>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^probie:
I never got into Frasier. Frasier Crane was my favorite character on Cheers and the Frasier on Frasier was not the Frasier on Cheers.

As a fan of both Cheers and Frasier, I'm going to need you to elaborate on that one.


Sure. Cheers was very much a comedy of the classes; Frasier and Lilith typifying the upper class, white collar intellectuals. With Fraiser (the show), they got rid of the class element and focused more on the family dynamic between him, his brother, the father and the other characters. On Cheers, Fraiser was more akin to Il Dottore; professional, collected, pompous, arrogant at times...only Lilith was able to put him in his place. On Fraiser, because he was now the central character, he played foil to the rest of the supporting cast. While Grammar is still playing the same character, it's not the same Frasier (to me at least).

That was a horrendous interview all around, it...went...nowhere... Cenk is getting overtly irate at a Fat Cat Republican Congressmen who says that he read the 2011 Social Security release. Then Cenk has a large problem of "centering" himself, allowing himself to give the man who is talking enough rope to hang himself on it. He almost had him after the first part, but he got SO angry and overzealous in his pushing of the conversation that the conversation drowned in the ramblings of two pride filled men who couldn't stand to allow conversation to be heard or really go anywhere--with some sort of pint or reason.

Cenk needed to get this idiots ideas, all of them, onto the plate before pressing. When I say pressing I don't mean yelling. Cenk needed to allow this Congressmen to bring in his own "proof of fact" (with various sources for them to look at and then take him out strategically if he used them and the source is incorrect, biased, or useless--tell the public why this is so), so that when he said that the surplus was a short fall they could napalm him later for it. Of course a lot of these idiots read a few lines of facts before they go into an interview and try to use them--the fact that Cenk pressed him and he said nothing except to mumble his correctness and sit and smile, just smile when you may have erred--but you can NEVER be wrong. That lets us know that that may have been the case here. You can EASILY look on factcheck.org and quickly find out that Cenk was right, but there was a short fall too. That number was of course still large, but was clearly defined by MANY that it indeed was most likely the result of a terrible economy and recession.

BTW, when Republicans say we NEED to cut Social Security, if you're really listening they're actually saying we wish to liquidate Social Security (slowly though, so you don't rebel all at once). I would assume anyway. After all, if we wished to really solve the problem we could SLOW DOWN life for ourselves. Work only 6 hours a day and only 4 days in a week. We get One month off in the summer, the nation splitting that break into groups the size of thirds or fourths of all of us. The Federal system could limit certain types of inflation and interest (and maybe one-day we could almost entirely kill off interest, but probably not rich men need their golden swimming pools). We could start to shape the way we pay people (as I assume most of you want your grocery store as much as your doctors and so forth). To move so much money from a business to help to pay people between a certain age range. Teenagers may have to take the bullet of the lowest wages, but it may secure their futures in the process. Then we could talk about re-managing the entirety of the Federal Budget and maybe one day we could get away from spending for a war machine that HAS NO WARS. BUT, this is crazy talk.

Instead... Are FICA and SS minimums will go up, thus we make even less, and our taxes will as well--unless you're rich. Your life will stay about the same and your affect upon the middle and lower classes will show your indifference to their demise or situation--unfortunately this seems to be something you learn by going through, what you know nothing of--it is the power and the price to having true empathy. Houses will tend to cost as much as a top scale middle-American could pay for one in half their lifetime. Gas will cost more, as hybrids get more efficient--until you never by it again they will try to make sure you ALWAYS pay the same amount. You work 8 hours a day but overtime is nearly mandatory everyday, somedays can get up to 10 hours, if you're a blue collar it might even go around 12. Then they want you to retire at 72. Medicare and Medicaid barely get you along, you HAVE TO buy a "jacket" plan now (such as AARP), this says nothing of dental or other medical concerns.

Or we stay a lot like it is now. I hope not, because I always hope for a brighter future.

I'll be blunt the Republicans are taking us FAR from that idea and Cenk doesn't help here. His audience must eventually try to grab every ear it can IF it, if we, are to be successful. Otherwise, a revolution may be coming--not now, but someday off in the future--maybe in my lifetime. I'm 35 and paid into SS.

