You know what the answer is. You tell people, "Yes we ARE raising your taxes, and with them we will pay for EVERYTHING: schools, hospitals, roads, bridges, military, phones, everything. And you 1%ers, guess what? You're paying the most! Any resistance, we will name you and you can explain to the 99% WHY you shouldn't! Because you make your money from the sweat of ordinary workers and so-called trickle down economics which are in fact trickle UP economics. Deal with it! You'll still have more money than your grandkids will be able to spend!" Better if that came from Republicans couched in terms their voters can stomach.
Middle-class Americans seem pretty hostile to tax increases because they expect that, regardless of all the rhetoric and even the textual law that says it will mostly raise the taxes of the rich, they will be the ones who will actually have to pay for it. That actually makes a lot of sense given that the rich are a lot more able than the middle class to influence the writing of the law & its implementation and use the loopholes (deductions).
A large chunk - maybe even a majority - of Republican voters actually agree with Dems on tax policy, but vote against their own economic interests because "pro-choicers and queers = baby murderers." So, your Gopper West Wing show would not only involve the protagonists constantly arguing against the Dems' idealism, they'd also always be calculating the degree to which they can f*ck their own voters over before pissing them off so much they no longer go to the polls. *Bum-BUM, ba ba bum - ba ba BUM, ba BUM, ba BUM... !* Heartwarming!
That's one of many bits of Yes Minister expanded from reality: the story of a young MP being told off for barracking the other party. He asks what was wrong about attacking the enemy. "They're the opposition. The enemy are sitting on our side."
Yes, they were careful about that, mainly because the pilot was made a bit before the 1979 general election, and production of the series was then delayed so it didn't run till well after the election. So the pilot was made late in the 74-79 Labour government, but the rest under the Thatcher conservatives. Initially Hacker is implied to be centre-Labour (he has a Midlands seat), but became centre-Tory as time went on (something made clear by the revival, if that counts).
I always find we tend to view politics as being a validation of who is the winner. Obviously they have the potential to exert the greatest control and policy but there is value in being the Opposition. They (the Opposition) have all care and less responsibility on their side, a powerful voice because it is one that play Devil's Advocate. They are the balance and in my opinion it is healthy to have two strong political parties who can take 'turns' in power and keep each other honest.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that...Yes, the majority probably agrees with Democrats over more recent tax arguments, but that's mainly because the debate has shifted so far to the right. You would have a lot more push-back were the debate to shift toward raising taxes across-the-board to fund single payer healthcare, a guaranteed universal income, or universal childcare (much of which could have actually been passed in the 1970s if Senate Democrats had gotten out of their own way).
That might be the theory, but it's easy to say one thing in opposition and then to actual implement it when you are elected into power. All parties are equally as bad as each other.
Perhaps - I'm no historian on 1970s politics - but single-payer healthcare is probably openly supported by less than half of House and Senate Democrats, and I haven't heard of any of them supporting a UBI (though one or two may have). Universal childcare is probably the most popular of those three ideas, but that's a heck of a wide range of positions you're implying are dominant within the Party.
Why on Earth would Dems not support single-payer healthcare? Genuinely curious, because it makes no sense to me. None... at... all.
It's communism, therefore a losing hand. If a Democrat supports it, then the Republican opposing him or her has a magic bullet.
For one, because insurance companies stand to make far more by charging their own rates to a government that requires everyone be insured (the mandate). For two, the political cowardice behind Guy's observation.
Nationalise health care. It's all you can do. The companies fuck people over, have done so for decades. And as long as money is involved, the rich fucks benefiting off it will continue to resist any kind of change. Nationalise health care. But this is getting a little off course, so back to where we were...
As I said, the debate has shifted quite a bit to the right in the modern era. All three of those proposals were quite popular in the 1970s, and they still have support among many left-leaning individuals.
When most ordinary Americans realise the American dream is just that..a dream, they might wake up and realise too many of the mega wealthy have been treating them like n....gers for centuries. Until then, the more things change, the more they will stay the same.
How much of hit in wages would people see if taxes were raised if instead of getting healthcare through work, they were given how much that costs their companies in their wages instead? Sure those who don't get healthcare through work might see a raise in how much tax they pay but it would likely be a lot less than having to find money to pay off a medical bill should they need medical attention.