Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

November 6, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

PARTY OF THE RICH?....Michael Franc, the Heritage Foundation's Vice-President for Governmental Affairs, took to the pages of the Financial Times a couple of days ago to warn us that Democrats are becoming the party of the rich. Henry Farrell notes that Franc is, to put it generously, not being reality-based here. All sorts of data (here and here) shows that income is still a pretty good predictor of voting behavior and that the rich still vote for Republicans by a wide margin. In the 2004 election, for example, low-income voters opted for John Kerry by a margin of 63-36; high-income voters were a mirror image, voting for George Bush by a margin of 63-35.

And yet, I come not to bury Franc, but to praise him. Why? Because the hook for his op-ed piece is the observation that Senate Democrats "will not consider a plan to extract billions in extra taxes from mega-millionaire hedge fund managers." He's talking about the carried interest loophole here, which allows zillionaire hedge fund managers to pay taxes at half the rate they should. Leaving this loophole in place is disgraceful, and Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for not closing it pronto. Until they do, all I can say to Franc is: go get 'em. Maybe a right-wing hack can shame them into doing what we liberals apparently can't.

Kevin Drum 11:34 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

The Dems are run by and for the rich, regardless of who votes for them.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on November 6, 2007 at 11:42 AM | PERMALINK

Gore/Edwards 08 is either extremely stupid or an incredible liar.

Posted by: Don Quixote on November 6, 2007 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

"Maybe a right-wing hack can shame them into doing what we liberals apparently can't."

Well, "we liberals" can indeed shift the direction of the Democratic Party.

You may not have noticed, Kevin, but John Edwards is campaigning to lead the Democratic Party in a proudly progressive direction. And we're all going to have the chance to vote.

Posted by: Petey on November 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

So what's the status of the so-called "carried interest loophole?" I thought Schumer had postponed a fix, not ruled it out.

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 11:51 AM | PERMALINK

mhr made more sense when all his posts said "*".

Posted by: David in NY on November 6, 2007 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK

and guess who the democratic senator is who is most helpful to the hedge fund managers' refusal to pay their fair share of taxes.

why, it's CHUCK SCHUMER. the administration's new torture support pal.

Posted by: linda on November 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

If you drive from Washington DC to Atlanta you will not see a single Giuliani bumper sticker but you will see Ron Paul everywhere. Populism is back and it is against both the status quo for-the-rich Democratic party and the authoritarian for-the-rich Republican party.

Posted by: bellumregio on November 6, 2007 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Franc has a point, the even more interesting question is: what does he *want*?

Posted by: Neil B. on November 6, 2007 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

I interrupt you, Kevin.

You need to blog about this.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7762.html

Posted by: glasnost on November 6, 2007 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Saw Chris Dodd on MTP hemming and hawing about this, how he couuldn't make a decision on it until he did more resarch. Bullshit.

The bankruptcy bill, capital gains tax cuts, agribusiness subsidies, etc etc.

Congressional democrats are in the pocket of big business and the wealthy, no matter how much they argue otherwise.

Posted by: exhuming mccarthy on November 6, 2007 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK

Like the NASCAR dad's who vote against their interests when they support Republicans, W. Bush or Reagan ones, low-income voters do likewise and vote for millionator Democrats who reduce welfare, reduce bankruptcy protection, protect hedge funds from defaulting, protect hedge fund managers' income, bail out the nation's largest banks, and authorize the use of their children to fight in foreign occupations. Low-income voters probably think they have no other choice but to vote for Democrats. As they are the most abused faction in our political economy, their inability to abandon the party once associated with the welfare of the working man is understandable.

It is not the low-income voters fault that the media only provides two political party choices, that the two parties have made it extremely difficult for other party candidates to be listed on ballots and that they have, for the most part, poor educations. They also spend most of their time trying to make ends meet, so they have little time to attend union or socialist meetings, where they are probably only condescended to anyway. Until their pain becomes unbearable and their numbers cannot be ignored, they will be taken for granted by the Great Society.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

Don Quixote: Gore/Edwards 08 is either extremely stupid or an incredible liar.

Or maybe he's a child. Wasn't a child the only one to comment that the emperor had no clothes?

Vote Democratic - they're not quite as bad as the Republicans (except Hillary of course, but calling her a Democrat instead of a Republican is a distinction without a difference).

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are "parties of the rich" -- defined not by who votes for them, but buy whose interests they promote. Both parties promote the interests of America's ultra-rich neo-fascist corporate-feudalist ruling class. Both parties are engaged in "class warfare" of, by and for the ultra rich, against everyone else.

Nonetheless,there is a real difference between the two parties. The difference is that the Democrats are a "kinder and gentler" party of the rich; they believe that it is possible to advance the interests of the rich in becoming ever richer and more powerful, while treating the other 99 percent of the people humanely. Whereas the Republicans favor giving the other 99 percent of the people a boot in the face.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on November 6, 2007 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

The difference is that the Democrats are a "kinder and gentler" party of the rich; they believe that it is possible to advance the interests of the rich in becoming ever richer and more powerful, while treating the other 99 percent of the people humanely. Whereas the Republicans favor giving the other 99 percent of the people a boot in the face.

The goal of both parties is to prevent the revolution. Their only difference is that they disagree on the means. The Dems prefer using carrots whereas the GOP prefers sticks.

Remember that even Greenspan recently remarked that he is concerned about income disparity leading to social instability which would endanger capitalism.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn't a child the only one to comment that the emperor had no clothes?

After the election in 2004, Edwards went to work for a hedge fund that owned two subprime lenders. I think we can eliminate him as a progressive activist.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

It is not the liberals, it is the progressives who are trading perks for the rich to obtain their own federal checks for their own groups.


Posted by: Matt on November 6, 2007 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

It is nice to get multiple quotidian calls for Obama & Edwards replete with personal interaction. Curious that HRC doesnt feel the need to ask for my vote. IOWA

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O/F in 08 on November 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure I buy completely into Franc's claim but despite Kevin's enthusiastic endorsement, Farrell, to put it generously, comes up short in dismissing Franc's arguments.

Franc stated that the Democrats are the "new party of the rich" based on the Heritage Foundation's research showing that "Democrats now control the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions [and m]ore than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats." Heritage measured this by looking at where single filers earning over $100,000 and joint filer earning over $200,000 lived and who represented them in Congress.

Farrell's response is based on the Gelman paper but it does not get too the data that Heritage relied on. To put it simply, Heritage was looking at congressional districts where Gelman's paper looks as state-wide data. His most interesting conclusion, it seems to me, was that in poor, red states income had a strong correlation to voting preferences but "in rich states (such as Connecticut), income has almost no correlation with vote preference." He goes on to observe "consider the states nearest major national media:
New York, Maryland, Virginia, and California. In these particular states, the richer counties
showed a slight tendency to support the Democrats."

Gelman does go on to show some complex individual voter preference charts that he says shows that within a state, the richer folks still tend to lean towards the GOP. However, this data is drawn from 2004 presidential election data where, once again, Heritage was looking at congressional district data. Here I also take issue with Kevin's citation of presidential election data. Heritage looked at voters earning over $100,000 as their metric for wealthy. These voters split 58-41% for Bush in 2004 (not 63-35% as Kevin cited, which is the data for folks earning $200,000 or more).

Seems to me the bottom line is that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. The Democrats may not be the party of the very wealthy ($200,000 plus) but may be becoming the party of the merely wealth ($100,000 - $200,000). In any event, it would be interesting to see a more thorough examination of the district by district data but Farrell and Gelman did not provide it.

Posted by: Hacksaw on November 6, 2007 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo: The goal of both parties is to prevent the revolution.

A worthy goal, and one which both FDR and Keynes explicitly stated they were pursuing.

Remember that even Greenspan recently remarked that he is concerned about income disparity leading to social instability which would endanger capitalism.

Maybe he's not as dumb as I thought.

After the election in 2004, Edwards went to work for a hedge fund that owned two subprime lenders. I think we can eliminate him as a progressive activist.

See my above comments on rich guys like FDR and Keynes. Sometimes class traitors are very effective.

Come comrades, let us celebrate - only 137 more shopping days until May Day!

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats may not be the party of the very wealthy ($200,000 plus) but may be becoming the party of the merely wealth ($100,000 - $200,000).

Pt of information: income and wealth are not the same thing.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hacksaw: The Democrats may not be the party of the very wealthy ($200,000 plus) but may be becoming the party of the merely wealth ($100,000 - $200,000).

$100k-$200k is not wealthy. At most it's upper middle class (depending on where in the country) - the kind of people getting screwed by the AMT, and who worry about losing their jobs and their health insurance. No way is that the bracket where you can live off your capital gains, or you stay up nights worrying about inheritance taxes.

Krugman recently made the point that the people who've really done well under Bush, et al, are the $1M/yr plus crowd (with the emphasis on the plus). That's where you're talking about people who truly live in a different universe.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Somtimes class traitors are just nakedly ambitious twits.

FDR's and Keynes' throwing a bone to the working class was done so that low-income voters would continue to vote for the parties of the wealthy, not to actually give the majority political power.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

The one (or, maybe the only) thing democrats have going for them is that they're not republicans! Just voted straight democratic line in Jersey because I refuse to vote republican, even for dog catcher.

Posted by: JerseyMissouri on November 6, 2007 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

What is Franc smoking or what alternate universe does he live in. That much delusion can't be healthy.

Posted by: ET on November 6, 2007 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Disputo and Alex,

I wouldn't take issue with either or your points about wealth and/or income. I used to 100K and 200K numbers only because that is the data I had to work with. Although I think that an individual earning say $150,000 is at least in the upper middle class rather than at most.

The bottom line is that Heritage found that those districts with large concentrations of high-income earners are now more likely to be represented by Democrats than Republicans. I did not see anything in the other data that really addressed this other than statewide presidential election data (drawn from polls rather than census data). I suspect that in the main, wealthier Americans are still more likely to vote GOP but that there is a growing category among them that represent a large , wealthy, and concentrated constituency for the Democrats.

Posted by: Hacksaw on November 6, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

After the election in 2004, Edwards went to work for a hedge fund that owned two subprime lenders. I think we can eliminate him as a progressive activist.

Umm, why? There isn't a financial institution out there that didn't own a piece of subprime paper. Pretty much every single hedge fund, commercial bank, mutual fund, mortage lender and private equity shop in this country did. If it's your position that anyone who works for a financial institution can't also advocate for progressive causes, then god help us, because as we well know in this society it's money and connections that get things done.

Posted by: Stefan on November 6, 2007 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

Brojo: FDR's and Keynes' throwing a bone to the working class was done so that low-income voters would continue to vote for the parties of the wealthy, not to actually give the majority political power.

As always, the Democrats proved themselves to be the cleverer enemies in our class struggle.

Perhaps we should all vote Republican so as not to delay the historical inevitability of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Posted by: alex on November 6, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps we should all vote Republican so as not to delay the historical inevitability of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

A major historical disagreement between socialists and communists is that commies have been against the welfare state for precisely those reasons.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry for the poor wording above. I trust that the meaning is clear.

Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Glad to hear that people are finally starting to figure this out!

The real political battles in this country are no longer liberal vs. conservative, but instead corporation vs. individual and business vs. consumer, and in both those cases, the Democrats are for the most part just as bad as the Republicans.

Posted by: mfw13 on November 6, 2007 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

A better description might be that Republicans are the part of the wealthy (big capital) and Democrats are the party of the bourgeois. What is the party of the poor? There isn't one.

Posted by: Bush Lover on November 6, 2007 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

“It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people” - Gore Vidal

Witness the Military/Industrial, Healthcare (paradox on the face of it)/Industrial Complex pouring money into HC's campaign. Bought and paid for by the Property Party.

'Between 1983 and 2004, the average wealth of the top 1 percent of households grew by 78 percent, reports Edward Wolff, professor of economics at New York University. The bottom 40 percent lost 59 percent.

The 400 richest Americans have a conservatively estimated $1.54 trillion in combined wealth. That amount is more than 11 percent of our $13.8 trillion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) — the total annual value of goods and services produced by our nation of 303 million people. In 1982, Forbes 400 wealth measured less than 3 percent of U.S. GDP.
'Billionaires Up. America Down_Holly Sklar
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/22/4734/

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

anyone who works for a financial institution can't also advocate for progressive causes

Not if their previous job was Vice Presidential Candidate and then they speechify for the poor while they run for president. While Carter was building homes for the poor, Edwards was working to increase the wealth of the already rich.

Hedge funds may loosely be called financial institutions, but it is my understanding the requirements for investing with them is limited to the top 2-5% of income earners. Hedge funds are more like cults of the wealthy than public institutions.

the dictatorship of the proletariat

We are presently living under the dictatorship of capital.

Whether voting Republican or Democratic, most of us are voting for the Party of the Rich. Whether or not that will lead to a historically inevitable destruction of the rich, I cannot say. I would prefer a peaceful change to our political economy, however, but voting for the Democratic faction of the Party of the Rich does not appear to provide for that change.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Nouriel Roubini's Blog
The bloodbath in credit and financial markets will continue and sharply worsen
http://www.rgemonitor.com/blog/roubini/

[snip]

"The amount of losses that financial institutions have already recognized - $20 billion – is just the very tip of the iceberg of much larger losses that will end up in the hundreds of billions of dollars. At stake – in subprime alone – is about a trillion of sub-prime related RMBS and hundreds of billions of mortgage related CDOs. But calling this crisis a sub-prime meltdown is ludicrous as by now the contagion has seriously spread to near prime and prime mortgages. And it is spreading to subprime and near prime credit cards and auto loans where deliquencies are rising and will sharply rise further in the year ahead. And it is spreading to every corner of the securitized financial system that is either frozen or on the way to freeze: CDOs issuance is near dead; the LBO market – and the related leveraged loans market – is piling deals that have been postponed, restructured or cancelled; the liquidity squeeze in the interbank market – especially at the one month to three months maturities - is continuing; the losses that banks and investment banks will experience in the next few quarters will erode their Tier 1 capital ratio; the ABCP and related SIV sectors are near dead and unraveling; and since the Super-conduit will flop the only options are those of bringing those SIV assets on balance sheet (with significant capital and liquidity effects) or sell them at a large loss; similar problems and crunches are emerging in the CLO, CMO and CMBS markets; junk bonds spreads are widening and corporate default rates will soon start to rise. Every corner of the securitization world is now under severe stress, including so called highly rated and “safe” (AAA and AA) securities."

[snip]

"But then, moving to our second astonishing Democratic capitulation of the day, these are the same people who can't get through, or refuse to get through, a bill to tax the income of private-equity firm execs—billionaires!—at the ordinary rate of 35 percent, instead of the current 15 percent. The Washington Post is reporting that Harry Reid met with private-equity firms and told them not to worry: no bill on carried interest would get through this year. He claims there's simply not enough time. And that it has nothing to do with one of the largest lobbying campaigns on record, encompassing some twenty firms and a single payment by one private-equity firm, the Blackstone Group, of $3.74 million, to its own Gucci Gulf denizens—"one of the largest recorded fees to any lobbying firm during a six month period." - Surrender, Dorothy - Rick Perlstein
http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/
surrender_dorothy?tx=3

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Not if their previous job was Vice Presidential Candidate and then they speechify for the poor while they run for president. While Carter was building homes for the poor, Edwards was working to increase the wealth of the already rich.

Again, why not? You'd prefer that Edwards made money and then used his contacts and influence to actively work against the poor? Would that satisfy your desire for ideological purity? Edwards is advocating for public policies that, if enacted, will do more to help the poor in this country than if he single-handedly built one thousand homes himself.

Hedge funds may loosely be called financial institutions, but it is my understanding the requirements for investing with them is limited to the top 2-5% of income earners. Hedge funds are more like cults of the wealthy than public institutions.

Actually, they're unregulated pools of investment capital for high net worth individuals and institutions, including state and union pension funds and university endowments, so chances are good you've got some money tied into a hedge fund somewhere yourself. And of course they're not public institutions? Why would they be? They're private businesses.

Posted by: Stefan on November 6, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Until Edwards' deeds match his words I will continue to view him as hollow.

Hedge funds are not open to the public. Banks and S & L's are, but I understand your point.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

Matt: How do you define the difference between liberals and progressives in your context?

Also, a good refutation of the Rich piece:

http://www.crookedtimber.org/

Posted by: Neil B. on November 6, 2007 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Please see:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/
Global_Economy/IK03Dj03.html


THE BEAR'S LAIR
Level 3 storm about to hit Wall Street
By Martin Hutchinson


The Bonfire of the Derivatives continues.

'When he lowers interest rates he transfers the money you should be getting in your savings accounts and fixed income investments to the Money Center and Investment Banks to rescue them from their horrendous losses. They borrow it from depositors at increasingly low rates as the Fed rescues the economy (what a crock) through interest rate reductions and lend it to you through their credit card operations at 20% to 30% interest rates. The Federal Reserve has been completely compromised by the Congress, US treasury and Hank Paulson. Independent Central bank? NOT. Obscene? Yes! Immoral? Yes! '
FINGERS OF INSTABILITY Part 11: Meltdowns by Ty Andros
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/andros/
2007/1102.html

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

Hedge funds are not open to the public.
Posted by: Brojo

You are a financial and economic moron. Actually, strike 'financial and economic' from the foregoing.

"By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

You are Lou Dobbs' lover.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

You are Lou Dobbs' lover.
Posted by: Brojo

At least he's actually a bono fide economist. You're still just a clueless moron.

Actually, I was really amazed to find that Nouriel Roubini was so attractive. Who knew?

“The human brain is a complex organ with the wonderful power of enabling man to find reasons for continuing to believe whatever it is that he wants to believe.”
—Voltaire

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Hedge funds are not open to the public.

That's true. Neither are most other businesses. My corner grocery is not open to the public, either -- they grant me a limited license to enter, but they don't have to let me in if they don't want my business. What is your point?

Banks and S & L's are, but I understand your point.

Actually, no, they're not. Banks are not "open to the public" in that they have an absolute right to refuse you services if you do not meet certain standards that they meet.

Posted by: Stefan on November 6, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

Until Edwards' deeds match his words I will continue to view him as hollow.

What the fuck do you want him to do? Give away all his money and walk around in a hairshirt? Gee, bet that'll win him the presidency, huh?

His deeds are matching his words -- his continued advocacy for progressive policies, and getting those policies a hearing in the marketplace of ideas, are deeds in themselves. That's what politics is -- at least until (if) he becomes elected, when he can then enact those policies.

Posted by: Stefan on November 6, 2007 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

His deeds are matching his words -- his continued advocacy for progressive policies, and getting those policies a hearing in the marketplace of ideas, are deeds in themselves. That's what politics is -- at least until (if) he becomes elected, when he can then enact those policies.
Posted by: Stefan

Yeah.


" Real change starts with being honest -- the system in Washington is rigged and our government is broken. It's rigged by greedy corporate powers to protect corporate profits. It's rigged by the very wealthy to ensure they become even wealthier. At the end of the day, it's rigged by all those who benefit from the established order of things. For them, more of the same means more money and more power. They'll do anything they can to keep things just the way they are -- not for the country, but for themselves.

[The system is] controlled by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water. And it's perpetuated by a media that too often fawns over the establishment, but fails to seriously cover the challenges we face or the solutions being proposed. This is the game of American politics and in this game, the interests of regular Americans don't stand a chance. " - John Edwards

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

I do not think Edwards will make any substantive changes to the political economy if he becomes president because he lacks the courage and will. Just like he lacked the courage to vote against the AUF. Edwards covets wealth more than wanting to make changes to its distribution, which is fine for anyone, but not progressive leaders. I do not think a genuine progressive leader would have gone to work at a hedge fund, or any other wealth making business after running for vice president, which is why I do not support him.

Hedge funds resemble private country clubs, which base their business model on exclusion.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

I don't agree with a lot I see here but this time, I do:

"Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are "parties of the rich" -- defined not by who votes for them, but buy whose interests they promote."

This is the nasty reality of politics. I spent years on the CMA Commission on Legislation and, as Clauswitz might have said, it is enough to give one indigestion. I do think the Democrats are becoming the party of the very rich. The Republicans are the party of the small business owner, the same people profiled in "The MIllionaire Next Door." Business tends to support whoever is in power and is not a reliable supporter of the GOP as they were in the 1930s and 40s. The bedrock of the GOP is the small business owner and they are anti-tax, anti illegal aliens except a few in construction, and tend to support Bush. Bush has lost a lot of the base with the Medicare Part D and the illegal amnesty plan. The Republican Congress lost them because of the wild spending and corruption. The Democrats of Pelosi and Reid are doing their darndest to send them back home to the Republicans. We'll see what happens next year. My guess is the loss of one house and the presidency for the Dems. Actually, except for foreign policy, where Democrats scare me, gridlock is good for the country.

Posted by: Mike K on November 6, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Remember that even Greenspan recently remarked that he is concerned about income disparity leading to social instability which would endanger capitalism.
Posted by: Disputo on November 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
######

Well, that's a good sign. It's about time they started to get a little worried about that. The last time they were concerned was the 1970's before it was clear the Soviets were kaput. Their competition died, but it didn't solve the original problem. It is ironic that people made good points about "human nature" being incompatible with Communism. Well, now they are rediscovering that "human nature" is incompatible with Capitalism. We aren't heading toward a utopia of perfect competition with zero profits after all. It seems that people who have more than plenty just want to use their advantage to get even more stuff-even to the point of shrinking the pie for everybody. Who would have thought?

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on November 6, 2007 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

>According to the Times Online: “ The Securities and Exchange Commission may investigate whether it [CitiCorp] improperly juggled its books to hide the full extent of the problem.”

Duh.

Posted by: MsNThrope on November 6, 2007 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

The American people know we have to have Real Leadership to solve the many problems that are piling up and which have existed for years.

They will call for Edwards to lead them.

Democrats are very likely to sweep all of the national elections from here through November 2008.

Posted by: MarkH on November 6, 2007 at 10:23 PM | PERMALINK

What the fuck do you want him to do?

I have made Edwards' working for a hedge fund in in 2006 a reason for liberals not to support him.

In that same year,in May 2006, (!pdf) Harpers published Michael Hudson's Road to Serfdom guide, an expose of the housing bubble. Even I knew there was a bubble by then, but Mr. Hudson provided the numbers.

I would ask Mr. Edwards why he was not aware of the housing bubble in 2006, why did he not better use his time to plan and lobby for better regulation of the real estate and mortgage markets instead of working for them. Why was he not sounding the alarm instead of advising the market exploiting the bubble? Today's NY Times had an article about overcharging of fees when mortgage companies foreclose. What was Mr. Edwards doing to protect the people most ill-affected by the housing bubble in the last three years?

Edwards was advising subprime brokers. Edwards was a senator when Clinton bailed out Long Term Capital Management. The alarm had already sounded for a need for more regulation of these types of 'financial institutions.' Was Edwards working undercover?

Edwards was not organizing or working to make life better for the people he claims he will help if he becomes president, even if it was not people being hurt by the housing bubble. He could have done many things. Had Edwards led antiwar marches and organized an antiwar effort with his national leadership, he would probably be the front runner.

Posted by: Brojo on November 6, 2007 at 10:41 PM | PERMALINK

The Dems refusal to end the hedge fund dodge is an embarassment; We are revealed to be hypocrites. It seems fair, tit-for-tat, for conservatives to rub our noses in it after all our guffaws over their sexual hypocrisy.


Posted by: PTate in MN on November 6, 2007 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, commenter with some real figures here. I know Greg Sargent has already pointed out, that the Washington Times stat (Dems hold slightly more than 50% of the 167 'wealthiest districts') is rendered meaningless by the fact the Dems hold a LARGER % of OVERALL districts outright.

But even better, check this out:

http://www.techpolitics.org/congress/110fh1.php?sort_field=Party&sort_order=asc

Pasting to Excel, then averaging out each party's mhi led me to the delightful stat that the avg. Dem congressperson's district, using 2000 census #'s, is TWENTY-SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS POORER than the avg. Republican's district.

So, could they stfu about it, already?

Posted by: fourmorewars on November 25, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly