Such sceneic route, now but a vastness of devastation.

When we can just tone the down the incessant over consumption for the sake of driving up "economic growth" and not do a thing for the environment and concentrate of quality-of-life?

Oh fuck, Bobby...20 lies to debunk? You suck.

1) and how many lost?...tens of millions
2) citation needed, and even if true, there are many more unemployed too, there are more of us. What you neglect is that there are more trying to work because it’s impossible to live on one average income and even children have to work to pay the family bills
3) citation needed, and lost how many millions? The net has been a loss of manufacturing, most of his gains never materialized
4) for one quarter after declining at the fastest rate in history for two. If I drop you off a 100’ cliff yesterday, then lift you up by 6’ today, I still made your position much worse even though it’s incredibly better than yesterday when you were falling...I don't get kudos for picking you up after stomping you into the dirt.
5) economic growth the quarter before reduced by what was it, >30%? That’s still a loss, dummy. See #4
6) new unemployment claims hit 50year highs for 3 quarters before, and new rules take many unemployed off the list so it looks better for Donny. The unemployment rate is still historically high
7)average household income has decreased. Rich became much richer, poor became poorer. Average Americans saw a loss in income
8 ) already discussed unemployment, you’re misstating or obfuscating the whole picture
9) anyone suspected of being undocumented is removed from the list....not an honest number by far
10) more fake numbers
11) more fake numbers
12) more fake numbers
13) more fake numbers
14) more fake numbers

Here’s the real data, notice only three states weren’t in the worst unemployment position ever last year.... https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/lauhsthl.htm
Also note not a single one is at it’s historic low unemployment, and most saw record high unemployment rates for most of 2020.
I give him credit, at the beginning of 2020, before he screwed it all up with his failures over the Trump pandemic, about 1/3 of states were near record unemployment by the newer standards. I have to wonder how much of those gains were due to changing g the criteria for counting the unemployed.
When you drop your victim in a 100’ hole you don’t get kudos for throwing them a 6’ ladder
15) you mean thrown out of the programs, there’s more need than anytime since the Great Depression. It's incredibly dishonest to make qualifying for assistance far more difficult, then use the lower numbers of people who qualify as proof you improved conditions. Utter bullshit.
16) they’ve pledged that before. Call me when they graduate, until then it’s another empty promise
17) citation? Probably a Trump speech talking point
18) it was Christmas...they ALWAYS surge in Dec, usually by a ton more than this year. Let’s see the yearly number for 2020. I don’t believe for a second it was better than 2019...citation? Oops, looked it up, declined, didn’t go up. I think you’re looking at predictions for December, they were WAY below predictions.

US Retail Sales Unexpectedly Drop in December
US retail trade fell 0.7 percent from a month earlier in December 2020, following a revised 1.4 percent decline in November and compared with market expectations of a flat reading. That was also the third consecutive month of decline in consumption, amid record COVID-19 infections, high unemployment levels and lack of government's support. Receipts declined at electronics & appliance stores (-4.9 percent vs -8.3 percent in November), restaurants and bars (-4.5 percent vs -3.6 percent), food & beverage stores (-1.4 percent vs 1.5 percent), general merchandise stores (-1.2 percent vs -1.3 percent), sporting goods, hobby, musical instrument & books stores (-0.8 percent vs -1.7 percent), and furniture stores (-0.6 percent vs -2.1 percent). In addition, online trade slumped 5.8 percent, accelerating from a 1.6 percent decrease in the previous month.

19) not for people making less than millions a year, our tax cuts were minimal, temporary, and unnoticeable. What’s the debt now? He cut revenue and increased spending....thanks to failing to deal with COVID, it’s likely he doubled the debt. What was the low estimate, >$6trillion in unplanned off the budget socialist handouts to fix his lack of a public pandemic plan. This year the debt is going to outpace gdp....the deficit was up by 35% BEFORE the Trump recession.
$300 billion didn't leave...that number was the total high estimate of businesses that said they were moving off shore because they didn't want to pay taxes or said they would move back...if you believe him...and it was only for one quarter, a one time gain at a cost of >$1.2 trillion per year In lost tax revenue. Great plan. It was a one time thing, and much of that business left anyway within the year. GM plant? Foxconn? Harley Davidson? How much of that claimed $300 Billion was based on promises that never materialized?

