Clark: Where is the Economic Leadership?

[Clarkie1]

Note: This is part of a series of "policy briefs" in which Clark is inviting bloggers to join him in ongoing discussions of timely and important issues...

http://www.securingamerica.com/

Where is the economic leadership?

Posted by Wes Clark on September 14, 2005 - 7:53pm.
Yes, we certainly still have serious problems in Iraq, as a series of bombs today that killed over 160 people sadly reminds us. And the response to Katrina should be of great concern to every American as we expected more from the Department of Homeland Security after 9-11, not to mention the failure of leadership from the President.

But of even greater concern over the long-term, something that underlies all of the problems we're talking about, is the continuing tilt of wealth at the expense of ordinary Americans. Steven Pearlstein writes in today's Washington Post:

Despite four years of economic growth, driven by impressive productivity gains, the average worker is no better off than he was in 1997.

Late last month, the government reported that inflation-adjusted income for the median household fell for the fifth year running. During the same five-year period of recession and recovery, the number and percentage of households in poverty has also risen.
So where have the benefits from economic growth gone?

Some have gone to the top 20 percent of households in the form of higher salaries and bonuses. This is the only class that has seen its income rise.

The rest of the benefits have gone to those who own stocks, bonds and real estate -- for the most part, the same 20 percent. Normally, the share of national income going to holders of capital declines during the later stages of an expansion. But four years into the recovery, capital's share of national income is still rising, and at 17.7 percent remains near the top of its historical range.

The Bush Administration's failure to allocate the appropriate resources to ensure every American has an opportunity to succeed is a problem we must not ignore. America cannot afford to ignore the talent of those less fortunate. This is neither efficient nor effective. Instead we need to bring out the best in every American if we hope to strengthen this country, compete internationally, and protect the economic and social security of even the wealthiest Americans.

We are one nation. We are bound together by geography, law, culture, values and family. Underneath all the concerns about Iraq and Katrina remember this: the economic policies of the Bush Administration are not serving the best interests of America.

-Wes

[madmax]

1. Run Wes, Run!

2008 Please.

[msongs]

2. sound bite: repubs steal from middle class to pay off the wealthy nt

[FrenchieCat]

6. and another a couple of more!

We are one nation.
We are bound together by geography, law, culture, values and family.

[Texas_Kat]

3. "the average worker is no better off than he was in 1997"

Boy, could I have a "WITNESS! and an "AMEN!"

[Gloria]

4. kick for Clark....

eom

[1932]

5. That's entirely descriptive. What's does Clark prescribe for this problem?

Where's the policy in this "policy statement"?

A higher capital gains tax? A higher dividend income tax?

The answer isn't just "leadership." It would be nice to know what the new leader would do.

[FrenchieCat]

7. He asking us to discuss it with him.......

which you can do by going to the web site.

What's Edwards' prescription? I know he has a poverty center but What's his take on what we should do?

[1932]

9. Let us know when he decides what his policy is.

As soon as I hear Edwards's prescription, I'll let you know.

[FrenchieCat]

10. He already has policies......

but he also likes to have actual discussions...
As things change, there's a need for leaders to listens at time instead of always dictating to us or making campaign speeches.

You see, some leaders actually want input, and then they make determination as to what some good approaches are based on various criterias, including what ordinary people have to say.

Some leaders are just not as calculating as others.

This is a discussion. Considering how much you have to say all of the time, you should try participating once in a while. I don't think it will hurt, and it might even help.

But since asked, here you go!
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2004/02/18/opinion/myers.html
http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/
http://home.uchicago.edu/~kemagoon/

[Totally Committed]

12. Frenchie! Don't be so hard on him....

I, for one, am in awe. This kind of balls is absent so often in Democrats today. I am, personally, going to tip my hat every time I think of his daring posts all day long.

It takes a special (what's the word I'm looking for...) arrogance (yeah, that's it!) to come into a thread and call out a leader who was a Rhodes Scholar and who has an advanced degree in Economics on Economic Policy.

It's a sort of "intellectual" circular firing squad we got going here... doncha know.

Honest to gawd, I got goose-bumps...

TC

[paulk]

23. it's a legitimate question

and your snide putdowns add nothing to the debate but rancor.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Totally Committed]

14. Don't let Frenchie cow you... and forgawdssake,

don't let logic get in the way of a pithy putdown...

I got your back, babe!

