The majority of tea party folks like the idea of lower taxes in general. I wonder why. Is it because the middle & lower income folks rightly assume that the government, run for oligarchs by the plutogarchs, would put any higher taxes on them instead of at the top?

There is a class war, per Mr. Buffet, and we (the working folks) are losing. The idea from the tea party nut jobs is that no tax is a good tax, and that needs to be challenged.

The rich are accumulating wealth by taking it from the rest of us. We must go back towards a more equitable, and by equitable I mean PROGRESSIVE, tax structure starting with those elements that would bolster SS & Medicare.

And a more equitable tax structure doesn't stop there. We need to impose a modified tax structure that restores the Eisenhower tax rates.

From Politifact:
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-says-taxes-are-lower-today-under-reag/

"By contrast, during the eight years of the Eisenhower presidency, the top rate averaged roughly 90 percent, typically hitting individuals making $200,000 a year or couples making $400,000 a year. In 2010 dollars, that's equivalent to $1.6 million for an individual and $3.2 million for a couple. Someone making the 1954 equivalent of $186,825 in today's money would have paid a tax rate of 59 percent back then."

Promote peace: tax the rich!

Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."

Trouble is the same Big Media that banned its reporters from attending the Jon Stewart/Steve Colbert rally in D.C. yesterday as if any ideas publicly mentioned there would be as dangerous as dioxin and contageous as bubonic plague--as castrated and tepid an exercise in gooey DLC coddling McLiberal petulance as they in fact were--when they routinely flood their reporters to cover even a tiny rally of Tea Party extremists regardless of how publicly bigoted it is, well folks, that same Big Media WILL bury the results of that Peterson Foundation study the same way they buried the results of the study titled The Iraq Effect. Google it and see if you've ever heard of it.

If this is a true poll result - 85 percent want the expansion of social security by taxing the rich - this is very good news indeed.

Do not look for it on the news, however.

"They want the rich to pay a tax on their whole salary which goes into the fund, like all the rest of us."

I certainly hope that includes hedge fund managers that are now paying 15% on hundred of millions of dollars, complements of the $hitheads on Capitol Hill who passed legislation allowing them to declare earnings as capital gains.

Now let's see if the people they vote into office intend to carry-out their wishes.

If only Jim would shed his loyalty to that party, then he can call it like it is. The party he so proudly stands with has done nothing but facilitate the problem.

"While Big Wally's workers average about $9.50 an hour, Duke's pay comes to about $9,500 an hour."

That would make a good sign to post near your local walmart.

What will the Tea Party Republicans do to 'balance' the debt? Gas the elderly?

Hmmm

Over and over polls show American's don'want illegal aliens to stay in the US,they want the rich to pay more in taxes, and they don't believe corporations should have rights like people. And yet.....what do the American people actually get? Well lets see now; 30+ million illegal aliens on the verge of citizenship, and the lowest taxes for the rich since the inception of the income tax, and corporations have rights that far exceed people. And people are still naive enough to believe if they vote today this will change. People, the candidates for national office regardless of political party are ALWAYS the same in one respect; they work for the 1% and are PAID to ignore the rest of us. If this was NOT true than why haven't we gotten rid of the millions of illegal aliens and why aren't the rich being taxed like the rest of us and corporations are running roughshod over the people. (corporations and the top 1% are one and the same bye the way)

It is becoming increasingly clear that the light at the end of the tunnel is vibrating the tracks.

The astronomical disparity in income and wealth among individual Americans may one day be reduced by changes in corporate executive pay custom--even law.

Meanwhile, current disparity would make sense if the minimum wage and standard of living were radically increased--such that although there would be no upper limit imposed on wealth by society or nations, there would be a lower limit.

To pay for the lower limit--often called a safety net--the nation would have a full employment budget featuring sufficient monetary reform to forgo all wealth and income taxes by substituting seigniorage earnings, quantitative easing, government business operations, and transaction taxes to prevent hyperinflation, for the abandoned wealth and income taxes.

The full employment budget would include government capital investment in very high amounts to maintain a world class infrastructure, including both R&D and industrial production, second to none in quality and aimed at quantities sufficient for national populations. To avoid global imbalances that might aggravate inequality import certificate systems advocated by Warren Buffet would be in place.

This sort of bargain/reform of the current high disparity system would seek support from the super-rich, offering them greater economic security, while simultaneously providing economic security for all and an end to poverty and unemployment at last.

Ben Bernanke's quantitative easing has made such reform likely--if we ever take proper notice of it. It is based on Keynesian rules for a monetary system of production and Abba Lerner's functional finance that explains how production can fund full employment and taxes alone cannot.