Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

those of you wanting us to pay for this bailout ***READ THIS***

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
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:27 PM
Original message
those of you wanting us to pay for this bailout ***READ THIS***
IPS Plan to Pay for Recovery

Talking Points by Sarah Anderson, Chuck Collins, Dedrick Muhammad, Sam Pizzigati. Published September 26, 2008 12:12PM

Where to Find $900 Billion from the Wall Street Speculators

Executive Summary
• Don’t finance the bailout with more debt
• Make Wall Street speculators pay now
• Raise $900 billion in new revenue
• Stimulate Main Street and the real economy


As Congress debates the particulars of the inevitable bailout, one key question has gone largely unexplored: Who will pay for this mess?
Lawmakers in Congress appear to have assumed that the federal government will simply borrow more money to foot the bill for the bailout. The national debt ceiling will rise to a whopping $11.3 trillion, up from $8 trillion a year ago.

But this rush to borrowing merely shifts the bailout burden onto the backs of future taxpayers. Congress needs to change course — and develop a “pay as we go” plan that makes Wall Street pay. The lion’s share of bailout funding should come from the high-finance gamblers and the wealthy CEOs who have so profited from our casino economy.

Funding the Bailout: Basic Principles
• Wall Street and speculators should pay now for the mess they created.
• Instead of borrowing from the super-wealthy beneficiaries of the casino economy, we should tax them.
• Any bailout should stimulate the real economy with investments in Main Street, not just Wall Street.

Broadening the Bailout Dollars
The debate over the bailout has so far concentrated on the $700 billion purchase of “troubled assets” proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. A real “bailout” would also target the troubled households of working American families. A $200 billion “Main Street Stimulus Package” could bolster the real economy and those left vulnerable by the subprime mortgage meltdown.

This package should include:
• A $130 billion annual investment in renewable energy to stimulate good jobs anchored in local economies and reduce our dependency on oil.
• A $50 billion outlay to help keep people in foreclosed homes through refinancing and creating new homeownership and housing opportunities. These funds could also help those locked out of the American Dream to purchase homes through non-speculative mortgage programs.
• A $20 billion aid package to states to address the squeeze on state and local government services that declining tax revenues are now forcing.

A Responsible Plan to Pay For Recovery: $900 billion in New Revenue

Below is our ten-point program to pay for this broader bailout. This plan would generate $900 billion a year until the costs of the bailout and stimulus program are paid for.

1. A Securities Transaction Tax: $100 Billion.

A fair plan to pay for the bailout should include a modest financial transactions tax on the buying and selling of stock and other financial products. A penny on every $4 invested would generate $100 billion a year. Other European countries already tax stock transactions, and these transaction taxes effectively discourage speculation.

2. A Wealth Tax Surcharge on Households with $10 million: $300 billion
Congress should institute a modest wealth tax surcharge on households with net worth over $10 million. These households currently own and control over 20 percent of the nation’s private wealth. They have realized huge gains from the manipulation of capital markets and the asset bubbles that created the current crisis. A modest surcharge — no more than 3 percent — could generate over $300 billion.

3. A Corporate Minimum Income Tax: $60 Billion
In August, the Government Accountability Office reported that two-thirds of U.S. corporations paid no income taxes between 1998 and 2005. These corporations paid nothing toward our shared expenses of defense, environmental protection, public health, and education. Ordinary taxpayers should not be left holding this bag. A minimum corporate income tax should contribute toward the bailout.

4. A ‘Disgorgement’ Recovery from Profligate CEOs: $40 Billion
Until several weeks ago, top CEOs and managers were collecting massive salaries and fees while they told the rest of us that “everything is fine.” These CEOs gorged themselves and have taken the money and run. The four biggest investment banks on Wall Street shelled out $30 billion in bonuses last year. One of them, Lehman Brothers, has just gone under. Another, Bear Stearns, was bailed out earlier this year. To help pay for recovery, the new Treasury authority should seek the payback of executive compensation inappropriately extracted in the years before the Wall Street meltdown.

