Yes! It does!

Yep! Boy howdy, the article sorely needs an editor.

The article does need a little proof reading. What I did do is watch the video and OMG really? These are the people the republicans choose to represent them???!!! Idiots to say the least. Do they even take a breath before the utter such stupidity. As to the last comment of Bauer, like your grandmother, my grandfather wasn't an educated man either, he came to this country from Italy, worked hard and made a life here for himself and his family... He had some wise words for me that maybe you should follow... "before you say something swallow, if it comes back up then consider saying it, if not maybe it is better to say nothing" This keeps you from saying something extremely stupid! It was of course in broken English but I understood it just the same.

These kinds of comments from conservatives (I especially noted Kyl's comment about UI being a 'disincentative' for working) are nothing new. The same comments were being made in the depression years and aimed at those in FDR's WPA program. WPA workers were called 'lazy', and 'on the dole' because they were working for the WPA.

Some of the other comments made by conservatives at the time: "We're spending too much!"; "FDR is a socialist!"; "The private market will provide a solution if we just leave everything alone!"; "Pray for God's help!". Sound familiar? As we all know now, none of those comments were correct, but they sure managed to slow down progress toward recovery.

As for the list of GOP statements from the article: How do these people get elected? Maybe they should be spending more time apologizing to BP for getting our ocean in the way of BP's oil?

hatenomor: let me get what you and these two douches are say....because of FDR's programs, there was a long Depression. Had nothing to do with the sudden drop of stock market prices due to a decade-long toga party by the rich which seriously messed with the stocks, the sudden turning of a good amount of farmland into dust, or the excessive amounts of money being paid, legally or otherwise, during the Prohibition Era (which was also during this time). I also recall that much of the rest of the world was suffering similiar depressions/recessions...didn't we all join hands and kill each other, which resulted in getting out of said decade and a half-long Depression? There was this huge war about it....the second of it's kind, what was that called?
not that I'm advocating another one of such to get us out of that, mostly because it was the sudden need for workers to make or serve that resulted in that boom. Just that blaming someone for attempting to help and 'hindering' captiolism when it was at it's most corrupt seems a little silly.

Absolutely correct, Felicia! There most definitely is a need for government, and relying upon private enterprise to fix the problem didn't work in the 30's, it won't work today.

"The sole function of government is to bring about a condition of affairs favorable to the beneficial development of private enterprise." Herbert Hoover, 1931, two years after the crash of 1929.

"The chief business of the American people is business." Calvin Coolidge, 1925

"Government is not the solution. Government is the problem." Ronald Reagan, 1981.

And let's not forget the current oil disaster brought about by lack of government regulation, and lack of enforcement of what few existing regulations there remained. In other words, we put it all in the hands of private industry to let them oversee themselves.

It doesn't work then, it hasn't worked now, it will not work in the future. Remember, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Yet it's all the fault of the unemployed?

Hatenomor. Why don't you change your name to hate everyone not like me? If you work with the homeless I feel even more sorry for them. It's heartless pricks like you and your party that keep the struggling well struggling. Except I wasn't really struggling before I lost my job. So tell me hate do you feel so crappy inside about what you are, and feel that you got a job with the homeless. That way you can try to justify that look at me I'm a good person. When you could really care less about those people as you have berated them in your posts. Just like I bet you go to church and proclaim yourself a christian for it.

I have a hard time believing you help anyone for free. You belittle those people I just hope someone who works at the shelter sees your posts. If you really do work there. It's not a matter of agreeing or not agreeing you are heartless. We see your posts your a troll.

Sure you do. Really so what do you do tell them they can have an extra carrot if they register as a Republican. If they did read this they would know that the Democrats are the only ones who give a crap about them. So you and the rest of your Republican party name calling pricks can stick it up your vuvuzela.

Well see in November.

No thats your job at the shelter. Be prepared for more to come.

Thank God for small miracles it seems Saint Hate is done for the day

"Why don't you change your name to hate everyone not like me?"

LMAO - Mellow, that is the funniest post I've seen today ... thank you!!

hate: I only curse when what's said is just that stupid. Thinking an election is waving a magic wand to make things better isn't an excuse for focusing on something from the past and blaming that without understanding the historical and worldwide significance. I don't need to sound sophisticated to get my point across, I just used it to make my point.

Your welcome Felicia. He/she is not worth debating with. How heartless do you have to be to belittle the homeless you supposedly work with. Then have the nerve to come on here and belittle the people who had good jobs, and lost them due to the Repulicans. Hate is all about HATE. I only hope and I usually would wish no ill-will to anyone, but I hope hatenomore or everyone not like me gets to live like we have soon. You reap what you so and Karma is a bitch.

I do not see any solutions offered as opposed to saying government does nothing and makes things worse. It would seem the government/Democrat/white liberal bashing is warranted in the past and sometimes present. We see a larger range of people engaged in political parties and blame government these days.

The third and fourth parties are seeing the only way in is joining forces with the 2 big parties. Most folks do not want to "claim" either party, but we almost always inevitably choose R or D.

Not being black or terribly conservative, I must listen and interpret what is being said. The Dixiecrats were/are part of the Democratic party that if they still do racist things, they should not be rewarded for that, but my view is I see the elected officials are much more diverse than in Malcolm's day. There are still racists all over the world, not just in Dixie. We complain about racial politics, then point to "what did the the Dems do about that or for (X) race".

You point to the charge that no Democrats kicked out or purged the Dixiecrats. Does this also apply to Republicans not kicking out the extremists in the tea party that are using code words and hide racism behind talk that assumes Obama is "not qualified"? I have been challenged on this, but I do see the signs at the tea party rallies. What about Trent Lott's famous quote about Strom Thurmond, a bit more recent history than Malcolm's day. It goes beyond racial politics.

We repeat this charge in many ways. Why don't the members of religion (X) weed out those that are doing terrorism? We lump environmentalists that do non violent actions to those "eco terrorists".

Why don't Gay and Lesbians condemn those that go out and act outlandishly?

Why do people assume everyone must live up to some perfect standard to say "they are worthy"?

We have to have government, we have to choose between a small number of candidates, to have our representation.

Are they perfect, no. Absolutely not. What is the alternative? Anarchy?

I am no expert on race, I learn as I go. Just as some of the Dixiecrats have learned as they go. Some let go of their former ways (see Obama's book when he became Senator and spoke with Sen. Byrd, Byrd expressed remorse). Some hold on and try to convince that "those people" are the problem, not US.

I do think we need more reform of Welfare and do not see the government as something to look to for all sustenance. I do not see unemployment insurance as welfare. I see it as Insurance to keep food on the table in hard times. Temporary, just as welfare is temporary and not supposed to go on forever.

Many people lost their jobs, people say "get a job", where? I know I would rather work that beg for some crumbs. But where are the jobs? Are we supposed to think that fast food is our only option? I could do that, but really, is that who we are to be telling our kids, well, your goal is slinging burgers and fries or selling the latest phone that is made in China.

We hear representatives, presidents claiming they are doing good things for economy, look to any State of the Union Speech.

The economy requires risk takers (employers) and workers, with the government having regulatory control of some. Hence, they claim certain numbers went up when they can find a good one and some went down, where it needs more work.

