Dems should demand huge tax increases on the rich

[Nancy Waterman]

for the coming budget and debt ceiling battles. Do a preemptive strike and demand a lot, settling for the smaller number at the end. They should also do a big public campaign to get support of tax increases. The public would be behind this. In other worlds, use some of the GOP-type of aggressive tactics before they do.

[Greybnk48]

1. I agree. We need to go on offense and put them

on defense for a while.

[Diamonique]

2. Agree totally.

The public is ready for this. Every poll shows it. It's long past time that the corporations and rich folks carried their share of the weight.

[RuthK]

49. Wealth distribution

The public would be more in favor of it if they looked at the numbers. Go to:

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/

Click on "wealth, income, and power" and page down to the pie charts showing wealth distribution. It's sickening. Also, look at the articles that describe the power that goes with the wealth.

Pass it on.

[Mira]

3. Yes to all. And wouldn't it be a surprise if they did,

and a complete reversal in tactics.
I.am.so.not.holding.my.breath.
Recommended

[salinen]

4. The dems do not decide taxes

the rich do. It is now illegal to tax the rich.

[ladjf]

11. Then the Dems need to take that decision away from the rich

and the sooner the better. Do it! What in the Hell do we have to lose by trying?

[AlbertCat]

51. Then the Dems need to take that decision away from the rich

Uh... the Dems in the House and Senate....


ARE RICH!

[ladjf]

56. I didn't mean the current Dems in the House and Senate. I meant

the Dems in the U.S. plus everyone else who is tired of being perpetually robbed by the super rich.

[demmiblue]

5. K&R n/t

[Donnachaidh]

6. why should they ask for something that will affect them personally?

Seriously -- do you know many in our government who aren't looking for that big cut that will enable the tax rate for elites to drop from 35% to 25%?

Aside from Bernie Sanders -- I'm suspicious of them ALL in the fact that they have not pushed for higher taxes on elites.

[Avant Guardian]

7. Then submit them for a CBO score

[vaberella]

8. Obama did do a big campaign. Was I the only one who watched them?!

But it wasn't the Repubs that fucked him over then. It was the Dems in office---and I don't think it's going to change now.

[vi5]

9. What the Dems SHOULD do and what they WILL do...

are two increasingly disconnected things, and the chasm between the two grows wider, longer, and more insurmountable with each passing day and on each issue.

[ladjf]

12. We all know that. But, do we all know that unless the grand larceny

is stopped, the human race is doomed to abject poverty and slavery? We've got to fight for our lives.
There are no other viable choices.

[vi5]

15. I know that....

...but the people who claim that the bigger problem is that we're not cheering loudly enough or making the elected Dems feel prouder of their repeated "Participant" trophies are the ones who seem to think we have different problems.

[ladjf]

26. Well, at this point, about you and I can do is to continue to try to

spread the word the the rich bastards are unlawfully stealing the human race into slavery. I've been
a DU member from almost the beginning and it is apparent to me that the numbers of DU'ers who are realizing what is happening is growing rapidly. The same thing is happening in the ME. The whole World is on the verge of a Planet wide protest to wrest political power from the 1% who are now killing us all.

We're going to have to take some chances, break some eggs (not shoot people) and take control.

I'm not talking about the conventional political groups. I'm suggesting that the the bottom 98% of the population will take on the top 1 or 2 percent and dominate them. In order to achieve that, they will have to put aside all of the petty, current grievances and focus on one thing, take the power away from the rich so that they can't continue to deprive us of a decent standard of living. Having done that, they would be free to start their petty bickering again, if they wanted to.

[ladjf]

10. Yes. They might be surprised at how much grass roots support

they receive.

[Enrique]

13. i don't think they'd be surprised

they look at polls. it's not about them not knowing.

[ladjf]

14. Then what is it about? I know, the rich have bought the politicians

and the media. OK, let's just roll over and die.

[Enrique]

16. not all of them

Russ Feingold, for example.

