Uh oh. Dean has sealed his fate

Ya'll better support him with your individual contributions, because there'll be no corporate money for him. Nope. (I'll bet Terry McAuliffe is just having a cat.)

From his major economic speech:

Once we have repealed the President’s reckless tax cuts, we will set about making the tax system fairer and simpler. We’ll end corporate welfare as we know it, eliminating up to $100 billion dollars in tax breaks and subsidies that benefit special interests and large contributors to both political parties.

And we’ll crack down on tax shelters that allow American companies to hide their profits offshore and not pay any taxes while enjoying all of the benefits that the American taxpayer provides to them.

Consider this — from the 1930s through the 1960s, corporations paid 30 to 40 percent of the taxes, and the rest of us paid 6070. Today, corporations pay about 13 percent of taxes. It’s time to move the balance back and take some of the burden off the individual taxpayer who’s trying to make ends meet.

And as a final goal, we’ll simplify the tax system so that a majority of Americans can pay their income taxes without wasting hours filling out forms.

The third part of my economic program will be based on fairness — putting the interests of working Americans ahead of the special interests and their lobbyists in Washington.

snip

The power to rid Washington of the politics of money and to restore fiscal sanity rests in your hands.

The power to end the insanity of Enron Economics and to restart the great job-creating machine that is the American economy.

Together, we have the power to join together and be a force for change, proving that economic power and political corruption are no match for the people standing up to take back their country.

Together, we are going to not only change Presidents but change this country — and reclaim the American Dream.


...more...

Eloriel

once all Democrats rally behind Dean in the event he wins the nomination, he'll receive exponentially more campaign dough. Imagine dozens upon dozens of bats or whatever ideas they may think of next. If 2 million democrats give Dean 50 bucks, presto, he has 100mill to run with. And that's before we shake down the trial lawyers, the trade unions, et cetera.

Democratic nominee. Whether they originally support him/her or not is of no importance. Once the nomination period is over and our candidate is selected the Democrats will get on board and the money will flow. Not like it does fopr the Republicans but money will come. Dean is also excelling at grass roots collections. The people will have a say.

and got chills yesterday.

Within the hour, the head of the GOP was calling him "Fritz" and you just knew the dems who are part of the same system would be coming, too.

Why are they calling him that?

many minutes of thought. All I knew was "Fritz" Hollings :-)

...when Dean frames his plan up against what Bush and his business partners have done to corrupt our country, he's going to look like a God.

Priorites people! What's more important to you: A month of Taco Bell or seeing Bush Crime family removed from the Whitehouse!

...and it's gonna be well worth the money. A helluva show.

taco hell :) regardless of that your right I want the Bush Crime Family outta there!

Taco Bell Launches New Morning-After Burrito

http://www.theonion.com/onion3109/newburrito.html

I think he would have been violating election law. I don't think presidential candidates are allowed to accept such contributions.

Corporations give money through their political action committes and through their trade and professional association interest groups.

Most news simply skips the important middle part of the equation and says "they give money to candidate X."

Excuuuuuuuuuse the hell outta me, Cocoa, for forgetting the little technicality of appending the acronym "PAC."

Oh, and for everyone else -- perhaps my original post was just a little too tongue in cheek for some of you. I consider this a VERY GOOD THING (and have all along), and frankly I don't think he gets nearly enough credit here on DU for singlehandedly dealing something of a death blow to the (corporate) money-in-politics problem.

Dean is demonstrating that with the right message, and the right candidate, The People will gladly step up to make a difference. This means he's also raising the bar -- big time -- on what it takes, what's required, to be a viable candidate: honesty, authenticity, clarity and forthrightness. Unhandled, unscripted, unbought. The Real Deal.

Go, Howard!

Eloriel

I thought soft money was outlawed, I thought all this money we're hearing about is coming from individual donations, but the link in #7 shows I'm confused about the law. Confused is an understatement. Campaign finance is Greek to me.

themselves cannot give money directly to candidates, although individuals who work for a corporation can.

.

I was about to point this out when I hit your post. It's just another one of the Dean camp's endless series of propaganda ploys.

in Clarkie New(American)speak.

Dean will shake things up and bring about more change in politics than you can even fathom. It will be good for the PEOPLE, too. Dean doesn't EVER propose any policies he doesn't have every intention of working his tail off to make a reality. Howard Dean is going to be the best thing to happen to this country in a hell of a long time. You'll see the most non-partisan and effective US government ever if Dean becomes president. He will not tolerate the kind of antics that drives those who pay attention nuts. They won't know what to think or do, but they will most certainly do what he wants them to if they ever want to get any time off to do the things they enjoy. He'll veto the hell out of them if they don't get with the program and do things right. After a few times they will get really tired of having to keep going back and starting over and will learn to get it right the first time. He'll make them work hard and get the job done, that's for sure. They'll hate his guts for awhile, but when all is said and done, everyone will thank him for it.

Just because he or any other candidate gets "corporate money" doesn't mean that he's sold out.

<http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004>

Corporations through their PACs and trade/professional organization interest groups butter up both parties as a rule of thumb. It doesn't mean that anyone who takes money from them is evil, it just means that their voting record or public comments about certain issues or ideas related to those corporations bear watching.

What your link shows is that people with jobs at those companies are contributing (read the fine print on the right).

PAC contributions (probably from Dean's own leadership PAC) currently equals $16,300 or 0% of all monies taken in so far.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

I wonder why he's not planning to end the rest. Is this just him keeping up with Kerry?

That would be about 8 percent of the total federal budget. Remember that 2/3 goes to defense, social security, medicare, and interest on the debt. Defense spending could drop, but generally is not considered corporate welfare.

100 bn out of the 400 to 500 bn left starts looking large once you factor out these items.

This big of a change would be stunning. It would be amazing if anyone gets this much done, regardless of where Dennis stands on the issue.

Regardless, Dean said he would end corporate welfare, which his team estimates would result in about 100 bn savings. This is because they estimate that 100 bn is all of it.

Perhaps he could go back for a second round later, if any is missed.

I can't see how. Years and years ago the Boston Globe identified over $150G -- don't you think it will have grown considerably since? I do.

(edit) Have a look at http://www.progress.org/banneker/cw.html It's not been updated in a while, I don't think, but it's still helpful.

Also http://www.commoncause.org/issue_agenda/corporate_welfare.htm

The man said "end corporate welfare" which would save us about $100 billion. My point is that the 100 Billion figure is a derivitive of "ending corporate welfare".

Mr. Dean did not say "I will cut corporate welfare by 100 Billion"

He said his policy to "end corporate welfare" would save us 100 billion. There was no indication anywhere that Howard Dean would be upset if "ending corporate welfare" actually saved us 150 billion, 200 billion or whatever figure you happen to prefer.

Your point is lame because it attempts to draw a distinction where no difference exists.

It's not credible that he'd think it's only 100G when there are plenty sources to tell him and his staff otherwise.

When I saw Dean speak in Bryant Park, NYC, he had a section of his speech which said everything that is in this speech. All it looks like to me regarding this newest one is that he is tightening up his rhetoric. I would guess that the corporate world has been keeping an eye on what he's saying before this, so I wouldn't be that worried. If he has been getting contributions from them after the Bryant Park speech, I don't see why they would dry up because of this newest one.

Plus, I bet that he's not worried about it, if he is really sincere about his tack that getting many small contributions from a large number of people to counterbalance large contributions from a small group is putting democracy into action before you get to the polling booth.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

our nation will truly change. Those steps?

1. Public financing of all elections in the United States.

2. State that he is willing to sign an executive order, as soon as he is sworn into office, to re-institute the "Fairness Doctrine".

Those two "little steps", will give us our democracy back, and insure that it cannot be stolen again.

Dean's got my backing, if not vote. Am still undecided though, giving Clark a good looking over.

I am a Clark supporter and I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly agree with both your points.

Unfortunately I think any candidate who pushed reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine would be set upon with a collective visciousness by the entire cable media community that would sink them in short order.

