Then you must know nearly HALF of all Americans pay NO federal income tax. Hmmm...I notice that same HALF shows no restraint on slurping up entitlements and welfare social services. You're in trouble when the tick is as big as the dog.

Yeah, borrow-n-spend isn't much better than tax-n-spend, but take a step back and note what all this money is being spent on. Hint: it's not "racism".





>> ^bareboards2:

There's the big lie. Tax and spend.
I do taxes for a living. I know how low the taxes are that folks are paying.
Did you know that you can have taxable income of $40,000 and pay zero income tax?
Oh, well, it has to be a long term capital gain -- this doesn't apply to wages or pensions, which is what most people in America have as a source of income.
Zero Percent tax on long term capital gains and qualified dividends in many cases.
Don't tell me we are taxing ourselves to death. It's a lie.
Guess who came up with this brilliant tax strategy? It wasn't a Democrat.

>> ^quantumushroom:
If history is any indicator, there's plenty to fear from these communist thugs posing as a legitimate government. Unfortunately, the worldwide number of people murdered by communism is 100 million, a number so great it's usually reserved for stars or grains of sand.
Anyway, this submission as framed is a bizarre attempt at misdirection, bizarre because those opposed to cutting government spending are going to drown as well.
The actual video concerns obvious truths the left refuses to heed: no government has ever taxed and spent itself into prosperity, we now owe crushing debt to foreign enemies, future generations are already burdened.
As the Chinese Proverb goes: "If we don't change the direction we're going, we're going to end up where we're headed."

@RedSky

There is an old legend about a Sensei who provides instruction to his students for free. As the months go by, the students start to feel guilty for not compensating their instructor, so they offer to pay him. When approached, the Sensei replies, "If I were to charge you, you couldn't afford me".

Teaching is a calling. No one goes into teaching to become rich, they do it because they believe it provides a valuable social service. When you throw 'merit pay' into the equation, it changes this dynamic. It cheapens the interaction. Whatever pittance that would be offered would be insulting compared to the amount of time and effort teachers spend on and off campus.

If you are doing it right, there should be a sense among schools, teachers and students that they are all in it together as a team, all striving to be the best they can be and cheering their peers to do the same. There would be nothing worse for this kind of camaraderie than to throw a roll of quarters on the ground and ask them to fight over it. In the private sector, where value is measured in dollars, fighting over loose change is part of the game, but to introduce this kind of game theory into what should be a supportive and nurturing environment couldn't be more wrong headed. When Coke and Pepsi fight, the consumer wins; when students, teachers, schools and districts start duking it out, we all lose (and corporations win says issy astutely). You can't solve social problems with market solutions.

Competition is not part of the soul of education. Sure, you find competitive elements in sports, arts competitions, science team, etc., but the point of education is not to 'win'. The point of education is to learn, and more specifically, to 'learn how to learn'. Tests are about winning and losing and do nothing to promote critical thinking or a greater understanding of the world we live in. Sure, you need tests to gauge progress, but when you make testing the center piece of the educational experience, you fail in the bigger picture.

Education should be about critical thinking, about asking questions and about preparing students to be intelligent and thoughtful adults, who will hopefully one day make this world a better place. To fill their heads (or their teacher's heads) with the motivating factors of greed, selfishness and fear is no way to make this world a better place.

berticus turned me on to a great book that is helping me to understand this debate better (among other things). It's not a book about education or politics per se. It's about the psychology that governs our decisions and interactions. The book is called 'Predictably Irrational' by Dan Ariely. You'd like it.

I've done a lot of teaching in many different contexts; one-on-one instruction, coaching small groups and directing big ones. When you do a good job, it is its own rewards, when you do a bad job, it is its own punishment. No amount of money in the world can give you the feeling of changing someones life for the better, and no amount of salary in the world can spare you the shame of failing a student.

It frustrates me that people want to force education into the shallow mold of markets. We've been at it for a decade now and our educational system is still in shambles. Heck, market solutions have fucked up nearly every aspect of our country, from jobs to banks to mortgage fraud to war to poverty. Enough is enough.

FWIW, if your business goes in the red for one of many possible reasons, and you have to lay off some employees are you going to pay them EI in this tax free world of yours?

FWIW, in countries with public healthcare like France, you don't have to buy your employees the best benefits money can buy. Because healthcare is free and its better than in America.

FWIW, if one of your employees died, in a tax free world, these children you speak of would go where? Certainly not to state run social services.

>> ^ridesallyridenc:


FWIW, I'm a small business owner that keeps twelve people employed and provides them the best benefits money can buy. Between my employees, they have 14 children who are also taken care of.

@blankfist

Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.

That is exactly what's happening. Wages began stagnating in the 70's. At the time, women were moving into the work force so the impact on families was offset by an extra income. And today, it's out of control. It's been researched and it's been documented. And it's visible if you look at all the personal debt families have. Americans take less vacation time than other industrialized nation. The US is also the only industrialized nation who does not mandate vacation time. I read something the other day (disclaimer: i don't have a good grasp on economics, it was a complicated paper and i'm a bit dyslexic/dyscalculic so I've got to reread it a few times before I'm totally confident I understand it, and then research it for accuracy) and the idea of it just fascinated me. It was something like, wages used to increase as labor's productivity increased.. like it was inherently built into the market. So maybe technology eliminated the need for as many people, but the remaining workers were more productive, so their wages should have been going up. But the mid 70's saw an abandonment of this principle in favor of higher profits and the consequences of that have been devastating for working people ever since. Like, they broke a rule of the market and it's sent tremors through almost 40 years and now everything is fucked up and the worker is more and more screwed everyday.

now, regulation: we've been peeling back regulations for decades. and it seems to have worked antithetically to your hypothesized outcome. why do you think that is? which regulations are you talking about, specifically?
I don't disagree that it should be fairly simple to start your own new business. And I don't like or trust government either, but I want some kind of assurance that this new business is not polluting my air, water, community, that its employees are not being exploited and are paid a living wage and that sanitary practices are being followed. What sort of system do you propose to keep new restaurants from serving rat poo infested soups made by 5 year olds? ..... maybe, eventually, the free market would take care of this sort of violation but after how many people eat there and get sick? And after how many child chefs burn their little fingers on hot stoves?

And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.

this statement is a motherfucking cop-out. i'm not saying that you dont "see" it.. i'm just saying people should know better. The "nanny-system" obviously, isn't taking take care of those in front of them. This is where i see a major downfall in individualism. "I would help, but something else is already helping you. I'm looking out for #1!! I already gave to charity this week.. see where my pay stub says 'FICA'?"... And "someone else is already doing it" has become the operative ethic of the gen-x yuppie class. It is an excuse for petulance and cold heartedness and snobbery. If we lived in nomadic, tribal hunter/gatherer communities, they would be the first kicked out of the clan. ... and John Winthrop would have thrown them off the arabella. Shame on them.

I spend a great deal of time with the "nanny-system"... personally, professionally and academically. There are atrocious disparities. My most functionally impaired clients also happen to my poorest clients. At first, I thought this was a coincidence. It isn't. Not at all. Diagnosis doesn't have as much to do with prognosis as the financial and social status of the person living with the disability. (e.g. parents can't afford to make the home handicap accessible, so the wheelchair can't make it through the front door, so person with the disability spends 30 years crawling around on the floor, which solves the problem of moving from room to room, but creates 100 other problems in its place. the body is so malformed at this point, employment placement for the disabled adult is impossible, i could give you 500 other examples) This is a sin.

In a lot of ways, I agree... government is too bulky and convoluted here to be as effective as it needs to be. The apparatus is too cumbersome and the funding and political/community support for such services is far too small. It doesn't have to be this way. Nationally, we've tabled charity and efficiency as a virtue, in favor of strength and might and greed and pride. Social Services could be reworked, in a vastly more effective and efficient way if only we had the political and social will to do it. We could do it for a lot cheaper as well, I think. I won't go on my diatribe about how disability services needs to function, mostly because its full of jargon and boring.

But, I think we mostly agree on a lot of things, namely, corporations are fucking us all and the government is providing the reach around. every 4 years half of us orgasm when our candidate is elected by popular vote. only for the pounding to commence again the following January.

>> ^bobknight33:
How could anyone listen to this and not puke?
Capitalism is a good thing. Capitalism with out morals is a bad thing.
If it wasn't for capitalism we would be a third rate country. Capitalism has put goods and services within the reach of so many of us that the USA has the highest standard of living. If you want to live like a 3rd world country then move. There are lots of them.
Corporations using the government to do their bidding is wrong. In the broadest sense the Constitution was not to empower the corporations or the people, it is meant to have a level playing field for all.
Corporations get away with it because the American people are lazy and don't give a shit about voting crooks out of government ( Dems and Reps alike). They would rather keep these crooks in power as long they keep getting feed the pork and social services dollars.
We have the government that we have now because that's what the people voted for.


Voting does not matter in a capitilism---boycotting is the true "vote" in capatilism.

Second, it is not laziness that keeps corrupt politicans in office, it is ignorance that keeps politicans in office--exactly as they planned. So many demands from so many people...

Oh, and in a "true" capatilism, everything is for sale. Including government. If other people want their share, they should "work" harder, and "earn" more money. I mean should the "poor", or as I call them, the "lazy" really have a say in anything?

The bigger question remains though---where is the poop? I smell it and I am afraid my two-year old has left a "Surprise" somewhere...

How could anyone listen to this and not puke?