[ladjf]

25. Russ did a lot of voting that was seemed against the best interest

of most Americans. He kept claiming that he voted against Democratic initiatives because they weren't liberal enough. But, what really made me skeptical of him is that at every juncture, he sided with Israel as they repeatedly terrorized their neighbors. In other words,he seemed a bit like Joe Lieberman with regard to our relations with Israel. (I'm not anti-semitic, just anti-Israel's government.)

[lucca18]

17. I Agree !

Raise those taxes on the rich! We need to help and protect the people that need it. Cutting taxes for the rich, and at the same time cutting back on programs for the needy is so wrong.

[woofless]

18. Agree 100%

Tax the Wealth

End the Wars.

[laylah]

19. Of COURSE,

Nancy...but will they? NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooo!

[jillan]

20. It's time for that 'shared sacrifice' that I keep hearing about.

[theaocp]

21. First, they'd have to WANT to do that.

What's their incentive? The Professional Left? :rofl:

[DirkGently]

22. Absolutely. And pushing policy should not be considered GOP tactics.

[treestar]

23. It's way more complex than that

Everyone thinks it's like haggling for an item or a car.

If dems ended up with the same deal, you.d be happy with it merely because they started out at demanding something an R congress would never do?

Why be so blind to the obvious fact that the Rs could have done the same thing? They did not get all they want either. They gave away a lot too. They would have just started at repealing all the social programs (the same something they'd know Obama would never agree too). Just starting farther apart would make a better deal for the Dems why?

Both sides have enough sense to start somewhere reasonable. They don't have time for absurd demands they know the other won't remotely agree to.

[russspeakeasy]

48. Bullshit.

[treestar]

55. No. I repeat. what is the point of starting as far apart as possible

And starting where you know you will just look unreasonable?

The Rs would look just as stupid if they started where they want - repeal all the social programs.

It's a R Congress. They could pass bills like that. Why don't they? And their extreme right is probably complaining about it, too.

[pacalo]

24. And end the wars.

:thumbsup:

[opihimoimoi]

27. count me in on this one KnR

[MasonJar]

28. It will not happen. Most of the Dems are owned too, including our President.

[fasttense]

43. It would if we got out in the streets day after day, like in Egypt

like in Wisconsin. We need to show Obama how to fight.

Until we get out in DC and live there, nothing is going to change.

Did you know you do NOT need a permit for a rally in DC if you stay in one lane and march.

[JoePhilly]

29. I like your idea ... now ... do this ... rank the Dem Senators as to what you

see as their current level of SUPPORT for such an idea.

In the end, this is all about numbers. Consider which Senators would immediately join you, which might join, which might need to be convienced, and which would be against the idea and what you'd need to do to get them to switch.

Here on DU, we have endless discussions about what the Dems or Obama should do. But the real problem is getting the NUMBERS to actual do anything. And they only way to get the numbers is to figure out where all of the Dems stand, and divide them up in a manner like I suggest above.

We keep acting like the Dems in Congress "should" be a monolithic group, all acting the same. The reality is they are not.

Rather than pretend that they are the same, maybe should divide them up into groups and go after the members of the groups in different ways to get them to do what we want them to do.

[Nancy Waterman]

30. They need to start having strategy not just ideas

They think the ideas are good enough in themselves. My point in this thread is they need to demand much more than they think they can get, not just ask for what they think is possible, only to have it peeled back anyway. The Repugs overreach all the time and end up doing quite well after some minimal compromise. It would put the GOP on the defensive if we pushed for something big and we would get much more even while back tracking and "compromising" some..

And yes, we need to work on our individual members to see how far they would go and get them to start thinking more strategically.

[JoePhilly]

45. Right ...

I think the reason the GOP overreaches is because the are basically monolithic, and becomming more so each election cycle.

The Dems aren't as similar. And so the sub groups simply prevent the whole from trying to take that bold position.

