this is what we've been trying to tell you QM, the system doesn't work when only a few contribute...the system works when ALL contribute based on what they can afford.

I totally agree, so why does the bottom 50% of Americans pay NO income tax? The wealthy already pay a disproportionately high percentage of all taxes and I have yet to find a liberalsifter who admits this.

I well understand that Scrooge McDuck won't miss a few more shovelfuls of gold coins swiped by federal bulldozers, but lets review reality:

1) The "extra" money attained by "soaking" Scrooge and Rich Uncle Pennybags (from the Monopoly game) will be pi$$ed away, like the 60 billion dollars EVERY YEAR lost to fraud, waste and abuse in Medicaid/Medicare. The federal mafia is composed of sh1tty stewards of our money.

2) The Hawaiian Dunce has spent 3 trillion in 3 years with little or nothing to show for it. So what magical number of dollars is going to make everything all right? A quadrillion?

3) When the socialists raise taxes, the wealthy of 2011 have their accountant press a few buttons on their computating machines, sending their $$$ overseas, invested in more stable markets. Apparently many already have, probably the moment they knew Obama was elected.

4) Liberal say, "Rich man not know difference he still rich." But there's now less money to invest and less money to create jobs. Now some liberalsifter will say, "This graph indicates that the rich don't create jobs with their ill-gotten gains."

BUT, if you're honest with yourselves, you'll know that one million dollars has a much better chance of creating jobs in the hands of entrepreneurs and investors than the government "Department of Creating Jobs" which probably spends that much just on office furniture.

5) The debt limit 'debate' is total BS, always has been. Here is what happened: taxocrats burned through tax money at an alarming rate and there weren't enough elected Republicans to stop them. THAT'S why Moody's got scared and US was downgraded. Republicans can't communicate for sh1t anyway, and so the socialists and their media lapdogs managed to blame the right for this mess.

6) Warren Buffoon likes to be liked, I get that, but he should still STFU and make a real gesture. Giving a symbolic billion dollars to the federal mafia should do it. He won't miss it.

So let’s just sum it all up…

The United Kingdom has one of the biggest social hammocks on the planet. Universal health care, permanent unemployment, universal retirement payments, and public education? Check. And the yobs are rioting because they don’t have enough entitlements.

Well – clearly the problem is easily solved. The government just needs to seize all wealth so it can be fairly redistributed via socialized programs. At that point the yobs will become happy and line up like good little comrades at the government feeding stations. After all, every government that does this kind of thing has nothing but happy citizens who don’t riot, complain, or live in total poverty and oppression. Look at places like Cuba, North Korea, Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, and on and on. No government in history that siezes private capital has EVER just wasted, squandered, and frittered it away. All the social programs that governments run are fair, efficient, and wise stewards of the public trust. I mean, there’s not a socialist government on the PLANET that dribbles out its revenues to the tune of pennies on the dollar. No social system leaves the public with neither freedom OR financial prosperity.

:eyeroll:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

A dream is a wish your heart makes. >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You are liberal on social issues that all intelligent people conceded long ago. You get no reward for embracing what is obvious. Economically, you are far to the fringe right - anarcho capitalism. You want capitalism to be your state. A true steward of liberty would have no interest in the shackles of such an oppressive class-based economic system. That's why I consider you conservative. >> ^blankfist:
^I'm a liberal. How do you reconcile that?


And this is why you lose.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

A blowjob is a handjob your mouth makes.

A dream is a wish your heart makes. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
You are liberal on social issues that all intelligent people conceded long ago. You get no reward for embracing what is obvious. Economically, you are far to the fringe right - anarcho capitalism. You want capitalism to be your state. A true steward of liberty would have no interest in the shackles of such an oppressive class-based economic system. That's why I consider you conservative. >> ^blankfist:
^I'm a liberal. How do you reconcile that?


And this is why you lose.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

You are liberal on social issues that all intelligent people conceded long ago. You get no reward for embracing what is obvious. Economically, you are far to the fringe right - anarcho capitalism. You want capitalism to be your state. A true steward of liberty would have no interest in the shackles of such an oppressive class-based economic system. That's why I consider you conservative. >> ^blankfist:
^I'm a liberal. How do you reconcile that?



And this is why you lose.