5. An Income Tax Surcharge on Incomes over $5 Million: $105 Billion
A portion of the bailout cost should be financed with an emergency income tax surcharge on incomes over $5 million. Wealthy investors have been the big winners in the unregulated bubble economy. They have watched their incomes skyrocket over the last 25 years. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush has cut their taxes for seven years. Instituting a 50 percent tax rate on income over $5 million and a 70 percent rate on income over $10 million would generate $105 billion a year until the bailout is paid for.

6. An End to Overseas Corporate Tax Havens: $100 Billion
Congress should close down corporate tax havens that allow corporations to game the system and cut their taxes, sometimes to zero. This step would generate $100 billion from profitable companies that have paid no taxes over the last decade.

7. The Elimination of Subsidies for Excessive CEO Pay: $20 Billion
As taxpayers, we subsidize excessive CEO pay, through a host of tax loopholes, to the tune of $20 billion a year. Congress should close these loopholes, including the accounting gimmicks that permit companies to report one set of earnings to shareholders and another lower number to Uncle Sam.

8. The Elimination of the Tax Preference for Capital Gains: $95 Billion
The mega windfalls that Wall Street executives have pocketed over recent years will be generating additional income, in the form of dividends and capital games, for years to come. Under current tax law, dividend and capital gains income faces a mere 15 percent tax rate while income from actual work can be taxed at rates that go up to 35 percent. Taxing wealth and work at the same rates would generate $95 billion a year in revenue.

9. A Progressive Inheritance Tax: $60 Billion
In the near future, the moguls of the past quarter-century will be passing off the scene and leaving behind dynastic-size fortunes. A portion of this wealth should be taxed. A progressive estate tax on estates over $2 million — $4 million for a couple — could generate $60 billion a year in the short term and much more in outlying decades.

10. The Elimination of the Mansion Subsidy: $20 Billion
Wealthy taxpayers can currently deduct their mansion mortgage interest off their taxes. The richest 2 percent of U.S. households do not need to be subsidized by American taxpayers. Capping the home mortgage interest deduction for households with incomes over $200,000 per year would generate $20 billion a year.

http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/740

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
AzDar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. K & R ...
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. this is the sort of progressive plan that the industry and congress...
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 01:08 PM by mike_c
...are DESPERATE to prevent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Because it might actually work!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smart Guy 4 Freedom Donating Member (31 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #5
37. Well I just added it up and
If the estimates are correct it comes to 900 billion $$$ That should be enough to pay for this mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. Exactly.
Which is why a plan like this will never see the light of day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. Now we're talking. k*r
If they ram this thing through, then I say repeal it and replace it.

This hits all the right points.

Thanks for posting this.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yes, it makes so much sense.
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 01:18 PM by cui bono
Clearly it's doomed. :(

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. the money will be gone LONG before the new congress...
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 01:20 PM by mike_c
...and new admininstration can repeal the bailout, which is essentially all about spending that money to transfer bad debt from the banks to taxpayers. There really isn't much else to repeal. Repealing the Paulson bill in January will be the hollowest of victories. The damage will all be done before Christmas. Count on that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
14. Yeah, especially with all the faux oversight they have in it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #8
39. What's More..$700 Billion will go to FOREIGN Banks
From 4 pages to 400 pork-filled pages. I could be wrong.. but according to this bill... NOWHERE does it say Paulson has to buy AMERICAN debt.

Here is the definition of a "troubled asset", right from the bill:

"(9) TROUBLED ASSETS.—The term ‘‘troubled assets’’ means— (A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability;

and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

Notice that conspicuously missing from the definition is the requirement that the asset's underlying thing (that is, the property that was mortgaged, etc) lies within the United States. Also note that Treasury must tell Congress if they add "new types" of debt, but that Congress has no right of review or censure.

So what they are saying is: "Give us $700 Billion.. trust us to be honest and do good". Sure.. they 'gotta tell Congress.. but CONgress can't do a thing about it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
9. K&R for the dream of a more just society. //nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:25 PM
Response to Original message
10. I approve of this message, but one trouble is that
the Republican spin point of "tax increases will kill the economy" has been pushed for so long and so hard, and also picked up by so many "me too" Democrats that it is part of the conventional wisdom. Thus, if Republicans stood against these tax proposals, with filibusters or vetoes, they would have majority M$M and public support. Especially since so many members of the M$M talking class make over $500,000 a year.

During his campaign season most of our candidates from the Presidential down to state houses and city councils and school boards have been on the "anti-tax/tax cut bandwagon"
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/62
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. But since it's not an income tax I don't think it would resonate the same way.
And this way the people paying the taxes are the ones involved with trading. And that's only part of the plan. The other taxes are on the very rich. I think at this point the people should be okay with that. But you are so right that the corporate media will spin it to make it sound unpalatable. But this plan eliminates having everyone pay 4,500-7,500 each which is about what the current legalized theft plan does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. some of them are income taxes
and the capital gains tax cut they have always tried to sell as something that helps ordinary people, and that the so called death tax is something that hurts ordinary people. They already tried to claim that 2/3 of the people who benefit from the capital gains tax cut have incomes under $100,000 a year

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/81
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. dupe
Edited on Wed Oct-01-08 01:32 PM by cui bono
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4 t 4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Now THAT sounds like a plan ! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crispini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:39 PM
Response to Original message
15. K&R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:42 PM
Response to Original message
16. I am and have been heartily in favor of ALL of these.
Instead of a 1/4% market trading tax, I favor a full 1% ... over $400 billion/year. The very existence of corporations, common shares, bonds, the market itself, and the various 'contracts' (derivatives) that are 100% CREATURES OF LAW, depends upon a government and its courts and police powers which these bastards continually whine about paying for ... and load both their PROFITS and their COSTS on the back or the working class. It's fucking plantation economics ... everything for the masters and nothing for the slaves picking the cotton.

I doubt #4 can be done ... either justly or politically. Instead, I've argued repeatedly for NO PRE-TAX EXPENSING of any executive compensation for any publicly-traded corporation. Period. Absolutely every cent of executive compensation should be after-tax ... they're agents of the 'owners' and should be compensated out of after-tax profits or out of the pockets of the owners. No corporate income tax benefits should accrue to such OBSCENE plunder.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagoexpat Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
17. Good Work! The McCain campaign & their internet forces appreciate your efforts -- http://www.democra
Good Work! The McCain campaign & their internet forces appreciate your efforts -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7269132
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. What are you talking about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
18. But I thought there was no choice and WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!

Listening to Thom Hartmann this morning, and he's reading from articles from the day following the crash of '29 and they are often verbatim what is being shoved at us this week.

It didn't help then and it won't help now. The steps outlined in the OP make sense, generate the needed revenues, and address some of the causes of this speculative shitstorm.

Bravo.
:kick: & R


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. I was listening to that. It was really interesting.
Unfortunately I got interrupted by a phone call. Going to have to listen to it over at whiterosesociety or somewhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. The Great Depression was supposed to hit on Monday...

if we didn't approve the bailout over last weekend. These people are clearly lying and they continue to lie.

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. funny, isn't it? Kinda quiet today.
I heard a trader claim it was the eye of the storm. Which means the worst of it is already over, and even then, how bad was it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. Cronus, "eye of the storm" refers to the central vortex of a hurricane where the winds are calm,
skies are clear, all seems well. Then, the eye passes over and you're INTO THE WORST PART OF THE STORM where the winds and rain are coming from THE OTHER DIRECTION.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cronus Protagonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I'm surprised you thought someone in the world didn't know that
So, as I pointed out, half of it is ALREADY OVER, and it's had time to diminish in strength and the back side of the storm is less than half left. Now I never thought I would have to explain that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I'm sure there are lots of people who don't know that. Where in your first post did you say half of
it is already over? Are you joshin' me?

Maybe you left out the quotation marks around the trader's statement. What your post said does not line up with what you just said, unless you were being sarcastic about what the trader said. Which I assume is possible, but the way your statement is worded did not lead me to believe that.

And, to reiterate, there are lots of people in the world who DON'T know about lots of things that you and I might assume they DO know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cybergata Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
25. We should all mail this to our representatives.
The upcoming depression has hit my household hard today. My husband was laid off from the civil engineering company he has been working for the past ten years. I hate those rich bastards who put us in situation. My husband is a really good guy, and those dirt bags have no right to get rich at our expense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
26. so what's got me stumped
is why won't congress seriously consider any but the paulson plan? i cannot get behind any plan to be executed by him. he's going for a big big power play and too many people are falling for it imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Agreed. And of course they asked for a blank check knowing that they would get less.
They still end up with what they expected.

I think we have to count on the House again. Perhaps with the introduction of the DeFazio-Kaptur plan people will go with that one. I haven't seen all the details, but from what I hear it's a good one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. barbtries, I asked the same question a few days ago. The answer I got was campaign contributions--
money. Lots of it. Going into the campaigns of those who vote favorably for the financial elites.

It's always the same. Why do you think we couldn't get the telecom amnesty killed? Money. $$$$$$. $$$$$$$.

And when you retire you get a job lobbying for them or a subsidiary or you get hired into a law firm that works for them. And on and on and on.

My rep is a very good man who I know personally. He's a liberal Democrat who has been in Congress for at least 20 years and comes from a safe district--a liberal enclave is the term we hear used about us. I assumed because of his liberal stances against the war that he would vote against the continued funding after the Dems took Congress back. Then I heard him at a local Q and A where he basically said he didn't think we could pull out without creating more problems than we already had. So, he voted for the continued funding. Boy was I pissed. Along with a number of other constituents.

Then, impeachment became the meme in the liberal community despite Pelosi's treachery, so we implored him to vote to have impeachment hearings. He wrote saying that "impeachment would take too long and be too disruptive." So, he has been silent on that issue.

Now, he has voted AYE for the bailout. I had sent him an email of course. No response yet.

I'm OVER HIM. He is a Committee chairman and has lots of cred, but he is now PART OF THE PARTY ESTABLISHMENT. Time for him to go.

These folks get in and they forget why they're there and who they are supposed to represent. And we get screwed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spike from MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #30
38. Your rep sounds like the mirror image of mine.
Similar situation: liberal enclave where the Dem typically wins with ~70% of the vote. The Republicans will throw out a sacrifical lamb to run against her but don't bother to put anything into the campaign because they know an R doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning. The result? My "Dem" rep can do whatever the hell she wants because she's in a "safe" district.

Her letters invariably start out with "I've fought President Bush on blah blah blah...and then she goes on to try to justify her crappy vote on whatever topic I contacted her about. She votes against war funding but that's about it. On impeachment, I got the typical letter about how they were doing "investigations" and a bunch of other meaningless garbage. Of course, she voted in favor of the bailout bill. No surprise there. She has tied herself to Pelosi's coattails and is hoping that will pave her way to the top. I'm completely done with her. My only hope is that a third party candidate will run against her at some point. Other than that, I'm screwed. I have no representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagoexpat Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
29. The only reason I supported it was cause I wuz assured only "cui bono" would have to pay for it
what the hell happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #29
35. And so you have to ask yourself...
Cui bono?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chicagoexpat Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 02:27 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Works for me... you shuld pay hte entire amount, as far as I'm concerned -- thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. What is your problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AuntPatsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
31. Once again the american people are being held down....how long before
we the people acknowledge that black water is simply another name for the new american KGB and dissenters will be systematically silenced by whatever means necessary...

When does the revolution begin again? Will it be when the american dance off's season is over?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-01-08 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
34. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
40. Wonderful. But if no one from this group has any congressional connections
it's useless.

And we all know this group has no lobbyists, right?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cherchez la Femme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-02-08 12:06 PM
Response to Original message
41. Not one penny without reregulation.
Period.
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 May 02nd 2024, 01:15 PM
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