• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Study Finds Trump Tax Cuts Failed to Do Anything But Give Rich People Money

You prove once again you could have never received a BS degree.

The debt is naturally an exponential growth. Simple mathematics, unless we change things, like kicking a significant number of people off of social services.

Why do you fail at such things so often, and still maintain you have a BS degree?

I call that BS!

Typical Conservative mantra. Ever since Reagan, they have been driving up deficits. Clinton/Gore showed exactly what needs to happen to balance the budget - cut spending and raise the upper tier tax rate. Their spending cuts were not at the expense of the underprivileged in society. Tell you what. You tell me how you want to handle those that are unfit to contribute to society - either physically, mentally, or emotionally. If it's reasonable, I'll listen.
 
You prove once again you could have never received a BS degree.

The debt is naturally an exponential growth. Simple mathematics, unless we change things, like kicking a significant number of people off of social services.

Why do you fail at such things so often, and still maintain you have a BS degree?

I call that BS!

LOL, you should be careful throwing stones on this thread. You posted a graph of nominal GDP growth showing a peak during the deep recession (and high inflation) years at the end of Carter, beginning of Reagan, to somehow prove the wonders of tax rate cuts. The premise was wrong - correlation => causation - and the execution was worse. It was analysis that would have gotten an F in Econ for Dummies.

And in this case, one thing we might change when facing "exponential growth" in deficits and debt is to NOT cut taxes and make the deficits worse, and increasing the rate of exponential growth. Perhaps at full employment is a good time to raise taxes?
 
Typical Conservative mantra. Ever since Reagan, they have been driving up deficits. Clinton/Gore showed exactly what needs to happen to balance the budget - cut spending and raise the upper tier tax rate. Their spending cuts were not at the expense of the underprivileged in society. Tell you what. You tell me how you want to handle those that are unfit to contribute to society - either physically, mentally, or emotionally. If it's reasonable, I'll listen.

That isn't what happened.

More liberal BS.

More BS yet as they didn't balance the budget. The debt still increased every year that Clinton was president.

He was simply in the right place the right time. We had a technology boom that he had nothing to do with.
 
That isn't what happened.

More liberal BS.

More BS yet as they didn't balance the budget. The debt still increased every year that Clinton was president.

He was simply in the right place the right time. We had a technology boom that he had nothing to do with.

Reagan presided over a similar period of economic growth, jobs growth, etc. and deficits and debt went up far more because of the big tax cuts in 1981, which meant revenues didn't keep pace with inflation and spending growth.

Clinton, on the other hand, raised taxes, which is half of the left hand side of that [Revenues minus expenses = Deficit] equation. For some reason, you right wingers only believe the spending part of that equation matters, but math tells us otherwise. And as we measure 'deficits' the budget was indeed balanced for several years. If you want to bring in SS and Medicare, that's fine, but all that does is create an arbitrary bar at $0, when the correct analysis is to compare him to recent decades, or perhaps to ask if 'deficits' at the levels of the last Clinton years are sustainable, and they are of course. What we have now isn't sustainable, which is nearly $trillion deficits at full employment.
 
Reagan presided over a similar period of economic growth, jobs growth, etc. and deficits and debt went up far more because of the big tax cuts in 1981, which meant revenues didn't keep pace with inflation and spending growth.

Clinton, on the other hand, raised taxes, which is half of the left hand side of that [Revenues minus expenses = Deficit] equation. For some reason, you right wingers only believe the spending part of that equation matters, but math tells us otherwise. And as we measure 'deficits' the budget was indeed balanced for several years. If you want to bring in SS and Medicare, that's fine, but all that does is create an arbitrary bar at $0, when the correct analysis is to compare him to recent decades, or perhaps to ask if 'deficits' at the levels of the last Clinton years are sustainable, and they are of course. What we have now isn't sustainable, which is nearly $trillion deficits at full employment.

LOL, since you radicals want to compare debt to GDP what the debt that Reagan left the country with as a percentage of GDP? Now do the same for Obama? All I see from you is whining and complaining about federal revenue, when are you going to propose actual cuts and make your party do that? You obviously haven't paid any attention to the Trump proposal but blame him for deficits. Typical whining and no reality for radicals.
 