There can be no risk taking without employed people buying more stuff. It is not just prop up big corps and trickle down. Why is that not clear? The outsourcing came from corps telling us evil, greedy workers make it impossible to stay afloat (or is it stock and board wages go up when more people lose jobs). Look at the truth.

Regulators must now encourage hiring of U.S. workers, or at least keep them (stimulus?) on payrolls. Economists says recessions come back when we spend. Great Depression was slow recovery until war. Government spending on war goods. Yes, government spending. Now I have to say, I do not run my budget that way and I did not contribute to the credit card balances of America.

How can states do any stimulus? My State is in the red, got federal money and still has to furlough employees. Our budget is being held hostage by the 60% requirement now. We are just paralyzed. Why? Because of Republicans vow to stop everything. No solutions offered. Just BLOCK stuff and blame Dems.

We got an extra $400.oo last year in tax refund. I guess we can see the deficit, so borrow and give cash. Oh, the wailing we would hear if that occurred! Suddenly the Republicans are worried about children and grandchildren, so we must remain stuck in neutral and make the Dems the "bad guys".

How can people take risks and hire people if there is nobody loaning or buying? If interest is low, but have no earnings to pay, what can we do? Remain paralyzed?

What can I do to help this situation? We may now need to see the charity of the well to do I hear so much about. I am not that well to do, but I see many wealthy people spending much money on campaigns to get control of government.

Great assessment Sandy!

What you can do about it is BOYCOTT, buy ONLY American-made down to the 'nickle' candy piece to your cars. Support your local businessman, invest in your local co-op credit unions. Do NOT shop corporations that outsourced jobs. We people take care of each other, invest into each other (regardless of color of skin or relgious views or not!) Take care of each other and we'll be alright and get this country back on the right track. Sometimes it takes horrendous life-altering events for us to get that we're all in this together and to put the petty mindset and BS down. (Malcom x had a right to be pissed off.) But because oppression was wrong, don't blame people who had nothing to do with it. We have to find truce and trust with each other, not blame, hate and devisiveness. Reverse racism can't have a voice either.

Least of all, don'tdog your government when it and it alone has helped lift the veil of oppression.. Look what you can do for your country and teach a man to fish but do not dog him because you think he's never had the opportunity to learn. Each individual is unique and different. Some with horrendous painful backgrounds. Oppression can be much in the mind as it is the life, so be there to help, not to dis and look at others like you have some answers they don't. You just had more luck is all.

No, I do not see you as touting Republicans, but conservative. I do agree with your self determination movement being what is needed. I see trying to blaming Dems at this time. It appears if we have but 2 choices, when one says Dems caused all this, we may be touting Republicans.

I feel it is right to empower a community to act on their own behalf and would not assume to know what is best for people. Americans want to be self sufficient, but do need others to participate in the big picture.

We have a few areas of agreement. I do say that self reliance is best. I do not advocate for government reliance. It is a moderate stance to say the programs are temporary to help those that need help. Jobs and self employment, entrepreneurial endeavors is the goal for all of us. Saying a program is helpful to Americans does not mean I want people to stay reliant on it. Safety nets.

I have to choose between 2 parties, I see Republicans doing more for wealthier individuals and corps (assuming they will hire) and Democrats trying to deal with the joblessness and fix the cracks when things go awry. I am aware that Dems not going to all be in lockstep, but there is a desire for some of that for some things.

That's just my view. There are plenty of views out there. Try to get new third party, fourth party. OK, I won't stop you, but I saw how it goes. I am not a separatist and when we draw lines too narrow, it separates too much.

I think Malcolm X had a right to be angry and anybody that tries to say "here are your crumbs", you stay there and be happy, stop complaining about it, should be able to see how demeaning that is.

The Dem/white liberal bashing is also not going to get us anywhere either. I am not sure exactly what you mean, but it sounds as if your view is Dems are to blame, that Dems/white liberals are causing black community to be kept enslaved. Your view may be Dems philosophy doesn't work.

I admit my frustration with trying to discuss my views, my view is the Republicans philosophy does not work. This does not mean Republicans are my enemy.

This does not mean Dems are the answer for everything or should run all things without any Republican input. I just want the input to help, but they believe government is bad so they try to gut it altogether.

Dems offer representation of my views of what is needed now. The seeking of power is not what I want. I want a government that is functional, like most people. We heard "govt bad" for so long. Theories of all this money we would have if not for gov't. My view is there would only be a shift to State and local.

Blocking legislation that is helpful to so many right now is not my idea of good philosophy and cry about spending.

I am glad to discuss these topics with respect and hope for more education. I do listen and have to say what I think also.

I do agree there is a point where it is childish to blame the other "side". I did hear some talk awhile back of permanent Republican majority being the goal.

Would that be elitist and oligarchy?

Some of this is political/election theatre and I know we need both views to take the edges off, because we will not be served to have either extreme, but the middle is the best we can do. Leaving unhappy folks on both ends of the spectrum.

We seem to be typing at the same time, but I think we kind of get each other and hope for the best.

Robin, Thanks for all the suggestions! I see many good ones and found this website:

http://www.howtobuyamerican.com/index.php

Hatenomor: I love discussing "hot topics" and I appreciate your/our debating these things. I have to say I agree on some things. There is much to learn if we listen to each other.

You have many good points that should be considered and not written off, even though I disagree sometimes.

Re: Buying American

I have mixed feelings about this concept. However, one area where I am in complete agreement is purchasing produce. Check where the fresh vegetables and fruits you purchase are sourced from. Buying US grown produce helps to support our farmers and growers. In addition, produce from other countries may have been grown using pesticides and other chemicals or fertilizers that are prohibited in the US because of their bad effects on human health. Country of origin labeling is required on all fresh produce sold in retail stores in the US. If your grocer doesn't label the national source of their produce, ask to see the produce manager and tell her that you are only interested in buying produce grown in the US. This may mean that you are limited to produce that is in season in the US (no Chilean plums in January), but to me that is a small sacrifice.

HI Dutchie, I respect your choices but still believe if we want manufacturing back to our country and there is no denying we have to get it back. Someone needs to flip the burgers and work in the slaughterhouses too, but we need strong steel manufacturing jobs. We have a lot of infrastructure to fix, alot of green technology to get up and running.
Thanks for listening and offering your opinion too. :-)

Hatelady! (couldn't you find a nicer name?)nevermind, free will and all. It just seems so unlady like.

I read your link and this is NOT a black and white issue that you make it out to be, its a human issue! Quit trying to throw black people under a Democrats ruined their lives type BS! The same damn thing has happened to every city, every blue collar worker and job regardless of race! Where are the NAACP and other black right's legions who have gained great prosperity and upsmanship in this country with getting the ghettos cleaned up and back to work??!!! the black elites no more take care of their own than the white elites! IT IS ABOUT ELITISM and oligarchy corporate control,.

WHY are there just as many white homeless people under the bridges and down by the river too? This is a blue collar outrage, not a black and white one. The more you make it black and white, the further you stand to divide us. Quit it! In my state, which is WA, there are far more white's deprived of opportunity for jobs, men and women both. There are alot of Native Americans and some blacks. Because of the population but the numbers of those out of jobs per capitia is the damn same!! The cities you name are far more in black population than Seattle. Cinc and Penn were areas of settlement after the abolishment of slavery and ending of the Civil war. @!$%# Seattle wasn't even born hardly. ANd when it was, it was Scandanavian and Irish and every other white hardworking middleclassman who could swing an ax! Mixed with a whole lot of service industry Orientals. Their offspring are suffering just as much as your blacks are in your cities. So please stop with the silly politics that can't matter anymore and focus on the solutions. Or we ALL die.

