Ignoring Dems' denials and plans to the contrary, CNN's Schneider said "[p]eople know" Dems are going to raise taxes but elected them anyway
During a discussion on the November 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room about voters' expectations a week after the midterm elections, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider -- after showing a clip of President Bush at an election rally stating "[t]he Democrats are going to raise your taxes ... they don't want you to know it" -- stated "Guess what? People know it," adding that "they voted for the Democrats anyway, which means they must really want change." But contrary to Schneider's suggestion that Americans voted for the Democrats while disagreeing with them on taxes, an analysis of polling data leading up to the election demonstrates that Americans trusted Democrats more on taxes than Republicans. Further, Democrats have pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans.
As Media Matters for America has documented (here and here), polls taken before the midterm elections revealed that Americans have trusted Democrats more than Republicans on taxes for some time, a finding that is reaffirmed in the most recent (September 6-10) Pew Research Center for the People and the Press poll on the subject, which showed a 45-to-30 percent Democratic advantage on taxes. A February Pew poll showed a Democratic advantage of 46-to-35 percent on taxes.
As Media Matters also noted, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) has said that one of the Democrats' top priorities would be to reform the alternative minimum tax so that it affects fewer middle-class Americans. According to a September 20 Bloomberg article: "As a priority, he [Rangel] said Republicans and Democrats need to work together to address the expanding reach of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel system designed to prevent the richest from avoiding taxes that increasingly ensnares middle-income households." Additionally, incoming House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has stated that Democrats will consider increasing taxes only on those making "$250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher," as Media Matters has previously noted.
From the November 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SEN.-ELECT BEN CARDIN (D-MD): Marylanders were concerned about a change in Washington, and they wanted someone who stood up to President Bush and was willing to challenge his leadership.
SCHNEIDER: House Democrats intend to do that. On the minimum wage, embryonic stem cell research, prescription drug prices, and homeland security. President Bush may veto some of those measures. Democrats don't have the numbers to override a veto without Republican support. Despite President Bush's dire warnings, people don't think congressional Democrats will do anything to weaken national security. President Bush also warned:
BUSH: The Democrats are going to raise your taxes. No, I know they don't want you to know it.
SCHNEIDER: Guess what? People know it, but they voted for the Democrats anyway, which means they must really want change.
People said they wanted accountability, a balanced budget and the war really really paid for (instead of wishful thinking that iraq oil would cover the cost). They recognized republicans were too busy bending over pages and spending like drunk elephants to do that.
I hope they repeal the Bush tax cuts that go to the top 1%. This voodoo economics was never going to do anything but create this huge defecit and "starve the government" so Grover Norquist can "drown it in a bathtub".
...that the top 1% didn't vote for Democrats in the elections.
one more time, so that each and everyone of the 300,000,000 pay at least some income tax, be it only $10 at the low end. Make us all stakeholders in the government. Isn't $250,000 lower middle class wages in places like SF, NY? How dare they pick on the middle class like that? At the same time, they need to tighten up controls on spending. Lower student loan rates? Tighten up on the default rates. Cut earmarks (knowing they can't be totally eliminated). Put more oversight on government construction projects (Congressional museum, estimated at $300 M, now at $600 M and not complete, Boston's Big Money Hole (Big Dig). Look at eliminating duplicate programs. Look at enhancing revenues by studying user's fees (airports, harbors, national parks/historical sites). Raise the rates back to Clinton's rates, but don't come running to us, complaining that it ain't enough, we need to go back to pre-Kennedy rates.
who has proposed going back to "pre-kennedy rates". it certainly didn't happen under clinton, which would seem to totally invalidate your contention. and i don't think there is amywhere that 250,000 is considered lower middle class.
but with the unfunded liabilities facing this country (SS, Medicare, government pensions, superfund cleanups, etc), it is only a matter of time until there will be a need for more revenue than the current situation (even with Clinton rates) will cover. Factor in all the government spending programs that come out of Washington DC on a regular basis and it does not bode well for our children or grandchildren, no matter who is in charge.
When the Repubs. took over Congress in 1994, I clearly remember Schneider on CNN referring to this action as a manifestation of the "genius of the American people" kind of thing in ensuring balance.
Interesting, I didn't hear this type of rhetoric from him this time. He was more quizzical than anything else, and kept talking about "Iraq" as the explanation.
Yeah Schneider people want change. But "the people" that should have their tax cut repealed shouldn't be confused with the ones that truly need a cut along with tax fairness. When the Republicans keep saying the Dems are going to raise you taxes they are talking directly to the "people " that never deserved the cut. The baloney of trickle down was proven to do the same thing as it has done this go round back during the Reagan years, nothing but make the rich richer. The spin will be the Dems wish to raise the taxes of these "people when in fact the Dems that will take over the house have already said they want to cut the lower and middle class taxes. The Republican talking point on this issue is laughable.
We need to do away with earmarks including everything Oscar says above and the big hole is Iraq and we need to put an end to this debacle ASAP.
It seems the people have spoken, doesn't it? If people "know" Dems are "going to raise taxes" but elected them to office, does that mean the "people" are stupid? That seems to be what he is saying. Thanks for pointing out how misguided we all were. Now, STFU.
AFTER SEEING THE MURTHA STORY AND TAPE I WAS WONDERING WHY THE RIGHT-WING CNN,MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC AND MOSTLY FOX WERE SO HAPPY. WELL NOW THAT REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE POWERE ANYMORE THEY GO OUT AND DO THE ONLY JOB THEY KNOW HOW TO DO RIGHT"LOOK FOR DIRT ON PEOPLE AND SEND IT TO THE RIGHT-WING MEDIA"!!!!!
Two points:
Where does MMFA come up with the point that Schneider said that people disagree with the Democrats on taxes? Schneider pointed out that the public voted with the Dems despite KNOWING their position on taxes. That is different than DISAGREEING with the position. So I don't get that conclusion by MMFA.
Point two: MMFAs point that "Further, Democrats have pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans." This does not refute the point that Democrats are going to raise taxes. What, the rich aren't Americans?
...Americans and if they make 250k or more a year the tax breaks they got from Bush are going to go the way the surplus did under Bush....vanish.
Now this may be hard to understand, but what that means in the real world is that only a tiny fraction of the country is going to get there taxes raised.
You know about the top 1-2%.
The voters are well aware of what this means.
read the story. it has bush saying "the democrats are going to raise your taxes". then it has schneider saying that's right. well, it's not right. the democrats are not going to raise all american's taxes. read the stories before you start talking about twisted logic.
I try to look at the MMFA threads with a critical eye. Obviously I don't share your ideology on a lot of this stuff. So I look for things that I feel MMFA is being unfair or disingenuous about. This thread had some problems I thought, especially regarding their statement "But contrary to Schneider's suggestion that Americans voted for the Democrats while disagreeing with them on taxes", which really misrepresents what Schneider was saying in my opinion. Schneider did not say that. Have you ever criticized anything MMFA has ever written?
a little more credibility if you provided a a complete sentence. here's the actual quote: "but contrary to schneider's suggestion that americans voted for the democrats while disagreeing with them on taxes, an analysis of polling data leading up to the election showed americans trusted democrats more on taxes than republicans."
I posted the relevant part that I disagreed with MMFA about which is that I do not think that Schneider suggested, contrary to MMFA's statement, that the American people disagree with the Democrats on taxes. So the latter part of that comment is simply rebutting something that Schneider didn't say. He claimed that the American people voted for the Dems despite knowing their position on taxes. The word despite is the problematic word but it doesn't have to mean "disagreed with". It could just as simply mean that even though we don't want a tax increase we also know it is the prudent course of action. And I know Dems are only proposing an increase on the top 1 or 2 percent.
here's the misinformation. they showed a clip of bush saying "the democrats are going to raise your taxes". schneider replied people know that, but voted for them anyway. bush was trying to create the impression that everyone's taxes were going to raised. it's a standard talking point, repeated ad nauseum. schneider endorsed bush's contention by saying people know that. it's an incorrect statement. that's the whole idea of the thread, and that is the misinformation.
See, if MMFA had described it as you did, there would be no problem. But they didn't so I decided to point that out.
they clearly did.
Sir, I would hope that when you make a bald assertion such as this (Situation Room, Nov. 14, 2006), that you would have something other than a Bush talking point to support your position. Speaking as a knee-jerk, liberal Democrat, it is neither my wish, nor the expressed wish or a fairly inferred wish based on the demonstrated history of the majority of Congressional Democrats, to increase taxes for the vast majority of American Citizens. On the other hand, it would be nice if the wealthiest - and growing wealthier under current tax policies and Bush administration goals - citizens would quit whining about the proportionate tax expense they incur to support a form of government that makes it possible for them to accumulate more wealth than they and their prodigy may consume in multiple generations.
....do raise taxes. Why is this even a thread?