This is the way I segment the pro-tax crowd: 1. Ideological elitists: This group consists of those who are engaged in an ideological war on the financial markets for whatever reason. Examples include DeFazio, Baker, and Krugman. 2. Pragmatic elitists: This group does not care much one way or another. They are simply looking for a source of revenue to fund their ever expanding number of political programs. An example in this group is Pelosi. 3. General public: The middle class taxpayer, that may or may not have a liberal bent. 4. Crackpots: This group varies but a common theme is replacing income tax with a 1% tax on transactions of all kinds. I think it is safe to agree that this will never happen unless a revolution occurs and society descends into anarchy. There is no way to convince the ideological elitists. They are married to their positions, sometimes for strange reasons (like DeFazio, who is holding onto an almost 50-year grudge against "rich" people from when he worked as a caddy as a teen). Moreover, many of them have been waiting for a crisis like this for years to use as a pretext for pushing for implementation of their agenda. It's no different than the political cabal that took over the White House under Bush and exploited 9-11 for a preexisting neoconservative agenda. This is exactly the same, just from the other end of the political spectrum. The pragmatic elitists will go wherever the political winds blow. This is the group where the efforts earlier in this thread (writing letters, etc.) can be effective. If the IMF were to come back with a report indicating that the tax is a bad idea (thus making agreement at the G20 level more unlikely), then this group would not stick their political necks out for a position that would put American financial markets at a comparative disadvantage. Even Pelosi will fall in line here. Incidentally, the reason I call both these groups "elitists" is the remarkable fact that all of those arguing for this tax are either rich or set for life in some other way. It's pretty easy to argue for positions like this when no harm will come to you personally from supporting them. The hypocrisy in pushing for such positions while ignoring the harm they cause to others is rather repellent. The general public that supports this tax does so because they are angry at Wall Street, understandably so. They don't have enough financial literacy to understand how it is they and not Wall Street that will end up paying this tax, one way or another. I have had success in individual discussions with members of this group. What I have found is that once this is carefully explained people in this group (even those with extremely liberal sympathies) come around because they realize the reality does not match the rhetoric. As for the crackpots, it's safe just to laugh at them.
This is true. However, the general public may not actually care about the average daytrader. Many of them view day traders as leeches on society who should be exterminated. The problem, of course, is the financial illiteracy of the general public.
Sounds good. The focus then should be the Ways and Means Committee. As I noted earlier, if the bill passes the other two committees, then it will pass the Rules Committee in a manner that biases its passage through the House. Obviously we shouldn't ignore the Budget Committee but I think the meat of this bill will be decided in Ways and Means.
Same correction: Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st is NOT a co-sponsor. Unfortunately, the remaining co-sponsor on this Committee becomes Chair if Rangel is forced out.
Members of both the Budget and Ways and Means Committees: Becerra, Xavier, California, 31st Nunes, Devin, California, 21st Yarmuth, John A., Kentucky, 3rd Etheridge, Bob, North Carolina, 2nd Blumenauer, Earl, Oregon 3rd Schwartz, Allyson Y., Pennsylvania, 13th Doggett, Lloyd, Texas, 25th Ryan, Paul, Wisconsin, 1st Nunes and Ryan are Republicans. The others are Democrats.
Where do I go to get my piece of the $700,000,000,000 bailout that this bill implies that we pay for? I don't recall Brendan P. Byrne or Epiphany Trading, LLC receiving any of those funds. We should pay for it? I believe that many of our elected officials have very limited knowledge of the capital markets and make extreme uninformed generalizations of "Wall St." Our government bailed out the banks, not the equity trading firms.
Keeping a low profile is a mistake and sign of weakness in my opinion. In a democracy majority wins the vote. And the majority does not need to be told necessarily about the negative consequences of the tax for the small traders but explaining to the public that the tax is going to hurt their 401Ks is a good idea and one good article like that in a well known newspaper can make the difference.
This was pretty much my point. I think it's better to take the approach that we are part of Main St., not Wall St. It may even make sense to go as far as saying we agree that Wall St. (GS, MS, etc.) should pay, but that this proposal would not lead to that. Most people have no concept of what "Wall St." actually is (think about it, does your family even know exactly what you you do?), so they lump everything financial together under the Wall St. umbrella. While the public is very upset at whatever they consider to be "Wall St." right now, most are equally upset with our government. If we can show how this will be just another drain on the middle class taxpayer, not a penalty for the big guys, we could at least get some more non-traders on our side. As it's being presented, most people think that they won't be affected, it will raise a lot of needed revenue, and it will punish the "evil speculators", but we all know that won't be the case.