LOL, since you radicals want to compare debt to GDP what the debt that Reagan left the country with as a percentage of GDP? Now do the same for Obama? All I see from you is whining and complaining about federal revenue, when are you going to propose actual cuts and make your party do that? You obviously haven't paid any attention to the Trump proposal but blame him for deficits. Typical whining and no reality for radicals.

I didn't mention Trump, and unfortunately the GOP congress didn't adopt Trump's budget. The GOP instead decided to cut taxes and increase spending.
 
I didn't mention Trump, and unfortunately the GOP congress didn't adopt Trump's budget. The GOP instead decided to cut taxes and increase spending.

No they didn't and do you know why? How many votes does it take in the Senate to pass the budget? You keep saying the GOP increased spending, prove it?
 
You prove once again you could have never received a BS degree.

The debt is naturally an exponential growth. Simple mathematics, unless we change things, like kicking a significant number of people off of social services.

I have a better idea. Let's raise taxes on the rich, like Trump said he would during the Republican primary.

---------

Trump: You Bet I Support Raising Taxes on the Rich
Townhall ^ | 04/21/2016 | Guy Benson
Posted on 4/21/2016, 5:08:04 PM by Responsibility2nd

GUTHRIE: Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy?

TRUMP: I do. I do – including myself. I do.

Trump: You Bet I Support Raising Taxes on the Rich

---------

Fortune magazine, February 4, 2019


Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more.

Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll | Fortune

---------

Pew Research Center, MAY 26, 2017

President Donald Trump’s first budget request to Congress would make deep cuts to government programs, including Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income adults and children...

In April, only 12% of U.S. adults said they wanted to see the president and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four-in-ten said they preferred to increase Medicaid spending...

This year’s survey found bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing spending for several entitlement programs. On Medicare – the health insurance program for the elderly or those with certain disabilities, which would not lose funding under the Trump budget – 85% of Republicans said they would maintain or increase spending, as did 94% of Democrats. On Social Security, which is also untouched in the budget proposal, 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats said they would maintain or increase spending.

Few Americans support cuts to most government programs | Pew Research Center
 
I didn't mention Trump, and unfortunately the GOP congress didn't adopt Trump's budget. The GOP instead decided to cut taxes and increase spending.

Let's stop with the left wing BS and start addressing the real issues where are solutions that you refuse to offer. The radical left continues to blame Trump for spending increases that Treasury shows never happened and what really caused the deficit was interest expense due to 4 interest rate hikes on the massive debt along with entitlement spending increases mandated by law.

I voted for Trump and am getting exactly what I voted for which according to the attached is less proposed spending than actually happened due to Congress NOT Trump

FY 2018 Federal Budget: Enacted Versus Trump's Budget Request
 
I have a better idea. Let's raise taxes on the rich, like Trump said he would during the Republican primary.

---------

Trump: You Bet I Support Raising Taxes on the Rich
Townhall ^ | 04/21/2016 | Guy Benson
Posted on 4/21/2016, 5:08:04 PM by Responsibility2nd

GUTHRIE: Do you believe in raising taxes on the wealthy?

TRUMP: I do. I do – including myself. I do.

Trump: You Bet I Support Raising Taxes on the Rich

---------

Fortune magazine, February 4, 2019


Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more.

Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll | Fortune

---------

Pew Research Center, MAY 26, 2017

President Donald Trump’s first budget request to Congress would make deep cuts to government programs, including Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income adults and children...

In April, only 12% of U.S. adults said they wanted to see the president and Congress decrease spending for Medicaid, according to a survey conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Four-in-ten said they preferred to increase Medicaid spending...

This year’s survey found bipartisan support for maintaining or increasing spending for several entitlement programs. On Medicare – the health insurance program for the elderly or those with certain disabilities, which would not lose funding under the Trump budget – 85% of Republicans said they would maintain or increase spending, as did 94% of Democrats. On Social Security, which is also untouched in the budget proposal, 86% of Republicans and 95% of Democrats said they would maintain or increase spending.

Few Americans support cuts to most government programs | Pew Research Center

And how much revenue are you going to get out of raising taxes on the rich and what are the consequences? You keep buying the left wing rhetoric ignoring that 44% of income earners pay ZERO in Federal Income taxes. Why shouldn't they be paying something before raising the taxes on the top 1% that pays 40% of the taxes now. Quit dodging the issue and answer that question?
 
Let's stop with the left wing BS and start addressing the real issues where are solutions that you refuse to offer. The radical left continues to blame Trump for spending increases that Treasury shows never happened and what really caused the deficit was interest expense due to 4 interest rate hikes on the massive debt along with entitlement spending increases mandated by law.

I voted for Trump and am getting exactly what I voted for which according to the attached is less proposed spending than actually happened due to Congress NOT Trump

FY 2018 Federal Budget: Enacted Versus Trump's Budget Request

This may come as a shock to you, but Congress can CHANGE THE LAW!! They really can. You can look it up if you don't believe me. In fact changing the laws and writing new ones is a big part of their job. So if the GOP Congress wanted to change 'entitlement' spending, they could have done it by...changing the law. They chose not to change the law.

But the bigger point is if they can't control spending - as you imply - and it will just keep going up and up as more baby boomers retire, and Congress is powerless to act, then maybe it's a good idea to NOT cut taxes and reduce revenues as spending goes up.
 
Trump Economy Soars to New Heights

"CNBC: Jobs Surge in April, Unemployment Rate Falls to the Lowest Since 1969

“The U.S. jobs machine kept humming along in April, adding a robust 263,000 new hires while the unemployment rate fell to 3.6%, the lowest in a generation, according to a Labor Department report Friday. Nonfarm payroll growth easily beat Wall Street expectations of 190,000 and a 3.8% jobless rate… Unemployment was last this low in December 1969 when it hit 3.5%. At a time when many economists see a tight labor market, big job growth continues as the economic expansion is just a few months away from being the longest in history.”

CNN: Trump’s Approval Rating on the Economy Hits a New High

“President Donald Trump hits a new high on his economic approval ratings in a new CNN Poll conducted by SSRS, reaching 56% of Americans saying he’s doing a good job on the economy. The result comes on the heels of the announcement that the US economy grew at a much better rate than expected in the first quarter, and Trump’s performance on the economy becomes one of his prime selling points for next year’s general election.”

MARKETWATCH: Productivity Soars 3.6% in First Quarter, Drives Fastest Yearly Gain Since 2010

“The productivity of American workers soared in the first quarter and pushed the increase over the past year to the highest level since 2010, a potentially great sign for the U.S. economy. The productivity of American workers increased at a 3.6% annual pace from January through March, the government said Thursday. That’s the biggest gain since the fall of 2014.”

CNBC: U.S. Economy grows by 3.2% in the first quarter, topping expectations

“The U.S. economy grew at a faster pace than expected in the first quarter and posted its best growth to start a year in four years. First-quarter gross domestic product expanded by 3.2%, the Bureau of Economic Analysis said Friday in its initial read of the economy for that period. Economists polled by Dow Jones expected growth of 2.5%. It was the first time since 2015 that first-quarter GDP topped 3%.”

REUTERS: U.S. Consumer Spending Roars Back, But Inflation Tame

“U.S. consumer spending increased by the most in more than 9-1/2 years in March as households stepped up purchases of motor vehicles, but price pressures remained muted, with a key inflation measure posting its smallest annual gain in 14 months.”

GALLUP: Americans Feel Generally Positive About Their Own Finances

“At the start of 2019, Americans’ optimism about their personal finances reached levels not seen in more than 16 years, as 69% expected they would be financially better off in a year…A majority of Americans, 56%, rate their current financial situation as ‘excellent’ (12%) or ‘good’ (44%), while 29% rate it as ‘only fair’ and 15% as ‘poor.’ This overall positive rating has increased 10 percentage points since 2015 and is currently the highest since 2002 though it is statistically unchanged since last year. Likewise, the 57% of Americans who now say their overall financial situation is getting better has risen 10 points since 2016 and is at its highest numerical point since 2002.”

MARKETWATCH: Torrent of Job Offers, Bigger Salaries Offer More Proof U.S. Labor Market Is Still Red-Hot

“Americans still think plenty of jobs are available and companies are offering better pay as they compete for a shrinking pool of available labor, new study by the New York Federal Reserve shows. The Fed study is the latest proof the jobs market continues to sizzle. … One-quarter of the respondents (25.7%) said they expected to receive at least one job offer in the next four months — the highest level since the survey began in 2014.”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Workers, Retirees Are Feeling Better About Retirement Finances

“With the U.S. economy strong and stocks near record levels, retirees’ and workers’ confidence in having enough money for retirement rose over the past year to new highs, according to a long-running survey released Tuesday. According to the annual survey by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute, 82% of polled retirees are optimistic about their ability to live comfortably in retirement, up from 75% last year.”