20) not most small businesses, only those making what was it, >$500000 a year? That’s not most “small businesses “....and that tax rate is temporary, phased out completely after 10 years, corporate tax rates and rates for billionaires is permanent.

You must ignore or fake all economic data from 2020 to make these claims, and even then they would be dishonest exaggeration based on baseless claims from a constant liar.

Not one point you made is honest...that’s why you can’t provide references or citations, you would be embarrassed to admit it all came straight from Don the con’s lying mouth and not organizations that professionally study these claims.

@newtboy ...LEARN
1. Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
2. More Americans are now employed than ever in our history.
3. Created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since his election.
4. Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than three decades.
5. Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
6. New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.

7. Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.

8. African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

9. Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.

10. Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.

11. Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.

12. Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.

13. Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.

14. Under this administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.

15. Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.

16. The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans.

17. Ninty-five percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future, the highest ever.

18. Retail sales surged last month, up another 6% over last year.

19. Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.

20. As a result of his tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.

I think Bill Maher is with you on this. Not in advocating population control, but at least to not have offspring.

Population Control is just a nightmare on so many levels. The heartbreaks and gender imbalance introduced by China is devastating.

Most governments (and thus its people) are conditioned to think free-market capitalism is the only future. Economic growth is the only way forward. it's all about Growth, Growth, Growth. Never about the 3R (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) and "Waste Not, Want Not" kind of life practice.

It can only be down to the individuals to do what's right. I don't hold my breath waiting for government or society-wide action.

Really? WE sponsored a VIOLENT coup? So you take the purely Russian viewpoint.
Wiki-
After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine endured years of corruption, mismanagement, lack of economic growth, currency devaluation, and problems in securing funding from public markets.[38][39] Successive Ukrainian governments in the 2000s sought a closer relationship with the European Union (EU).[40][41] One of the measures meant to achieve this was an association agreement with the European Union, which would have provided Ukraine with funds in return for liberalising reforms. President Yanukovych announced his intention to sign the agreement, but ultimately refused to do so at the last minute. This sparked a wave of protests called the "Euromaidan" movement. During these protests Yanukovych signed a treaty and multibillion-dollar loan with Russia. The Ukrainian security forces cracked down on the protesters, further inflaming the situation and resulting in a series of violent clashes in the streets of Kiev. As tensions rose, Yanukovych fled to Russia and did not return.[44]

Russia refused to recognize the new interim government, calling the overthrow of Yanukovych a coup d'état, and began a military intervention in Ukraine. The newly appointed interim government of Ukraine signed the EU association agreement and agreed to reform the country's judiciary and political systems, as well as its financial and economic policies. The International Monetary Fund pledged more than $18 billion in loans contingent on Ukraine's adopting those reforms. The revolution was followed by pro-Russian unrest in some south-eastern regions, a standoff with Russia regarding the annexation of Crimea and Sevastopol, and a war between the Ukrainian government and Russia-backed separatists in the Donbass.



The thing to remember about Crimea is it WASN'T PART OF RUSSIA, so no it didn't hold Russia's only black sea port not ice blocked in winter, it held a Ukrainian port Russia LEASED for use by it's black sea fleet from the Ukraine.
It's utter bullshit that Russia found a democratic way to invade and annex Crimea, they militarily invaded, seized and dissolved the democratically elected government by force, created and installed a new pro Russian sham government, then IT signed fake illegal treaties with Russia in violation of international laws and multiple binding treaties.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation

Russian masked troops invade and occupy key Crimean locations, including airports and military bases, following Putin's orders.[2][3]
The head of Ukrainian Navy, Admiral Berezovsky, defects, followed later by half of the Ukrainian military stationed in the region.[4][5][6]
Russian forces seize the Supreme Council (Crimean parliament). The Council of Ministers of Crimea is dissolved and a new pro-Russian Prime Minister installed.[7][8]
The new Supreme Council declares the Republic of Crimea to be an independent, self-governing entity, then holds a referendum on the status of Crimea on 16 March, which results in a majority vote to join the Russian Federation.[9]
Treaty signed between the Republic of Crimea and the Russian Federation at the Kremlin on 18 March to formally initiate Crimea's accession to the Russian Federation.[10]
The Ukrainian Armed Forces are evicted from their bases on 19 March by Crimean protesters and Russian troops. Ukraine subsequently announces the withdrawal of its forces from Crimea.[11]
Russia suspended from G8.[12]
International sanctions introduced on Russia.

You sound distinctly Soviet or ridiculously ignorant in your misrepresentation of the situation. They militarily attacked, invaded, and seized their neighbor, so not a bit restrained, they were not invited in by the government and welcomed....or would you insist they are also exceptionally restrained for not attacking and retaking Anchorage Alaska, their only non winter ice bound port in North America, a port clearly more strategically important than Sebastopol and just as Russian?

MAGA isn't anything. It's as vague as "Hope and Change". It's a slogan.

Starting trade wars that wreck the economy is a bad thing. Deregulation that harms the economy is a bad thing. A lot of his policies are bad things.

And before you say, "well, the economy is doing great!" or "black unemployment is at an all time low", or whatever fact that completely ignores the macroeconomic phenomenon known as the business cycle, remember that national economic policy takes time to take effect. Instituted properly, it keeps the economic dips at recession level lows and duration, not 2008 level catastrophes. Aside from emergency measures such as those instituted during 2009, the federal government can't generally have immediate impacts. It'll take awhile.

I'll even go on record as saying that a recession under Trump is virtually inevitable even if he conducted good policy. The measure of his policies will turn into how bad the recession ends up being, and how well the damage is contained.

And that's the problem. Because of his tax cuts, he's put us into larger deficit spending mode in a time that we didn't need it. Macroeconomically, it was time to run surpluses. But he didn't care. In fact, he cared so little, he didn't even just keep deficit spending at where it was. He made it worse.

So when the other shoe drops, there won't be many mechanisms left to do other than lower interest rates when they're already low aside from sacrifice future economic growth when we have to deficit spend out the ass to stimulate the economy.

And the worst part is his poor decisions, when it's evident they were poor, reversing them won't help end a recession. If you realize a trade war screwed us, removing the tariffs doesn't in the short run increase consumer spending because people won't have jobs to buy those goods, and if the recession is globally felt (which it will be), Chinese people will have less money to buy American goods.

Taxing the rich more in the short run doesn't put more money into consumers' hands who would actually spend it. In fact, that reduces capital at a time when capital would help build new businesses to hire more people.

Not that any of this is surprising. Trump has no idea how macroeconomics work. He talks like he does, but he doesn't. Just says stuff that sounds obvious and easy to understand, and too many people fell for it.

But the reckoning is coming. It always does.

Most of the statements in the video are true, but the numbers are off a little for the black unemployment rate. they haven't changed in any remarkable way, relative to other groups' unemployment rates. Black unemployed is still 2x higher then the rate of their white counterparts.

The pace of economic growth in america is still far lower then other emerging markets. One thing is for certain the american middle class is shrinking. While elsewhere around the world millions are climbing out of poverty and settling into their own country's version of the american dream.

If the G7 becomes the G6 by this time next year due to tit for tat tariffs we will be looking back at a DOW when it use to be higher then 25K reminiscing of the good old days.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

Here's a thought, instead of adding $600 billion dollars to the US military budget, we could use some of that money to push broadband out to every home in the US.

When every struggling post-boom town has high speed internet, we just need to push the dinosaurs who resist "work from home" out of senior management positions in the corporate world and we'll have a migration towards the smaller, more remote communities, where property values are much lower.

It will mean that sprawl subdivisions will become the new slums...but that just provides incentive to bulldoze those warts off the map and return the lost farmland.

