Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditIn countless speeches over the past seven years, Democrats have rightly slammed "the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy" as reckless, unnecessary, and unjust. Yet Senator Bernie Sanders has provided Senate Democrats with ample opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and his colleagues have failed to seize that opportunity.
Last year, Sanders introduced the National Priorities Act to rescind the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans and use those revenues for health care, education, childcare, veterans services, infrastructure, deficit reduction and other vital needs. The bill had no cosponsors, was never brought to the floor for a vote, and it languishes in the Senate Finance Committee.
Sanders then took a more modest approach. In a budget amendment, he targeted only the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest three-tenths of 1 percent of taxpayers – in essence, Americans who earn at least one million annually. That garnered 38 Democratic votes (including Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton). Progress, yes, but still only a whimper as compared to the sometimes fiery rhetoric of the party.
Yesterday, at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Sanders announced his latest effort to restore fiscal sanity to the tax code, hoping that the third time will be a charm. Again, his amendment would rescind the tax cuts only for the wealthiest .3 percent of taxpayers in order to increase revenues by $32.5 billion over the next three years (less than 3 months of spending in Iraq). It is currently cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Sherrod Brown, Richard Durbin, Tom Harkin, Edward Kennedy, Barbara Mikulski, and Chuck Schumer. (Disappointingly, Senator Obama hadn't indicated his intention to sign on at the time of this post.)
"At a time when the presidential candidates are running all over the country saying ‘We need change, change, change….' Sander said. "At a time when the American people are saying we are moving this country in a very wrong direction – we've gotta change our direction. This amendment gives the Senate an opportunity to cast a vote which begins the process of changing our national priorities and moving America in a very different direction."
Sanders said the amendment begins to address three major problems facing our nation: the growing economic disparity between the very rich and everyone else; the "shameful reality" that America has the highest child poverty rate of any industrialized nation at 18 percent; and record-breaking deficits and a national debt approaching $10 trillion.
The Sanders amendment calls for $10 billion to be used towards special education – the federal government hasn't fulfilled its statutory commitment in this area and as a result states have been forced to raise property taxes; $5 billion to Head Start which today serves less than half of eligible children; $4 billion to the Child Care Development Block Grant – only one in seven eligible children are able to receive federal childcare assistance due to a lack of funding; $3 billion towards school construction – schools across the nation have a $100 billion backlog in needed repairs; $4 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help low-income families with children, fixed-income seniors, and persons with disabilities stay warm in the winter months; $3.5 billion on Food Stamps to help address growing food insecurity; and $3 billion for deficit reduction.
"This is change, this is real change," Sanders said. "At a time when the wealthiest people have not had it so good since the 1920s, almost all of the new wealth creation has gone to the people at the very, very top. We as a nation have got to decide whether we ask those people to pay a little bit more in taxes so that we address the absolute, pressing needs facing our kids in working families all over this country."
The fact that Sanders is once again giving the Democrats a chance to take a stand on this fundamental issue isn't lost on the Senator.
"I think every poll taken indicates that a huge majority of the American people believe that this country under Bush is moving us in the wrong direction," Sanders said. "I think this is one of those areas. People perceive that while the wealthiest people in this country are making huge increases in their incomes, the middle-class is shrinking and poverty is increasing…. From a public policy point of view, it would be very disappointing to me if we did not have overwhelming Democratic support. And from a political point of view, I think it would be a mistake."
Senate Democrats have had too many moments when they needed to show their mettle and they faltered. This is another one of those moments. It's time to follow Sanders' lead.
Share this article
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Yes, Dems, please follow Bernies' Lead and lets `Change' for higher taxes! something, anything to divert some attention from Demo Priary circuses and that other sideshow going on in New York!
Posted by Happy at 03/11/2008 @ 6:36pm
"Again, his amendment would rescind the tax cuts only for the wealthiest .3 percent of taxpayers in order to increase revenues by $32.5 billion over the next three years"
(Vanden Heuvel, from article)
This indicates the lack of comprehension of what the Republicans have done to this nation. By their treacherous, ruinous, greedy sacking of the treasury & the national economy for self-benefit & enrichment of their cronies, the Right has demolished the economy-- not just for now, but for the forseeable future. We have to remember that these are old white men-- Cheney, Rummy, Bush, and the rest. The future is now for these guys. They don't give a damn about the nation or the planet they are leaving for their progeny. That's the next generation's look out.
But if Sanders or Vanden Heuvel think $32 billion is going to make a dent in the damage, they are living in a fool's paradise. The damage is more than the GDP for an entire year: $3 trillion lost in Iraq, $6 trillion lost in homeowner equity in the mortgage market meltdown, and $5 trillion lost in US equity markets. While all of these losses haven't been "booked" yet, they represent the estimates of market insiders & knowledgeable economists trying to sound the bottom of the current contraction.
People out in the country just don't get it. These numbers are too big. And so folks keep sleepwalking and saying, "$32 billion here, $15 billion there, all may yet be well." They are like victims of a deft decapitation who haven't noticed yet that their heads are missing.
Posted by goyadad at 03/11/2008 @ 6:42pm
Happy your cynicism is showing.
Obviously Sanders is taking a huge compromise on this but as he is acknowledging you have to start SOMEWHERE. Start the ball rolling and see if it catches momentum.
Posted by yutsano at 03/11/2008 @ 7:06pm
They won't do ANYTHING resembling a tax hike before the First Tuesday after The First Monday of the month of November.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 7:11pm
the Right has demolished the economy--
Posted by GOYADAD 03/11/2008 @ 6:42pm
You ain't seen nothing yet......watch what happens if the Demos win in Nov.....trust me, I'll do my part and shut down our family's spending....as I already did by NOT Spring Breaking....what do I care if Lake Tahoe, Taos or Dillon don't suck a few grands out of me!
Posted by Happy at 03/11/2008 @ 7:12pm
Damnit, MASK.....roll w/Katrina once in a while....even cynically, heheheheh!
Posted by Happy at 03/11/2008 @ 7:13pm
Posted by HAPPY 03/11/2008 @ 7:13pm
Sorry, don't care much for "Fantasyland"...where Democrats propose massive tax hikes just before a Presidential election (giving the absolute best fodder for your guys).
or where they spend like mad men, deficit be damned, on a vast "New New Deal"...again returning the mantle of "fiscal conservatives" to those who disposed of it nicely between 2001-2006.
No,no...I'll stick with reality. She can stick with reality TV (oops, time for Idol!)
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 7:42pm
Mask, what are you talking about? This is a measure to return the top tax bracket from 35% to 39% -- millionaires and billionaires only.... at a time when we are spending $12 billion a MONTH in Iraq... this is a modest proposal.
Posted by italiano at 03/11/2008 @ 8:24pm
I'm having trouble with something. Tax revenues fund the public sector and tax cuts increase said revenues. Why would the advocates of increased public sector spending be against increasing the funds available for that spending? Of course revenue levels are not the driving issue here; the poor are poor because the rich are rich, so let's screw the rich. After them who's next?
Posted by Next Door at 03/11/2008 @ 8:43pm
the poor are poor because the rich are rich, so let's screw the rich. After them who's next?
Posted by NEXT DOOR 03/11/2008 @ 8:43pm
Maybe I haven't been paying attention and missed it . . . explain to me again how crappy the long-suffering rich have had it in this country? And the reason they are taking their money and moving to Monaco in such huge numbers?
Show me some harm, otherwise I'm not going to join the bandwagon to Save the Rich! and sundry other Republican charity causes.
Posted by goyadad at 03/11/2008 @ 9:19pm
Oh, that's right I forgot. The price list at the Emperor's Club just went up again. Now that $2500 blow job costs $3500.
Literally, it sucks to be rich.
Posted by goyadad at 03/11/2008 @ 9:21pm
LVLIBERTY1 03/11/2008...
So... should we do anything at all to reduce the deficit?...
I agree with your analysis of America's health and spending issues, LV... but the 'can of worms' being opened here is immediately apparent... namely, how can the increasingly wealthy 'investor class' improve the welfare of the very people they are disenfranchising? As the benefits of overseas investments increase exponentially, millions of hard working Americans are being gradually forced into lower, and sometimes marginal, living standards... manufacturing here in the States is continually diminishing... and our 'free market' is 'trickling down' the pinch in many ways.
This translates to 'less satisfying work that pays less... and many more hours of it'... to make ends meet for millions of talented educated hardworking Americans. It leads inevitably to the kinds of illogical behavior you have illustrated in your post... signifying a staggeringly large and increasing number of people virtually bereft of optimism and hope.
And speaking as one of them... "I'd appreciate a few more systemic improvements, if you don't mind..."
Posted by ttr at 03/11/2008 @ 10:00pm
Posted by ITALIANO 03/11/2008 @ 8:24pm
So stop spending $12 Billion in Iraq.
But that's DEFICIT spending (supplementals not "on budget")...and that can't be done for wars...or "the social safety net"....eventually Bush or vanden Heuvel...you go bankrupt!
And again, the Dems are NOT going to pass ANY kind of tax hike (or anything that resembles one) just 6 months before a Presidential election.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 10:13pm
BTW, hope none of you guys still dreaming of "The Revolution"?
Might I quote an old radical?--
"Revolution is indeed a violent process. But if it is to result only in a change of dictatorship, in a shifting of names and political personalities, then it is hardly worth while.
It is surely not worth all the struggle and sacrifice, the stupendous loss in human life and cultural values that result from every revolution.
If such a revolution were even to bring greater social well being, then it would also not be worth the terrific price paid: mere improvement can be brought about without bloody revolution."-----Emma Goldman
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 10:17pm
Beggin' yer pardon, Mr. Mask sir... but how many Dems do you know would swing and vote Rep if the top .3% was taxed an additional 4%...? Not that I'm suggesting it, because I'm not... I'm just not following your reasoning. If you are speaking from a general historical basis, however, I'd have to agree with you...
Posted by ttr at 03/11/2008 @ 10:28pm
MASK 03/11/2008
So true, especially with respect to 'Marxian revolution'. Like Karl's mom said... "Karl, if you spent as much time making capital as you do writing about it... you could make something of your life!"
We're all doing what we can... ;^)
Posted by ttr at 03/11/2008 @ 10:37pm
Posted by TTR 03/11/2008 @ 10:28pm
Because that's not the way it gets PLAYED, TTR, by the Repubs.
Dems could propose a half-a-penny extra tax on multi-billionaires who are single and have no dependents....
it gets played as "Democrats Set To Propose Massive New Tax Hike On Eve Of Election!"
Then Obama and Hillary deny it is...then the story becomes "Are the Dems back to 'tax and spend' and 'soak the rich' class warfare?"...and the Dem pols get panicky about being accused of "raising taxes in an election year"...
and it quietly dies.
Or, more realistically as noted several times by Ms vH...it never comes to the floor for a vote, because Reid, Schumber, Pelosi and Hoyer KNOW that my scenario would play out.
So what WILL happen?....AFTER the election, they let the Bush cuts lapse....oh, and they DON'T start spending like crazy on new social programs, because the financial analysts (who know money, unlike some here) will tell them "Get the debt down NOW...or we'll face worse than 'not enough insured for health care'!"
Same as they did in the 90s.
Posted by Mask at 03/11/2008 @ 10:40pm
Dems as the party of fiscal responsibility, who woulda thunk it? Oh wait, I forgot, the last 30 years of Republican rule has been nothing but a massive bait-and-switch that has resulted in the next Gilded Era. We just get our turn so we think we actually get a say and the overlords collect more and more to attempt to satiate their greedy desires.
Posted by yutsano at 03/11/2008 @ 11:01pm
MASK 03/11/2008 @ 10:40pm
Sounds plausible... albeit, a bit plain...;^)
For starters... Here's to a brisk economy, filled to the brim with all the tidings of the much proclaimed 'new era'... such as substantial government subsidies toward the development and implementation of efficient technological advances in power generation and storage, peacetime cultural enrichment on a global scale, a revitalization of our once superior manufacturing sector based on American ingenuity, provident working conditions, and savvy investment... essential reevaluation of our educational system in order to insure and reclaim a highly prosperous and intellectually adventurous American future entirely devoid of war and imperialism... and a renewed nationwide interest in 'quality of life' education and enjoyment... not to mention a much stronger and far more efficient and advanced military at half the price, to be deployed appropriately and with pinpoint accuracy for issues of national defense exclusively.
...Oh, and increased awareness and action with global networking and interaction on environmental issues before they become crises...
...clink...
And lastly, and perhaps most importantly... here's to the permanent removal of all primetime scheduling that even remotely resembles 'American Idol'...;^)
...clink...
Posted by ttr at 03/11/2008 @ 11:46pm
Beggin' yer pardon, Mr. Mask sir... but how many Dems do you know would swing and vote Rep if the top .3% was taxed an additional 4%...? Not that I'm suggesting it, because I'm not... I'm just not following your reasoning. If you are speaking from a general historical basis, however, I'd have to agree with you...
Posted by TTR 03/11/2008 @ 10:28pm
[cue ominous music]
GRAVE ANNOUNCER: THE TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS JUST RAISED TAXES ON HONEST HARD WORKING AMERICANS.
ARE YOU READY TO ELECT MORE OF THE SAME PEOPLE TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY?
ARE YOU READY TO SEE YOUR MONEY GOING TO WASTE IN A TAX AND SPEND BINGE THAT SENDS YOUR WAY OF LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DOWN THE IRS'S DRAIN?
ARE YOU READY TO SEE YOUR LIBERTY TO CHOOSE HOW YOUR FAMILY'S WEALTH IS INVESTED WASHED AWAY BY SPEND CRAZY DEMOCRATS?
ARE YOU READY? [cue violent jail-door slamming sound]
Paid For By The Freedomplaces Citizen's Committee For Sensible Taxation, CCST.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 04:25am
"They are like victims of a deft decapitation who haven't noticed yet that their heads are missing."
Posted by GOYADAD 03/11/2008 @ 6:42pm
Deft description, as well.
Posted by drhammer at 03/12/2008 @ 08:21am
Well, first...
"And lastly, and perhaps most importantly... here's to the permanent removal of all primetime scheduling that even remotely resembles 'American Idol'...;^)"-----Posted by TTR 03/11/2008 @ 11:46pm
Uh, that's one of Ms vanden Heuvel's favorite shows! (Search the TN Archives)
Second, again, a radical "New New Deal" is not in the makings, even with Obama (though obviously he'll be under more pressure to do so given his rhetoric, than the rhetorically centrist Hillary would be).
It's about our finances. We can't go out and buy toys for the Kids on the Left...because the credit card has been maxx'ed out by the Kids on the Right buying their toys. Sorry, the grown-ups (i.e. financial analysts) will step up and tell President Obama (McCain too...and he'll ignore them at HIS peril too) that we have GOT to get the deficit and national debt under control, or on a solid recognizable glide-path to balance...and quick.
Now, what you're going to read here from guys like Mr Hayes, Ms vanden Heuvel, William Grieder, etc. is "Deficits aren't that big a deal...we need universal health care, universal day care, billions for works programs, billions for re-training, billions for alternative energy, billions for the 'inner city', etc., etc., etc."...
which is one of the reasons I've predicted for, well, over a year now, that the ones who are TRULY going to be disappointed if Obama or Clinton get elected...is not the Right (who'll have a target)....but THE LEFT, who will see their dreams shattered by the cold hard hammer of fiscal reality and political necessity.
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 09:16am
Nice of you to come out of the closet, Mask...
Hmmm... economic causality again... with all it's desultory inflammations... with the cold hard hammer, etc. etc. etc. Yummy, and very revealing
My 'cold hard hammers' make some really beautiful things.
Yours... not so much.
BTW... it was precisely the "cold hard hammer of fiscal reality and political necessity" that made the "New Deal" possible... and it has been argued very successfully that the US's successes in world war two stemmed in part from the national backbone generated by the New Deal.
Or would you have us go back to WW1... when half of the US deaths were the result of the flu...?
Posted by ttr at 03/12/2008 @ 10:21am
This (see below) is from an article in the Washington Post showing how the Bush administration doesn't listen to the commanders "on the ground" that disagree with them.....
"Fallon's "views on strategy in the region have put him at odds with the Bush administration," says The Post. Fallon "had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan" says the New York Times."
These commanders amazingly take early retirements time and time again. That's how this administration has been operating from the get go. They surround themselves with yes men who told them what they want to hear. No wonder this administration has had one failure after another. All they care about is taking care of their friends in high places and the rest of us can pretty much go to hell. We're going to establish bases in Iraq, and we're going to pay for new weapons to replace the old ones used in Iraq and Afghanistan one way or the other. The longer we stay in Iraq is pretty much a guarantee that we'll exhaust our weapons, and also will allow the pentagon to finish establishing permanent bases in Iraq. When this is all over, gas prices may drop a little, but we tax payers will be footing the bill for all of this. Defense contractors win, oil companies win and the American tax payers pay for the victory in blood and tax dollars.
Meanwhile on the homefront, our house and senate representatives oppose taxing the wealthy in this nation. If the people in the house or senate actually stood for "the people" then you'd see the wealthy portion of the nation taxed more heavily, but since the wealthy pretty much have bought and paid for our selected representatives in both parties, we can rest assured that things will indeed continue on as usual whether a democrat or republican is elected as president. That is, things will continue as is until the friggin bottom drops out. Then the wealthy will be no where to be found in this nation, or at least until the dust settles and they can clean up double on everything. Different time frame, but same old song and dance routine.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2008 @ 10:45am
1. How will this change the gap between rich and poor? It won't of course. This is just the usual marxist spin.
Actually, reformism is the opposite of Marxism, which posited a revolutional appropriation of the "means of production". You would also find that statement difficult to reconcile with the fact the European countries have lower Gini coefficients than we do.
2. How much of our "child poverty" rate is due to illegal immigrants? And the whole statistic is laughable. Pure socialist spin for the most part. The statistics don't take into consideration the real lives of people and the way they adapt to life and live perfectly happy and fulfilled lives. That does not mean that there aren't children actually living in poverty...But I've also seen families who are happy with their lives, no debt, no car payments, no need for video games or Air Jordan shoes.
Pretty sure that families of four living with less than $21,200/year are missing more than video games and Air Jordans. There is a difference between being resigned and being "happy and fulfilled" with food insecurity, housing insecurity and a lack of health insurance. As to illegal immigrants, although child poverty rates are higher in immigrant families, it is still a problem among the native-born.
3. School construction is supposed to be decided and financed by local communities. The Fed has no business being involved.
A conclusory statement based on ideology rather than policy or an accurate understanding of the Constitution.
