Dean bashed on racial history

[Guest donaltopablo]

The battle back and forth between him and Sharpton is kind of funny. But I actually, I must say I was rather impressed by some of the smaller demos for their views on race. Including the other black candidate jumping on sharpton for making race such an issue. I am personally a big fan of trying to eliminate issues based on race, since I think that further divides us, rather than bringing us together. I also like that Edwards pointed out some of the equalities in America and divided them on rich vs. poor, rather than race.

Dean acknowledges lack of minorities in cabinets

By SCOTT SHEPARD

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Related:

[monsoon]

[Cotuit]

Aren't there like 2 blacks in Vermont?

[Guest donaltopablo]

Off of the Democratic candidates, I enjoy listening to Al Sharpton the most. My opinion of him has certain changed. He stands a snowball's chance in hell in getting elected, but it is sure refreshing to hear someone as straight talking as him. At least he is keep the others on their toes.

I've never been a big fan of Sharpton. He's too much of a divider. He makes things into racial issues that don't need to be, and doesn't seem to want to head in the direction of bringing people together.

[BrandonTO416]

These debates have really shown me how pathetic the Democratic party really is.

We have a candidate, Clark, who openly admits voting for Nixon, Reagan, and practically being a Republican all the way to the end of the 90's; now he says he's liberal on a few issues (like abortion) and wants the nomination (just to do what, turn right after you get it?).

All the others are attacking Dean - calling him a racist, calling him weak, calling him this or that.

Then we have Dean have to fire back and make an ass out of himself.

Its compelled me to register as an independent after I vote in the primaries next month - if I vote at all.

What the hell is wrong with the party when they can't focus on a few positive issues we need.

These debates should be about promoting universal healthcare, promoting a new ethic in the social security program which includes ZERO room for privatization.

These debates should be about reforming the "Patriot Act" and upholding civil liberties and equal rights for *ALL* Americans; regardless of race, sexual orientation, creed, etc.

These debates should be about creating a new transportation infrastructure, and promoting urban agenda's. In the 1940's we got the New Deal, in the 1950's and 60's we got the Interstate system and the Great Society. It is time in America where today we need a Fair Deal where we have a prioritization of programs. We need to promote cities - they are in need of financial aid to help reinvest in them. That includes emphasis on rail transportation and tax incentives to start business, and to clean up delapadated buildings and infrastructure.

These debates should be about social justice - putting Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, and other corporate crooks in jail and passing sweeping new anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws into place.

We should talk about media consolidation and propose a new public broadcast network with independence from government control and advertising revenue or other special private corporate interests; and breaking up the media monopoly. No one should own more then one medium (newspapers shouldn't own TV stations; TV stations shouldn't own radio stations, etc). We need a real American public broadcasting network. Every democratic society has one - Canada has its CBC, Britain has its BBC. Its uncalled for to have something as pathetic as PBS. It would take a DROP IN THE BUCKET to have a real national public broadcast network system - $1 billion/year budget would be all it needs. That's nothing compared to other forms of spending.

It also costs nothing for the federal government to pass reformed federal laws on media and to enforce them by breaking up these media monopolies. But it'll never happen unless Democrats - the only opposition - start doing it.

Lame asses. LAME LAME LAME. The party isn't a party of ideas. Its a LAME CRAPPY PARTY.

Iraq is OLD NEWS. The only thing that can be said from here on out is that we need to follow up on nation building - without sweetheart corporate deals, then pay more attention to the war against terrorism now and in the future.

Yet what dominates these debates? Iraq and fighting.

Democrats suck. I've thankfully realized I'm not a Democrat anymore thoughtout the past few months.... None of the candidates stand for what I do, not even Kucinich. He totally ignores what NEEDS to be done in Iraq. You can't get up and leave.

[BrandonTO416]

We need to reinvest in public education - and trash the federally mandated so-called No Child Left Behind. That includes trying to ensure public college education is as free as possible. Make the most minimal requirements - you make a 19 on the ACT, you get a free college ride. End of story.

We also need a TRULY reformed tax system. And it needs to be truly progressive.

Poverty rate:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/30/...ain527453.shtml

"The poverty threshold differs by the size of the household. The bureau calculated that for a family of four, the level in 2001 was $18,104, up from $17,603."

New tax reform law should take this number into account.

A new reform should be:

Income up until the poverty rate, as set by the Census bureau each year, shall be 0%.

Income from the poverty rate up until $100,000 in income shall be 20%.

Income $100,000 to $500,000 shall be taxed at a rate of 30%.

Income $500,000 and above shall be taxed at a rate of 45%.

----

This plan works simply. No deductions, no exemptions. You pay your taxes as is. End of story. This is a true progressive tax system. We need to get rid of the lowering of taxes on dividends or other unearned wealth.

Examples of a true progressive plan would include:

Individual works at WalMart and has income of $10,000 a year. $10,000 is below $18,104. Your tax bill is automatically calculated at $0 and you keep all your income.

---

Family or individual with income of $30,000 in the fiscal year 2001.

$30,000 subtracted by $18,104 yields $11,896. $11,896 multiplied by .20 yields $2,379.

Your tax bill is $2,379 on income of $30,000 a year.

---

Family or individual with income of $50,000 in the fiscal year 2001.

$50,000 subtracted by $18,104 yields $31,896. $31,896 multiplied by .20 yields $6,379.

Your tax bill is $6,379.

---

Family or individual with income of $200,000 a year in fiscal year 2001.

$200,000 subtracted by $18,104 yields $181,896.

$100,000 multiplied by .20 yields $20,000.

$81,896 multiplied by .30 yields $16,379.

Your tax bill is $36,379. You keep $163,621 in income.

Its that simple. And these are my priorities. I believe them to be the priorities of the vast majority of the United States of America's citizenry. They aren't that extreme.

Where is the Democratic party? Dead on arrival. They don't deserve to be elected. Let the Republicans screw this nation into a hole - it needs to happen if Democrats are going to be this lame.

[Guest donaltopablo]

We should talk about media consolidation and propose a new public broadcast network with independence from government control and advertising revenue or other special private corporate interests; and breaking up the media monopoly. No one should own more then one medium (newspapers shouldn't own TV stations; TV stations shouldn't own radio stations, etc). We need a real American public broadcasting network. Every democratic society has one - Canada has its CBC, Britain has its BBC. Its uncalled for to have something as pathetic as PBS. It would take a DROP IN THE BUCKET to have a real national public broadcast network system - $1 billion/year budget would be all it needs. That's nothing compared to other forms of spending.

What in the world do we need a national TV station for? I've got DirecTV with 300+ channels of crap. Save the billion dollars, put it towards something useful like health care, feeding poor... something. Last thing we need is another TV network. We have plenty.

[BrandonTO416]

I believe in prioritization of money.

I find it appalling that since the Iraq war started, it has cost right near $200 billion in spending for that alone ($87 billion was just an additional cost) - on top of the regular defense budget.

We are in the initial stages of embarking on a Mars project, and a Lunar space station that will cost, at a conservative estimate, of $400 billion dollars over a period of 20 years. That breaks down to $20 billion a year on top of existing NASA spending; and that is a conservative estimate. Estimates easily range up to $600 billion.

Yet people don't seem to understand that the very foundations of our democracy are based on the information that people recieve. Democracy cannot win without a free flowing exchange of information that is not bound to special interests. And that is what public broadcasting does - it is not bound to any advertising or special interest source. It is an independent agency that is funded by taxes from the general fund.

Giving people a network choice of public broadcasting that ensures public interest stories, as well as breaking up the news conglomerations (making the networks like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc. independently owned and focused on one job: their TV operation). This is the only way to ensure that democracy will not fail.

In the past 200+ years we've had a nation that has worked kinks out and tried to change for the better. In the past 20 years we've seen virtually all our media be bought up by companies and conglomerated into the hands of a few.

There has been an obvious change in the type of news we recieve - news agencies refuse to question the administration in proper ways, they refuse to seek news in an unbiased way other then what the government tells them.

It affects our democracy and is the cornerstone of how people get their information and participate in a democracy.

That's why having a reputable, competitive public broadcasting network and breaking up the conglomerations is very important.

You may have 300+ channels, but only 10 or so have tangible news that affects our democracy. And the news we get here is becoming very tainted.

My priorities are that we need a free exchange of ideas based on fact, we need programs that help people and give opportunity in a free society.

We are willing to spend so much for things that we don't need, but when it comes to the necessities, we aren't getting them.

No, we don't need a nanny state. But we need a state that has what it takes to give people the opportunity to be their best.

So why do Americans whine when the idea of spending $1 billion on a public network comes up, but jump for joy when we spend billions for other things that could be argued to be needed even less? Especially when democracies are based on the flow of information. Information that needs to be accurate and information that has to be put to the test against our leaders - regardless of party?

Its because America is becoming a corporate welfare state. LOL

[BrandonTO416]

And if you are wondering, there is a huge difference between public broadcasting, and state-owned media that is dictated from a dictator such as Saddam Hussein.

That argument is useless, it means the person arguing doesn't know what he/she is talking about.

And public broadcasting is not leftist leaning. If you take note, and I watch the National from the CBC fairly often, the CBC grills the Liberal government in Canada pretty hard from time to time...

If you look at the BBC, they totally ripped apart Tony Blair's leftist Labour party government. Why? Because he is doing questionable things.

Too bad we don't have the same type of organization here in the USA picking, prodding, and finding out real information about things.

Example is the universal healthcare debate.

In recent time, the debate has changed from the idea of single-payer universal healthcare vs. total privatized care mixed with medicaid and medicare to the idea of universal healthcare ran from a government subsidy of private HMO's to totally privatized care without any government programs doing anything.

Single-payer healthcare isn't even debated on TV anymore - if it is, its a 5 second segment.

[Guest donaltopablo]

I disagree. Certain news outlets are liberal, some are very conserative, others are moderate. There is a different feel to the issues presented on each of the news agency. A large portion of the news comes from the AP. Add in newspapers, all of which have their own styles and slants on issues. Maybe they don't dig as far into the stories as people would like, but then again, that's what's wonderful about the age we live in now. We can find alternate information and news stories on other channels, other sources, and the internet. CBS, FOX, NBC, CNN may all be big businesses, but they also have their own twists on the individual stories. Plus there is local news, PBS. There are channels like the Discovery Times channel which digs deeper into stories.

The only "national" media outlet I am aware of existing, is NPR. And frankly, even from your description of what you expect to see (similar to BBC) and NPR, what it sounds like what you want is another/more liberal slanted media outlets on mainstream television stations.

I'm not even a conservative and I can see the liberal slant in stories on NPR. I listen to regularly on my many trips a year to Florida because it's the only station worth listening to in South GA. Almost every time (although they do include some relatively neutral news stories), many of the programs have a liberal slant. Sorry, I don't see how this is any benefit to the American people. If it was truly neutral or truly balanced, maybe.

Again, with all of the alternative outlets, many, including significant information available on the internet available to everyone for free, I don't see how the change in media outlets has some how threatened out democracy or ability to obtain information. In fact, I'm more willing to deal with media outlet slants today because I know how easy it is to find alternative or more detail sources of information.

[BrandonTO416]

I guess it depends on your definition of liberal.

If liberal means focusing on issues that affect people and lives - healthcare, social security, not being quick to go to war, education, etc. Then yeah, NPR is liberal. They focus on these things because it affects people - the essence of democracy.

But that's what a democracy is about - letting the people rule and allowing public oversight to things that need it - like natural monopolies such as utilities like electricity.

Like I said, we've become (or are becoming) a corporate welfare state. Democracy is meaning less and less over time. And too many people confuse "liberal" with "democracy."

[Guest donaltopablo]

It's not the issues NPR presents that makes them liberal (the issues they present make them a news outlet, maybe "alternative" news outlet since they seemed to skip over the entertainment gossip). I mean how they present it. And yes, as a non-liberal and non-conservative it's very liberal. Just like Sean Hannity is conservative (although his show, and NPR are both interseting to me, they are too far at the extremes for me to agree with either).

When I mean Liberal, I'm referring to the slant that believes that everyone should have Healthcare, we shouldn't go to war to quickly. Exactly what you described. Whether I agree with it or not, NPR generally takes a stance and a side. Since there are those in this country who believe we should go to war regularly and kick some ass, and that not everyone should get healthcare, I would have consider NPR and similar outlets liberal.

Here, you don't have to believe me they are one sided, you already told me they were.

not being quick to go to war

It's not that their liberal that's bad, don't misunderstanding me. It's that they have a slant that's the problem.

I'll through one more wrench in your plan for a purely "news" no slant network. EVERYONE in this country in any business or government agency, profit or non, answers to someone. This includes the folks at NPR. Just like Fox presents it's news in the manner it believes it customers and bosses want, guess what, NPR as a government agency does to. Why? Because NPR has bosses. Those bosses pay their bills, usually Congress and the President through funding. So they have a reason to be slanted too, and they are.

[BrandonTO416]

Regardless of whether you support a public network or not; we need to start breaking up these huge media conglomerates.

CNN does not need to be a part of every other aspect of our lives through Time Warner. It needs to be an independently owned network.

NBC does not need to be owned by GE.

DirecTV does not need to be owned by News Corporation (recently purchased from Hughes/GE).

Clear Channel does not need to own 99.9% of the radio stations out there (yes I know its not 99%, but its bad as is).

et cetera, et cetera.

As far as public broadcasting, I never once mentioned NPR. I mentioned a new network needed to be created that served the public. Serving the public probably means being a little more liberal then most people are used to, however. That includes focusing on healthcare, education, the environment, and things that never get talked about in a positive manner anymore.

Half these government programs that are in "distress and are falling apart" such as Medicare aren't falling apart at all. Medicare has the lowest per patient administrative cost of any insurance system in the country. The problem is that costs are rising in the industry - particularly drugs, government won't initiate steps to control costs, and in addition to that conservative politicians on BOTH SIDES are cutting funding that is there creating a false impression that the program is about to implode.

Same for Social Security. There is no social security crisis. It has been manufactured by conservatives who are stealing funds from the SS program (which are not locked away from general fund usage, hence why Gore proposed putting it in a "lock box"). Social Security is one of the most administratively successful programs ever - but it has the same issue as Medicare.

Just think about the news filter we see. Anytime you turn on the news and hear a labor issue, its always negative. "Those labor unions are going to cause another strike and be a pain in a service i need today" and they are usually sub-headlines in the business section.

The business section has its own section, and its always talking down to labor. Virtually every paper does it - from the liberal ones to the conservative ones.

People are left out of the equation over and over and over and over. In modern time, it seems as if only concentrated wealth and special interests are represented. I think a public network would help break that; if not that - then at the very least we need to break apart these huge conglomerations. Its worse then a monopoly because you get confused into beleiving we have different sources... When its not.

[BrandonTO416]

By the way, this new medicare reform is a total farce. And it also further proves how the Republican party has melded into a corporate welfare party and has no sense of small government. I'm even surprised by the many things Bush has done.

Medicare's problem isn't the program. As far as drug coverage, the problem is simple:

Drug costs are out of control, and continue to rise. The government through the FDA refuses to place ANY market controls into place to force more generics on the market, the FDA and the gov't refuse to lower costs to get approval to get drugs to market, among other things. What happens?