WASHINGTON EXAMINER: Boom: Hispanics Lead Housing, Income Surge, Poverty at Record Low

“Latinos are finding their economic legs under the Trump administration, leading the surge in home ownership and income growth and record low poverty rates, according to two comprehensive new surveys. … The reports detailed Hispanic housing and economic trends and found most signs better under Trump.”"

So when millions get off food stamps as a result of employment and the consumer spending goes up consistently that is just credit cards?
 
Last edited:
This may come as a shock to you, but Congress can CHANGE THE LAW!! They really can. You can look it up if you don't believe me. In fact changing the laws and writing new ones is a big part of their job. So if the GOP Congress wanted to change 'entitlement' spending, they could have done it by...changing the law. They chose not to change the law.

But the bigger point is if they can't control spending - as you imply - and it will just keep going up and up as more baby boomers retire, and Congress is powerless to act, then maybe it's a good idea to NOT cut taxes and reduce revenues as spending goes up.

No surprise at all except for the fact that you have offered no solution to the problem other than raising taxes and giving them more power. Cutting taxes puts more money into the pockets of the taxpayers which in light of the reality that bureaucrats get their power from tax revenue makes more sense than anything you claim. Why would you support giving more tax dollars to bureaucrats who use the money to buy votes and grow power?
 
And how much revenue are you going to get out of raising taxes on the rich and what are the consequences? You keep buying the left wing rhetoric ignoring that 44% of income earners pay ZERO in Federal Income taxes. Why shouldn't they be paying something before raising the taxes on the top 1% that pays 40% of the taxes now. Quit dodging the issue and answer that question?

For all we know Trump is one of those 44% who pay nothing in Federal Income Taxes. When will we see his tax returns?

With the possible exception of Trump and a few other rich people with smart tax lawyers, the vast majority of those 44% are low income people. That is why they should not be paying Federal Income taxes. I will never convince you of that. Fortunately, most Americans seem to agree with me.

Even so, poor people so pay some taxes. Read this:

-------


The Intercept, April 13 2019

The income tax is not the only tax collected by the federal government — far from it. Just half of the taxes collected by the federal government come from the income tax. About a third come from payroll taxes — which fall much more heavily on working people, since they’re largely levied only on the first $130,000 or so of earned income...

[T]he wealthy naturally pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes because they make a disproportionate share of the country’s income. In other words, these numbers to some degree demonstrate exactly the opposite of what those who use them claim: They’re not an indication that the superrich are beleaguered, but are in part a sign of America’s staggering wealth inequality.

It is true that the federal income tax is still significantly progressive — that is, the tax rate is higher on higher income. But as Thomas Jefferson would tell you, this is exactly what should happen in a country like the U.S. Jefferson wrote this to James Madison in 1785 from monarchical France: “The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands … the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property. … [One means is] to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Adam Smith also believed in progressive taxes...

[W]hen you take all U.S. taxes into account — federal income taxes, federal payroll taxes, federal corporate taxes, the federal estate tax, federal excise taxes, and the plethora of state and local taxes — the U.S. tax system is just mildly progressive...

[T]he top 1 percent — with an average income of about $2 million — made 20.9 percent of America’s income, but paid 24.1 percent of America’s taxes. Few people will perceive this as a monstrous injustice.

Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of Americans— with incomes between $41,000 and $66,000 per year — make 10.9 percent of America’s income and pay 9.4 percent of America’s taxes. The bottom 20 percent, making less than $23,000, make just 2.8 percent of America’s income and pay 2 percent of America’s taxes.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/
 
For all we know Trump is one of those 44% who pay nothing in Federal Income Taxes. When will we see his tax returns?

With the possible exception of Trump and a few other rich people with smart tax lawyers, the vast majority of those 44% are low income people. That is why they should not be paying Federal Income taxes. I will never convince you of that. Fortunately, most Americans seem to agree with me.

Even so, poor people so pay some taxes. Read this:

-------


The Intercept, April 13 2019

The income tax is not the only tax collected by the federal government — far from it. Just half of the taxes collected by the federal government come from the income tax. About a third come from payroll taxes — which fall much more heavily on working people, since they’re largely levied only on the first $130,000 or so of earned income...

