Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

New poll: Tax cut fight is winner for Dems in battleground states

If this new poll conducted for the labor powerhouse SEIU doesn't persuade Dems to hold a vote on extending the middle class tax cuts, then nothing will.

The toplines of the poll, which were first reported by Alex Burns, are striking enough: In seven core battleground states, a big majority, 62 percent, favor extending the middle class tax cuts while letting the high end cuts expire. That's exactly what Dems are mulling a vote on.

But the rest of the poll, which I obtained from the SEIU, is equally striking, and builds the case for this vote very effectively. Here are the other key findings from the survey, which was conducted by the Dem firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner:

* A majority of voters in these seven battleground states reject a core argument in favor of the Bush tax cuts: The idea that the cuts for everyone helped the economy. The poll finds that a majority think the Bush tax cuts either made no difference (26 percent) or hurt the economy (27 percent). That's a total of 53 percent.

While 39 percent think the tax cuts helped, two-thirds of those are Republicans -- who likely wouldn't vote for Dems in any case.

* The poll tested competing messages about how letting the middle class tax cuts expire would impact small business, and found that the Dem argument wins. A plurality (49 percent) believe the argument that letting them expire will benefit nearly all small businesses, while only a third (33 percent) believe the argument from opponents that it would hurt small businesses.

The poll was taken among 400 likely voters in each of the following battleground states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin. This means it's much more focused than the national polls we've seen of late, which have also shown strong support for the Dem position.

Paul Begala, an adviser to the SEIU, is going to try to get Congressional Dems to focus on these numbers, I'm told. "At a time when Democrats are facing tough races all across the country, defending middle-class tax cuts while Republicans hold them hostage for tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year is a winning issue for them," Begala said in a statement emailed my way. "This is the fight Democrats need."

The key word there is "need." Again: The hand Dems currently are holding is a loser, and they may be headed for a disaster. If there's anything that has a prayer of drawing a sharp enough contrast between the parties to put a dent in the dynamics underlying this election, it's a vote on whether to extend the middle class tax cuts. And what remains striking is that there's simply no evidence that there's a downside to holding this vote, aside from the claims to the contrary by Republicans and the "moderate" Dems who are all too willing to agree with them.

Dems: Hold. The. Damn. Vote.

By Greg Sargent  | September 21, 2010; 12:33 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections, House Dems, House GOPers, Senate Dems, Senate Republicans, economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Christine O'Donnell is toxic and hurting GOP
Next: Who will win the 2012 Tea Party presidential primary?

Comments

WOO HOO (MORE Bush tax cuts!!!)

Too bad the House is going to adjourn THIS week and not vote on it ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Yea but this issue will not DETERMINE how people vote this fall.


Compared to the issue of the overall economy, this issue motivates few.


People will vote on how they feel about Obama's overall job performance on the economy - NOT this narrow issue.

Not sure why this keeps on taking the oxygen out of the air, because it doesnt really help the democrats at all.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 12:44 PM | Report abuse

People will vote for the local candidate they prefer to represent them.

Obama is not on any ballot this year.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 12:47 PM | Report abuse

Wait a minute:

"A plurality (49 percent) believe the argument that letting them expire will benefit nearly all small businesses."

49% think a tax increase will *help* small businesses?

Posted by: sbj3 | September 21, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

jake -- actually, Dems are not adjourning this week. that story was revealed to be false.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 21, 2010 12:49 PM | Report abuse

"49% think a tax increase will *help* small businesses?"

Amazing what happens when tax cuts for the rich are rolled back in favor of REAL tax cuts for small biz.

People are seeing through the GO-BP lies.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh, darn (the less time Dems spend in D.C., the less damage they can do ; )

Posted by: JakeD2 | September 21, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

A reminder to all Tea Party members who reside in Delaware;

Be sure to vote For The Grifting Witch who cured Conan O'Brien's Bear.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Shorter teaparty philosophy.

"Here's more Chinese money millionaires and billionaires, now pretty please give us some jobs, with sugar on it."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

OT:

* Tea Party Patriots Get $1 Million to Help Local Groups on Election Activities *

The source of the grant itself wasn't revealed in a press conference on Tuesday, where former Congressman Ernie Istook and also joined the group as a policy adviser. He called the cash infusion "fertilizer for the grassroots."

"If you have a lawn," said Istook, "you water it, you tend to it, you weed it. That's what's happening here. And it is unique. I can't think of anything quite like it happening before."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/weigel/archive/2010/09/21/tea-party-patriots-gets-1-million-for-election-activities.aspx

It's "fertilizer" alright.

It's actually good for Dems.

Tea Party = GOP = Tea Party

They're all funded by huge corporate conservative elite uber-wealthy, so what's the difference? They're all bank-rolled by Big Oil, Big PhRMA, Big Insurance.

No surprise at all that "all of a sudden" the "grassroots" movement gets huge contributions to fund whackjob conservative candidates.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 12:56 PM | Report abuse

I see you want the vote held


However - WHY risk giving the Republicans fodder to run 30-second commercials saying that Obama just raised taxes $700 Billion Dollars in the middle of a RECESSION?

How hard is that ???


Nancy is right not to give the Republicans that attack ad.

Go ahead, do it - see if I care.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

"A plurality (49 percent) believe the argument that letting them expire will benefit nearly all small businesses."