Capitalism is a good thing. Capitalism with out morals is a bad thing.

If it wasn't for capitalism we would be a third rate country. Capitalism has put goods and services within the reach of so many of us that the USA has the highest standard of living. If you want to live like a 3rd world country then move. There are lots of them.

Corporations using the government to do their bidding is wrong. In the broadest sense the Constitution was not to empower the corporations or the people, it is meant to have a level playing field for all.

Corporations get away with it because the American people are lazy and don't give a shit about voting crooks out of government ( Dems and Reps alike). They would rather keep these crooks in power as long they keep getting feed the pork and social services dollars.

We have the government that we have now because that's what the people voted for.

revolutions will continue to be televised. the arab world will see democracy. and theyll be disappointed.

israel and iran will start shit with eachother. the us will get involved. weapons factories will be the only things still in operation.

cable news will reach hysterical new heights, and only the south will continue listening

states will begin pulling out of medicaid programs in droves. social services will be cut across the board. crime and abuse and alcoholism rates will sky rocket. the elderly and disabled will be ushered back into institutions, slowly. conditions will deteriote. i will be out of a job. my heart will break.

my kids will grow into teenagers. ill talk to them about safe sex. their generation won't know anything about the civil rights movement. their idea of the civil war and holocaust will be politicized. all their friends will think that cavemen hunted dinosaurs.

gaping disparities in education will persist. the scourge that is the texas standard of education will sweep across most of the country. poor and inner schools will deteriorate further. children will go home hungry.

commercials will get louder.

white people will become a minority in border states, our politicians will be slightly less ridiculous. a chain of accessible taquerias will open across the south west. people will change their idea of "tacos" and ground meat will become a thing of the past. hopefully ill finally learn spanish.


all the cities sitting on top of massive natural gas reserves will begin to sink into their ground as all their children are diagnosed with cancer in droves. class action law suit commercials from cheap legal firms will flood the day time air waves.

there will be more shows about old people having sex. there will be reality shows about aging baby boomers.

everyone will develop histrionic personality disorders.

theyll teach mandarin in public schools.

some states will legalize marijuana.

gay people will get equal rights. mormons will realize it doesn't effect their relationship with their "god" at all.

someone will get assassinated.

assuming, the world doesn't end in 2012.

*kids

That was impossible to watch past a minute. I'm sure she thinks she knows what she's doing, but I'd like to see some kind of proof this is beneficial to the kid. Maybe she has a toddler indoors who is superhuman? Bring me evidence this is healthy for that baby or someone call Social Services!

I plan on memorizing the last line of this clip. Then when the topic comes up about social services for the poor and the unemployed, ask, "Do you believe we are a Christian nation?" If they answer yes, after going on about the lazy poor, I can then just quote Colbert.

A perfect rebuttal because it is perfectly true.

Railing against the concept of government is basically railing against civilization.

Government is a blank canvas capable of both good and bad, depending on who is holding the brush. Big business has been holding the brush for 3+ decades now. They've painted our canvas with Reaganism, Thatcherism, trickle down economics, globalization, world banks, uneven trade with countries that exploit and pollute, deregulation, easing of campaign finance laws, media consolidation, privatization of much of the economic sector, etc.

Big business dominates our politics and policy, and even after scoring a huge victory last month, they still crave more handouts, tax giveaways and the end of social services that don't directly benefit them. Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians all operate on corporate cash. Step out of line and face the wrath of business might, as Obama experienced when he tried to create a health care system.

We can continue to attempt to treat these numerous symptoms as they pop up, but it's not going to stop until we wise up. If we the people were in charge, we'd have never allowed these machines in the first place.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Those wars were fought for two major reasons, neither had anything to do with freedom.
1) Profit for Big Oil, Military/Weapons Industry, Halliburton, Blackwater and other corporations friendly to Bush and Cheney.
2) To raise the deficit to justify cutting social services that don't directly benefit corporations.
There will be no freedom till we get corporations out of our government.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
Can someone please fucking tell me why I've been in TWO fucking wars that were supposed to be about our FREEDOM, yet crazy shit like this happens? Where the fuck are those freedoms that I was supposedly fighting for?!

Knowing that every single person that's ever flown in the past few years LOATHES the TSA, why has nothing on the federal level happened to look into it? Some kind of study of new security measures vs. dangerous items confiscated? And I'm not talking about a fucking pair of tweezers. I mean guns, bombs and that shit.


I agree with your points, though Ben & Jerry's Inc. isn't scanning the bodies of little children at the airport. The government is. Blame deserves to be levied on the corrupted as well as the corrupters.

Those wars were fought for two major reasons, neither had anything to do with freedom.

1) Profit for Big Oil, Military/Weapons Industry, Halliburton, Blackwater and other corporations friendly to Bush and Cheney.
2) To raise the deficit to justify cutting social services that don't directly benefit corporations.

