Do You Ever Wonder Why the Roads in Your Town are Turning into Gravel?

Wonder no more. It’s because ‘some people’ are not paying their fair share of the cost of government. Otherwise known as taxes. I know this story has been in the corporatist press but I thought this post:

Based on IRS records, a recent GAO report indicates that many corporations claimed to owe $0 in U.S. taxes from 1998 – 2005: roughly 28%-53% of large foreign-controlled and 23%-38% of large U.S.-controlled corporations. [The GAO considers a "large" corporation one with at least $250 million in assets or $50 million in gross receipts.] 

From NoQuarter had a lot more detail and so link to it.

There is a growing opportunity for those of us who are economically literate, a tiny minority, to take back the high ground in the never ending debate about taxes, government and what should be done by same. The ‘conservative’ shills who’ve been preaching the Friedman Lunacy for decades are gob-smacked that the ‘trickle down’ theory has at last been proved to be the utter bullshit that it is. There is a desperate air of ‘now what do we do…’  as the third artificial bubble of ‘asset building’, housing, pops following  the dot.com bubble and ‘financialization’ coming from the morons such as Greenspan who’ve been ‘supervising ‘ our economy. As Ol’ Shakespeare opined, ‘The truth will out…’ and now folks are waking up to the realization that while their real income has declined every year since Nixon under the Republican fantasy machine corporations and very wealthy individuals merely extract whatever amounts of cash they need from the U.S. Treasury, that’s us Homer, in the form of  taxes not paid.

This report points a finger at why you, yeah you Homer, ‘can’t’ have healthcare, good schools, well-maintained roads, safe food and on and on…. The next time some low-info fool tells you, ‘Oh, we can’t afford that…’ about some needed social program tell them the following:

‘Of course we can afford that. If corporations and the uber-rich would pay their fair share of taxes instead of bribing Congress to give them a free pass we’d’ have plenty of money to take care of the real, immediate needs of our society.’

And if they start bloviating tell them this:

‘Surely you are not advocating that some, particularly those best able to pay, should be excused from their social obligation to pay their fair share of the costs they helped create are you?’

More on how your are being screwed solely because you are NOT rich in future posts.

Larry Johnson on John Edwards Endorsing Senator ‘Hope’….

Larry has an interesting theory about what was really  up with JRE’s rather oddly timed endorsement of Barry. Here ya go:

‘Barack’s loss in West Virginia is unprecedented in a presidential primary. A 47 point spread? Are you kidding me. That’s not even close. And what do the reality based Democratic leaders do? They scramble to do everything in their power to distract public attention from that fact and move on to other things like sending out John Edwards and Naral to endorse Barack.’

Clik on through to the entire post. Warning: This material pulls no punches. If you  are ‘believer’ if you think ‘Yes we can!’ is politics DO NOT CLIK ON THIS LINK. Larry Johnson is ex-CIA and he is as angry as a human can a get at Barry and the ‘Boyz on the Blogz’, I’ve avoided linking to him previously NOT BECAUSE I THINK HE’S WRONG ABOUT BARRY but rather in the hope that folks would take the time and energy to find out for themselves.

This is not happening.

So I’m taking a big dose of Larry’s aggressive in-your-face blogging, kinda like a big fresh caught fish…no Sacramento salmon this year….thanks Miss Nancy….SellOut Reid, and whappin’ the low-info voter right in the phiz with it! Takes that kind of  blogging to get yer attention I can supply same.

Oh….yeah….one minor detail folks.

Elizabeth Edwards is not expected to endorse The Magic Man. And by ‘not expected….’ I mean no chance in hell pal. If you are female or LGBT you know what that means. If your male and don’t…go ask someone.

‘Been Keeping My Mouth Shut’ since I felt what was happening would be obvious to most…..

But guess what?

It’s not. People, that’s people who say they are ‘progressive’ or liberal, have been expressing the most ignorant ideas about what’s going on in this Dem Primary. Sorry about that word ‘ignorant’ but hey…the show fits…wear it.

