A winning Democratic Party message?

[Atman]

After reading the article about the hyper-rich getting hyper-richer, and the FACT that 53% of Bush's tax cuts went to the top 10%, it appears that TAXES may actually be a winning issue for us IF we frame it properly: as an issue of fundamental fairness.

Now that middle-America is firmly in the grip Bush's tax policies, which have caused a tidal wave of fee increases and hidden "taxes" on them, cutting into living standards in demonstrable ways, maybe it is time we point out that it is fundamentally unfair for Joe America to work his ass off to fund the TAX CUTS OF THE HYPER-RICH LEISURE CLASS!

Why do we have to schlub to the office, the factory, the Burger King, and bust our balls, only to see our kid's lose after school programs, our parks sold off to the energy industry, our seniors lose health care, our dads and granddads losing the pensions they've worked their whole lives for...while the fat-cat leisure class who've DONE NOTHING PRODUCTIVE FOR SOCIETY WITH THE TAX CUTS THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN GIVEN, just keep compounding interest on the money WE'VE been forced to give them.

It will take rigid talking points and echo-chamber mentality, because the right will immediately start whining about "tax and spend liberals!" The usual tired meme. But it simply isn't true, and can be demonstrated untrue. So if we approach our deficit/economic problems as being directly the fault of the very, very wealthy, who do not share America's values of fairness, then it can be a winning issue. We don't want to raise taxes on anyone, especially low and middle income Americans already being beaten down by Bush's policies. We only want to return FAIRNESS to the system, so that the people who are getting the most from our society will once again shoulder their FAIR SHARE for our nation's upkeep.

Carefully, properly framed, TAX EQUITY can be a real winning issue for us, I believe. Not RAISING taxes, just returning many of Bush's cronies and golf buddies to tax rolls, just like the rest of us.

[CTyankee]

1. I wish I could believe that

but it seems that the general public doesn't really care about the rich getting richer. They are "wannabes". In other words, they want to be those rich folk and they figure that when they hit the lottery or some such get rich fantasy, they will want those tax cuts. Someone once said, "Americans will always take a step up but they won't take a step down." I guess another way of saying it is that they don't want to see themselves as losers in capitalism, altho they most certainly are. My brother was a good example. He voted and would have continued to vote Republican after he was already disabled and being taken care of under Medicaid. No gratitude whatsoever to the Democrats who created the program! Grrr!

[Atman]

3. Ah, but that is part of the "talking point"

These aren't "rich" people, the kind you and I really do have a shot at becomming. The people in the tonier neighborhoods, the people who built their laundry franchise up to a healthy business, or the owner of a successful firm which employs a few dozen people. The people I'm referring to are not "us," and we have no chance of becoming one of the them. These are people who, for all intents and purposes, are from another planet. They have generations of family wealth, they have boatloads of cash from crony deals with the government; they are NOT us. It must be made clear that we're not talking about raising taxes on the middle class, the upper middle class, or even the "rich." We're talking about making people making hundreds of millions of dollars a year in interest income, stock deals, paper shuffling, inheritences, etc., simply begin paying into the system at least SOME mandatory tax, kind of like the AMT was supposed to do, but fairly, honestly, for real.

Keep in mind that virtually all of the great development in American history, in terms of the great estates of Carnegie, the Kennedies, the Bushes, of course, all of these massive estates, philanthropic endeavors, construction of industry -- ALL happened under a top tax rate of over 70% in some cases. Yet, all these men managed to build massive empires. Hmmm....now, they can't seem to do ANYTHING unless it is tax free. Why? What is different? I'm not calling for a return to 70% tax rates, I am trying to point out that the "burden" of high taxes on the wealthy didn't seem to stop the historical American patriarchies from attaining THIER wealth and expanding THEIR businesses. Why now?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

5. EXACTLY ! these are the BILDERBERG RICH...an elite few that oppress

[flpoljunkie]

2. Dems need to hammer fact that your FICA taxes pay for fat cats' tax cuts.

There would be no Social Security shortfall if the tax cuts for those in the top two brackets were rolled back to the Clinton era levels.

And, indeed, there may be no problem at all if the economy performs as it has in the past. Bush's aim is to relieve the government of its obligation to pay Social Security--plain and simple. They have spent the money, and now they want to be relieved of the obligation to pay it back to the Social Security trust fund.

The Democrats need to hammer this fact--over and over--until the vast majority of our uninformed citizens understand what is going on.

[Atman]

4. Okay, so I was wrong

Not only doesn't the concept of TAX EQUITY appear to be a winner, we don't even appear to want to talk about it.

Moving along!

(But remember, Bush gave 53% of his tax cuts, YOUR money, to the top 10% of the taxpayers. Seems like an issue to me, as he wants to make them all permanent.)

[Atman]

6. One last try to attract some interest...anyone?

hello...is this thing on?