"Tear it down and start over. It's damaged beyond repair and there's no saving it."


That's your solution in every single thread. Predictable. and boring.

8/30/2011 12:50:23 PM

Tear it down, then build it back up

8/30/2011 12:55:29 PM

Quote :

"Some more questions: Who can we trust to run/design the electoral process? Who can we trust to not take kickbacks? Who can we trust to properly translate the will of the workers into government action?"

could you be trusted to do the things you're asking?

if so, then i'd wager you aren't the only one. and if there are others, maybe there could be enough.

8/30/2011 11:52:43 PM

Quote :

"could you be trusted to do the things you're asking?"

I would hope so, but it's irrelevant - I don't want to do any of those things. I have no desire to control other people. No one thinks they'll become drunk with power - it just happens.

8/31/2011 1:17:07 AM

you strike me as the kind of kid who writes in "no solution" a lot on tests.

8/31/2011 10:28:29 AM

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/1/as_economy_lags_new_study_reveals

Watch that video and listen to the interview. They discuss corporate tax dodging methods, ceo pay, offshoring practices, and the latest developments in backroom legislation. all intersting stuff.

9/1/2011 3:26:18 PM

http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/15/news/companies/ceo_pay/index.htm

Quote :

"NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Who says American salaries are stagnating. After two years of lower pay packages, chief executives at the nation's major companies enjoyed a 36.5% jump in pay last year, according to a leading survey of CEO compensation. The average pay hike is for the top executive at each of the Standard & Poor 500 companies, according to GMI, the research group formerly known as the Corporate Library. A broader survey of CEO pay at 3,000 companies posted an average 27% increase. Paul Hodgson, senior research associate at GMI, said the sharp rise in pay was out of line with the relatively modest improvement that companies typically achieved in profits or share price during 2010. The most lucrative sector for CEO pay was health care, which included three of the nine top-paid executives, including the two most lucrative packages"

12/15/2011 11:19:26 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

Half of US now considered poor or low income.

Quote :

"Let's raise their taxes! while lowering the taxes of the people who AREN'T poor! that's the solution!! "

- Republicans

12/15/2011 11:22:35 PM

Tell me again how raising taxes on the rich would increase the incomes of the poor?

12/15/2011 11:42:40 PM

Is that a serious question?

12/15/2011 11:44:36 PM

Yes. maybe I'm overlooking something. But I don't know anyone among the poor whose income is pegged to the top marginal tax rate.

12/16/2011 12:29:12 AM

well, for the 15 million american children living in poverty, they don't pay taxes at all, so we can probably exclude them anyways

12/16/2011 1:32:21 AM

an unregulated free market has already proven that when given the chance, the people in that type of power and stress level are capable of bad business practice.

and over regulated revenue can be just as dangerous, but I am not convinced we have approached that threshold.

12/16/2011 1:45:51 AM

Quote :

"an unregulated free market has already proven that when given the chance, the people in that type of power and stress level are capable of bad business practice."

What you just described is a paradox. How can it be a free market when "people in that type of power and stress level" tilt the market towards their favor?

12/16/2011 7:22:13 AM

I don't think that either extreme will work. There has to be a balance, including taking away some of the regulations that are unnecessarily weighing down businesses in America. The government does need to be the backbone... but not an unquestionable deity.

12/16/2011 11:38:16 AM

Its a shame but our "capitalist" economic system is really nothing more than a ponzi scheme. People like to talk about social security being a ponzi scheme when in actuality, our economic system itself if the most elaborate ponzi scheme ever created. It meets all the characteristics.

-Pyramid structure. Very few rich people at the top. The ones who got in early.

-False promises that everyone can get to the top. It is not possible for the shape of the pyramid to change. People can move downand people can move up but it takes an extremely rare talent to do either.

-The people at the top are only at the top because the people at the bottom falsely believe they can someday be at the top. What makes you think you can get to the top simply by working hard and playing smart? The biggest lie of all time.

-The more people the buy in under you, the more you move up. You can't be rich without making others poor.

-The target moves up when you get there- this is essentially like the point inflation that occurs in small scale ponzi schemes to keep the smaller people at the bottom. The uber rich manipulate the economy through the federal reserve and international reserves to insure they stay one step ahead.

12/16/2011 2:29:15 PM

Quote :

"You can't be rich without making others poor. "

I want to be rich. How do I make others poor? By charging a lot for my services?

12/16/2011 2:43:06 PM

^^that is how it seems to be shaping up.


congress should be disbanded.

12/16/2011 4:45:08 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57343397/census-data-half-of-u.s-poor-or-low-income/

Quote :

"(AP) WASHINGTON - Squeezed by rising living costs, a record number of Americans — nearly 1 in 2 — have fallen into poverty or are scraping by on earnings that classify them as low income. The latest census data depict a middle class that's shrinking as unemployment stays high and the government's safety net frays. The new numbers follow years of stagnating wages for the middle class that have hurt millions of workers and families. "Safety net programs such as food stamps and tax credits kept poverty from rising even higher in 2010, but for many low-income families with work-related and medical expenses, they are considered too `rich' to qualify," said Sheldon Danziger, a University of Michigan public policy professor who specializes in poverty. "The reality is that prospects for the poor and the near poor are dismal," he said. "If Congress and the states make further cuts, we can expect the number of poor and low-income families to rise for the next several years." Congressional Republicans and Democrats are sparring over legislation that would renew a Social Security payroll tax cut, part of a year-end political showdown over economic priorities that could also trim unemployment benefits, freeze federal pay and reduce entitlement spending. Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, questioned whether some people classified as poor or low-income actually suffer material hardship. He said that while safety-net programs have helped many Americans, they have gone too far, citing poor people who live in decent-size homes, drive cars and own wide-screen TVs. "There's no doubt the recession has thrown a lot of people out of work and incomes have fallen," Rector said. "As we come out of recession, it will be important that these programs promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence and encourage people to look for work." CBS News correspondent Byron Pitts told the story in November of the Struble family. They are college educated, career-holding members of America's vast middle class. They had a combined annual income of $85,000. But in November of 2009, Todd lost his job, and hasn't had a steady paycheck since. They now have only an estimated $25 in their savings account, perhaps another $100 in their checking. Mayors in 29 cities say more than 1 in 4 people needing emergency food assistance did not receive it. Many middle-class Americans are dropping below the low-income threshold — roughly $45,000 for a family of four — because of pay cuts, a forced reduction of work hours or a spouse losing a job. Housing and child-care costs are consuming up to half of a family's income. States in the South and West had the highest shares of low-income families, including Arizona, New Mexico and South Carolina, which have scaled back or eliminated aid programs for the needy. By raw numbers, such families were most numerous in California and Texas, each with more than 1 million. The struggling Americans include Zenobia Bechtol, 18, in Austin, Texas, who earns minimum wage as a part-time pizza delivery driver. Bechtol and her 7-month-old baby were recently evicted from their bedbug-infested apartment after her boyfriend, an electrician, lost his job in the sluggish economy. After an 18-month job search, Bechtol's boyfriend now works as a waiter and the family of three is temporarily living with her mother. "We're paying my mom $200 a month for rent, and after diapers and formula and gas for work, we barely have enough money to spend," said Bechtol, a high school graduate who wants to go to college. "If it weren't for food stamps and other government money for families who need help, we wouldn't have been able to survive." Since the housing bubble burst, nearly 4 million American homes have been lost to foreclosure. An estimated 1.6 million children will be homeless at some time during the year - 38 percent more than at the start of the recession. As CBS News correspondent Ben Tracy explains, unemployment has driven some families to the southern California desert, where a barren old WWII training ground in the desert has become a place for many to park their troubled lives. About 97.3 million Americans fall into a low-income category, commonly defined as those earning between 100 and 199 percent of the poverty level, based on a new supplemental measure by the Census Bureau that is designed to provide a fuller picture of poverty. Together with the 49.1 million who fall below the poverty line and are counted as poor, they number 146.4 million, or 48 percent of the U.S. population. That's up by 4 million from 2009, the earliest numbers for the newly developed poverty measure. The new measure of poverty takes into account medical, commuting and other living costs. Doing that helped push the number of people below 200 percent of the poverty level up from 104 million, or 1 in 3 Americans, that was officially reported in September. Broken down by age, children were most likely to be poor or low-income — about 57 percent — followed by seniors over 65. By race and ethnicity, Hispanics topped the list at 73 percent, followed by blacks, Asians and non-Hispanic whites. Even by traditional measures, many working families are hurting. Following the recession that began in late 2007, the share of working families who are low income has risen for three straight years to 31.2 percent, or 10.2 million. That proportion is the highest in at least a decade, up from 27 percent in 2002, according to a new analysis by the Working Poor Families Project and the Population Reference Bureau, a nonprofit research group based in Washington. Among low-income families, about one-third were considered poor while the remainder — 6.9 million — earned income just above the poverty line. Many states phase out eligibility for food stamps, Medicaid, tax credit and other government aid programs for low-income Americans as they approach 200 percent of the poverty level. The majority of low-income families — 62 percent — spent more than one-third of their earnings on housing, surpassing a common guideline for what is considered affordable. By some census surveys, child-care costs consume close to another one-fifth. Paychecks for low-income families are shrinking. The inflation-adjusted average earnings for the bottom 20 percent of families have fallen from $16,788 in 1979 to just under $15,000, and earnings for the next 20 percent have remained flat at $37,000. In contrast, higher-income brackets had significant wage growth since 1979, with earnings for the top 5 percent of families climbing 64 percent to more than $313,000. A survey of 29 cities conducted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors being released Thursday points to a gloomy outlook for those on the lower end of the income scale. Many mayors cited the challenges of meeting increased demands for food assistance, expressing particular concern about possible cuts to federal programs such as food stamps and WIC, which assists low-income pregnant women and mothers. Unemployment led the list of causes of hunger in cities, followed by poverty, low wages and high housing costs. Across the 29 cities, about 27 percent of people needing emergency food aid did not receive it. Kansas City, Mo., Nashville, Tenn., Sacramento, Calif., and Trenton, N.J., were among the cities that pointed to increases in the cost of food and declining food donations, while Mayor Michael McGinn in Seattle cited an unexpected spike in food requests from immigrants and refugees, particularly from Somalia, Burma and Bhutan. Among those requesting emergency food assistance, 51 percent were in families, 26 percent were employed, 19 percent were elderly and 11 percent were homeless. "People who never thought they would need food are in need of help," said Mayor Sly James of Kansas City, Mo., who co-chairs a mayors' task force on hunger and homelessness. "