You are liberal on social issues that all intelligent people conceded long ago. You get no reward for embracing what is obvious. Economically, you are far to the fringe right - anarcho capitalism. You want capitalism to be your state. A true steward of liberty would have no interest in the shackles of such an oppressive class-based economic system. That's why I consider you conservative. >> ^blankfist:

^I'm a liberal. How do you reconcile that?

I often disagree with Bill O. Almost always actually. That being the case, there are a few examples of him conducting a top-rate, respectable interview, which he is apparently completely capable of. I found this one a while back of him speaking with Venus Flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati.

http://videosift.com/video/Bill-O-Reilly-and-Tim-Reid-Venus-Flytrap-from-WKRP

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

This is probably about as close as I will come to having anything resembling respect for Bill O'Reilly. I've never watched his show and all the videos I see of him make him seem like a complete idiot (even this one). But, watching him with Jon Stewart, there's a genuine camaraderie between them that, well, makes me not hate Bill so much. They disagree on the issue but, they can argue about it without it getting out of hand. I think it's mostly due to Jon Stewart. He seems to bring out the "best" in Bill O'Reilly, if there is such a thing.

Your video, Steward vs. O'Reilly Uncut, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

This is probably about as close as I will come to having anything resembling respect for Bill O'Reilly. I've never watched his show and all the videos I see of him make him seem like a complete idiot (even this one). But, watching him with Jon Stewart, there's a genuine camaraderie between them that, well, makes me not hate Bill so much. They disagree on the issue but, they can argue about it without it getting out of hand. I think it's mostly due to Jon Stewart. He seems to bring out the "best" in Bill O'Reilly, if there is such a thing.


Jon has got the formula for dealing with that uncle everyone in the family hates. It's just a much better way of doing things then just yelling at everyone...if we all did this maybe somehow someway our country might stumble towards sanity.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

and then..
she vomits her guts up, detaches her uterus and is left emotionally stunted because all of her peers fear her roid rage & tiny mustache.


Ya know women used to not be allowed to run marathons like back in the 60s or something because it was believed by doctors their uterus would detach. In fact there's a cool story about some woman breaking into the Boston Marathon and a cool video of it I'll try to find it because it's neat. You see a steward try to tackle her and everything.

EDIT: Ok her name is Bobbi Gibb...it's a cool story and it's told in "Spirit of the Marathon" fond here on Hulu.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/85354/spirit-of-the-marathon

Well, this is one of those "Tragedy of the Commons" scenarios, where, sure it'd be nice if the one guy with one sheep could graze for free, while the people with 10 or more sheep would have to pay some sort of maintenance fee, but it doesn't work like that. This is precisely the same argument as why universal health care must force some people who'd like to press their luck to buy insurance. Pretty soon a whole lot of guys with 'one' sheep are grazing for free, and one of the owners of the larger herds are whistling away in the corner, with seemingly zero sheep. Should the number of 'comped' appearances one can have before having to join AFTRA be raised? I dunno. I'm sure that number didn't come out of someone's ass. While it might not seem so, AFTRA is indeed looking out for you, as it does anyone who works in the industry. You might not appreciate it as a lowly peon, but you would if you found yourself being 'requested' to be an extra, over and over, for less and less pay each time. Remember what Chris Rock said about minimum wage ("If I _could_ pay you less, I would")? The same premise holds for any exchange between an impersonal employer and a faceless employee. AFTRA's trying to give you a face.

I'm in a public sector union, and a co-worker's spouse has a job with an employer where most of the staff are union, and he's not, and no one knows that he's not. He gets a lot of work on the side, but he also gets a lot of crap jobs that no one wants, and he can't turn them down, because they'll find someone else who WILL do them, for a cheaper rate. She complains to me all the time about how the boss treats him, and, quietly, I'll ask her if the boss treats the union guys the same way. "No," she'll reply, thinking. In truth, she thinks he should join, but they've gone so far down this road that to admit that he'd never been a member would cause real problems in the workplace. I never told her, but I think that if he went to the shop steward and said, "I now know why unions exist, and I'd like to join," they'd have him in a heartbeat.

For the record, here is FDR's letter discussing collective bargaining for federal employees:

President Roosevelt's letter to Mr. Luther C. Steward, President, National Federation of Federal Employees. In the letter, FDR takes a position that public employees should not be able to collectively bargain.

My dear Mr. Steward:

As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.

Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.

The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.

All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.

Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."



I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.

'She makes some good points here... I bet if they were coming from Jon Steward and the lamestream media you libtarded sheeple would be paying attention!'

There is a two-way contractual system The bank agrees to loan, taking on all the risks associated with such load. The borrow does the same. ... You say the borrower should check his account, but that is barely his job: whereas it is the job of the banks.

I'm having a tough time conjoining these two bits here. We both agree that the loan is a two-way contract where the bank agrees to lend, and the borrower agrees to borrow - and that both parties agree to the risks involved. And yet there is this second bit here where you say that it is 'barely the job' of the borrower to check his balance and manage his end of the contract. If someone agrees to a contract that carries the risk of bankruptcy, homelessness, or financial ruin then to say it is 'barely' thier job to check the account comes off to me as insanely negligent.

I'd be interested to hear your explanation for all the banks that are doing just fine because they didn't buy into the mortgage scheme. I've heard radio interviews where they simply say that they didn't lend to anyone who couldn't be reasonably expected to pay for it. How did they escape your Catch-22?

Depends on the bank. Peeling back the onion that is the banking industry is complex, but back in the 90s the ones that were really pushing for the repeal of Glass-Steagall were not 'banks' in the sense that most people think about them. They were large, multi-national financial institutions and insurance companies - AIG being the principle player. These kinds of big money houses saw a way to make profit on the buying & selling of mortgages as financial packages WITHIN the financial industry itself. Effectively, the customer getting the loan was utterly irrelevant to these big players. They were interested in the financial packaging - not the loans themselves.

So when the law was changed, it allowed them to throughput mortgages within their own organizations. Historically, Glass-Steagall made it illegal for a financial house like AIG to buy & sell mortgages from banks that it owned or partnered with. But after the change, they could pool all the loans together and market them as a product. They started putting pressure on the smaller players to churn out more debt. There were banks that didn't play the game, but it was tough becuase all through the late 90s and early 00s, people were making money hand over fist the sl-easy way.

I have no doubt that there were politicians who pushed for easier mortgages to please their vocal minority constituents, but the people who stood most to gain were the wall street big money handlers. In your estimation, which of these groups tends to get their way in politics most readily? And therefor, which of these groups is more to blame?

Your question is this... Who is more to blame - the person MAKING A BRIBE or the person TAKING THE BRIBE? My answer is that the person TAKING THE BRIBE bears the greater guilt. All the bribes in the world are worthless if the other guy doesn't TAKE it. Businesses have no power to pass laws. That power rests in Congress. They are the stewards. They are the gatekeepers. They are the ones that are given public trust to only pass good laws, and to guard against this kind of crap.

Sadly - this is what happens when you allow a strong, central government to exist. I remember VERY clearly in the 90s that when AIG, Barney Frank, and a bunch of other guys were strong-arming the repeal of Glass-Stegall they were VERY insistent and persuasive that they were doing a really GOOD thing. It was going to lower the cost of housing. It was going to get more poor people into homes. It was going to make a lot of money for the middle-class, and ease the burden of the poor. In fact, the "repeal Glass-Stegall" guys were vociferious in accusing those OPPOSING their plan of being evil, selfish, cruel, and racist. And until October of 2008, who could really argue with them?

Government should have known better. Glass-Steagall was made a law SPECIFICALLY to prevent housing market collapses like this. It was implemented as a direct result of similar shenanigans which caused the Great Depression and the crash of the 20s. But because government people were wanting votes and conduct 'social engineering', they changed the laws. AIG didn't change the laws. Government did. They bear the ultimate responsibility.

In no way does this absolve folks like AIG. Quite frankly, the federal bailout is a massive crime aginst the people. It dumped money into financial houses to shield them from the consequences of their stupidity. The banks should have been allowed to fail. When this kind of thing happens, you let the chips fall and then the system rebuilds itself. And it does so rather quickly when government isn't there screwing things up like they did in the 30s.

I've said it before I'll say it again.

This is why John Steward and The Daily show have swept their spot in the Emmy's 8 years in a fucking row! Nobody does it like Stewart!