Letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is not Near Enough!

[bvar22]

We need to go back to the tax structure of the 50s /60s.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower said that it was the Patriotic Duty of The RICH to help pay down The Debt from WW2,
and set the top bracket at 90%!.
Paying Down the Debt was framed as a Patriotic DUTY!

After the War Debt was paid off, JFK lowered the rate on the top bracket to 71% and Capital Gains to 25%!.

America prospered,
built the Largest, Wealthiest, and Most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World had ever seen,
and people STILL got RICH!
I want THAT America BACK!



It seems kinda stupid to be fighting for just a meager 3.5% tax increase to 39% on the Wealthiest Americans.
In reality, we are fighting FOR extremely LOW taxes on the RICHEST Americans, and will celebrate a "VICTORY" if these historically low rates are enacted!

MAN are "they" good a framing the debate.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[SickOfTheOnePct]

1. And President Obama would explain that he said 39.6% not 91% how? n/t

[bvar22]

3. Simple.

"I listen to The People,
and The People have spoken."

WE should be changing the frame of this debate.
Starting at 39%, and then "compromising down" is NOT a good game plan for success.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. The problem is

There is no indication that "we the people" do favor a 91% top bracket. The only way we would know for sure is if President Obama had run on that rate.

You're assuming that because you favor it, all other Obama voters must favor it as well...and you're wrong about that.

[RepublicansRZombies]

8. I don't think your name fits your intentions

You were attacking me just yesterday with the same arguments.

Who cares what Obama said, this is our country, we have to do what is right for WE the PEOPLE.

Obama wants us to push him, let's push him.

And Since when do Republicans do anything they say they will do when elected? At least we are doing it for the right reasons.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

9. I haven't attacked anyone

Disagreement does not constitute attack.

And to answer your last statement first, I agree that Republicans don't do what they say they will do. Personally, I hold Democrats to a higher standard. I voted for President Obama because I believe that he is telling the truth about where this country needs to go and how to get us there. If I had wanted to vote for a liar, I could have voted for Romney, as the policies he claimed to promote are better for me personally than President Obama's.

I'm not a fan of "say whatever you have to, truth or lies, just to get elected". YMMV.

So, I care what Obama says, and so do the other 65+ million people that voted for him. If he believes that a 91% top marginal tax rate is what we should go to, then that's what he should have run on. He would have most likely lost, but at least it would have been an honest loss.

You keep saying that "WE the PEOPLE" need to push him to this...where is you data that shows that "WE the PEOPLE" favor returning to Eisenhower-era top bracket rates?

I'm all for lifting the cap on the SS portion of payroll taxes, on taxing capital gains as regular income and for restoring the estate tax. But I don't believe that anyone should have to give up 91% of what they earn. As I said, YMMV.

[RepublicansRZombies]

12. Were we asked if we wanted to return to Eisenhower tax rates?

What makes you think most Americans wouldn't support this?

Why don't we have a national poll then?

I happen to think we are smarter than the politicians that pretend to lead us.

[klyon]

19. I would settle for the rolling back to the Reagan rates on the wealth

for now anyway

[RepublicansRZombies]

20. that might work- Republicans love the good ole days of Reagan

How is it that taxes are lower than ever and they are still complaining?

[Scuba]

2. I'd start with lifting the cap on Social Security, then applying that tax to capital gains too.

[bvar22]

4. I like those too!

Lets Start the Debate by putting ALL that on the table.
THAT should be our FIRM Starting Position,
NOT a historically LOW top income bracket of 39%.

[RepublicansRZombies]

21. Negotiate from a position of power

[HopeHoops]

5. I agree, but we also need to eliminate the $110K cap on SS in FICA.

I pay the full rate (self-employed, so it's double), so why shouldn't everyone? Hell, I've never even come close to making $110K and most people never will either. I'm sick of the "rich get benefits the rest of us don't" mentality. Perhaps Forbes was right with the flat tax.

[RepublicansRZombies]

7. Best post of the day!

Thank you!

We won!

We need to stop allowing Republicans and their media whores (on ALL the stations, not just FOX) to frame the debate.

And bring up Eisenhower is the perfect way to remind Republicans of a time when they too were fiscally responsible.

Ending the Bush tax cuts should have been a done deal 4 years ago, that can't be all we are fighting for now.

[hfojvt]

10. except we are not even fighting for that

Obama, insofar as he will even fight, is only gonna fight for the reversal of 27% of the Bush tax cuts. 73% of the Bush tax cuts will remain, and of that amount, the top 1% will get $40 billion a year in tax cuts, and the top 4% (meaning the top 5% without the top 1%) will get another $40 billion per year. The richest 20% get 53% of the benefits of Obama's plan, compared to the bottom 40% which gets less than 13% of the benefts. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxcompromise2010.pdf

Which is why I think we would actually be better off if the Bush tax cuts did expire - completely.