Coming out of opression has never been fast, nor has it be fair. But, I do believe Dems believe more in human rights than Repubs by a long shot. Do remember Dems and Repubs switched platforms after the Dixiecrats were exposed. Dems are typically for the working class and is all we have on our side. If we can't reach in the one party that's closest to us all, we have NO chance in hell changing us out of a Republican-lead corporate oligarchy. BE very careful of what you throw out with the bathwater. And know your enemy! He could be blue, he could be red but if he's not for you, he's your enemy!

The problem is the Republicans let the Steel companies and their derivative brothers run right out of our country and even paid them to do it. All so these oligarchies could exploit labor pools in other countries for higher profits (regardless of origin or race!) We lost our manufacturing base. No manufacturing, no middle class, its as simple as that. Do not kid anyone, but of course the scapegoat is the Unions. (THey did overstep their bounds some of the time but not all. )

The solution; Out with the REDs or BLUE DOGS, their laws that conquered us into oblivion and submission and we're going to have to federally prop up replacement Manufacturing Corporations who will and do only have allegiance to the United States. ANyone else wants our products? They buy them, we ship them, we pay their tariffs and they pay ours. It worked for a hell of a long time. Biggest mistake CLinton did was Nafta. I think they though it would be an over-the-board fair market but it turned out to be anything but. Global expansion has been the mantra for far too long. We cannot economically make this shift without being in stronger position, such as NOT AT WAR, and a repeal that puts our financing system under lock and key. It is the banking industry runaway greed that has brought this country to its knees. GET IT STABILIZED and corrected first, get the JOBS moving, Gov't backed securities offerings to businesses, big and small but only to those whose allegiance IS the US OF A. And get a fair progressive tax. No offshore sheltering for any US company. If you don't have allegiance to this country, bu-bye and don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out! And if you leave, you will pay a higher tariff for your greed on the import of your products.

I will buy nothing but American from here on out. My ego doesn't need Guchhi or Lexus or anything else that isn't handcrafted or manufactured by my fellow citizens. I buy nothing but my local produce and I use my locals for everything else. Actually its really fun and you come away knowing you did the right thing.

Now there are some things we buy outside the US. I support a group of women in South Africa and buy their handweaved baskets as gifts. That's a social conscious thing, not an every day item that my fellow americans aren't getting paid to run and build.

Good, common ground. You'd be better off by looking at a larger picture though. Believe me, we've all tried the 3rd party thing, it won't work, so we have to look at what does. Which is in the confines of what is set in motion. Truly, everything else is bunk! It won't work, hasn't worked, can't work. We are a nation divided, whether we like it or not and it pretty much cuts right down the middle. It is the have's vs. the have-nots but there are far too many have-nots have not a CLUE why they will always and forever more be have-nots. It has everything to do with how they convince you the money works in this country, not how its dished out.

First, Obama is not the little guy's enemy but his handlers sure are. I think we, as a nation, think this is one man one rule pony when it is a hugely complex with many a dollar man behind the scene. In fact, that right there IS the problem. We're all left to believe there is no men behind the curtains but surely they are. NO, I don't believe Obama was groomed. I've read the reports, I've seen the bilderberg crap. It IS just that, crap. More distraction. More diversion. There has been a mainstream shift from the Dems over the past 2 decades and the repubs hate it and try to skew it so far out, that it has caused mass confusion.

But listen to them, draw your own conclusions. Every damn one of these Repubs that got on the boobtube to tell you you're no good bums not deserving of your own precious commitment to your own county but they are and everyone outside of our country is, IS a pretty damn hard pill to swallow! SO quit swallowing. They've plenty showed you who represents who. Don't support those who see you as a commodity.

When it comes to the financials, Obama HAD NO CHOICE! Yes, it helped save those rich bastards while we all got the shaft but I do believe if the banks weren't propped, we'd (little guys) would be in much worse shape right now with no way to prepare for the worst that is yet to come. Obama didn't set the regulatory banking system. But the one thing Obama's plan did do, was it this bought us some time to prepare too. Overnight collapse of our banks would have heaved this country right off the cliff. You have a door of opportunity to get out of their systems and out of their games. I suggest you do it and then let them go down.

About this idea of "he should have given a million to every US taxpaying citizen", it would have saved our mortgages, propped up the banks the other way 'round. Sounds all good and fine but what it really would have done was made it a jungle out there as far as inflation. Could you imagine if we ALL could afford 1/2 million dollar + homes? What do you think would have happened to the ones less than a million or the ones that should never be A 100K much less near a million $'s! INFLATION like you wouldn't believe, and it would have stirred more runnaway greed. NO one would be able to afford food, gas, insurance and the game goes on only in higher miserable dollar amounts. More money printed. Then that would have collapsed and the people would shout, BUT OBAMA, you didn't save ME!!! He has given you a goddamn chance to save yourself right now and if you don't heed the warning signs and take advantage, then you will not survive this.

SO lets do what we know we must. We must band together and get a repeal on these goddamn laws that are letting these fools ruin us!

I tried voting 3rd party many times, seeing the same thing you do and became a realist. I have major issues with Republican policies, so being realist, I find the most compatible person with my most basic issues.

Would you be surprised to learn I did not vote for Obama because of race or hope (well, I did read his books, maybe some hope)?

If it becomes crystal clear that there is no hope with the major parties, I will return to 3rd party. You may be right about the powered elites, but I just don't want to throw the whole thing out, not yet. I do see a difference. Kind of like defending the country from terrorists, we agree on the goal, but not the means of achieving it.

I guess I just have a tolerance for less than perfect in order to get some people that will do what I think should be done. My reasoning is not racial, but equality is a major issue for me. My bar is lower, maybe. I do see the incompetence and hypocrisy, not isolated to one party. Now, I am not going to bash Dems, some of them have my support. I do not view Dems as making racial disparity worse.

The Perot year is the lesson, to me. I say vote your conscience, it's your vote. I just hope for people to vote, seeing even the 1992 election was less than 50% voting!

It would not surprise me to hear many people voted for neither Obama nor McCain.

I see your point that it's pretty hard to claim to be the more racially "moral" party, but some of the election rhetoric is pretty fn amazing on all sides.

There are lessons and I do think people can see that racism is not just the narrow definition we may think it is. I do think it abhorrent to say because of a person's race or religion, whatever they assume something like how they would vote on something.

The thing with federal vs. state: that's how I think it would go, shift from fed to state, but how to implement the transfer and how to standardize some things, is my concern. I do believe civil rights act 1964 was the only thing that would hasten the equal treatment, not just let that sign stay there with no law to back it up. I do not believe the federal needs to be scrapped, but some redundancies and do not be afraid to change the cabinet leaders if they are ineffective.

I just heard Obama at G20 say watch for some big budget cuts on the (2011?) horizon. I hope he does do some cutting and consolidation, but I think it may involve pink slips and defense cuts, as well.

The way it works at my employer, is they declare "surplus" employees in this area and job title, offering a nice carrot for eligible employees to voluntarily retire. That is humane, IMO. Allows younger people to keep jobs.

