Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Right-wing Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:40 PM
Original message
Right-wing Koch Industries gave funding to the DLC and served on its Executive Council
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 02:42 PM by Bluebear
via Americablog: This week, Koch Industries is in the news again following an expose by Jane Meyer at the New Yorker titled, "Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama"...

But, here's a key piece of information: the Kochs haven't just given to right-wingers. Back in April of 2001, The American Prospect's Bob Dreyfuss reported that the Kochs also funded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC):

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.


Fitting, isn't it? The entity that tries to undermine the progressive agenda from within the Democratic Party was getting funding from the guys who are trying to destroy the Democratic Party from the outside.

Just a side note: The DLC's long-time CEO, Bruce Reed, is now the Executive Director of the Obama administration's Debt Commission, a.k.a. the Cat Food Commission.

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/koch-industries-gave...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Send it to Rachel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Done.
Great idea :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. The narrative that the powers on the right have influence in the
Democratic Party as well is never discussed. I think some should be made aware. The dialogue in this country is not deep and just deals in partisanship. Glad you did it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. Color me surprised
K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:45 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yep, we have been infiltrated by the right
We've known this since Bill was President, which was why so many who supported Obama are disappointed that he campaigned as the anti Hillary (ie: NOT a DLC'er), then governed like he's the leader of the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
23. Bingo got it in one. I am disappointed that he campaigned as the anti Hillary (ie: NOT a DLC'er),
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 04:47 PM by Vincardog
then governed like he's the leader of the DLC. We don't have to worry about CORPORATIST polices when we have the DLC running the show.





OH yeah
:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #23
29. Pretending to distance himself from the DLC was a brilliant piece of marketing.

The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 09:30 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. Yes indeed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #29
62. But...but...but THAT would mean Obama (gasp!!!!!) was LYING!!!!!!!!!!
:scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :scared: :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #29
91. yes sadly Obama was smart to deny use of his name thus
allowing many of us to believe the messages in his speeches. His team speaks volumes doesn't it?

They don't even care if they lose seats in November because the agenda remains pretty much the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
125. Isn't that called a bait and switch?
Some of us tried to warn people around here during the primaries but few would listen.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. Bruce Reed? Isn't his son a famous motocross champion?
Or something...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. Yea, that's him ...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cliffordu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
58. Yep - I think he had to step away because he
hurt himself, something about bananas, or something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
7. OK, you remaining DLC lovin' DUers --
Seriously, what the hell else is it going to take to convince you the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dog Democrats are not your fucking friends

Christ on a cracker -- we have foxes in the hen house, people!

If you sit there and let them slaughter you, go right ahead, but this Hen is going to kick the ever lovin' shit out of some fox ass until she can kick no more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluesmail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
8. Just like arming both sides of wars wars wars. They fund both sides in our so-called
democracy. HA! Yes, I'm so shocked. Glad this is coming out now rather than after it's too late, although I believe we've been taken over by fascists. I don't know how long because they are super shhhhhh secretive shhhhhh. At least from the late 1800's when some idiot court made an idiot rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. And we wonder why this administration
seems to enjoy dissing the left? Search no more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
10. There You Go
What so many have contended for so long. Plausible deniabilty is no longer plausible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qutzupalotl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
12. Where are our resident DLCers?
Is this embarrassing to them? Is it not news?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
26. I didn't think we had any--anyone who supported the "DLC" either left or got banned after 2004.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #26
71. I wish. They're here and they're here in large numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #12
28. No flaming blue links so far. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:26 AM
Response to Reply #12
68. No embarrassment! Remember, we must
follow a sensible path.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. 2001? What the current make up of the Executive Council?
I can't find any corroboration for this other than various blogs all quoting the Bob Dreyfuss reporting. It could be true, but this is very old information, without any backup. Could even be disinformation. That's been known to have happened, you know...

Why not see if you can corroborate this somehow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. When you plant an apple seed there is no reason to expect a redwood to spring up
Nothing has changed in the DLC dynamic other than ever increasing power and incremental rebranding of the party at large.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. That's real folksy-like, there, but...
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 03:53 PM by MineralMan
what is the current makeup of the Executive Council or Board of Trustees of the DLC? The information is from 2001. I remember 2001. Lots of stuff has happened since then.

Tell me about today. Who's on the Board now? Who are the Trustees, or the Executive Council. Organizations change over time. Many change dramatically. Many others become stagnant and no longer have any influence.

So, don't tell me about what happened 10 years ago. Tell me about now...Is Koch still involved in the DLC? What person from Koch was on the board of trustees or Executive Council in 2001? That information wasn't even in the orginal article.

Old news is not even news at all. Get some current information and bring it back. We'll discuss it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Is there any reason whatsoever to believe there has been a change in philosophy with these folks?
Magical thinking is operative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. So, you don't know who the current trustees or Executive board
is? Never mind then. If you think that organizations do not change over time, I can't help you. Go find out who's running things there now, if there's actually anything to run there any more. Based on what I've seen on the site, the organization is essentially defunct at this time. If you have some actual evidence that is not the case, now is the time to trot it out. Stuff from 2001 is irrelevant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #32
60. Things can change in any direction. Were you under some impression that they had had turned over a
a new leaf?

You're a solid researcher check it out for yourself and you'll likely find the names have changed but its the same old old town and if you really look around you'll see some old faces too. If not you can allay any fears folks might have and put it straight.

All this older article is doing is giving you a peek at the kind of people that we are dealing with.

These aren't our friends, for the most part these are the very scum that are the black holes dragging us down.

You can believe all the organizational Saul on the road to Damascus moments you please but on balance you're hanging on minutia to create a perception barrier.

