Skip to main content

On Tuesday, Americans in all 50 states will rally in front of schools, libraries, fire stations, hospitals, and parks to protest the rising tide of austerity gripping all levels of our government. There's a rally near you—sign up here to attend.

Many of the structures that long operated as a check against corporate power—campaign finance laws, unions, ACORN, public broadcasting—are being dismantled. As a result, the working and middle classes are being forced to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy, corporate giveaways, wars, and economic crashes caused by Wall Street. Money continues to flow upward, and our already undemocratic level of inequality is worsening.

All is not lost, however. The example of Wisconsin teaches us that when we are fighting for each other, we can put together some amazing grassroots activism. Wisconsin shows we still have the energy to swing public opinion our way, and to extract accountability from the elected officials who are dragging us into plutocracy. From Wisconsin, we can build a new populist movement which, not long from now, will act as an effective counterweight to the forces of austerity.

The rallies on Tuesday are a step in this process—sign up to attend one near you.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, two gripes on this one... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drmah, Cordyc, thomask

    1. Who changed the "share" function on here to some thing that wants to take over my Facebook page? I am not sharing this information with my family and friends when that happens.

    2. Who decided it had to be Tuesday rather than Wednesday, when I have the whole day free and would love to participate? :D Anything going on the day after in northern Illinois?

    "This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it." -- Keith Olbermann

    by allergywoman on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:06:27 PM PDT

    •  The ones in northern IL start at 5:30, does that (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CMYK, DavidW, elwior, allergywoman


      Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

      by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:10:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not unless we want to give up a regular (0+ / 0-)

        commitment at home that starts at 7. And we don't.

        Guess I'm going to have to encourage the husband to go out to the regular Friday protests to make up for it. :) He's protesting for at least three of, working...parents, in a town without a peace/justice/liberal contingent.

        "This is about the human heart, and if that sounds corny, so be it." -- Keith Olbermann

        by allergywoman on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 02:18:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Terrific! It's scheduled for after school. We'll (9+ / 0-)

    be going to the rally in Cincinnati.   Who will stand with and for the teachers, firefighters, nurses, snow plowers, police and all the rest of those who dedicate their lives to taking care of our Civil Society?

    Time to make some signs!  

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:07:53 PM PDT

  •  Thanks Chris, (6+ / 0-)

    my local Dem organizer is not very good. His heart is in the right place, but He often fails to mention meeting times or how to stay on message.

    You do a much better job by providing links.

  •  My mom just got back from wisconsin (9+ / 0-)

    and she was truly hopeful for the first time since the word "hope" was turned into a bitter reminder that we all got fooled again.

    Kudos to all of you who are giving real hope to us out east who are participating in the Wisconsin effort!

    Directing the people powered movie starring Howard Dean and YOU!

    by deantv on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:10:47 PM PDT

  •  Tues afton good cause: Anon BoA leak will have had (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidW, judyms9, JanL, elwior, Gabriel D, Matt Z

    a chance to be ruminated through a full day's news cycle.  

    if it doesn't make the MSM at least we'll have time to prepare pamphlets

    "We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike.” -Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

    by bekosiluvu on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:12:37 PM PDT

  •  I'll go (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DavidW, Hillbilly Dem, elwior, Sychotic1

    I'll be at the one in Uptown Charlotte

    sent e-mail to 2 friends & work on getting more to show up

  •  Just signed up (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eeff, DavidW, Hillbilly Dem, elwior, Sychotic1

    Riverside CA downtown, 430 PM. I'll be wearing orange.

  •  Okay I am in (5+ / 0-)

    Actually I like the time.  This should give people a way to make it even with work.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:27:12 PM PDT

  •  Just wondering what we can do (0+ / 0-)

    Everyone in the U.S. knows we're in dire straights fiscally.

    I know that no one wants for there to be actions taken that will take away anything that is being given to those that absolutely need our taxpayer's help.  But, what can we do other than reduce spending on exhorbant spending and taking away from those that abuse the 'system'?  

    What's the answer, y'all.  More and more taxes?  Taxing the rich to the point that they no longer are rich and can't afford to employ the masses?  I mean, who truly doesn't know that the vast majority of those employed in our country are employed by private companies...corporations?  

    It is a dichotomy, really.  No one wants to take away the "help" our government offers to those that deserve it.  But, the "help" has gone too far.  Too many people that should/could be taking care of themselves are depending on the government dole and we just cannot afford this, folks.  I know there are people that need to be helped and there are people that are such dire circumstances that government/taxpayers need to help them.  But, we've been just so lax in making sure those that don't fall into that category get help and take our taxpayer money we're now unable to fund the entitlements for them.  

    It is just a fact.  It's not a republican v. democrat thing anymore.  It is not about conservative versus liberal.  It is just right and wrong.  

    Putting forth examples of how great we are as a nation on some folks that need our help doesn't show how we're being taken advantage of as taxpayers.

    •  afraid not (19+ / 0-)

      Both corporate and high net worth individual taxation are significantly lower than even during the Clinton administration. Most of the current budget deficit can be traced to revenue reduction. The two pointless wars have not helped either.

      So don't pin it on Reagan's welfare queens. It is absolutely a partisan ideological power struggle.

      •  It's always nice when teabaggers visit us (12+ / 0-)

        Obviously this is a tea party type making the comments above.  

        The simple truth is that you can't grow an economy via cutting.  Never has worked and never will work.  

        We need to raise revenues through a combination of taxation and creation of better paying jobs.

