The polarizing movement has many critics but also equally strong and diverse support, including most major media companies as well as businesses like 3M, Adidas, Burberry, CVS and more. News Corp., the parent company of FoxNews.com, also supports the law.

"SOPA targets foreign websites that sell counterfeit drugs and stolen copies of Hollywood movies -- not such American Web sites as YouTube or your favorite blog," wrote Richard Bennett, senior research fellow at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, in an editorial in the New York Post.

The opposition to SOPA preys on ignorance and fear. Most Internet users don’t understand the details of DNS or the methods used by Internet search engines. It’s easy for the apologists for the Internet status quo to convince the less well informed that the Internet is too big and complicated to improve. But they’re wrong. It’s hard for our slow-moving Congress to stay abreast of all the changes that take place on the Internet at breakneck speed.
More: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/protecting_americans_from_web_scams_lvOOEKJEqzpjGIAW43mIXP

I dont understand what overthrowing Mongolian rule after over 2 centuries of rule has to do with it being European? If anything this would be a pre-requisite for being considered asian i.e. China,parts of India and the various 'stans etc (all of which kept their own unique cultures)........

Russia is as culturally distinct from the narrow minded stereotype of Asians (i.e. the Chi-panese Kung-fu people) as are the indians and 'stanis. Are the Kazakhistanis asian? Uzbeks? Tajiks? They were all part of the USSR until its collapse. Does this mean that they were European and are now Asian because they were dropped by Russia?

Russia is just as out of place in Europe as it is in Asia but saying that it is not Asian just as saying that it is not European is wrong and is essentially reinforcing the racist stereotype that all asians are chinese.

Asia is a big continent it holds much more than just chinese people and shaolin monks.


>> ^ghark:

>> ^Confucius:


>> ^Shepppard:
Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance


I dunno, I mean they got beaten up pretty badly over the centuries by raiding armies from areas such as Mongolia, but they kept their own unique culture through all that, rather than being assimilated as happened in other countries that experienced similar defeats. Russia was just too big, vast and harsh to conquer permanently, so I think that it deserves to be considered as an entity outside what might be defined culturally as Asia, regardless of geographic location. To further confuse things, it was apparently pretty popular historically amongst Russians to consider Europe as extending to the Urals, and also part of Siberia is on the North American plate.

>> ^Confucius:

So what you're saying is, that the Asian channel is racially defined? Read up on Russian history and look at its geography. It belongs in Asia as much as it belongs in Europe
BTW this is a pretty bad way to describe Asia (i know you didnt write this)....i.e. how is it possible that someone can say that these "ancient cultures continue today only slightly affected by the modern world?"
Pretty ethno-centric too.....by modern world im assuming what is meant is the Western World...?

>> ^Shepppard:
Asian channel description:
"This channel is dedicated to the ancient cultures and traditions of Eastern Asia, particularly China and Japan, that began thousands of years ago and continue to this very day only slightly if at all affected by the modern world. It covers everything from period Shaolin martial arts videos in China to wacky reality Japanese shows of today"
so, I'm going to say this one doesn't belong.
Nochannel
wtf
drugs
dance



I dunno, I mean they got beaten up pretty badly over the centuries by raiding armies from areas such as Mongolia, but they kept their own unique culture through all that, rather than being assimilated as happened in other countries that experienced similar defeats. Russia was just too big, vast and harsh to conquer permanently, so I think that it deserves to be considered as an entity outside what might be defined culturally as Asia, regardless of geographic location. To further confuse things, it was apparently pretty popular historically amongst Russians to consider Europe as extending to the Urals, and also part of Siberia is on the North American plate.

What seems lost in translation for the left is, the "evil" corporations as well as the little guys have little choice but to ALL have lobbyists pursuing their own interests. Why?

Because government is too large and too powerful.

You can take your pick of which is the greater evil: 'greedy' corporations which can and do fail, or a permanent class/army of government bureaucrats untied to quality performance or market demand, and which has lobbyists to shame even the corporations.

I'd rather take my chances with the market.






>> ^westy:

>> ^quantumushroom:
People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.
In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.
also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

>> ^quantumushroom:

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.
Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.
Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.


Europe is in deep shit because USA DEREGULATED THE MARKETS and the whole of europe and USA are all tied into the same big banks.

In reality we live in a coperate run socity and thats because for the most part its a FREE MARKET in the sense that whoever has the most money can do what the fuck they like by lobying the goverment thats what you get when you let companies and money dictate things the people with the money own and run the goverment its as close to free market as you can get and hense why everything has fallen apart for the menny and benofited the few super ritch.

also look at crime rates and quality of helth care for countries that have better distribution of wealth you will find they are among the top.

People who get "free" stuff usually like things being "free", and a corrupt government is more than happy to seize the money from the producers to buy the votes of the ignorant. Why should the producers continue busting a$$ only to have their 'extra' hard work taken away? Socialist paradises like mexifornia have been great for Utah and Arizona, which are more than happy to receive the fleeing companies voting with their feet.

Europe is in deep sh1t because of socialism, which sooner than later always fails. Even if you could tax everyone at 98% the unlimited wants of the people would outrun any government's ability to redistribute wealth.

Capitalism works, socialism 'sort of' works until it's literally too big NOT to fail.

i admire ron paul for voting what he espouses.he is fairly consistent and i can respect that BUT he is also a devout ayn rand fan and that should give anyone pause.
a unrestricted free market will not produce the pseudo financial utopia the chicago economists like friedman espouse,no matter how much they may wish it.
in fact,it will produce the exact opposite and there are many examples that people who believe in unrestricted markets seem to ignore.

in my opinion a few small but powerful changes could make a difference:
1.get rid of citizens united and make it so no private money can fund public elections.
2.put a cork on the ability of the congress and senate to profit from insider trading AND the ability to turn their political influence into a lucrative career as a lobbyist.make the job about public service and not pure enrichment at the detriment of those you were elected to represent.
3.re-instate glass steagall and other measures to separate commercial from investment banks.
4.return the phrase "for the public good" (removed in the early 70's) from the corporate charter and allow civil and class action suits against corporations who are discovered abusing communities by what ever means.and allow AG's to dissolve a corporation for gross un-compliance.if they are going to be deemed a "person" then they should be held to the same standard of community as the rest of us.

these are just some of the points ron paul does not address and i feel they are so vitally important and are a few reasons i cant support him.
his stance on military intervention and recinding the gross over-powering of the executive branch i totally agree with.
i also am not against his end-the-fed and other useless federal government agencies.either make them more effective or give that power to the states and some (DOD comes to mind) are so bloated and cumbersome that they have taken on an eerie "too big to fail" kind of character.

there is one thing that i find curious.
since ron paul is a free market prophet,why arent the corporations backing this man up with all their money and influence?
gingrich,romney and obama are getting all the wall street campaign money and media exposure.while ron paul is being marginalized.
maybe i am just being cynical but it seems to me that ron pauls "free market" talk may be perceived as a de-rigging of the game and our corporate masters cant have that.they paid big money to keep your business in the shitter.

if thats the case...well..good on him but i have to admit not being an expert on corporations nor economics.so i could be way off the mark.

Here you go: http://science.discovery.com/tv/trek-nation/ Looks like it's not on their site for full viewing though. Only clips.

Originally aired Nov. 30th. Won't be on again until Dec 21 5 and 8PM, and the 28th 6 and 9PM. There's this too: http://treknationmovie.com/ If you are any kind of a fan of the franchise, this is a must see.

>> ^ant:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^ant:
>> ^Duckman33:
I watched this. It's a great show. I learned a lot about Star Trek I never knew before.

It was good? I need to see it, but I don't have cable/satellite.

Yeah, it was really good actually. It was on the Science Channel last week. You could probably find it on their website or a friendly torrent site.

