I weep for you....

[TKshreve]

Care to add a bit to that? Typically healthy debate requires a bit more than a 5 word reply.

I'll add. The top 2% are the ones who are under scrutiny for gaming the system. That happens through lobbying and purchasing politicians, like the Koch brothers did with Scott Walker. If you don't realize that, then there is no helping you.

[old guy]

Okay, my apology.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that unemployment is a shell of its original intention. As an employer, I pay into the unemployment fund. I wish I didn't have to, but it's part of the cost of running a business. I have at times during my life collected unemployment benefits. You do realize don't you, that you pay income taxes on the unemployment, just as you would if you were working. There are also a number of other requirements for collecting benefits.
It's just a safety net that does give a little peace of mind to the working class.

"The top 2% are there because they worked to get there." Do you have any idea how many wealthy people there are out there that have never worked a day in their lives. Many of them simply live off interest. That's where the disparity comes into play. With our current system, those with all the cash actually do keep getting wealthier as time goes by. And it just keeps building. The old saying that the rich get richer isn't just some off the wall trivial statement. It's based on a truth, that's become the bedrock of our society and will eventually be the demise of the middle class.

[guito13]

Okay, my apology.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that unemployment is a shell of its original intention. As an employer, I pay into the unemployment fund. I wish I didn't have to, but it's part of the cost of running a business. I have at times during my life collected unemployment benefits. You do realize don't you, that you pay income taxes on the unemployment, just as you would if you were working. There are also a number of other requirements for collecting benefits.
It's just a safety net that does give a little peace of mind to the working class.

"The top 2% are there because they worked to get there." Do you have any idea how many wealthy people there are out there that have never worked a day in their lives. Many of them simply live off interest. That's where the disparity comes into play. With our current system, those with all the cash actually do keep getting wealthier as time goes by. And it just keeps building. The old saying that the rich get richer isn't just some off the wall trivial statement. It's based on a truth, that's become the bedrock of our society and will eventually be the demise of the middle class.

Thank you for the substance, makes it easier to talk about things.

I mean that unemployment is a shell as it is available to a much boader range of people and there are no incentives to entice people to look for work other than that inner "drive" that some people have. I look at my paystubs and I am aware of how the unemployment pool is funded, but I have luckily never had to collect unemployment. I should also state that I am 100% ok with helping people who have a track record of working hard but have fallen upon hard times. In order to be comfortable with unemployment, I would like to ensure that people collecting are indeed seeking honorable employment, not working "under the table", and not milking the system in some other form.

I do not have the statistics with regard to how many "2% ers" are self made v. the silver spoon types and would gladly be open to reading them. My point is that those people are there because [[in most cases) they or a member of their family worked hard to get where they are. I am not in favor of taking from them just to help others become more equal. Perhaps if the people just starting off would not make purchases that require interest payments and such [[yes, i know sometimes that is unavoidable but i would argue that in most cases it is) then they could be at that 2% some day. You can't hate somebody just because they have more than you, nor should you expect them to subsudize you.

[old guy]

You can't hate somebody just because they have more than you, nor should you expect them to subsudize you.

I don't hate anyone because they have more than me. I'd just like to see a level playing field. These people play hardball. But if anyone with less money tries to play hardball they get chastised.

Trust me, the people at the top are getting subsidies that you and I couldn't imagine.

[guito13]

I don't hate anyone because they have more than me. I'd just like to see a level playing field. These people play hardball. But if anyone with less money tries to play hardball they get chastised.

Trust me, the people at the top are getting subsidies that you and I couldn't imagine.

Oh, I realize they have the resources to identify and utilize the loopholes that allow for advantages that you and I dont have. I am also OK with closing these loopholes [[maybe a STRAIGHT FLAT tax?)

As an example:
I have always supported a government where each candidate had 10 pieces of paper to write up their exact plan if elected. This 10 page document would then be made available online or in public libraries and that would be ALL they could do for their campaign. This would make the playing field level, make the politican accountable to their 10 pages, and eliminate special interests from the campaign. Also, if the politician took any outside money once in office, they face the death penalty for treason against their constituents.

[Detroitnerd]

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor that get the blame,
While the rich have all the gravy.
Now ain't that a blinkin' shame.

[1KielsonDrive]

Okay, my apology.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that unemployment is a shell of its original intention. As an employer, I pay into the unemployment fund. I wish I didn't have to, but it's part of the cost of running a business. I have at times during my life collected unemployment benefits. You do realize don't you, that you pay income taxes on the unemployment, just as you would if you were working. There are also a number of other requirements for collecting benefits.
It's just a safety net that does give a little peace of mind to the working class.

"The top 2% are there because they worked to get there." Do you have any idea how many wealthy people there are out there that have never worked a day in their lives. Many of them simply live off interest. That's where the disparity comes into play. With our current system, those with all the cash actually do keep getting wealthier as time goes by. And it just keeps building. The old saying that the rich get richer isn't just some off the wall trivial statement. It's based on a truth, that's become the bedrock of our society and will eventually be the demise of the middle class.

OG, you're too nice. And an awful good writer, too. I agree with your sentiments. Most of this stuff is obvious, but the turning point for me was when I began working at and catering to the most exclusive country clubs, not just in Detroit but in SF, Palo Alto and northern CA. The amount of money burned and the waste is amazing. Club members were rude, nasty and spoiled. Obviously, not every one, but most. The wannabees were the worst. They were the suck-ups - trying to be just like the richer and richest they admired the most. I've seen and worked weddings costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. I've seen bar bills for tens of thousands of dollars, bar rounds for thousands of dollars - and not a dollar gratuity. At the Ryder Cup, guests attempted to bribe me and co-workers for bottles to take on the course. Rejected in one case, and pissed off, they reported us as having attempted to 'sell' a bottle. Members of one club were paying cash, much less than the price, for meals and drinks provided by staff. Of course, the staff was fired upon discovery, as should be, but the members got off scott free. I think they should've been prosecuted. This is pretty routine, day to day stuff, but it changed my view of most wealthy people. On the real money side, you're right, they get breaks, tax, legal and otherwise, we can't comprehend. Most club members I dealt with inherited their wealth, jobs, companies and stations in life. They had no worry of ever losing their homes, cottages, condos, ski lodges or anything else. It's a shame - not that they have all this stuff, I don't begrudge them their wealth, just that they don't want to do what's right for others, and in most cases don't even have a clue of the difficulties others face.

[Detroitnerd]

In fairness, not all rich people are total parasites. Some of them have created some good companies, made some good investments, or bucked the race to the bottom. The real problem is that most of the rich people are no longer involved in fundamentally creative industries, where you make a good product and sell it fairly. Conniving with politicians, they have created loopholes and havens where they don't pay their fair share to support our society, while a whole mendacious group of pundits has grown up and industry that calls them "wealth creators" and "job creators" -- even as the industries they're involved with are predatory, corrupt, lawbreaking cartels.

If the rich want to get together and take over our lives and communities, it is always called "reform."

When the poor and working people get together, it's called "conspiracy" and "class warfare."

Well, you can only push people so far, even if you have all the money in the world. And all it takes is about 30 percent of the population to say, "No way. We call bullshit. And we're taking it all back."

[maxx]

I don't hate anyone because they have more than me. I'd just like to see a level playing field. These people play hardball. But if anyone with less money tries to play hardball they get chastised.

Trust me, the people at the top are getting subsidies that you and I couldn't imagine.

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wea...0831480&sr=1-1

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense [[and StickYou with the Bill)

Johnston, a New York Times investigative reporter, has spent his 40-year career exposing collusion between government officials and private sector entities as they enrich the rich and ignore consequences for middle-class laborers and the poor. In Perfectly Legal, he focused on hidden inequities in the tax system. This volume is a broader examination of collusion and unfairness, ranging from subsidies for professional sports stadiums to secret payouts to multinational corporate chief executives. At the base of Johnston's journalistic indictment are the highly paid lobbyists working Congress, state legislatures, county commissions, city councils and government regulatory agencies. Johnston also cites the culpability of George W. Bush in his roles as professional baseball team owner, Texas governor and U.S. president, and targets well-known tycoons such as Donald Trump, Warren Buffett and George Steinbrenner as well as lesser-recognized beneficiaries who own golf courses and insurance companies and energy consortiums. Heroes appear occasionally, such as Remy Welling, an Internal Revenue Service investigator who blew the whistle on improper tax breaks for the wealthy and lost her job. Johnston writes compellingly to show how government-private sector collusion affects the middle class and the poor.

[maxx]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/wisco...er-food-stamps

Governor Scott Walker is creating a road to fascism in a hurry in Wisconsin. Not only does his “budget repair bill” hand over utilities to private industry but now this tea party conservative wants to privatize food stamp allocations. This plan would allow a for profit corporation to decide who gets food and who doesn’t. On top of this 20 million dollars will be taken away from Wisconsin in Federal aid for help.

[Dent]

Since the author doesn't explain why the evil Republics want this, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the intent here is to keep cash out of the hands of dope dealers, or being spent on booze and smokes. The card is good for food, no? I'm wondering though: Does ANYONE gain politically from raping poor people? The suggestion is that evil Republicans need to further victimize poor people to gain votes. From who? Democrats? Nazis? Why would any one want poor people to suffer any further then they all ready do? What good does that do for ANYBODY?

[oladub]

http://www.politicususa.com/en/wisco...er-food-stamps

Governor Scott Walker is creating a road to fascism in a hurry in Wisconsin. Not only does his “budget repair bill” hand over utilities to private industry but now this tea party conservative wants to privatize food stamp allocations. This plan would allow a for profit corporation to decide who gets food and who doesn’t. On top of this 20 million dollars will be taken away from Wisconsin in Federal aid for help.

Maxx, what utilities is Walker going to hand over to private utilities? Wisconsin does not own utilities. It owns some scattered power plants at it's own universities and prisons. The UW LaCrosse power plant, for instance, burns coal and is considered a polluter. it might make more sense to scrap it and have the state purchase the power from Dairyland or NSP if the cost of meeting Obama's coal plant pollution control equipment proves too expensive.

[maxx]

Since the author doesn't explain why the evil Republics want this, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that perhaps the intent here is to keep cash out of the hands of dope dealers, or being spent on booze and smokes. The card is good for food, no? I'm wondering though: Does ANYONE gain politically from raping poor people? The suggestion is that evil Republicans need to further victimize poor people to gain votes. From who? Democrats? Nazis? Why would any one want poor people to suffer any further then they all ready do? What good does that do for ANYBODY?

Walker is looking at the bottom line not the human outcome. Poor people don't vote so he loses nothing politically unless the poor start dying in the streets.

[ghettopalmetto]

In my opinion, welfare IS big government and therefore there is no hypocrisy there. Eliminate the situations where the "need" for welfare is created, welfare programs shrink, less government.

I struggle enough taking care of my children to have my taxes to go pay for others children, yet im frowned upon and chastized for speaking the truth.

Exactly how much of "your" tax dollars are used to pay for other peoples' children? Do you have a number you care to share with us? Or are you talking out of your ass, as I suspect?

And who appointed you king, anyway? You don't get to pass judgment on anyone else--that responsibility falls to God and God alone.

If you cannot pay for your basic necessities, then IMO, you shouldnt be having children at that time. Otherwise you and your offspring are a further drain on society as a whole and I feel like I should not be required to pay for that.

If you cannot have compassion for your fellow man, then IMO, you shouldnt be having children at that time. Otherwise you and your offspring are a further drain on society as a whole and I feel like I should not be required to pay for that.

[ghettopalmetto]

As an example:
I have always supported a government where each candidate had 10 pieces of paper to write up their exact plan if elected. This 10 page document would then be made available online or in public libraries and that would be ALL they could do for their campaign. This would make the playing field level, make the politican accountable to their 10 pages, and eliminate special interests from the campaign. Also, if the politician took any outside money once in office, they face the death penalty for treason against their constituents.

Why 10 pages? Why not 11? Why not 9? Why not 100?

This is just another indication of your completely arbitrary way of thinking. Go to a Tea Party if you want arbitrary criteria and baseless irrationality. We're trying to have a discussion here.

[Detroitej72]

Why would any one want poor people to suffer any further then they all ready do? What good does that do for ANYBODY?

Because the poor usually have no voice, don't go to the polls in large numbers, and by making them the scapegoat for all the nation's problems they appeal to their base.[[the tea-baggers loath social programs)

[oladub]

GP is right. Numbers and facts don't matter. What is important is valuing ourselves based on how compassionate we think we are. The theological points and indignation in post #39 were nice too because belief is so much a part of being a liberal.

GP's vespers made me think and so I came up with an idea. Why not invite millions [[oops, shame, shame, I used a number) Start over: Why not let every poor person from every continent move here? Then we could be even more compassionate without having to wait [[drip, drip) for the President to finish destroying our economy.

[firstandten]

Whitehouse, I think you misread the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Their differences are largely on cosmetic issues that the elites don't care about such as abortion and gay marriage. When, on the other hand, you measure their differences on foreign policy, elective wars, or spending, differences disappear. Obama's proposed budget is only 1.5% larger than the Republicans' proposed budget. Obama recently backed an extension of Bush's tax cuts for the rich which would address about a quarter of the deficit. Senator Obama always voted for Bush's war funding and has expanded actions in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, and perhaps Libya. If Holland wants to bomb Serbia or Libya that is more your business then that of the US as those things are more in your backyard. I would pull all US troops out of Europe as you are rich enough to defend yourselves and protect your own oil supplies. As an American, I don't like being criticized for subsidizing Europe while we go bankrupt doing so. You should look after your own interests now that you can.

In just the last couple of weeks, Obama has supported the giving away of US union jobs to Mexico and S. Korea. Just yesterday, it was announced that the mega banks which had received Wall Street bailout money from Bush and Obama were being allowed to increase their stock dividends to their owners. Happy days are here again for the bankers. I would have expected all of this under neocon Republicans but won't excuse it when Democrats do the same.

While I never doubt the truthfulness of your statements and of your reseach, I do feel at times you fail to add context to your points.

For example while Obama did vote for funding of Bushes wars he along with many other Dems didn't want the Repubs to stick that tag of not being patriotic or not supporting our troops with a no funding vote especially after it was a done deal that the wars were going to be fought.

Secondly as some of the other posters stated Obama was held hostage on the tax cut. He wasn't going to get the unemployment benefits unless he gave in on the tax cuts

As far as the Mexico trucking deal the President was dealing with some punitive tariff issues


This statement from the San Antonio paper is important because this is essentially what the President was fighting

"When the first Mexican carrier is authorized, Mexico will lift all its punitive tariffs on 99 U.S. exports, or $2.4 billion of goods a year, preventing further job losses at U.S. companies, including U.S. truck carriers"

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/art...#ixzz1LPL4x2MI

[oladub]

firstandten, I am, of course, not an Obama apoligist. I just report the phoniness as I see it. There is nothing in the article suggesting that a Mexican truck and driver cannot pick up a return load to Texas if they simply first cross the border and turn the truck around. Even if US truck drivers are allowed into Mexico, would gringos want to risk it? The US is larger, more miles to be driven, anyway.

Bush and now Obama have sold out US union workers once again. We have a $66B trade disadvantage with Mexico. Yet Obama has buckled to Mexico's import restrictions. He should have instead retaliated because Mexico had more to lose with a $66B trade advantage in a trade war.

Obama is even requiring US taxpayers to spend an average of $1,600 to retrofit Mexican trucks to come here and replace Teamsters.

Plan Threatens Jobs, Highway Safety And Border Security

[Papasito]

Crooks and Liars is not extremely biased, it just happens to be that most of the crooks and liars are Republicans. Sorry, just the truth... When there are Democrats who fall in the category of a crook or a liar, they get called out too.

LOL

Being Democrat does not make people Crooks and Liars
Being Republican does not make people Crooks and Liars
Being a politician makes people Crooks and Liars.

[vetalalumni]

...
... I came up with an idea. Why not invite millions [[oops, shame, shame, I used a number) Start over: Why not let every poor person from every continent move here? Then we could be even more compassionate without having to wait [[drip, drip) for the President to finish destroying our economy.

I came up with an idea. Why not invite millions [[oops, shame, shame, I used a number) Start over: Why not invite every american citizen to emigrate? Then we could be even more compassionate without having to wait [[drip, drip) for the President ...