I wonder if it is for the benefit of the audience or yours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #60
63. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #63
84. Present some evidence of your claim. I'm paid by nobody.
It's easy to make accusations. Lame, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #84
107. It's not a claim, it's a joke.
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 11:45 AM by Jim Sagle
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #107
124. Hard to tell the difference. Sorry if I misunderstood. I didn't
get your joke, apparently. I've had the same thing said to me very seriously. It's not true in either case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shining Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #84
126. Nobody ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:27 AM
Response to Reply #60
66. Just put him on ignore.
He's intentionally wasting your time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #60
83. I don't really have any interest in the DLC, so I'm not going to
spend time doing the research. As far as I can tell by visiting the DLC website, it is out of business. Nothing new posted there for a long time. That's the sign of a defunct, inactive organization. Why should I bother? Let those who keep bringing it up do the research. I'm just saying that condemning an organization for its leadership almost 10 years ago, without investigating its current leadership, is sorta lame.

After all, who'd have thought that Ted Olson would be fighting to overturn Prop. 8 in California? Lots of things have changed since 2001.

So, you can count on me to point out that the data being presented is almost 10 years old, but you'll have to do your own research.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. Thomas Frank wrote about Koch Bros. and DLC in "What's the Matter with Kansas" in 2004!
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 08:44 AM by KoKo
Amazon.com: What's the Matter with Kansas?: How Conservatives Won ...
Published on November 3, 2004 ... What's the matter with Kansas? Thomas Frank has done a good job of explaining it. Take decent God-fearing, ...

---------------------------------------

The Rightwing Koch Brothers Fund the DLC
Submitted by Ted Kahl on February 9, 2006 - 10:44pm

* Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)
* Republicans & Conservatives
* Tom DeLay

Do deep-pocketed "philanthropists" necessarily control the organizations they fund? That has certainly been the contention of those who truck in conspiracy theories about the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations funding liberal and neo-liberal organizations. As for the rightwing, journalists such as Joe Conason and Gene Lyons uncovered that the "vast right wing conspiracy" -- or the New Right network of think tanks, media outlets and pressure groups -- was marshalled under rightwing billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife for his Get-Clinton campaign. Prior to the work of Conason and Lyons, Russ Bellant extensively documented in "The Coors Connection" how the Coors Family, Scaife and other wealthy rightwingers have funded the New Right movement since the early '70's. Among these rightwing benefactors are the Koch brothers. But the Kochs have been working both sides of the fence. As Bill Berkowitz writes, the Koch brothers have also been funding the Democratic Leadership Council.

According to SourceWatch, a project of the Center for Media & Democracy, the brothers are "leading contributors to the Koch family foundations, which supports a network of Conservative organizations and think tanks, including Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Manhattan Institute the Heartland Institute, and the Democratic Leadership Council."

Charles Koch co-founded the Cato Institute in 1977, while David helped launch Citizens for a Sound Economy in 1986.

This is no less stunning than if Scaife or the Coors family were funding the DLC. So do the Kochs just throw money at the DLC -- as long as the Council supports a free-market" (i.e. unrestricted/unregulated corporate power) agenda that the Kochs generally agree with. Or is it more than just that -- does this really buttress what Greens and other disaffected liberals contend -- that the DNC has just become a party of "Republicrats", thanks especially to the DLC? They would say that corporate backers like the rightwing/libertarian Kochs have co-opted the Democratic establishment -- a hostile takeover of (what was once) the opposition.

A Washington Post interview with Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?", touches on this question.

In the concluding chapter of "Kansas," Frank assigns "a large part of the blame for the backlash phenomenon" to the "criminal stupidity" of the Democratic Party in abandoning its commitment to labor and economic justice in pursuit of white-collar votes and corporate contributions. The DLC in particular, he writes, thinks that "to collect the votes and -- more important -- the money of these coveted constituencies," Democrats must stand firm on issues like abortion rights while making "endless concessions on economic issues" such as NAFTA, welfare, privatization and deregulation. The result? Democrats become Tweedledum to the Republicans' Tweedledee on the laissez-faire economy, leaving their opponents free to woo blue-collar voters with backlash issues.

Earlier in the book, Frank takes his anti-DLC rhetoric to an even higher pitch. He notes that generous contributions from the Kansas oil billionaires who run Koch Industries have propped up numerous institutions that champion laissez-faire economics, from the Cato Institute to Citizens for a Sound Economy. And he includes the DLC on his list of Koch-funded "hothouses of the right."


"That's crazy," says Ed Kilgore, the DLC's policy director. "If you can't tell the difference between the DLC and the Republicans, you're not paying attention."

Sure, the DLC took some Koch money, Kilgore says. But it has never advocated abandoning the working class or taking economic issues off the table, and it is proud of Clinton's economic record. "If you have to be self-consciously and vocally anti-business in order to be considered a legitimate Democrat or progressive," he says -- well, sheesh: That would rule out the party's current presidential nominee.

Informed of this return fire, Frank seems uncharacteristically exasperated. But his fundamental stance remains: Bring 'em on.

Has the DLC taken economic issues off the table? "Of course they haven't taken them off the table -- they've just become Republicans."

Does a Democrat have to be anti-business? "I don't think I'd call myself anti-business. . . . I'm critical of the species of capitalism that we're living under today."

Is that Koch money innocent? "Okay, it is Koch that funds right-wing organizations. And it's the Democratic Leadership Council that's been working hard for years to push the Democratic Party to the right. Not to the left. To the right."

But isn't that where the American mainstream has been heading for decades? And hasn't he positioned himself way outside it?

Frank concedes this last point, but nothing more.

The Koch brothers also fund "Triad Management", which was at the center of a Republican money laundering scandal back in 1996. In fact, this was the very first Tom DeLay scandal -- and Koch money was present back then as well. For more on "Triad", here is a PBS report on the affair.

In a related thread, Democrats.com member Bill Harding writes:

The following quotes are from todays NYT Letters to The Editor section. They underscore how Democrats are perceived by a cross-section of readers, under our current centrist DLC, stand-for-nothing leadership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #87
90. I moved to Minnesota in 2004. Now, six years later,
I feel right at home here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #90
93. What does that have to do with the article I posted? Did you bother to read it?
?????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #93
103. The article you provided did not give any new information. It did not say post 2001 that money was
donated. There is a lot of innuendo and very little in the way of fact in what you posted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #103
112. Somebody shoved a rock that started an avalanche -
you are demanding proof that he's still pushing the rock in order to hold him accountable for the avalance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #112
140. Neither the rock nor the avalanche are in evidence. Start with either one. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #140
152. Troll tool #1 - deliberate obtuseness.
The evidence is the documented connection between the Koch brothers and the DLC - which is what this whole fucking thread is about.

The Koch brothers, who have an avowed goal of destroying American progressivism, donated to a nominally 'progressive' organization, which has for the past 30 years contributed to the furthering of RW causes and policies to the expense of progressive policies. At the same time they were creating the Cato Institute, they were on the ground floor of the creation of the DLC.

Two phrases come to mind - There is none so blind as he who will not see, and, A person can fail to see a lot when his payched is dependent upon not seeing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-29-10 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. Thank you
for dealing with whoever "ignored" is :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #93
154. Don't waste your time. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost4words Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #87
94. sweet
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #32
89. What difference does it make? Their PHILOSOPHY hasn't changed one fucking bit.
To pretend that the DLC of today is any different ideologically than the DLC of 2001 is just plain fucking stupid when their actions clearly shows that they are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #89
104. Like what?
I don't concern myself with trumped up boogeymen unless someone proves there is a reason why I should be concerned. In order for someone to do that, they would have to provide me a list of people with verifiable ties to the DLC who are having a direct impact on policy and that impact would have to be negative.

In the case of your comment, Raineyb, you would have to prove this for 2001, and prove it for now and show that the actions are virtually the same. Are you prepared to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. Rahm. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #111
138. Thank you RaleighNCDUer.
Short sweet and to the point. Amazing how easy it is for some to miss the bloody obvious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #138
139. Wow, we need another term that goes beyond "Epic Fail" for you guys. You really have nothing.
Just as I thought
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #139
141. The fact that you can't see because you have your head firmly ensconced in your rectum
does not constitute an epic fail on anyone's part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #141
143. You couldnt even offer the slightest bit of evidence for what you assert to be this massive bogeyman
It's pitiful to watch. It really is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #32
115. I think you are right - the last I ever heard was that Vilsack took over the leadership
from Hillary Clinton (back in either 2006 or 2007). As a member of the Obama administration, he is likely not also head of the DLC. Yet I heard nothing here - in a place obsessed with the DLC on anyone replacing him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #115
142. Yeah, these folks have to have a bogeyman I guess. It's like a reverse diety
I dont think they would know what to do if they couldnt rail against the DLC anymore, so they keep asserting its existence even though its pretty obvious it is all but defunct at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-27-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #115
153. The first rule of fight club...
They are learning the lesson that the C Street house learned - never talk about what you do or who is in your little club, or the people will be all over your ass. Why would ANY political organization not have membership lists available to the public unless they don't want anyone to know who they are? And why would they not want anyone to know who they are if they were on the up-and-up?

This is the fucking DLC, not a local writers' group that meets every other tuesday. It doesn't just fade away for lack of interest, particularly when it has been so successful in placing it members in very powerful positions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
31. B
ravo! :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #16
95. Is Koch still involved in the DLC?
What, have you heard anything about a hostile left-wing takeover of the DLC in the last ten fucking years?

The DLCers have heen distancing themselves from their own organization since the 2004 disaster that showed them for what they are. But that doesn't mean they've changed. Rahm still thinks we are fucking retards.

The DLC was born from a desire to destroy the progressive movement in this country - and now, surprise surprise, we find it is originated and funded by RW fascists. They sucked a lot of people in who were taken in by their disinformation campaign, but as those people recognized it for what it is - Gore, Edwards, among others - the DLC turned its efforts to destroying them.

How about YOU give us some indication that they are NOT what they were ten years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #95
109. No, it doesnt work that way. If you are asserting the existence of a boogeyman, you need to prove it
We dont need to prove that it doesnt exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Wrong - we know it exists. What is postulated is that it is dead.
Where's the fucking body?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #110
118. The DLC exists - but it is not clear it has any influence or that any elected officials
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 12:20 PM by karynnj
are involved. The new President is Ed Gresser, who I have never heard of - even though he was there since April. Harold Ford Jr apparently joined the leadership council.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #118
144. I think that is even in question, see the thread started by Mineralman below.
Its basically gone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #95
116. You are making up conspiracy theories here
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 12:13 PM by karynnj
Gore was as close to a charter member of the DLC as you can get. He was the first person they endorsed to run for President in 1988. They also pushed Bill Clinton, who they endorsed in 1992 to take him as VP. (He was not even on the 10 names that Time magazine speculated about.) He was the Democrat, who pushed other Democrats to accept NAFTA. He was also a very conservative Democrat, who voted the DLC line.

As to Edwards, he likely had no political philosophy when he started to run for the Senate and he voted as a very conservative DLC Democrat. He moved to the left for 2008 for one major reason - there was no room to run to the right of Hillary Clinton.

As to the 2004 disaster, what are you talking about. Given that Bush was at 60 percent in December 2003, the risk was that the Democrats would lose in a landslide that would absolutely demoralize them. Instead, to win, the Republicans needed to cheat in Ohio (not putting adequate voting machines in Democratic areas), use gay marriage as a wedge issue, use the likelihood of picking 2 or more Supreme Court Justices to get the Catholic church to weigh in on their side, and to get the media to assist them in a character assassination that ignored that there was an intact official record 100% on Kerry's side.

The fact is that Kerry is the most liberal nominee the party has fielded for decades - far to the left of Edwards and Gore. Not to mention, you might have noticed the Clinton wing of the party (DLC ?) for the most part sat on its hands - doing just enough that they couldn't be easily blamed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #16
117. You can't find this information for yourself?
Google, unlike the DLC, is not classist; anyone can perform a search.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #117
130. It's not my assertion, is it? It's up to those making the assertion
to demonstrate its truth. I choose not to do the research for them. I have other issues to follow.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #130
131. That's untrue. You brought the current DLC makeup into the conversation.
So I'd say it's your assertion that requires support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. You may say whatever you wish. I will decide what I will do.
Thanks for your interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:17 PM
Response to Reply #135
136. How kind of you to grant me permission. But the facts don't lie:
Here's your opening salvo post in this sub-thread, in which you raise the issue of the current makeup:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Why is it the OP's responsibility to answer your questions? If you have a question about the current makeup of the DLC, why not find out for yourself?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. +1
I too await more information on current so called support for Democrats that comes even close to staring fake political movements with MILLIONS of dollars, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #22
34. I don't even think the DLC is active. I looked on their site, and all
the stuff there is at least a year or more old. Active organizations keep their websites updated. I think this is all bogus. Stuff that happened in 2001 has pretty much no relevance today, and nobody even seems to know who the current directors, trustees, or executive are at the DLC today. The information sure isn't on their site, and a Google search doesn't reveal anything.

So, I am figuring nobody's home at the DLC any longer. It's an organization that may have had some relevance in 2001. Today...not so much, perhaps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
socialist_n_TN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I actually agree with you about the DLC
having no revelence today. Mostly because the country AND the rank and file of the Democratic Party is not as RW as they were back then.

However, I WILL disagree about things in '01 having no revelence. Did all those Koch backed "Democrats" just go away? Did they join the Republican Party? Or did they just call themselves "New Democrats" and push the same agenda as they pushed in '01. Or maybe I should say, they were PAID to push in '01.

The better question to me would be, "Who was DLC in '01 and are they still in positions of authority in the Democratic Party?" Because I seriously doubt if they're pushing a DIFFERENT agenda than they pushed in '01.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #35
38. Well, that sounds like a good research project for you to take on.
I have campaigns to work on. The November election will be here before you know it. If you're interested in the history of the DLC, then, by all means, go research it. Bring back what you find and post it. We'll all be interested.

But, a snapshot of an organization that is no longer particularly active, from almost 10 years ago seems pretty irrelevant to me. I'm not particularly concerned with the board of any organization from 10 years ago. It's almost certain that none who were on the board then are still on the board today...if there even is a board any longer.

If you're asking those questions, then I encourage you to go do the research and find out. I'll look forward to what you find out...after the November election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #38
96. And I'm sure you will do your damnedest to get a dem elected,
and if that dem is historically a DLCer who is sworn to undermining progressivism and advancing predatory capitalism, well that's no nevermind to you. It's the "D" that's important, not what they stand for.

How about you doing your own fucking research and finding out WHO it is you are supporting?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #96
97. Yes, I will.
When the alternative is a Republican, then I'll support the Democrat every time. Every time. Wouldn't you?

I guess I don't understand what you're trying to get at. Do you truly believe that we will be better of if Republicans win elections. Even the worst Democrat usually votes with the Democrats on individual measures. You can count on the Republican to obstruct those measures.

So, yes, I absolutely do support Democrats in every election. Who do you support? Uff da!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #97
100. If I have an enemy with a knife, I want him standing in front of me where
I can see what he's doing. I don't want him covering my back. That is suicidal.

Yes, I would rather see a real republican win than a Democrat who is a covert Republican. The real republican has no power to move my party to the right, while the covert republican does, and the country will not benefit from having two right wing parties.

Stand by progressive principles, even when they might lose, and the pendulum will swing back eventurally. A right wing democrat stops the pendulum.

Why do you think the fascist Kochs have been funding the far right of the democratic party? To force Democrats into the position of having to vote for the lesser of two evils. But every time a RW dem is elected over a non-RW funded progressive dem it weakens the progressive side and strengthens the right. And every strengthening of the right wing of the Dems, strenthens the Repubs.

What is the great strength of the repubs today? They don't have the numbers. They don't have the ideas. What they have is solidarity against the progressives AND non-progressive dems who give them what they want. When we stop electing RW dems, the repubs may win a race or three but then they have no buffer between their bad policies and the public. We didn't regain congress in '06 by putting up candidates who wanted to be republicans. We regained congress because the public was FED UP with republicans. There were few races where a progressive candidate would not have done just as well - and in places, better - as any blue dog, because the public, which cares a lot less about politics than the afficionadoes here, simply wanted the "R"s gone.

Every fucking blue dog and DLCer needs to be primaried. It is the only way to protect the party. And I'll tell you now, if the only "D" on my ballot is a blue dog, I will simply leave that line blank.

I've been a Democrat since before my first vote, and my first vote was for McGovern. But I don't recognise the party anymore. Pro-business, pro-war, anti-labor, anti-education, anti-civil right...wait...I DO recognise it. We are the Republican party of 1964.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
South End Liberal Donating Member (57 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #100
121. Great post. I agree.
I worked to get Obama elected, only to watch him load his administration with DLC types. I figured out then that we'd been duped.

Question is, what do we do now to get control away from the DLC and get the party back on track, supporting the working people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:59 AM
Response to Reply #35
80. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #35
82. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #35
86. Even in 2001, the DLC did not have a membership list that ever seemed to be updated
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 08:41 AM by karynnj
with people leaving. The fact is that in the late 1980s, even Democrats like Gary Hart and Tim Wirth joined. This is when Howard Dean joined the DLC and John Kerry joined the New Democrats, which was part of the DLC in some way- yet both were not favorites of the DLC leadership. Al Gore was the first DLC endorsed candidate in 1988 and Bill Clinton was their 1992 candidate. In 2000, they pushed Gore and in 2004, they pushed Lieberman and (the Clinton wing) Clark. They backed Kerry only when he was the near certain winner - and their support was not even lukewarm.

If you look at those that at any time had leadership positions within the DLC, you will find many in the Obama administration. Part of this is that the DLC likely sought to include anyone they thought of as a potential leader. For the politicians, joining likely meant another way to influence the party's direction - which would not happen if they stayed out. You can't really influence the group if you are not there. But, I wonder, after that wing of the party was not all that engaged in 2004, if Obama saw that he had to bring in that wing - in fact, wasn't there soem quote about birds needing two wings to fly. But, it is still Obama who has the final say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #86
102. Here's a 2006 membership roster.
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 10:31 AM by PassingFair
http://mydd.com/users/illinois062006/posts/dlc-membersh...

It got DELETED with my above post.

WTF?

I have no idea why my post was deleted.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #102
106. I can't imagine why it was deleted - it shouldn't have been
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 11:41 AM by karynnj
The fact is that is NOT a 2006 roster. It is MY DD listing all members of the DLC list who were still in Congress in 2006. The DLC did NOT have a current list. This meant that ANY Senator or Congressman still in office in 2006 that had at any time been part of any DLC group is listed there.

Two obvious examples are Kerry and Dodd. In 2006, Al From said that the DLC members potentially were Clinton, Vilsack, Warner and Bayh. Now, Kerry was still considering a run and polled higher than anyone but Clinton on this list. Dodd polled poorly, but better than Vilsack or Bayh.

Now, why was that list created - looking like an early 2006 update to the DLC list? That list was contentious in 2006 and many of us noted that it was just because people not in office were culled that Edwards, Gore and Dean were not listed there. Dean and Gore actually voted the DLC line, unlike Dodd and even more, Kerry, who were far to the left of the DLC. This was a dishonest way then to claim that Edwards was not DLC, while claiming Kerry was - at a point where Gore (who was saying "no" to running), Kerry and Edwards were the people most likely to run against Clinton. This in spite of Kerry's record being FAR more liberal than Edwards' and Kerry not having done anything with the DLC since 2004, when he - like any nominee would have - spoke to their gathering.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #106
137. It gives people the general idea.
Harman, the Nelsons, Landrieu, Lincoln, etc. etc. etc.

I remember the parsing wars of who was/was not DLC,
and I remember that Kerry declared he was NOT.
Dean DEFINITELY was completely unaffiliated with
them and actively being ATTACKED by them before
2004.

Gore also left the fold, after his disastrous
dance with them in his campaign.

I wonder HOW Lieberman got that far.

I wasn't paying much attention until AFTER the
theft in Florida.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #102
119. The truth is inconvenient, and must be buried.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:26 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. Good point.
But they still make a great bogeyman eh? :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Change has come Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #44
52. And you make a fantastic remora fish!
"The host they attach to for transport gains nothing from the relationship, but also loses little. The remora benefits by using the host as transport and protection and also feeds on materials dropped by the host".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remora

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. I had a great recipe in 2001.
About the time the DLC was relevant.

"Change has come?" Need a new user name?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Change has come Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. Did your recipe include Mineral Man Ass?
Of course you are right. Please call me "unfortunate user name"

Thanks in advance!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #57
148. I believe it was Jane Hamshire's ass.
Oh wait, that was your recipe. Pardon me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #57
151. By the way, I agreed with Mineral Man because I hold the same position on the DLC and it's
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #34
45. They're all sitting in Obama's cabinet.
Not hard to find at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #45
56. DLC-- PPI, Third Way, NDN ("New Democratic Network")
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 12:26 AM by chill_wind
Their webs and the conservadems they love aren't hard to find, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #56
77. Yep...New Names for same policies...they just morphed...
but then some of us knew that.. Others either wish to remain clueless or have a stake in the new groups with the same funders controling...in the background.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #56
113. Both PPI and NDN have web sites - and they are think tanks
There are other Democratic think tanks as well - Center for American Progress, which Podesta headed and where many Clinton administration people went and the American Security project which Gary Hart started and John Kerry was involved in starting are two others.

All have different positions, but they all have one similar goal which is to research and write the detailed, long term position papers that they hope will help inform or influence Democratic politicians. They very likely do provide some ideas for Presidential platforms, which will be structured around the beliefs of the candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #34
47. They're active between primaries with their think tank org (Progressive Policy Institute)
which has been all doodied up and moved to ProgressiveFix.com

The old PPI site is still there-- all of it is still the Will Marshall show.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:35 AM
Response to Reply #34
65. If you looked on their site, how did you miss this?
DLC | Trade Fact of the Week | August 25, 2010
Tariff Bill for Back-to-School Shoppers -- About $5 Billion

The National Retail Federation predicts that parents will spend about $55 billion, or $606.40 per family, on back-to-school supplies this year. Trade policy is a larger part of this bite than most realize. The tariff system likely accounts for $3 billion to $4 billion of this total, or about $40 per family.

Why? American tariffs are usually zero (or sometimes minimal) on high-volume imports like computers and DVD players, oil and natural gas, coffee and tea, metals and wood, airplanes, toys and furniture. The overall average tariff rate is about 1.1 percent - $21 billion in tariff revenue divided by $1.95 trillion in merchandise imports in 2009. But tariffs on lots of popular back-to-school goods are much higher. Some examples:

Link

Mad research skillz on your part, haw haw haw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #65
120. You're assuming the first assertion was true.
I wouldn't. It's much easier to claim the earth is flat and contend your opponents must disprove your claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #120
128. I was being polite - giving the mods a break, as it were.
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #128
129. I hear you.
Some posts that accuse other DUers of lying are quickly deleted/locked.
Others, not so much.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In such an environment, it's probably best to err on the side of caution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevenleser Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #65
147. LOL, OMG, you are so right! Its horrible! Horrible..., wait... a paper on back to school taxes?
That's the evidence of the horrible dastardly group you assert, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Sagle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #147
149. I was responding to a guy who said the site's been inactive since 2001. Clearly it hasn't.
Whatever point you're trying to make, if any, is irrelevant. Do try to keep up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
and-justice-for-all Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:46 PM
Response to Original message
15. I find their funding to the Tea Baggers and the like more concering...
if the Democratic Party was anything like Tea Baggers and such, then I would be worried, but that is not the case nor has it ever been. The Koch brothers currently fund some of the most fucked groups around, with the hope of making the Obama Presidency as difficult as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. And the Obama Presidency wants all real PROGRESSIVEs to sit down and stop proposing real changes to
the rigged game they have agreed to,
The GOP wins we get Corporate policies and rabidly RW SCOTUS Judges
The Democrats win we get Corporate policies and moderately RW SCOTUS Judges
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Barack2theFuture Donating Member (353 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
17. It is always good to know your enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
asdjrocky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. It's a puppet show.
That's a list of the string pullers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 04:12 PM
Response to Original message
21. No comparison between trying to appear impartial with a 25K crumb to the DLC
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 04:15 PM by mzmolly
a decade ago, vs. putting millions into front groups who have been trying to take down ALL Democrats for decades. *ehem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. The 25 grand is the fee to be on the executive council of the DLC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Again, no comparison.
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
liberation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #30
48. Who said there was a "comparison?"
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 11:25 PM by liberation
Let the red herrings fly I guess...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:39 PM
Response to Reply #48
50. Feel free to believe there is no
comparison of any sort, being drawn in the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #30
51. Maybe this will help.
Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mzmolly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #51
55. Not really. The DLC apparently suckered the Koch family into contributions?
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 12:08 AM by mzmolly
This is not the same as funding a movement for decades to take down Democrats - including Clinton and Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. I know the DLC very well.
They are an organization that wants to dissassociate with the traditional coalitions that held the Democratic Party together. So those people are more than people that want to sucker a few donations from these corporate sources that are traditionally right wing. These entities get to play both sides for their narrow interests. They may be trying to oust Obama, but in the end, they are playing a dual game with one beneficiary in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #61
98. Only, who has suggested the DLC is trying to oust Obama?
What, exactly, has he done that is at odds with their corporate agenda?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
socialist_n_TN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. I thought it said that the contribution
to be on the board was MORE than 25k.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
25. DLC = (D)- Corporate, Democrats in name only.
It's why I never considered voting for Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dragonfli Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #25
39. I prefer to call it Republican (D)rag. They look pretty in that Democratic dress but ... nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
33. great post
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deminks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
37. DLC = US Chamber of Commerce
Edited on Wed Aug-25-10 07:20 PM by deminks
Al From works for Tom Donahue.

http://mydd.com/2006/12/13/tom-donahue-the-gang-of-6-an...

(snip)

Donahue is really smart, and the Chamber isn't going away. If you read the full article, you'll see that he hired Al From, head of the DLC, to make sure that right-wing policies succeed in both parties.

(end snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
40. Sorry to say I'm mnot surprised.. . . n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Fields Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
42. Of course. And you are surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pleah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
43. No surprise here. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jakes Progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
46. Just try to tell us that corporate lobbies don't hold sway.
How do you get to be one of the wise heads that advise the DLC. Just give money. Your politics don't matter. Your morals don't matter. Your money is all that matters. They own the republican party and are buying the Democrats a handful at a time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-25-10 11:34 PM
Response to Original message
49. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnyxCollie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
54. K&R. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frank Booth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
59. Why was there no disclosure that Obama was the DLC candidate?
They must have figured a shadow candidate would work out better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:31 AM
Response to Reply #59
64. They ditched the "brand" once people became familiar with it.
Not unlike notorious corporations that change their names after PR disasters. *Exactly* like that, now that I think about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:43 AM
Response to Reply #64
99. Yep. The infighting (some here might remember it) of the 2004
elections revealed the DLC for what it is, with the result that the DLC actively worked against the Democratic candidate, and we lost the election. After that they couldn't toddle on like nothing happened - particularly after Dean became Chair of the DNC - so they started playing down the brand.

I'm starting to think that is the only reason Obama publicly disavowed the DLC in his campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:23 AM
Response to Original message
67. This explains a lot. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozymandius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:32 AM
Response to Original message
69. Bruce Reed, successor to Al From
Al From remains clueless to this day on how to win an election. He gets paid millions to be a consultant yet his first victory seems forever out of reach. Oddly, the DLC website calls him one of "America's premier strategists" at election planning. It would seem that the DLC junta has worked very hard to make sure Republicans win elections. Their donor rolls look very similar.

Bruce Reed, similarly, seems to have an audience only in Washington. His audience is the "centrist" assholes who have a greater interest in making the Republicans look not so villainous with their race to the "center," carrying water for the oligarchs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 04:36 AM
Response to Original message
70. meet the new boss
same crew as the old crime family. makes some wonder...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cate94 Donating Member (573 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
72. It just figures
doesn't it? On the board of the DLC? That explains a lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
73. As I say, the "DLC" means Dump Liberals for Conservatives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dotymed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:46 AM
Response to Original message
74. I know ( and apologize)
that we are not supposed to post any "create another party" posts, but what alternative is there? There is no way the DLC will allow a progressive movement to happen within the Democratic party. Already the DLC is not funding our best and brightest hopes for any real change in our government. They are not helping Alan Grayson, and I am sure that any Democrat who is progressive cannot expect any help from the DLC. Does anyone see an alternative to creating a viable Progressive party as a separate entity?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
75. Bill Clinton was initially financed by Jackson Stephens (financed BCCI)
Jackson Stephens rivals Bath in his role as conduit between high-level factions. A Little Rock, Arkansas tycoon who attended the U.S. Naval Academy with Jimmy Carter and staked Sam Walton to found Wal-Mart in 1970, Stephens was owner of the notoriously toxic WTI Incinerator in East Liverpool, OH, and a munificent contributor to the campaign warchests of both Bill Clinton and George Bush, Sr. He was also embroiled in the BCCI affair through his association with BCCI satellite Union Bank of SwitzerlandUBS, in turn, contributed $25 million to the moribund Harken Energy Corp.

http://www.wburg.com/0202/arts/lombardi.html

and don't forget the DLC's ties to the NEOCON organization PNAC:

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), a dynamic idea action center of the "Third Way" governing philosophy that is reshaping progressive politics in the United States and around the globe. He is also chairman of the Third Way Foundation and publisher of the DLC's flagship bi-monthly magazine, Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century.

As a founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), From leads a national movement that since the mid-1980s has provided both the action agenda and the ideas for New Democrats to successfully challenge the conventional political wisdom in America and, in the process, redefine the center of the Democratic Party.

-snip

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&conten...



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11.
***************************
Along with such neocon stalwarts as Robert Kagan, Bruce Jackson, Joshua Muravchik, James Woolsey, and Eliot Cohen, a half-dozen Democrats were among the 23 individuals who signed PNAC's first letter on post-war Iraq. Among the Democrats were Ivo Daalder of the Brookings Institution and a member of Clinton's National Security Council staff; Martin Indyk, Clinton's ambassador to Israel; Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute and Democratic Leadership Council; Dennis Ross, Clinton's top adviser on the Israel-Palestinian negotiations; and James Steinberg, Clinton's deputy national security adviser and head of foreign policy studies at Brookings.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0522-10.htm

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

for all the grief Bill Clinton received from the right, he sure delivered for them

1. repeal of Glass Steagall (banking de-regulation)
2. Telecom Act of '96 (allowed media consolidation)
3. MFN status for China (which allowed the mass exit of middle class jobs to China)

to name a few prominent favors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #75
101. I hear 'third' plus 'way' and I think Bilderberger. Anyone who thinks
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 10:15 AM by peacetalksforall
they are a citizen who knows quite a bit about what is going on - needs to read about Bilderberger. These are the richest people in the world who invite those who can keep a secret about the plans of those who are a part of and a guest of Bilderberger when they meet and as they communicate and carry out their plan. Example: Goodbye Canada, Goodbye Mexico. Welcome to everyone from North America. There is now one military command. And the same for the rest of the world.

Of the names above:
Dennis Ross - guest
James Woolsey - mainstay. Here's one of his quotes: Foreign Affairs (journal) January/February 1999: "The underlying goal of the U.N. force in Gulf War 1, which included 500,000 American troops, was to ensure continued and unfettered access to petroleum."
Hillary Clinton - leader (I doubt that there was ever ANY doubt about how she would vote for Iraq War II and Patriot Act and now I see her doing the work towards the agenda of the Bilderberger set)
Bill Clinton - leader

The truth hurts.

DLC - Democratic Party Bilderberger enablers against all values and virtues of Democratic voters - voters who cling to their heritage of advancement of, by, and for the people and all people. All people includes teabaggers - but they don't know yet that they will be equal with their political opponents and hate targets. They don't know that their hopes and dreams are equally expendable with ours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninga Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:18 AM
Response to Original message
76. Good work Bluebear, thanks even though you have reinforced my already
depressed state of mind. True Democrats are fast becoming extinct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. It's depressing but also liberating. The "Truth" shall set us free..
is an old expression. Better to know the real situation. You can't work for change unless you can identify what needs to change.

So...it's a good thing this is getting out at this time. We on the left have been in dreamland for too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #76
114. 'True Democrats are fast becoming extinct.' - Sad but a true realization. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 07:44 AM
Response to Original message
79. Oh, but haven't you heard?
The ones trying to destroy the Democratic Party from the inside are us progressives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
81. Well . . . THAT explains a few things, doesn't it. nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
85. AT & T. Verizon. Now we know whycertain Democrats make me a
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 08:42 AM by peacetalksforall
screaming scared citizen. Remember Feinstein? Schumer? Remember all the DLCers who voted with Republicans on the immunity?

How much pain did you feel when you heard them speak and vote in support of spying on us and getting away with it - in effect supporting the Poindexter database with all the citizen private and possibly inaccurate information?

We have to face the truth about our Party.

They are not Democrats.

This Party is not going anywhere FOR US if the leaders are nearly all DLCers. Same thing as Bilderbergers.

From above:
"And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
88. Surprise! Surprise! No wait, I'm not surprised at all!
Wolves in sheep's clothing the lot of them. Now can we put the bed the lie that DLCers are not DINOs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ensho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 09:00 AM
Response to Original message
92. kick
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
105. they fund the global climate change deniers, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 11:47 AM
Response to Original message
108. Your vote: +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ignis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
122. K&R
It's amazing to see some DUers falling over themselves to defend these assholes, after all the harm they've done to the party and the country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
123. Fucking DLC!
Well, well, well. Why am I not surprised?

DLC = Republicans


- K&R

Under God, with fees and compound interest for all

From the outset, capitalism was always about the theft of the people's sustenance. It was bound to lead to the ultimate theft -- the final looting of the source of their sustenance -- nature. Now that capitalism has eaten its own seed corn, the show is just about over, with the nastiest scenes yet to play out around water, carbon energy (or anything that expends energy), soil and oxygen. For the near future however, it will continue to play out around money.

As the economy slowly implodes, money will become more volatile stuff than it already is. The value and availability of money is sure to fluctuate wildly. Most people don't have the luxury of escaping the money economy, so they will be held hostage and milked hard again by the same people who just drained them in the bailouts. As usual, the government will be right there to see that everybody plays by the rules. Those who have always benefited by capitalism's rules will benefit more. That cadre of "money professionals" which holds captive the nation's money supply, and runs things according to the rules of money, can never lose money. It writes the rules. And rewrites them when it suits the money elite's interests.

Capitalism, the Christian god, democracy, the Constitution. It's all one ball of wax, one set of rules in the American national psyche. Thus, the money masters behind the curtain will write The New Rules, the new tablets of supreme law, and call them Reform. There will be rejoicing that "the will of the people" has once again moved upon the land, and that the democracy's scripture has once again been delivered by the unseen hand of God.

~ Joe Bageant, "Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shining Jack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
127. K&R
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:05 PM
Response to Original message
132. Must listen to interview: Jane Mayer on Fresh Air (NPR)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
avaistheone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
133. Now that is fucking scarey.
No wonder we are forced to elect Democrats who can't get anything done. It truly is by design of the DLC and their ultra conservative republican funders that it works that way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
134. Bottom line: With "friends" like Will Marshall, who needs the Koch boys?
Edited on Thu Aug-26-10 03:33 PM by chill_wind
Their money was nice, but it will probably just get replaced with more from wingers just like them.
As long as we keep saying SS is an entitlement and the entitlements (and not a word about Pentagon entitlement spending for 10-year permawars) is what's killing us.

If you're a lefty-hating neo-con chickenhawk Conservative, what here's not to love?



Undeterred by the flight of the GOPs fiscal chicken hawks, President Obama today unveiled an 18-member special commission to tackle the nations budget crisis. Named to lead the panel were Democrat Erskine Bowles, chief of staff to President Clinton, and former Senate Republican leader Alan Simpson.

Its easy to be cynical about such blue ribbon commissions. They are supposed to signal that political leaders are serious about solving intractable problems, but often convey the opposite a craven desire to punt tough decisions to retired dignitaries who dont have to face the voters.

And setting up a commission by executive order is distinctly inferior to enacting one into law, since the president cant compel Congress to give his panels recommendations an up-or-down vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has offered distinctly unenthusiastic assurances that the House will consider the commissions suggestions.

Still, such commissions are sometimes the only way to break a political impasse recall the 1983 Greenspan Commission for Social Security reform, or the congressionally mandated military base-closing commission. Such action-forcing mechanisms give politicians just enough bipartisan cover to embolden them to vote for reforms everyone knows are necessary if unpopular.

In a bow to political reality, the presidents commission will report its recommendations after the midterm election, before the end of the year. Presumably, that will tee up the debate for the next Congress, while giving the economy this year to gain strength and whittle down the unemployment rate.

Thats the right timing, and it belies claims by Obamas liberal critics that highlighting the urgent need to put America on a more sustainable fiscal course is antithetical to economic recovery. After all, only about $300 billion of Obamas $800-plus stimulus package has been spent, and Congress is crafting a jobs bill intended to give a smaller but more targeted boost to employment.

But heres what really irks Obamas critics on the left: they see the commission setting the stage for an assault on entitlement programs. They are not entirely wrong: its the unsustainable growth of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security thats driving Americas long-term fiscal woes. But progressives ought to have more confidence in Obamas ability to take a balanced approach to reforming the Big Three. Its better, and safer, to do that now rather than risk handing off the job to some future Republican president who may be hostile to the idea of social insurance.

The presidents commission must do what lawmakers in Washington wont craft a balanced program of benefit cuts and tax increases to slow the growth rate of health and retirement benefits and move them toward solvency. Otherwise, those programs will consume the equivalent of every penny Washington now raises in taxes, necessitating unprecedented tax hikes, or borrowing at levels that will jeopardize Americas growth and fiscal stability.

But the commission shouldnt just look at the Big Three, it should also look at the federal governments massive spending on tax entitlements. Washington spends over $1 trillion a year on tax breaks and subsidies, including such popular items as the mortgage interest deduction and exclusion of employer-paid health benefits, crop subsidies, and a raft of special bennies for politically influential industries, aka, corporate welfare. There are also lots of important breaks for low-income Americans, like my own favorite, the earned income tax credit. All of these tax expenditures have rationales and constituencies, none should be regarded as sacrosanct.



from-

Obamas Deficit Commission
February 18, 2010
Will Marshall


Will Marshall is the president of the Progressive Policy Institute.


http://www.progressivefix.com/obamas-deficit-commission

Marshall:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

(bold edit mine)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mstinamotorcity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:54 PM
Response to Original message
145. Money will make
some people put their mother in prostitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
146. Wonder how this would have played
if someone in the DLC leadership (Hillary) had become President?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
L0oniX Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-26-10 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
150. Kick ...rotten bastards.
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 Aug 21st 2014, 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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