The paradigm shift would spark massive economic growth.

Naw...we need more tactical stealth fighters.

Obama is the worst president in over 50 years. Worse than Jimmy Carter. And that is saying a lot.
Obama care is failing and collapsing under its its own weight.

It was to provide care for the 20- 30 million Americans who could not afford or have HC. Now there are still 20 -30 million who can not afford it.

Opening relations to a fucking communist is not a good thing.
8 years of dismal economic growth. That's trick down economics.

No growth policies that stimulated business to any great extent.

The only thing Obama did of substance is given us 20 trillion in debt and gender neutral bathrooms. That is shameful.

Haven't seen this one in circulation yet:

Dear Chancellor Merkel,

The never-ending austerity that Europe is force-feeding the Greek people is simply not working. Now Greece has loudly said no more.

As most of the world knew it would, austerity has crushed the Greek economy, led to mass unemployment, a collapse of the banking system, made the external debt crisis far worse, with the debt problem escalating to an unpayable 175% of GDP. The economy now lies broken with tax receipts nose-diving, output and employment depressed, and businesses starved of capital.

The humanitarian impact has been colossal – 40% of children now live in poverty, infant mortality is sky-rocketing and youth unemployment is close to 50%. Corruption, tax evasion and bad accounting by previous Greek governments helped create the debt problem. But the series of so-called adjustment programs has served only to make a Great Depression the likes of which have been unseen in Europe since 1929-1933. The medicine prescribed by the German Finance Ministry and Brussels has bled the patient, not cured the disease.

Together we urge you to lead Europe to a course correction before it is too late for Greece and for the Eurozone. Right now, the Greek government is being asked to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Sadly, the bullet will not only kill off Greece’s future in Europe. The collateral damage will kill the Eurozone as a beacon of hope, prosperity, and democracy, and could lead to far-reaching economic consequences across the world.

In the 1950s Europe was founded on the forgiveness of past debts, notably Germany’s, which generated a massive contribution to post-war economic growth, peace, and democracy. Today we need to restructure and reduce Greek debt, give the economy breathing room to recover, and allow Greece to pay off a reduced burden of debt over a long period of time. Now is the time for a humane rethink of the punitive and failed programme of austerity of recent years and to agree to a major reduction of Greece’s debts in conjunction with much needed reforms in Greece.

We urge you to take this vital action of leadership for Greece and Germany, and also for the world. History will remember you for your actions this week. We expect and count on you to provide the bold and generous steps towards Greece that will serve Europe for generations to come.

Yours sincerely,

Heiner Flassbeck, former State Secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Finance;

Thomas Piketty, Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics;

Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor of Health Policy and Management, and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University;

Dani Rodrik, Albert O. Hirschman Professor of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton;

Simon Wren-Lewis, Professor of economics, Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University

"The high-income tax increase sapped 0.25 percentage points from GDP in 2013, estimates Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics Inc. in West Chester, Pennsylvania."

"Politicians who support tax increases operate under a misconception that there is little real effect, Maloney said.

“A higher tax rate reduces our ability to recapitalize and reduces our ability to expand,” he said. “You keep your forklifts a little longer, you do whatever you can to stretch the dollars you’re left with.”"

"According to Zandi’s estimates, the payroll tax cut subtracted 0.6 percentage points from U.S. economic growth, more than twice the effect of the high-income tax cuts."

“Clearly, taxes affect behavior; they affect some behaviors more than others. What has not been established is that the level of taxes has a clear and important impact on economic growth. And one reason is that this is not a well-posed question. How government activity affects prosperity depends not only on the level of taxes, but also on what the money is used for.”

"Thus, the proper answer to a question as broad as whether tax increases are “positive” or “negative” for growth is: “It depends.”"

I'm not saying that "climate change" isn't "real," but that the practice of climate science is highly prone to fraud and conflates natural science with social science.

This matters because one could accept climate change on the basis of natural science but still reject it on the basis of social science given the understanding that the policies normally associated with environmentalism are clearly not the proper ways of addressing the effects of climate change.