        "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

        by noofsh on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:44:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Show us that creates jobs (0+ / 0-)

          More taxes creates jobs.

          Who in the world thinks that is true?  

          The biggest joke of all is that people actually believe that when someone has a belief against liberal thought he/she is automatically a "teapartier".  

          It would be like me saying that since you're for more taxes you are a socialist or a Marxist.  I know you aren't either...and won't accuse you of being that.  Save your political rhetoric/talking points for some other venue.

          Our country is in dire straights.  We need to cut spending and we need to also get the IRS to change its tax structure and, in my view, we need to STOP the giveaways to the oil companies and other industries and corporations that aren't in need of any kind of "incentives" and so forth.

          The LAST thing we need to do is to discourage our employers/the rich, as you call the, by taxing them more and more.  That, my friend, isn't going to 'create" jobs city, no state and most certainly not in our country overall.

          If you think so, you're sadly mistaken.

          •  dire straits is when rickshaw Republicans (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JanL, elwior, ratcityreprobate, Matt Z

            want a free bonus ride on the red TARPit.
            SoBeIt USA is creepy.

            The idle silver spoon rich don't give us industry.   Paris Hilton give me a job.  Think about it.  Exactly what job is Paris Hilton gonna give you.

          •  I reject the narrative that less taxes create jobs (6+ / 0-)

            Where is the logic in that? Somehow we give more money to the rich people, then they will spend the money by hiring more people. If we tax them more, they will hire less?

            Employers hire people to increase the companies' bottom line. If they see business opportunities and need people to get the work done, they will hire them. If the companies don't expect increase in businesses, then they don't hire them. Hiring people is not a form welfare, and businesses don't need to be "subsidized" via tax cuts to hire people.

            What I know is if we were to slash government services people will get laid off. What do you think the net job gain will be if we were to cut government spending $1 billion and use that to cut corporate tax. Is giving rich people $1 billion suddenly make them see business opportunity somewhere so they could hire more people? What I see by giving $1 billion is basically increase their profits and make the stock prices higher on Wall Street.

          •  FYI (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, bkamr, Massman, Matt Z, Sychotic1

            when the top marginal rates are above 50%, and the loopholes are closed so they can't shuffle it to the Cayman Islands, the top earners invest their income in their businesses, rather than using their income in speculation and other things that make up the "casino economy". It's historical truth.

            liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

            by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:21:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  There's no data to support that (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              since it has never happened in this county.

              During the Eisenhower years, there were so many loopholes almost nobody paid the top rates on much income.  A lot of them still existed until the Tax Reform Act of 1986.  

              The highest effective individual federal income tax rates on the top 1% (according to the CBO) was during the end of the Clinton years.  (And the right points to the cause and effect of the Recession of the early 2000's, but that was primarily caused by the bursting of the dot-com bubble, which is also what helped to fuel the growth before that. )

              That's a nice idea about those top rates discouraging the "casino" mentality, but there's (as far as I know) no data to back up that notion.  If you have some, I'd love to see it, since I haven't seen any non-partisan study to demonstrate that.  

              •  There most certainly is (4+ / 0-)

                data to back it up:


                It doesn't matter if it's Thom Hartmann's site. The data he linked to is from the IRS, census data, and

                At the very least it puts the lie to the idea that lower taxes increases productivity and creates jobs.

                liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:41:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's kind of laugable (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  There are two obvious huge problems with that, problems that are obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of tax policy.

                  First, he talks about "top marginal rates."  Top marginal rates are absolutely meaningless -- let me say that again, meaningless -- without consideration of the income taxed at that rate, including the deductions, exemptions, shelters, etc.  That's why the top 1% paid MORE under Clinton's top marginal rate of 39.6% than they did under Carter's top marginal rate of 70%.  You need to look at EFFECTIVE federal income tax rates -- the CBO data on that is the second chart here.   Yep, that's what it says -- the rich paid MORE under Clinton even the the top marginal rate was a little more than half of what it was under Carter.  Top marginal rates don't mean squat.  Hartmann knows that.  

                  Second, he talks about "correlation."  Again, correlation is meaningless.  Correlation does not mean causation.  Correlation just means that something happened at the same time.  Causation is what matters -- and causation in economics is very very difficult to prove, because you can't control for variables.  Hey, the Beatles happened at the same time as the huge growth in GDP during the 60's.  There's definitely "correlation" there.  Did the Beatles CAUSE that huge growth in GDP?  I seriously doubt it.  

                  Anybody who uses "top marginal rates" to show a "correlation" either (1) doesn't understand basic tax policy or (2) does understand basic tax policy and is intentionally misleading.  

                  •  There isn't just one example (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    When it happens again and again and again, there's a little more than coincidence and correlation without evidence of any causation.

                    It happened in the 20s/30s. Top marginal rates may not be what people actually pay, but it would mean they pay more than they do now.

                    Any slowdown during the Carter years was due to an energy crisis and inflation, not due to too high taxes.

                    Don't just look at the United States. Look at other developed countries such as Denmark.

                    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                    by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:15:58 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Again, data would be nice (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      rather than simply making assertions without any support.  

                      Top marginal rates in the 20's were high on income over what would amount to well over $10 million a year in today's dollars -- nothing like the $250,000 a year people are talking about now for the top rates.   And without consideration of exemptions, shelters, deductions, and where that top marginal rate started, you absolutely cannot say "they pay more than they do now."  You just don't know.  Obviously, if we had the 1920's system today (adjusted for inflation), everybody under around $10 million a year would pay nada.  Zilch. Is that what you are supporting?  (I'm certainly not.)  So, no, you can't say "they would pay more than they do now" under a 1920's system, even without considering what taxable income those rates applied to even for multimillionaires.    

