He's on C-span now attacking Obama - during the Democratic convention. Doing that is apparently a huge breach of tradition and shows a mean streak and a lack of class.

Well, at least it did in 2004 when John Kerry did it and the media was just shocked. Shocked and disgusted.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...

"Breaking with tradition, Senator John Kerry plans to campaign for at least one day during the Republican National Convention, venturing to Nashville to speak at the American Legion's national convention."

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn41...

"Breaking with the tradition - and with his own restraint on the war service issue - Mr Kerry lashed out at Mr Bush and Vice- President Dick Cheney for their attacks on his military qualifications, having avoided going to Vietnam themselves.

Banishing all doubt that this will be an uncommonly nasty campaign, the Massachusetts senator, five times decorated in Vietnam, told supporters that he would not have "my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have, and who misled America into Iraq"."

Reagan swept the Senate in 1980, it was Republican controlled

96th Congress (1979-1981)

Majority Party: Democrat (58 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (41 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

---------------------------------

97th Congress (1981-1983)

Majority Party: Republican (53 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 1 Independent

Total Seats: 100

---------------------------------

98th Congress (1983-1985)

Majority Party: Republican (54 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (46 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/o...

Considering they lost 12 seats, I am not surprised they would be a little intimidated.

It may be naive, but I still think if we had 10,000 at our war protest in Lawrence, Ks instead of 1,000 that it would have had an impact. One of the reasons there wasn't, was the fact that so many people swallowed the lies. But it goes far beyond just the lies that one Presidential administration was telling. There was also a compliant M$M. There is also the education system and books and magazines that create and perpetuate a conventional wisdom.

Conventional wisdom that is believed by the masses as fervently as any religion. Some of that is probably rock solid - the goodness of America, the freedom and prosperity of America, etc. But some of it changes over time. The taxes = bad belief was not part of the political conversation in the 1970s as far as I know, but since the Reagan "revolution" that concept has been promoted by a variety of rightwing 'think' tanks, compliant talking-heads and editorial writers, and politicians of all stripes. Apparently even to tell a household making $200,000 that we will tax an extra $5 for every $1,000 you make would be political suicide and so everyone races to offer tax cuts to all families making less than $150,000. It's all part of going with the flow instead of being a boat against the current.

Gene Lyons most recent Obama-bashing column asked a good question. What states can Obama win that Kerry lost? In order to win, Obama needs to win more states than Kerry, so what states have been competetive and might tip to Obama? So I looked up the swing states and made the following tables.

States Republicans won by small margins

state - victory margin - (margin 2000) - N(Nader vote)-> theoretical 2000 margin)
Iowa - .67 (-.31) - N(1.63) -> (-1.94)
New Mexico - .79 (-.06) - N(3.55) -> (-3.61)
Ohio - 2.11 (3.51) - N(2.5) -> (1.01)
Nevada - 2.59 (3.55) - N(2.46) -> (1.09)
Colorado - 4.67 (8.36) - N(5.25) -> (3.11)
Florida - 5.01 (.01) - N(1.63) -> (-1.62)
Missouri - 7.20 (3.34) - N(1.63) -> (1.71)
Virginia - 8.20 (8.04) - N(2.17) -> (5.87)

states that were close in 2000, but not in 2004

state-margin 2000 - (margin 2004) - N(Nader vote)-> theoretical margin)
Arkansas - 5.44 (9.76) - N(1.46) -> (3.98)
Arizona - 6.28 (10.47) - N(2.98) -> (3.3)
WVa - 6.32 (12.86) - N(1.65) -> (4.67)
Louisiana - 7.68 (14.51) - N(1.16) -> (6.52)

States Democrats won by small margins in 2004

Wisconsin - .38 (.22) - N(3.62) -> (3.84)
New Hampshire - 1.37 (-1.27) - N(3.9) -> (2.63)
Pennsylvania - 2.50 (4.17) - N(2.10) -> (6.27)
Michigan - 3.42 (5.13) - N(1.99) -> (7.12)
Minnesota - 3.48 (2.40) - N(5.2) -> (7.60)
Oregon - 4.16 (.44) - N(5.04) -> (5.48)
New Jersey - 6.68 (15.83) - N(2.97) -> (18.8)
Washington - 7.18 (5.58) - N(4.14) -> (9.72)

small margin in 2000

Maine - 5.11 (9.00) - N(5.70) -> (10.81)
Tennessee - 3.86 (14.27) - N(.95) -> (2.91)

First, it is scary/sad to see both Florida and Michigan on that list. Hillary needs to stop trying to stir them up for her own advantage and the credentials committee needs to placate them somehow. It is interesting that Gore, a southerner, made Arkansas, Louisiana and West Virginia close while Kerry/Edwards did not. Arizona was close in 2000, I believe, because a percentage of Arizona votes were not happy with the way Bush treated McCain in the primaries. Arizona is not in contention in 2008.

Gore seems to have done better in all of the swing states and that, to me, speaks of the popularity of Clinton even if he does enrage conservatives. Richardson would seem to be a logical choice as well. Not only for his experience, but also to possibly tip New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Florida. The other difficulty is also keeping Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota in our column.

Senate races might be another factor, with Minnesota being one that we should be able to pick up. Although it is also interesting to see that Minnesota and Wisconsin are not as progressive as I previously thought.

I recently read Larry Kudlow at the NRO, who wrote:

"The Wall Street Journal’s Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000."

except I find, using tax stats from the IRS here:
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/ar... ...

In 2005, there were 21,677,179 returns filling out schedule D for capital gains or dividends. Of that number 6,452,405 had income under $50,000. That's only 29.7% NOT "almost half". Of that number 13,859,448 had incomes under $100,000. That's 63.94% NOT "more than three-quarters". However, since they only speak of capital gains, and NOT capital gains AND dividends, they may be correct.

However, keep in mind too, that $50,000 is not actual personal or household income. It is "adjusted gross income". Secondly I note that there were 54,585,560 filers with income below $50,000 who had no capital gains or dividends. Thus, only 10.6% of filers with incomes below $50,000 had capital gains or dividend income (at least outside of a tax sheltered 401K). The real kicker is the answer to the question: "who gets the money?"

The IRS also notes that the lower tax rate for dividends and capital gains saved taxpayers $91.65 billion in 2005. Of that amount $1.198 billion went to taxpayers making less than $50,000 (that's a whopping 1.3%!!! and an average savings of $186!!!) and $4.84 billion went to taxpayers making less than $100,000 (that's a whopping 5.2% and an average savings of $349).

On the other side, the 11,433 filers with income of $10,000,000 or more saved $25.84 billion (28.1% of the benefits going to .05% of the beneficiaries with an average savings of $2,260,124) and the 101,676 filers with income over $2,000,000 got $46.615 billion (50.9% of the benefits going to .47% of the beneficiaries with an average savings of $458,466.)

If you break the numbers down further, the 3.08 million filers with incomes under $30,000 who file Schedule D only get $353.6 million of the savings from the tax cut. Thus, although they represent 47.7% of the filers under $50,000, they only get 29.5% of the benefits. Finally, I am curious as to how the 427,868 filers with incomes below $10,000, approximately 1/3 with incomes below $5,000 are paying ANY tax, much less the $80.7 million that the IRS reports. My strong suspicion is that they are children or other dependents of much wealthier people and thus cannot take a standard deduction. How else do they pay taxes on less than $5,000 when the standard deduction is $5,350 and the personal exemption is $3,400?

So, it's pretty clear who the real beneficiaries are of the lower rates on dividends and capital gains and it's not the few people with incomes under $50,000 or $100,000 with capital gains that Kudlow and the Wall Street Journal are shedding crocodile tears for. Rightwing defenders of tax cuts for the rich always like to point at the large number of poor and middle class who supposedly benefit from their tax cuts (see, almost 14 million people). They do this to hide the much larger number of poor and middle class who do not benefit (about 90%) and the much smaller number of very wealthy (.05%) who get huge benefits (averaging over $2,000,000!!).

Tell me again how McCain is a "Straight Talker" when he defends and promotes this dishonesty?

I could see that the Bush tax cuts benefitted the wealthy (of course Bob McIntyre at Citizens for Tax Justice helped, a lot) and I could see that he was lying about that fact. The people who either could not see it, or did not care, were wrong. That was not an assumption though. It was partly an observable fact (for those who could not see it) and a value judgement (about the selfishness and greed of the rich people who could see it and did not think their large benefits, nor the dishonesty with which the plan was sold were bad things).

In much the same way, I think it is clearly demonstrable that Hillary's tax plans largely benefit those above the median income, and that Bill's administration, which she touts as her experience, had a track record of throwing progressives under the bus, AND her IWR vote and statements on the war are a prime illustration of that. I don't think it's an assumption any more than I would think it's an assumption if I see a mate in two in a chess game. Heck, I watched a chess game where neither of the players saw a mate in ONE. I did not assume they were wrong though. I could clearly see it. Even worse I can remember two games where my opponents had devastating moves that they fortunately did not see either. Kasparov or even a master-rated player would see things that I could not, but once he/she demonstrated them or pointed them out, it would be wilfull ignorance to deny it.

Of course, life is much more complicated than chess, AND not everybody has the same value system. When there is a conflict in values, then no amount of logic or facts is gonna matter. Not everybody values people below the median income or honesty in a politician (or expects total honesty) for a couple examples. As Russell said, "unless you agree on the basics, no dialogue is possible."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_...

They repeat this like it's a fact, without the necessary caveat "according to Republicans"

"Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more."

Here's what the CBPP says about that, and other Republican comments on the Bush tax cuts

http://www.cbpp.org/3-12-08tax.htm

"2. “Under their budget, the definition of rich would reach down to… couples who earn $63,000.” —- Senator Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, at a press conference on taxes, March 12, 2008

“Even with the Baucus amendment added to this budget, there would be marginal rate increases on millions of taxpayers. . . . These marginal rate increases would reach taxpayers with incomes as low as $31,850 for singles and $63,700 for married couples.” —- Senator Charles Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, during the debate on the Senate budget resolution, March 10, 2008

Senators McConnell and Grassley are referring to the income levels at which taxpayers can begin to benefit from 2001 tax cut’s reduction in the 28 percent tax rate. But in calculating these levels for 2007, they failed to factor in the personal exemption and standard deduction. With those included, the then-28 percent, now-25 percent bracket begins at $40,600 for singles and $81,200 for couples. (To benefit in full from the 25 percent bracket, a single individual needs an income of at least $85,850, and a married couple needs income of at least $146,000. This explains why the Tax Policy Center estimates that some 80 percent of the benefits of reducing the 28 percent rate to 25 percent go to households with incomes above $100,000; see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/Con... .) "

The Liberal Media strikes again - advancing Republican lies as "facts".

If they are old, trivial, or false, then you should have long ago prepared or read rebuttals to them. Something you could link to every time they rear their hoary old heads.

Instead it just seems that there is a Clintonian demand to "shut up, shut up, shut up!" in the name of party unity. Don't give your opinion or bring up negative facts because we are in a war here and she is on our side.

Well, my side is the working class. And my observation is that she is not on my side. I think anybody else who is on my side, such as, say, EVERY MEMBER OF THIS PROGRESSIVE SITE, should be informed of that fact and of the evidence that leads me to that conclusion.

This isn't a DNC site, or a DCCC site. It is an independent site, presumably from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. It's a wing the Clintons might not have much use for, but the feeling is generally very much mutual.

Reading through this old Clinton speech I was at first encouraged by the first half of the speech, but then repulsed by the second half.


http://www.ibiblio.org/nii/econ-posit.html

The Two Americas and the problems of ordinary working people



Similar message to what both Edwards and Obama are saying. This election is about the people (Edwards) and Washington has failed them (Obama).

One huge thing though, is that now Bill Clinton himself is added to the list and so is Hillary. Between them, they have now had 16 years to try to change things, and yet we seem to have the very same issues.



There he seems to talk about the two Americas. The prosperous America of the rich, and the struggling America of the working class. He is in the election to help the working class, but in the second half he offers his plans for helping them. How is he gonna help our country and our workers? - mostly through economic growth.


The One Solution - economic growth

At this point, many are probably thinking. Well, what could be wrong with that? In a society that constantly teaches that more is better and that growth is not only good, but the only alternative to death, growth is taken for granted by most people to be a good thing. My main problem is that it is a validation of greed, of selfishness, basically of the rat race. Here's how he describes the purpose of education.

"It means giving every young American who works hard and plays by the rules a chance to get ahead:"

There is the goal. Not a good life. Not a chicken in every pot or a car in every garage. Not service to others or compassion for the needy. But to "get ahead". That can be a motivator, no doubt, but it also seems to be a recipe for personal and social unhappiness. I am not happy bicycling or taking the bus, because other people have cars. I am not happy with my car, because other people have nicer cars. I am not happy wherever I am, unless I am "ahead" of other people.

So there we are in the 1980s, one of the richest countries in the world. A country that uses more than its proportionate share of the world's resources. And what do we want? More! More! More! And when do we want it? Now! Now! Now! Just like that ad using that Queen song that I love, the advertising people always enourage everyone to "want it all", and to "want it now!"



How rightwing that all sounds - individual, security, growth, excellence, efficiency, strength. Those are all code words to me. There is nothing wrong with them per se, except when you make them the over-riding standards. Individual over co-operation. Security over conviviality. Excellence over humanity. Growth over moderation and balance and perspective. (Is too much really never enough? When will you finally say 'no mas'?). Efficiency over compassion. Strength over friendship (a bully to be feared versus a respected friend.)

Michael Harrington made this point so well. Some people were complaining about mine safety regulations, showing that those regulations resulted in lost productivity (gasp! Inefficiency. Slower growth.) Harrington pointed out that they resulted in SAVED LIVES. Corporations always value efficiency, growth, productivity, and profit. Those are corporate values. Saved lives, reduced injuries, the personal well being of their workers, reduced pollution. Those are all things that get in the way of economic growth, that slow the progress of the forward stampede of the rat race.

Clinton calls for service at the conclusion of his speech.



But service to what ends? For what purposes?



The goal is the same as it has been in American history - more money. To make America "productive", "prosperous" "energetic" and "respected". That sounds like a really fast rat who thinks he can win the rat race, that any rat can win if they only train hard enough.

He seemed to miss the message of the 1960s, that even the winners of this race are losers. That it is the race itself that is the problem. It's a race that everybody loses, even the lead rats.

As it turned out, the first "Boomer" President was not a hippie. He was a yuppie.

This may be preaching to the choir, but there seem to be some on DU who suggest that my memory is faulty, that President Clinton did lots of things to help the poor and working classes. So I did some spelunking in the archives of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Most of their archives are devoted to debunking various talking points coming from the Republican Congress. They did mention Clinton a few times (and yes Clinton should get some credit for his vetoes and veto threats).

(However, Clinton came in with a Democratic Congress, that got lost partly because the RNC campaigned against his wife.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...

"In their postmortems on the elections, many pollsters and analysts tagged the First Lady's health-care plan as a major factor in turning voters against the President and his party. Stanley Greenberg, the White House pollster, found that health care, more than anything else, drove independent voters away.")

Anyway, here are some of the things the CBPP mentions

http://www.cbpp.org/8-5-99bud.htm

"The (Clinton) Administration's proposal is essentially a centrist to moderately conservative one that should not be described as a "big government" plan with large amounts of new spending."

"Centrist to moderately conservative". Not progressive. Not liberal. Even in a booming economy and without the need to worry about re-election. "Centrist to moderately conservative".

http://www.cbpp.org/7-12-99bud.htm

The Clinton administration over-stated the "surplus" which set the stage for Bush/Republican tax cuts.

"The new CBO projections show that under current law, the federal government will begin running surpluses in the non-Social Security budget in fiscal year 2000 and run cumulative non-Social Security surpluses of $996 billion over the next 10 years. But these projections, like those OMB issued several days earlier, assume that total expenditures for appropriated programs — which include the vast bulk of defense expenditures — will remain within the austere and politically unrealistic "caps" the 1997 budget law set on appropriated programs."

The OMB, isn't that Clinton's OMB? Remember the 2000 campaign? The surplus was so big that Bush was gonna use $1 as a tax cut, $1 for prescription drugs, $1 to shore up social security and $1 to pay down the debt. A surplus that was over-stated by the Clinton administration.

http://www.cbpp.org/clinttax.htm

"Analyses by the Treasury Department indicate that when fully in effect, the Clinton plan would give the 20 percent of Americans with the highest incomes about the same amount in tax cuts as the bottom 60 percent combined. This is an unusual characteristic for a tax plan proposed by a Democratic President. "

"The Clinton plan would provide the child credit to at least 10 million fewer children than would receive it under the House Democratic tax bill, offered by Rep. Charles Rangel. "

"The Clinton plan would provide the child credit to several million fewer children in near-poor working families than would be the case under the Senate Democratic tax plan that Senator Tom Daschle offered last week."

"Since the Treasury tables do not reflect the effects of the estate tax cuts the Administration is proposing — and the estate tax cuts affect only the heirs of the wealthiest two percent of people who die — the tables significantly understate the degree to which high-income households benefit from the plans."

The Clinton administration proposed estate tax cuts? Something that would benefit the wealthiest 2%. How very progressive of him.

Although she offended me by running for the Senate in my mom's home state, a state she had never lived in, my primary reason for opposing Hillary's nomination is Bill Clinton. The era of Big Dawg triangulating needs to be over.

Try our flat tax calculator to see how much money rich people could save with a flat tax.

1998 figures from 2001 SAUS numbers in billions of dollars

number of ^^ AGI ^^^ AGI total ^^^ Income tax ^^ 17% flat tax ^^ savings
filers
172,000 ** >$1,000,000 * 533.5 **** 146.8 **** 90.7 *** 56.1!!!!
207,000 ** >$500,000 ** 207.6 **** 58.5 **** 35.3 *** 23.2
1,606,000 * >$200,000 ** 463.6 **** 111.5 **** 78.8 *** 32.7
total ------------------------------------------------ $112,000,000,000


So if taxes are frustrating you, just be thankful that we do not have a flat tax that would force you to pay a share of $112 billion more.