Here with commentary by me is eriposte to…well…

Tell a story.

You do like a story don’t you?

It’s Ain’t Over Yet

by eriposte

Having been rather busy last week, I’m a bit behind on blogging. I thought the best way to catch up and comment on the state of the race is to respond to Steve’s question on why Sen. Clinton would stay in the race despite facing significant debt ($). West Virginia aside, I can think of so many reasons. Here are a few, not necessarily in order.

Political: Sen. Clinton appears to be staying in the race because she really believes she has a much better chance of delivering the White House to Democrats in November than Sen. Obama. I have seen a lot of discussion in the blogosphere about who has a better chance of winning against Sen. McCain and obviously supporters of Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton both have strong views about their respective candidates’ electability. My view has been unchanged since December. I strongly believe Sen. Clinton has a much better chance of beating her Republican opponent – esp. Sen. McCain – than Sen. Obama, once the GOP and media attacks begin. The events of the last couple of months have only solidified my view. More importantly, neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to cross the delegate threshold (more on this below), there is just a slight difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama on the popular vote and she’s still got a shot at coming out ahead on this metric when all the races are over (see Jay Cost’s spreadsheet where Sen. Clinton just beat his popular vote estimate for WV, and Cost’s article from last week "Not Quite Yet"). Moreover, according to the rules of the primary, the role of superdelegates is to exercise independent judgment, and given the other not so minor detail that Sen. Obama has not won yet, there is absolutely no reason for her to quit now. The fact that her chances of winning are low doesn’t mean her chances of winning are zero. When you are this close on the popular vote and creaming your opponent by over 40% after he has been crowned the nominee (by the media and big chunks of the blogosphere) then you have every reason to stay in the race. [Fun fact: Nebraska - discussed later in this post]. (I wonder how those who are insisting that Hillary has no chance would talk if this was the GE and McSame was in the lead…Oh, yeah…we did that already in 2000…what is the difference…Obama’s more charming than Bush…maybe….Obama’s black….Hmmmm that might be it….Obama’s backers…do you know who they are? don’t want to lose their ‘investment’…Bingo..get a cupie doll, pal)

Don’t Let The Media Define the Rules of Elections: One of the fundamental values I have sought to see in Democrats is that they not quit before the votes are counted and certainly not quit because the media asks them to quit. I was appalled at what happened in 2000 when Vice President Gore was hounded in the media and declared a "sore loser" even before a Florida recount. I was very disappointed in 2004 when Sen. Kerry gave up quickly without a proper recount in Ohio, ostensibly because he didn’t want to be branded a "sore loser". I am sick and tired of Democrats who refuse to stand up for democracy (who would rather sit on their  hands and do exactly nothing an then complain about the outcome incessantly..yeah..me also on that) and who are more concerned about what elitist jokers like Tim Russert, David Broder, Frank Rich or (fill in the blanks) think of them than they care about the Democratic party’s ideals – one of which is making sure as many people can vote and another being that every vote should be counted. So, if Sen. Clinton can afford to campaign till June 3rd and she and her supporters continue to fund her campaign (I certainly will), I would consider myself indebted to her if she does exactly that and demonstrates that the era of the media ordering candidates around is effectively over. I want a Fighting Democrat as President and as good as Sen. Obama may be as a candidate, there’s only one Fighting Democrat left in this race and that’s Sen. Hillary Clinton (also see here). As Emily’s List President Ellen Malcolm said recently in her op-ed focusing on the calls for Sen. Clinton to quit – "winners never quit and…quitters never win". In fact, there is simply no other American candidate in modern history that I’m aware of who withstood absolutely unprecedented and sustained levels of hostility in the media and blogosphere, was outspent by huge margins in state after state (even WV), was insulted and demeaned in the worst manner possible – sometimes by alleged progressives, and yet, stayed resolute and focused and revealed the true fighter that she is. Her blowout victory in West Virginia where she amassed an impressive popular vote gain under record turnout follows a series of victories in big states despite calls for her to drop out – this is particularly noteworthy coming as it did after the morale-depressing commentary in the media last week about how the race was over. [Big bonus for Democrats if Sen. Clinton becomes the nominee: She is building a massive base of Democratic voters who don't trust the media to tell the truth about Democrats (like her) and who have deep contempt for the gasbags in the media. (Gee....what have I been listening to for fukin' months but 'The Media....the media....they always kill 'us' Democrats....Guess The Hill did not get the memo. To damn bad a lot of the folks I know don't get this.) This is a dream come true for me because building voter skepticism about the media has been one of the principal failings of the Democratic party for a long time and she's almost single-handedly accomplishing what to me should be one of the holy grails of Democratic and progressive politics, i.e., making voters realize that the media is elitist and often dishonest in how it transmits false, often Republican (and increasingly fake "progressive") talking points about Democrats. Another holy grail that she's on the right side of - she has been long been firmly in support of funding alternative progressive institutions and groups outside the Democratic party apparatus that are critical to ensuring the long term success of the progressive movement; contrast that with Sen. Obama's inclinations.]

Universal Healthcare: Yet another reason why she should not drop out has to do with one of the biggest issues facing the country – something that affects the poor and working class of all races and backgrounds – universal healthcare. As I have said before, Sen. Clinton represents the only remaining opportunity to really get universal healthcare passed in the next 4 years. Granted, the chances of her getting it passed are less than 50% but those odds are much better than the odds that truly universal healthcare will get passed by an Obama administration (0%). To me, this alone is an important enough reason for her to stay in the race to be the Democratic nominee, especially given the other considerations above. (Oh hell, nobody is concerned about that….Let’s sing a few verses of Kumbaya! The Magic Man will fix things…..ya just gotta believe….in his for-profit-health-care-solution)

History and Change: Having the first female President in the United States – especially someone with her impressive experience, knowledge, courage and resilience – would be an enormous positive change for the country and path-breaking for roughly half of the American population – women.

Florida and Michigan: It would be disastrous for the Democratic party to disenfranchise Michigan and Florida. Moreover, as Obama supporter Chris Bowers noted last month in his post "No Objective Delegate Math", the magic delegate number is 2208, not 2025. Since revote primaries in FL and MI were not supported by the Obama campaign, we have no choice but to use the results of the previous elections to decide how MI/FL votes/delegates get allocated. Big Tent Democrat has more on this. The DNC Rules Committee very much has the right to seat these delegates according to the rules of this primary and until they make their final decision on this (and we can be sure that the egregious Donna Brazile will try to not significantly undo what she did), any declarations of victory would be no different than prematurely declaring Mission Accomplished. (Even  ‘BoneHead’ Bowers finally got this. You wanna beat McSame you do not run the guy who told MI and FL to fuck off! Simple really…apparently too damn simple for some)

Let me stop there and let readers provide more of their own reasons, but a brief note on Sen. Clinton’s win in West Virginia – a 41% victory margin and a nearly 150,000 popular vote gain (which would have likely been even higher if Sen. Edwards had not been on the ballot and which erased roughly 70% of Sen. Obama’s popular vote gain last week). It has been downright depressing to see some people stereotype lower income working class whites as racists and distort Sen. Clinton’s argument about working class voters, when the fact remains that both Al Gore and John Kerry lost white working class voters by huge margins (and lost WV) not because of racism. (Yep,  the only reason there is to be against Barry the Precious One is….yer a fukin’ Racist White Scumbag. Funny how the ‘Democat’ Party never realizes that some folks are just that and gets who those folks are. That’s why they are all inside the tent pissing on each other instead of pissing out on the folks OUTSIDE the tent.)

Let’s close with some observations on Nebraska. Nebraska held a primary yesterday not just for the Republican party but also for the Democratic party – the latter being irrelevant when it comes to delegates but important to assess the impact of caucuses v. primaries. When Nebraska held its Democratic caucus on Super Tuesday (Feb), the turnout was around 38760 and Sen. Obama won the caucus 68%-32%, giving him a popular vote margin of almost 14000 votes. Yesterday, the primary attracted 93161 voters and the result was 49-47% in favor of Sen. Obama, with Mike Gravel taking up the remaining 4%. In other words, a 36-point caucus victory was reduced to a 2-point primary victory for Sen. Obama along with a much lower popular vote margin of just ~2600 votes. This lends further credence to the points I have made previously. Taking no credit away from Sen. Obama for his caucus victories, the fact remains that his large victory margins in caucuses are clearly inflated significantly by the lower turnouts in the caucuses and may not be representative of any unique advantages for him in the general election. This is consistent with previous trends and is important to note because it cuts against the conventional wisdom about the significance of those caucus victories. As Anglachel observed yesterday:

OK, I can see a loss in a state where demographics favor your opponent, but 41%? Of the front-running presumptive nominee? Who outspent Hillary 2-to-1 and has the entire MSM lined up singing his praises?

[...]

In contest after contest, we see him failing to turn out the massive numbers that his allegedly unstoppable movement says they command. We see dominance in highly restrictive caucuses. We see him turning out super-majorities of AA voters. We see him dominating urban areas where you have upper income liberals. We see the college aged children of those liberal families voting in university areas.

What we aren’t seeing is any new coalitions for the Democratic Party coming out of his organizing. We aren’t seeing his share of the electorate increase. If anything, it is declining, given his defeats in OH, TX, PA, IN and WV, and what looks like a royal shellacking in the works in KY….In a Nebraska primary held today, which was like Washington State’s with no delegates awarded, he’s barely 2 points ahead. This was a caucus state that went for him 60/40 [Eriposte note: actually 68-32]. Hmm, maybe he didn’t have all that much support there? Maybe he won big there because the voters didn’t turn out?

It is beginning to look like the main reason for Obama’s red state caucus successes is the absence of voters, not the presence of new ones.(Res Ipsa Loquitor folks. Those hordes of Obama supporters who are gonna ride to his rescue in them there RedStates…They….wait for it….DON’T EXIST. This is not the only evidence of that fact. Take it from me or DON’T I don’t give a fuck; polling and analysis show Clinton is bringing in more new voters AND WHY THE FUCK NOT. SHE’S TALKING POCKETBOOK ISSUES TO THE VOTERS. What’s Obama’s message been lately? What? Can’t answer the question? What does that tell you?)

Without a doubt, Sen. Obama has a strong and deep following within the traditional Democratic base, but the evidence that he is building a new and broad coalition is much less compelling when we analyze the demographics of the recent races and deflate the results of the caucuses by acknowledging the reality of turnouts. It is also clear that ever since being declared as the likely nominee who has the nomination pretty much sewn up, he has been repeatedly underperforming the scenarios from his own campaign at least since April – in PA, IN, Guam and now WV (NC was the only exception). That says something about the state of this race and what it means for the Fall.

P.S. Andrewwalker08 has more on the Nebraska results and what they mean in the context of the DNC’s stated principles – here.

(So my good friends and colleagues remember. A vote for Barry is really a vote for McSame! IF you find yourself going, ‘No’, ‘No’, ‘NO’ about any of the points made here by eripost I’d think twice before I tried to cross the road. I love a good story….don’t you?)

Fact not Fiction: Krugman vs. Galbraith…er…vs. versa….

I guess there is not doubt who the editors of The Economist favor, at least from the article’s title, but hey….This is a great exchange and the comments add to it. Clik on the opening para here to read the whole thing because I can assure you that discussions of who should be taxed and why, an important question with any doubt, will soon take a back seat to $8.00/gal. gas and trade balances….Not to mention the Pareto Distribution and ‘Complexity Economics’, a subject you will notice Paul and James tap-dance around pretty effectively:

‘Paul’s worldview rests on the belief that useful implications for important questions of public policy can be derived, essentially from first principles, with the help of a well-structured logic. Well-structured deduction from metaphysical first principles is the Krugman forte.

I don’t accept that much of use can be learned about policy in this way. When the world deviates from the principles, as it usually does, the simple lessons go astray. This is not a complaint against math. It is a complaint against indiscriminate application of the deductive method, sometimes called the Ricardian vice, to problems of human action. Mine is an old gripe against much of what professional economists do; not against science but against scientism, against the pretense of science. To combat it, I spend my research time wrestling with real-world data, and I spend much of my writing time warring against the policy ideas of aggressive, ahistorical deductivists.’

Whuh-oh…that bold by me….looks like James is gonna hand out some whup-ass for Paul. Actually, the whole thing is much more interesting than that.

Read it.

Here’s a real good idea from some of our activist pals….

I was asked to post this by Janet Flint and am glad to do so. If you look over in the right sidebar you will find a new box
labeled: Activist Central. We are going to be putting up links to folks who determined to change the corrupt, spineless anything for
some  greasy cash ‘Democrat’ Party into a progressive organization you and you children can use to build a better nation to live in.

Period.

No factionalism, just good old-fashioned grassroots work on the infrastructure of the party. I’ll be adding more links as we get going.
Feel free to suggest one to a group which wants to change how and what is done rather than the face on the packaging.

Presented by the Grassroots Leadership Summit

Are you a blue-county Democrat who’s interested in supporting

Democrats running for office in “red” areas?Maybe you’ve considered

volunteering, but weren’t sure how effective you’d be?

Presented by the Grassroots Leadership Summit

Join us on Saturday, May 17, for a few hours and learn what it’s all about.

Hear from Bay Area people who’ve volunteered in rural campaigns

and from rural people who welcome the support.

Katherine Forrest’s widely praised “Talking Politics” workshop

can help you become a better communicator.

You can also sharpen your skills in workshops on voter registration,

phone banking, and canvassing, led by experienced political activists.

Learn how to make your volunteer time count, as you help out fellow Dems

around California and in crucial swing states.

We can elect some great candidates this year!

Location:      SEIU-UHW, 560 Thomas L. Berkley Way, Oakland

                        (20th St., between Telegraph and San Pablo; near 19th St. BART)

Time:            10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

                        Registration and coffee at 9:30 a.m.

Lunch:          On-site; included with registration fee

Fee:                $25; $15 low-income/student

Please PRE-REGISTER ONLINEat

http://www.actblue.com/page/trainingtowin2008

Please sign up early so we know what kind of crowd we are preparing for !  Thanks!

Sponsors:    DemocracyAction (www.democracyaction.org)

                        Project BlueBridge

                        Take Back Red California (www.takebackredcalifornia.org)

Contact:        Mary Renaud, maryre@comcast.net, 415-460-1571

                        Eileen Foster, eileenfoster1@comcast.net, 415-921-0743

                        Martha Gamez, gamezm@comcast.net, 209-836-9030

Hillary Secures the Nomination….Senator Obama….Not so much….

You know, speaking solely for myself……I’m sick of Senator SnakeOil. Throw this JFK, MLK self-hating fool under the bus. Couple of reasons:

He’d have you believe that the Clinton’s are racists. They white ain’t they!

He has no clue foreign policy-wise.

He consistently uses Republican frames to push an agenda that has no place in the Democratic Party.

He’s a liar…..documented many, many times.

He’s totally ignorant of American Political history…wannna debate about his take on Reagan bring it on. I was there and Barry just get’s it wrong.

He has zero, that’s zero, chance of beating McSame in the GE. Electoral college analysis shows this to be the case today and really Rezko and Auchi are unlikely to help him win votes.

But…but….the GE is a long way away you assert. Well, yes it is but that just gives Senator ‘Foot-in-Mouth’ longer to do stupid shit like this:

David Axelrod on Hardball, a great place to followup the total clusterfuck that was Obama’s appearance on FAUX NOISE:

He’ll (Obama) invest in our infrastructure, which badly needs it. We know that. That’s one of the reasons this diversion from the federal highway trust fund that Senator McCain and
Clinton have proposed makes no sense.