4. Energy assistance. Allow companies and individuals to have more freedom to set up their own energy systems.
Tell that to your boys in the White House, they're the pro-oil anti-conservation, anti-alternative energy people. Although Democrats are equally guilty of having signed off on the ethanol boondoggle.
5. Food insecurity? Excuse me but we are the most obese country in the world. So we will give food stamps so people can keep eating poorly, but the government will fund it. Then when they have childhood diabetes etc., furthering your claim that now you have to provide free health care for these people.
Excuse me, but in this country, obesity actually correlates with poverty. That's because the fattening, less nutritious foods are less expensive. You can be as anecdotal as you like but proper studies say otherwise. Science Daily ref erenced [sciencedaily.com] a study published in the January 2004 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that found ""The reason healthier diets are beyond the reach of many people is that such diets cost more. On a per calorie basis, diets composed of whole grains, fish, and fresh vegetables and fruit are far more expensive than refined grains, added sugars and added fats. It's not a question of being sensible or silly when it comes to food choices, it's about being limited to those foods that you can afford."
This is compounded by the fact that low-income inner city areas often have a shortage of supermarkets that offer healthier choices.
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2008 @ 10:57am
WOLFGANG1 03/12/2008
Wolfgang... please don't eat the rich...;^) viz. The wrong tree, IMHO...
You're either with us... (PNAC)... or you're with the terrorists... (anyone not in total devotion to PNAC's alliances and modus operandi)... I think the scent is stronger over here...;^)
Posted by ttr at 03/12/2008 @ 11:17am
Posted by TTR 03/12/2008 @ 10:21am
TTR, between bringing up "out of the closet" (?!??!) and the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919....did you actually refute my position?!??!
As for the fiscal and political realities that led to the New Deal...we're not there. That was 25% unemployment...it also was a Federal budget deficit and debt a pittance compared to the NINE TRILLION outstanding Public Debt we now have.
You can't keep piling it on with YOUR festival of spending, despite the injustice of the OTHER GUYS' festival of spending that will have just ended.
And Democrats CANNOT raise taxes high enough to do both serious deficit reduction AND a litany of new social programs that folks here at "The Nation" want....it'd be politically suicidal at the least, crash the economy at the worst.
Now, perhaps if you have some NUMBERS or HISTORY for how we can continue to add TRILLIONS in new debt and not risk a financial meltdown that would WIPE OUT all the "good work" done by the social programs that creates it....happy to hear them?
Or we can go back to odd ad hominems and "You probably want people to go back to the Dark Ages" rhetorical nonsense?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 11:39am
You're either with us... (PNAC)... or you're with the terrorists...---Posted by TTR 03/12/2008 @ 11:17am
Is that sort of like if you don't support a "New New Deal"....you MUST want us to "go back to WW-I and see people die of the flu"???
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 11:42am
The solution is really quite simple. If the U.S. were to reduce it's defense spending by 75% we could begin to pay off our debt. We could take also take say half of that 75% and spend it on improving our infrastructure as in modern state to state rail systems and intercity transportation systems as well. We used to be an industrial power, so we know the U.S. is capable of such a feat...to say that it isn't capable of such a feat is unpatriotic...sorry, couldn't resist that one.
We can also use our universities to research alternative energy sources besides fossil fuels. Between public mass transportation and new fuel sources, we could pretty much move away from dependence upon OPEC nations and let them blow each other up over terf battles for eternity. Building a mass tranist system nation wide would be like a new deal that would create plenty of jobs from engineering, logistical and blue collar work here in the U.S.
The solution is really easy, we just have representatives representing big oil, defense contractors, the banking industry and God only knows what else which are controlling where our tax dollars go. At present,these corporate entities have more rights than the people this country is supposed to serve.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2008 @ 12:00pm
4. I have yet to see one statement or policy issued by the White House that bars, hinders, or otherwise impedes the development of alternative energy. Can you name one?
Livberty, Why are we not importing ethanol from Brazil?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2008 @ 12:08pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 11:48am | ignore this person
1. Reformism instead of marxism? Hardly. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". That is the core of the liberal progressive tax system.
Marxism is more than just a conveniently cherry-picked catch-phrase. One of it's core elements is a belief in the necessity of revolutionary expropriation of the "means of prodution". Not even close to what's being proposed.
2. What you continue to miss (or avoid) are the many families who defy the "poverty standards" by living fulfilling lives despite not earning the levels defined by statisticians as necessary.
Purely anecdotal. The idea that food insecurity, housing insecurity, health insecurity are anything but afflictions that no sane person would consider part of a fulfilling is conclusory nonsense on your part. The fact that you defined poverty as going without cars, video games and Air Jordans says it all.
3. Schools-what a nonsensical statement. School construction is decided not by the US constitution, but by local community agreements and is funded in most states by property taxes. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
Actually it does. Your crabbed and ahistorical definition of the Constitution clearly considers such federal aid as unconstitutional. It also overlooks the potential usefulness of such aid in situations where the property-tax base is insufficient.
4. I have yet to see one statement or policy issued by the White House that bars, hinders, or otherwise impedes the development of alternative energy. Can you name one?
You can see it in the White House's opposition to the current energy bill in the House. The bill would roll back two lucrative tax breaks for the largest U.S. oil companies. The money would go for tax incentives to support wind, solar and biofuel industries as well as energy efficiency programs. Note that the opposition isn't a fiscal measure, since the White House isn't calling for just eliminating the tax breaks for oil, they're happy to keep that.
5. Again this is nothing but spin from the left. I gave plenty of examples of choosing cheaper and more nutritious foods.
A peer-review study is hardly spin from the left. As to your examples, do you do your grocery shopping in areas inhabited by people below the poverty line? Anecdotal evidence of your shopping habits is hardly evidence of any kind on the subject.
Last time I looked, personal or community gardens provide low cost solutions to having nutritious fresh foods available.
And there is sufficent green space in those neighborhoods for this?
Your inner city comment actually directs me to one of my complaints about the effort of liberals during the past 50 years in creating these housing projects which became a modern version of the slave plantation. Welfare, food stamps, and Section 8 housing subsidies took away personal responsibility, an ownership mentality, and made people effectively slaves of the Democrats who "own" them via the continued promise of more of the same if they vote Democratic.
