George Carlin: "Good, honest, hard working people continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don't give a fuck about 'em."

http://videosift.com/video/Would-You-Give-Up-The-Internet-For-1-Million-Dollars

We have a new sifter who just posted this. Watch it all and you will see how the Republicans are working on the minds of the middle class. You think this vid is about one thing, but I swear it is a viral ad to support additional and continuing tax cuts to the wealthy.

To many stupid people in this country and too many smart ones aren't voting. Country is full of fat depressed pathetic ignorant idiots.

Also I think Bill Maher doesn't really understand innocent until proven guilty. Everyone can thank the cops that get several phone calls from a guy claiming to have found a babies skull and they didn't bother investigating it. Just like the OJ verdict blame the cops for being stupid.

Bill Maher is certainly as well qualified as the rest of Obama's advisors, being a comedian.

Jobs Creation Disorder or JCD can be cured with a daily dose of moolacylin!

... running for public office these days seems crazy

I simply don't understand the mentality of supply-side economic theory. Business aren't stupid. They won't ramp up production or invest in a new sector unless they have a strong expectation that people will purchase their product. If everybody is either unemployed or under constant threat of imminent unemployment, they're not going out to buy things! So businesses won't hire new people to make new things! How is this not obvious?

The bailout was, in large part, given to the rich. And the rich are keeping it until they see an improvement in the economy! If, on the other hand, we had put all that money toward infrastructure and work programs, then there would be tons of poor and middle class people spending their wages on the weekends! Boom! Recovery. After a year or two of that, the government could scale down the spending and start recouping the loss.

Am I wrong? (Aside from the fact that politicians would never want to scale down after the recovery. We'd have to force that with political pressure.)

Forget the new rules, Bill had Anne "raging bitchface"* Coulter on? I want to see that.

* about the nicest thing I could say about her.

MaxWilder,

You're mostly right. I don't know about the American bailout, but Australia (which rode out the crisis almost without a glitch) threw money at everyone in the first round of stimulus, and then tried 'shovel ready' infrastructure and other projects in the second round. The Government got a lot of heat for 'wasting' the money, but it was apparently the second round of spending that really held up the economy. The spending was on school infrastructure and roof insulation and myriad other ways to get the cash out in ways that kept people spending and kept the construction industry going.

Of course, that was on a different scale to the American problems, but the principles are the same.

>> ^MaxWilder:

I simply don't understand the mentality of supply-side economic theory. Business aren't stupid. They won't ramp up production or invest in a new sector unless they have a strong expectation that people will purchase their product. If everybody is either unemployed or under constant threat of imminent unemployment, they're not going out to buy things! So businesses won't hire new people to make new things! How is this not obvious?
The bailout was, in large part, given to the rich. And the rich are keeping it until they see an improvement in the economy! If, on the other hand, we had put all that money toward infrastructure and work programs, then there would be tons of poor and middle class people spending their wages on the weekends! Boom! Recovery. After a year or two of that, the government could scale down the spending and start recouping the loss.
Am I wrong? (Aside from the fact that politicians would never want to scale down after the recovery. We'd have to force that with political pressure.)


Pretty much bang on the money. You have to have different sources of pressure (ie. investment) to keep the money flowing around the economy. As the panic sets in, risk goes up and people become more conservative in their investments, which exacerbates the problems. The only organisation big enough to shoulder the risk of massive investment during a downturn is typically the government, particularly since they aren't a 'for profit' organisation (although keeping the system running will eventually result in a quicker return to prosperity = more taxes etc).

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by DerHasisttot.

Awarding Skeeve with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.