Should Senator Clinton keep fighting through the convention?

No way, like it or not, republicans are getting the blame for the majority of this mess (as they should, they've had contol of all three branches of the federal goverment for the majority of the last 8 years.)

I remember the republican takeover (the contract with america) lobbyists were actually writing legislation.

Somewhere along the way, the republicans forgot that they were supposed to be representing all the people, not just the affluent. (who were the main recipents of the majority of their efforts.)

 

and that's a maybe. We'll have to see what happens when the democrats turn their full attention on him. Right now, he's getting pretty much a free pass.

Let's see what happens. The debates ought to be interesting, although I don't particularly like the forums they've used in the past.

 

:shock: If that happens, you will be the only one I know who predicted it! Don't hold your breath!

 

You're gonna be handing over your next five paychecks (over the next 8 years) anyway once the taxes start rising, so might as well get something for it, I guess. :grin:

 

I don't know why you'd be worried about the dems. The last general income tax increase to hit all of us was by Bush I, breaking his irresponsible pledge "no new taxes". It was an irresponsible pledge because a president never knows what situation he will face, nor what tools he will need to deal with it.

Then Clinton passed a tax increase on the wealthy that just hit the top 5% of taxpayers. The combination of the two, with small spending increases, balanced the budget. Until Bush II decided to fight a costly war on the credit card, combined with a large tax cut that was targeted mostly at the wealthy, which has helped cut the dollar in half of its purchasing power against the euro since Bush II took office, a pathetic performance if I ever saw one.

Bush II has been in a pickle the last few years, with the deficits soaring, he's produced the largest single year deficit, and the largest 7 year deficit in history, by wide margins. He should have incresed taxes like his father, but we had the housing crisis, created by him and Greenspan leaving interest rates too low too long in 2003-04 (short term rates at 1%, lowest in 40 years). He had to do that because his tax increases failed to stimulate the economy (the 01 and 03 tax cuts), in order to win re-election. So, they over stimulated the economy in order to win the 04 election. Now they had some help creating the housing crisis, but it could not have happened without the irresponsibly low rates and rapid growth of the M3 money supply. So the deficit has spiraled out of control, M3 grew so fast the treasury stopped publishing it for the first time to cover up the obvious. Bright accountants are calculating M3 from the rest of the data, which is part of the reason the dollar has continued to fall. The dollar has rallied a bit the last few weeks, nothing goes straight down forever. Will it hit bottom and turn up sustainably, or rally a bit then continue down? That's the question for the next year.

 

combined with a large tax cut that was targeted mostly at the wealthy

This is a MYTH.The bottom 40 % of the taxpayers pay a combined NOTHING.The Bush tax cut actually gave people who paid no taxes ...money.This has resulted in the bottom 40 % actually not being a zero percent of tax revenue ,but at -4 % of tax revenue.The top 60 percent pay all the taxes.The lawmakers who wrote the bush tax cut in 2001 faced the task of giving tax cuts to people who already paid no taxes.No small feat there! Meanwhile the top 25 percent went from paying 81 percent of the tax burden to 85 % .

So these Bush tax cuts for the wealthy have actually had the income tax burden rise from 66% to 67 percent on the top ten percent of taxpayers while the bottom 40 % are now paying negative 4 %.Please explain to me...how this is a tax cut aimed at the wealthy?,unless you just want to make the wealthy pay 100 percent of the tax burden,and anything less than that is not sufficient.

 

you mean "...people who paid no FEDERAL INCOME taxes...."---big difference.

the bottom 40% pay all the other taxes the rich do, and many of them are regressive---like payroll and sales taxes.

what about the middle 50%?

income taxes are a sham in the big picture, and im surprised they arent higher on the uber-rich just to keep the peasants quiet. income taxes mean nothing to the really rich because income is only a small % of the money they make.