Where's their web site? I couldn't find it. I did see a 10 GB online, but too big! Eh, I will wait.

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^ant:
>> ^Duckman33:
I watched this. It's a great show. I learned a lot about Star Trek I never knew before.

It was good? I need to see it, but I don't have cable/satellite.

Yeah, it was really good actually. It was on the Science Channel last week. You could probably find it on their website or a friendly torrent site.


Where's their web site? I couldn't find it. I did see a 10 GB online, but too big! Eh, I will wait.

Don’t Blame Capitalism for Wall Street’s Corruption and Lawlessness:

When Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought about Western civilization, he answered:

I think it would be a good idea.

I feel the same way about free market capitalism.

It would be a good idea, but it is not what we have now. Instead, we have either socialism, fascism or a type of looting.

If people want to criticize capitalism and propose an alternative, that is fine . . . but only if they understand what free market capitalism is and acknowledge that America has not practiced free market capitalism for some time.

...

People pointing to the Western economies and saying that capitalism doesn’t work is as incorrect as pointing to Stalin’s murder of millions of innocent people and blaming it on socialism. Without the government’s creation of the too big to fail banks, Fed’s intervention in interest rates and the markets, government-created moral hazard emboldening casino-style speculation, corruption of government officials, creation of a system of government-sponsored rating agencies which had at its core a model of bribery, and other government-induced distortions of the free market, things wouldn’t have gotten nearly as bad.

http://videosift.com/video/Herman-Cains-9-9-9-plan-Occupy-Wall-Street

@~1:15 "If you take a look at a wealthy person, ALL of the money that is earned... is ultimately going to be spent."

This trickles down how? Be either spending/investing in consumer goods or publicly traded ventures/securities? That's such a weak correlation and yet he makes it sound like it's a foregone conclusion. What about overseas tax shelters and foreign investments? What about the knee-jerk reaction of Wall Street investors to see stock and hold onto cash when the market dips? He does not provide a complete explanation.

. . .


@~2:30 "That money is used to grow the economy, to produce goods, to provide services, to create jobs... they're not using it to benefit themselves, they're using it to benefit society."

Sarcasm -> So when rich people buy things, they aren't doing enjoying it. That's why we say "money can't buy happiness." When they buy that 12th sports car, they're taking on that hardship for their country. Weep. <- end sarcasm. The rest of us need to buy stuff too, and as wages for the middle and lower income majority stagnate or worse, the top tier has enjoyed a boom.
. . .

@~4:10 "Any money that is diverted from savings [read as equities and bond investments in the domestic market] to government is money that would have been used to produce private sector jobs and grow the economy and instead the money goes to the government."

He states that liberals miss the bigger picture when they argue that the top should pay more taxes. He goes on here to describe the government is a black hole, where all taxes are simply wasted. What about social security, medicare and the damn debt? Honestly, it astounds me that he doesn't make the connection between the generally accepted idea that the debt needs to be paid but instead of taxing from more from the most successful individuals, he seems to side with the Republican fiscal policy of accomplishing this through budget cuts alone. This is a contributing factor to global perception America's quality of life: it doesn't even make the top 10 anymore in the Nation Ranking Quality of Life Index.

. . .

@~10:30 "The protesters [OWS] should be protesting the White House. Capital Hill... That's what's failed them. It's not Captialism, but the lack of Capitalism."

So the government is too big, and we need to cut spending and stop over regulating so Capitalism can frolic freely in the forest. Sounds so me like hasty Obama blaming. I think the mortgage-backed securities practices and resulting global crisis are a perfect example of unfettered Capitalism at work. Republicans can't have it both ways, no matter how matter-of-fact you say it. This fallacy is a major sticking point for me and a major contributor to my personal ideological opposition to the Republican viewpoint. All allegations of racism aside, ignoring the shocking gun toting and violent rhetoric of hard-line Tea Party demonstrators, saving all the ridiculous comments made by the GOP candidates recently, I just see the party trying to hide their allegiance to corporations. They do this by forming ludicrous allusions to "the State-run death camps" and distracting people from the real issue of wealth disparity by talking about inflammatory topics like "Don't Ask Don't Tell."

I don't even blindly follow the Democratic dogma. They can't come out of this squeaky clean either. I'd wager they're just about as pampered and subsequently influenced by lobbyists as their Republican counterparts, although they seem to maintain their "just and true, pro-underdog" image to a large extent. I hope OWS results in the end of this corporate crony-ism.

Dude, Schiff is the one spewing the most ridiculous things from a historical perspective I've ever heard, not West. Are you saying right now that Schiff is right that child labor was ended by the free market, not gov't regulation?! That's just patently absurd!

He's saying that a guarantee of deposits by the FDIC fueled speculation. Okay, so when and why was it instituted? In *1933*, it was instituted *after* massive stock speculation among other causes triggered the Stock Market Crash of 1929, which triggered the Great Depression. As banks had invested in stocks, etc themselves (outlawed by Glass-Steagall), made bad loans, including to allow people to buy stocks on credit, etc. etc. people made runs on the banks to get their deposits out before the banks went belly up, regardless of if individual banks themselves participated in the speculation because no one knew which banks were actually in trouble. Some Depression era people put their money "under their mattresses" and a few kept that attitude up until their deaths because of those runs on the banks. The FDIC was instituted to get people to put money back into banks to rebuild on hand deposits, so banks would be able to lend again and actually stay in business. We had the FDIC for almost 80 years now, and the banking system has remarkably MORE stable than it was before the FDIC without any doubt, and this clown says it fuels speculation?! You know what you didn't see in the last recession when the market tanked? MASSIVE RUNS ON MOST BANKS! That's precisely why we have it! And it's logically ridiculous on the surface of it. Just think about it. The FDIC guarantees that I get MY money back if I deposit it to a bank that is FDIC insured, and the bank goes belly up. What happens to the bank if it makes bad decisions? It goes belly up. So why would the bank speculate in that situation due specifically to the FDIC?! THEY STILL GO BELLY UP! You can say the bank bailouts had something to do with it because now the Goldman Sachs of the world know that gov't won't let too big to fails fail. I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the FDIC's insurance on deposits?! RIDICULOUS!

Peter Schiff is not correct here. It's some of the most patently ridiculous things I've heard yet about the economy. If you've read my posts, I'm as pragmatic as one could possibly be, and I'm without a doubt a moderate. I don't give a crap whether specific gov't regulations work or not, but I don't attempt to blind myself with ideology, but this clown is going to great lengths to fundamentally rewrite historical record that's basic freaking fact about the US prior, during, and after the Great Depression that even a basic historical understanding would allow anyone to realize he's an idiot, or is at best making a disingenuous argument to trumpet free market economics for the sake of itself.

>> ^bobknight33:

Peter Schiff is correct. Cornell West foolishly wrong. He teaches African studies which teaches jack about how economies work.

Dude, stimulus does not immediately kick in. It takes time to take effect. And considering the economic data that suggests that this was the worst economic downturn in since the Great Depression, where unemployment reached 25%, how is it "balderdash" unemployment would have climbed into the teens?

You also failed in your economic analysis. To say that the stimulus jobs created 1 job for every $200,000 is the most absurd thing I've ever read. First off, it assumes that the only jobs created are the jobs of people it directly contributed to hiring without taking into account the residual effects of said hiring, or the results of whatever goods and services produced from the work they did. How many jobs are created or preserved by building infrastructure? How many jobs were created or preserved by providing all workers hired through stimulus programs, which in turn spent that income on goods and services produced by private sector workers? What about workers producing goods and services necessary for these programs that wouldn't immediately show up?

"...the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report in August that said the stimulus bill has '[l]owered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points' and '[i]ncreased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/09/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs/

The economy is cyclical in nature. Stopping the bleeding is a big deal. And most economists believe the stimulus bill wasn't as successful as it should have been is because it wasn't big enough, not because it was too big or was done at all.