Meanwhile, congress debates on whether or not to increase taxes on the lower and middle class.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

12/20/2011 10:30:54 AM

The conservative viewpoint seems to be to let the system fail then maybe, like children, we'll all realize how we've just been lazy this whole time and just weren't working as hard as the rich people.

12/20/2011 11:37:15 AM

You're a fool. The ultra rich have the most to lose if the system collapses.

12/20/2011 11:51:08 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-marriage-gap-presents-a-real-cost/2011/12/16/gIQAz24DzO_story.html

The marriage gap exacerbates the wealth gap. It's one of the most under-reported facts out there - marriage has been going the way of the dodo bird among the poor(er) and less educated for a while now.

12/20/2011 12:47:13 PM

Quote :

"You're a fool. The ultra rich have the most to lose if the system collapses."

That depends on how much value you assign to human life

12/20/2011 2:08:02 PM

Quote :

"You're a fool. The ultra rich have the most to lose if the system collapses."

Uh, no they don't. They'll just move their labor to China or India and employ slaves non-unionized labor and force Yahoo Americans to scream, "less regulation, it's bad for business!"

There are 7 billion people in the world for them to exploit. The only thing standing in their way are organized governments that are made of the people, by the people.

Remove that obstacle, and it's game on for the job creators.

12/20/2011 2:14:08 PM

You couldn't possibly make a more disconnected from reality post if you tried.

12/20/2011 6:11:32 PM

Quote :

"That depends on how much value you assign to human life"

I don't assign value to people. All individuals have rights.

The fucked up thing about this country is that liberals will sooner vote for the guy ramping up wars (foreign and domestic) than the guy vowing to end them, as long as the incumbent claims to support gay marriage and abortion. Ignore the fact that people are being blown off the face of the earth for economic reasons.

Quote :

"Uh, no they don't. They'll just move their labor to China or India and employ slaves non-unionized labor and force Yahoo Americans to scream, "less regulation, it's bad for business!""

Taxes and regulation are bad for business. There's really no argument to be made there. You can try to impose a certain standard of living through legislation, but you're going to get unemployment as a result. You have to choose, you don't get both.

12/20/2011 6:15:47 PM

^Oddly the EPA does, about $7 million per life.

12/20/2011 6:31:49 PM

Quote :

"You're a fool. The ultra rich have the most to lose if the system collapses. "

There is no historical basis for your assertion, and it's not even logical.

During the Great Depression, the ultra rich didn't even know anything was going on.

They are always the most insulated in economic hardships, as they are now.

12/20/2011 6:41:55 PM

The system did not collapse during the Great Depression. The Fed created the Depression, then they prevented economic growth from occurring for a number of years. At the end of it all, the Fed was still there, backstopping the banks.

So, the Great Depression happened, the government became more powerful, and the banks became more powerful. Fast forward to the 2000s, and you people are bitching about how powerful the banks are, simultaneously demanding that they be bailed out. It's beyond absurd.

12/20/2011 6:45:41 PM

The great depression was a failure of the free market.

The banks became less powerful afterwards, and only recently started to consolidate their power and wealth in response to deregulations.

Do you need to see this chart again?

12/20/2011 7:03:39 PM

Quote :

"The great depression was a failure of the free market."

12/20/2011 7:06:53 PM

Quote :

"You couldn't possibly make a more disconnected from reality post if you tried."

Haha. Have you seen the unemployment numbers? The youth unemployment numbers? The US poverty statistics? The percentage of people who are defined as poor is at 50% now. Wealth is so acutely concentrated at the top, that everyone else is now suffering as a result of the collapse.

What exactly about my position is disconnected from reality?

This is where you Libertarians completely lose me.

After the Great Depression, the rise of Labor Unions, the New Deal, and the focus to create an American Middle Class, this country experienced prosperity experienced by the majority of the country because of Progressive politics.

Then, all of those stop-gaps were removed, and people are moving downard in social mobility.

I guess it'll take the complete march to inverted totalitarianism before people wise up and realize that what is good for business is only good for businesses with an absurd amount of wealth and political influence.

Removing regulations aren't going to help mom and pop businesses compete with corporate giants. Its just going to help corporate giants crush competition, because they've bought and paid for our government.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 7:16 PM. Reason : hooray for banana republics]

12/20/2011 7:12:10 PM

^ the boogeyman i meant government is responsible for those things. get rid of the gov. and all the problems will be solved!!11!!

12/20/2011 7:14:24 PM

Quote :

"After the Great Depression, the rise of Labor Unions, the New Deal, and the focus to create an American Middle Class, this country experienced prosperity experienced by the majority of the country because of Progressive politics."

there's that favourite liberal lie, rearing its ugly head again.

Quote :

"Its just going to help corporate giants crush competition, because they've bought and paid for our government."

it's funny how you can make this statement and then think that the regulation created by the very government that is bought and paid for by by big business is in any way "regulating" big business. It's like you are being willfully stupid.

12/20/2011 7:33:29 PM

you wanna refute that liberal lie at all?

No, of course you don't, because you don't have anything to back that up.

Quote :

"it's funny how you can make this statement and then think that the regulation created by the very government that is bought and paid for by by big business is in any way "regulating" big business. It's like you are being willfully stupid."

I don't think that. You think that's my opinion, because you don't bother to engage, you just label anyone to your left as a hurr-durr commie pinko. I have made the observation on multiple occasions that our "democracy" doesn't represent us anymore. Just look at congress's voting record, public dissaproval of certain bills, and decide for yourself.

12/20/2011 7:37:56 PM

Quote :

"After the Great Depression, the rise of Labor Unions, the New Deal, and the focus to create an American Middle Class, this country experienced prosperity experienced by the majority of the country because of Progressive politics."

Correlation != causation. When will you and every other fucking economist cum scientist wannabe going to fucking figure this shit out?

I get sick and fucking tired of you ass clowns citing some statistic with no basis for quality of life, no reference, no fucking nothing.

Hey Ted, you see that shit, unemployment numbers are up...oh and look at dat shit, the rich are richer...we gotta stop this shit Ted, the rich are putting people out of work so they can get richer.

12/20/2011 7:46:44 PM

I'll come back to this later. It won't change your mind, but I don't care.


Oh, and pipe down.

[Edited on December 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2011 7:50:17 PM

Quote :

"label anyone to your left as a hurr-durr commie pinko"

you are doing it too, jk kinda

12/20/2011 8:13:38 PM

Quote :

"Removing regulations aren't going to help mom and pop businesses compete with corporate giants. Its just going to help corporate giants crush competition, because they've bought and paid for our government."

There are instances where that would indeed happen. There are some small business, like farms that can't thrive because of cost prohibitive regulations. There are several instances of this in Food Inc. Most FDA regulations help the Conagra's and Monsantos of the world, not the little guy.

12/20/2011 10:16:49 PM

Quote :

"No, of course you don't, because you don't have anything to back that up."

and you have nothing to back up your lie but a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, so what's your point? exactly.

Quote :

"I don't think that. "

your statement sure begs to differ. if you didn't think that the gov't was actually regulating to the betterment of society against big business, then why in the fuck would you say such a thing? exactly.

12/20/2011 10:25:10 PM

right! exactly!

12/21/2011 7:15:33 AM

^^^that would be all fixed if we eliminated big businesses all together.

12/22/2011 12:30:08 PM