Wednesday, January 11, 2006
1. if we don't filibuster this then WE ARE WEAKTo win a national election you have to get a large percentage of the independents, who are at least 10 times the people voting Green or Nader. PollingReport shows several different recent polls, and on all of them the percentage of people in favor of confirmation for Alito is more than twice the percentage of people against confirmation.
3. What will be gained by a filibuster that we loose?
We can feel macho...but we will have lost, which is a sign of weakness. You pick your battles. The war is won through selections of the battles you wage.
13. The most important battle we have in front of us is this fall, taking back the Congress....I dont want to go into the fall looking like we got our asses kicked by the right wing as they gloat over using the nuclear option.
119. You can focus on 2006 BY fillibustering Alito! Doing a fillibuster most of us contend IS the way to help us get back power in 2006. It will show to the people that we are the party that will stand up and do the right thing for the PEOPLE and "Damn the torpedoes"! Those are the kind of candidates that will get people stop voting for the likes of Ralph Nader or the Reform Party and vote for Dems.
The CBS News polll is the most interesting by far. It asks a number of leading questions (resulting in a much higher undecided count), but nothing can obscur the 69% of people who answered "Should Not" to this question "Do you think a Supreme Court judge's personal views should or should not be a factor in his or her decisions on cases before the court?" The American public is more in sympathy with the philosophy of judicial restraint that Roberts and Alito have put forth. In other words, Borkism is now mainstream.
Second, we have the hilarious DU "tax the rich" thread:
1. Let's roll! Bring back the 50's tax progressivity.There are some concerns on the effect that 90% top marginal tax rates would have on the economy, but as a sage poster observes:
5. It worked pretty well from... ... 1936 through 1983. Ever since then, all means of income for the wealthy (and corporations) have been taxed less and less and, combined with greatly excessive defense spending, is the primary reason for the total debt we have now.
8. 91% top marginal income tax rate from 1951-1964
... on incomes above $200,000 (not adjusted for inflation).
32. by creating jobs here some would argue that would be hurting the poor in the other countrys. If we had a strong job market paying honest wages we would be in a much better place to help the poor throughout the world."Imagine all the people...." La, la.... Makes a progressive want to sing, right? Some DU'rs are alarmed (primarily those who make money). Never mind, DU's brilliant economic theorists have a solution - Dhimmitude!
35. I sure am enjoying reading this thread
Its so easy to visualize a wonderful and caring peoples of the world.
15. y'know, there are Democrats who opposed the war who make $200KHow much time do these people spend thinking about seizing assets? Quite a bit, judging about the plethora of names nominated for the "Robbing Hood" list. How appealing to the mainstream!
I think they should be taxed at a higher rate than is currently the law, but just because someone makes a certain income isn't grounds for blaming them for chimpy's torture.
28. Couldn't there be tax breaks for party members who were active members before the tax enactment?
17. Not good enough unless we start seizing some assets.
18. I agree wholeheartedly, we start with the Bush Empire....
We should immediately freeze all of his assets both here and abroad and "donate' them to the National Debt.
19. Whenever I think about seizing assets I always think of Halliburton first. Wonder why THAT is? Any other corporations that need to have their assets "liberated"?
As later posters note, the suggestions would hurt the Dem base badly and the entire thread will be exploited by evil lurking RW freeper monsters. Call me Monster M_O_M.
Back in pre-Columbian and Spanish times in Mexico, people had to pay "tribute" to their lords. Today we call it "taxes." But it was known as tribute back then because people understood that paying taxes is as much a political act as an economic one, because you are "voluntarily" giving up a specific percentage of your assets and property to your sovereign. I pay taxes to the US, not to, say, France.
I think we should go back to calling taxes "tribute," and see what that does to the national debate.
Links to this post: