Oh man, where to start...

Amazing how all leftists are criminally corrupt, all of them, apparently. Just because you're a leftist, it automatically means you don't care about the people. On the face of it, patently absurd. Yes, some leftists are corrupt. No question about it. So are many capitalists, too. Doesn't mean either philosophy is bankrupt.

Obama's big gov't spending doesn't do anything for the poor and middle class. You mean, except saving jobs when the economy tanked, the vast majority went to the poor and middle classes. Other than that... LOL...

I'm totally sympathetic to the argument the stimulus may do more harm than good in the long run, but it wasn't done to shovel money into big bloated, criminally negligent gov't troughs. It was done to save jobs, and help the economy. Even if I disagreed with waterboarding, I wouldn't go around telling people the Bush administration did it because they loved the thrill of torturing people.

Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution?! They just make it worse? I'm sure that's happened on occasion, but that's generally patently false. UN reports show the following:

In the U.S. the top 10% hold 70% of the country’s wealth
In France, the top 10% hold 61% of the country’s wealth
In the U.K. , the top 10% hold 56% of the country’s wealth
In Germany, the top 10% hold 44% of the country’s wealth
In Japan the top 10% hold 39% of the country’s wealth

France, UK, and Germany are significantly to the left of US in terms of their economic system without question. Japan is a weird beast, but still more socialist than we are. Their personal income tax rates are very low, but their corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. They also have significant elements of socialism in their economy, such as universal health care, publicly funded education, transportation, etc., but there is also a lot of free market elements as well. They also have a progressive income tax, although it has become less progressive as years have gone by.

So, I'd love to know how you came to that conclusion.

Finally, let me explain why some such as myself favor a form of mixed economy with a blend of socialism and capitalism: it works better for virtually everyone - rich, poor, and the middle class. As a very simple example, universal mandatory education, which was not a part of US society until it was publicly funded, helped businesses in the end because it increased the skill set and productivity of workers, which allowed businesses to increase profits in the long run. Universal, compulsory publicly funded education is socialist in nature. And how can society afford this? Partly by progressive taxation, which you claim is "poor people" believing that they have a right to the rich's money. Well, guess what? It worked BEAUTIFULLY! Universal public education and a progressive income tax coincided with the rise of the US as a global economic superpower as those first generations of publicly educated people came of working age. Weird how that worked, huh?

Now, I know people such as myself you consider a "neolib", but we're actually moderates, many of us are well intentioned, as I'm sure is true about conservatives, and we also have quite a bit of facts on our side to back us up, too. Raising marginal tax rates on the richest 1% of Americans is socialist in nature, but doing it a small amount isn't tantamount to socialism. And socialist ideas aren't inherently bad either (same for capitalistic ideas).

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.
So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

I have the 'benefit' of actually - you know - having LIVED in the 60s. Back then the average interest rate on a home loan was along the lines of 16% to 18%. Needless to say this video glosses over a lot of the challenges the great middle class had in making ends meet.

The dini index is a rather foolish barometer - which is why neolibs like it so much. It allows a neolib to take perfectly happy, content, functional societies and act like everyone there should be miserable because they don't hit the right note on an artificial standard. Look instead at the relative standard of living enjoyed by a country. By any standard, the US has it pretty dang sweet. Just saw a report yesterday where those in the supposed "poverty" level have (A) homes they own (B) 2+ Big Screen TVs (C) 2+ cars (D) video game systems, DVD players, computers, and smartphones (E) and eat 'out' as often as twice a week. "Wah wah wah - the US isn't as good on the dini index as a bunch of pinheads think it should be!" Neolibs can whine all they want about wealth concentration. The fact that the bottom 5% is buying luxuries that many other nation's RICH can't afford (while paying ZERO income taxes) proves that the bellyaching is meaningless drivel.

Besides, leftists really don't care jack-crap whether or not the bottom 5% actually ever moves out of the poverty level. The crocodile tears about the 'poor' is a bunch of propoganda they use to advance higher tax rates - which help the poor only in the barest, most marginal, subsistence-only way. Neolibs use the poor as a manure shovel to trowel money into bloated, criminally negligent government troughs. Obama's entire regime is demonstrable proof that huge government spending accomplishes nothing for the poor or middle class. In fact, higher taxation & spending accomplish the exact opposite of 'helping' the middle class. Leftist governments do not help with wealth distribution. If anything, wealth disparity is frequently much worse under leftist systems. "Rich" person money does more good funding private-citizen billionaire prostitute crack snorting addictions than it does in government.

So I reject the neolib premise that money "must" be shunted from the rich to government, or society is somehow less fair. Frankly, it is none of your cotton-pickin' business or mine what rich folks so with their cash. Neither poor people, nor the middle class have any right to anyone else's money just because they're jealous that someone else has more of it. If a guy is rich, it is their decision what to do with their money. Donate to charities, invest it in businesses, or use it to murder puppies - whatever - it's THEIR cash - not yours. Same goes for companies and corporations too. Just because a company is earning truckloads of cash doesn't mean you have any right to one jack-sprat cent of it.

so true, all of them.

I HATE facebook, and hate lazy marketing people who use facebook because they can't be bothered to actually build their own site too.

After much searching I finally closed my facebook account last year and have NEVER looked back and strangely I've managed to live quite happily not knowing about the new stables and feed troughs my friends have bought on Farmville.

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to focus on bullshit, or important stuff?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want bullshit"?

If you asked everyone "do you want the news to lie to you, or do you want them to tell the truth?" do you think people would overwhelmingly respond "I want to be lied to"?

It's true that people watching Hannity like Hannity. But why does Hannity have a show in the first place? Because someone decided produce a show where ideological propaganda would get sold to people as news.

Who made that choice? Were people complaining that the news was just too truthful?

What choice do you think people tuning into Hannity think they're making? "I want to be told comforting lies?" or "I want the truth, and only Fox News has it?"

As for who should hold news corporations responsible, of course it should be the consumers of news, and people generally. But first you have to get people to stop defending the news media by saying things like "Blame the idiots who devour this garbage" or "to blame corporations is the same as blaming a snake for biting you" and generally get in the face of someone who says "that's not what they're supposed to be doing" when they cut away from Pelosi when she says she won't talk about Weiner!

>> ^burdturgler:

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?
You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.
Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

What makes you think people 'in power' need an excuse?

You're comparing buying gas and clothes to watching cable news. They're not the same thing. People don't need to watch Hannity, they do it because THEY LIKE IT. The masses don't stand up to stop it because they're busy diving face first into the trough and gorging on it.

Yes, the corporations that produce "news" should be held accountable. But if not by their consumers then who?

There are more blacks on the basketball team because they are better than the whities Despite the unequal socioeconomic playing field, not because of it. The students interviewed clearly haven't thought this trough, but I refuse to believe that the producers of the video don't see the fallacy in the logic they are presenting.

I would slap a 'lies' tag on this video, if I didn't think it would get pulled right off.

..and by the way, if this were just an economic issue, then women wouldn't be working shittier jobs and getting paid less then men of equal ability.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

I think you're blurring the lines of what his responsibilities are. He's a lawmaker. Not a law enforcer. Not a judge. Not a journalist. He's giving a speech on the House floor.
If you really want someone to go after the criminals pulling the strings behind government, then you should be all about Ron Paul. He's the only one that's got the stones to do it. Elect him President and his Attorney General will be your new hero.


Stones to do what exactly? I think it's easy to use rhetoric, but how exactly is he going to defeat the corporate influence while elections are not citizen funded.

I think the most salient point about all this comes from the Lessig vid @jwray posted earlier. Lessig's point is that even if a candidate does have good intentions, the corporate IV line that feeds these guys takes away any element of trust that the public can have for them. Sure, Paul takes less PAC donations than most, but that won't make a difference when it actually comes to passing legislation because the rest of them are feeding at the trough like little piglets (and everyone knows it).

Hay nice post. I had no idea this can be genetic. Better get my 2 year old checked up so he doesn't have to go trough what I went through at 24. That was some of the most physically painful memories of my life.

In reply to this comment by nanrod:
Here's my anecdotal two bits worth. There is a condition called phimosis (abnormally tight foreskin) which runs in my family. It can lead to chronic infections of the foreskin, urinary tract infections, kidney infections and ultimately lead to loss of kidney function. None of these are guaranteed to happen but they can't be predicted. My father was not circumcised at birth but required the procedure at the age of 15. He swore then that no son of his would go through the same thing so me and 3 brothers were circumcised. When my son was born we decided against it after much research but again he had to be circumcised at 9. Bottom line if a parent opts for circumcision for family medical reasons they shouldn't be condemned or criticized, but lacking a family history like mine I see no compelling reason for it.