I think comparing the Great Society programs to slavery says a great deal about how little of your position is based on fact. By the way, the people who get these programs owned what, exactly, that gave them an "ownership mentality". I would also be curious about how beneficiaries of those programs are somehow owned becuase they would rather vote for people who won't put them out or who dismissed their problem as not being able to afford video games and Air Jordans.
Posted by brunowe at 03/12/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 12:46pm
I agree with your position that ethanol isn't the answer. See the in link below.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&refer=latin_america&sid= aM8MsRmyl9iQ
I was just merely pointing out that the U.S. has protectionist tarrifs placed on ethanol put forth by the oil industry and farming industry to keep it out of the U.S. market as long as possible. Now that it may be economically feasible as an additive to gasoline, Bushco is now considering removing the tarrif to take the pressure off the oil companies since the OPEC nations aren't playing ball like they are supposed to.
So, once again, it would appear that the oil companies needs outweight the farmer's needs. Ethanol could at least be an interim solution at best, but we need options other than being blackmailed by the OPEC countries as we are now.
We still have coal, hydrogen, electricity and other possible energy sources to consider. That's why I think the U.S. should invest heavily into research and beat the rest of the world to the punch on moving away from fossil fuels rapidly. If we are ahead of the curve, our economy will no doubt be in a better position to rebound than being behind the curve.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/12/2008 @ 1:39pm
which is one of the reasons I've predicted for, well, over a year now, that the ones who are TRULY going to be disappointed if Obama or Clinton get elected...is not the Right (who'll have a target)....but THE LEFT, who will see their dreams shattered by the cold hard hammer of fiscal reality and political necessity.
Posted by MASK 03/12/2008 @ 09:16am
that's a mighty big hole to fill up.....
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 2:08pm
ethanol is extra extra extra stupid.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 2:10pm
3. Schools-what a nonsensical statement. School construction is decided not by the US constitution, but by local community agreements and is funded in most states by property taxes. Ideology has nothing to do with it.
~ liberty.
well, you can see how well that's working out. making the rich smarter and the poor dumber.
hooray!!!
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 2:12pm
And there is sufficent green space in those neighborhoods for this?
~ brunowe
well, in detroit there's enough space to plant a whole lot of food:
The focus of community gardens is on meeting the sustenance needs of marginalized and abandoned neighborhoods. The flight of industry from Detroit, along with troubled social circumstances (racial tensions and substance abuse), has resulted in an abundance of vacant and abandoned lots. The total number is estimated to be around 40,000; that is, roughly a third of the 139 square miles of the city is composed of abandoned and vacant lots. Many of the gardens and other community efforts at revitalization are located in abandoned neighborhoods in an effort to improve the physical environment, inject some energy into the community, and to improve the quality of life for the needy through better quality of diet.
http://www.davidjhess.org/DetroitCG.pdf
that's 46 square miles [whatever that is! sounds like a lot. 119 square km!!!!!!!]
green acres is the place to be.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 2:21pm
What do you think are the chances that would happen?
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 2:20pm
financing schools with local property taxes is dumb and cruel.
i expect nothing to change. but it is dumb.
and cruel.
and greedy.......
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/12/2008 @ 2:23pm
Although I agree a progressive tax system is better than regressive, ala sales tax, alternatives, and I like Bernie Sanders' persona as a socialist maverick, I recall seeing him exuberantly shaking Bush's hand after last month's State of (dis)Union speech. What was that about!?
Posted by lewwelge at 03/12/2008 @ 3:57pm
that's a mighty big hole to fill up.....---Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/12/2008 @ 2:08pm
Yes, and the hole (i.e. debt and deficit...faves of yours I know that we share) doesn't get "filled in" with more social programs and a Democratic Congress that wants to see itself get re-elected in 2010 and 2012 and WON'T if they push massive tax hikes to pay for both social programs AND true deficit reduction.
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 4:00pm
ethanol is extra extra extra stupid.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/12/2008 @ 2:10pm
NOT if you owned ADM stocks....biggest ethanol producer in these United States :~)
NOTE to all budding investors: Anticipate where the subsidies are going and cash in, compliment of your (& mine) Guberment! While one can't bank on always predicting where market prices would be, subsidies are budgeted giveaways.....reliable, that is!
Posted by Happy at 03/12/2008 @ 4:09pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 2:30pm
LVL, I just knew you'd be a crunchy conservative. Glad we can agree on something again.
I do have to say that the rest of your posts in this thread are a major disappointment. Progressive taxation is communism? You clearly don't understand what one or both of these terms mean.
Poor people like being poor? You are aware, for example, that for a single individual below the age of 65, poverty is defined as $10,488 in income per year - basically, gross income of working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year at minimum wage. And while I know for a fact that there are people who pick up seasonal work and live that kind of lifestyle and think it's great, you are on something if you think that is typical in a population of 36.5 million people that live below that line.
I could go on - why does No Child Left Behind get a pass here? I generally agree with home rule, so I find it curious that you only support local funding but not local control. Obvious observations that the infrastructure required for everyone to set-up their own utilities is both inefficient and wasteful and food insecurity - meaning those that aren't sure where their next meal is coming from - mirrors the numbers of those living in poverty.
Again, maybe there are populations here with greater problems than people with jobs where they key pick up a second sideline job like working in retail for Christmas. Most people living on Ho-Hos and Twinkies might be making choices like that because they are not only working their minimal wage job but taking care of an elderly parent and working other jobs, by necessity and don't have time or the money to get out to the farmers market, CSA or what have you. That's what we are talking about here, not Rio Bravo living on $35,000 a year because he is trying to free up more time to post to The Nation.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh06.html
Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 4:37pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/12/2008 @ 6:25pm
Progressive taxation is no more communism than property taxes are feudalism. Words have meanings, LVL, and they frequently have meanings different than the way you use them.
My equating the minimum wage with the poverty threshold for individuals was only to illustrate the issue. Now, are you saying that a significant portion of 36 million people identified with this standard are not truly impoverished? What do you base this on?
We agree on the No Child thing, great.
I'm guessing you don't live in a city. Mother Earth has great ideas, but you can't have a backyard wind turbine when you have no backyard. Not to mention the aesthetic blight that would mean if it became standard practice. And solar? Needs government incentives to be worth doing.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea. I just don't pretend its a solution just anyone can do - and strangely, requires government to be even economically viable.
And I agree it is just as cheap to buy and grow your own food - if you have time. The reason why people don't cook their own is because it takes time to get and prepare.
Posted by srjenkins at 03/12/2008 @ 7:58pm
MASK 03/12/2008 @ 11:39am
TTR, between bringing up "out of the closet" (?!??!) and the Spanish Flu Pandemic of 1918-1919....did you actually refute my position?!??!
)))Yep... The 'New Deal' created much more wealth than it cost... and as you sit there comparing military spending with the 'New Deal' as being various versions of toys... I simply pointed this out. And as you seem to be ignoring the meat of my world war metaphor, I'll spell it out. It can be effectively argued that the "New Deal" created so much national wealth, and engendered to such a high degree a unified and work-oriented America... that our wartime strength was enhanced enough to be more or less 'invincible'. That this wealth continued is no mere coincidence... If you contrast the two wars, it is immediately apparent that 'a very different America' went into WW1... and it could be easily attributed to the previous 25 years of 'Gilded Society' swindles having run down the general state of health of Americans in general. Yes... it does appear to me that this latter instance is more comparable to today's society... because we are being 'run down' by forces you are apparently in support of. Consequently, having disclosed this so nakedly, and as such being so unlike you, it is to me as if you are 'coming out'.
As for the fiscal and political realities that led to the New Deal...we're not there. That was 25% unemployment...it also was a Federal budget deficit and debt a pittance compared to the NINE TRILLION outstanding Public Debt we now have.
)))OK... so, after your 'cold hard hammer' is finished with us... will we be there then? Oh boy, I can't wait!
You can't keep piling it on with YOUR festival of spending, despite the injustice of the OTHER GUYS' festival of spending that will have just ended.
)))You are being a jerk, Mask. Government subsidies spent on appropriate technology, mass transit, improved mileage cars, and manufacturing base... will return on the initial investment many many times over, in many more different ways. It makes good business sense for the people of America. The war spending that we're digging into our grandchildren's piggy banks for is 'like poring money down a rat hole.
)))You dare to make a comparison here? Shame on you Mask, but thanks for 'coming out'.
And Democrats CANNOT raise taxes high enough to do both serious deficit reduction AND a litany of new social programs that folks here at "The Nation" want....it'd be politically suicidal at the least, crash the economy at the worst.
)))Duh... it's the 'means of production' that creates wealth... without that, it's all a winner take all game of craps. OK, sure... let's just turn America into one big street fight, and bet on specific 'sure winners'... just like reality tv only real... and call that an economy.
Now, perhaps if you have some NUMBERS or HISTORY for how we can continue to add TRILLIONS in new debt and not risk a financial meltdown that would WIPE OUT all the "good work" done by the social programs that creates it....happy to hear them?
)))We can't pay of the debt, until we 'create' the wealth to do it with. Being good extortionists and then 'shopping a lot' is just not going to do it.
Or we can go back to odd ad hominems and "You probably want people to go back to the Dark Ages" rhetorical nonsense?
)))(no answer given)
ttr
Posted by ttr at 03/12/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by TTR 03/12/2008 @ 10:36pm
TTR, besides some generic "The New Deal helped create wealth"...and little actual data on the small amount of Keynesian economics adopted by Roosevelt and the total input of actual dollar-spent-to-dollar-recouped in tax revenue....
and saying "Nuh-huh!"
Did you explain how we pay for TENS if not HUNDRED OF BILLIONS in new domestic spending...while the Dems refuse to raise taxs to pay for it (in fear of losing their seats in 2010 under obvious attack by the GOP on it)....and survive a deficit and national debt EVEN NOW well beyond danger levels, much less after said spending?
Pulling out of Iraq (which I support) won't be enough...and as with taxes, NO Democrat (in a non-safe district) is going to call for gutting defense.
So....how is your plan supposed to work, both fiscally and politically? And...is it really a "plan" or just mindless left-wing pap?
Posted by Mask at 03/12/2008 @ 10:52pm
If it takes every last bit of energy and wherewithall you have left... to get up off the street where you were blindsided by a left hook that came out of nowhere... you do it. China is not important to you right now. This is not about having a clean fresh pressed suit and a winning smile anymore... this is all about making it home to dress your wounds and to assess the damage. It would be foolish to try to get a job today, or apply for a loan, or to reach for your gun. It will take time to heal.
As far as I can tell, Mask... we haven't even gotten up off the street yet... and you are chanting "The looming national debt is going to d-e-s-t-r-o-y us"... which comes across like a cross between 'chicken little' and a Hare Krishna street performer to a bleeding nation seeing stars.
Everything is going to be alright. We're just not there yet.
Posted by ttr at 03/13/2008 @ 12:19am
Posted by TTR 03/13/2008 @ 12:19am
TTR...we....don't....have.....the.....money.
I'm sorry, and I'm sure it's frustrating to have to suffer paying off a bill for THE OTHER GUYS' party....but it has to be done.
But the reality is, and cannot change, that-
1. We are in debt upto our eyeballs (and more).
2. Our financial stability as a country depends on us atleast MOVING towards getting out of the hole...else we risk the collapse of banks, financial institutions, the stock market and the cascading effect that has on the general economy which WOULD give you your "New Deal era" economic situation...but of course Roosevelt didn't have a massive deficit and multi-trillion dollar national debt...he had some "wiggle room" for government spending.
3. Democrats cannot (politically) pass a large enough tax hike to cover both deficit reduction AND a litany of new social programs. Either the Republicans would EASILY spin it as "more tax and spend"..."they're bleeding the economy dry for their pork-barrel projects"..."Look at this program to give $50 Million to teach Inuits in Alaska about their heritage....THIS is what the MASSIVE Democratic tax hike is paying for!"....and easily take back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 (if McCain loses).
And the Democrats KNOW that. Or if you doubt it...the Democrats BELIEVE that as well as I do.
So finally, in the end, what's left?
Well...what likely will happen. Which is letting the Bush tax cuts lapse....VERY modest increases in social programs....an attempt to get out of Iraq ASAP....and deficit reduction to stabilize the markets and allow for more capital/business loans from the banks to get small businesses hiring again.
Just like the 90s....NOT like the 30s.
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 09:21am
Posted by ITALIANO 03/11/2008 @ 8:24pm | ignore this person
the top tax bracket during war time used to be 90 to 94 %. and guess what, rich people paid it cheerfully. you didn't hear Elvis complain about it, for instance.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:46am
tax cuts increase said revenues
this is a lie.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:47am
The solution is really easy,
yeah right.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:52am
ethanol is extra extra extra stupid.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 03/12/2008 @ 2:10pm | ignore this person
derived from corn yes. derived from sugar cane? no. Brazil has 70% use of ethanol in their cars, it has been reported.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 09:54am
Mask.
Sorry, but we need to make money, and change our perspective, not tighten our belts. Our belts are already impeding circulation. Your understanding of the national debt is a faulty and scaremongering blusterbuss... an excuse to hear yourself type. The only way the 'shareholders' ie. the national debt holders 'cash out' and run from us, is if we don't 'get up'... if we don't reinvest in the 'start up' of the 'New Era'.
The world is waiting for us to lead them into the 21st century... and they won't wait for as long as your 'special plans' would require. You would have us cowering like a third world country in a matter of years, certainly not decades...
We've just made some really bad choices in the last 10 years... it's time to admit it and move on... on to a brighter future... a future that you may have to be wrong... to fulfill, Mask.
There won't be any tears around this blog...
Settle down, and have a little compassion for the American people.
Posted by ttr at 03/13/2008 @ 10:31am
Posted by TTR 03/13/2008 @ 10:31am
Empty rhetoric and no facts. You can't just say "Oh screw the deficits and debt...we've got an important agenda to enact!"
That's what the NEO-CONS did with the war in Iraq. The reason? They didn't want an unpopular war which would result from the higher taxes you'd need to PAY for an occupation going on 5 years now.
What do you think is panicking the Fed over having to bail out the banks on the mass foreclosures AND try to stave off a recession?....the fact that they CANNOT keep cutting interest rates with a deficit and debt that is still beyond our means.
But this discussion is academic. Neither McCain, nor Hillary, NOR Obama is going to say "Screw the deficit" and push a "New New Deal". And the Congress isn't going to do anything more than let the Bush tax cuts lapse.
You and Ms vanden Heuvel can bemoan it all you want....but their economic advisors are going to tell them, what I'm telling you....
"no un-paid for spending.... or face a disaster!"
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 10:48am
Gee, Katrina, I was the beneficiary of some of those tax cuts, and I'm not rich. Neither are my neighbors, and I'm sure they enjoyed theirs as much as I. Guess that makes us mean spirited huh, taking back and spending our own money and all.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 11:04am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=CHIP%20THORNTON
what did ya get? $400 bucks? anything go up in price since that? local taxes lower? of course not. you were and are bamboozled. huge deficit? not a problem for you, is it?
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:11am
No, actually professor, it was $600, oneof those years, and I used it to pay for my daughters college books and meal tickets, which is infinitely more important to me than whatever the latest crackbrained social program is to come down the pike.
Bamboozled? I think not, as I voted for Bob Ehrlich and he did his best to keep expenses down those years. THATS already come to a screeching halt since our last election.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 11:19am
$600? hahahahahahahaha
chump change, chump
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:21am
And Emile, that "deficit" was created not by Rhrlich but by Ehrlichs predecessor, Commissar Glendening, although the Dems here blamed him for it. No doubt because Ehrlich left no room for them to create one of their own.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 11:23am
chump Chip. Chip chump. with real inflation running up to 10%, you are working more and getting less. hahahahaha.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:24am
$600? hahahahahahahaha
chump change, chump
My aren't we elitist. Tell ya what, next time you come across $600, send it down. Its not much but I'll find a use for it somewhere if you can't. Would it have to be $6000 before you'd stop letting them steal from you?
Lets see, nice dinner at Ruth Chris, maybe a couple gallons of gas, 15 minutes with Spitzers girlfriend...
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 11:28am
And when you can show me how you work less and get more while giving up found money, you let me know, old boy
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 11:30am
you work more and get less, and you're too obtuse to notice it.
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:39am
hey Frostele, a guitar treat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhI026WB5t0&feature=related
Posted by emile duBois at 03/13/2008 @ 11:43am
Nice comment about the Ethanol, Frost. And so true. Lets use something we don't need to augment our fuel supplies, like,I dunno THE FOOD SUPPLY!!?!
:)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/13/2008 @ 12:06pm
MASK 03/13/2008 @ 10:48am
Empty rhetoric and no facts. You can't just say "Oh screw the deficits and debt...we've got an important agenda to enact!"
)))And I didn't. Facts? Hmmm. What if there is no historical precedent for the change we're about to undergo? What if all the facts are saying "Wrong direction, turn back"? What if my 'empty rhetoric' is 'empty' to you not just because it's not what you want to hear... like 'NAFTA has been a disaster' for the American people... like washington insiders (like you?) ARE the problem until they completely reconfigure the way they 'relate' to business... like we can't pay off a national debit without first having a genuine national economy... like you don't acknowledge my valid points because you might have to abandon a pet theory, which seems to be more damaging to your ego than a 'broken America' does...
Yeah... but thanks for 'coming out', Mask... at least we know who we are dealing with.
...or do we?;^)
Posted by ttr at 03/13/2008 @ 3:42pm
"What if there is no historical precedent for the change we're about to undergo?"----Posted by TTR 03/13/2008 @ 3:42pm
Sounds familiar.
Like "Everything's changed since 9/11! We must....blah,blah,blah"---Posted by Neo-Cons @ ad infinitum
But, hey thanks for the promotion! "like washington insiders (like you?)"
Speaking of "insiders who are the problem"....is a U.S. Senator an "insider"?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 4:17pm
What do you think is panicking the Fed over having to bail out the banks on the mass foreclosures AND try to stave off a recession?....the fact that they CANNOT keep cutting interest rates with a deficit and debt that is still beyond our means.
Posted by MASK 03/13/2008 @ 10:48am
This whole thing is a catch 22 for us now. People are making less based on the ever shrinking dollar, the fed lowers the rates, infuses cash into the banking system to cover the debt, further dropping the value of the dollar.
See if I have this straight. Our debt is skyrocketing, so we borrow more money at an interest of course to keep things going which furthers our national debt to countries like China and Japan. So, we not only have a trade imbalance with these countries, but an ever increasing debt to boot. What a wonderful situation we are in.
Good work W. Maybe we can spend billions more on Iraq so the U.S. can go completley bankrupt before W leaves office. I guess then everything here will be at wholesale values and those having anything left will clean up big time.
