cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Advisor

Must have been a trick question

Otherwise, to listen to the COP Congressional leadership, such as Cantor and McConnell, a person would have never known.

 

Could it be that they take their marching orders from someone other than their man on the street tax paying constituents?

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/poll-73-percent-support-the-buffett-rule-including-66-per...

 

SNIP:

 

Indeed, every demographic sub-group favors the idea. Republicans back it 66-17. Hell, even self-identified tea partiers, the weakest supporters, are at 52-29. Oh, and those making over $100,000? 73-16.

 

--------------------

 

 

7 Replies
Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

The Buffett rule is you try to get congress to raise every one elses taxes while you pay millions to lawyers to save you billions in taxes.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Must have been a trick question

Gee wiz! A lot of people want to tax the man behind the tree. Who would have thunk it? Huh 3020? That has got to be one of the most amazing poll EVER

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

People would ONLY support tax increases AFTER spending is cut, usually the politicians raise the taxes then forget all about the spending cuts.  I would question the KOS Poll in their wording of their question and the area where they sampled. Here`s a Rasmussen Poll results that are more on the up and up http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_budget/september_2011/50_favor_mix_o...

 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

From the get-go, people were asked the question of how to get out of this mess and were given 4 possible answers to choose from.  3 of those answers required some sort of increased revenue from all increased revenue to a small amount of increased revenue and spending cuts and the 4th answer was all spending cuts.  73% chose one of the 3 answers that included some increase in revenue.  Pretty clear if you ask me.

 

I found the poll.  It was in July and I was off by 5points.  68% favored increased revenue or increased revenue and spending cuts and only 19% favored spending cuts only.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/26/us-usa-debt-ipsos-idUSTRE76P5Q220110726

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

Where did you find that?  It wasn`t in Bruce`s lead link story.  Bruce`s lead, leads people to believe that  "73% want tax increases and tax increases only period end of discussion!!!"  See as I said Schnurrbart, you can get support for tax increases, I support them IF and this is a big "IF" you cut spending first.  Notice how in the poll it was "increase taxes for DEFICIT REDUCTION"  No where was it raise taxes for increased social spending.  You take the promise of spending cuts and deficit reduction there would be nearly zero support for raising taxes, I`d love to see that poll Smiley Happy

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

Why do the rightwingers insist on cutting spending FIRST????  Why can't you put both in place at the same time?  As for the poll, it was before the debt ceiling mess and I can't find it now.  However, there are a lot of polls out there showing that the vast majority want some type of BOTH methods to get us out of debt.  I just can't understand the mystical belief in protecting the rich that even low income repubs have.  Right now and for many years, the rich in this country have had it great.  It wasn't too long ago that everything over half a million or a million was taxed at 90%!!!  Now with loopholes, they pay about 16% on everything!  The low income pay about 10% of their meager income which to them is a lot more than the fat cats because of what they have left over.  Increased taxes and spending cuts are supposed to be to reduce the debt and get us up and running again.  What you aren't supposed to do and should not do is put it all or most of it on the backs of the people who can least afford it.

Highlighted
Senior Advisor

Re: Must have been a trick question

There has been 30 years of tax reduction for the affluent. All of thosemmeasure were promised to create jobs and increase business activity and balanced budgets.

 

I would assume that the vast majority of the tax payers are wising up min that they know the objective was never about economic health but more about creating favorable tax status for the affluent.

 

I would say that we have expended enought time and energhy to refute their assertian and its time to try another approach. I hve no objection to bring the military home and discontinuing the wars of adventure. Those war games and the accompaning fraudulent activities are not affordable. They never were.

 

Cutting social spending is an orgasmic event only for the cold hearted conservative aholes. They want you to beleive that the social safety net caused the debt. Not so! It was all the other spending that was not paid for. The government does not borrow from the department of defnse surplus. Nope! they borrow from Social security.