Consider the Bush tax cuts issue last year. The best move for the Dems was to pass a bill that extended the tax cuts for the middle class, while letting the tax cuts for the rich expire. They had the majority and so they could have done it "by the numbers". Except, a bunch of the blue dogs were unwilling to pass it. So nothing happened, and the Dems got their butts kicked in 2010.

Those sub groups are what causes us to start out in a compromised position in the first place.

[Lorien]

31. When was the last time that Dems "demanded" anything? nt

[golfguru]

32. No ne needs more than $1 Million per year

Anything above that should be confiscated and given to the poor.

[liberalla]

33. Hell, yeah!

In other words,

Use some of the GOP-type of aggressive tactics before they do.

! ! !

:dem:

[lostnfound]

34. Or a 2% alternative minimum tax on corporations

[BR_Parkway]

35. You mean raise their own taxes? For all the verbage they spew, we shouldn't

forget that all the talk about tax increases on the wealthy is just that, talk. Because they are, for the most part, part of the wealthy. Hell, their household help probably makes more than the average person living in their district for better than 95% of them. They aren't going to do something like raise their own taxes (unless they approve some new loopholes so they can get press coverage for raising taxes on the wealthy)

[vroomvroom]

36. Democrats, like Republicans, depend on the Rich for Campaign Contribs. so NEVER going to happen

Only way it will be increased on the rich is if their is a NUke dropped on AMerica or a 3rd party rises.

[Golden Raisin]

37. I totally agree but that has as much

chance of happening, particularly under this President, as wishing diamonds, emeralds and rubies would magically fall from the sky. 2011 Democrats don't do "preemptive", aggressive nor play hardball.

[BlueJac]

38. Most are part of this problem

[Lyric]

39. The Powers will never allow such an option to be placed on the table as a serious proposal.

They know full well that people would support it, especially if it was just laid right out there with no hesitations and no wishy-washing. Therefore, it must continue to be mocked as "ridiculous", "unrealistic", and "radical". If they spend enough time treating it like an idea that only an lunatic would consider as a serious option, eventually enough people will believe them, and they'll be "safe".

[RBInMaine]

40. Would never, ever, EVER pass this GOP House.

[Mason Dixon]

41. just ask one of these guys to be a little more patriotic

http://newamericangazette.com/2011/01/politics/top-20-richest-people-democrats/

[jerseyjack]

42. Except for Sanders and Kucinich, it ain't gonna happen.

[dotymed]

44. The public IS behind this by a large majority.

Poll after poll reinforces this.
It really seems (at the least) that R's and D's are paid by lobbyists and wealthy contributors (they are bought) to not raise these taxes. Instead they want to impose Austerity measures on the people who can least afford them.
Revolution seems to be the only answer. Not for just these tax increases but for all of the things that are "fair" for our citizens, ie...unversal health care, and so much more...
Of course we can not have an armed revolution against the largest military in the world.
We can and must have a peaceful revolution, our dire straits demand it.

[spooked911]

46. of course-- this is the simplest answer to our problems

except Obama will never go along with it because he is a crypto-repub

[russspeakeasy]

47. If the "boss" says no, it's no.

[NewJeffCT]

50. The problem with this, however

is that even if Democrats were unified and on message about raising taxes on the richest 1% to (say) 50%, and then the next 4% to (say) 40%, would the media allow Democrats on the air to get their message out? How often do you see leading progressive Democrats on the Sunday talk shows? How often is Barbara Boxer, Bernie Sanders or Sheldon Whitehouse on there? And, even if a liberal makes it on the air, he or she will almost always have a RW loon spouting talking points to oppose them.

How about combining raising taxes on the rich with getting out of Afghanistan completely and cutting defense spending by 10%?

[tomp]

52. goddamn, that's naive! (or worse)

that's right, let's put MORE faith in the democratic party to do things it has proved itself charaterologically incapable of doing.

there's comes a point when not recognizing the obvious points to complicity. you are misleading here.

[Jakes Progress]

53. Dem Legislators won't tax themselves.

Most don't have lives or situations or goals that we have.

[Keith Bee]

54. What an original idea!

:eyes: