Forum Post: Jon Steward schools a Bain 1%er, this is really good, even if you hate the Ds.
Posted 11 years ago on June 9, 2012, 7:38 a.m. EST by factsrfun
(8310)
from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I actually agree with the point that his guest was making. The truth is that when you raise taxes on investors, there is less risk taking. It really is common sense. You don't need to be an investment banker to understand that. The more you interfere with the economy, the worse it performs.
But it just demonstrates how moronic our economic system is. We shouldn't have to rely on gambling in order to have a functioning economy.
A 6 year old can come up with a better economic system than capitalism. Our system is just plain DUMB.
you know this really rich and smart person disagrees with you about who creates jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/17/nick-hanauer-ted-talk_n_1524435.html
raising taxes actually is a good thing if you want to grow the economy
The more expensive you make investing, by increasing taxes, the less investing there is. Economics 101. As prices go up, demand goes down.
But in the soft sciences, like economics, you can make a seemingly credible case for anything. So I'm sure you can find videos of really smart, rich people making the case for both sides.
What I do know is that raising taxes is not going to employ everyone with high paying jobs. Only socialism can do that.
Isn't socialism, as you present it, just a 100% one time tax?
No, socialism is not a 100% one time tax.
Socialism uses public investment funds instead of relying on private investment funds as explained in this comment. A socialist system will always invest whatever amount is necessary to fully employ everyone.
Sccialism isn't but from what I can tell your suggest is thouigh.
You can read exactly what I promote here.
Most goods and services would be allocated through the market by way of consumer purchases, just like we do now. They would not be allocated through a tax.
Of course, some goods and services which cannot be allocated effectively through the market mechanism (like police or healthcare) would be allocated by way of a tax just like we do now. But it would obviously be a lot less than 100%! It would most likely be less than 30%.
I think the point is - the problem is demand. More supply side policies will not help when the problem is demand.
Of course raising taxes won't employ people. But it would be helpful in reducing wealth inequality which has a corrosive effect on society.
Government stimulus to invest in infrastructure projects, aid to states to re-employ teachers and firefighters - will put money into the broad based economy and will create demand. Then those so called 'job creators' will have a reason to create some jobs. They are really just suppliers. Only potential job creators. If and when there is demand. If they are already meeting demand, they have no reason to create jobs. That's their job. To meet demand. Not create jobs. Simply for the sake of creating jobs. And it's quite ridiculous at this point to believe they will create jobs because taxes are lowered for the wealthy, or kept low, when there is a problem with broad based demand in the economy.
The stimulus package - the CBO estimates 'that at least 1.4 million jobs were created and saved by the direct spending alone, and that as many as 3.6 million jobs were produced while stimulus funds were being spent'. Many of those were in the private sector.
So it's not surprising that job growth has now slowed. If the Pres. American Jobs Act had been passed last fall it's estimated that it would have produced another 1 million jobs. And the unemployment rate would be in the 7% range instead of stuck at 8%.
So, (short of socialism) given the current situation, demand side policies are helpful. More supply side policies will just make the rich richer. Not helpful.
Isn't Stewart a 1%er? Not impressed.
Attacking the messenger without a word on what is being said, a sure troll sign.
Here's a fun fact. His name is Stewart, not "Steward".
that was fun....was it fun for you too?
Stewart needs to shut that boys brain down, change the battery and after it reboots it might possibly process simple information better. Go ask the people suing jpmorgan what they think about this.
The ex was from Johnson City, that's real Obama country out there ain't it?
worse, mostly republican. And Obama has failed.
sorry I was kidding, still got friends back there, they say it's republican as hell, don't know what anybody could of done with the mess, did you see this Frontline?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/money-power-wall-street/
still should of made those bankers pay
You got it the area is still the same. We try to inform realistically when we can. Both parties are the main problems, just the republicans are more outspokenly worse. Yes, I've seen the Frontline video as well as Inside Job by Matt Damon http://vimeo.com/25491676. It's incredible what all these people got away with for many years. Here's another way they screwed up this country Free Trade http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6AmJCpc93g .
dems got their problems, worst when they act like Rs, but I think the time when we could be choosy has past there are people who are just too dangerous to allow in office, (SCOTUS can crush rebellion) so voting to rid the country of Republicans matters more now than ever, and every day we wait the dems get more like them and our choices get worst
Myth that money in Savings Accounts is there. I question Edward Conard in Part 2 when he talks about short term money (short term investment in money that is sitting on the side lines in Savings Accounts).
There is no money in your US Savings Account. The bank takes your money and invests 90 percent of your money. You get a promise from the bank to give you your money when you ask for it.
Also when you put 20% cash down to buy a house, Edward Conard says the bank is at risk for 1) the value of the loan 2) and forgets to say that they bank will get your house in foreclosure. Actually, I believe the bank has your money and they just create money for the Loan out of thin air.
So, it is like the Banks are double or triple creating money and they have no risk at all.
Even the New York Times doesn't like the Bail Outs.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/business/global/bailout-in-spain-leaves-taxpayers-holding-the-bag.html?ref=global-home
follow up, let me be clear, I'm in the 99% I didn't get any benefit from the great economy we cut all those taxes to get or did all that spending, everybody knows the growth has been in the top 1%, now there are those that say that's for the best, well either way, it's still their debt, we took it on for them they should pay it at least when they die if not sooner
The current scam, one they've been running since at least Reagan is run up huge public debt so you "own" the taxpayers, just like the Royals of old "owned" the peasants, they have found a way through low taxes on the wealthy, (as a matter of faith), and high debt to own the output of America forever, I say apply a 99% inheritance tax over 5 million and let them pay their damn debt, that'll teach them not to do this crap.
No taxes without representation seems to echo your point.
We have representatives, but they don't represent us.
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00027441&type=I
when you confuse money with freedom, you can start to think the most important thing in life is letting people do what they want with their money, we have to restore one person one voice one vote, everybody should have an equal say no matter their bank account
Friday's Jon Stewart show talks about the Jamie Dimon powder puff session by Bob Corker, Demint, and Crapa. But he didn't address the Open Secrets Data. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/thu-june-14-2012-catherine-zeta-jones
watched that yesterday thanks for posting, it was good, here's another link too:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/
Thanks. Good central Question, is Romney just providing an updated version of Bush Tax Cuts, Less Regulation, pro business policies, and pro energy industry policies (or even subsidies)....
My guess is that any Rebulican is obligated to follow the old economic policies. Republicans are like Euro bankers, they deny there is any problem and the solution is less sovereignity and more bank loans at significant interest which will increase every European Countries Debt.
So a Vote for Mitt is a vote for higher household debt, Lower Wages, Poor Education, Terrible US Text Books, Insolvent pension funds, and rampant banking shennanigans.
Really Republicans have just adopted the platform of Southern Republicans/Conservatives who were against Civil Rights, Individual Rights, and prejudiced against Cahtolics, Jews, Blacks, and ...probably Mormans.
These same Republicans and Wealthy moved businesses to the Caribean, Central, and South America so that they could Exploit the Labor Markets with low wages and zero individual and worker rights.
What is the Obama Economic Plan?? Well I notice he didn't mention the Neoliberal Economic Policy in his speach on the Ezra Klein spot. Obama is a centrist, so I don't see him rocking the boat. Since the 1990s there has been a buzz that having a good 'financial guy' was important because they make things happen.
The democrats need 'financial' backing and probably won't come up with a credable plan for the US Future, whether it is a mercantile policy, trade policy, industrial policy, or economic policy.
But the US will probably limp along into the future...
breaking free of the dependence on the 1% is tough for Obama as with us all really, it's just the Rs work night and day on their behalf, heres a new post with a couple of links, not really politcal but I think this guy is on to how we can break free of coporate dependence
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-smartest-guy-in-the-world-today-this-is-how-we/
Wow, very inspiring. These guys are the real thing.
I may pack up and go see if I can help him out in any way, I'm starting to repeat myself here, what he's doing, that's important, always hard to know where best to be of service.
Yes, don't see how you can lose. I looked at some of documents for the Tractor Lift. I don't have the full story on performance, safety, how easy to replace hoses and valves on the hydraulic, thinking the power box runs the lift, but think they need additional for power train movement, and looks like everyone looks locally to find the materials for the assembly of the 8 kits. Then the final cost of material was $6K, so not sure if it cost $12K or $6K total. But all of those projects with collaboration and community.... wow.
got a friend who just retired, thinking about getting a truck, I suggested we look into buliding one,
Yep could be fun after the first week or two of finding suppliers.
