I think part of the problem is that there's a whole lot of people out there who can't quantify how much wealthier the people feeding them the "Creating Jobs" stuff are. See: http://videosift.com/video/Most-Americans-Unaware-of-Growing-Concentration-of-Wealth at the 1:40 mark. Everyone thinks they are middle class that's a 29k avg neighborhood and 140k neighborhood, 3:30 repeats it again....they think the majority of Americans are middle class.

I'd venture to say that many people in that crowd are there, not because they understand that the people working on wall street dwarf their salary probably by a factor of 4 or 5 in the lower paid white collar jobs and up into the 100+ factors when they get into the upper positions. They are there because they want what they had back, and they can now see that Wall Street or at least the mentality of Wall Street has in a very short period of time affected many aspects of their lives.

If they could still afford a place to live, food, and have a decent job, they probably would have never noticed the long term erosion of the system by those with the money and power...twisting it so they took more of the pie and left the middle and lower class to figure out how they will afford their house (debt which in turn shifts more money up the ladder).

I mean most people who have jobs right now, the only information they care about on unemployment is when it comes from someone they know who they consider to be a "useful employee" and not their stoner brother, etc. And even then it's probably "These things happen, you'll find another job." until they are still unemployed 6 months later....maybe they were just lazy. 12 months rolls around and they are still unemployed? Now it starts to scare the living shit out of people, especially when another friend or family lost their job a month or two back. When it looks like it might affect them personally is when they care, and by that time it's been 1-2 years of people they know going unemployed at various times...working at McDs or Walmart because there's nothing out there.

http://videosift.com/video/Food-Speculation-Explained

Showing another way the Wall Street mentality is just giving us all a good screwing. Instead of these folks taking their talents to create something, they leech off of the people doing the work and drive up costs while creating massive uncertainty for everyone involved.

http://videosift.com/video/Elizabeth-Warren-The-Coming-Collapse-of-the-Middle-Class

Shows that people were experiencing bankruptcy more often that you would assume, but were able to hide it. Plus the general fixed costs being increasingly higher over the years with no overall salary gains to offset them.

http://videosift.com/video/Paul-Krugman-Income-Inequality-and-the-Middle-Class

Showing that they have been on the union bust kick for 30 years now at least, and it's something unique to the US because Canada in a similar global economy still has the level of unionized work force as the US had 30 years ago. Education has nothing to do with the income disparity. And the income disparity was fixed by policies put in place during the 1930s and early 40s. Which have been removed layer by layer since then, with increasing frequency in more recent history. And he points out in the video that the highest paid hedge fund manager makes more in a single year than 88000 NY teachers do in 3 years, my recounting of it might be off a little it's near the end of the video.


http://videosift.com/video/Multi-Millionaire-Rep-Says-He-Can-8482-t-Afford-A-Tax-Hike

Then you have this knucklehead talking about 200k to feed his family and how he can't afford a tax hike because it will prevent him from investing in store improvements and openings (that make him MORE money, so yeah..). Jon Stewart covered this in a much more funny way and how stupid the argument being made is. I'll re-iterate my take on this though. If they can't create jobs with the money they have coming in now after all the other tax deductions over the years, and all the opportunities before this day to do.....they will not do so. It's a fool's bet to depend on some guy who can't demonstrate how he has created jobs in the last 2-4 years in some meaningful way and how those low taxes make it possible to do so. Taxes would pretty much force him to reinvest in his business because if he tried to take it in profit he'd be paying a chunk of it out in taxes.




I think the most profane thing about this country right now is that people who want to work can't find work. And those who are working, especially blue collar jobs have a bunch of white collar guys speculating on their production....every thing that blue collar guy makes/produces probably has 10 or more white collar guys trying to make a buck off of it. It's like a house of cards, except the support structures are the very few people who still put out useable materials. It's crazy how something like that was let run wild, with more and more of the regulation taken away so they could stack even more cards onto the mess. The money isn't to be had in production, it's made in speculating/futures/etc...and it's just massively crazy to realize that all the middlemen are allowed to drive up the costs of oil/food/etc instead of cutting that shit out through regulation.

@marbles, I don't really have to, if you read things other than your conspiracy blogs you might find the answers yourself:

Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines and other products since the 1930's. There is no convincing evidence of harm caused by the low doses of thimerosal in vaccines, except for minor reactions like redness and swelling at the injection site.

However, in July 1999, the Public Health Service agencies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and vaccine manufacturers agreed that thimerosal should be reduced or eliminated in vaccines as a precautionary measure.

[source]

You're arguing a non-issue.

Fucking cunt is setting marijuana legalization back to the 1930s

>> ^Boise_Lib:

Calling people vermin reminds me of the Nazi talking about the Jewish people. Dehumanizing so that you can forget that they are human beings (fucked up humans, but still not vermin).
Yes, I went there.


I would argue you did not really went there, because we already are there.

Most of the islamophobic ranting we hear is just recycled antisemitism. The "their holy book commands them to kill us", "they speak a double language", "they have secret teaching/goals", etc, are creepily similar (when not outright identical) to the fascist propaganda from the 1930s.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You know even those numbers are lies, NR. For chrissakes, the liars switched from "jobs created" to "lives touched" late last year.

Hey, you're the one that put that article forward, not me.

I think it's impossible to actually track specific jobs created by the stimulus. You can make estimates based on theory, but that's not really evidence, either for or against.

What's a bit easier to measure is the overall employment trend. You'll love that these are Nancy Pelosi's charts, but they're based on BLS statistics (what the whole economic world uses as the source for data on employment, BTW).

Here's the chart of the recession through to May's jobs report (June's report will probably come out this week). The stimulus bill was passed in February of 2009. The trend changed immediately, with the job losses slowing, and then turning into gains.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Government jobs are not real jobs as they do not reflect market needs.

That's my point, the stimulus wasn't about creating "government" jobs, it was an attempt to reverse the unemployment trend in the private sector. Right now the biggest drag on the jobs reports coming out is job losses in the public sector.

Here's a chart showing the last year in the ongoing march of Obama's supposed socialist revival. Private sector jobs up, public sector jobs down.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Here's a RADICAL idea: let people keep more of their own money, across the board.

I know it was another thread, but that idea's been tried. Hell, it's still being done to a greater degree than it's been done since well before I was born. That idea has clearly and unambiguously been tried, and has utterly failed to produce anything like what Republicans from Reagan forward have claimed it would.

>> ^quantumushroom:
And lay off Herb Hoover, moonbats, he was an unwilling or ignorant ally of yours.
wiki:
<long quote about things FDR said on the campaign trail>

A couple paragraphs above that, you find a description of Hoover's actual policies:

Calls for greater government assistance increased as the U.S. economy continued to decline. Hoover rejected direct federal relief payments to individuals, as he believed that a dole would be addictive, and reduce the incentive to work. He was also a firm believer in balanced budgets, and was unwilling to run a budget deficit to fund welfare programs.[45] However, Hoover did pursue many policies in an attempt to pull the country out of depression. In 1929, Hoover authorized the Mexican Repatriation program to combat rampant unemployment, reduce the burden on municipal aid services, and remove people seen as usurpers of American jobs. The program was largely a forced migration of approximately 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans to Mexico, and continued until 1937. In June 1930, over the objection of many economists, Congress approved and Hoover signed into law the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. The legislation raised tariffs on thousands of imported items. The intent of the Act was to encourage the purchase of American-made products by increasing the cost of imported goods, while raising revenue for the federal government and protecting farmers. However, economic depression now spread through much of the world, and other nations increased tariffs on American-made goods in retaliation, reducing international trade, and worsening the Depression.[46]

In 1931, Hoover issued the Hoover Moratorium, calling for a one-year halt in reparation payments by Germany to France and in the payment of Allied war debts to the United States. The plan was met with much opposition, especially from France, who saw significant losses to Germany during World War I. The Moratorium did little to ease economic declines. As the moratorium neared its expiration the following year, an attempt to find a permanent solution was made at the Lausanne Conference of 1932. A working compromise was never established, and by the start of World War II, reparations payments had stopped completely.[47][48] Hoover in 1931 urged the major banks in the country to form a consortium known as the National Credit Corporation (NCC).[49] The NCC was an example of Hoover's belief in volunteerism as a mechanism in aiding the economy. Hoover encouraged NCC member banks to provide loans to smaller banks to prevent them from collapsing. The banks within the NCC were often reluctant to provide loans, usually requiring banks to provide their largest assets as collateral. It quickly became apparent that the NCC would be incapable of fixing the problems it was designed to solve, and it was replaced by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation.

That all sounds very familiar to me as modern-day Republican policy proposals -- eschew direct assistance to the unemployed, try to boost employment by deporting Mexicans, attempt to defer interest payments on foreign debts, and ask banks to put in place their own policies to fix their own shortcomings rather than resort to regulation, and stick to preserving the gold standard at all costs. The only thing out of place is tariffs, but I've seen those mentioned from the conservative rank and file in discussions about what our response to China's ascendance should be.