As moronic a belief as one could find. Dem propoganda and economic illiteracy do work for the left.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

The real question is "What will Congress do with this money?" Will it go to debt reduction? Jobs Programs for Business?
I always feel that any tax increase which this would be trickles down to Middle Class and the Working Poor through higher prices, job losses, or jobs not being created in the private sector.
The SEIU has been one of the largest benefactors of this Congress and Administrations policies so why not push for tax increases as this money is removed from the private sector and put into the hands of the employers of the SEIU the Federal Government. How was the question posed to the people that were asked...that should always be in an article about a poll. The way a question is framed has a lot to do with how it is answered.

Posted by: apexmerch | September 21, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

Liam-still 12:47 PM


It would actually be better for the democrats around the country if Obama was on the ballot.


In that situation, people could show their anger toward Obama - and go on to the other races on the ballot.

Instead, voters have one way to show their anger toward Obama - VOTE STRAIGHT REPUBLICAN.

So, actually Obama is not on the ballot, but Obama is influencing ALL the races.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:01 PM | Report abuse

"middle of a RECESSION?"

Recession's over. Didn't you get the memo? Now pull yourself up by your bootstraps and stop complaining and get yourself a job. If you can't get one where you're at, move. That's what my family had to do in the past. That's what previous generations in this country have done. No need to stop now.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Bush and the Republican Congressional majority slated the Tax Cuts for Fat Cats to expire at the end of 2010. They wrote it into law.

Why do they not want to obey their own law?

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Seems that Harry Reid HALTED the "don't ask, don't tell" repeal - BY ADDING AN IMMIGRATION MEASURE.


Harry Reid weighed the whole bill down so much, there is not enough votes.

How can the democrats NOT want Harry Reid to lose? Getting rid of Harry Reid would be good for the democrats.

Dick Durbin is probably the best candidate for the democrats.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Leaders.

Pass a bill now, that will add an annual COLA adjustment to the Minimum Wage, instead of always making the poorest workers have to wait until you are in power to ever adjust the rate.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

SaveTheRainforest has no idea what he's talking about regarding DADT. He speaks as if it was its own bill.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

@ apex

As for your first point, your 'feeling' isn't supported by any empirical evidence. I refer to the mid-late 1990s for details.

As for your concern about the poll wording, I'll remind you that this is pretty consistent with the results from national polls on the issue, less a few of the details cited in this poll. That said, typically you'd be right here, but I have a feeling that you wouldn't care at all if the results showed something you liked.

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 21, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 1:02 PM


Wow - Mike - really strong words from a democrat who is supposed to care about the unemployed.


Wow -


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"The real question is "What will Congress do with this money?" Will it go to debt reduction? Jobs Programs for Business?"

It seems like a good question, it's really a meaningless question in Obamaworld.

All we know, and we do know, is that no matter how much they "raise taxes" they will spend even more, shovelling cash to Dem cronies and unions, funding pork and batteries no one wanted. The government is spending such vast oceans of money now that changes in revenue (even if one assumes raising rates would raise revenue) are almost meaningless.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

STRF is such a complete Dunce that he thinks that having a sitting President on a midterm election ballot, is actually an option.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

OT:

It's Zogby, so take it with a lump of salt... but:

Sep. 20
US-Congressional Generic Ballot
Democrats (D) 44.0%
Republicans (R) 43.0%

Previous poll was:

Sep. 14
US-Congressional Generic Ballot Democrats (D) 41.0% Republicans (R) 47.0%

http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-cong-generic-ballot

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I am going to change my name, and run for Office as Liam Generic. I will always look strong in the polls.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 1:02 PM


"Middle of a Recession"


Since the democrats spent all last year saying that Bush was responsible for EVERYTHING IN THE ECONOMY that happened last year -


Since, the new economic numbers say the recession ended in June 2009 THAT MEANS THAT BUSH GETS CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION, RIGHT ?

If the recession is over, and it ended in the spring of 2009, the democrats surely will NOT try to take credit for that.

Since Obama and the democrats have said numerous times that Bush is responsible for the economy in 2009, THEN BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS GET CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.

Thank you.


Thank you very much.


.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

"funding pork and batteries no one wanted"

HAHAHA!

QB hates him some investment in growth industries!

Stick to law, QB. At least in that field you can pretend to know what you're talking about.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

"The government is spending such vast oceans of money now that changes in revenue (even if one assumes raising rates would raise revenue) are almost meaningless."

Yeah, its so prenicious Bob Corker in Tennessee wanted to take credit for jobs and increases in production and the workers booed him b/c he couldn't get his lazy arse to vote different from the rest of the Party Of No.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Then all those Right Wingers should stop complaining about how bad the economy is. You say that Bush has restored it. Good to know.

Posted by: Liam-still | September 21, 2010 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Greg. The question is when. Timing matters. The voting public forgets things quickly. Perhaps a vote about 3 weeks before the election is the right time.

Posted by: admin24 | September 21, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

@holyhandrenaid
What empirical evidence is there that the wealthy do not pass this expense down the line? It is the same as running a business if your cost (taxes) go up you pass it along to the consumer. The wealthy get that and will not eat a tax hike alone.
As for the polls it is only fair to give the question so that an opinion can be formed. EVERY poll weather I agree or disagree.
I do not read these articles just to reinforce my own opinion but to get different views.

Posted by: apexmerch | September 21, 2010 1:23 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington 1:02 PM


Obama and the democrats just spent the last year and a half saying Bush was responsible for the economic conditions in 2009.


