not be used for something constructive, but will instead be given to their supporters. You know, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Health Insurance, you know, the assholes who finance their election.

What does this do to help us? FUCKING NOTHING. 20% for defense? What a Fucking joke. Let's try 50% ACROSS THE FUCKING BOARD until the debt is paid. Will it suck? Yes. Will we go into a depression? Yes. The alternative? Practice speaking Mandarin, we will need it.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

83. My preference is 1) end the wars and 2) tax rich

in that order

[hulka38]

87. Overruled by the GOP and DLC n/t

[ingac70]

88. Then put your votes where your mouths are, America.

God, I'm surrounded by idiots.

[totodeinhere]

91. The poll that counts is the one that was held on Nov. 2nd. And we lost that one.

The poll quoted in the OP doesn't matter. The election mattered. Polls come a dime a dozen and often have contradictory results.

[agincourt]

100. contradictory is right

I wish those 61% either would have either voted or known what they were voting for.

[Dave From Canada]

92. You can't balance the budget by just taxing the rich.

[ingac70]

95. Gotta cut military spending too. n/t

[freshwest]

97. If the richest are getting profits from military contracts, how is that going to happen?

[Dave From Canada]

98. For sure. n/t

[daleo]

99. But you can't do so without taxing the rich

When the rich won't pay their fair share, societies eventually crumble.

[rpannier]

101. Sadly those elected in DC are not part of the majority

And those in DV that say they agree won't fight tooth-and-nail for it.

[LawnKorn]

103. K&R

[pam4water]

104. That's what they say but they still vote republican :(

[dkf]

105. Only 0.1% of Americans make over $2,000,000.

Are there enough rich to cover a $1.4 trillion yearly deficit?

We also want them to fund the $2 trillion the general fund owes the SS fund too right? Why should entrepreneurs come to the US anymore? All the smart educated foreign born will find their ideas will generate more profits in other countries.

[Vogon_Glory]

108. Had 50 Percent Of These People Bothered To Vote This Year

Had fifty percent of more of these people bothered to vote this year, I doubt that the TEA baggers would have been anything but a historical footnote.

I believe that the non-voters are almost as responsible as the wing-nuts and the Rethugs for what's going to happen over the next couple of years. Silence implies consent.

I may be wrong, but I like to remember a time when less-prosperous Americans would go to the polls to protect their interests (Which is why the Radical Right worked to destroy ACORN). These days, though, most less-well-off and minority voters have decamped to the sidelines and have let the right-wing whack jobs make touchdown after touchdown after touchdown.



:grr:

[mvd]

109. Too bad the poll didn't come out sooner

We could have used it.

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.