There is no adjustment for local cost of living in the federal tax code. This is fundamentally unjust. Someone who lives in rural Tennessee and makes $50,000 a year is pretty clearly middle class. Someone in San Fransisco or New York who makes the same salary is barely scraping by. Yet they are in the same tax bracket, and pay identical taxes (minus the deduction for state and local taxes). The former person probably even has a mortgage that they get to deduct, while the latter certainly is renting.
Surely they can adjust by local HUD prices or something?
The problem with the AMT is that inflation has made a reasonable progressive-era law look absurd. The fact that that hasn't been rewritten while a massive number of other reforms have gone through is silly.
Saying that the party isn't far enough to the left is wholly different than saying that the party isn't far enough to the right. The latter strengthens the Republicans' talking points. The latter weakens them. Who takes Kucinich's whining seriously anyway?
campaign. The Dems had all of their communicative candidates muscled out of ht erace through dirty tricks. And he was spying on McGovern through the whole campaign. Using what may have perhaps been the dirtiest election in the history of American politics (aside from perhaps 1876) as your paradigmatic example is a bit troublesome.
But, which massive corporate interests? There are a lot of big corporations that have a big interest in cell phone deregulation (primarily the cell phone manufactures), in addition to the nonprofits that Matt mentions directly. Motorola and Nokia can't be happy about selling severely stripped down and locked versions of their much more sophisticated phones that are commonly available in Europe and Asia. Not to mention the functionality of being able to buy stuff with your phone. I'm sure that vending machine manufacturers would love for that function to be made semi-universal.
what are you talking about? You're offering up a false dichotomy. Do you really want eight more years of another bush clone because the democrats decided to run Kerry/Gore clones over and over again? Give me someone who can actually communicate, who can deliver a clear message that is actually different from the president's.
But you might be right. Perhaps the only way to win is with Ben Nelson. We coudl probably start a Draft Lieberman movement. I think he might have what it takes to communicate our message and finally win.
For Perot, I have trouble believing that a Texas billionaire running primarily on the issue of government spending causing excessive deficits drew equally from the Dems and the Republicans. I know that there were some exit polls that indicated that, but it doesn't really make any logical sense to me.
I'd agree with most of that. It is quite grating that Clinton ended up caving on universal health care and on gays in the military but took a bold stand on NAFTA, but I guess you could argue that he learned his lesson from those first two debacles, and by the time NAFTA came up, he had a better idea about how to handle Washington politics. He certainly respected Congress far more on NAFTA.
I'd like a good communicator over someone who's ideologically perfect. In the absence of a talented politician, at least giving the voters a choice would be nice, is all that I"m saying. And really, I've found MyDD comment threads far more hostile to someone saying anything, ANYTHING bad about Obama or Edwards than I've found it hostile to suggesting a pragmatic approach to politics. The latter seems to me to be what Chris suggests quite often, on the Iraq war funding, for example.
I would rebut that establishment democrats have repeatedly called anyone who professes anything even slightly to the left of Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle to be impractically far to the left, and doomed to alienate the American public. This has gone on endlessly as the country has drifted farther and farther to the right without so much as a rebuttal. What is so wrong about pushing for someone who would move the country forward and lead, rather than another Clinton-type who, at best, would be a caretaker, keeping things from getting any worse?
Making the argument that Clinton was better than Bush and that Gore would have also been better than bush really isn't much of an argument for either. The Republicans get candidates that they really believe in. Why can't we run someone we really believe in, rather than trying to predict what the 'mushy middle' will want? Can't we try that just once? Because we really haven't since RFK was shot.
And I have a feeling that RFK would have beaten the hell out of Nixon.