TC

[wiley]

8. Go ahead, then tell us what Edwards is doing.

:boring:

Excuse me for yawning. Time to go to sleep.....

[Totally Committed]

15. No, I say, NO! Back off now!

If you force him to justify his remarks, they will lose the edge, the daring, the idiocy that is so turning me on right now...

This is BALLS, folks... real, honest2gawd, Democratic Circular Firing Squad BALLS... you should be in awe. I'm all tingly.

TC

[Ufour20]

11. He makes so much sense

How can Wes not be selected as our candidate in the primaries? The guy is amazing.

[Armstead]

13. If he is willing to deal with the decline since the 1970's.....

Democrats can't metrely bash Bush, in terms of economic decline of the last few years.

The seeds of the current mess and economic polarization were sown long before Bush came on the scene. And Democrats helped the slide along, with GOP lite corporatist supporting neglect of bigger trends.

We need to address the fact that the standard of living has been DROPPINB SINCE THE1970's. Trying to restore the illusions of the 1990's is like throwing a cup of water on a bonfire.

[Totally Committed]

16. You should go over and join Wes's discussion!

These economic concerns are ones I know he can address. He just needs to be asked about them, Armstead.

I encourage you to participate in Wes's discussion.

TC

[1932]

17. I agree with this.

The corporatocracy has taken over government since '73 and the polarization of wealth has been the inevitable consequence. This is what a vote for Reagan and the two Bushes was a vote for. Clinton tried to holf back the barbarians at the gate, but with an unfriendly congress he was just treading water. Carter tried to prefer democracy over the corporatocracy in Africa and South America, which was good, but domestically, he gave away a lot of ground.

The policy problems that result in polarizations of wealth run very deep and they go beyond leadership. They have to do with defense spending, the tax code, and the destruction of public services that give people equal opportunity and roughly equal outcomes, and so many other things.

[FrenchieCat]

19. I think you are right....

Which is why if you would have read the first link that I gave you of the 3 above, you would have seen that the only person of the ones that ran last year that also agrees with you is Wes Clark.

...what defined Clark as a Democrat was not longevity of membership but fidelity of principle. There was a time when tax fairness virtually defined the Democratic Party. It no longer does. The party is so wired into corporate corruption that it is a betrayal of everything for which it once stood. If a Democrat steps out of line long enough to support the poor and middle class, she or he is likely to be attacked by "leaders" like Joe Lieberman, who last year attacked Al Gore for Gore's halfhearted economic populism.

Clark tried to reverse that. Where other candidates tinkered with tax "reform" (every screwing of the public in the last 40 years has been done in the name of tax reform) he proposed a bold stroke to "restore progressivity to the tax system." A family of four with an income of up to $50,000 a year would have been exempted from the income tax altogether. A single parent with one child making up to $28,000 a year would also have been exempted (with a sliding scale to cover other circumstances).

The revenue lost would have been recovered by reversing the trend of cutting taxes paid by the rich. Clark would have increased taxes on the one percent of taxpayers at the top.

This was, indeed, a restoration. When the income tax was created in 1913 under grass roots pressure for a fairer form of taxation, it was assumed the income tax would be progressive - taxing the rich more heavily than the poor. And that's the way it started. In 1913 single people making $3,000 a year and married couples making $4,000 (a figure equivalent to $58,000 in 1994 dollars) a year were exempt from income taxes - they didn't even have to file a return.

Then the wealthy, their lobbyists, and their accountants went to work. Congress started chipping away at the progressivism of income taxes through loopholes, deductions, indexing, exemptions, and all the other parlor tricks that have changed "income tax" from a popular mechanism for fairness to a despised expletive. And the Democrats have been chief conspirators. In the past 40 years, during which Democrats were usually calling the shots in Congress, the top tax rate has been lowered repeatedly and special interest tax breaks handed out to Democratic sugar daddies.

