Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Clinton Release on Taxes

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:14 PM
Original message
Clinton Release on Taxes

Clinton Release on Taxes

Statement of Jay Carson, Clinton Campaign Spokesman

Today Senator Hillary Clinton and President Bill Clinton are releasing their tax returns for the years 2000 through 2006, and are providing information regarding their 2007 taxes as well.

The Clintons have now made public thirty years of tax returns, a record matched by few people in public service. None of Hillary Clinton’s presidential opponents have revealed anything close to this amount of personal financial information.

What the Clintons’ tax returns show is that they paid more than $33,000,000 in federal taxes and donated more than $10,000,000 to charities over the past eight years. They paid taxes and made charitable contributions at a higher rate than taxpayers at their income level.

2000 - 2007 TAX RETURN SUMMARY
HILLARY & BILL CLINTON

TAXES PAID: $33,783,507

The Clintons paid $33,783,507 in federal taxes – 31% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more paid on average 20.8% of their adjusted gross income in taxes.

CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS: $10,256,741

The Clintons donated $10,256,741 to charity – 9.5% of their adjusted gross income. According to the most recent data available from the IRS, in 2005 taxpayers earning $10,000,000 or more contributed 3.1% of their adjusted gross income in cash contributions to charity. Information about the Clinton Family Foundation, including a list of charities to which the Clintons contributed through the Foundation, is available online in the Foundation’s publicly available tax returns (www.foundationcenter.org).

AFTER TAX EARNINGS: $57,157,297

CUMULATIVE TOTAL(GROSS) INCOME: $109,175,175

Including, among other items:
Senator Clinton’s Senate Salary: $1,051,606
President Clinton’s Presidential Pension: $1,217,250
Senator Clinton’s Book Income: $10,457,083
President Clinton’s Book Income: $29,580,525
President Clinton’s Speech Income: $51,855,599

SENATOR CLINTON’S BOOK INCOME: $10,457,083
Senator Clinton’s book income is comprised of earnings for Living History ($10,267,895), including an $8,000,000 advance, and It Takes a Village ($189,188). The earnings for It Takes a Village were donated to charity. Since the release of It Takes a Village in 1996, Senator Clinton has donated over $1,100,000 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S BOOK INCOME: $29,580,525
President Clinton’s book income is comprised of earnings for My Life ($23,280,525), including a $15,000,000 advance, and Giving ($6,300,000). The President donated $1,000,000 of his income from Giving in 2007 to charity.

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S SPEECH INCOME: $51,855,599

NOTE: The figures in this summary include 2007 estimates.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
EmperorHasNoClothes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
1. $52M for "speeches"
You don't pay 300k for a speech without expecting something in return.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Remember this is Hillary's campaign release. Lot of details missing, but still
nearly $9 million a year for speeches? Hmmmm?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
27. Hardball folks point out no details in these releases.Clintons said to be filing for 2007 extension.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
36. I'm sorry, but what detail is "missing"?
Are you saying that there is information that they were required to provide to the IRS that they haven't disclosed?

Or are you just saying that now that the tax returns are out, you want something more.

Be honest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. The post is based on the release. What are you suggesting? Honest! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. the actual, complete returns were released
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #39
44. Right, but what does that have to do with the post and your implications? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #44
47. it seemed to me that the suggestion was being made that information was being withheld
"lots of details missing"

My point is that the returns were listed in full. My question is what details are missing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. A lot of missing details from the release. It's a comment related to the release. Are you
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 10:38 PM by ProSense
saying that the release contains the same information as the returns?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #48
51. Of course the release doesn't contain all the details of the returns
That's why the returns were released. Should the release have repeated everyting in the returns? If it had, and they hadn't put out the actual returns, would you be satisfied?

I'm still wondering what the relevant details that were in the returns, but not identified in the releases, might be. Help me out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-05-08 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. The release could have included the $18 million to add up to the total. What's so hard about that?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Not necessarily so...
I remember fifteen years ago trying to book a prominent speaker for a professional organization, and the going rate for some CNN second-string anchor was $50,000. $300,000 for the Big Dawg? I can totally see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yeah, but if the going rate is $300K,
he'd have had to give nearly 29 speeches a year (2.4 per month) to achieve that amount.

He's been awfully busy.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I'm sure he has been busy...
There's another post about $18 million that unaccounted for. I'm more interested in that amount.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I'm interested in both! The $51.9 million in speeches is a little unbelievable! n/t
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 03:37 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas Hill Country Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. not really... not over the course of 8 years... 1 to 2 speeches/mo at goin rates for xPrez speech
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
global1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. "Just Words" ..........nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:24 PM
Response to Original message
3. Most people in their 'bracket' were never PRESIDENT and a spouse planning to run for President
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 03:25 PM by blm
for that entire time, either, so the breathless spin on this from Carson is kinda amusing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. I guess she will never understand my monthly income and they
do not need a job. See what the WH does for you. NOw we see why they work so hard to get the job. It is the cleaning up after that makes one feel so good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. Here we go:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scurrilous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thanks for the info.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
9. Clintons give to charity more than twice the percentage of BO and MO
In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ken Lay gave more than all of them combined. What's your point? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. Not according to my fact check..
CHARITABLE GIVING: Before its fall Enron typically gave about 1 percent of its pretax earnings to various causes under Lay's leadership, and he gave privately through the Linda and Ken Lay Foundation. Internal Revenue Service records showed the foundation took in $14 million in 2000 and donated $2.5 million to charities, museums and other organizations in Texas and across the country.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125041,00.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Is the tax return for the Clinton Foundation? Also, $2.5 million is nearly 18% of $14 million. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. $14 million dollars took in by Enron and $2.5 given. Enron typically gave about 1 percent
pretty close to BO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. What kind of math are you using? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. the math is already done.... BO gave 0.4% when he made over $250 thousand
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Clue: giving a percentage of your money to charity isn't a character flaw.
Lying repeatedly about encountering sniper fire in Bosnia is!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
merh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
42. remember in 2007 how she failed to disclose the CFF on her senate
Clintons' Charity Not Listed On Senate Disclosure Forms

By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 27, 2007; Page A01

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have operated a family charity since 2001, but she failed to list it on annual Senate financial disclosure reports on five occasions.

-skip-

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601542.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeglow3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
25. MY point is that I make about $80,000 and gave
MORE (dollar for dollar, NOT percentage) than Obama did when making over 3 times what we did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. So, maybe your circumstances were different. This is a silly distracting argument.
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 04:23 PM by ProSense
There are people who make $80,000 and can't afford to give more than a couple of hundred dollars a year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orsino Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. Ah. The "percentage" framing.
They can afford it. I don't want to minimize their contributions, but it should be noted they managed to keep a lot more than the Obamas, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cd3dem Donating Member (927 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. 0.4% of their income when they made over $250 thousand dollars...
shit! I would not complain with that income!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wileedog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. The Obama's were still paying back things like Student Loans
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 04:15 PM by wileedog
THey were no where nears the financial shape the Clintons are in.

I'd make sure my debts are paid off and my family was taken care of first too once I started making money like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. These figures contain only ESTIMATES for 2007 income, not actual figures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
20. Last year's income
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 03:47 PM by ProSense

Last year's income

Here, from the 2007 estimate (they requested an extension) is what the Clintons made last year:

Sen. Clinton's salary $150,200
Sen. Clinton's book royalties $152,864
President Clinton's pension $186,600
President Clinton's book income $4,434,446
President Clinton's speeches $10,145,000
Partnership income $2,750,000
Adviser income from InfoUSA $400,000
Income from savings accounts $485,000
Investment income from Blind Trust $3,515,000

The partnership income appears to refer to Bill Clinton's role with Ron Burkle's investment funds.


$10 million in speeches?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
26. what awesome people to give that much of their income to charity. Obama gave...
Yeah. Pittance. In comparison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. Agree! Giving to charity is a good thing. Sciafe donated $100 million to Clinton's foundation.
The issue now is what the Clintons' personal tax returns reveal.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. That is awesome that Bill Clinton got a million from Sciafe to help African Aids victims
Clinton is doing awesome things with that money.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:28 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. So that makes Sciafe an awesome person, right? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #31
46. Really?
YOu are comparing the two? What the hell is wrong with you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #46
50. Bill and Hillary's friends aren't good enough for you? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. Yep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
33. Clinton returns: Assets and liabilities
April 04, 2008

Clinton returns: Assets and liabilities

A few notes on the Clinton tax returns, all noted by readers who have more eyes than I do.