HHHHMM NOW we find out that the Recession was OVER in June 2009.

SO BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS SHOULD GET CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.

Wooo HOOOOOOOO

Obama has to give CREDIT to Bush for ENDING THE RECESSION - and handing off a GROWING ECONOMY to Obama.


hhhmmmmm

Logical, huh?

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:24 PM | Report abuse

Polling Bombshell: PPP puts Raese ahead of Manchin
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/09/close-race-in-west-virginia.html

It’s hard to get shocked by polling results that show Republicans surging in once-safe Democratic constituencies, but the latest survey from PPP in West Virginia manages to do it.

Republican John Raese was given virtually no chance at all to win the Senate race against popular Governor Joe Manchin when he declared his candidacy this summer.

Raese has now just jumped into a 46-43 lead as Manchin's campaign is collapsing.

Posted by: KaddafiDelendaEst | September 21, 2010 1:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry but can anyone translate SaveTheRainforsts' posts for me? Thanks.

And O/T:

"They want to use this week for a political exercise they want to weigh this bill down with controversy in a transparent attempt to show their special interest groups that they haven't forgotten about them ahead of the election," McConnell bemoaned."

The special interests groups would be "teh gays" and the "should know better than to be immigrants in this country" children for anyone that was wondering.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

"QB hates him some investment in growth industries!

Stick to law, QB. At least in that field you can pretend to know what you're talking about."

No, I'm all for investment in growth industries. I'm all against socialism. It doesn't work. I don't want Barack Obama picking supposed "growth industries" and "investing" our money for us by taking it through taxes or borrowing on our credit car to spend it where he thinks growth should be happening but isn't.

Let him invest his own money. Or yours if you want to mail it to him. But not mine or my children's that they haven't even earned yet.

Too bad you don't get it.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 1:31 PM | Report abuse

What empirical evidence is there that the wealthy do not pass this expense down the line? It is the same as running a business if your cost (taxes) go up you pass it along to the consumer.

You understand that the taxes we are discussing are levied on profits and income, not revenues, right?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 21, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Simon Rosenberg:

Both the Real Clear Politics Congressional Generic average and the new Gallup track show similar national trend lines - Dems gaining ground, GOP dropping. Similarly, the Gallup track has Obama's approval rating improving by 10 net percentage points in the past month, from 42/51 to 47/46 (RCP has shown movement despite 2 clear outlier Rasmussen and AP polls).

If these trend lines are true, no one should be suprised. The underlining favorability of the Republican Party is still far below that of the Dems and Obama. This election has never been like 1994 where at this point there had been both a fall of the Dems and a rise in the GOP. The memory of the disasterous GOP reign in the last decade is still too fresh, their leaders still to unreformed, their candidates far too wacky, and their ideas still to reckless for the current GOP to have fully taken advantage of the Democratic underpeformance this past cycle. This election, like all elections, is not like any other election. It has its own contours, its own dynamics. Like all elections it is sui generis.

[...]

Kos:

So GOTV like mad. The numbers are trending in our direction. We just have to close the deal.

Oh, one last point:

USA Today/Gallup, 9/7/08: McCain 54, Obama 44
ABC/WaPost, 9/7/08: McCain 49, Obama 47
Gallup, 9/9/08: McCain 48, Obama 43
Gallup, 9/12/08: McCain 47, Obama 45
Hotline, 9/12/08: McCain 45, Obama 44
Rasmussen, 9/13/08: McCain 50, Obama 47
ARG, 9/15/08: McCain 48, Obama 45
Gallup, 9/15/08: McCain 47, Obama 46
Rasmussen, 9/16/08: McCain 48, Obama 47
GWU/Tarrance, 9/18/08: McCain 47, Obama 45

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/9/21/903871/-Perhaps-Dems-arent-so-doomed-in-2010

Get fired up for November! We're gonna GOTV!

Chip in to progressive candidates where you can!

Start here, the PL Community Organizers' 3 Picks of the Week:

http://www.actblue.com/page/plcommunity

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

Fair enough Apex, heres the deal:

In the '90s the rich paid higher taxes than they do today. Prices for goods and services were (keep in mind, I do not have numbers) were certainly not more than they are now (even after adjustments for inflation), and unemployment was pretty darn low.

The misconception with the angle you are coming at this with is that raising the individual income tax rate (typically distinct from the corporate rate) has a significant impact on the cost associated with producing goods. Yes, many small businesses can/may/will be affected here, but not very many, as most either do not make enough money to begin with, or drop out of the top bracket after expense deductions.

Does that help?

Posted by: holyhandgrenaid | September 21, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

"I'm all against socialism."

He means like subsidies for crops and other industry and things like how companies get tax breaks for paying into employees health insurance and stuff. Or maybe he means stuff like when Bush gave AIG 180 billion to pay off the CDS's it couldn't cover to banks and investment firms around the globe. Maybe it's the corporate socialism he hates.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Here's a fact that should dominate much of next week's debate over taxes: Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would be just about enough to hit Obama's goal of balancing the budget (minus interest payments) by 2015. That's all they'd need: One non-act. Better: There'd be no sixty-vote threshold. You'd just need a veto of any extension bills and 34 votes to protect the veto in the Senate. And it's not as if there are no compromises available here. If Congress doesn't want to do it while the economy is weak, but could commit to doing it in two or three years, that would be almost as good.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/

Posted by: cmccauley60 | September 21, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Funny thing about some of the ads of the democrats coming out this year - even when the democrats are going after Nancy Pelosi, and saying they did not support the health care plan, the democrats are the ones NATIONALIZING the election.

Even the democrats who are breaking with Obama are nationalizing the election - going with national issues.


PA 12 - was an unusual district - filled with Pork from thirty years of Murtha - and the democrats ran with Republican positions - hardly a model for other democrats around the country.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

please, please, please, by all means campaign on raising taxes here in Ohio. Please, do that. We're going to hammer most the Democrats anyway, but it would great to knock off the rest.

go ahead and raise taxes. I'm sick of Marcy the Crook Kaptur anyway!

Please, raise taxes, go ahead. Make my day.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

shorter skipsailing28

"Here's more Chinese money millionaires and billionaires, now pretty please give us some jobs, with sugar on it."

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

"I'm all for investment in growth industries. I'm all against socialism."

A) govt investment is not socialism, as you well know

B) then you're against EVERYTHING that govt has invested in?

Say... the internet, synthetic materials, nuclear energy, infrastructure, medicine, renewable energy, oil and gas drilling technology, on and on and on... so you're against all those things?

http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/projectdatabase/Accomplishments.html

Hilarious #socialismfail QB, just hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

this is wrong:
=======================
The misconception with the angle you are coming at this with is that raising the individual income tax rate (typically distinct from the corporate rate) has a significant impact on the cost associated with producing goods. Yes, many small businesses can/may/will be affected here, but not very many, as most either do not make enough money to begin with, or drop out of the top bracket after expense deductions.

Does that help?

========================

First, the last sentence is just a paradigm for liberal thought: so the government hammers some one back into a lower tax bracket, so what? Obama needs the money!

Any rise in the taxes paid by any organization in the supply chain will ultimately be paid by the consumer. Even the IRS, on its web page admits that.

so hiking taxes on small businesses is just a way to hike taxes on everyone who buys from anybody.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

OT:

@firstread:

Despite having the political winds at their backs, it’s a significant story that Republicans weren’t able to outraise Democrats last month. The DNC raised nearly $11 million to the RNC’s nearly $8 million; the DCCC raised $8.3 million to the NRCC’s $6.6 million; the DSCC raised $7.4 million to the NRSC’s $6 million. As the Washington Post’s Cillizza notes, “While money isn't always determinative in elections … it is often a sign of momentum. Given the doom and gloom predictions for Democrats over the past month, the expectation was that Republicans would easily win the cash dash.”

That's gotta take the wind out of some Republican Tea Party sails...

Even WITH your massive funding from the conservative corporate elite uber-wealthy, the Dem grassroots is STILL kicking your tail! HA!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Quick in and then gone.

Re O'Donnell and the satanic alter thing with the "blood and stuff"...

What was the "stuff"?

Posted by: bernielatham | September 21, 2010 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Any rise in the taxes paid by any organization in the supply chain will ultimately be paid by the consumer."

So, if joe "the beer distributor" weurzelbacher is banking 25 million a year, and his taxes go up say 200k a year, he'll decide to just pass it down the chain.

Now that's some love of country right there!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:51 PM | Report abuse

MikefromArlington - Ironically the most "socialistic" segment of the US is the military.

So I guess the wingnuts want to do away with the military? No, I bet they would love to privatize it though. If you thought our military budget was crazy large before, wait until it is run by people who insist on being payed 250 million a year.

Heck, why don't we just rename the country the United States of Exxon and call it a day.

Posted by: nisleib | September 21, 2010 1:52 PM | Report abuse

"stuff"

I'm guessing goats heads, bat wings, tied up virgins, the usual Demonic stuff.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:54 PM | Report abuse

All, check out this amazing new video from Sarah Palin about the Tea Party:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/09/who_will_win_the_2012_tea_part.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | September 21, 2010 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"All, check out this amazing new video from Sarah Palin about the Tea Party:"

Do we have to?

I was having fun begging for millionaires to have more millions so they would give us jobs.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Mike's reply is just amazing.

Businesses don't exist to perform whatever you define as a patriotic duty. They exist to make money for their owners.

Thank you for showing us two things:
(1) Abyssal ignorance of the real world
(2) The underlying socialist mentality that is the cornerstone of America liberalism.

I really appreciate the insight. Thanks.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Clearly, Bush and the Republicans deserve CREDIT FOR ENDING THE RECESSION.


Finally, Obama's rhetoric has come back.


Let's hear it guys - Let's hear you give proper credit where credit is due.

.

Posted by: SaveTheRainforest | September 21, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

"Businesses don't exist to perform whatever you define as a patriotic duty. They exist to make money for their owners."

What skipsailing28 is trying to say is, if the owners are American, and his entire work force is in China so he can undercut his competitors American work force, that's what business is all about.

I bed to differ but I see we split ways on what responsibility business has and what responsibility our Govn't has to provide a fair competitive market in the U.S.

If the middle class gets the shaft, who cares!

Posted by: mikefromArlington | September 21, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

and not content with a single expression of ignorance, Mikey doubles down:
=====================
What skipsailing28 is trying to say is, if the owners are American, and his entire work force is in China so he can undercut his competitors American work force, that's what business is all about.

I bed to differ but I see we split ways on what responsibility business has and what responsibility our Govn't has to provide a fair competitive market in the U.S.

If the middle class gets the shaft, who cares!

=========================
More liberal ignorance. I guess lying about those who disagree with Mike doesn't provide enough of an emotional kick anymore so making ignorant statements is the next best thing.

Let's get real, the market provides enormous pressure on costs and prices. How else did we get from the hulking behemoths that were the top of the line PC's in the eighties to IPads today?

That cost pressure results in all sorts of reactions. since liberals are all faux concerned about the "middle class" let's look at what's happened to them in Ohio.

It is wrong to conclude that Ohio's labor troubles are the result of NAFTA or China. Instead we need a dose of reality. four things are killing Ohio's employment picture:
(1) High Taxes. Ohio's taxes are punishing. Why do you think LeBron left?
(2) Intense regulation. The government in this state is intrusive and irrational. and regulation is expensive and contradictory.
(3) Unionized labor force. It is no accident that foriegn auto makers don't build in Ohio anymore. Toyota's new plant is in Mississippi. Kia went to Georgia, along with Ohio transplant NCR.
(4) Corrupt government. Cleveland is now one half the size it was in its heyday. Last week a prominent county official from cleveland pled guilty to enough charges to keep him in prison for 22 years. he was the number two guy. Number one has yet to face the music. Inept government will drive businesses away, just Ask Bobby Jindal who faces the same problem in his state.

So spare me the smarm. Instead of trying the ignorant "holier than thou" routine why not argue from facts?

Oh yeah, facts, well they're not Mike's strong suit it seems.

One more thing, did it ever occur to the liberals that many of these jobs are simply no longer necessary? The steel mill in cleveland achieves higher output with fewer employees. The UAW guys are losing jobs to robots, that's what capitalism does. It looks at cost and finds alternatives. Price labor too high, other alternatives appear attractive.

Mike, if ignorance is truly bliss, you lead a placid life.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Even products produced in China create and provide jobs here through dock workers, airfreight, truck drivers, warehouse men, advertising, sales clerks, cashiers etc. so while I hate to see Americas manufacturing jobs go overseas, the cost of doing business here is inflated do to so many factors. I do not see a business man who decides to do this as Unpatriotic.
I still do not see that any tax increase on the rich not being borne by the middle class and working poor. If it is a small business they raise prices, an individual may not invest but decide to save more of his or her own money rather then spend it or donate less locally in support of charity, churches and other endeavors they chose to do with money they earned. And I still want to know what Congress intends to do with this money it is removing from the private sector.
Making money is patriotic at every income level.

Posted by: apexmerch | September 21, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

"Businesses don't exist to perform whatever you define as a patriotic duty. They exist to make money for their owners."

Which is why, unlike human beings, they don't have First Amendment rights.

Posted by: wbgonne | September 21, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Ethan says:

"Even WITH your massive funding from the conservative corporate elite uber-wealthy, the Dem grassroots is STILL kicking your tail!"

Hmmmmm. The "corporate elite uber-wealthy" fund the R's while the "grassroots' fund the D's? Really?

Between 1989 and 2010, the top 20 corporate contributors (and their "uber wealthy" management/employees) donated a total of $623,223,755 to political parties and their candidates. Of that, 78% went to Democrats, while 21% went to Republicans.

Of those 20 corporations, 5 donated a total of $0 to Republicans, while 12 of them allocated less than 10% of their contributions to R's, with over 90% of their contributions going to D's.

Not one of the 20 failed to donate at all to Democrats, with the lowest amount allocated to D's being just over $8 million, or 32% of the total donation made by that corporation.

Of the 20, 3 are essentially "on the fence", splitting their donations no worse than 55%/45%, and three favor Republicans (highest split, 67%/32%) All of the other 14 favor D's, with 12 of them, as mentioned above, hugely favoring D's by at least 90%/10%)

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

No doubt Ethan, in his fantasies, also considers himself a part of the "reality based community" who makes his judgements based on "facts".

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 3:08 PM | Report abuse

ScottC:

Interest groups and political parties reported $13.9 million in expenditures to the Federal Election Commission last week. Of that amount, 85 percent was spent on behalf of Republicans and 15 percent on behalf of Democrats.

[...]

American Crossroads reported the names of a handful of donors in a disclosure filing on Monday. The donations included $400,000 from American Financial Group, a publicly held Fortune 500 company that brought in $4 billion in revenue last year.

Such a contribution would not have been legal before the Supreme Court's January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the landmark decision which freed corporate spending on election ads.

American Financial Group is owned in large part by Carl Lindner, a longtime Republican supporter. The company did not return a call seeking comment.

Crossroads counts a handful of other billionaires and the companies they control among its funders. Together, the billionaires and their companies have contributed 95 percent of the $7.5 million that American Crossroads' political committee has reported to the Federal Election Commission so far.

They include: Jerrold Perenchio, the former chairman of Spanish-language channel Univision; B. Wayne Hughes, the founder and chairman of self-storage company Public Storage; Trevor Reese Jones, a Texas oilman; and Bob Rowling, founder of the holding company that controls Gold's Gym and Omni Hotels.

They also include two companies linked to businessman Harold Simmons, a top donor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth group, which ran ads attacking Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry in 2004.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/09/conservatives-dominate-campaig.html

Quit yer pathetic whining rich-boy.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

@ skip-
"Let's get real, the market provides enormous pressure on costs and prices. How else did we get from the hulking behemoths that were the top of the line PC's in the eighties to IPads today?"

Lets do get real; the market is the reason for technological advancement? You must be kidding.

"regulation is expensive..."
So, there shouldn't be any?

"Why don't you argue from facts?". Good question, skip. Why don't you try arguing from a place other than hyperbole?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | September 21, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

nice to see the true stripes of the liberals on display.

first wbgone can't refute my points so he seeks to change the subject.

next, I'm enjoying the take down of Ethan by ScottC3. My prediction: Ethan will ultimately engage in NAME CALLING, such names will be written all in caps.

Its a fact thing Ethan. You're living in a fantasy that was true in the Nixon Admin, but not so much now. Here's a bit of proof: Many in CT are wall streeters, yet Democrat candidates continue to do well. that simply refudiates Ethan's myth about rich people.

and I'm really enjoying the discomfiture of the liberals about campaign spending. It seems that they liked America best when the unions could spend freely but corporations could not. Now that the supreme court rightly corrected that unconstitutional arrangment, the Democrats are facing competition.

That's great. Bring it.

Oh liberals, I know you don't like to hear this but the fact is that the cure for free speech is more free speech.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"Interest groups and political parties reported $13.9 million in expenditures to the Federal Election Commission last week. Of that amount, 85 percent was spent on behalf of Republicans and 15 percent on behalf of Democrats."

I see you are having the same trouble grasping the difference between "expenditures" and "funding" in this context that you have with regard to taxes.

You claimed that the D's are funded by "grassroots" while the R's are funded by the "corporate elite uber-wealthy". The facts show this claim to be not only false but, at least by one measure, the exact inversion of the truth.

You can, and probably will, ignore this, but, c'est la vie. You can lead a fool to info, but you can't make him think, I guess.

(BTW, it says something interesting about a person who thinks calling someone "rich" is an insult. Envy and resentment can be ugly thing.)

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Yes, please hold the damn vote, and keep this class warfare going!!! Eleventy!1!!1

Those damn rubes in the flyover states will never figure out that adding $3.3 trillion more to the deficit AND raising taxes in a non-recession recession is a terrible idea, especially if you can couch it as sticking it to those fat cat Wall Street RethugliKKKans.

What a clown show...

Posted by: bzod9999 | September 21, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

"I see you are having the same trouble grasping the difference between "expenditures" and "funding" in this context that you have with regard to taxes."

No, I understand it full well.

And I don't ignore debates like you often do.

If you want to conflate campaign contributions by EMPLOYEES of corporations with political PAC advertising dominated by the uber-wealthy, that's fine.

You'd be incorrect in making that comparison, but go right ahead.

As for taxes, I think the last time we tangled on taxes you tucked tail and ran after I exposed the fact that your Flat Tax + Consumption Tax platform was essentially a tax hike on the poor and middle class.

I don't blame you for running in that case, since I obviously had your back against a wall and you wisely refused to back up your indefensible position.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

"(BTW, it says something interesting about a person who thinks calling someone "rich" is an insult. Envy and resentment can be ugly thing.)"

It is an insult in your case because it's your whole ideology. You exude rich-boy arrogance. It's not about monetary wealth, something I have nothing against, it's about being an obnoxious "rich-boy".

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
=========================
@ skip-
"Let's get real, the market provides enormous pressure on costs and prices. How else did we get from the hulking behemoths that were the top of the line PC's in the eighties to IPads today?"

Lets do get real; the market is the reason for technological advancement? You must be kidding.

"regulation is expensive..."
So, there shouldn't be any?

"Why don't you argue from facts?". Good question, skip. Why don't you try arguing from a place other than hyperbole?
===========

Uh yes, chuck, the market is responsible for the enormous improvement in PC capabilities. It certainly wasn't Obama. The point is simple, if company A makes a product with certain specs and company B can make a better product at a competitive cost it will do so because the company can make money. Why would I buy .5 ghz speed when for the same price I can buy 1.0 ghz?

If you are too hide bound in your thinking to get the PC example, let's try cars. There is no doubt that the quality of the auto has improved greatly over the past two decades. Why? Because the EPA said so? Nope, try intense competition from foreign builders. Toyota passed GM because toyota built better cars at competitive prices. Remember ford's response? "Quality is Job One". The knew they were in a fight and that slick ads about shoddy products wouldn't cut it.

If you don't think that markets have driven quality then I'd love to hear what you think did. This should be an amusing glimpse into the mind of a dyed in the wool liberal. So quick read up on this in your "alamanack of liberal talking points" and get back to me.

And yes, regulation is expensive. And nowhere did I say that therefore we should have NONE. That's just typical liberal BS. Tiresome and stupid, just like Ethan and RUK. You guys don't exactly light up the night sky with your ability to argue intelligently. It can be amusing sometimes but mostly its just more BS from liberal blowhards who can't actually mount a decent argument so they descend into name calling and mischaracterization, as you just did.

Grow up pal and think for a minute.

Regulation is expensive, therefore it should withstand a cost benefit analysis, just like a business proposal. Here's a real world example: Many are rebelling against the environmentalists "carbon" crapola because the net result of all that sacrifice just plain isn't worth all the sacrifice the enviros claim is necessary.

Regulation needs to be clear and effective, otherwise it is just punishment.

oh yeah, wait, I forgot I'm here with the thoughtless liberals. Punishing success is what liberals do best. Why else would greedy guys like you be salivating over a tax hike for people making more than 200K?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | September 21, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

"He means like subsidies for crops and other industry and things like how companies get tax breaks for paying into employees health insurance and stuff. Or maybe he means stuff like when Bush gave AIG 180 billion to pay off the CDS's it couldn't cover to banks and investment firms around the globe."

Yes. That too.

""I'm all for investment in growth industries. I'm all against socialism."

A) govt investment is not socialism, as you well know

B) then you're against EVERYTHING that govt has invested in?"

Yes, government "investment" is socialism. I know you liberals describe all government spending as "investment," so perhaps that confuses you. But it shouldn't, if you knew anything about business or economics. If by "everything the government has invested in," however, you mean all the investments in business enterprises like battery and car companies, then yes, I probably do oppose all of it.

"Say... the internet, synthetic materials, nuclear energy, infrastructure, medicine, renewable energy, oil and gas drilling technology, on and on and on... so you're against all those things?"

It's interesting that you can't see distinctions between any of these things. The internet developed from military research -- research aimed at national security. It wasn't venture capital investment. Infrastructure, you mean like roads? You're kidding, right?

I'm against socialism, not government expenditures on appropriate functions. Too bad you don't understand what that means.


"Yes, many small businesses can/may/will be affected here, but not very many, as most either do not make enough money to begin with, or drop out of the top bracket after expense deductions."

Malarkey. A large percentage of small businesses who actually employ people will have their taxes raised. Most will end up bearing higher costs. The taxes are a drag on the economy. Get that through your heads.

"MikefromArlington - Ironically the most "socialistic" segment of the US is the military.

So I guess the wingnuts want to do away with the military?"

You people actually aren't able to distinguish between government involvement in business enterprise and allocating capital in the general economy on one hand and national defense on the other? National defense is the prime constitutional responsibility of the federal government. Our defense needs are determine through military evaulation of the security threats we face, not by economic factors. Up is not down. Left is not right.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"I'm against socialism, not government expenditures on appropriate functions."

HAHA!

Is energy an "appropriate function"? You ignored that. Nuclear, renewable, advancements in oil/gas drilling technology...

What about scientific research, as in medical research? Do you reject federal spending on research to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or heart disease because it is "TEH SOCIALISM"?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"If you want to conflate campaign contributions by EMPLOYEES of corporations with political PAC advertising..."

Right.

From the "methodology" section of Open Secrets, which explains the source of the contributions collated at the link I provided: "Contributions from the organization’s political action committee, or PAC. The money for these comes from individuals who work for or are connected with the organization, and it’s given on behalf of the organization."

BTW, if you want to look just at the top "indivudal" donors, we can do that too. Over the same period (1989-2010) the top 100 individual donors contributed a total of $59,926,596 to both the Dems and the R's. Of that, 63% went to Dems, while only 37% went to R's.

The top 20 donors (truly the uber-wealthy...minimum total donation was $511,000) donated a total of $40,861,372. Of that, over 69% went to Dems, while just under 31% went to R's.

The top donor, the Saban family, donated a total just over $10 million to the Dems. he donated $4,000 to the Republicans. The second top donor, Fred Eychaner, donated $9.6 million to the Dems. He donated exactly $0 to the R's.

The top R donor, the Linder family, donated less than half of the amount to the R's than the top D donor contributed, namely $4.45 million. They also donated $1.4 million to the Dems.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indivs.php

More reality for you, Ethan. Not that it will permeate that cranium of yours, but there it is.

"As for taxes, I think the last time we tangled on taxes you tucked tail and ran after I exposed the fact that your Flat Tax + Consumption Tax platform..."

You must have me confused with someone else, since I never proposed anything related to a "consumption tax".

And, in any event, whether or not a flat tax would result in a tax hike for any particular person would depend entirely on the level of the flat percentage, and I never advocated a specific level. Certainly, however, it would necessarily be a tax hike for those who currently pay no income tax. Of course, that was rather the point, as part of my justification for it was that everyone should bear some of the cost burden for the spending decisions that "we" make.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

greg: we are all aware that when jake can't win an argument, he just makes stuff up, like he heard on Fox News that the House would adjourn on Sat. or that he knows for sure that O'Donnell will win b/c he knows that 2 million outsiders have given to her campaign. O'Donnell made 21 appearances on Politically Incorrect, to make a living (a professional guest) and likely a tv record for guest appearances, which somehow qualifies her to be a US Senator.

Posted by: leichtman1 | September 21, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Well ScottC, I admit that I can't argue with those numbers, so I will revise my comment:

Even WITH your massive funding from the conservative corporate elite uber-wealthy, the Dem grassroots and our liberal corporate elite uber-wealthy are STILL kicking your tail! HA!

It's still funny to me that, even with the prevailing conventional wisdom that the Dems lack enthusiasm, we still topped your GOP fundraising totals.

And it is still exclusively the Democratic Party that is calling for transparency in campaign contributions and campaign finance reform.

"Certainly, however, it would necessarily be a tax hike for those who currently pay no income tax. [...] everyone should bear some of the cost burden for the spending decisions that "we" make."

Yes, a tax hike on those already in or below the poverty line. That would be fair. They don't have enough burden, so let's raise taxes on people whose children are literally starving. Anything to make the rich feel better while they're sipping martinis on their yacht.

Honestly, that is some of the most cruel, cold, and heartless sort of economic oppression I've ever heard.