Other than aesthetics, of course, uncut dicks are ugly.

I amuses me that everyone thinks that they know what is right and that their opinion is the correct one.

I wish we had a public option. I think it is the best and most fair course -- spread the costs over the whole population and pay for it with a tax, instead of insurance premiums on the ones who can afford it. This just makes sense.

But who said that Americans are rational? I have so many conservative relatives who pop a vein over paying taxes and creating a social safety net. They are quick to sup at the public trough, but god forbid somebody get food stamps. "Those people don't work hard, I work hard, I deserve it, they don't."

I don't agree with their point of view, but believe you me, they hold it strongly. They believe that they are correct.

The lobbyists play into that. Fox News twists the story to play up that aspect. But it is landing on fertile soil, those manipulations.




>> ^ghark:

@<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/MaxWilder" title="member since November 7th, 2007" class="profilelink">MaxWilder
You seem to be falling for the 'well if it's the lesser of two evils i'll take it' mentality. Firstly, the people did not want this - they voted in Obama under the premise he would provide real reform, this is not real reform because it does not deal with the core issue of huge overall expenditure on healthcare by Americans for very little result. Instead it forces most people to take it or face large fines, and as far as the pre-existing legislation issue goes, there are loopholes, who do you think wrote the bill?
It's a no brainer, do we want everyone to have access to healthcare or not? If no, then consider yourself partially liable for the 20,000 odd deaths that will result from the passing of this legislation per year (as opposed to to a public plan) - congratulations I hope that feels good sitting there on your shoulder. If yes, then this legislation fails, because millions still wont have access to healthcare under these changes.
The lobbyists spent huge sums of money to get what they wanted, and they were successful.

Well peeps, I'm not a fan of huge military spending either, but we live on a planet where, as nations go, America is the only moral force. We're the World Police whether we want to be or not. And that's on top of having the same legitimate interests--and therefore commitments-- around the world as other nations.

These other First World nations that barely step up with resources to solve international problems can go fk themselves, IMO.

The US should absolutley reduce the military presence in some theaters but not for the same reasons as the anti-war crowd. If you're going to fight a war, FIGHT IT. Level cities. Starve the enemy, cut his balls off. Otherwise, get out.

Unfortunately, because this world is insane: false morality, a refusal to accept collateral damage and timidity at the sight of blood has made us unable to properly kill, and the result is more good people than necessary get killed.

The money "saved" on wars belongs to the people, not government. The trillions for the wars do not belong to government schools or cowboy poets. They should never be returned to the federal trough for "local" politicians to hand out to buy votes, though that's what happens.

I agree with Obama that fiscally-speaking, earmarks are a drop in the bucket (especially with 60 BILLION being lost to Medicare waste, fraud and abuse every year). Yet I challenge anyone to look your unemployed neighbor in the eye and tell them why the cowboy poets are short on cash, or why a university needs a half-million dollar grant to study why men don't like wearing condoms<a rel="nofollow" href=" <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/"> (yes, that happened).

Actually, it takes away their ability to engage in collective bargaining about anything but wages

Well - technically speaking the Wisconsin public employee union didn't have collective bargaining power over those things anyway, so they can't 'lose' CB rights over things they didn't have rights over to begin with. Here is the list of actual proposals...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/18/us-wisconsin-proposal-idUSTRE71H6I020110218

Nothing there about limiting anything but collective bargaining rights over wages, and even then it only limits the function when they exceed the PCI. Quite frankly, this is a good thing. State budgets are collapsing all across the country and the largest item in the bad budgets is always unfunded PUBLIC UNION liabilities. The public unions have pushed and pushed and pushed to get more and more and more from the taxpayer trough to the point where their benefits are breaking our nation's financial back. The same sort of argument applies to all the social entitlements at the federal level. We can't afford all this stuff. Government was never supposed to be the entity trying to pay for all this stuff. They've reached too far, and if they don't pull back then it will collapse the fiscal system.