But even that isn't the real story. The tax rate is irrelevant. The top tax rate can be a confiscatory 100 percent and the rich would end up paying little because of all those parlor tricks. And because of the Democrats' leadership against the poor (and their collaboration with Republicans in years of GOP congressional majorities), the debate on tax measures is always unbalanced and lopsided because today's counterfeit Democrats have lost their predecessors' skill and deftness in taking on the big boys. They inevitably cower before Republican claims that by asking for fairness, the Democrats are engaging in class warfare.

snip
The way the Democratic Party has been gelded by power and money can be seen in a tax break written into the Internal Revenue Code for a company incorporated here in Nevada. The code exempts from taxation much of the income of any company "which is part of an affiliated group which files a consolidated federal income tax return, the common parent of which was incorporated in Nevada on January 27, 1972 ..." There's only one company in the world that fits this description - Cantor, Fitzgerald and Company Inc., a corporation which (get this) helps other corporations avoid paying taxes. The language in the tax code was tailored specifically to benefit this one company, and a Democratic senator, Pat Moynihan, sponsored it. (We have Barlett and Steele to thank for bringing this to light. Reporters used to do such reporting all the time. Now we cover "news you can use" and dangerous Super Bowl dancers.)

Or there is the fact that the earnings of stock market shares are taxed at a 14 percent rate while the earnings of savings accounts are taxed at a 28 percent rate.

The tax code is shot through with these kinds of loopholes, thanks to the Democratic Party, which in the war on the poor has gone over to the other side, rejecting the view that money made by money should be taxed at the same rate as money made by workers.

... when we see the imitation Democrats chasing after corporate campaign "contributions" while trying hard to forget Wesley Clark, who made the mistake of reminding them of what a real Democrat represents.

(Myers is a veteran capital reporter. His column, "Against the Grain," appears here on Wednesdays.)

First link in my post above.....

[1932]

31. I have six questions:

(1) What does the average family of four with an income of $50,000 pay in federal income tax?

(2) What does the average family of four earning $350,000 pay in federal income tax on $50,000 of their total income (especially if we presume that the alternative minimum income tax kicks in, which, correct me if I'm wrong wouldn't cover capital gains income)?

(3) If Clark is going to exempt the first $50,000 in income, does that mean that families who earn less than $50,000 who "pay" a negative income tax (through the Eearned Income Credit) would lose those benefits?

(4) Regardless of whether Clark's plan eliminates the EIC benefit for poor Americans, Do you think it's fair to remedy the problem with the tax code by giving a benefit (the first $50,000 tax free) that is, in absolute dollar terms, worth much more to people who are in higher income tax brackets? There would be poor families for whom this plan might be worth as little as $400, while some high income earners could see their tax burden drop by $15,000.

(5) How many of the richest Americans have earned income that would be captured by Clarks new higher rate on the top 1%? Obviously a lot of people who are very rich get a salary of $1,000.000 a year. But I suspect a lot of people who are super-wealthy don't have earned income that is that high. They have capital gains income and dividend income, and they inherit money and are gifted money. What about those people?

(6) Has Clark posted his policy ideas at securingamerica.com yet?

Edit:
One comment, and I'm sorry in advance if this going to make your head explode, but in one of Clark's two books -- it must have been winning modern wars -- he says that he believes that lower tax burdens are good for the economcy. It's just one sentence, but I'm curious what it is that he believes that inspired that one sentence.

[Texas_Kat]

32. Not to make your head explode, but

Here's a summary of the families first tax plan Clark proposed in 2004:

http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/

Here;s a summary of his 2004 economic plan, which lso addresses the tax increases he said were needed on those making over $200,000 per year:

http://www.clark04.com/issues/economicplan/

Heres what TNR had to say:

Candidate: Wesley Clark
Category: Domestic Policy
Grade: A

It seems like every few days another presidential campaign schedules a "major policy speech" to unveil a "bold, new initiative." But almost all of these speeches turn out to be old news: The candidates simply co-opt ideas that have been circulating in politics for years or--even worse--repackage the very same proposals they themselves made just weeks before.

How refreshing, then, it was to hear about General Wesley Clark's tax-reform plan yesterday. By reform, Clark doesn't simply mean fiddling with the tax rates like most other candidates. He means changing the way Americans actually deal with the IRS. (Well, some of them, anyway.)

The centerpiece of his plan is a proposal to consolidate a bunch of existing tax credits for children, make them bigger so that some families owe no taxes at all, and then--this is the really interesting part--completely exempt those families from filing tax returns at all. To qualify for the new zero-tax liability, all a family must do is fill out a three-line form--marital status, number of children, and total income--showing they meet the sliding scale of eligibility. (The cutoff for a two-parent family with two children would be $50,000 in family income; for that family, says the Clark campaign, the new tax break would be worth about $1,500.)

Keep in mind, just three or four million families will satisfy these guidelines. The rest, alas, will still have to file returns. But according to Clark's campaign, as long as they make less than $100,000, their tax bills will actually go down--to even less than they were after the Bush tax cuts.

One of the first questions to ask whenever a candidate rolls out a plan like this is how he intends to pay for it. Well, the independent estimates Clark commissioned shows the new tax break would cost $33 billion. Clark would pay for it primarily by raising taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers--specifically, a 5-point increase on income beyond $1 million, which would affect less than one-tenth of 1 percent of all Americans. (Put another way, the increase would not affect 99.9 percent of all Americans.) Note that this increase is in addition to the increase Clark would slap on wealthy Americans by repealing certain portions of the Bush tax. In all, the wealthiest taxpayers would see their income tax rates jump from 35 percent now to 44.9 percent.

More here:

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=1156

[1932]

33. That doesn't answer my questions.

Does this mean no more EIC?

Does this plan, in fact, amount to an average savings of $15,000 for everyone over, say, $150,000 in income, while amounting to about $400 if you make less than about $40,000?

Clark says people who make less than 100,000 will pay less. But I don't understand the mechanism by which you don't save even more if you make more than 100,000, especially if that now exempt 50,000 was otherwise subject to Alternative Minimum Income Tax.

Why only tax earned income over $1 million at a higher rate? Why not tax dividends and capital gains at higher rates? How much income do you think is even earned (rather than aquired through capital gains, dividends, gifts and inheritiance)? And even if someone does have earned income at that level, how easy do think it would be for that person to avoid the higher rate by shifting earned income to another type of income?

Has Clark posted his policy in his new policy discussion forum?

[Texas_Kat]

35. It's spelled out in the plans I posted links to

(and links within the plans) I provided.

You're a good reader....read what he said. Since you're always talking about economics, I assumed you could answer your own questions without having someone interpret them for you.

As I said, those documents were from the 04 campaign.

WKC isn't currently running for anything, so of course he hasn't posted an 'economic plan'.

Clark's post at http://www.securingamerica.com was to get OUR input.

I know that it may be a novel idea for someone in politics to actually TALK to the grassroots, but you're welcome to join in the discussion. Take advantage of it -- you may get to like it.

[FrenchieCat]

34. Did you say that you "had" six questions that you posted

to the site. Or are you asking us to respond to questions you have for Wes Clark? Whatever, I can only answer based on his plan proposed during the primaries.

Under President Bush, typical families have seen their incomes fall by nearly $1,500 - while President Bush provided an average tax cut of $128,000 to taxpayers making over $1 million.

1. A married couple with two children making $50,000 would get a $1,583 tax break.
A married couple with three children both earning the minimum wage, or $21,000 annually, would get a tax break of $2,287.
A married couple with two children making $85,000 would get a $975 tax cut.

- 31 million working families would benefit by paying less taxes, as they fall into that range.

2. A family of 4 earning $350,000 pays approx $93,740 in Personal Income tax. That's if the $350,000 is the adjusted gross, meaning those families most likely earned more. These same families pay less in Payroll taxes proportionally, as a large portion of that tax become exempt after earning over $79,418.

3. The tax plan calls to consolidate both the Child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax into one credit per child of $2,250 which is an increase in benefits for those families making under the earmarked threshold of $35,458 for a married couple. In addition, they would have no Income tax to pay.

4. To answer the question that you asked depends on one's ideology. I believe in progressive taxation...the more you make, the more you pay....so I have no problem with what he had proposed. For the rest of your answer, see #1.

5. the top .1% of taxpayers would have had their tax bracket increased by 5%. A 5 percentage point increase in the tax rate only on income over $1 million per year. This surcharge, which could be used only for working family tax relief, would not apply to the first $1 million of income or to any capital gains - so it will not affect 99.9 percent of taxpayers.

additional part of the proposal- Closing corporate loopholes, including the ones that Enron took advantage of to unfairly cut its taxes.
http://www.clark04.com/issues/familiesfirst/
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/001035.html

6. No, Clark is not posting policy papers...instead, Clark is waiting to have a discussion with you. That's what he's doing at securing America.com currently.

Ask him about that one sentence in his book....I think that it would be your smartest bet in not having to make up an answer.

Do you really imagine that I go through this answering your questions?
Personally, My head never explodes.....especially not based on anything you've had to say to date. You'd have to be more important than that....like my husband or one of my children, so don't flatter yourself! :hi:

[1932]

36. Doesn't it bother you that Clark isn't changing the capital gains rate?

Don't you think that that is where there is a huge amount of unfairness in the tax code?

And I don't understand if Clark's plan is that your first 50,000 in income is tax free. I assume it is, or he wouldn't be able to say that if you make less than 100,000, you'll pay less in taxes. If it is, then you would be saving the 350,000-earnrs (and everyone above a threshold somewhere over 100,000 at least 12,500 until you reach 1,000,000, and then those people will just figure out a way to get their income from some source other than sallary.

And, thanks to the info about the EIC and CTC, it looks like Clark's plan allows people with children to still get negative income tax, but if you don't have kids, and are working poor, you lose the EIC, no? Are you OK with that? Rather than losing the EIC, we should probably be talking about extending it to people who aren't working and to married couples even if they don't have children.

I believe in progressive taxation too. The more you make the more you pay. But I'm not sure I agree with the idea that if we're cutting taxes, we're going give people a big tax break who might not need it (and I don't understnand how everyone is not getting a tax break when you exclude the firt 50,000 in income) -- especially when we're in need of massive investments in infrastructure and education (but if you start talking about dramaitically reducing the defense/homeland security budget, I'll listen to talk of across the board tax cuts).

I also don't like the idea of not making any changes to the way capital gains and dividend income is taxed.

It's one thing to start measuring the handouts from Bush to the rich, but if you look at the last 30 years, the rich have been getting big handouts in the form of tax law changes specifically from capital gains and dividend income tax changes. They shouldn't escape consideration just because the changes didn't all occur during the Bush years.

[FrenchieCat]

37. I don't know what he's gonna do

but I can tell you as a tax accountant (that's what I do), I don't think I could go any further in describing his tax plan to you...it might be a bit like a brain surgeon describing that procedure to a janitor....he'll never understand.

You're asking questions that if you understood, you wouldn't be asking. The tax break was for THOSE EARNING $50,000 or LESS. So it's NOT FOR the FIRST $50,000 that you earn. Tu comprend?

Expanded benefits for low-income adults without children. Clark's Tax Reform builds on the existing EITC for childless adults, raising the maximum credit from $382 to $500.

But, It's like, you can pay me and I'll prepared your tax returns. What state are you in?

Since you simply don't understand what you are reading, I suggest that you might want to take a basic tax course and a reading comprehension remedial course at a junior college or something. :shrug:

[1932]

39. Let me ask this another way:

So what do you pay in income tax if you make $51,000 a year? Do you pay x% of 1,000 or do pay x% of $51,000?

If it's the former, than everyone gets this benefit. If it's the latter, than it's a really steep, unfair, punitive jump for people who earn more than $50,000.

Re EIC, your post said this: "The tax plan calls to consolidate both the Child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax into one credit per child ." Should I apologize for being so stupid that I trusted what you wrote?

Should I aksi assume that you're being so nasty becaue you're trying to divert attention from the question about capital gains and dividend income?

[FrenchieCat]

42. Please this is too silly......

He used to have a calculator up there for folks like you. But the campaign is over, and so is the calculator.

I'm being nasty cause I feel like I'm talking to a wall....and walls don't normally give a shit.

But hey, why don't you go ask him?

Or are you skeered or somethin'? :scared: It's ok, he won't bite you.

But I'm curious, 1932. What is it about Edwards you like so well? I so you boosting him in quite a few threads here. Is it his economic policy? And if so, what about his economic policies made you feel that he was the one. What was he proposing that makes him so special?

You see, I have yet to hear you ever acknowledge anything positive about Wes Clark, no matter what. You always question everything about him super skeptically. So I'm just curious as to why Edwards turns you on so much....and General Clark can't get anything but sarcasm, doubt, questions about things like one sentence in a book, etc....

[1932]

46. I guess that's another way to avoid the capital gains question.

The only thing I like about Edwards right now is that, after New Orleans, I undersand his relevance. Don't worry though. When the buzz wears off from the practical lesson in Two Americas, I'll be back to having a more evenly spread out enthusiasm for Kucinich, Feingold, and whoever else strikes my liberal fancy. For now, the New Orleans flood is triggering all sorts of disparate recollections about Edwards's primary campaign.

Oh, one other thing that got me thinking about Edwards was God's Politics. Wallis mentions Edwards specifically in that book. If you're reading my posts as closely, as you just revealied, you'll know that God's Politics was one of the first books I posted about.

If you're upset that I seem to be picking on Clark, all I can say is this;

(1) Clark gets discussed a great deal here, so it's hard not to talk about him. Al Gore is suddenly on the upsurge, and I have some firm opinions about him too based on things I've read since 2000 by people I respect . You'll see that I post about him, but nobody responds rudely, so I'm not inspired to read more and write more about what I'm reading about Al. If this place were Al Gore Central, I'd certainly read-up and re-read and share what I read on Al in books by liberals I respect, like Stiglitz, for instance.

(2) Many of the books I've been reading, from Stiglitz to Perkins, to Wallis, to Greene, implicitly and explicitly criticize many of Clark's arguments about what America is and should be -- some of them do so very dramatically, such as Wallis's and Perkins's. As you know, I like to comment on what I'm reading.

(3) Having read Clark's books, I noted the contrast between what is written in those books and the way Clark is presented on DU. It was hard not to comment on that differnce at the time.

[FrenchieCat]

48. Yes, but what you have interpreted in reading

has been debunked many times as an incorrect interpretation....although yours just the same. You now allude to something that Clark said vs. what you read, but you offer nothing. So are reader to rely on your implication to be convinced that what you say is so? That's not good enough in anybody's book.

So Edwards was mentioned in a book, and that makes him what? Your hero? Please tell us why.....inquiring minds want to know.

Was it his vote for the IWR?
For the Patriot Act?
OR was it his tax plan which mostly offered a lot of tax credits (code word for of no real help for the poor)
Or the media attention from Iowa until being picked VP by the media?

Or was it his being at Bildeberg...a meeting, that if you were really concerned about Globalization and extremely rich people making decisions for the rest of us you'd be a little more curious about....which you have decided that you are not, which appears to be a hypocritical position that I am sure you will explain away....yet continue to point a finger at one sentence in Clark's book....which you don't know what was meant.....but you figure the worse.

Give me a fucking break! :eyes:

READ ALL OF THIS (since you have this love of reading), AND THEN LET ME KNOW YOUR THOUGHTS..... thanks!

BBC News Online Magazine
The Bilderberg group, an elite coterie of Western thinkers and power-brokers, has been accused of fixing the fate of the world behind closed doors. As the organisation marks its 50th anniversary, rumours are more rife than ever.
snip
Given its reputation as perhaps the most powerful organisation in the world...
For four days some of the West's chief political movers, business leaders, bankers, industrialists and strategic thinkers will hunker down in a five-star hotel in northern Italy to talk about global issues.

What sets Bilderberg apart from other high-powered get-togethers, such as the annual World Economic Forum (WEF), is its mystique.

Not a word of what is said at Bilderberg meetings can be breathed outside. No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted.

DISCREET AND ELITE
This year Bilderberg has announced a list of attendees
They include BP chief John Browne, US Senator John Edwards, World Bank president James Wolfensohn and Mrs Bill Gates
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3773019.stm

http://www.oilempire.us/edwards.html
"I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."--John Edwards, CNN Late Edition, Feb. 24, 2002
That was said after 9/11....

http://www.global-elite.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=366

http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_17289.shtml

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1906

http://www.global-conspiracies.com/proof_of_a_conspiracy_bilderberg_and_the_silent_media.htm

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


PS. The problem with you is that you ask questions, but when we direct you to a place to get some answers, or provide you with lins, you just ask the same questions again. You don't acknowledge reading links provided, and usually have no opinion on any of the information given to you..... but you've read "the book", and without telling anyone why, Edwards is your hero.

Well you challenge Clark....and I respond.

So now, I'll challenge Edwards, and we'll see what you do.

May the best man win!

[1932]

49. I think my readings are fair and accurate.

And I don't think your rebuttals are that convincing. Your entire rebuttal for Winning Modern War's pro-(non-military) imperialism sentiments are book reviews. There are book reviews out there (at the New York Times) and other commentary about Clark (by Norman Solomon at the FAIR web site) that say the same things I've said. Battling book reviews isn't an argument. I'm satisfied to state Clark's arguments and then use other authors' commentary on the same aspects of American politics and culture (like Perkins) to illuminate things Clark argues.

If you want to attack Edwards go for it. What are we criticizing though? Bilderberg? I don't know where to start with that. I'll criticize it too if they were talking about things like Clark has said about spreading American values and interests through virtual empire or about the legitimacy of the US invasion of Panama. Is that what they were talking about there?

I think if you want to discuss Edwards in the same way we're discussing Clark, we're going to need to hear more about what Edwards says. I don't see enough in your previous post, so it's hard to comment. And I can't guarantee you that I'm not going to be on your side on every issue. And, hey, we should do this with all the potential candidates. We should think hard about EVERYTHING they say, and not rely on out of context unsupported bullshit to form our opinions, and whenever possible, we should rely on their extensive comments and their own writing about their beliefs. Right now I'm interested in talking about Gore, incidentally. Do you have any opinions about Gore?

[Texas_Kat]

38. Clark's plan was hailed by economists

as the most progressive tax plan (in the real sense of the word 'progressive') offered in 2004.

If you've already graduated to talking about global economics, I assumed you'd be able to handle the lil ole' domestic side.

BTW, Clark was the first and most vocal and out-front in talking about cutting defense department budgets (which he describes as (make/want budgets).

I'm not an economist, but Clark taught economics .... you'll have to go join in at securing america if you want to talk to him about it.

[1932]

40. I guess I should defer to the unnamed economists?

As for Clark teaching economics, I believe he was doing that at a time when he was voting for Republicans, no?

(By the way, notice how the things I imply relate to the candidate and the issues discussed an not to my fellow DU'ers. If you want to be nasty, do it in the context of why low capital gains tax rates are great for the economy, even when they're lower than the rate most secretaries pay on their earned income.)

[Texas_Kat]

41. Does that make a difference?

I attended Texas A&M University.... that's where GHWB's library is....

So what? Want to compare Democratic credentials?

[1932]

43. What does where you went to college have to do with Clark's

economic philosophy?

[Texas_Kat]

44. What does who he voted for

over 2 decades ago have to do with his economic preferences?

Same thing....

Just FYI, Carter (one of those people Clark didn't vote for, asked him to run in 04).

George McGovern endorsed him.....

Looks like they didn't care either.

[1932]

47. You brought up his job as an economics professor.

What years was that?

[Texas_Kat]

45. Do a little research.... I don't have time

to give you chapter and verse over something you should have already familiarized yourself with.

After all, you DO enjoy reading, right?

[Totally Committed]

18. I just took a look, and it appears there is a really good discussion going

there already. This is a wonderful addition to the WesPAC site.

TC

[FrenchieCat]

20. I again, I think the whole point is.....

If we are asked to participate in the discussion and we don't....can we then be so opinionated as to the contents of that conversation?

I say, Participate or STFU! :shrug:

[Totally Committed]

21. Exactly!

I agree! If you have a question for General Clark, it does no good to ask it here. Or, if you have an opinion, why post it here?

There is now a place to have a dialogue with him about important issues. This is an important step, and it shows in what high esteem he holds his grassroots supporters and those who wish to engage him on his views. How amazing is that?

People need to go on over and leave a question, make a comment, or converse with the posters already there online.

TC

[WildEyedLiberal]

22. Populism - the Democratic tradition

Good on Clark. Economic populism has been ignored for so long, dismissed as the "old way" and "out of touch" by scores of free-traders and proponents of the "new economy." I am glad to hear some good old fashioned populism.

[TheFarseer]

25. Did anyone see his speech yesterday?

(on edit, I'm referring to bush's speech) Why doesn't he just declare war on farmers? and all other American workers for that matter? "We are prepared to eliminate subsidies and tariffs" Why doesn't he just come out and illegalize farming and manufacturing in the US? Without subsidies, probably about half the farmers remaining in the US would be out of business next year. Yeah, let's open up the free markets and see how long people trying to raise families on an honest days wages can slug it out in the marketplace with completely unregulated corporate pirates using de facto slave labor and probably not paying any taxes. President bush declared war on working America yesterday and all the media can focus on is the kangaroo court Roberts confirmation.

[Totally Committed]

26. To be clear, I am assuming:

By "his" speech, you are speaking about Bush, not Clark.


TC

[TheFarseer]

27. oh yes of course, I'm going to edit that to be more clear

[Totally Committed]

29. Thanks! That's very good of you! n/t

TC

[AuntiBush]

30. Shopping, Napping, Biking, Shilling for Shame, that's where!

Failure just doesn't cut it any longer. He's the "Natural Disaster!"

What leadership?