What’s he talking about? Senator Clinton wants to seize the money Big Oil already owes us for past taxes they’ve not paid and levy a windfall profits tax to enable the Federal Government to remove the Federal
Gas Tax from gas and give the taxpayers and the economy a big, justifiable, progressive boost.

Obama doesn’t want to.

Why? Well because he didn’t think of it and it won’t help him get elected. In fact, it just…..

Elected Hillary Clinton.

Here is some polling data….You all know how I luvs me some polls…

….and why the hell not? It’s the best way we currently have of finding out what the people think. You don’t seriously think blowhard bloviators like Keith Olbermann, he of the recent death threat, or Lou Dobbs, enemy of all that is brown except UPS, know do ya?

Good, ya had me worried there for a minute.

Here’s the latest from the California Field Poll:

AS INSECURITIES WITH THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM GROW, CALIFORNIANS
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE’S FAILURE TO ENACT HEALTH REFORM
LEGISLATION.

Read it and get informed.

Thanks to our good pal Frank Russo at California Progress Report for this.

I’m Sick, Tired and Disgusted….

From the ‘Boyz on the Blogz’ naive outrage at how their guy, Barry, was treated in the latest debate, hey lots of us have been saying, ‘Look out the corporatist media is just biding their time and then the ‘Clinton Rules’ will become ‘Barry’s Bylaws’. So it happened and the ‘Big Men’ of the ‘sphere are outraged.

So what?

Due to headache and other issues I will not bore you with I’m gonna play A-Lister and just give you few linkys to play with:

Uh….oh, and I do mean this….. Do you have your two weeks supply of food, water and medicine? Some ammo would not hurt.

But things are just hunkey-dorey in Miss Nancy’s House….. I suggest massive doses of this to make ya feel a bit better.

Well, at least the economy is settly down…rigtht? Right?...Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

Looks like Barry might have some work to do on that Unity thingy……. warning if you don’t think there are some
truly enraged White People out there do not clik on this link. And no, don’t blame me. I’ve been listening to this for 45 years.

Why McSame looks so cool, calm and collected as he fumbles question after question…..

Ahnuld nears success in the ‘conservative’ ‘War on Education’ they’ve been waging for 50 years.

RiverDaughter asks, nicely, what do Obamaphiles want?

Hopefully more substance soon. Gonna be writing a lot since the number of sites I’m welcome at is…..heh…heh…shrinking

Hillary want’s to go back…back to….well let her tell you….

Here’s what Hillary the Monster is talking about recently in PA:

HARRISBURG, PA. — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton nodded knowingly last week as Joe Rebarchek described his struggle to pay for his oldest daughter to attend Villanova University and still save tuition money for his two younger children.

"I hear about this everywhere," Clinton said at the Capitol Diner, her voice tinged with sadness.

The New York senator looked across the crowd of supporters in the ’50s-style dining room with flying-saucer-like lights and said she was able to go to law school nearly 40 years ago only because she had a low-interest loan from the government.

"At that point in this country’s history, we made a really big investment in young people," Clinton said. "That was a part of what our country did. And I want to get back to that."

Read the whole article here in the Los Angeles Times and remember….

We report but you are the ones who have to decide.

Tune in next week for another gripping episode of: Sister Beezlebub vs. Senator SnakeOil.

I’m soooooooooo confused….

Sister Beelzebub is leading in PA while at the same time…

Our ‘Best Hope for Change’ is outspending her by 3 to 1. I just don’t understand. Senator Hope is running like a Republican trying to bury Clinton with ads and yet…..

The people aren’t buying it.

Gee….

I wonder why?

Oh…oh…oh…maybe this has something to do with it.

Note: TPM is led by one of the ‘Boyz on the Blogz’ whom I referenced here. Not that that should influence your opinion.

Hah….hah….heh….snort…heh…..