Again, I challenge you to show me a recession in modern times that was not ended after a period of deficit spending. You can't name one, can you?

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/include/us_deficit_100.png

So there's completely DUH obvious undeniable, there's no other way to explain it, basic US historical fact that we've ALWAYS ended recessions with deficit spending. How can you possibly argue that "when government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn." So what was WWII?! What were the 1980's?! You have no factual claims to stand on! Explain how in the world deficits prolonged the Great Depression! We deficit spent quite a bit leading up to WWII, still didn't get out of the Great Depression, massive record deficit spent, THEN got out of the Depression. It is undeniable that's what did the trick.

I don't for the life of me understand why people like you will literally argue the sky isn't blue if it fits your ideological narrative.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

You can't say it didn't work before because unemployment was skyrocketing and then stopped when the stimulus kicked in.
The facts...
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
Unemployment started going up a bit in May of 2008 (5.4%). By February of 2009 (Stimulus bill passes) the rate was 8.2%. By October of 2009, unemployment was 10.1%. +2%. After. The. Stimulus. Unemployment hit 9%+ in May of 2009 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
Unemployment did spike a total of +4% between May of 2008 and May of 2009. 60% of that spike took place before the stimulus, and 40% of the spike took place AFTER the stimulus. In order for anyone to claim that the stimulus 'stopped' unemployement from rising, they would have to conclusively prove that unemployment WOULD HAVE RISEN to 13.4% by May of 2010, then to 17.4% by May of this year without the passage of the stimulus. Balderdash. Unemployment hit a natural free market peak in late 2009, and it was going to do that with our without the stimulus.
Let's assume the stimulus DID 'create jobs'. Is that backed up by facts?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-usa-campa
ign-stimulus-idUSTRE78C08R20110913
http://web.econ.ohio-state.edu/dupor/arra10_may11.pdf
Economic data is open to debate. On the one side here we have the CBO which gave the stimulus a very generous amount of credit (based on some very questionable interpretations of job 'creation') for 'creating or preserving' 3 million jobs. Then we have an OSU study which uses statistics to prove the stimulus 'created' 450,000 government jobs and KILLED a million private sector jobs.
I personally I think the OSU study hits the nail on the head. "ARRA funds were largely used to offset state revenue shortfalls and Medicaid increases rather than directly boost private sector employment." That is a statement that reflects reality. The stimulus mostly plugged up budgeting gaps that had nothing to do with employment. In fact, the CBO itself freely admitted, "it is impossible to determine how many of the reported jobs would have existed in the absence of the stimulus package.” QUOTE!
But let's be really nice and use the CBO's figures - even though they are highly questionable. 3 million jobs were 'created or preserved' by the stimulus bill. Even in this very rosy scenario, the stimulus made 1 job for every $200,000 dollars. It can be credibly argued that doing NOTHING would have generated a better result in an overall analysis compared to spending $200K for 1 job.
But for the sake of discussion let's take a good hard look at the jobs that were 'created'. After all, 200K a job might make sense if they were GOOD jobs...
http://reason.com/archives/2009/12/11/did-the-stimulus-create-jobs
They weren't. Most of the jobs were government jobs. And most of them were temporary construction jobs or other seasonal gigs for make-work projects scheduled to complete in a year or less (at which point they are fired). The private sector - where jobs are needed most - got virtually NO boost from the stimulus.
I could keep on going for hours, but suffice it to say that the stimulus didn't 'stop' unemployment. There is solid, real, credible evidence that the government's interference in the free market did far more harm than good. That's what happens. When government steps into the market, it creates an artificial bubble that PROLONGS an economic downturn.

I've only been into motogp since the last part of last season. It's an awesome thing to watch for the close racing and all the overtakes and tactics and excitement. Simoncelli was a new gp rider last year and I've watched him change and develop and really start to show his real talent. Despite being far too big for the bikes he had a knack of going fast in a really exciting way. I didn't know him at all, but I did like him as a rider and he was always interesting to watch.

It's often said that people enjoy watching racing for the crashes. That if motor racing is made too safe it sanitises and ruins it. That if there is no risk there is no excitement. Bollox. I watch F1 and MotoGP to see the skill of the riders and drivers. To see the race unfold. To see how they better their rivals on the track. Of course crashes are going to happen, particularly on the bikes. If they aren't crashing it's questionable if they're pushing hard enough. Simoncelli certainly knew about crashing as he was pushing 110% from the start before his skill level had risen to meet his ego. As his time in MotoGP has gone on he's got better and better. He was going to win races and going to win a championship. I'm genuinely saddened by what's happened. 24 is no age to go.

My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi. They must be going through hell right now.

are you talking about the deregulation of the banking system and Wall Street that led to not just this crash but the previous one? because, yeah... the oh-so-lovable working class were behind that

Oh, no, more about the Let's-Give-Free-Houses-To-People-We-Know-Can't-Pay-For-Them-But-That's-The-Banks'-Problem-We-Just-Buy-Votes-From-The-Poor-Act.

The left likes to call it 'deregulation' as if that were a dropping of vital safeguards keeping the wealthy in check. It was more like a creating an opportunity for certain parties--not all of them wealthy--to take stupid risks thanks to government offering to cover their butts with taxpayer largesse. Not the same thing.

or the banking bailouts, where instead of using the money to cover the banking losses (see above) wasn't used to get lending going again, but for banks to consolidate and buy each other out... leading to banks that are even more TOO BIG TO FAIL

I was 100% against the failouts, but not much you can do against a leviathan government made that way by worshipers of leviathan government as the solution to every problem. You don't create a Kong then act surprised when Kong does what he wants instead of what you want, do you?

and how exactly is Trickle-Down Economics, which have been repeated over and over by the rich as reasons not to tax them, not completely horsesh_t considering the last 30yrs?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-koch-brothers-graph

Why do liberals insist on calling 1% paying 40% of all taxes "not being taxed"? They're being taxed plenty already, and if you try to confiscate the rest, they'll just beam it overseas or keep it in tax-free products where it won't get invested or circulate. And that's ignoring the moral issue of why someone gets taxed proportionately higher for the 'crime' of having more?

of course, regarding that link, I assume your first response is... "Well Rachel Maddows, that's all I need to know about that link"

No, but I'm not sure what the point of that link was, really. Due to increasingly efficient software and other tech advances, over time a job that once required a thousand workers can be done with only 300. It's called "creative destruction" and yeah, it requires you to be on the ball.

I will say, if you already don't, you should lobby for some rich interests... I'm sure they got a teet for you... because you sure a capable job of touting the rhetoric without providing any concrete details

I've never been offered a job by a poor man, have you? Unless you're a vote-buying politician, you shouldn't overly concern yourself that someone else has more than you, nor blame them. Economics is not a zero-sum game.









>> ^packo:

>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
The most harm has been done and money wasted in the past 60 years by governments trying to guarantee an equality of outcomes.

are you talking about the deregulation of the banking system and Wall Street that led to not just this crash but the previous one? because, yeah... the oh-so-lovable working class were behind that
or the banking bailouts, where instead of using the money to cover the banking losses (see above) wasn't used to get lending going again, but for banks to consolidate and buy each other out... leading to banks that are even more TOO BIG TO FAIL
and how exactly is Trickle-Down Economics, which have been repeated over and over by the rich as reasons not to tax them, not completely horsesh_t considering the last 30yrs?
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/23/7927178-the-k
och-brothers-graph
of course, regarding that link, I assume your first response is... "Well Rachel Maddows, that's all I need to know about that link"
I will say, if you already don't, you should lobby for some rich interests... I'm sure they got a teet for you... because you sure a capable job of touting the rhetoric without providing any concrete details