Bourgeois Deviant

Hey all. Migraine Nation tipped me off to a simple web page that is, it purports, independent of the Obama '08 campaign. It calculates your tax cut under the Obama tax plan, should (when) he be elected. It also notes what the difference would be under the McCain tax plan. All it takes is a minute and its enlightening, if not a bit sparse on substantiation. Until I see information to show me otherwise, I am inclined to trust it.

Big surprise! The Obama tax plan saves you more tax money. Well, unless you're a plutocrat or oligarch.

Its not like I wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway. Its just that tax policy, despite being an adult (sort of) and tax payer for the last fifteen years, I've never really felt is really as important as things like foreign policy, national defense and domestic issues like conservation, farm policy, etc... Anyhow, it only caught my interest a bit more because I had a Facebook dialogue with an old friend who is a small business owner in which he claimed he was voting for McCain because he did not want to pay higher taxes under Obama. Aforementioned page does not talk about taxes on business, nor am I in the slightest bit aware of any kind of business tax policy in this country. It just reinforced my agitation with the American peoples' inability to see a bigger picture, long run world view.

This old friend is a good person. His opinion is valid. I just don't think its that well informed or imbued with any sense of community or broad world view. I know other people who wretch about the Federal Government specifically because of the tax issue. Every time I hear it, it sounds incredibly selfish no matter who says it. It would make more sense and sound a great deal better to complain about how the money is used or where it goes or the priority of those who are managing it. And yes, it does suck to send your hard earned dollars to the Government every year, but so what? No one likes it. Quit your whining and look to the bigger issues that, when dealt with to a solution, will do more to cut your taxes and improve your quality of life than just voting for a man or party that says you get to keep your money. Think about it like taking your medicine.

Sure I am talking in broad strokes and generalizations are easy. So? Its my blog and I'll do what I want. And I have been for over three years now. May I make it three more. Good day.

P.S. d.a. has some more depth on why the fiscal conservatism thing blows.

Labels: Barack Obama, Democrats, fiscal conservatives can suck me (for the time being), John McCain, Republicans, taxes

Hillary Clinton was 20 years old in 1968 when the Democratic National Convention took place in Chicago Illinois. Barring amnesia or dementia, she should have some distinct, clear memories of the scar that event left on the American political psyche. I have no idea where she physically was at the time. My guess is that she was attending university and, as most young people were then, intensely aware of current events and the stark choices at hand.

For those whose history is a bit fuzzy, the Democratic Party was to nominate its candidate for the Presidency that would run against the Republican’s nominee, Richard Nixon, and determine how the United States would conduct itself in the Vietnam War. The Democrats’ options were Lyndon Johnson's Vice President, Hubert Humphrey, and Eugene McCarthy. Mr. Humphrey did not participate in any primaries but controlled enough delegates to secure the nomination. The popular vote, however, belonged to McCarthy. From what I glean in speaking with the boomer generation, he was the anti-war candidate and the young person's favorite for those inclined to vote for a Democrat.

Vice President Humphrey sought to continue President Johnson's policies regarding the war. Mr. McCarthy campaigned for immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. History tells us that relations between the two sides of the argument were not rosy. Humphrey, through despotic maneuvering, got the nomination. Rioting followed that got very ugly. Moreover, it fractured and more or less ruined the Democratic Party for years to follow. If the nomination had gone the other way, no one can say for sure what would have happened or where we would be today. What is certain is that Communism in Asia was a red herring that cost too much American blood and treasure.

The cyclical nature of history is awesome. Once again, our nation is involved in an unpopular war abroad and a majority of Americans want to withdraw our forces from the Iraqi theatre. Once again, we have two Democratic candidates who are on either side of this issue. While Hillary Clinton, unlike Humphrey, is running a competitive primary campaign to win the Party's nomination, it is very much like 1968 in that as of this writing, she has, arguably, enough super delegates to take the nomination despite not controlling a majority of elected delegates. She falls well short of an appreciable majority in the popular vote as well. May history write that when you’ve said “Wisconsin, you’ve said it all.”

Barack Obama probably has more momentum than Eugene McCarthy did in '68. We can certainly hope so. Polls and general observation suggest that he is the young people's candidate for change and ending the war. The Clintons embody the Boomer generation’s last, definitive grasp on power. While the contest is far from over, the political weather vein is suggesting that Hillary’s campaign is gradually spiraling into failure. Still, there is a lingering fear that she may attempt to clinch the party’s nomination through the use of super delegates. It would be her first step on an imperiously laden road to hell paved with “good” intentions.

It is surely a common human quality to, once invested in something, be reluctant to let it go. This is certainly the case when a presidential candidate such as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Call it the fog of war or not seeing the forest through the trees. The bigger picture here is that the Clinton campaign sits on the cusp of both history and hubris. From here to the Convention will show which she will follow more truly.

What is clear is that if Hillary attempts to grab the nomination without the support of the popular vote, there will almost certainly be riots again. Obama is clearly the youth candidate and that is the future of the Democratic Party. Be Obama the right or wrong choice, Hillary Clinton must abide by that choice or whatever ill comes down the road for the Democrats rests completely and solely on her shoulders. Until the Convention, progressives can only hope for a well situated, nearly altruistic moment of clarity for Senator Clinton or a total avalanche victory for Obama in the upcoming primary contests. Fingers crossed.

Labels: 1968, 2008 Election, Barack Obama, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, primaries

Ian Welsh says that we shouldn't count Edwards out yet. His reasoning is pretty good. I am happy oblige him because Nevada is a statistical dead heat.

Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

Does anyone else think that this is all great for American politics? I mean, what with the writer's strike, there's not much on TV, so we're left to our Netflix ques and the Presidential race. If it reinvests the electorate's interest in governance and increases scrutiny of those who would take office, it can't be a bad thing for our society. It could also be read as the American people wanting to make sure they don't get Bush-whacked again.

If I were to have my druthers, I'd like Edwards to win this one to spite the polls yet again. And/or to string out the suspense and intrigue of this process until (poorly renamed) Tsunami Tuesday. In any case, it doesn't matter to me if he gets the party's nomintation. For once, his presence on the scene could make the national convention an actual convention with some intrigue as opposed to the pep rally. So, go Edwards!

Labels: American Politics, Democrats, John Edwards, Nevada primary, Tsunami Tuesday

Labels: Daily Kos, Democrats, Mitt Romney, Republicans