Deficit fraud ConservaDem Senator Kent Conrad Loves the Bush Tax Cuts

Deficit fraud ConservaDem Senator Kent Conrad said in an interview with reporters outside the Senate chambers this week that he is supporting extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy without paying for them. President Barack Obama and most Democrats allies support extending the lower rates for individuals earning less than $200,000 or couples making less than $250,000, but raising taxes on millionaires and billionaires modestly back to the level where they were during the Clinton administration, which produced a budget surplus. Although Republicans and conservadems keep promoting the magical thinking idea that when you cut taxes on rich people it magically causes more money to come into federal coffers, experience proves otherwise. Reagan cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires from over seventy percent to around thirty percent and more than tripled the federal debt from under a trillion - where it had been in real dollars for about two hundred years - to nearly three trillion dollars. Clinton raised taxes on the rich, without a single republican vote, and both balanced the budget and produced the first surplus in years. Bush came into office with Clinton's surplus, immediately cut taxes back to and drove a five trillion dollar deficit to over ten trillion. Never ever in history has this magical thinking enbraced by Kent Conrad conservaDems and republicans been shown to actually work but they continue to promote it like children waiting for the Easter bunny.


Bruce Leeroy's picture
Bruce Leeroy 12 years 35 weeks ago

ConservaDems = Oxy"morons"

jimmycrackedcorn225's picture
jimmycrackedcorn225 12 years 35 weeks ago

I just wanted to share this. It really hilights the source of Americans' problems.

mstaggerlee's picture
mstaggerlee 12 years 35 weeks ago

Financial Product Innovation?

Whenever I see an article about the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a phrase similar to the following always seems to appear somewhere in the article:

"Conservatives fear that the if the new agency's regulations are too stringent, they may stifle financial product innovation."

But is that necessarily a bad thing? Back in the "Good Old Days" (i. e., pre-Reagan), when a man with a high school education and a blue-collar job could own a home, and send his kids to college without his wife having to take a job, the whole financial field of endeavour could be pretty well characterized by a single word - BORING! Nobody talked about, expected, or even really wanted innovation in the field of finance, bacause none was necessary. Back then, Americans made real, physical, consumer products, like clothing, appliances, furniture and cars. The best and brightest Americans were responsible for innovations in the fields of technology, manufacturing ands medecine, among others.

Nowadays, we've shipped most of our real industry offshore, predominantly to Asian countries. Kids who graduate College with Masters and Doctorates in fields like Physics have started taking jobs in finance, instead of industry, because that's where the most money is to be made. These bright young men began applying their brilliance to this previously boring sector, creating the "new and innovative" products like Derivatives and Credit Default Swaps, which in no small degree helped to crash the global economy.

So let's get some tough regulators appointed under the new Financial reform laws, rein in this kind of "innovation", and make banking boring again!

DippyDoMeRiteNow's picture
DippyDoMeRiteNow 12 years 35 weeks ago


tupetewalker's picture
tupetewalker 12 years 35 weeks ago

I didn't see the recent Robin Hood flick with Russell Crowe, but from what I read, it underplayed the "robbing the rich and giving to the poor" theme, choosing instead sweeping, large-scale battle scenes - a war paradigm. I can't speak for what I haven't watched, but if that's true, it's a good thing. Today, the last thing Americans want is someone robbing from the rich to give to the poor. Our social value system has been so corrupted by rampant debt under robber baron economics – a matrix dominated by the wealthy few, hidden from equity and social accountability by opaque multinational corporations and government regulations and tax laws skewed to favor the rich and powerful - that most of us don't even realize we have a national case of Stockholm Syndrome - we have fallen in love with the captors who are raping us. This is the horror of empire.

So a "hero" like Robin Hood is no hero at all. He's a wealth-redistributing communist.

His greatest critics are not the wealthiest, from whom he is stealing. Strangely, today the folks who complain the loudest are often the ones who wish they were wealthy, and want to be able to achieve it "without government interference." The "have-nots" have bought the lie that if they work hard enough in their forced-part-time shift at Walmart, they can reach the upper echelons of a classless society...

But we are not a classless society.

And the "equal opportunity" of early American land runs (genocide of native peoples, and regulated opportunity, primarily for whites, notwithstanding...) no longer exists amid firmly fixed geographic and economic boundaries of an aristocratic society-in-denial.

So the folks who believe in and pray most for the American Dream are the victims of a cruel myth. Yes, there are a few exceptions from time to time. These exceptions become the Results-Not-Typical-Token-Ad-Sweethearts who sadly perpetuate the myth, based on their own atypical success.

I would argue that no one earns $53,965,418.00. Especially when there are entire families struggling to survive on pennies, and they are working harder than many corporate-celebrity-CEOs, just to get by. In 2010, someone making $11,500 per year is living OVER the poverty line. In 2007, Lloyd C. Blankfein earned $53,965,418.00 as CEO of Goldman Sachs. That's 54 million dollars in a single year. That's hoarding resources.

This is nothing less than economic oppression.

Every town

has it's ups and downs

Sometimes ups

Outnumber the downs

But not in Nottingham...

The difference today between mythic Nottingham is that taxes were the fiend in that time. Today, it is the lack of government regulation that leaves powerless individuals at the mercy of corporations. Most large companies pay no income tax at all. They receive breaks for cutting wages, pensions, and health benefits, and for shipping jobs overseas. This is the tyranny of stock market corporatism: driving short-term gains in stock prices is more important than providing a quality product or service, or sustaining long-term viability. So call me a Marxist, but we need a Robin Hood today. Not one who righteously kills everyone who opposes him, but one who gets back to the ornery advocacy of robbing from the rich to give to the poor.

Thom's Blog Is On the Move

Hello All

Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.

Please follow us across to - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.

From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
Leonardo DiCaprio, actor, producer, and environmental activist
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann channels the best of the American Founders with voice and pen. His deep attachment to a democratic civil society is just the medicine America needs."
Tom Hayden, author of The Long Sixties and director, Peace and Justice Resource Center.
From Screwed:
"I think many of us recognize that for all but the wealthiest, life in America is getting increasingly hard. Screwed explores why, showing how this is no accidental process, but rather the product of conscious political choices, choices we can change with enough courage and commitment. Like all of Thom’s great work, it helps show us the way forward."
Paul Loeb, author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While