Got to go now, places to go, good evening.

I'll come back on the politics at another time but I do want to comment on the propping up of communities by the US Gov't.

Does the gov't dole create Jerry Springer societies? Of course, but that is not the representation of our middle class that is getting screwed royally right now. I really do not believe gov't programs had or have evil intent but I can sure understand how it might be interpretted that way from an oppressed point of view. I am Native Am descent. I've seen reservations go from rags to raggier and bounce back again. Education had everything to do with it.

Sorry, it's getting late. I'm getting too tired to type anymore. Y'all have a super one too and I'll be back soon.

For what it's worth, Hatenomor, I am very appreciative we took the time to put away the things that were stopping us from hearing each other. This is much better than all the Malcolm X quotes and expressions. Mind you, you'd be the same way if all I had to say was throw Chief Joseph quotes at you every damn time I posted. You'd come away with thinking I can't think for myself or express myself very well. I encourage we all try to express ourselves. Quotes are good to make a point but to use the same one over and over and over...well, you get it, I hope. just remember Malcolm and company had alot more reason to dislike the gov't of his time. Hell, I have every reason to hate the founding fathers as they and theirs commited genocide on my ancestors but I don't hate them. It just is what it was, a part of all ours evolution. Our duty now is to push to keep equality going and make sure we don't try to become the oppressors we worked to be free from. The pendulum can't swing on this one.

Goodnight, all.

PS. OH, Sandy, I too, am a realist and I refuse to give it up for anybody!! :-)

As much fun as it would be to see these SOBs end up unemployed by voting them out of office, we all know that every single one of them would already have something lined up before their last day in office. Their job is not to help the average person, despite their constant protestations to the contrary. Their job is to help corporations as much as possible, and in return, when the politician finally decides to leave office, (voluntarily or involuntarily), they will end up with a high-paying job with one of those same corporations, often as a lobbyist. The revolving door and good old boy network will keep these corporate thugs from ever feeling the pain and experiencing the struggles that 99% of this nation's citizens experience every day to one extent or another. They will never live in fear of having their job outsourced, or being laid off, or having unemployment benefits run out. They are the privileged class as soon as they are elected for their first term, and nothing will ever touch them again.

Rachel,
First and great extended report on the GOP in the Senate... here's a ote I've posted on my facebook...

If you are or are related to someone or care about the unemployed... SAY NO TO THE GOP these coming elections.... Their political gaming, while living off the taxpayer, must end!!! Millions will "recess" into greater struggle, despair and the like simply because the GOP doesn't want to pass Unemployment benfits!!! Cannot believe this is not being hammered by the press!!!!

Sincerely,
V. Rev. Patrick W. Gaffney, MRE, MDiv
Apostolic Adminstrator, Diocese of Delmarva
North American Old Catholic Churc

More like, how do they sleep at night?!! Such uncaring and cruel thoughts and remarks. But they're the "moral majority" and have the corner on family values?!!! Maybe they should be thinking about that slogan..."What would Jesus do?"

They probably get elected by people who have a mind-set just like them. Like attracts like.

Sitting up there in their ivory towers, they just don't care about the little guy. As long as they have theirs, the rest of us can go hang. It's the Haves against the Have-Nots, I guess.

It has been but they get support because they promise blue collars blue collar jobs. The "you too, can have the Americun Dream" sucker IF you vote for me, I'll bring you your jobs alright. Doesn't matter if they're evil empires, too risky, life-threatening and dangerous and will kill you in the end, but you will have a job and be able to buy your kid a soccer ball.

Little people ARE expendable at any rate they want us to be.
The golden carrot really is centered with a pile of dynamite just waiting to take you and yours out.

People buy this horse@!$%# for breakfast, lunch and dinner. THen the wonder why they get treated like @!$%#, have horrible working conditions, get convinced the gov't regulators are there to ruin their lives (and will if loaded with corporate raider insiders) take away all their dreams and aspirations. And these folks buy it out of desperation and life-obligations. They become the slaves and supporters of the slave masters. When one breaks the chain to stand up against the oppressor employer, what usually happens? Either the rest of the "good ole boys" takes them to the wood shed or down by the river. Which is just where ole blue collar was trying to stay away from in the first place so he wasn't living in his van down by the river. It's a vicious circle.

With most of the arguments on here, can't you see the difference between the ability to be free-thinking and the ones that come from mechanized brainwashing? I really feel so sad for these guys but to have any sort of human emotion? These guys are taught that isn't what makes a man. They don't understand they're only half human without 'em. so they bully, they lie, they manipulate, they confuse fact with fiction, even make stuff up entirely out of left field. The only thing we have going for us, is they are at least willing to talk. And with the ability to talk, we can only hope we reach them, that a spark of "liberation" gets in the membrane from their oppressed mindset. It's the best we can do, but at least we're here trying. We have no other choice, as I see it. Even their religions get on the bandwagons and get these young fellars right out of the gate. I don't hate them, I want them to see they are better than this and deserve better than this and they have to take a stand, lay down their fears of reprisal and fight for their own liberation too!

We have to stop the have-mores from their indoctrination methods. Very few of these brainwashed children that grow up supporting their oppressors will ever be more than a have-not. BY design, folks.

Actually they have. Their employer wouldn't have paid anything in if they weren't working. Therefore UI is a part of their total package. While they may not directly write a check to the government every time they are paid, they are paying in.

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.asp

John -

The blog is still misleading. I'm not saying folks laid off through no fault of their own don't deserve UI (as a matter of fact there should absolutely be this safety-net in place), however there should be some clarification as to how UI works. People are more inclined to think they're entitled to something if they're under the impression they're paying directly into it. That leads to more people voluntarily leaving their job and, subsequently, NOT being entitled to UI because they didn't lose their job through no fault of their own. Can't tell you how many people I've talked to that quit their job then became upset when they were denied benefits and claimed that, since they've "paid into the system", they were entitled to get UI.

Thank you for the link, KYFemme.

In NJ we do pay a UI tax as employees. Every year of my 30 years working here, as far as I can recall. I believe that employees in PA also pay UI tax.

"Can't tell you how many people I've talked to that quit their job then became upset when they were denied benefits and claimed that, since they've "paid into the system", they were entitled to get UI."

I've heard people say the same thing, too. I think that's something that employer's should point out to new hires in the employee handbook, or posted in the lunch room.

Think before you quit - especially in today's economy.

FM - even if they did pay into the system, employees who quit voluntarily thinking they are "entitled" to UI benefits show both selfishness and ignorance, because these benefits are intiended for and (ad far as I know) legally limited to workers who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Workers who leave employment voluntarily aren't (and should not be, IMO)) covered by UI. If you quit, you're on your own.

Thanks for the clarification. I agree that if you quit, then you aren't entitled. Quitting is your own voluntary action, and if you do so and can't support yourself, then you're dumb. UI shouldn't cover that situation.

I think the larger thrust of the article (and the clarification is good) is about the mindset of some who think that if you can't find a job, then its your own fault. They believe that everyone should be able to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps. Reach down, grap your shoelaces on both shoes and pick yourself up. What happens? Typically I fall over on my rear. Are there people who abuse the system? Yep, there are people like that in every system. You try to minimize that as much as possible, and help the people who really need it. In this case, there are still a lot of people that need help because we just don't have the jobs for them.

mightbealiberal:

You're right - the sole purpose for its existence is to provide those who have been laid off. Not fired, not for those who quit voluntarily. It is meant to be a safe-guard, not a vacation fund.

John Pinkston:

I agree with your statement that there are people in every system who abuse said system. Congress, specifically the GOBP, wants to unfairly punish the majority based on the actions of the minority.

Agree with your comment. And thanks for a great mental image, JP.

In Alaska we pay into our unemployment insurance, so please don't generalize for the rest of us. Thankfully I've never had to use my benefits, but I don't look down on those who do.

And one more thing, in some states businesses are allowed to deduct their unemployment premiums from their taxes. Chew on that for a moment when considering the 'damage' workers 'inflict' on their former employers when using their unemployment benefits.

I have made an observation about the behavior of conservatives and liberals, from the American perspective, with respect to their approach to so-called "entitlement programs". While the observation isn't 100% accurate for every individual (what observation is?), it is largely true across the two groups.

Liberals want as many people covered by the program as possible. Having people not covered is distressing, to the point that they are willing to endure an amount of abuse of the system by the undeserving in order to maximize the coverage.

Conservatives want as many people covered as possible. Having undeserving people abuse the system is distressing, to the point that they are willing to allow some deserving people to go uncovered in order to reduce the amount of abuse to zero.

Liberal position: reduce human suffering, even if it means some few freeloaders get a free ride. They want 100% coverage, even if we incur debt.

Conservative position: reduce abuse, even if it means some few needy people get nothing. They want 0% abuse, which they believe will minimize incurred debt.

Now, I'm not taking extreme positions on either end into account, although they exist. On the Left, the destruction of multinational corporations, nationalizing their means of production so as to provide all workers everywhere the profits that they themselves create. On the Right, the elimination of all entitlement programs in favor of so-called "social darwinism" that would put all power and profit-taking into the hands of those who already control the wealth. For my observation above, I'm sticking to just average, general population.

I think you underestimate the number of those who truly need and who truly abuse the system:

Saying a "few" and "some" people are needy is disingenuous as the evidence out there clearly shows it is more than a "few" that are in need.

To state an "amount" abuse the system is disingenuous as the needy far, far out-weigh the "amount" who abuse the system.

I do not think any system anywhere exists without abuses of it. For example, take our tax system which is far more abused by the wealthy and Corporate America because they have the means and the government-given loopholes to hide their money. Not such with the average, working class American.

No system is 100% free from abuse. Never has been and never will be. Sure, more stringent measures can be put in place to help stem abuse but, there will be abuses. To think otherwise is pretty naive. But, to punish the majority based on the sins of the minority is pretty weak in my book.

Everyone is "undeserving" to conservatives.

...and paid very handsomely too, I might add!

The first inclination is to just label these Republican congressmen as ignorant....the excuses they've given for voting against the stimulus certainly supports that conclusion. However, the underlying and evident reason for them voting against the stimulus (or filibustering it to death) is purely political......to prevent the economy from recovering whereby blame may be placed with the Democratic leadership and administration prior to the November elections. Therefore they're not just ignorant.....they're ignorant ass-h---s!!!

Rams9 asks; "Why can't these Repubs stop talking smack about their own people and just come up with some ideas?? That's what they are PAID for."

First, the average working or unemployed citizenry of the US is not "their own people" now-- nor have they ever been (until it comes to election time.) These are partn'parcel, the henchmen of the corporate world who throw just enough crumbs and promises to keep the ignorant coming back to their feeding trough while they pick your pockets. And the problem is, the ignorant keep coming back and playing the same old Bread and Circuses vicious circle game. YOU have the power to get off this damn train wreck! USE IT!

These henchmen represent big business and nothing but!! They could care less about your arses and they're even telling you this themselves! Are you listening!?!? Everything else and everyone else that gets in the way of big business is an exploitable resource. How many have lost their homes, their stock options, their 401Ks, their bank accounts and every single thing that keeps them believing they're not vulnerable? If you haven't lost it yet, be prepared or don't cry when it happens to you. It's coming en masse very soon! The difference between a recession and depression is; a recession is when your buddy loses his job. A depression is when you lose yours. And you're going to lose yours (and not to the migrant farm-worker either!)

I just hope that the American working and not-able-to-work-cuz-there-are-no-jobs-to-be-had-anywhere populations stick together and realize the upper echelons, corporate oligarchial raiders are trying to turn the entire middle class on its ass and at this rate, they are well-succeeding. (how many millions in foreclosures this year?) and the next and the next? Now they'll pump up the stock market, you'll buy in and it'll crash just when you think you're all smart and safe!

The bigger pictures is, new technology and innovation saw such a rise in the middle class over the last few decades that it simply got too risky for the bigger sharks to compete, so they have to obliterate the middle class and obliterate they're getting away with. They don't really have the power unless we give it to them. We have got to have the ability to stick our heads out of the mud long enough to take a good look! How many mudballs does it take for you to look at who is doing the throwing anyway?

Orrin Hatch has been in office how long? Once he again, he and his cronies just threw America's working class under the bus!! Who in their right mind would ever vote for this oligarchial supporter? Someone did, and in fact, a lot of people did and did so for far too long. The truth is a whole lot of someones supported each and every one of his low-life blood sucking parasites counterparts. They have convinced you that we can't live without big business owning everything and you've bought that BS hook, line and sinker. Now that you've lost and/or are losing, are you waking up?

IF SO--Now what are you going to do about it!? Are you going to help put these same locust parasitic bastids back in power to tell you you're low-lifers and you're not worthy --nor have you ever contributed to the well-being of your country or your own life's pursuits!? When you've spent your entire lives contributing everything you have to cause of well-being and balance of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not only for yourselves but for your country and your community around you!

The unemployed are not entitled? Doesn't that philosophy just blow your mind!? They've outsourced your jobs, tricked you into playing the games of life. Stole your property and all your money. How long are you going to keep buying their bullsheit? Look at the corporatocracy of this country and you tell me, who is more deserving of entitlements? YOU ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS, our country's best and most deserved, whose blood, sweat and tears have built it from the bottom up, not the other way 'round.

VOTE to get rid of every politico who has put corporate fascism first. If you want your country back, then wake up to who has been stealing it and WHO is responsible for letting them! You've been snookered for decades by the Republicans and the blue dog Dems. DO your homework! Support ONLY companies in the US that are true American Heroes. There are alot of good companies here and alot of good people and good politicos. Find them! Be them!

Actually, the dem's have done a good job of agreeing with one another this go around. I know! Its a shock to everyone. The problem is having one side that is consistently saying no and using the filibuster to do it with. It makes it hard to get anything done.

Earthie...... the discrepancy you speak of is due to the M.O. of each party.....the Republican's purely political and self-serving.....the Democrat's a work-together attitude as our government was conceived. So, do the Democrats want to start functioning like the Republicans if and when the Republicans return to the majority? NO..... its best to allow the Republicans dig their own graves through our democratic process! The proof..... you'll see November 2nd.

...and by the way hate--, the Democrat's don't have a super majority in either house. Do your homework!

The way that the Republans continue to cripple the system, dispite being the minority, is by indiscriminate use of the fillibuster, which requires 60 votes to override which the Democrats no longer have, and by precedural holds - as used by Jim Bunning and Tom Coburn to stop unemployment insurance previously. The use of the fillibuster by the Republicans during this Administration has been by several multiples historically unprecedented and constititutes a chronic abuse of the system.

Hate: I will tell, if you promise to stop saying "do tell." Its mildly irritating at this point!

The 111th Congressional Senate has 59 Democrats including the 2 independents who caucus with Democrats..... One seat shy of the 3/5 supermajority requirement. The Democrats haven't had a supermajority since Sept. 25, 2009.

The House of Reps currently houses 255 Dems, 178 Reps & 2 vacant seats for a ruling majority of 58.9% to 41.1%. Once again shy of 3/5.

I did my homework....you should do yours before being a smart-ass.....do tell!

So you basically confirm the points I made earlier in the day. And "super enough for you" is unfortunately not defined in the constitution..... a supermajority is. Its 3/5th or 60%.

Sure Bush got things passed.....because of the Democrats willingness to come to the table.....the work together attitude.....my previous point.

And I CAN blame the Republicans because one, they don't come to the table over even the most crucial legislative issues and two, at 41 votes they filibuster EVERYTHING and it takes 60 votes to break their filibuster which the Dems don't have. With their current obstinance, only winning with simple math can work for the Democrats.

BTW, supermajority is not really a uniformly defined percentage. Supermajority for the Congress per the Constitution is 2/3 (Q138 in http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html):

A. The specific instances in which the US Constitution requires a super-majority are limited to:

• Convicting an Impeachment (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 1, Section 3)
• Expulsion of a member of one house of Congress (2/3 vote of the house in question - Article 1, Section 5)
• Override a Presidential Veto (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 1, Section 7)
• Ratify a treaty (2/3 majority in the Senate - Article 2, Section 2)
• Passing of a Constitutional Amendment by Congress (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - Article 5)
• Restore the ability of certain rebels to serve in the government (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate - 14th Amendment)
• Approval of removal of the President from his position after the Vice President and the Cabinet approve such removal and after the President contests the removal (2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate 25th Amendment)

Additionally, it should be noted the in a few cases, the Constitution requires a super-majority for a quorum. A quorum is that number of members of a body that are required for the body to do any work. For example, there is usually a 50% quorum requirement in the House and Senate - at least half the members must be present. In the Constitution, super-majority quorums are required as follows:

• Choice of a President in the House when no majority of electoral votes is achieved (member or members from 2/3 of the states 12th Amendment)
• Choice of a Vice President in the Senate when no majority of electoral votes is achieved (2/3 of all Senators 12th Amendment)

I might be wrong, but I believe the 60% supermajority pertains to the number of votes needed to pass a vote of cloture to end a filibuster in the Senate.

Hey thanks for the guide.....cool. And yes...a "supermajority" is any defined majority in excess of a simple majority beit 3/5, 2/3, 7/8, 9/10 whatever. And yes, we're refering mostly to the 3/5 supermajority needed for cloture in the Senate.

It's an employer's market right now. Knowing people are pretty desperate for work, and the number of people who will apply for said jobs, employers can pretty much set the pay rate below what the position should really pay. For example, a job opening that should pay $25 an hour is being filled for $10 an hour knowing full well that they will fill the position for far less than it should be filled for.

As far as people with far more experience under their belt - why should a company pay more money to someone with more experience when they can pay someone fresh out of college for a whole lot less? It really sucks for us over the 40 mark, but it's true.

This is so true. I have a master's degree, and have been working steadily since the age of 16. Last April I was laid off, and have sent out HUNDREDS of resumes. In all this time, I've gotten THREE job interviews. One was at a pizza place, and I was told by the manager that although he felt I could do the job (waitress), he was reluctant to hire me for fear that I'd leave as soon as I got a better job. My reply: "If I could get a better job with the economy the way it is, do you think I'd be applying here?".

My unemployment benefits (which were less than 300 bucks a week) ran out two months ago. I finally got a part time, minimum wage job last month. My husband, who works in retail, has been cut down to less than 20 hours a week over the past six months. We have no health insurance, and we cannot qualify for any sort of cash assistance, because we still make too much money (???). Along the way, we've lost our apartment, all our savings, our 401Ks, most of our possessions, and we drive a 17 year old van that's falling apart, and we pray it will get us back and forth. My husband, my 16 year old son, and I sleep on the living room floor of a friend at night, and during the day we are basically homeless. We use the library's internet to search for work, we do not have a phone, and I recently pawned the last thing of value I owned... my wedding ring. We survive off food stamps, and we haven't had a decent, filling meal in three months.

Oh yeah, we love living like this... it's such a grand adventure.

As far as politicians... I personally believe that anyone in public office should NOT be getting paid. It's not a "job", it's volunteer work. I think that if there were no pay, then we'd get people in office who actually care about what they're doing, and working toward the greater good.

Perhaps these conservatives should step into my shoes for a week. Heck, they wouldn't even last a day!

Ardith:

Thanks for sharing your story. Unfortunately, you are not alone. While I was lucky in that I am still (barely) keeping the roof over me and the kid's head, I too had to rely on unemployment for a year, had to raid my retirement fund, which is now down to "0", and I'm still paying taxes for the early withdrawal penalties. I sent out more resumes in a year than I have my entire working career, and I was lucky if I ever heard back from one out of the hundreds of the people I sent it to. What really sucked was when I finally DID get an interview, I was up against many others so it was almost a fight to the death for a job (it would have been nice if these people had the decency to at least call and let me know I didn't get the job). I started with two part-time jobs and unemployment, and when that ran out, went to three part-time jobs. I was also lucky in that one of the three employers offered me a full-time position, but I'm also making $20 less per hour than I was when I was laid off December, 2008. Now I'm down to one full-time, and one part-time and am still having a tough time keeping my home.

Perhaps if the GOBP got off their self-made pedestals and visited we mere peasants once in a while, they MIGHT catch a clue ... but highly doubtful.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that your fortune's turnaround for the better ... and soon.

It's a shame that employers consider paying into unemployment insurance part of their benefits package since it is something they are required by law to do. That's rather like saying "Hey, as part of our compensation package, we'll provide you with a safe workplace!" It's the law. That makes it not optional and not a "benefit" in my book.

And I agree, unemployment is not enough for most people to have a comfortable lifestyle. It's intended to be enough to keep you from going under until a person is able to become re-employed. But that re-employment aspect just isn't happening.

So the way to fix things is to stop unemployment and instead give out more corporate welfare? How repub of you.

Why did businesses lay people off in the first place? Because the sales of their goods and services declined, requiring fewer people to cover the new, lower level of sales. Simply handing money over to companies will do absolutely nothing...unless you are the owner of the company, who will pocket that money. They aren't going to hire more people with it, because sales still haven't picked up. Two thirds of this nation's economy is consumer spending, and until consumers have money to spend, don't expect sales to pick up.

"Keep giving those unfortunate enough to have lost a job more money to sit home, and all we did was create another federal benefit for those people. What incentive do they have to WANT TO find a new job if they an stay home for 2 years being paid peanuts??"

Ah, yes. All those who are unfortunate to have lost their jobs just gladly sit at home barely scrapping by on unemployment. Oh, the comforts of being unemployed! Oh, how I miss those days! Why, oh, why did I accept a stinkin' JOB when I could have sat at home, watching TV and rolling in all that unemployment money I was living on??!!

Really, dude??

The poster I was responding to didn't say anything about tax breaks. They said they wanted to GIVE the money to business to create jobs. And yes, tax breaks to business are nothing but corporate welfare. Corporations already pay the lowest portion of the tax burden since the Eisenhower administration, and yet the tax loopholes, tax breaks, tax cuts and taxpayer-funded bailouts STILL aren't enough for these greedy pigs and criminals. You want to cut the budget deficit? Eliminate the tax loopholes that allowed 25% of all corporations to pay absolutely NO TAX last year. Make it illegal to make a PO Box in the Cayman Islands as your company headquarters to avoid paying taxes. Stop giving tax incentives for oil companies to search for oil. As for stimulus packages, I didn't mention that at all, so I don't know why you are bringing it up.

Maybe I'm being simplistic Suave but, why would we give more tax breaks to businesses to hire people if no one has the money to buy their goods?

And, I agree wholeheartedly with your position on corporate welfare - well said!

Exactly my point, Freedom Maid. When your economy is 2/3 consumer spending, and consumers don't have jobs, hence money, to spend, then giving money to businesses in the hopes they will create jobs is pointless. No businessperson in their right mind is going to increase their head count if the sales simply aren't there. Because this country has outsourced so many of its manufacturing jobs overseas, we are now a nation that depends on the financial and service industries more than ever. Both are industries that actually create NOTHING. Financial services, as we have seen recently, basically make most of their money from shuffling money around from one place to another, converting it from one form to another. The service industry is little better, as the jobs it does create are mostly low wage jobs. Even the retail industry is becoming dominated by low paying jobs at places such as Wal Mart. None of that is creating jobs where people actually create something tangible. Gone are the days where people made steel, built ships, made TVs....the list goes on and on.

Even when we have corporations that do make money, tax loopholes allow them to be headquartered in a PO Box in the Caymans, and do business without paying taxes, a luxury that isn't shared by their customers and employees.

And the flat tax? Yet another old chestnut that pops up every once in a while. If you actually go into one of the sites that give examples of flat tax programs, you will likely find that you will pay a lot more under those plans than you currently do....unless you are rich, in which case, things look great. I am firmly middle class, and I did some calculations of taxes done with the flat tax alternatives, and surprise, surprise, my taxes went up by close to 50% under the flat tax schemes. The flat tax is yet another little misdirection play by the rich and their useful idiots to continue raping the middle class while enriching the upper wealth strata. More redistribution of wealth----upwards, as we have seen at an ever-accelerating rate since the Reagan administration.

My, my, the lack of reading comprehension is getting worse, isn't it? As I said in my post, I am firmly middle class, not rich by any stretch of the imagination. As I also said above, I went to several sites that gave flat tax examples, and I ended up paying about 50% more than I do under the current system. I don't take advantage of any tax loopholes...heck, I just do the standard 1040A form, and don't even itemize.

The part you conveniently forget to mention is what the tax rate is beyond that first $25K, and what it applies to. Most of the sites I visited quoted tax rates between 23-35%. In addition, there is tax on everything, from food to clothes to rent. Finally, this is only for the federal level, so you still pay state and local taxes, from sales tax to real estate tax to state tax. So, let's say someone makes $50K. The first $25K is exempt, you say. OK, for the remaining $25K, you will pay anywhere from $5750 to $8750. Now, add in your state taxes, your real estate taxes. Starting to add up, eh?

If you make $25K or less, yes, things are good...but then again, repubs claim that those folks don't pay taxes under the current system, so it's disingenuous to say those folks should be happy with a flat tax, because you claim they already are getting off scott free. For the rich, if they are the kind that actually pays there taxes, (rare, but let's imagine it anyway), they would also do better, especially if the tax rate is at the lower end of the scale. Instead of paying 28%, as they do now, they'd pay at maybe 23%, and not be taxed on the first $25K.

Best of all, the proposals call for the elimination of the IRS. In other words, there is absolutely no enforcement mechanism in the system to ensure that people actually pay the taxes they are supposed to. I have seen some proposals where there is a new bureaucracy created that would handle it in this manner: you pay the full tax rate on everything, from payroll taxes, and then this new agency would send you refund checks up to your $25K cutoff. So, replace one bureaucracy with another, likely more inefficient and bloated than the IRS currently is. You'll wait for that new agency to dole out your monthly or quarterly refund check, so that instead of maybe getting one refund check a year, you may be getting several, at yet more cost than the current system. Those that propose these systems let a false perception that they are being overtaxed by an evil IRS blind them to reality, once again.

No matter how you implement a flat tax, or any tax, for that matter, you need enforcement of some sort to make sure the taxes are being paid. Yet that enforcement is what we hear complaints about from the right on a constant basis. We hear the IRS being called "nazis" and worse, especially when they go after tax cheats. Another argument that is heard from the right is that the government has no right to collect taxes in the first place. If that is true, then no tax you propose will pass that threshold.

For a moment, sit back and think about what it would take to scrap the current tax code and implement a flat tax or any other tax. You would have to have someone write it, then have it sponsored by someone in Congress. Who does Congress work for, again? It sure as hell isn't us. It is the corporations and the rich, and do you honestly think any of them will allow a change in how things are done now? Do you really believe that major corporations that have gotten away with paying no taxes at all for years are suddenly going to submit to being taxed now? Do you think that the rich who have exploited tax loopholes and utilized tax havens will decide that it's ok that they suddenly start paying taxes? Do you think that special interests that have had tax breaks extended to them, such as oil companies, will now gladly give them up? If you do, then you are quite obviously delusional. Look how crazy things got during the healthcare debate when insurance companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to water the bill down to their advantage, and making a public option completely off limits. Look at all the money Wall Street poured into taking all the teeth out of the financial regulation bill that just passed. All of that is small potatoes compared to what you would see if the current tax code was threatened. Face it, we have what we have because that's the way that corporations and the ultrarich want it, and their pet legislators will never bite the hand that feeds them.

Hatey, you completely ignored the central theme of my post, which is that no matter what kind of tax overhaul you propose, it will never even get to a vote or debate if it is fair, that is, strips all the loopholes from the corporations, the rich and the special interests. I don't care if you crafted a tax code that exempted every single person making under $200,000 from paying taxes at all, which would be better than 95% of all Americans. Those people have absolutely no power. Those with the power will never, ever allow themselves to be treated like the rest of us....you know, having to pay taxes like us "small" people. Is Exxon/Mobil going to pay taxes now, forking over billions they have avoided by use of tax havens and loopholes? Are they going to give up the handouts they receive in the form of corporate welfare? Absolutely not. Address this, as it is the battleax that will kill any meaningful attempt to inject more fairness into the tax code.

Throw out the incumbents? Simplistic and simpleminded. You obviously haven't been listening to a single thing I have said. It doesn't matter who is in there...heck, throw the incumbents out in every single election, and what do you get? A bigger pool of people who will go to work as lobbyists, etc. as soon as they are out of office. Corporatism has destroyed democracy as defined by the Founding Fathers, and you are too blind to see it. Ever wonder why your Tea Party candidates like Sharron Angle are being told by Dick Armey to shut up and keep out of sight for a while, so that they can be recreated by repub image specialists? Because they know that not only are their ideas unpalatable to most voters, but also because they need to remake them into something that corporations will pour money into. They're setting them up to ride the gravy train like all the incumbents, and I have no doubt that if she or any other Tea Partier gets elected, they will start feeding from the trough like the incumbents they despised. You can't fix the system without eliminating corporations as the masters of the electoral system.

Ok, "unelect" those incumbents. Any idea of who really runs things in government? It's the unelected civil servants, and if you start getting rid of congressmen every 2 years, the balance of power shifts from elected officials to career government employees.

Why do I see the worst in conservatism? Because it no longer exists as a true conservative ideology. It has been corrupted and co-opted by the fringe radical right, dominated by corporate-controlled puppets and christofascists. If Barry Goldwater, often considered the father of modern conservatism, were alive today, he'd be tossed out of the repub party for not being conservative enough. I have voted repub in the past, but refuse to vote for anyone in that party any more because they are dangerously far to the right, and the damage that gang has done over the past 30 years has put us in the dire straits we are in today.

Suave,

You needn't tell me about the loss of manufacturing in this country, CT was a hotbed of of manufacturing at one time, particularly in Stamford, Bridgeport, and Waterbury. While Stamford has rebounded by luring many companies in the financial sector from NYC, Bridgeport and Waterbury are mere skeletons of what they used to be.

It would be nice if the average American were able to enjoy the many tax breaks and loopholes that both the wealthy and Corporate America enjoy, but that really isn't the American Way now, is it. Cayman Islands ... just before I read that part, for some reason Halliburton popped in my mind ... isn't that what it did not too long ago? Shortly after they started getting hammered for its raping of the taxpayer? Charging $100 per $1 bottle of water to the troops, its contractors electrocuting our soldiers in showers, billing for services never rendered ... if Congress is so concerned with out of control spending, it should revisit these damned contracts with known thieves first. The savings would probably eliminate the frigging deficit.

I never understood the flat tax - can you give me a link to one of the sites you mention? I want to calculate how hammered I'd get ... for @!$%#s & giggles!!

"You can't fix the system without eliminating corporations as the masters of the electoral system."

Hammer, meet f**king nail ... you are, my Suave Chauffeur, the MAN!

FM - Here are a couple of links to websites describing flat income taxes, they are not what I would call objective but the explanations are sound based on what I learned in Economics. http://www.wordwiz72.com/flattax.html http://taxes.suite101.com/article.cfm/what_is_the_flat_tax

How about this for a flat tax. We take the whole GDP and everyone pays a flat tax based on their percentage contribution to to it. That would seem to be fair and just. So say you have $100 GDP and 10 people who contribute to it. 9 people make $10 (total). The last person makes $90. If everyone pays 10%, then the 1 person pays $9 and the others pay a total of $1. Is this the basis of a flat tax? One thing to keep in mind in this is that you don't get exceptions, and no differences between earned and unearned income (and how much sense does that distinction make anyway?). Anything you make gets counted and you have to pay taxes on it. I know this is hopelessly naive and I can already see problems with it, but its a thought (probably not worth considering).

mightbealiberal:

Many thanks for the links - In reading Uffdaguys posts, I think I'm going to have myself a damned good laugh!

Well, considering that the shrimpers are reminded on a daily basis that Big Oil has pretty much destroyed their livelihoods, and are reminded, again on a daily basis, that a business that has been in their families for generations has gone down the toilet at the hands of Big Oil, I can't very well blame them for not wanting to work for the company that has ruined their lives.

And, considering that many of these people aren't afraid of back-breaking work, I suspect they won't be idle for long, so, you needn't worry about them becoming spoiled and lazy like the rest of those who are enjoying the fruits of unemployment compensation.

Another falsehood spread by the GOBP oil company apologists:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6054SI20100106

In the article, it notes that oil companies have 44 million acres under lease onshore in the western US, with only 12 million acres actually being utilized, for a percentage of 27% utilization. The article also notes that 40% of the onshore leases are protested. Therefore, even if every single protest prevented utilization of the lease, oil companies could be drilling on 60%, or 26.4 million acres. Yet, they are using less than half of what they could, even taking protested leases into account. The whine from the right that drilling on land is virtually banned is a red herring, a slight of hand that bears no relation to reality. Care to try some more lies on for size, hatey?

Sorry hatey, but those things were all taken into account. The government offered those leases, and oil companies bought them. The environmental concerns were already addressed, so if the oil companies aren't using them, it's because they don't want to use them, and no other reason. I never mentioned Bush, nor had I intended to.

The question YOU should be asking in view of this data, is WHY, with tens of millions of acres already purchased and NOT subject to any protests, would oil companies prefer to drill offshore, which is much more dangerous and expensive? I am no expert in regulations regarding drilling, but it would seem to even a casual observer that there must be some kind of unseen cost benefit to choosing a seemingly more dangerous and expensive place to drill over the much less expensive and dangerous drill sites on land. Perhaps it's because it's a lot more difficult for inspectors and average citizens to see what is going on when the drill site is sometimes hundreds of miles offshore? Mark my words, there is a good reason that the oil companies prefer offshore drilling despite it difficulties and cost. If anyone out there has some knowledge on the regulatory differences between drilling on land and offshore, please feel free to chime in.

You've got no problem with simplistic answers, so why not? To say he's NOT responsible for this sorry state of affairs would be a lie. The tanking of the economy began well before Obama was elected. The bail-outs you are complaining about prevented a whole new Great Depression from occuring. Many areas of the economy remain just as bad now as they were then. And the New Deal did help ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression by "priming the pump" of economy by employing the unemployed in public work projects - and it was the success of these programs that earned the Democratic party the trust and support of black voters for generations. To prime a pump, you pour water into it first. In economic terms, putting money into the hands of people who have none induces people to spend it on goods and services, creating demands that can be filled by businesses who can then hire more employees to keep up with the demands. That is what the Republicans killed when they slapped down unemployment insurance. How is giving money to employers to hire people when no-one is buying their product or services any different than paying farmers NOT to plant crops? And why doesn't trickle down economics works? Becuse money in the hands of the wealthy is not spent on job creation. It is saved, invested, made to make more money until the whole frekkin' system breaks down because most of the economy's money turned out to be tied up in a super high stakes pea and shell game. THAT is what the Republican's are fighting so hard to preserve. And that is why they are so very much on the side of BP...because soiled beaches, dead animals and out of work fisherman can't slip them millions in contributions. But oil companies can. And who had been writing the finacial and environmental regulations for most of the past 10 years? The concerned industries at the invitation of Bush and Cheney.

"Perhaps it's because it's a lot more difficult for inspectors and average citizens to see what is going on when the drill site is sometimes hundreds of miles offshore?"

Keep in mind, Suave, that the offshore rigs are also "territory" of other countries whose regulations are far less stringent that what we have that and aren't enforced.

Deep Horizon operated under the flag of the Marshall Islands ...

Good post, Don

Agree, insightful post, Don Q.

Right. They say "Move if you can't afford it." It costs money to move. The last 'move' made me homeless. That was 3 years ago. I've worked on and off since then (seasonal jobs), and still am homeless. Now I'm on unemployment, which barely affords me my homelessness.

They say "Just go get another job." It costs money to job search. To feed and clothe and bathe oneself to be barely healthy enough for job searching and to start that new job.