Democrats and Taxes.

[kentuck]

Since time immemorial, nobody likes taxes but the king. Because he collects them and gets to decide how they are spent.

In 1913, the income tax was passed into law. Coincidentally, it was the same year that the Federal Reserve was created.

Since then, for most of the last century, the Democratic Party has used taxes to promote the welfare of the general society. From Social Security, to Medicare, to better roads, to schools, to going to the moon, taxes were necessary.

But starting in 1980, people started looking at taxes differently. With Reagan and George W Bush, it was no longer for society's good, it was the people's money and government was the enemy. They said they were paying too much. Government was taking too much.

Now, at the end of the first decade of the new century, many Democrats seem to have bought into the Reagan and Bush ideas on taxes. They no longer see taxes as the necessity Democrats in the past envisioned.

Their taxcuts are more important than what society might use them for. They want lower taxes for everyone. The Democratic Party of today is not your father's Democratic Party. It is changing before our eyes.

Hard times tend to change people's perspectives. When the wealthy accumulate massive amounts of wealth, times tend to get difficult for everyone else, just like during the Great Depression. It will happen again. We can only hope the present Democratic Party can protect the safety net created by our predecessors.

Taxes are necessary for a good and healthy society. When we fail to realize that, we are setting ourselves up for some huge disappointments and hardships. The Democratic Party needs to decide if they are a Party for the people or if they are a Party for business and taxcuts. They cannot be both.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. America has gone through all this before.

We already experienced what it was like when taxes were low and there were dirt roads and one-room schools where kids dropped out in the third grade. We went through a period when workers had little to no rights and people killed themselves working as coal miners or sharecroppers. There was no healthcare system; there might have been one doctor for the entire county and no hospitals. If that is the way Americans want to live, then I guess that's their right, but it's not the kind of country I want to be part of.

[kentuck]

2. I am beginning to think that we lived in exceptional times...

..and are now returning to the normal.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Yeah, I think that's right.

When you look at various periods in history--the Scottish Removal Acts come to mind--you see that oppression of the masses has been the norm. This was certainly true through most of American history, until FDR. It chills me to think that FDR presided over the the beginning of most liberal era we ever had--and he only did what was necessary to save the capitalist system.

I had hoped, and for many years thought, that we were experiencing a genuine change in the structure and values of our society, not just a 40-year bubble of decency. I guess I was wrong.

[kentuck]

12. In actuality....After WWII and Eisenhower...

...times were still tough for a lot of people in America. No food stamps and very little safety net. The Old Age Survivors' Insurance was a pittance - $60 or $70 dollars per month. It was a basic survival program.

Only after LBJ in the late 60's until the present was there a safety net that was there for most Americans in dire straits.

Now that seems to be changing. If they are successful in cutting the Social Security safety net, it will create a downturn is social programs unlike any most of us have seen in our lifetimes. The Social Security Program is the cornerstone for helping the poor and needy in this country. If it can be destroyed, then it all can be destroyed.

Be careful where you step. There are landmines all about.

[RKP5637]

3. +1, n/t

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Ya goddam soshalist.

There is no power base advancing the rights of the common person. There are two so-called parties, one of them hell-bent on rapidly destroying what remains of what was once a relatively decent and compassionate society, with an expressed ideology to match, and the other seeking to slightly slow down the collapse of that society while expressing an ideology of care and concern for the commoners.

The first party pushes a draconian and intolerant social vision, while the latter is willing to allow a few positive like DADT as long as they con't cost the ownership class too much. But on the big issues, involving instating or reinstating a true social safety net, they are too much the same.

I recognize and applaud measures such as the recent one to replace some of the protections on wilderness; nevertheless, I deplore our failure to start on the really important and revolutionary measures necessary to move us toward a renewable human ecological system.

The choices seem to be between a party pushing for a rapid takeover of the world by the moneyed interests, and a party that has the same goal but wants to get there more slowly, padding the crash with a few concessions on relatively inexpensive issues such as gay rights.

[RKP5637]

4. Recommend!!! n/t

[Kat45]

6. "Taxes are necessary for a good and healthy society."

You are absolutely correct. When will people realize that?

[Seventeen]

8. Democrats and taxs

Personaly...I've about had it with taxs...I work for a living..and am starting to resent folks who don't work..but want a chunk of my money.

Yes..taxs are neccesary..however I'm starting to develope a real disrespect for lazy non-trying people.

The sheer truth...soon won't be enough working people to pay for the non-working people. Then life won't be so fun huh?

[kentuck]

9. I hope you keep reading and educating yourself.

That would be very admirable.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. I think I saw you in one of the pictures on this site

http://moronswithsigns.blogspot.com/

[hfojvt]

10. the Democratic message has been watered down since Clinton

Clinton ran as a Reaganite, promising a middle class tax cut and attacking Bush Sr. for increasing taxes (like the Congressional Democrats wanted).

Then Gore was faced with Bush promising a big tax cut. His solution - offer his own tax cut plan.

Obama promised also to cut taxes for 95% of taxpayers and then bragged about it in his first State of the Union.

Because of the popularity of Reaganomics and the crushing defeat of Mondale in 1984, our party 'leaders' have embraced it.

Which I think is a huge moral and tactical mistake. http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62