[T]he wealthy naturally pay a disproportionate share of federal income taxes because they make a disproportionate share of the country’s income. In other words, these numbers to some degree demonstrate exactly the opposite of what those who use them claim: They’re not an indication that the superrich are beleaguered, but are in part a sign of America’s staggering wealth inequality.

It is true that the federal income tax is still significantly progressive — that is, the tax rate is higher on higher income. But as Thomas Jefferson would tell you, this is exactly what should happen in a country like the U.S. Jefferson wrote this to James Madison in 1785 from monarchical France: “The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands … the consequences of this enormous inequality producing so much misery to the bulk of mankind, legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property. … [One means is] to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” Adam Smith also believed in progressive taxes...

[W]hen you take all U.S. taxes into account — federal income taxes, federal payroll taxes, federal corporate taxes, the federal estate tax, federal excise taxes, and the plethora of state and local taxes — the U.S. tax system is just mildly progressive...

[T]he top 1 percent — with an average income of about $2 million — made 20.9 percent of America’s income, but paid 24.1 percent of America’s taxes. Few people will perceive this as a monstrous injustice.

Meanwhile, the middle 20 percent of Americans— with incomes between $41,000 and $66,000 per year — make 10.9 percent of America’s income and pay 9.4 percent of America’s taxes. The bottom 20 percent, making less than $23,000, make just 2.8 percent of America’s income and pay 2 percent of America’s taxes.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/13/tax-day-taxes-statistics/

Another liberal who has no idea what taxes they pay or their purpose. I have and continue to talk about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES not Excise Taxes, Not Payroll Taxes but you cannot seem to grasp that concept. Federal income taxes fund the following Items. why shouldn't every income earning American pay something towards those espenses

National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Income security-FIT
Veterans benefits and services-FIT
Administration of justice-FIT
General Government-FIT
Net interest-FIT


I posted a link showing what Trump proposed, what was allocated and what was spent, now stop making a fool of yourself by claiming that Trump increased spending
 
A 'budget reconciliation bill' can be the 'total budget.' That is sort of the point of it, to allow budget bills to be passed on simple majority votes in the Senate versus having to clear a 60 vote super majority.

Can be but hasn't been now when are you going to prove that the GOP increased spending causing the 2018 budget deficit? you made the claim, I posted a link that shows you wrong yet still you won't admit it.
 
Can be but hasn't been

So the GOP stupidly didn't use reconciliation when it was available to them. I can't be held responsible for their idiocy.

now when are you going to prove that the GOP increased spending causing the 2018 budget deficit? you made the claim, I posted a link that shows you wrong yet still you won't admit it.

Spending went up, the GOP controlled the House and therefore the budget, and the last budget could have been passed with just 50 votes plus Pence on the Senate side. Who should we blame if not Congress and Trump, who signed the budget?
 
Republicans for redistribution, by David Leonhardt

The New York Times, June 12, 2019, by David Leonhardt

“On economic policy, Democrats are unified and Republicans are divided.”

That’s one of the summary points from a fascinating new poll by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a political science research group.

The poll shows that Democrats hold consistent views on economic policy across income groups. Both affluent and lower-income Democrats, for example, overwhelmingly favor a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich and paid family leave.

Republicans are different. High-income Republicans tend to oppose these progressive economic policies. But most lower-income Republicans support them.

“About 19 percent of Republicans held economic policy positions closer to the average Democrat than the average Republican, placing them on the ‘economic left,’” write Lee Drutman, Vanessa Williamson and Felicia Wong, in their summary of the poll...

This pattern explains why I often argue that Democrats have a chance to win over swing voters by running populist, economically focused campaigns.

Many low- and middle-income Republicans — as well as independents and some Democrats — are socially conservative. They’re religious, and they are either conservative or moderate on abortion, immigration and other issues. When political campaigns focus on social issues, these voters are primed to vote Republican.

Yet when campaigns focus on economics and on fairness, these same voters suddenly have reason to vote Democratic. And if even a small percentage of Republicans or independents defect, it can decide an election.

Winning these voters won’t be easy. But a presidential campaign receives a lot more attention than a midterm, which makes national messaging more feasible. Barack Obama did better with swing voters than Hillary Clinton in part because he ran a more populist, economically focused campaign. It really is possible.