About the only way out of this for us is to say, that's it, we quit and we're starting over. We don't owe you anything. ha Ha ha. Maybe the nations we owe the debt to will think it's funny and let us off the hook. NOT
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/13/2008 @ 4:47pm
Posted by WOLFGANG1 03/13/2008 @ 4:47pm
A problem TTR doesn't seem to understand or care about...and Ms vanden Heuvel and others seem to ignore.
We CANNOT create a "New New Deal" in the present fiscal and political environment. Obama gets elected, the US isn't suddenly going to say "Yeah, baby. I'll ignore those GOP talking points on the 20% corporate tax the Dems passed.....support it...and support a litany of social programs that garnered minimal support back WHEN WE HAD THE MONEY!"
And the financial markets aren't going to allow the deficit and debt continue to mount with a promise of "Oh, don't worry, after the 'New New Deal' is fully implemented in 5-7 years...the boom in the economy will bring it back down"
"Grow our way out of deficit"?....little Reaganesque, isn't it guys?
And that's a key over-arching problem that TTR doesn't seem to get either...the argument he's making is EXACTLY the same as the neo-cons...only the agendas have changed (to quoteish Jack Webb). No concern for deficits...as long as the "necessary" agenda gets enacted, because "things are different now".
If that isn't "neo-con to hell with fiscal responsibility"...what is?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 5:01pm
Then why not vote the Right..?
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/13/2008 @ 6:09pm |
JOHN, note my earlier posts about how Obama or Hillary is going to "disappoint" Ms vanden Heuvel or TTR. They're going to work on balancing the budget, not a massive new "Great Society II: The Wrath of Katrina".
The Right is going to continue the disaster-bound "spend til we implode"...especially on an occupation that McCain will fund until it takes his GREAT-grandkids to pay it off.
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 7:39pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/13/2008 @ 6:20pm |
Did we cut taxes during World War-II?....isn't the "War on Terror" just like WW-2?
Posted by Mask at 03/13/2008 @ 7:43pm
Oh, Mask...
I'll be your straw man, baby! C'mon, heap it on thick... shove words into my mouth and inferences into my sentences that you know don't belong there...
Dude... Of course I'm concerned about the debt... as much as you are, I'll wager...
Our difference is much more subtile than that. You come off with a postulation that looks a lot like... trying to pay off a McMansion with a double shift at McDonalds doesn't just make good sense... It's our last hope!...
It's not possible, Mask... do the math.
Not only am I not the left wing dreamer you are conjuring up out of your insipid imagination... I'm making sense, and that is what is making you look a lot like Ann Coulter on an 'off day' of network hysteria.
The economy has been 'gamed' so much, that we've basically hawked our manufacturing sector, and had a good sized party with the proceeds. C'mon Mask... agree with me...
You've also got to admit that any 'serious' attempt to significantly pay down the national debt necessitates the generation of a genuine American economy... and my point is, that the government is the only force through which we can do that. The catch? There are very few precedents set in American History where this has been done successfully, and you can't even say "New Deal" without sneering and spitting nails.
Oh, and the current Admin. has been conspicuously doing everything in it's power to contradict the notion that 'what's good for the American people is good for the American people...
God bless America!
Posted by ttr at 03/13/2008 @ 9:03pm
Brazil has 70% use of ethanol in their cars, it has been reported.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 03/13/2008 @ 09:54am
perhaps you should investigate sugar cane production. i've lived where they grow it and it ain't pretty.
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/13/2008 @ 10:31pm
THE FOOD SUPPLY!!?!
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/13/2008 @ 12:06pm
well, well. where to begin?
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2008 @ 01:04am
monsieur dubois:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9a4ThBNacY
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2008 @ 01:10am
Thanks, froster... very lyrical and clean bassing indeed... nothing short of amazing!
Posted by ttr at 03/14/2008 @ 01:26am
Where to begin?
I'm not following you Frost.
And whats this "1:04 AM" shit. Don't you ever sleep, or am I just old? :)
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/14/2008 @ 07:26am
Then why not vote the Right..?
Posted by JOMAMMA 03/13/2008 @ 6:09pm
How do you think we got into this mess in the first place. If you hadn't noticed, we have a president from the extreme right, and had a house and congress until the last election that was also skewed to the right. They showed us exactly how not to run a government.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 03/14/2008 @ 08:18am
Posted by TTR 03/13/2008 @ 9:03pm
Okay, TTR....sorry if I misjudged you on your concern for deficit and debt....
what's your plan? Specifically? Huge tax hike to pay for a series of massive social spending? Okay...how do the Dems in Congress pass that and survive 2010?
Please...don't want to put words in your mouth. Give me some specifics and we'll discuss their political and fiscal viability.
Posted by Mask at 03/14/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by CHIP THORNTON 03/14/2008 @ 07:26am
to discuss what is considered "food" by the majority of agroindustry-programmed robots (i.e. people) would take a separate thread....
i sleep. 3-8am. 9-11am. 2-3pm. 8 hours a day. (usually. less in summer)
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2008 @ 10:47am
nothing short of amazing!
Posted by TTR 03/14/2008 @ 01:26am
victor wooten. extra-amazing! here's one more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRruDY3jgpk
Posted by frosty zoom at 03/14/2008 @ 10:53am
lol-have a good weekend, frost
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 03/14/2008 @ 3:47pm
The reason why Dems have not been elected too much in the last 30 years, is precisely that being discussed, they have been too lukewarm, trying to play narrow politics and balancing points of view. They have repeated they won't do tax hikes for the middle class so what is the point of cutting the reductions for that upper 1%? Will that made them extremely unpopular? No, if they can defend themselves with facts and numbers from this Rep demagoges. All I know is that if we terminate definitely the Iraq war and contain the Afghan work to strategic nuclei, and close a 1/3 of our bases, we can and should spend one dollar out of two saved in some social spending, but especially spending in technological education to reorient people and the whole economy to more exports, green tech, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The Dems owe these changes to the people of the USA and if they don't do them, they will continue to be a looser party.
Posted by Frank42 at 03/16/2008 @ 2:30pm
2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
www.votenic.com [votenic.com]
Results Now Posted Instantly!
Check Back Weekly For New Polls!
Posted by votenic at 03/17/2008 @ 9:58pm