In the election year of 1932, with unemployment at 25% and with people throwing things at his motorcade everywhere he went, he did start engaging in a little attempt at mortgage loan stabilization and fiscal stimulus, and they did seem to make a positive impact, but were too little too late, but they weren't policies that were the centerpiece of his administration, they were things he tried to do out of desperation.

It's also quite true that FDR in 1932 ran on a platform that included promises to balance the budget, but that's because it'd been the Democratic that had always been scolds on that topic up to that point. Besides, FDR was no student of Keynes; General Theory wasn't even published until 1936. I don't really know where the ideas for FDR's New Deal came from. I'm guessing just simple populism, and maybe some Keynesian influence amongst his economic advisers.

Throw in a couple of McGriddle for breakfast, and you'll be well over 5000. Those things are tasty but insanely high in calories, for their size.>> ^marinara:
5000 calories is excessive but not insane

Breakfast:
1 Steak Egg and Cheese Bagel (660 Calories)
1 Hash Brown (150)
1 Large Orange Juice (22 oz) (280)
Large Coffee with 2 creams and 2 sugars (70)
Breakfast = 1160 Calories
Lunch:
Big Mac (540)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)
McFlurry w/ Oreos (580)
Lunch: 1930 Calories
Dinner:
Angus Burger with Bacon and Cheese (790)
Side Salad with Caesar Dressing (210)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)

is 4900 calories.

5000 calories is excessive but not insane

Breakfast:

1 Steak Egg and Cheese Bagel (660 Calories)
1 Hash Brown (150)
1 Large Orange Juice (22 oz) (280)
Large Coffee with 2 creams and 2 sugars (70)

Breakfast = 1160 Calories

Lunch:

Big Mac (540)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)
McFlurry w/ Oreos (580)

Lunch: 1930 Calories

Dinner:

Angus Burger with Bacon and Cheese (790)
Side Salad with Caesar Dressing (210)
Large Fries (500)
Large Coke (310)

is 4900 calories.

Tags for this video have been changed from '1930, newsreel, Hellen, Keller, Anne, Sullivan, demo, demonstration, BW, communicate, feel' to '1930, newsreel, Hellen Keller, Anne Sullivan, demo, demonstration, BW, communicate, feel' - edited by lucky760

>> ^Sagemind:

I think of the word gay as something fun, the way the word was intended.
Time and culture is re-defining the word.
When I hear it used to describe something not cool, I often think of Michael Jackson's "Bad". Meaning the slang intention of describing something using the opposite term. (wow, That's "Sick!")


OK, a couple of things here. First off, I think it's generally fine when a word's meaning gradually changes, as in the words "bad" or "cool" (even "nice" used to mean something else, way back when), and I'm not generally opposed to language evolving. When a word changes so that its connotations become negative, in the case of a word used to describe a minority, it is damaging to members of that minority.

The major point I want to make is that the word "gay" has the connotations of "generally bad" because of the homophobia of many of those who use it that way. To these people, "Gay" has come to mean "generally bad" because being gay (ie being a homosexual) is bad. This is one change in the language that shouldn't pass without protest, just as we wouldn't tolerate the use of the word "jewish" should kids start using it to refer to things they think are bad, as in "I hated that film, man, it was so jewish". If that started happening, I think the opposition to this new usage would be a lot stronger than it is for "gay".

Also, I don't believe for a minute that the first meaning that comes into your head when you hear the word "gay" is "happy" or "something fun", unless you're a time traveller from the 1930s.

>> ^Sagemind:

Not so much as using "reverse gendered" individuals as the target but taking an innocent word, meaning good and great and fun and turning it around to mean un-good, un-great or un-fun.
Gay people need to realize that the term was there before they started using it and it has a true meaning, even if they are upstaging it.


You have the wrong end of the stick there. The history of the word "gay" as applied to homosexuality started as a polite euphemism for homosexuals, particularly those flamboyant individuals for whom its connotations of "happy and merry" and "homosexual" would have been most apt. Gay people did not start using the term themselves until after it had been applied to them. The community didn't just start using this new connotation of "gay" and decide that everyone should go along with it, any more than Native Americans walked up to the colonists upon landing and introduce themselves as redskins or Indians. Therefore "gay" doesn't have a "true meaning" that gay people are undermining. I think the desire to prevent its mutation into a pejorative term is entirely reasonable, especially considering the gay community has still so much to fight for in terms of equal rights and the right to live without fear of prosecution.

"Reverse gendered"? Is that what you think gay people are? I'll put that down as a bad choice of words.

Ryjkyj, anyone who has truly been bullied will tell you that words can indeed hurt. We all know this; to pretend otherwise is naive, and I'm sure we've all been hurt by someone in this way. Don't forget, you can do something about being lazy, if you're lazy - I can't do anything about being gay (I tried, when I was 16: it was absurd, the girl never spoke to me again).

And I'm not just being thin-skinned. It can take a long time to get over genuine hurtful homophobic abuse, as I know from first-hand experience. Homophobic bullying can and does drive kids and adults to depression or worse, and the casual tossing around of the word "gay" by their peers to mean "bad" creates an atmosphere where even self-identifying as gay becomes fraught with unease and self-doubt.

>> ^Sarzy:

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??
I'm done.>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.



You're done? what, apologizing for murderous thugs?
Good call!

I'm sorry, I thought I was debating with a vaguely rational person. "Death squad"??

I'm done.>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^Sarzy:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?

I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.
As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?
They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).


Nice straw-man. The only thing offensive is your shameless pardon of the death squad. You can make all the excuses you want, it doesn't change the fact they busted his front door, stood outside behind a ballistic shield, and unloaded 70+ rounds. Guerena had probable cause to grab his gun. The death squad didn't follow their own rules of engagement and had no reason to fire. That is straight up criminal homicide.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^Sarzy:
Yep, it's perfectly reasonable to respond to an argument that the discussion is going overboard with Nazi comparisons with a claim that we're in a POLICE STATE, MAN!!!11!!
/bizarro world

You're the one giving the cops a pass. Just doing what they were told right? That's no overboard comparison, so grow up. If you can't defend your statement then don't make it. The fact is there were plenty of apathetic and negligent people in Nazi Germany that sat idly by while people were rounded up and executed.
You would've fit right in. How's that for Nazi comparisons?


I can agree that American drug laws are ridiculous and in serious need of reform. But to make the statement that American drug policy is in any way analogous to what the Nazis were doing in the 1930s and '40s is asinine, and a little bit offensive, quite frankly.

As for whether these officers should have been there? No, probably not. But it's not exactly the murder of millions of people in terms of moral unambiguity. I'm sure someone could make the argument that drug laws need to be enforced with such vigilance (I won't make that argument, because I don't agree with it, but I'm sure someone could). I'm sure many of the cops in question have families to support. Are they supposed to quit their jobs because they disagree with American drug policy?

They identified themselves as best as they could, they went in, and they found themselves with an assault rifle pointed at them. Of course they shot the guy. There's nothing else they could have done, other than wait for the guy to start firing, and hope their kevlar protects them (which it probably wouldn't have against a gun like that).

There is a lot of fanaticism and fear going around the country. Even Noam Chomsky compared it to 1930s Germany, and he made a lot of good points. People can say "He's comparing us to Hitler that's insane" and yeah it is insane given that we know the full scope of what Hitler did. If you take it apart and accept the analogy under the very strict framework it's given though, it makes more sense and that should worry people.

I mean this sort of fanaticism that we're seeing is simply not healthy.

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

Let's see.
Conservatives say tax cuts on the rich help the economy.
Yet, taxes on the rich have hardly ever been lower, the economy sucks.
Liberals say that the tax rate on the rich does not have a major impact on economic growth. Let's see who's right.
http://kemstone.com/Journal/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marginalGrowth
.jpg
Oh, would you look at that! Back in the 1930s when tax rates on the wealthiest were 90% Yes, 90%! The growth rate averaged about the same as it does now, perhaps a little higher even. Rapid drops in the marginal tax rate did not have any appreciable impact on the economic growth rate.
Imagine that. The conservatives have been lying to everyone all these years. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that conservative politicians get most of their financial support from the wealthiest citizens?


You do know that government spending is counted in GDP right? That isn't "real" growth this chart is measuring, just money being spent...even if that money was government debt. They weren't building the job of the future in many cases. The argument for taxation shouldn't start at what makes the economy the best as the first argument, but what is the most fair. Why are people that have more money less entitled to it than those that have less, perhaps not even substantially less? Obviously, you don't need to add incentives to getting rich with low taxes, but taxes shouldn't be the means of social change but funding the affairs of government. Anything else is a moral argument which shouldn't be in the realm of governments to answer. What you view as "good" in economic growth, a environmental-minimalist sees as a rape of the natural world...who is right, more important, who are you to tell either one they are wrong?