There will be no freedom till we get corporations out of our government.


>> ^MarineGunrock:

Can someone please fucking tell me why I've been in TWO fucking wars that were supposed to be about our FREEDOM, yet crazy shit like this happens? Where the fuck are those freedoms that I was supposedly fighting for?!

Knowing that every single person that's ever flown in the past few years LOATHES the TSA, why has nothing on the federal level happened to look into it? Some kind of study of new security measures vs. dangerous items confiscated? And I'm not talking about a fucking pair of tweezers. I mean guns, bombs and that shit.

btw, where he's talking about texas's problem with the uninsured... texas's social services bureaucracy is an absolute joke and an abject failure. it's easier to just unite the majority against scary welfare mom's and indigent men than to fix it apparently.

I find commercial media political analysis to be pretty stupid in general. They often get hung up on petty details, missing the important points, or perhaps not allowed to speak of important points for fear of scaring off corporate investors. I don't waste my time with either Olbermann (though I don't think he should have been booted off his network) or O'Reilly, although Maddow is pretty good. PBS, NPR and print media offer much deeper, more intellectual coverage, probably because they worry less about pleasing advertisers and can focus on doing their job.

The center is all very relative in our politics. Right of center Democrats who support common sense programs like health care are considered extremists; in the rest of the world, healthcare is a bipartisan issue. The American 'center' lies between right of center moderate dems, and batshit loonies like Sarah Palin on the right. It's not really a middle at all, it's more of a mean; a mean that shifts further and further to the right.

I challenge you to find a genuine liberal extremist who holds any political sway.

Anyway, I agree with Maher that being centrist for the sake of being centrist is a fools errand. It doesn't make you wise, intelligent or in any way independent. When you look at the agenda of the American right, it's easy to see that it is all based around sucking up to corporations. Cap and trade, corporate tax cuts, limiting social services, climate science "skepticism".... They offer nothing helpful to the average Joe. Once you cast a vote for corporatism, you lose the right to call yourself independent.

Anyway, the laptop is almost out of juice, so I'm going to cut this short...



In reply to this comment by hPOD:
It's hard to take an obviously biased [and somewhat insane] Bill Maher seriously. Maher hasn't been watchable for about 4 years now, and he's getting worse and worse. I understand the point you're trying to make, but as a person who truly stands in the middle, I see the extremes in both sides all the time, and that includes Olbermann. Unlike most, I actually DO watch Olbermann AND O'Riley. Well, not Olbermann anymore, but you get the point. I know you want to believe that everything Olbermann touches on is fact based, and everything O'Riley opines on is propaganda based, but that's not reality. There are times both make solid points, and there are times you can tell their <insert right/left> leaning opinions shine on their biased tendencies.

My voting record stands by the fact I call things as I see them, down the middle. In the last 5 Presidential elections, I've voted for 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats and 1 Independent.

A lot of people love to say they're down the middle, and they can see/hear both sides, but their slanted voting records show otherwise. I don't vote for parties, I vote for candidates, whether those votes end up being mistakes in the long run there is little I can do about, but the fact is, I'm one of the very few that actually does ride the fence. Quite a few of my friends, for example, claim the same...but their voting records show pure republican or pure democratic bias.

Maher has let his anti-religious lunacy get the better of him, and this is coming from an avid Hitchen's fan, who is also anti-religious. Hitchen's said it best when he mocked Maher's crowd for believing anything he says and laughing at any Bush joke he used. If I cared enough, going back to the beginning of the United States, I'd venture to say that I could find good things and bad things every single President has done, including Bush Jr and Obama.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
0:50 is relevant to our conversation:

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-Maher-Critiques-Stewart-Colbert-Rally

To be perfectly honest - I doubt the so-called "tea-baggers" are all uninformed silly wing-nuts. Some of the founding principles behind the tea-party and some of their representatives are quite sound.
The problem is that the "party" has created such momentum that it carries with it a whole slew of unreflected ideological baggage which "usually" gets sorted out in a political process, but until then is highly susceptible to manipulation and over-legislation.

While a "state-religion" is not necessarily the dawn of fundamentalist super-creationism (Germany is an example where it somehow "works" with religious-themed charities contributing MASSIVELY to social services), I doubt the principles of the tea-party would encourage the actual bureaucratic paper-wars (church-tax anybody?)... Also- I doubt any devout "christian" would like the infighting which would tail such a decision. Like Cenk mentioned, it would also require a LOT of the "foggier" aspects of religious belief to be fitted into a legislative framework (monogamy/polygamy, abortion, creationism, the theory of origin, interpretation of the testament(s), what actually constitutes christian belief).

If you as a "tea-partier" dislike government intervention so much and value your spiritual belief to a similar/equal/higher degree, would you really want to mix those two?