Walker is not doing this to be popular. He's doing it to balance the budget, and he can't do it without hitting at his biggest budget item - the bad deals his predecessors have made with the greedy unions.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

If any of that were true, his shadow would not interact with the machine the way it does. Pause around :04 to :05 the shadow on the floor is crisp but the one on the edge of the machine nearest the guy is fuzzy.
JestJokin, you have no clue.
Other problems. There is no spray when the water falls. It does not hit the floor all around as it would hitting a fast spinning water wheel. The liquid does not flow naturally. Should I go on? It's CGI, end of story.
>> ^Payback:
-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.
A really poor sketch:



1> The floor is already soaked, the "dry spots" are paint stains or something. You can see reflections on the floor to the right side.
2> He has quite a few spot lights set up to get shadows the way he wants.

3> I'm not saying it ISN'T CGI, just that it's possible (and far more impressive) to do it live.

If any of that were true, his shadow would not interact with the machine the way it does. Pause around :04 to :05 the shadow on the floor is crisp but the one on the edge of the machine nearest the guy is fuzzy.

JestJokin, you have no clue.

Other problems. There is no spray when the water falls. It does not hit the floor all around as it would hitting a fast spinning water wheel. The liquid does not flow naturally. Should I go on? It's CGI, end of story.

>> ^Payback:

-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.
A really poor sketch: http://media11.dropshots.com/photos/256336/20110216/174500.jpg

-Water trails away from camera on a trough that gets bigger to fool perspective.
-Vertical poles everywhere lining up from camera's perspective.
-Water gets to "the top" which is actually 6 ft behind waterwheel, on floor.
-Water at "the top" gets sucked into pump inlet.
-Hidden pump and hoses move water, within the structure, to "the spout".
-"The spout" is directly over the waterwheel, and is perspectively in line with "the top" and camera, giving the illusion they are attached.

A really poor sketch: http://media11.dropshots.com/photos/256336/20110216/174500.jpg

The problem with the free market is that it has no respect for humanity. Profit motive has no moral objections to slavery, violence, pollution, theft, war or oppression. In recent times, deregulation has lead to massive corruption, further social stratification and consolidations of corporate wealth and power. In times past, unregulated markets lead to a multitude of inhumane labor abuses, including slavery, child labor, unfair wages, dangerous working conditions, long hours, no breaks, no redress for on the job injury and the murder of workers who step out of line. All is fair when selfishness is seen as virtue. Do you really want to go back to these dark times?

Why do you think corporations spend so much money on the institutions that inform your politics? You never did comment on the fact that the same people who fund Cato and Reason also fund the 'Project for a New American Century'.

'Volunteerism' is such a load of bullshit. People will always need food, water, security, energy and shelter. Those things are necessities, and cannot be 'voluntarily' opted in or out of. Whomever takes control of these resources becomes the new King.

There is no utopia and there will always be a state. Embrace it. Every system is going to be flawed, because human beings are flawed. If not a public state, then other forces will rise to take control.. Never has there been a failed state that resulted in 'people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements'. That's a pipe dream. In reality, power vacuums in failed states are quickly filled by warlords, gangs and financial interests. What we want to do is have the system that empowers everyone, not just the strong and wealthy. Democracy accomplishes this, the free market does not.


In reply to this comment by blankfist:
A free market is merely people freely interacting and engaging in voluntary agreements without coercion. That's a good place to start. That's not been the problem. The problem is interventionism and cronyism. I think you conflate corporatism with free markets. And I know you think we've had unfettered raw free market practices in the US for 200 years and that's been the cause of our ills, but it's simply not true. We've been living at the trough of progressivism since the early 1900s, and that's only fostered a dangerous climate of corporatism and crony capitalism.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
The free market isn't the cure, it's the disease.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
There's never a guarantee of anything. Life is dangerous. Freedom is dangerous. Without a state there's no guarantee there won't be violence, theft and oppression. Violence, theft and oppression will always exist. There is no human utopia. But maybe it'll get better?

I can guarantee this: under our current system the plagues of our society (violence, theft, etc.) will continue to exist and probably will get worse as the police state grows. I know you see it. I know you see the problems with government. You hate the war as much as me. You hate the police state as much as me. Voting hasn't and will never remedy this growing problem, because it's only proven to increase it over time.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?