                      And if you believe that correlation equals causation, then you must believe the Kennedy Tax Cuts (so named because he pushed for them even though they were passed in 1964 after his death) caused the biggest growth we've had in modern history in the 1960's.  That's the "correlation" conservatives point to.  Do you think those tax cuts caused that huge economic growth?    

                      The problem with correlation is that both the right and the left can find instances where correlation of the thing they support matched with a good economy, and correlation of the thing they don't like matched a bad economy.  (Conservatives say the high Clinton tax rate cause the recession in the early 2000's, for example).    

                      Correlation is just as meaningless as top marginal rates.  They are both easy to talk about, but don't mean squat without more data.  

                      •  The difference is that (0+ / 0-)

                        when Ike departed the top marginal rate was over 90%. Kennedy whittled it down into the 70s. He didn't take it down anywhere close to 35%.

                        Again, top marginal rates may not be what the top earners actually pay, but the clear problem with federal finances is in revenue, not in non-defense spending.

                        liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                        by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:53:02 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  But the data shows (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          that the top 1% paid MORE under a rate of 39.6% than they did under that 70% top rate.  That's the CBO data in the link I gave you.  

                          Have you abandoned the notion that very high top marginal rates "cause" people to invest more?  It seems so.  While it's a popular notion around here, I've never found any solid data to back it up.  (There are lots of popular notions around here that just aren't true when you look at them, but that's for another day.)

                          As for what we are going to have to do about the country's deficit/debt problem, please look at my comment below -- "people need to be realistic."  Reinstating the Clinton tax rates on the top on two-income households of $250,000 and above raises only about $70 billion a year.  That's negligible when we have a $1.5 trillion annual budget.  

                          Tax rates on the rich are going to go up.  But there aren't enough rich people to bring the deficit down to what Obama calls "sustainable levels."

                          Any realistic view of the numbers leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are going to have to do a combination of broad-based tax increases (on the rich, on corporations, and some on everybody else as well) AND spending cuts -- on defense, but also in other areas.  

                          If you are realistic, the numbers don't add up any other way.  

                          •  OK coffee (0+ / 0-)

                            what areas do you suggest should be cut? You ask me for data, I ask you for specifics.

                            Do you see any part of the social safety net as "nice things to have" but that we need to consider sacrificing? If so, please offer specifics.

                            Sorry. I don't buy the idea that there aren't enough wealthy to put a dent in our deficit - especially when more than a few of the largest corporations pay ZERO income taxes.

                            Don't you think that declining wages for middle and lower class Americans may have a little something to do with revenue shortfalls too? As well as the unemployment/underemployment problem?

                            The middle and lower classes have sacrificed plenty at the federal as well as at state and local levels. Many of the cuts that are already being proposed would cost a lot of jobs but also leave a lot of desperate people in a lurch.

                            liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

                            by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 06:25:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I gave some specifics in my post below (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            I think you can raise a few hundred billion a year -- maybe $200 billion ($70 billion Clinton rates on incomes over $250,000, another $30 billion on millionaire surtax, and $100 billion increase in corporation revenue) realistically.  (And that corporation increase is extremely optimistic -- more likely less than half that is realistic.) You'll probably have to get another $100 -- $200 billion from some kind of tax that is more broad-based.  

                            I can't imagine any scenario (looking at the numbers) that you are going to do more than $500 billion a year on the revenue side, and that's with big increases not only on the rich and corporations, but also some kind of broad-based revenue increase.  It would by far be the biggest tax increase in history -- and that's by a LOT.  (Repeal of the Clinton tax cuts on everybody, which includes raising taxes on low - income earners and reducing the EITC -- is only around $370 billion a year, if I remember correctly, and before last December's deal, that increase in revenue of $370 billion was going to be "the biggest tax increase in history.")

                            Then, you can downsize the military operations by another $100 or $200 billion, tops.   (Our military budget is now around $700  billion total, if I remember correctly.) Again, that's very deep cuts, as far as government spending goes - closing bases, layoffs, all that kind of thing.  There's no way this President or this Congress is going to completely gut Defense.  Not. gonna. happen.  Cuts, yes.  Gutting, no.    

                            Our annual deficit is over $1.5 trillion.  You've got to find another several hundred billion  a year somewhere.  

          •  Where was all the job creation for the last (6+ / 0-)

            ten years when the wealthy had wetdream tax cuts.  When we're done scratching our heads about that we'll take a look at the number of jobs that went overseas.  The megarich are not creating jobs.  It's small businesses like our small grocer on the corner who is selling more now that people are eating at home and who has hired six new employees to keep up with demand.  The Chinese and South Koreans are already way down the road from us on alternative energy, the field in which we could reasonably expect to have middle class jobs develop.  We may not catch up.  Ongoing tax breaks will for the wealthy will suck the marrow out of the backbone of this country and we'll be unable to stand.  Keep the local economies going if we really want to help maintain a scaled back but somewhat familiar life.

          •  Are you kidding? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z, Sychotic1

            Did you really mean to say this at DKos:


            Save your political rhetoric/talking points for some other venue.

               BTW, not everyone who opposes liberal thought is a "teapartier" or teabagger, if you will.
               Although it does seem that our tea-loving friends tend to have a problem with spelling, if you know what I mean....independantman!

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:44:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I do. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Massman, gneissgirl, Sychotic1

            Two examples:
            1)  In my own state, geometry has just been cut from my children's district's curriculum.  Raising taxes would provide funding for teachers to teach this subject.  I think its worth it.
            There are alternatives to drowning government.

            2) I, myself, am a molecular biologist funded by a VA Merit Review grant (in other words, through federal tax dollars).  My grant = 150,000 per year.  It funds my salary, two technician's salaries, and a post-doc's salary, as well as our research supplies.  Taxes support our research.  Taxes allow our jobs to exist.  More funding would allow me to hire more post-docs and techs.  Taxes would create more jobs.  We're researching treatments for diabetes and renal failure; our results are highly promising, and I think they are well worth the 150,000/year in taxes that has allowed our discoveries.  BTW, each of us pays state and federal income taxes on our taxpayer funded incomes.  

            "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

            by middleagedhousewife on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:11:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It can't be done with spending cuts alone (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            88kathy, gneissgirl, Sychotic1

            there has to be a combination of spending cuts and raising taxes on the upper incomes. At the very least, the tax rates on the rich should go back to Clinton era levels. There are plenty of other areas we can cut. It doesn't have hit those who are most needy.

            Re-read the comment above. There is no mention that more taxes create better jobs. What IS being said is that raising taxes will raise revenue. Creating better paying jobs and getting people back top work will raise revenue.

            This nation is hardly in dire straits. Our debt to GDP was much higher in WWII. And the rich were taxed at a 90% rate under Eisenhower. We seem to have done just fine since then.

            If giving the rich or employers as you refer to them (I prefer corporate masters), then why have more jobs been created under Obama than Bush?

          •  The process is as follows... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Increase taxes on a few
            Increase state and federal revenue
            Decrease state and national deficits
            Reduce Debt
            Reduce the cost of capital
            Increase investment
            Increase jobs

            It's a matter of balance and equity.

            It also depends on adhering to the rule of law.

            Your methods have been tried and failed.

          •  It is not rich people that employ people (0+ / 0-)

            it is demand for products that employ people.  Unless you think that all of us can be hairdressers, poolboys and masseusses for the rich.

            If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much stupid costs

            by Sychotic1 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:13:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan? (0+ / 0-)

        Where did that come from?  Look, we have to take care of our deficits and our debt.  If you think we can continue down the same old path we've been on and just ignore why we're in such fiscal trouble in our country..then you're part of the problem.

        Like I said in my's not a republican or a democratic problem.  It's a NATIONAL problem.  ALL of us have to work to rid ourselves of the entitlement abuses and we have to understand that we can only help those that absolutely can't help themselves.  Everyone else has to make do....just like everyone else.

        I don't see that as what we're currently willing to do because it isn't PC and it will cause too much grief for the ner-to-wells and non-achievers in our society.

        •  The wealthy are making do (11+ / 0-)

          just fine.  Funny how they are not asked to participate in the National or State sacrifices.  And please provide data where the wealthy have significantly increased jobs in this country since their cushy tax breaks.

          " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

          by gchaucer2 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:49:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't have to provide data to you (0+ / 0-)

            Take away the "rich" in our country, and the only jobs we'll have is jobs the government "give" us.  We've seen too many countries that have tried that...and they've failed throughout the years.

            I'm a capitalist.  I want to succeed.  I want to become rich in America.  I have that opportunity.  If I do gain wealth, I'm most certainly gonna need to get people to work for me.  That's our system.  It's how it works in America.  Now....if we want to change that and have government decide who can have wealth and how much wealth.....then we're talking about something very different.

            That what you want?

            •  Hilarious! (12+ / 0-)

              Who is trying to "take away the 'rich'"?  Without data, I ignore generalizations that pop out of people's heads, influenced by FOX.

              " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

              by gchaucer2 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:09:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It is not that if you gain wealth you hire people (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              middleagedhousewife, gneissgirl

              it is that if you see a business prospect you need to hire people to get the work done and earn money. Hiring people is not a form of welfare and it is not something employers do just to take people off unemployment. Employees bring value to the business. If you are a movie producer you can't make a movie without hiring actors and a bunch of behind the scene crews. If you run a restaurant you can't run it without waiting and kitchen staff. You don't hire people just because you're rich, and you don't need to be rich to hire people.

              If you ask the government for a tax cut (by arguing that you'll create jobs with the cut), isn't it another form of government subsidy? How can the government be sure that you'll use the tax cut to hire people only?

            •  Oh, Jeez! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

              by elwior on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:47:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Oh good grief. You have bought the bunk haven't (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kck, RockyMtnLib, Matt Z

              you?  They took the free trade opps,  tax cuts, and tax shelters and built factories outside the US.  They are GLOBAL, now.  They want you in a race for the bottom with the lowest paid in the world.

              400 people now own 50% of the total wealth of the US.  That is NOT how it has ever worked in this country, even under the Robber Barons.  It's called plutocracy when economic wealth gets so consolidated that they can effectively control the government.

              They are using divide and conquer where they use people like you to fight the other workers for the crumbs.  The last vesitge of people power we have are the labor unions and that's why they are demonizing them and scapegoating teachers.  Teachers as "thugs?"  Oh, please.

              Yeah, it's the greedy teachers with 60-70% of their $43,000 salaries after 27 that are breaking the bank, not the banksters and military profiteers who have been raking in billions over the last decade with their no-compete contracts.

              I actually want you to have a fair chance to make it in this country, but take a look around you.  What chance does a local store have against Walmart, anymore.  Good luck to you, but if you don't make it, don't feel too bad.  They have NO interest in sharing their pie with you, and they have no qualms about fighting unfairly.

              The only power the people had to counter balance corporate economic power was a democratic government, but the Tea Party just got punked and used to hand them even that.  

              Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

              by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:29:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Take it from a wealthy capitalist (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              Fair taxes and equitable, sustainable, responsible federal spending will never "take away the rich" and it will make the country better for everyone.

              We are a rich country. The US is abundant with money, methods, resources, and technology to go around.  We simply need the virtue and will to confidently stop thinking like 19'th century England and start being 21'st century Americans.

              Share prosperity with the weak and sacrifice with the strong and plan for the down times. Build up and centralize the social contract for captive social markets and that will free globalized industry to innovate and exploit emerging markets and the whole country moves forward together. It's not an option to progress while abandoning some for others to have super degrees of more.

              If this doesn't work then capitalism is obsolete and must be discarded.

            •  Oh My God (0+ / 0-)

              You are so uninformed and full of half-thought out talking points that I am likely wasting my time even chatting with you.

              Rich people do not hire people.  Demand for products and services hires people.  If all the fucking rich people left, we might might actually be better off in the long run because their money isn't built off of making things any more, it is built of speculating on our hard earned dollars and stealing them from us.

              Rich people dreamed up the S&L scandal, the Wallstreet Debacle, the Foreclosure Crisis, the Enron Event.  What do all of these have in common?  We got screwed and someone forgot the KY

              I find it laughable that you are talking austerity NOW after Republicans went and gave away the bank with their wars and their too big to fail and their tax cuts for the rich.

              If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much stupid costs

              by Sychotic1 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:19:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  The old tired (7+ / 0-)

          "Welfare queens are making us broke" pablum. You're just dressing it up differently. And your diatribe against "non-achievers" is a slap to people who are struggling due to job loss - and is close to HRable IMO.

          liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

          by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:05:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  More "welfare queens" rhetoric (0+ / 0-)

            Must be something gone out on email as talking points, me thinks.

            •  We didn't invent the term (4+ / 0-)

              Reagan did, and many of his followers to this day refer to it, or some version of it.

              Your referring to people who "abuse the system" as if it's a huge national epidemic that's crippling our economy, when in reality it's a small minority of those on public assistance, is another example, even though you aren't using the exact term "welfare queen".

              liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

              by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:23:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Someone posted some shit like that on my (0+ / 0-)

              facebook and I slapped them down so hard that I got a spate of "likes" bigger than I have ever gotten before.
              (and my facebook friends are not particularly liberal)

              If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much stupid costs

              by Sychotic1 on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 05:20:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Could you explain this one for me: (0+ / 0-)
          Everyone else has to make do....just like everyone else.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:47:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's fiscally irresponsible to establish (0+ / 0-)

          ... capricious budget goals that milk profits for a few at the top and cripple the enterprise to only get foreclosed leaving the shareholders and the community broke.

          You're not likely to get wealthy without coherent values and depth of the principles involved.

          Joining the 400 super-rich families are not a reasonable goal, kind of like a high schooler yearning to be a NBA champ. But to prosper and build wealth for a comfortable life, enough to add livelihoods for others, comes with building character and the shallow bromides you're dealing here are not promising.  

      •  What is a "welfare queen"? (0+ / 0-)

        Seen that posted three times now on DailyKOS.

        What is that relating to?

        •  Reagan repeatedly told a myth about black (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RockyMtnLib, Matt Z, Sychotic1

          women in caddys pulling up to the welfare office to get their checks, and got people mad at those lazy black people who were living high on the hog while real Americans were working so hard ... It was divide and conquer and it worked.

          The Republicans have been using it ever since to stir up resentments between different groups of Americans, so we go to war with each other while the rich keep consolidating the wealth in this country for themselves.

          It was immigrants just recently.

          Now, it's teachers and public sector unions.  

          If they can get us to fight with each other for crumbs, they can keep the poor and middle class from noticing what they are doing to the environment etc.  

          And, if we ever do say, "Hey, wait a minute, you guys on top need to share in the pain too."  Then, they threaten to not make jobs for us, and trot out another way for us to focus on envying each other.

          Oh, and if we start yelling, "Hey, this isn't playing fair!" They scream class warfare and socialism.  We actually have a mixed economy, a mix of socialism and capitalism.  The country has worked best when we had a balance and the income inequality was far less -- when we used to have a strong middle class.

          Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

          by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:43:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  It's the Bush tax cuts, the two wars, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DavidW, Matt Z, Sychotic1

        the (very foolish and inefficient) Dept. of Homeland Security, along with the equally foolish "War on Terrah."

          Add to that big increases in Defense spending, a very poorly done increase in Medicare spending (much of it going to Insurance Companies), and the financial meltdown caused by poor policy and ever decreasing regulation of the finance industry, and voila!
          Deficits as far as the eye can see.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:36:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are making invalid statements (10+ / 0-)
      Taxing the rich to the point that they no longer are rich and can't afford to employ the masses?

      This country has one of the lowest tax rates in the industrialized world.  You could triple the taxes on the top and it still wouldn't be anywhere as large as many industrialized nations.

      Many corporations in fact pay zero taxes because of loopholes in the tax code.

      Everyone in the U.S. knows we're in dire straights fiscally.

      Everyone knows that we spend way too much on the military.  How do you justify spending more than the entire world combined?  How about cutting some of that spending?

      I mean, who truly doesn't know that the vast majority of those employed in our country are employed by private companies...corporations?  

      You are way off here.  Check the employment statistics.  This hasn't been true for a long time.  Most employees work for small business.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:42:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Um, most small businesses (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are "private companies . . . corporations."  

        The vast majority (by number) of corporations in this country are small businesses, or closely-held corporations. Relatively few (in number) are the huge ones like Wal-Mart.

        You might want to be a bit more accurate.  Just saying.  

    •  Inde, The problem is not that there a people who (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karl Rover, JanL, elwior, Sychotic1

      do not want to work, it is the lack of work.

      The productivity of American workers has been on a steep incline since 1970, while pay for those workers has been flat. Mean while Corps. are sitting on record piles of cash.

      There are many good charts here to show what I am talking about, and I am sure if You check back later You will see them.

    •  Here's a few ideas... (14+ / 0-)

      1. Close half of the over 737 US military installations world-wide
      2. Roll back the Bush tax cuts for the richest 1% of Americans.
      3. Implement a Medicare for All option.
      4. Strengthen Social Security
      5. Decouple health insurance from employment
      6. Bring all US troops home from Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Europe.
      7. Means test aid to farmers and eliminate subsidies for incomes over $250k
      8. Collect all overdue US land and sea leases
      9. End subsidies to oil companies
      10. Break up the TBTF banks reducing risk and uncertainty of investments and see the unemployment number go down and tax revenue go up

      After these are implemented then the public can get a real picture of fiscal needs and the next Congress can assess actions.

      •  Are you running for office? If so, I'll move (0+ / 0-)

        to your district and vote for you.

        Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

        by bkamr on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:44:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did you really think (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karl Rover, JanL, elwior, Matt Z, Sychotic1

      you were going to present these points as if we haven't seen them before?

      liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

      by RockyMtnLib on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:03:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bonus me, Austerity you. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hillbilly Dem, bkamr, Matt Z, Sychotic1

      Dodge taxes me.  Fiscal dire straits you.

      GOP sees the bodies floating in New Orleans, and says they should have taken swimming lessons.  I hate the SoBeIt GOP USA.

  •  Signed up (7+ / 0-)

    for Seattle!

    I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

    by JustJennifer on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:33:17 PM PDT

  •  Yes we can (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmartini, sirclown, elwior, bkamr, Matt Z

    this gives me hope. This is exactly what we need to do

  •  A little worried these are too dispersed (0+ / 0-)

    instead of more concentrated- say 1 big one each major city- to more effectively attract media attention a la Madison.

  •  Seattle Belltown Firehouse (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, elwior, Hillbilly Dem

    Sent this to Seattle friends, plus link to the 13 other Washington events this Tuesday.

    Solidarity at the Firehouse, Belltown, 4th & Bell, Seattle
    Host:    Sandra V., MoveOn member
    When:   Tuesday, Mar. 15, at 5:30 PM
    What:   Republican attacks on workers and public programs are escalating in Wisconsin and in Washington, D.C. Come hear local speakers impacted by Republican attacks.
    What:  Wear Wisconsin red and white.

    Can't come?  Read about farmers, firefighters, teachers, parents, police, union & non-union workers, and children-speakers in solidarity in Madison yesterday.

    We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. - Chalmers Johnson

    by mrobinson on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:47:59 PM PDT

  •  There's nothing wrong with "austerity" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    when you are broke.  Nothing.

    If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

    by SpamNunn on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:48:45 PM PDT

    •  How many people have to die (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Karl Rover, judyms9, Matt Z, Sychotic1

      in an "austerity program" before Your okay with increasing taxes on the top 10%?

      I have been poor as a child, gone to bed hungry. I do not wish that on any child in this country just so the Calvinist can feel that God loves them more.

    •  I don't buy the broke meme (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, RockyMtnLib, Matt Z

      The USA obviously has assets far greater than its debts. Sure, we've borrowed a shitload, mostly to benefit a few. But the country is very far from bankruptcy.

      P.S. Maybe we could sell our military bases to the countries where they're located. I bet they'd love to stop making us broke.

      •  The U.S. is "broke" if you look (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SpamNunn, VClib

        at the future unfunded liabilities, i.e., the projected amount owed to Medicare and to Social Security.  That's was estimated around $58 trillion a couple of years ago.  The federal government is not going to generate enough revenue to meet those future liabilities.  When interest rates go up (they won't stay where they are forever), and it costs more to borrow, that number will look worse.

        Unfunded pension liabilities have caused more than one private business to go bankrupt.  If you applied that standard to the federal government, it is "broke."  (Those assets you mention are not exactly "liquid" assets.)

        Of course, the federal government is different in that it can, essentially, print money.  But that typically increases inflation, which is horrendous for the middle and lower income earners.  

        •  you lost me at SSecurity (0+ / 0-)

          it's funded now, and will be in the future if the plutocrats don't kill it. I don't buy this fake crisis.

          •  Oh, come on. Read what I said. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SpamNunn, VClib

            Yes, Social Security is funded with "treasuries" from the general fund.  In other words, the general fund owes the SS system a whole bunch of money.  If the general fund can meet its obligations to pay off that debt, yes, the SS system is solvent.   But right now, what is has is a bunch of IOU's from the general fund.  If the U.S. is "good for it," Social Security is solvent.

            The problem is, the general fund doesn't have the money to pay that SS obligation in addition to its other obligations (mostly Medicare).   What the general fund is going to have to pay to the Medicare system is much more than what it's going to have to pay to the SS system.  But starting real soon (depending on how you count it) the general fund is going to have to start paying off the "debt" to SS.  

            So, SS (assuming that the United States is good on its outstanding debt obligations) is solvent.  The United States general fund (if you count its unfunded liabilities, which includes its liability to the SS system) is not so much.  

            I never said SS was insolvent -- assuming the U.S. can meet its debt obligations, SS is solvent.  It's the U.S. general fund -- which doesn't have the money to pay SS what SS is "owed" on top of all of its other debts -- that is not solvent.  

            •  those "treasuries" (0+ / 0-)

              are just as good as any other debt the US has. What is happening is a bald-faced attempt by the plutocrats to not pay on those "treasuries" by the necessary income and corporate taxes. The problem is that the rich have strangled revenues since Reagan out of pure greed, hubris and evil.

              •  The problem is that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                if you add up everything that the general fund owes in the upcoming decades -- including the  IOU's that the general fund owes to Social Security -- the U.S. general fund doesn't have the revenue to pay it all.  Not even close.  That makes the general fund "broke."  

                Social Security is not "broke" in the accounting sense. SS is the creditor.   It is the general fund, the debtor, that is broke.

        •  I knew I liked you (0+ / 0-)

          If you lose your disc or fail to follow commands, you will be subject to immediate de-resolution. That will be all.

          by SpamNunn on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:32:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  pensions (0+ / 0-)

          The pensions "crisis" is mostly a fraud.

          The shortfalls facing most state and local pension funds have been seriously misrepresented in public debates. The major cause of these shortfalls has not been inadequate contributions by state governments, but rather the plunge in the stock market following the collapse of the housing bubble. Given the low PE ratios in the stock market, pension fund assumptions on the future rate of return on their assets are consistent with most projections of economic growth and past experience.
          Furthermore, when expressed relative to the size of their economies, most states are facing shortfalls that appear easily manageable.

          There are some real problems of pension fraud which should be dealt with.
  •  Why Tuesday (0+ / 0-)

    Jeebus. I work on Tuesday, as do a lot of folks.

    Do protests get more news coverage during the week?

    ~a little change goes a long way~

    by missliberties on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 03:58:12 PM PDT

  •  Austerity is my bonus, always plenty of austerity (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem, elwior

    for me.

  •  Atlanta Defend the Dream (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, elwior

    5:30 pm at the Capital
    Wear Wisconsin red and white

    See you there!

    It's not just a zip code, it's an attitude.

    by sboucher on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:17:00 PM PDT

  •  "This is a battle we need to win." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, elwior, Matt Z

    We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. - Chalmers Johnson

    by mrobinson on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:17:58 PM PDT

  •  One big kudos, three small gripes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hillbilly Dem

    Okay, it's about time people take to the streets to protest spending cuts.

    1. Protest "spending cuts", not "austerity". Austerity means nothing in and of itself. Cuts mean you're going to lose something.
    2. ACORN is not a traditional establishment. They were active fairly recently, and while they helped tremendously, their role could easily be picked up by another organization.
    3. The CPB only receives 1-2% of its funding from the Federal government. It is possible for it to exist without it.

  •  Family farmers & labor unions together (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, One bite at a time

    Wisconsin Protests:Tony Schultz, Speaks up for farmers, March 12, 2011

    We are on the brink of losing our democracy for the sake of keeping our empire. - Chalmers Johnson

    by mrobinson on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:28:53 PM PDT

  •  People need to be realistic (0+ / 0-)

    around here.  There's going to be a combination of revenue raising and spending cuts.  There's no way around it.  The numbers don't add up any other way.

    For example, reversing the Bush tax cuts on families over $250,000, putting them back to the Clinton years, which is the highest effective federal income tax rate this group has ever paid according to the CBO (look at the 2nd chart on that page) raises only $70 billion a year.  That's it.  There just aren't that many households with two earners each  making, say, $150,000 or more a year.  (Frankly, I don't put households of $250,000 as "the rich" in the same category as hedge fund managers, and CEO's.)

    We have a $1.5 trillion annual deficit.  $70 billion doesn't even begin to do it.  It's almost negligible.  

    Sure, you can put an additional, say 10% on households over $1 million.  There just aren't enoughof those around to raise the kind of money that is needed to bring the deficit down to what the Obama administration calls "sustainable levels."  Here's the facts -- the top 1%, which starts at, for example, a two-income household of about $380,000, (which is working professionals and small business owners, not hedge fund managers) all together have $1.7 trillion in annual income and pay almost $400 billion a year in federal individual income taxes.  Let's say you get 25% more from this group -- a very large income tax increase, that would absolutely be felt keenly by that group (and politically it will never happen) -- that's only an additional $100 billion a year.    And it's even less if you are talking about the really rich, like hedge fund managers and CEO's of major corporations.  There just aren't enough of them around.  

    Of course, of course, there are going to have to be increases in revenue.  But anyone who pretends that all that has to happen is "tax the rich" is just delusional.  And yes, defense will be cut -- but anybody who thinks defense will be cut more than, say, 20% (again, a huge cut in the scheme of things) is again delusional.  This President, and this Congress, is not going to eliminate defense spending.  And this President is just not going to immediately shut down all overseas operations.  

    What is going to happen is a combination of significant tax increases (more on the rich, but some on everyone else as well) AND significant spending cuts including defense, but also elsewhere.  

    •  Have you seen this? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z


      The Greatest Transfer of Wealth in History and we want our money back.

      •  That SUPPORTS what I am saying (0+ / 0-)

        All of those tax breaks add up to less than $100 billion a year.  Far less.  