Instead of SOLVING the problem and funding a drug benefit THROUGH medicare and lowering costs of drugs by putting price controls and lowering R&D costs; Bush and the Republicans give corporate welfare checks to private HMO's to tell people how many drugs they should be eligible to buy using some quasi-government guideline that says they must provide x amount at least.

What do half the Democrats do? Support him.

What the hell is going on, you tell me.

Its because politicians are bought and sold on the market to the highest bidder and reward their suppliers with corporate welfare checks.

Its a beautiful system, really, and we the people just pretend like we have a say. We just choose between dumb and dumber.

[Guest donaltopablo]

Its worse then a monopoly because you get confused into beleiving we have different sources... When its not.

We certainly don't have different sources. We have different slants. The majority of the news comes from the AP, which I posted further up. But I don't think, even with independant news, that we have any considerable increase in the number of sources.

But again, I think what you feel the need for is a liberal news outlet (or more liberal, prehaps than what exists). Sorry if I don't agree with you Heckles, but I have yet to see how we need a government funded news channel, sounds like what we need is a private investment all liberal channel with talks shows to discuss some of the topics that interest you.

I'm not saying I like the news the way it is, the slants, or all of the content. I think there other items they could be discussing. But I don't find there to be any "lack" of information available when I am interested in a topic.

[BrandonTO416]

We certainly don't have different sources. We have different slants. The majority of the news comes from the AP, which I posted further up. But I don't think, even with independant news, that we have any considerable increase in the number of sources.

But again, I think what you feel the need for is a liberal news outlet (or more liberal, prehaps than what exists). Sorry if I don't agree with you Heckles, but I have yet to see how we need a government funded news channel, sounds like what we need is a private investment all liberal channel with talks shows to discuss some of the topics that interest you.

I'm not saying I like the news the way it is, the slants, or all of the content. I think there other items they could be discussing. But I don't find there to be any "lack" of information available when I am interested in a topic.

Get the publicly funded network idea out of your head.

Do you agree we need to break up these network conglomerates? Barely 5 or so corporations owns virtually every media outlet in the USA today. From recording to print to radio to tv to movie studios to Internet services, to other non-media corporations. You name it, they own it.

[Guest donaltopablo]

I honestly am not that concerned with the number of outlets. I don't think any outlet should control all of the major sources (i.e. CBS shouldn't own NBC). But as say Clear Channel owning a newspaper and owning a TV station, I don't have a problem with that. There are plenty of other options available.

Get the publicly funded network idea out of your head.

Wait, then I'm confused. How to you get a national media outlet that's not controled by business and not publicly funded?

[Guest donaltopablo]

Heckes, your so liberal I don't think you realize it.

And like I've said, nothing wrong with being liberal. BUT, it really sounds like you want a purely liberal news network. Frankly, I'm surprised one doesn't exist.

[BrandonTO416]

I don't realize it? Yeah.. Maybe. I've only said I'm liberal how many times, and I'm moving to Canada?

[BrandonTO416]

Really, some of my leanings are more toward democratic socialism. Not socialism like you are probably thinking, however. LOL I've yet to meet many people in American who can distinguish between Communism, Democratic Socialism, and Liberalism.

The public network idea is rooted in democratic socialism - a voice of the people, funded by government, but not regulated by government. Again, the US only has PBS - its one channel that mostly offers educational stuff so poorly funded it has to get "donations" from corporate sponsors. LOL

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

I had FSTV when we had DISH - its not that impressive. They repeat old Noam Chomsky and other stuff every other day.

Its a community channel compared with the set of networks at the CBC in Canada.

[monsoon]

[monsoon]

[BrandonTO416]

Iowa and New Hampshire are so overrated, its about time for the media to quit playing it up.

Clinton lost New Hampshire and went onto be an 8 year prez.

McCain won New Hampshire, didn't he? Look who we got. The real deal comes after New Hampshire and the world knows it.