A win by a candidate against George W. Bush, whose campaign is looking like it may whore itself out enough to not take public money, would be such sweet justice.

all but destroy him. He can't exactly publicly discuss this too much, so I guess it would be enough to "hope" he would do this...

It was created for a time when the media was limited, both in terms of ownership and in terms of outlets.

There was no 200 cable networks, satalite TV, or internet. There was like half a dozen TV outlets and city newspapers. That was about it.


I think that the fairness doctrine no longer applies... because it was made for a time when the media was so limited, there had to be some mandate to share time. However now there is no need, because one can just get a whole network or website or digital radio broadcast etc.

We do not need the FD in place again... what we need is strict ownership limits. Let a given body only own ONE outlet in a given news media outlet... so you can own ONE cable network, and ONE newspaper, and ONE radio station.

That gets rid of the need for the fairness doctrine.

First, the Fairness Doctrine isn't about "sharing time" at all, not in any commonly understood meaning of those words.

The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to cover subject in the public interest that might be controversial in nature -- esp. to cover local subjects -- and to do so in such a way that both sides are presented. NOT in an equal time manner, that was never part of the requirement. But rather that all viewpoints simply be covered.

The provision that made this work was that when a topic got covered, if responsible parties or organizations didn't feel that their point of view was covered or adequately covered, they could write the station and ask for a chance to present their viewpoint. THIS DID NOT REQUIRE EQUAL TIME. In fact, folks who are about my age and a bit younger might remember those "public interest" 1-minute commentaries at odd times of the day (like, after midnight, 6 a.m. or earlier, etc.) on local TV stations and radio. These were in satisfaction of the stations' requirements of the Fairness Doctrine.

Also, stations could lose their licenses if they did a poor enough job. Average citizens could write letters to the FCC to complain and sometimes if there wre enough complaints, licenses were lost, so broadcasters had a built-in incentive to comply.

Now, in today's climate, here's what would happen: THe likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, etc. (I'm hoping the Fairness Doctrine would apply to cable as well, tho it's by no means assured) would do a LOT of self-censoring and self-editing. They'd not want to make statements that were patently, provably false. They'd not want to make statements that were going to get a lot of letters asking for a chance to provide an opposing view. IOW, it would be heaven.

Eloriel

Frankly, though, after watching Dean get most of his financing directly from The People, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of public financing -- except maybe in a limited way. Thinking aloud, what I'd like to see at all levels is:

* An end to corporate PACs. No more. Sayonara. Done. Finis.
* No more than 25% of any candidate's funds can come from other PACs (Unions, Public Interest Groups, etc.)
* Some mandated TV and radio time for candidate commercials AND mandated Debate time
* The rest financed by individual contributors -- maybe raise the limit to $2500 per individual, but no more than that.
* No issues ads by 3rd parties. No RNC and DNC advertising. In fact, maybe get both political parties our of the campaign financing business, forcing them to do stuff like grassroots organizing, GOTV, etc.

This would put the power back in the hands of The People and most of all, candidates would have to make themselves electable by engaging people directly and rather personally. They might even learn what representative democracy is all about, for a change.

Eloriel

hands of the people. As far as allowing the PACs to continue to donate, I guess that would be OK, on a very, very, limited basis. What I want to see, is an end of the abuse of power by groups like the NRA, and AIPAC. Still, major public financing of elections, perhaps with some paticipatory additions, and a ban on all corporate donations, would be my fav.

doing something about Saudi Arabia's financing of terrorists that killed 3,000 Americans. Would be interesting to see Dean drag that one out of the garbage, too. BIG fireworks WHEW!

planned and executed 9/11 with the help of the Saudi and Pakistani secret services, anything that can be done to expose them, and bring them to justice, I support big time!

Exactly what did the Saudi princes discuss with Bush when the 24 pages of the 9/11 report were censored? Exactly why did Poppy make several trips to the Saudi kingdom prior to, and after 9/11? What were in those 24 censored pages? Why were the bin Laden family allowed to be whisked out of the country on jets after 9/11, when all other air traffic was banned. And on, and on, and on.

These things, are one of the reasons I hope Clark is part of the Dem ticket. I feel he could expose these crimes to the nation with great creditability, and keep the country calm through the process of justice against the perps (BFEE, Saudi, and Pakis). Sooner or later, it is all going to come out, and it will cause a constitutional and civil crisis, which would be worse, if the Bush regime is still in office when it happens.

Clark is an insider, plain and simple. If you don't believe it then take a look at who is running his campaign and who is supporting him in it. And as an insider, he will hardly want to rock the boat. Clark to me is four (or eight) more years of Clinton. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I would rather have a guy that is going to truly shake things up (and in my mind, that is Dean).

I like the guy but I don't fully trust him.

Clark won't have to expose the BFEE, it will be done for him, or whomever is the next president. That's why it's important to have someone fully capable of handling the fallout. I am sure Dean is capable, but Clark has more "perceived" authority, vis-a-vis his military background.

Anyway, as I said, I am still on the fence, and would prefer a ticket with both on it. That's why it's not too smart to be bashing Clark right now, because if Dean has the chance be a part of a Clark/Dean, or Dean/Clark ticket, he's going to jump at it. What would you say then?

And I'd vote for it, too.

I'm a Deanie. I think he speaks for me. He CERTAINLY articulates MY anger over, and hatred for, what these rat-bastards have done to our government, our economy, our foreign policy, our standing in the world, our friends and allies, our freedoms and privacy rights, our Constitution, our environment, our national security, you name it!

I'll support and donate to WHOEVER IT IS - who's still standing when the primary smoke clears. I hope it's Howard Dean. But if it's Wesley Clark, that'd be fine by me. And he'd have my support.

Hell, at this point, I'd even begrudgingly support Holy Joe, ANYBODY but bush. Whoever's name is in the Dem column, that's the candidate for me.

I've seen his views and I totally agree with him. When I read "meetclark" online he actually energized me...for a second I thought I'd changed my mind. He's a good guy, and I'd love to see him on the ticket with Dean. But Dean's my man...he's been with me from the beginning, you know?

He probably won't be able to do that in this election because the simple fact is you need $$$ to defeat the Republican spin machine...BUT once he is in office, I think Dean will make a big deal about this and hopefully get some real progress towards clean, fair elections.

Dean has my vote, because he will change the way politics works. Can you say that for Wesley Clark?

"Dean has my vote, because he will change the way politics works. Can you say that for Wesley Clark?"

My comments: No I can't, yet. But, before Dean can change anything, he must first be elected, and there stands the crux of my hesitancy. I am not yet fully convinced that Dean can beat Bush, and at this point, feel Clark may be the better candidate in that respect. Beating Bush, is my number one concern, above and beyond all else.

Having said that, my dream ticket is shaping up to be either Clark/Dean, or Dean/Clark, and I hope that becomes a reality, because Bush will be squashed like the little stink bug he is, facing those two.

Dean has already changed politics, and rather dramatically. Can't yet say that the change is permanent, and certainly getting the nomination would help ensure that. SOME changes are permanent -- the internet fundraising, the blog concept. But even tho others have copied these, Dean still does it differently -- dare I say does it "right"? Because in Dean's case the blog contributes to an iterative campaign. That's unheard of in U.S. politics, and is a colossal or actually revolutionary change. Many of us Dean supporters who understand this will never be satisfied with less than the same ability to participate in campaigns and in our democratic process again.

Eloriel

but I don't have a citation on it.

Seems like Dean and Kucinich are always setting the right message. What I like the BEST is the expansion of small businesses loan programs - America's largest employer. These companies won't fly south!

I also hope he pledges to make the payroll tax more progressive.

He will have huge problems doing any of this. Example: The off-shore profit hiding. Clinton tried to do this, so as to cut off al Qaeda money-laundering. Phil Gramm killed it (called it "totalitarian") because Enron hid their profits there, and Gramm represented Enron.

Any candndiate runs into trouble making promises like this, because Congress will have its say, and Congress is paid by the people Dean is talking about. I hope he pulls it off.

Call me Mr. Optimist.

Gramm's killing of Clinton's efforts is common knowledge among those in the system

Dean should crow this from the high heavens--

Had Gramm and his Enron buddies not done this--who knows what would have happened.

When I brought this up--folks said I was being mean-spirited to the Repugs...

Dean (or any of the nominees) should be harping on this very fact--

spell out the consequences of Gramm and his banking buddies' decisions. Hold them accountable. (pun, however lousy, intended)

What's good for Bush is good for Dean! All he's gotta say is "to fight terrorism," and Gramm's gonna have to bow down. The little bitch.

Edited for typo.

The Dems can really use this national security thing to crack down on corps hiding money off-shores AND to eliminate the national deficit. I hope they get it right.

It's just gonna take a little creativity!
Look how the Bushees managed to get the media wrapped around their little finger just by tapping into the public's anger at telemarketers!
There are connections, it's just a matter of finding them.

About almost anything? Corporate interests ARE contra-The People's interests. So isn't it a little unnecessary, therefore, to slam Dean's plans on that point? I mean, when was the last time you pointed that out about any of Kerry's policies?

At the same time, Dean may have a built-in fix for that. Remember that he's pulling in scads of new voters. SCADS of them. People who have felt disenfranchised and haven't been involved in politics EVER. Some who have never voted before (incuding students, of course). There might be some pretty good coattails with Dean.

Of course, before we count ANY of our chickens, we've got to fix the voting machines problem.

Eloriel

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

THanks for coming down to Chapel Hill. We really had a great time.

"Reactionary" is not a synonym for "reactive."

Eloriel may be reactive, maybe on occasion hyperreactive (ain't we all in these times), but she ain't no reactionary.

I was accused of a 'slam' against Dean in my original post. I stated in my deleted post that this was absurd, that I praised Dean, and actually slammed the Congress. Just for clarity.

Anyone who can find a slam against Dean in my original post in this thread wins a prize.

deserves a prize.

And I was serious about my question: when was the last time you pointed that out about any of Kerry's policies?

You see, AFAIC, my point is valid: ANY Dem will have trouble getting ANYthing passed with a Republican Congress, and you did say as much in your original post. But are you making those points about any of the others' policy initiatives?

Eloriel

You said, "So isn't it a little unnecessary, therefore, to slam Dean's plans on that point?"

Do you want to paypal me some cash or would something via snail mail be better?

"So isn't it a little unnecessary, therefore, to slam Dean's plans on that point? I mean, when was the last time you pointed that out about any of Kerry's policies?"

:eyes:

You prove the point I made in my deleted post.

P.S. Why would I make points about other candidates' policies in a thread about Dean policies? We're talking about Dean in this thread, right?

You're right.

And now my question -- ????? When is the last time you pointed that out about Kerry, or for that matter any other candidates' specific plans?

Eloriel

To answer your question, I can't remember if or when I did. Dean made some excellent and bold statements here, and all I did was point out that Congress will give him trouble on this. Pretty obvious stuff, basically. Was the comment worth this kind of reaction?

You continue to prove my deleted point.

And this underlines the importance of paying close attention to the races in the legislature coming up.

Team Bush cliche's but: 9/11 changed everything.

It's true. You paint anything effectively as a threat to "security" and the masses line up. It worked for the Iraq conquest. Each time down the road is easier.

Julie

It's called veto, veto, veto. Dean won't hesitate to keep bringing them back day in and day out until they present him with something he is happy with. I can guarantee you that Dean is far more stubborn in this regard than Congress is. After awhile they will get sick of not having any time off and will do what they have to do to be able to go play golf.

And as a final goal, we’ll simplify the tax system so that a majority of Americans can pay their income taxes without wasting hours filling out forms.

this the same rhetoric that those pushing a flat tax use

what does he mean by this?

suggesting. As a rule, Dean means exactly what he says. He doesn't speak in jargon and code words.

Sheesh.

Eloriel

which is why dwickham's question was a good one. It smells like flat tax talk to me.

How do you figure?

Do you think a flat tax is the only possible way to make the process easier?

it's the deductions that make everything so difficult

I can do my 1040-EZ in about 10-15 minutes, granted my math is correct

If I would itemize deductions, I couldn't do it myself. I would have to go to a professional.

This does bother me.

1. He simplifies the deduction process. It wasn't always as tricky as it is today. It doesn't have to be in the future.

2. He retains a progressive tax schedule. (I'd rather have him go back to tax schedules of earlier presidents, say, Carter, with the limits raised to account for inflation.)


A simplified system for America's families.

No flat tax.


Simplification of the tax code doesn't imply a flat tax.

from Dean's statement it sounds that way, but I understand it differently.

I thought American corporations pay income tax on all earnings earned everywhere in the world (I know this is true), and the ones who are moving offshore still pay US taxes but only on US profits.

Dean's statement sounds like moving offshore precludes you from ANY taxes. Is this true?

they avoid massive ammounts of taxes... there are big loopholes for off shore corporations.

But see these corporations are not really off shore corporations... they just set up a mailbox in the islands, and file taxes as an off shore corporation to avoid paying.

They still have to pay taxes, some taxes, just not what they should be paying.

Big Time!!!! :toast:

congress? Not that we really have to worry about it because Dean will never get that far. Bush will slaughter him in the primary. I talked to a local conservative today. They are rooting old Deanie boy on. They'd really love to see the Democrats humiliated in the general election.

How exactly is Bush going to slaughter Dean in the primary?

They are really freaked that Dean has not been
owned by the corporations.

He will own them nothing.

For a long time people like Rush have been promoting Dean. It isn't until they stop, open their eyes, and look at his policies, his support, his momentum, and realize that he's everything they should have been fearing all along.

;-)

and I sure hope you aren't really a mom. Your immature and hateful rhetoric all over any thread involving Dean is counter-productive.

What will you be doing if Dean wins the nom?

Julie

Governor Dean has put his money where his mouth is.

Its up to us now.

Dean is going to depend on us even more on reaching out to others, informing them of his campaign and doing what we can to get the individual donors out in droves.

He'll work for us, and we won't be dissappointed.

"Consider this — from the 1930s through the 1960s, corporations paid 30 to 40 percent of the taxes, and the rest of us paid 6070. Today, corporations pay about 13 percent of taxes. It’s time to move the balance back and take some of the burden off the individual taxpayer who’s trying to make ends meet. "

Commonsense for anyone and long over due and the Neo-Con lites that are still wearing linen white suits and listening to Thompson Twins can park it...including their 'spin'.

You know it might be a good sell for a candidate to say forcefully I don't get corporate money, because they support their pocketbooks and NOT America

Go Dean Go...

Non-profits? http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

It is well known that Dean gets most of his
support to this point from the internet.

These are the companies that lots of fulltime
computer users work for.

Corporate PAC's are a mechanism to pool together money to support a candidate. Companies like IBM and Microsoft give money equally to both parties, that they are computer companies is not relavent. Individuals contributing over the internet do not represent the corporate PAC; hard-money is limited to $2000. In this case the 'internet' relationship to Dean has little bearing on corporate contributions.

HOW TO READ THIS CHART: This chart lists the top donors to this candidate during the 2004 election cycle.The organizations themselves
did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals'
immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.


Note "its individual members or employees or owners" this is everyone
who works for the company all together. When you make a contibution
you must disclose your employer this is that data collected.

I remember that AOL AKA Time Warner had a very large number of
people raising money for Dean on their own last summer.
This data reflects that fact. The overall high income
and education levels in the tech business combined with
the liberal values of many tech workers explains the data
from AOL, Microsoft and IBM.

If I donate money directly to a candidate but I work for a company that donates through a PAC, my donation is not listed as PAC money. That's the difference between individual contributions and PAC donations. I can of course donate money to the PAC, up to $5000/year. The PAC is a political representative of the corporation, regardless of who supplies the money. That's not the same as a bunch of supporters, who happen to work at the same company, donating outside the PAC entity. PAC's don't randomly donate money just because some portion of the employees support a particular candidate. They donate money to further the interests of the corporation they represent.

I'm just pointing out that Dean is neither anti-corporate nor anti-trade, and that's not a bad thing.

http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/summary.asp?ID=N00025663

Individual contributions $25,270,552 100%

PAC contributions $16,300 0%

Candidate self-financing $0 0%

Federal Matching program $0 0%

Other $14,362 0%

The only candidate not to take any PAC money has been Edwards.

OK I misread the fine print:

'The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families.'

It's subtle but PAC money and individual contributions are not separated in the chart provided by OpenSecrets. It's rather disingenuous to combine PAC money with individuals who happen to work for that company.

Top Contributor List: http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?id=N00025663&cycle=2004

Bushco not only may be way too much of a good thing that could boomerang against the whole business climate but hust perhaps this donation as part of an American Trukish Empire, a protection racket dooming any hopes for competition or progress mught drive them to kill the NEW regulatory drain on businesses. The regulation of totalitarians disguised as liberetarians making all the rules, doling out favors for bribes, blackmailing everyone complicit in such corruption.

The only other thing holding them back is ideological fear that the Dems(DLC converts or not) will hit them from the other side and spoil their fun with strong government controls and their own version of pork donor favoritism.

They can always find an outlet for influence but shutting down the top campaign corruption, funding TWO Yin and Yang bandits, might be a solution worth supporting. A donation to end donations. They always get stuck with a Hitler or a Bush and economic disaster when they "win" too much. They prosper but fume under controls when democracy and civil government reigns.

They need to talk it out with someone like Dean, not the Pretenders of DLC prophecy who are either or neither fish nor fowl and mere pushovers for the Right.

ahhh, what's the problem.

This thread has been around for hours, and nobody has raised that old (and untrue) canard that corporations don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to their customers.

Maybe we're making some progress here at DU.

Incorporate: To make something corporeal, or in plain english to give something a body in a legal sense.

Do businesses pass their taxes on to the consumer. Sure, to the extent that they can. Is that any reason why we should not tax them? No it is not.

Taxes are taxes. All taxes come out of the economy somewhere and are put back in by government spending elsewhere.

If you take taxes from individuals, they have less disposable income to spend on goods. Since people buy many goods and services from corporations, the corporations end up with less money.

If you take the taxes from corporations, they pass the tax on as a price increase to the consumer. In this case the consumers untaxed disposable income will buy fewer goods and services and the corporations end up with less money.

Economically, in the final analysis, it comes out a wash.

The real issue here is not where to collect the taxes, but who you are collecting them from. Moving taxes toward corporations makes it more likely that the funds will come from the pockets of the wealthy. This is beyond a doubt a good thing in the current financial environment.

The other issue is where government put the money back into the economy. Putting it back in at the bottom of the economic food chain makes the most sense.

In capitalist systems, money goes round and round in a cycle. Each trip around the cycle a portion is absorbed in taxes and a portion in wealth accumulation at the top.

Taxes must be applied to wealth or over the long haul the wealthy will own nearly all of the assets and the economy will stagnate.

Dean was the only candidate who had thus far given any money to the DNC campaign fund that goes to the eventual nominee.

I don't have the link handy, but I believe the same article also said that McAulliffe had asked the DNC & DLC to stop issuing statements referring to Dean's alleged "unelectability".

I'm pretty sure it was in the Washington Post, maybe a month or two ago.

Corporate Welfare is 95% of the work done in DC, with 4% of the time taken up by republicans on some moralistic or "patriotic" nonsense with the rest of the time actually doing the work of the people.

The whole system would absolutely freak out. For that reason there would be wide bi-partisan support to run him out on a rail if he even tried to touch that mess. Watch the Farm lobby in particular come streaming out and tugging at heart strings over the largely imaginary farmers this would hurt. He would be politically dead the second he started trying.

I am impressed!

Okay, he supports NAFTA but if he can say what he did with all sincerity than I'll more than forgive him!

GO DEAN GO!!!!! :D :9 :bounce: B-)

I will be giving Dean my hard earned money as soon as he gets the nomination.