And you wonder why you are so frequently vilified on this blog. Sheesh.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

Sorry for the delay in responding. I got caught up on my way to the helipad for the trip out to my yacht when I walked by a homeless guy that I had to reprimand for being lazy and not getting a job. Then, when I finally got out to the yacht and I asked for my martini, it turned out that we were all out of Grey Goose. Can you believe that? What's the point in having help if they don't keep the place stocked? So, naturally I had to fire the bartender, which resulted in a long sob story about his wife and kids and making the mortgage payments, blah, blah, blah. I mean, if it was that important to him he would've made sure I had my drink! Am I right?

Anyway...

"Well ScottC, I admit that I can't argue with those numbers..."

Great.

"Yes, a tax hike on those already in or below the poverty line."

The 47% of tax filers who pay no income tax are not all below the poverty line.

"...people whose children are literally starving."

If you know of people with starving children, then shame on you for not informing them of the myriad of public and private programs designed precisely to help such people.

"And you wonder why..."

No, I really don't.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"HAHA!"

Strong argument.

"Is energy an "appropriate function"? You ignored that. Nuclear, renewable, advancements in oil/gas drilling technology..."

No, I didn't ignore it. I responded to your random list of supposed "investments." Your question, however, is meaningless. What is "energy"? You mean the government should be providing for our energy? It should be building and runnin nuclear plants, doing our oil and gas drilling, and selling us energy? No, I don't think so.

"What about scientific research, as in medical research? Do you reject federal spending on research to find a cure for cancer or AIDS or heart disease because it is "TEH SOCIALISM"?"

Of course. Your question could mean many things, but generally, no, the government should not be in that business. Now, one caveat, which is probably beyond you, is that our government regulations make development of new drugs cost hundreds of millions of dollars and sometimes well over a billion dollars. This creates some serious problems, such as the fact that there might be diseases for which no one can afford to research and develop drug therapies.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 7:09 PM | Report abuse

"The 47% of tax filers who pay no income tax are not all below the poverty line."

No, not all. But millions are. And you said, and I quote, "everyone should bear some of the cost burden." Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "everyone" includes, well, everyone. That you would raise taxes on the impoverished for some sort of "fairness" to the wealthy is utterly bizarre. Is there any economic benefit to taxing the poor? What is your motivation? Just a general sense of "fairness"?

"If you know of people with starving children, then shame on you for not informing them of the myriad of public and private programs designed precisely to help such people."

Not like you care, but here is a study of the population on which you want to impose an oppressive tax hike:

37 million Americans served annually by Feeding America include nearly 14 million children and nearly 3 million seniors

http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010/hunger-report-2010/key-findings.aspx

"No, I really don't."

Maybe you should.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 21, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

All income should be subject to a flat tax because, yes, it is fair and just, and because it is an unhealthy and unsupportable system to have equal representation with no taxation.

It's the same principle that has been stated by many throughout history: democracy or republican government will not last when a large portion of the public decides it can vote itself money from the "public treasury." We now have a system in which one of the two major parties promises 51% of the public it will tax and redistribute the money of the other 49%. It is indeed unjust and cannot work in the long run.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 21, 2010 7:54 PM | Report abuse

lets see...
wapo gives advice to the dems on how to win...
while shooting down the Republicans...
and people wonder why no one believes wapo...
it's a question of credibility...

Posted by: DwightCollins | September 21, 2010 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Ethan:

"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that "everyone" includes, well, everyone."

Well, actually, it means everyone who earns an income. As I said the other day, if we are going to finance the government via an income tax, then everyone who earns an income should share in the burden. And I also added that accommodations could be made for people in dire circumstances.

"...utterly bizarre"

What is utterly bizarre is your adolescent conception of "fairness". My desire to help poor people derives from a sense of compassion and empathy, not from a sense of justice that they are "owed" help. Justice is not determined by the size of a man's wallet.

"Maybe you should."

Maybe. But highly unlikely.

Posted by: ScottC3 | September 21, 2010 8:35 PM | Report abuse

check for job openings near you paying up to $29.00/hour part-time & full-time http://bit.ly/aCgJH5

Posted by: derrickjay | September 22, 2010 4:51 AM | Report abuse

"Justice is not determined by the size of a man's wallet."

Then why do you feel so strongly that, "everyone who earns an income should share in the burden"?

Isn't it because you feel - as QB does - that the current progressive tax system is unjust towards those who pay a higher share of their income?

And also, please explain the economic benefit of a tax hike on low-income earners coupled with a massive tax cut for the wealthy - which is what a flat tax would be.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

"Justice is not determined by the size of a man's wallet."

Then why do you feel so strongly that, "everyone who earns an income should share in the burden"?

Isn't it because you feel - as QB does - that the current progressive tax system is unjust towards those who pay a higher share of their income?

And also, please explain the economic benefit of a tax hike on low-income earners coupled with a massive tax cut for the wealthy - which is what a flat tax would be.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | September 22, 2010 8:20 AM | Report abuse

Here are several, Ethan.

Higher rates on highera incomes reduce incentives for work and investment, and divert them into tax avoidance measures.

They depress job creation both on the supply and demand sides.

And making everyone share the tax burden proportionately tends to creates spending discipline. People are free in spending other people's money, especially on themselves. It's different when they have skin in the game.

Posted by: quarterback1 | September 22, 2010 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company