Opinion | Republicans for Redistribution - The New York Times

----------

The Democrats need to leave the social issues alone, and concentrate on taxing the rich heavily and spending the money on domestic programs that the rich do not need, but which most Americans want. It worked for Franklin Roosevelt. It will work for whoever wins the Democrat presidential primary in 2020.
 
Last edited:
Another liberal who has no idea what taxes they pay or their purpose. I have and continue to talk about FEDERAL INCOME TAXES not Excise Taxes, Not Payroll Taxes but you cannot seem to grasp that concept. Federal income taxes fund the following Items. why shouldn't every income earning American pay something towards those espenses

National defense-FIT
International affairs-FIT
General science, space, and technology-FIT
Energy-FIT
Natural resources and environment-FIT
Agriculture-FIT
Commerce and housing credit-FIT
Community and regional development-FIT
Education, training, employment and social services-FIT
Health-FIT
Income security-FIT
Veterans benefits and services-FIT
Administration of justice-FIT
General Government-FIT
Net interest-FIT


I posted a link showing what Trump proposed, what was allocated and what was spent, now stop making a fool of yourself by claiming that Trump increased spending

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

What maters is that since the administration of Ronald Reagan the rich have been paying lower incomes on higher incomes, while most incomes have stagnated.

The national debt, which Republicans use as an excuse to cut domestic programs Americans want either to preserve at present levels, or increase, only became a problem when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, while rising military spending.
 
So the GOP stupidly didn't use reconciliation when it was available to them. I can't be held responsible for their idiocy.



Spending went up, the GOP controlled the House and therefore the budget, and the last budget could have been passed with just 50 votes plus Pence on the Senate side. Who should we blame if not Congress and Trump, who signed the budget?

What spending went up, post the data? Again just another left wing radical with no solutions and just more whining and complaining.
 
Re: Republicans for redistribution, by David Leonhardt

The New York Times, June 12, 2019, by David Leonhardt

“On economic policy, Democrats are unified and Republicans are divided.”

That’s one of the summary points from a fascinating new poll by the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group, a political science research group.

The poll shows that Democrats hold consistent views on economic policy across income groups. Both affluent and lower-income Democrats, for example, overwhelmingly favor a higher minimum wage, higher taxes on the rich and paid family leave.

Republicans are different. High-income Republicans tend to oppose these progressive economic policies. But most lower-income Republicans support them.

“About 19 percent of Republicans held economic policy positions closer to the average Democrat than the average Republican, placing them on the ‘economic left,’” write Lee Drutman, Vanessa Williamson and Felicia Wong, in their summary of the poll...

This pattern explains why I often argue that Democrats have a chance to win over swing voters by running populist, economically focused campaigns.

Many low- and middle-income Republicans — as well as independents and some Democrats — are socially conservative. They’re religious, and they are either conservative or moderate on abortion, immigration and other issues. When political campaigns focus on social issues, these voters are primed to vote Republican.

Yet when campaigns focus on economics and on fairness, these same voters suddenly have reason to vote Democratic. And if even a small percentage of Republicans or independents defect, it can decide an election.

Winning these voters won’t be easy. But a presidential campaign receives a lot more attention than a midterm, which makes national messaging more feasible. Barack Obama did better with swing voters than Hillary Clinton in part because he ran a more populist, economically focused campaign. It really is possible.

Opinion | Republicans for Redistribution - The New York Times

----------

The Democrats need to leave the social issues alone, and concentrate on taxing the rich heavily and spending the money on domestic programs that the rich do not need, but which most Americans want. It worked for Franklin Roosevelt. It will work for whoever wins the Democrat presidential primary in 2020.

So the entire solution to every problem facing this country is taxing the rich more and allowing 44% of the income earning Americans to pay ZERO in federal income taxes? You do indeed live in an alternative universe. No answers just rhetoric. How much revenue are you going to get from those evil rich people with higher taxes and what does that do to level the wage and income gap?
 
What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

What maters is that since the administration of Ronald Reagan the rich have been paying lower incomes on higher incomes, while most incomes have stagnated.

The national debt, which Republicans use as an excuse to cut domestic programs Americans want either to preserve at present levels, or increase, only became a problem when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, while rising military spending.

The rich are paying 40% of the income taxes in this country today. Your idea is to raise taxes on them without any consequences along with no idea of how much revenue you are going to generate

Cutting domestic programs? What the hell is your state doing with record income?
 
Back
Top Bottom