/oops longer than I meant, hopefully not too much dystopia or utopia -- things in reach, for worse or better...

Ok, I know this is not going to come across well but I'm not really that impressed with a 4th grader going down a ski jump. Between 2nd and 9th grade. I really did not know much fear. Really, none of the kids I hung out with did. Scraps, cuts and bruises were badges of we had fun. Hell at the little clinic/Doc's office in the area almost all of us knew the doctors and nurses on a first name bases. The 9th grade was the big learning experience. Misjudged a table top jump that went in to a 40 foot drop in to a bowl.(BMX) I personally do not remember what happened but what I was told is I clipped a tree, spun, bounced off several more, went through a heavy thicket of dead wood 30 something feet in to a dried up creek. I woke up 2 weeks later and was told I had had a compound fracture left arm, broken collar bone, punctured lung and broken ankle. I'll tell you I damn well learned to fear after that. But, then Got a car not to long after that and forgot everything had to learn fear again. Of course the hard way.

But the POV camera was cool.

@NetRunner

Who is the best candidate? How do we fix this broken political system?

How do we get: Timothy Geithner out of the Treasury? Lloyd Blankfein on trial for the biggest white collar racket in history? Troops recalled from quagmires of death boredom and despair?

You got any solutions, bro?

Or just more fallacious arguments?

I think the giant leather collar that the man was gripping onto would have been a clue to NOT get close to this animal.

Personally, I got the impression the leash is there to STOP the dog from running too long.
>> ^waynef100:

funny i was thinking she used the leash to keep the dog safe. so if the dog tripped it wouldnt suddenly get spun into that wheel at the top.>> ^critical_d:
Hmmm...looks like an accident waiting to happen. That leash gets snagged on the pulley and the poor pup will get a broken neck.
I know how huskies love to run but definitely do this minus the collar and leash.

funny i was thinking she used the leash to keep the dog safe. so if the dog tripped it wouldnt suddenly get spun into that wheel at the top.>> ^critical_d:

Hmmm...looks like an accident waiting to happen. That leash gets snagged on the pulley and the poor pup will get a broken neck.
I know how huskies love to run but definitely do this minus the collar and leash.

Hmmm...looks like an accident waiting to happen. That leash gets snagged on the pulley and the poor pup will get a broken neck.

I know how huskies love to run but definitely do this minus the collar and leash.

Wow, I am a bit taken aback by your soft and somewhat flattering response. When I first saw the email that said you had quoted me I braced myself for the typical QM "both barrels" response. Thank you for surprising me.

As far as what social economic system is better than another I would suggest that pure capitalism would likely also fail. History has shown us that when too few have too much and too many have too little the many take drastic steps to redistribute the wealth themselves. Look at the history of Europe.

The human element adds uncertainty and chaos to any system and subsequently all systems are inherently flawed. That is why there are regulating bodies that are meant to enforce the will of the people. When the regulations or those who enforce them are negatively interfered with, society either in part or as a whole, must fail.

I pay about 32% income tax and from what I can figure that number rises to more than 50% when you factor in property tax, sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Despite this burden I do very well so if a portion of these taxes are going to help some person from a poor household to get a better education or it provides care for an elderly person who has no means to support themselves, or even if it goes to the rehabilitation of a young prostitute with a meth addiction I am okay with that. Better roads, better schools, better hospitals, law enforcement, fire protection, it is in support of these socialistically supported things and more that I accept the reduction of half of my earned income.

There will always be people who get what they don't deserve but for the sake of those that do deserve our help I think that we must accept that.
<Insert the clichéd “bad apples” quote here.>

If my contribution can give one person the chance to change their future like I did it is worth it to me.

>> ^quantumushroom:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.
I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?
I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.
>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

Rich people can be quite ignorant. Oprah is, and Obama, also rich, doesn't seem to know anything about economics.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

That's not my viewpoint, however I am extremely skeptical of the so-called "Third Way". Socialism always fails, and capitalism fails when oversaturated with socialism. Look at Europe.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

I salute your inspiring life story. The system worked for you, but you still did most of the work. The suggestion that you never would've made it without all the aid I do not believe. What about your neighbor who is perfectly happy living off of unemployment insurance, welfare, food banks, etc. forever? Are you willing to support those who won't--not can't--work as hard as you? Why should you have to raise his children with your taxes along with your own?

I'm not advocating Lord of the Flies, I'm saying the left needs to get its head out of the clouds. There are no solutions in life, only trade-offs.










>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.
As for your quote...
The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.
Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?
I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.
Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.

>>

First of all you are suggesting that Bill Gates is so rich that he has no idea what he pays in taxes... that when he says that wealthy people should be taxed more he is doing that from a position of ignorance. Astonishing.

As for your quote...

The fundamental issue with your viewpoint is that you see capitalism and socialism as complete and polar oposites that could never meet in the middle. In your ideal world only those who could afford it would be fed, protected, healed, and educated. To hell with those in need.

Somehow this is a better existance than a society that defends and cares for it's weakest members? One that provides an equal oportunity of prosperity for all?

I am both lucky and proud to have been born Canadian. When I first started out I had nothing. Due to a very unsatisfactory home life I left home when I was 17 and dropped out of school. During my early years I had the need to make use of unemployment insurance, welfare, and food banks. I worked a blue collar job while raising my kids and as my income was so low I had my government health premiums subsidized to almost nothing. Eventually I got government student loans and went to school at night to try and change carears to improve my situation. I received grants, deducted what little interest there was on the loans from my income tax and in the end most of the debt was forgiven.

Why am I telling you this? Because today I am a professional making 6 figures a year, I have raised a family of 4 children, and I am closing in on a zero mortgage balance. None of which would have been possible in the world that you wish for.


>> ^quantumushroom:

Have some compassion for me, I have to suffer these mean comments while carrying the burden of being One with the facts.

>> ^G-bar:
Ah, Mr. Mushroom, your'e such a foolish troll. You're always there, behind the scenes, spreading your lack of compassion and lack of knowledge.
>> ^quantumushroom:
Ah, Gates. Another zillionaire apparently unaware the wealthy already pay the most in taxes, and at higher tax rates.
It's the 'bottom' 50% presently paying no income tax but gobbling up plenty of "free services" that should be chipping in.

"What do you call it when someone steals someone else's money secretly? Theft. What do you call it when someone takes someone else's money openly by force? Robbery. What do you call it when a politician takes someone else's money in taxes and gives it to someone who is more likely to vote for him? Social Justice." ---T. Sowell

Poor doggy

Looks like the collar was a breakaway one, that's good. But I'm sure it still really hurt.

Oh my... I'm quite... erm... hot under the collar now. ahem.

So, Garfunkle and Oats, care to go, um... Go-Karting then?

That was violent. I don't care if he didn't do any of the things on a particular list of violent acts that you hold, but picking someone out of a chair by the collar is violent, and so are throwing him to the ground and then off a train. And, he did hit him when he tried to get back on the train.

Non-violent solutions include what the ticket checker guy was doing from the start, using social pressure to get him to leave. Another is contacting the police, as @Yogi has suggested. Your personal judgements of this fare-dodger and what you believe he "deserves" aside, getting passengers home a minute or two earlier doesn't warrant this kind of vigilante violence. I hope the big guy gets charged with the assault which he clearly committed.>> ^Quboid:

I think you had a reasonable point in there somewhere - people who resort to violence aren't necessarily good, salt of the earth people. However, the "big man" doesn't hit this entitled little shit. He is physical, but he's not violent.

The reason I say 20,000 a year is for one that's what a lot of the average blue collar workers earn. And two it would eliminate people who only get into politics for the money.

>> ^Sagemind:

@Auger8
I agree that lobbying should be illegal!
But I think your salary cap is a bit low. I'm assuming by 20k, you mean $20,000.
That's low by any standards. You'd never attract anyone with any intelligence for that kind of paycheck. "The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year." I can agree to a pay scale between 100-200k. And with a limit as to what expenses can be claimed on the office expense account (eg. nothing for personal use, caps on meal claims.)
I do as well, however, agree to the auditing. Any monies gained above and beyond that must be proven as legitimate while living expenses and assets must not exceed their incomes.