WSJ: The percentage of taxes paid by the rich is higher than ever

Truth: So is the percentage of income "earned" by the rich

Truth: Because of their $100,000+ tax breaks, they are now paying an increased percentage of a smaller bill. For example, income tax revenues were 1,004 billion in 2000 and they were 927.2 billion in 2005. (to make the point better they fell from 10.4% of GDP to 8.5% of GDP) So, yeah the rich are paying a higher percentage of the smaller total bill, but they also got a larger percentage of the $206 billion in tax cuts, making them a very large beneficiary of Republican generosity.

WSJ: "In 1980, when the top income tax rate was 70%, the richest 1% paid only 19% of all income taxes; now, with a top rate of 35%, they pay more than double that share. With lower rates and fewer tax loopholes after the 1986 reform, there is less incentive to shelter income to avoid tax."

Truth: Another apples to oranges comparison. In 1980, the top 5% got 15.8% of the national income, in 2001 they got 22.4%. Yeah, you are gonna pay a higher percentage of taxes if your fucking share of income goes up.

WSJ: "First, America continues to be a society of upward income mobility. Over the past decade, millions of Americans have joined the once highly exclusive club of six- and seven-figure earners. Some 304,000 Americans earned $1 million or more in annual income in 2005, compared to 110,000 in 1996 and 176,000 in 2000. Because there is no cap on the top income share, this increase in millionaires pushes the top income (and taxes paid) share higher. The number of millionaire households in net worth also increased to nine million in 2006, up from six million in 2001, according to TNS, a global market research firm."

Truth: The rich getting richer, does not show "upward income mobility". Do not even try to make me laugh with this. Less than 2% of all households make over $250,000. If some in this elite group move from an income below $1 million to an income above it, that is hardly a Horatio Alger rags to riches story. Same for the less than 20% of households that make over $85,000.


You Wall Street Journal editors might wanna check your pants for combustion.

"In a way, this one little dumb-a$$ editorial is a microcosm of the Journal's editorial page. How much is stupidity? How much is dishonesty, and how much is the Journal's just trusting that its readers rabid ideological convictions will blind them to gaping holes in their reasoning? Hard to say." Al Franken

If 'middle class' means upper middle class professionals, then it is a stupid term. Like Obama said, bless his heart, the top 6% is not in the 'middle'. That's not what most people mean by 'middle class' even if it is some traditional 200 year old definition.

It's very simple. If you say "rich and non-rich" then the dividing line is the median income. If you say "poor, middle, and rich" then the dividing line is bottom 20%, 21-79%, and top 20%. To define only the super-duper rich as "rich" is total bullsh*t IMO. All it does is justify the greed of the $130,000 family that only looks up and wants more instead of looking down at the vast, vast majority that has so much less.

As long as my income is below $15,000 a year, I can never see people over $80,000 as non-rich, except for the fact that I consider having to live in a major metro area like NYC, Chicago, LA, Houston, DC, Baltimore, Boston, Philadelphia, San-San, Seattle, Phoenix, St. Louis, KC, Twintown, etc., etc., etc. as some kind of cruel and unusual punishment.

Then somebody is an idiot, and it's not me.

Total income going to wages in 2006 was 6.445 trillion. 1 trillion is 15.5% of that. However, the social security tax rate is only 12.4%. So, if all wage income was taxed, total revenue would only be about $800 billion. Social security is already taking in something like $700 billion (it was $611 billion in 1999). So, the net is $100 billion which is a trillion over ten years.

Do we always talk about ten years at a time, or is that some kind of Republican trick to make a $100 billion tax increase sound bigger than it really is?

And about the middle class. Here's a table showing only 16.47% of households make more than $97,500 a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_inc...

That's for households too, which often have multiple earners. If people in the 80th and 90th percentile of income are middle class, then that is some strange definition of "middle" that I do not understand.

Does she really think that putting together a money, influence and media machine to make her the Democratic nominee is gonna be good for our party? Does she really think that making her divisive self President is gonna be good for our country?

I don't see how, but I will put this in my journal so three years from now (or 14 months from now in the case of the party - I still think Hillary CAN win the White House, but that she will bring a Republican House and Senate with her.) I can either say "I fu$%ing told you so!" or be happy to admit that the iceberg I saw coming was not a real threat.