As I said long ago, I would be very much in favor of adding brackets to the top, like this

39.1% up to $500,000
45% up to $1,000,000 (1)
55% up to $5,000,000 (2)
65% for the rest (3)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/129

But that is outside of the National public discourse. The public will never hear about such a plan. Indeed, it probably will not get as much attention on DU as the thread from the newbie criticizing DU for not accepting surrender to House Republicans.

[RepublicansRZombies]

11. But that is outside of the National public discourse

WE need to make it part of National public discourse.

WE need to bring this up to every Republican, remind them of what it means to be conservative.

[hfojvt]

13. hey, if you say "yop" I will say "yop" right beside you

but I doubt if even Horton will hear it, much less Obama, or Pelosi, or even Baldwin, and far far less Boehner and McConnell.

[RepublicansRZombies]

15. We have more power than you realize- WE won this election on Social Networks

Thanks to citizens united, they spent more money on this election than ever before- and they STILL LOST!

We have a corrupt corporate media that really just outdid themselves this election- and they STILL LOST!

WE used the internet to spread the truth, and we won.

The internet is the perfect way for WE the People to continue to take back our power.

[hfojvt]

25. 7 recs for this thread

and so far 31 recs for the thread admonishing DU for pushing back agains the "grand bargain" BS.

We the people are not winning on the internet either.

[RepublicansRZombies]

27. democrats are not immune to brainwashing from paid propagandists

plus they have their buddies doing backup with the recs, or they have several accounts or something.

There is no way that other stupid ass OP had over 100 recs from real DUers.

Many here are just followers, waiting on a Dem leadership that has already failed so many times. I just can't understand it.

[SpartanDem]

14. The top effective rate during Eisenhower was closer to 50%

George Romney, Mitt's father, who unlike his son released his tax returns averaged 37% in the 60's. I get you're saying that we could raise taxes even more, but no one paid close to 90%.

http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings.nsf/ArtWeb/AEEC9CAC8F773DD7852579C20073FD36?OpenDocument

[bvar22]

17. The "effective rate" doesn't matter.

I'm talking about Framing the Debate,
not parsing out the details.

We shouldn't be wasting our MANDATE fighting FOR a meager increase of 3-1/2% on the RICH. A Historically LOW Tax Rate on the very rich is not a "VICTORY" for DEMOCRATS or a battle worth fighting.

We should START the National Debate fighting FOR the Tax, Trade, and Regulation policies that built the Largest, Wealthiest, and most Upwardly Mobile Working Class the World has ever seen!

Now THAT is worth Fighting For!
HISTORY is on OUR side.

[font size=4]We want OUR America Back![/font]

[Ganja Ninja]

16. I agree. The idea that we are going back to the 39% Clinton rates for the rich is too kind.

They've had their day in the sun. They paid the right wing to create this budget crisis and now they should have to pay to make it go away. Even a 60% tax rate would be too easy on them.

[RepublicansRZombies]

18. They looted the country, now they need to give it back

I don't think it is too much to ask.

[davidn3600]

22. That wouldnt be enough

Assuming you can keep the economy the same, a 90% tax rate on the upper class would not be enough to close the deficit.

You are talking about the 1950s and 60s which didn't have anything like the spending budget that we have today. It's a far more complex problem. Not only that but JFK and Eisenhower didnt have to deal with the complexities of the fiat money system we have today.

The only way the debt can be reduced is through a combination of tax increases and spending cuts. There is no other viable mathematical way of doing this.

[bvar22]

23. All the MORE reason return to the successful Tax Rates of the 50s & 60s.

Your post is a powerful reason to START from a position that the RICH should do their Patriotic Duty to pay down the debt just as they did in the 50s & 60s.
Just because "it won't be enough" is NO reason for not fighting for it.
It will certainly help....a bunch.

Hell, if killing Big Bird makes a difference,
returning to the historically successful Tax Rates of the 60s is even MORE important.

We can work from there.

[RepublicansRZombies]

24. "START from a position that the RICH should do their Patriotic Duty to pay down the debt"

yes yes yes!!!

[bvar22]

26. HEY!!! THom Hartmann brought up this very topic...

..on his show today.

FINALLY, someone else is talking about the Tax & Trade Policies of the 60s!!!!

Fighting FOR a Historically Very LOW Tax Rate on the very richest Americans
is a WASTE of the Mandate, and nothing to CHEER about.

How did it EVER devolve to THIS:
Democrats fighting FOR Low Taxes on the RICH?

Man, "they" are GOOD a Framing the Debate.



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[font size=5 color=firebrick]Solidarity![/font]

[RepublicansRZombies]

28. Go Thom Hartmann!

[forestpath]

29. K&R