        Our annual deficit is over $1.5 trillion a year.  $100 billion doesn't make a dent, much less bring it down to what the Obama administration calls "sustainable levels."  

        We absolutely, absolutely are going to have to increase revenue, by taxing the rich more, by increasing the revenue from the corporation income tax, and (most likely) by raising taxes on everybody else some as well.  Even if we do that, we are ALSO going to have to cut spending to bring the deficit down to those "sustainable" levels.  

        Any reasonable person knows it is going to have to be a combination of all of that.  

        •  What about the greatest transfer of wealth (0+ / 0-)

          that just happened?

          •  What about it? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Yes, I know the statistics.  I'm talking about what's going to be necessary for the federal government to bring the deficit down to what the Obama administration calls "acceptable levels."

            There's going to be an increase in taxes on the rich.  But increases on two-income families of $250,000 and more -- well off, certainly, but not the uber rich like hedge fund managers and CEO's -- back to the highest levels that income group has ever paid (the Clinton rates) (see the CBO data in my other post) raises only $70 billion.  A millionaire's surtax AND elimination of those oil company tax breaks together is only another $50 billion.  

            We have an annual deficit of $1.5 trillion.  

            Taxes on the rich will go up.  But spending will have to be cut as well.  

            •  Wouldn't it come down to acceptable levels (0+ / 0-)

              if TARP was paid back?  Why isn't that being discussed?  Why is that just water under the bridge?  

              I have to think that bringing the deficit down with all the robbers getting a free ride is impossible.  If we do bring it down and have a surplus, they will just rob us again.  I can't get all excited about working hard to bring the deficit down.

              •  The TARP loans to banks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Have been nearly all paid and are likely to be profitable for the US. It's the non bank loans that are the problems. In those companies the feds have effective control and hopefully can minimize the losses to taxpayers. All of the companies who received TARP loans who have returned to profitability have paid off their loans.

                "let's talk about that"

                by VClib on Tue Mar 15, 2011 at 06:47:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Coffeetalk (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Conveniently leaving out any discussion of ending corporate welfare.      

      The point most of us are trying to make it you can't balance the budget on the backs of the freaking have-nots.  The haves are going to need to pay their fair share, and that includes corporations.   And if you go into a discussion about how tax cuts for rich/corporations creates jobs I think you will find that old horse is dead.

      I'd rather die than give you control ~ Trent Reznor

      by JustJennifer on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:20:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am in favor of reforming (0+ / 0-)

        the corporate income tax in the way that the deficit commission suggested -- by eliminating deductions, exemptions, and loopholes, and lowering the overall rate, which would result in more revenue to the federal government, more fairly spread around the corporate world.

        That's got to be in the mix, of course. We collect what -- $300 billion in corporate income taxes? (Most corporations don't pay taxes because most corporations -- the vast, vast, vast, majority of which are small businesses and closely held, like your local mechanic) -- aren't all that profitable.  So, let's say you get another 25% increase in revenue from corporations -- again, that's huge in the tax world, and there's no way you are going to get that much additional revenue.  That's less than $100 billion.  

        Again, remember the annual deficit is now over $1.5 trillion.  

        Yes, we are going to make up some of that $1.5 trillion by increasing revenues.  I've done rough math on huge increases that are never ever going to happen, and I'm only around $500 billion or so in revenue increases.  It is completely, completely unrealistic -- I would call it delusional -- to think that we are going to bring the deficit down to what the Obama calls "sustainable levels" only by increasing revenue.  Delusional.

        We are going to have to raise revenue AND cut spending.  The political fight is going to be over the balance between the two.  But anybody who is serious about bringing the deficit down to "sustainable levels" is going to have to do both.  The numbers just don't add up any other way.  

  •  Any politician who praises austerity (6+ / 0-)

    should be forced to live on minimum wage for a year.

    Founder Math and Statistics Geeks . Statistics for progressives

    by plf515 on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 04:43:50 PM PDT

  •  Looks like a warm front is predicted Tuesday (0+ / 0-)

    ...around these parts, bringing rain, so it could be a soggy hike from the Westerville OH high school to Gov. Kasich's residence in that town... more dramatic perhaps than a sunshine protest.

  •  NW Indiana - Crown Point Courthouse (0+ / 0-)

    On the Square at 6:00 pm!

    Weather is supposed to be clear and mild.  

    FINALLY, a rally that I can fit into my work schedule!!

    No, I will NOT sit down or shut up...but, thanks for askin'!

    by HoosierDeb on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:23:21 PM PDT

  •  And..? (0+ / 0-)
    ...schools, libraries, fire stations, hospitals, and parks...

    We need to send a few hundred thousand people each to the major news outlets to demand they cover the rallies. Otherwise, they'll go unnoticed.

    It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness - Eleanor Roosevelt

    by Fish in Illinois on Sun Mar 13, 2011 at 05:56:21 PM PDT

  •  Santa Rosa in the house. (0+ / 0-)

    See you there.

  •  Not to shamelessly promote myself here... (0+ / 0-)

    But I did just author a diary about how 10,000 are marching tonight in Annapolis to demonstrate against this state's austerity measures.

  •  Not in ALL 50 states. (0+ / 0-)

    Nevada doesn't have any rallies, at all, taking place.  At least, not within 200 miles of Las Vegas.  Palm Desert, in Cal, is the closest and I'm not going that far due to, ironically, gas prices.  I have to live more austerily.

    "Put on your high-heeled sneakers/it's Party time" - Steely Dan.

    by rainmanjr on Mon Mar 14, 2011 at 10:49:54 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site