As such, there is a lack of scrutiny in much of the discourse about and around climate change (to say nothing of the ridicule and mockery and epithets that are slung on "both" sides). There are a few separate questions worth addressing:

1. Is the planet getting warmer?
2. If it's getting warmer, is it anthropogenic (human-caused)? (If not, then it's unclear how humans can 'reduce' it and/or deal with the consequences.)
3. If it's getting warmer, by what magnitude? (This is a scientific question with many implications for policy.)
4. What are the costs of climate change? (Oft asked/answered)
5. What are the benefits of climate change? (Might it, say, make the arctic habitable and a source of land or food? Might it bring down the costs of heating homes/businesses in colder climates?)
6. Do costs outweigh benefits or vice versa? (This question, while important, is based less on scientific fact than on interpersonal value and depends heavily on the results of the scientific questions above. As such, public policy is based on facts and values, and does not translate science directly into policy.)
7. If costs outweigh the benefits, what policies are appropriate? (This, again, would be determined by the matters of both fact and value -- natural science and social science.)
8. What are the costs of the policies designed to reduce the costs of climate change? (Might the policies imposed to address the costs of climate change have associated costs that may outweigh their potential benefits? Might reducing the effects of global warming slow the economic growth so as to impoverish half the planet, or imbuing powers to governments that're likely to be used in ways having little to do with climate change? Such costs might have grave and devastating effects that far outstrip their potential benefits to say nothing of the perceived costs of climate change, itself.)

This is a social scientific question that is no less important than the natural scientific questions listed above. There are many more questions in addition to these, but this is perhaps sufficient to make my points:

* It's possible to accept the natural science of climate change, but reject the policies proposed to combat it.
* It is possible to think that climate change is anthropogenic, but to humanely conclude that nothing should be done about it.

However unpopular it is (on videosift especially) to dissent to the claims that anthropogenic climate is "real," it should be noted that such dissent does not, de facto, "deny" the science, but does, instead, take a far more considered approach that accepts the natural science in light of its many social scientific implications.

"Exploitation has been throughout human history, and *didn't* cause economic growth"...?

I'm pretty certain that's exactly wrong. Maybe it wasn't as booming as what brought us into the 20th and 21st centuries, but that's also because we didn't have globalization forces at work. History should easily prove the economic growth due to exploitation is directly proportional to how much your economic mobility is and how much of your workforce you're "exploiting".

We're seeing a slowdown in economy for the western world largely because the proportion of exploiters to exploitees is nearing equilibrium.

@enoch

There is little doubt that Child Labor, Labor Explotation, and Forced Labor continue to be of a major concern with Africa and Asia/India being particularly problematic. That said, concerted efforts are being made to reduce these numbers and they are improving, but slower than anyone would like. Unfortunately the problem is largely cyclical - even educated youth have trouble finding productive work, so they are forced into unskilled labor, and there is little economic growth.

Again, there is no magic wand that any one organization or person can waive to resolve these issues. The ILO has been trying for almost 100 years...

I would not characterize every person who is lucky or privileged enough that they do not live in those conditions to be terrible people.

Consumerism?
Nor would I characterize people's value as simply being good consumers. The people I know in my life all make contributions to the welfare of those around them and are rewarded for those contributions.

e.g. My best friend, a p.h.d. doing research regarding immunology I can't begin to understand. My fiance, finishing her ER residency at the county hospital. My brother, working as a kayaking guide.

Circling the Drain
Is America really circling the drain? I doubt it. Has it done terrible things? We all know it has.

When I look around I see a lot of problems here. We do have a huge wealth gap. We do have ghettos and crime. We have all sorts of selfcentered ego driven loons.

Yet we also have an enormous pool of talented and intelligent people working on all kinds of things. Some of which are mundane and some of which are really amazing - and many of which are sifted about on this website all the time.

Carlin
I saw Carlin live twice before he died. I own several of his books. I think he is a brilliant comedian and insightful thinker. My point is and was - he saw it as his job to remind us "HEY - look over here. See this shit? This is FUCKED." And he was right.