First, a couple of things that could bite Hillary:

The returns show more than $50,000 in income (and $40,000 in losses) in 2006 from funds with the name Quellos, an asset manager accused in a scathing bipartisan 2006 Senate committee report of structuring "tax shelters."

The 2006 return also contains a foreign tax credit worth $285,368, which could be an issue in a race that has been hostile to the notion of overseas jobs — though the details of that figure (line 47 of the 1040 from 2006) aren't immediately obvious.

On the other hand:

A number of readers have e-mailed to say the Clintons' charity is ersatz, as it went to their family foundation. In fact, the foundation was giving the money away to a range of groups; you can see the foundation's 990, which has been written about before, here.

Anyway, I'll keep watching my e-mail, and keep an eye on Politico for more reporting on this from my colleagues.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. Nearly a third of the money the Clintons donated to charity came last year during her campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:57 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. $1 million of that was book proceeds earned in 2007
They gave 2.5 million in 2004. They gave nearly 10 percent of the $357,000 they earned in 2000.

Their giving is a good thing. Stop trying to spin it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. They also gave $115K on more than $9.5 million. Who cares? Their charitable giving isn't the issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
38. A pair of overpaid celebrities
Let's make 'em the face of our party again. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
41. Hmmm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
43. "In doing so, the Clintons will incur a large capital gains tax bill for 2007"
Edited on Fri Apr-04-08 07:20 PM by ProSense

Clintons Dissolve Blind Financial Trust

Millions in Stock Converted to Cash to Avoid Campaign Conflicts

By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 15, 2007; Page A01

Bill and Hillary Clinton have dissolved the blind trust that has managed their investments since they entered the White House in 1993, converting all stocks to cash to avoid financial conflicts as she runs for president, according to documents to be filed today with federal ethics officials.

The documents reviewed by The Washington Post provide the most complete accounting of how the Clintons accrued the $5 million to $25 million in the trust -- nearly all since leaving the White House -- through investments in foreign companies, oil giants and drugmakers without their input or knowledge and without public disclosure.

<...>

The couple chose instead to dissolve the trust on April 27 and to convert all their stocks to cash to avoid any questions about possible conflicts of interests, the Clintons' legal and financial advisers said. Their portfolio will be limited to cash accounts and U.S. Treasury notes, the advisers said.

In doing so, the Clintons will incur a large capital gains tax bill for 2007 and will reduce their ability to earn new money because savings accounts and certificates of deposit traditionally offer lower rates of return than Wall Street, the advisers said. In all, the Clintons have total assets of $10 million to $50 million with no substantial debts.

more


Wonder if that's why Hillary voted twice to extend Bush tax cuts?



edited wrong word

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-04-08 10:43 PM
Response to Original message
49. Charitable contributions more than some people's salaries
Wouldn't it be nice to be that rich so you could give $10,000,000 to charity
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chyjo Donating Member (615 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-05-08 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #49
53. especially if they could be
Your OWN charities ..........ughhh..... sorry I just vomited in my mouth a little.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-05-08 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
54. Speeches! Just words?! No, just sellouts by Bill and Hill.
Edited on Sat Apr-05-08 09:13 AM by TexasObserver
And they haven't even accounted for all the hidden money that funds Bill's library, or the money that is "owed" him which he has yet to collect.

They are dirty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-05-08 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
55. Where would Obama's campaign be now if this was his family:

Clinton Family Loan Mystery

April 05, 2008 11:19 AM

Those of us old enough to recall the 1990s can remember presidential half-brother and pardon recipient Roger Clinton, as well as presidential brothers-in-law Tony and Hugh Rodham -- all of whom were caught up in the pardon-gate controversy.

None of them has been seen much (or at all) during Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, not without good reason. I don't want to be too harsh, but let's just say they all firmly seem to fall into the Bill Carter mold of presidential siblings.

The reason I bring them up is because according to Bill and Hillary's just-released tax returns from 2000-2006, the Clintons paid interest on loans to family members every year from 2001-2006. (The Clintons applied for an extension on their 2007 filing.)

Who were these loans to and how much are they for? Were Roger, Tony and Hugh among the recipients?

Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson politely says that's none of our bee's wax.

more


Think Rezko, whose problems have nothing to do with Obama. For that matter, think about the attacks on Obama's grandmother.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 03:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC