>> ^ghark:

Organic food
Feed the hungry
Punish those that created the problems
Deal with Monsanto
Stop the fake 'wars' (on drugs for example)
Doesn't seem crazy to me?
I used to really hate her with a passion, I thought her show was atrocious, but she makes real sense here, certainly a lot more than any 'mainstream' American politician I've heard recently. Good luck to her!


You thought "Roseanne" was atrocious? Get the fuck out of my country!

>> ^Yogi:

Which credit union is the best one though?


Credit unions memberships are limited to a certain locality or group. So it varies depending on where you live. I'd choose the one that has the most locations, and is insured by the NCUA (nearly all are).

Also, it's helpful if the credit union is part of the coop network. If it is, you can use ATMs at other Coop network credit unions at no charge. And you can use any ATM with the Coop network logo for free. For example, all ATMs at 7-11s use the coop network. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO-OP_Financial_Services

I'm quite happy with my credit union. Free overdraft protection to a line of credit beats the hell out of $30 overdraft fees at large banks.

"...the guilt of the banksters is going to stand out like zits on a beauty queen", almost sent my morning coffee through my nose.

>> ^marinara:

upvote for crazy. Obama should fire the banksters in his cabinet that are loading America up with debt and looting the remains of jobs.


But he likes those banksters...they support him and he will continue to serve the corporations. He didn't wake up one day and decide "Yes democracy!"

upvote for crazy. Obama should fire the banksters in his cabinet that are loading America up with debt and looting the remains of jobs.

>> ^lantern53:
50% of the people in this country pay no income tax. Yet they have an equal voice in government and hence the threat of the taking of private property that belongs to another.


Let's break that one down into the component logical assertions:

1. 50% of the people in this country pay no income tax.
   
2. All people have an equal voice in government.
   
3. People only pay no income tax when their incomes are so low that the standard deduction reduces their obligation to zero. (unstated, but common knowledge)
   
4. People with low incomes are more prone to "[take] private property that belongs to another", i.e. "steal" (strongly implied)
   

Once you decompose that argument a bit, you realize that even if I grant you 1-3 for the sake of argument, #4 is unquestionably a prejudicial statement without any real basis in fact.

Were you in favor of TARP, or did you decry that as a bailout? Given that the banksters have a team of lobbyists constantly petitioning the government for favors, and you seem to think of taxation as theft, isn't it rich people trying to steal every time major corporations ask the government for even one dollar of subsidy?

Does that really change if it's a tax credit, like the standard deduction that (supposedly) lets 50% of people pay no income tax?
>> ^lantern53:

It is a valid point.

No, it's really not.

TY choggie!


In reply to this comment by choggie:
*promote for all the news fans here, wallowing in the United Internets of Unconsciousness

Vote with the brain that's not damaged. It's marinara......he's good people

>> ^MrFisk:

Her look of shocked disbelief reminds me of what Tiger Woods' wife probably looked like when she first found out.


HAHAHAHAH!

^ I was being a bit facetious. People like me tend to think that things like "economic recessions" aren't caused by forces of nature, but by the big boys in our economy making big mistakes. From a goals point of view, my aim is to make sure that the people at the top making the decisions are the ones who feel the pain of their mistakes instead of the poor.

Eliminating the minimum wage won't make things better for people at the bottom of our society as long as the chief result of some big banker at Goldman Sachs or the Fed making a mistake means that everyone who makes less than $40,000/yr has to take a haircut, while they take home millions in bonuses.

Conservative/libertarian right-wing ideologues seem to think that giving these robber barons and banksters (rhymes with gangsters) a freer hand to fuck over their underlings will make things better for we peasant folk.

I honestly can't fathom why people's basic faculties of reason can be so broken as to think that's really what would happen.

Put another way, is there any historical precedent where cutting or eliminating minimum wage actually improved the lives of the poor? I don't doubt eliminating the minimum wage would reduce unemployment, but so would a ban on powered earth moving equipment for road construction. It doesn't mean it's actually improving the situation at all.

>> ^NetRunner:
I've only read the first two pages, and already I see things the Bush administration would've never proposed. A new regulatory authority? Closing tax loopholes? Talking up fiscal stimulus in coordination with ferigners? Bush would've vetoed the lot.


Yeah I mixed up TARP and the stimulus package. Doh!

The proposed Financial Consumer Protection Agency...(CFPA)
Please Please gimme some hope here. I know the banksters are going to declaw it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tram-nguyen/dont-let-bankers-gut-the_b_253336.html

anyhow Netrunner thanks for comments. I must say that I see Obama really as a diabolical obstacle to change. Am I right in saying that even the most loyal Obama people see him as more status quo than change? After His first 9 months?

quoting Obama
Eight months later, the work of recovery continues. And although I will never be satisfied while people are out of work and our financial system is weakened, we can be confident that the storms of the past two years are beginning to break.

Someone quotable said, "you have to know U.S. presidents are always centrists"

Given Obama is a centrist, is he an obstacle to regulation of banks, union busters, clean energy etc?

I sent a message to my congressman the other day. About net neutrality. The congressman replied and said he was for Net Neutrality and against internet regulation. Now I don't expect the sifttalk people to know that "against internet regulation" is just a telecom lobby codeword for "anti-net neutrality."

What can you do when lobbists have so much pull that they can keep the hood over politicans eyes?

The sooner we see Obama for what he really is, a politician that is playing his image as a reformer large for the suckers. Obama let's palms be greased behinds the scenes, he's playing both sides.

Yeah I know how innocent or naive that sounds being shocked about a politician being under a lobbyist's thumb, but in Obama's case I just can't stand it.

>> ^NetRunner:
If it's the "smear tactics", we've still got a long way to go before we match the right -- we're calling McCain old and angry, he's calling Obama a Muslim terrorist.
That's not equivalent. Technically they're both personal attacks, but what we're saying about McCain is pretty mild compared to what he's saying about Obama (never mind the fact that we're telling the truth, and he's making false implications).
Democrats aren't guiltless saints, but we weren't the ones who broke the country.


Cracka please. I'm no McCain fan, but to say the Dems' attacks are truthful therefore better is an hypocrisy. If Obama was McCain's age and McCain's camp was calling Obama old, the goddamn Dems would be playing the ageism card. For the record, I know Obama isn't a terrorist or affiliated with terrorists, so I think that right wind tactic is baseless and low. Shame on them. But isn't that Republican and Democrat politics as usual? To be baseless? To be opportunistic?

And don't sit there and act like Dems didn't play a role in this shit sandwich economic crisis. This is just more BS partisan hackery. You probably think the housing bubble popped because there wasn't enough government regulation, like so many delusional Dems, but the truth is this crisis didn't come from a deregulated market. No. We haven't seen a deregulated market in a long, long, long time, and chances are we never will with the current Neocons and Dems trading places so readily in the captain seat.

The housing market was falsely propped up and made to appear lucrative in order to keep costs high. I'm tired of hearing scapegoat politicians going after subprime lending practices, “predatory” mortgages and unscrupulous lenders who target poor people as if these were the only culprits. The market and capitalism wasn't to blame for this crisis. The Federal Reserve was for manipulating interests rates and creation of money out of thin air. Why? Because when you create that much money and create a false credit then banksters, investors and creditors and even the people investing think the market is booming when it's not.

Octo asked: "What on earth are “Rothschild Jewish zionists”, “bankster pirates”, “nuclear weapons of mass destruction”, and “Hebrew Jews”?"

Octo.. can you force yourself to actually do a little research?

Oscar for the most unbalanced, simplistic view of 60 years of history.

Seriously what do: Hitler may have escaped, “banksters” and the Vatican are bad guys; the allied powers drugged the Turks in WWI; the UN is the most powerful weapon of global control; Palestine being called Canaan in ancient times; jumping from 1948 to Sharon; Sharon’s “reign of terror” violated dozens of UN resolutions (here I’m getting confused, I thought the UN were the baddies); a very chaotic story about the Star of David; and Operation Paperclip explain about anything?

What on earth are “Rothschild Jewish zionists”, “bankster pirates”, “nuclear weapons of mass destruction”, and “Hebrew Jews”?

Btw, the documentary does mix up Jews and Israeli’s a number of times (am I the only one feeling seriously uncomfortable about that?) and seems to think that all Palestinians and Israel's neighbouring countries are Muslim.

As so often in Palestinian modern history: who needs enemies if these are supposedly your friends?