John Stewart is awesome. If you watch his show, you notice he calls out Obama on a lot of crap. He's not a blind D. He's very intelligent.
the site asks for a flash upgrade
and is not working for me
other flash sites work
but he always votes for D, you're right he's not stupid
Yes but not blindly and not without criticism. You and I both know he would choose a different democrat right now if there was an option on the ballot instead of being forced with a failing incumbent without primary debates or real primaries... It's a decision he feels forced with... and he will vote Obama only because Obama will suck a little less bad than Romney would.
Who uses Black Water? Bush or Obama?
The correct answer is both. International Development Solutions formerly known as Black water. And you know Romney would too.... he "loves" the private sector.
Sorry, supporting either one of these guys violates my oath I took against supporting crimes against humanity.
What crimes against humanity? you mean like Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, Bush II?
are you suggesting since Obama has been in office not a single innocent person has died in consequence to drone strikes or the war in Afghanistan and that no civilians have been affected by sanctions?
Bush and Obama are war criminals. As in they have committed illegal aggressive acts of war.
Since the 90's Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have supported wars and sanctions that have killed over 1 million civilians. The sanctions and bombs in the 90's killed as many as the wars under Bush 2. All this crap is counter productive to our goals.
If an adult male is killed in a drone attack, the obama administration has deemed they "up to no good" if they are included in the deaths, and it is considered acceptable. Look it up if you don't believe me.
You are mistaken. Clinton didn't commit any war crimes. In fact only Bush/Cheney from your list are possibly war criminals. I think President Obama has accidentally killed a couple of dozen civilians. But I don't think that has been conclusively determined. They keep those things pretty quiet y'know. So don't worry about it. The President hasn't committed war crimes. You can support him.
You definitely need to read up on the Iraqi sanctions from 1990 to 2003. I wasn't fully aware of the consequences either. Really a black mark on our human rights score.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iraq
First I am glad that we agree that Bush and Cheney have committed some serious war crimes.
But let's not forget that Clinton supported sanctions imposed on Iraq and in 1998 even said there is clear evidence of Iraq's WMD program and no options will be taken off the table to stop them. Madeline Albright says the price of 500,000 children dead is worth it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
ACLU files law suit against the Obama administration for war crimes... not the first time either. - http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-obama
"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. - http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html
"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos
All males over the age of 18 must be bad if they're killed by US bombs. - http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/414704/may-31-2012/the-word---two-birds-with-one-drone?xrs=playershare_fb
Obama has bombed more countries than Bush. Obama has supported and participated in Wars of Aggression.
Romney will just be a blend of Obama and Bush put together.
It seems to be a trend in the presidency.
Colbert nation"? Please he's a comedien. The aclu has brought a case?. great lets see what happens. I'll let the courts decide. Not releasing Bush torture photos makes Pres Obama a war criminal? I think your anti dem pro repub leanings are comin out on that one. Clinton said there were wmd's? yeah I remember that was what Bush/Cheney pointed to repeatedly. you know your classic repub talkin points pretty well. Clinton did not perpetrate an illegal war in Iraq like your war criminal. President Obama has killedmaybe a few dozen civilians accidentally in countries he has permission. If your repubs were in office we would have another 10 year war and killed millions of civilians. Like Bush/Cheney in Iraq/Afghan (millions), Like Reagan in central America (millions), like Ford in east Timor (millions), like Nixon in cambodia, vietnam, south america (millions). This great President has been a measured, honest, transparent and limited in his use of military force. I like his level of death and destruction compared to your republicans. It represents a major improvement. If only the repubs would do the same.
Militant is a term used to define all killed that are over 18 and male. That's a fact.
Pro repub? Get that crap out of here. I said Bush was a warmonger and Romney will be the same. They all fall into the pro-war category. Tell me where I've been biased?
All I did was provide info because of your doubt on who is a warmonger.
This was my original comment where this all stemmed from: - "Since the 90's Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have supported wars and sanctions that have killed over 1 million civilians. The sanctions and bombs in the 90's killed as many as the wars under Bush 2. All this crap is counter productive to our goals." This is a fact. This is not a pro-republican statement. Romney is just a pro-war corporate whore. It is also a fact that Obama has bombed more countries than Bush. THEY'RE ALL WARMONGERS. Go read HR 4310 section 1221 and 1222. Sanctions are warmongering. Bombs are warmongering. Anytime you kill large numbers of civilians you're mission is counterproductive. When you bomb countries that didn't attack us, your mission is counterproductive.
To suggest that UN sanctions/bombs killed as many as Bush 2 is republican propaganda. It minimizes the crimes of Bushes illegal wars! To lump Pres Obamas targeted drone attacks which have killed MAYBE dozens of civilians with the millions killed by Bush 2 is dishonest and another attempt at republican propaganda to minimize Bush's crimes and exaggerates Pres Obamas efforts to successfully minimize death and destruction. That is why I call you a republican. Because you are obfuscating the facts to make dems look bad and in so doing minimize your repub war criminals. I may disagree with our current military actions but recognize it represents a vast improvement over your repub war crimes over the last 4 decades.
Hey Obama 2012 Campaign guy.
Keep calling me a republican. I don't really care.
Go look into the numbers of deaths from sanctions and bombs from the 90's and look into the numbers of deaths from the war in Iraq.
Bush was a terrible president. No argument there
To suggest Bush is the same as Clinton or Obama minimizes the Bush war crimes and makes you the republican plant in my eye.
Maybe Obama's administration should release the torture photos which would help incriminate Bush in war crimes.
Bushing being a terrible president doesn't give Obama a free pass to do less bad.
"I'm not disgusted at President Obama personally. It's President Obama's policies on civil liberties and national security issues I'm disgusted by." - ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/ACLU_chief_disgusted_with_Obama.html
"The Obama administration’s adoption of the stonewalling tactics and opaque policies of the Bush administration flies in the face of the president’s stated desire to restore the rule of law. ... when these photos do see the light of day, the outrage will focus not only on the commission of torture by the Bush administration but on the Obama administration's complicity in covering them up." - ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/2009/05/13/obama-administration-reverses-promise-to-release-torture-photos
I have a dream not I have a drone. This pro-war legacy needs to end.
So why no criticism of repubs who defeated the ndaa repeal a few weeks ago? Why no criticism of lack of repub hearings in House against Drone attacks? Why no attacks on repubs regarding their work to help the 1% (Buffett rule, Norquist pledge, citizens united) reports yesterday that repubs received 38 million fr wall st, dems 4 million. Why no criticism of repubs. Are you here to attack dems to help your repub pay masters. Your attacks on Pres Obama are always extreme, exaggerations. I think you are the campaign guy!
Photos? Please. We face the 1% destroying our economy and preying on the 99%. I gotta care about these photos? Silly, your grasping. I would like to see the Pres persue war crimes against Bush, but I'm more concerned about helping the 99% recover from the attack by right wing wacko 1%'rs. You never mention that. I wonder why? ACLU recently gave Pres Obama good marks on 7 of 10 issues and only a poor grade on the surveilance/ndaa stuff. We just won that in court he isn't challenging the decision so thats good. The dems in the house just last month were defeated by the repubs when they tried to repeal ndaa. You never mention that. Why not I wonder. You don't attack repubs. Isn't that special. Y'know the repubs head a committee in the house that could have hearings on the secret drone attacks. They don't. You never attack the repubs for that. I wonder why. Could it be you just are anti dem and pro repub. Your a joke! you ain't kiddin anyone. Hack! Plant! I don't support ndaa, or secret drone attacks or patriot act. But I recognize the slow progress this great Pres is making in the face of constant republican resistance. It will take years. Stop whining get in the street recognize who is taking the small steps necessary to undo the Republican endless war on terror. As the ACLU say Pres Obama has ended torture, removed the legal standing Bush created, closed secret CIIA prisons, called water boarding torture. It will take years. He IS making progress, Not fast enough for me. But he is light years ahead of your boy Bush. Anything else?
No he's not. If you can look at that trade deal he is making behind our backs and say he's any better than bush at this point you are deranged
Okay Obama 2012 campaign guy.
and to think Nader made it all possible, just shows what you can do with a few lies....
yea because people that are trying to reform campaign financing and get public option college and universal healthcare are assholes. - sarcasm
Get your facts straight and stop blaming the good guys fighting for a better America.
Seriously, go back to blaming republicans. At least that made sense.
The fact is that if Nader had been true to all he had work for his entire life he would of been helping Gore instead of hurting and that is how Bush became President, and you spend every day trying to make it all happen again truth be told.
Gore supports public funding too you know, but that's not the point, the point is you can get to work makiong things better or sit around adding to the problem, you spend your time adding to the poroblem, you have no plan for keeping Romney from the White House if Obama doesn't win and you won't help him win, you are pretty much just barking at the wind.
I wish that wasn't so but it is.
First of all, being anti-war is not a republican agenda. So get out of here with that damn noise. Is Dennis Kucinich a republican? No He's a democrat. And all of what I've said here is backed by research I've done based on Dennis Kucinich and facts about the wars and sanctions.
Who uses Black Water? Bush or Obama. It's both. International Development Solutions, formerly Black Water AKA private murder for hire, has gotten huge contracts in Iraq under Bush and now they're getting huge contracts in Afghanistan under Obama.
Keep defending violent pro-war policy, that's the republican agenda.
I have a dream not I have a drone!
If you suggest our current actions are the same as anything since the 1930's you are misleading people. We have stepped down the death and destruction. We have killed dozens not millions to suggest that is the same is simply an effort to minimize the crimes of the war mongering republicans. If Bush were in office he would have sent 1/2 million troops in and we would have millions (not dozens) dead in Libya,Yemen, and Syria. I am against the secret targeted drone attacks but I won't agree to the lies that it is the same as slaughtering millions.
Seriously are you paid to come on here and talk this shit?
Nope. I'm indepent, left leaning progressive. You seem to be republican. You don't agree with my assessment? Why not? No need for vulgarity. Speak intelligently in a civil manner. Perhaps we just disagree. I am against the secret targeted drone attacks. Are you? I recognize the difference between drone attacks and slaughtering millions. You refuse to admit that key difference. That makes you a republican secret drone in my eye. Got it?
So you have no problem with the secret trade deal that Bush started.? Then why the F%$K did you bring it up! huh? speak up! You silly little child. If theres an issue, verbalize it. If not don't waste my valuable time. There are numerous other republican plants who spew lies and propaganda continually. You like the secret trade deal? You don't? ok Why? WHY? I gotta speak for you? Make a point. or don't. but don't play games. its boring
Oh yes the secret trade deal that no one has signed yet. OOOH. What problem do you have with it?. lets hear it.
You are a tool of the 1%. If you can look at that article and that trade deal and really ask me what the problem is then the problem is you.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Hey Obama 2012 campaign guy!
Bush being worse doesn't give Obama a free pass to do less bad.
I have a dream not I have a drone!
How much has International Development Solutions made under Obama so far? It might be easier to find info if you type in Black Water for your search. They changed their name again to hide all their crimes.
Then you agree?
Agree with you? Mostly no.
I just said I agreed with you on Bush being a warmonger and a terrible president. We disagree on the fact that Obama is a warmonger and a terrible president.
Later Obama 2012 campaign guy. What's next? Are you gonna tell me that the bailouts for the banks were awesome? Your support for Obama is as funny as republicans support for Romney.
I agree that you work for the obama2012 election campaign
Yeah I know. We still have contracts but we are minimizing them. Undoing the Bush endless war on terror mentality/atmosphere will take years. This great Pres has begun the process. It ain't a switch you hit. It would be quicker if your repubs weren't obstructing the process. It would be quicker if the American people had been protesting for the last 3 years instead of sitting around wondering why hasn'r Obama done everything I want".
Nice talk Obama 2012 campaign guy.
The bank bail outs were written and signed by Bush. Bushs 1% bank friends threatened to cripple econ by freezing lending unless we gave them a trillion dollars. (in NYC we call that a mugging) The Dems in the House rejected Bush's bail out and the wall st 1%'rs crashed the stock market. The Dems cut the tarp, created minimal control in legislation and added money to help American car manufacturing industry/workers. The Dems (Obama, Pelosi) in fact forced the banks to pay the bush bail out back! You disagree? Why no criticism of The repubs for this planned theft for their 1% bank cronies? Conveniently right before the 2008 election, so that Bush can give one last gift to his 1% bankster friends. You don't criticize the obvious criminal (Bush/repubs) but instead twist, deflect, and obfuscate by trying to blame dems for your repubs crime. That is your style! And that is what shows your pro repub colors!
I don't know how you know what Steward would do, now I know that I voted for Hilary when it mattered and it will matter again down the road hope not so many people are fooled again, but with any luck we'll be able to talk about it here and work things out, as a matter of fact I think we need to get down from the high horse and start talking about primaries and who might run for Ds.
I already know who I'm voting for in the house of reps. Voting against the failure that is republican Lee Terry and in favor of the D John Ewing. I cannot support the D or R running for senate in my state because they both support war and deregulating wall street and have a track record of failure. I'm hoping to have a third option in november. I'm voting third party for president too.
Martin Luther King said "I have a dream!"
Barack Obama said "I have 2 words... Predator Drones."
How did Obama ever win the Nobel Peace Prize?
Mitt Romney said a bunch of things and then flopped on all of them. How did Romney ever win the repub nomination?
Obama won the Peace Prize and Romney won the Nomination for the same reason- they do as they are told, and those are the rewards.
Plus it helps steer national moods/psychology.
a lot of people voted for Nader in 2000, gave us eight years of Bush and two wars, I wonder what Romney will give us?
Decades of voting for just two parties gave us eight years of Bush. If the majority had the courage to vote against the two parties, the reps and dems would be weakened to the point that they could not always be guaranteed power.
reply to below:
If you’re walking across the desert and you come upon a man with a fruit stand and he say I’ll give you one of these barrels of apples, each has a 100 apples, one has 95 rotten apples and 5 good ones the other has 35 rotten apples and 65 good ones, you’re telling me the right thing to do is turn around and keep walking cause throwing out the 35 bad ones before they spoil the rest is a job you just don’t feel up to? Well I guess we know how hard you want to work on this.
Yes, keep walking. A closer examination of the barrel with 65 good apples will reveal they are all rotten to the core. Two different varieties are grafted onto the same tree of corruption.
Find the tree that produces good fruit and pick those instead.
so math not you're thing ok how about this, you have NO ideal how to do shit and you're only purpose here is keep those who do want to get shit done from doing so, now that's what's happening here right?
What I want is to wake the American people up to the corruption that exists in both parties and take action against them by voting for neither. The label Republican or Democrat does not guarantee quality. The fundamental flaw in both is that they choose to receive political donations from wealthy individuals out of proportion to what the common man can donate.
If a candidate emerged from within Occupy and I agreed with all of his views, but he accepted a large donation from a single donor, he would lose my vote. The very basis of Democracy is an equal voice among all of it's members. When a candidate allows just one person to speak louder, by virtue of his excessively large donation, in effect drowning out all other voices, he has trampled on the core principle that separates us from all other forms of government.
Both parties encourage this practice that steps on the neck of Democracy and prevents it from speaking. It does not matter if I agree with some of their other views. Once they break the most sacred tenet in Democracy, nothing else they say matters.
I think really the problem is, that they consume oxygen
Doesn't change the fact that if Nader had campaigned for Gore in Florida, Bush would of never made it to the White House, and we would at least be thinking about doing something about climate change. But Nader thought he was more important than the planet, so it's screwed now.
Yeah what an asshole trying to utilize democracy and get public college and public option healthcare for everyone. - sarcasm
Go back to blaming republicans. Let's not forget that Gore won the popular vote and the American people were defrauded when Bush took office. -has nothing to do with Nader.
If Florida counted first you'd be using a different state to argue your ignorant point.
You really just can't deal with the truth can you? Nader pie-pipered 100,000 down the same road you're trying to take people and it gave us Bush that's a fact, deal with it, if you cared at all about this country you would accept the facts and deal with them rather than keep insisting that your fantasy world is the only one worth pursuing meanwhile back in the real world you give that to GOP and endless war.
It is only your ego that prevents you from doing good.
Only those that seek truth and accept it can help to heal the world.
And he says "if Fl voted 1st" as if the delayed count was not part of the right wing plan to steal the election in their nominees (GWBush) brothers (Fl gov JBush) state.
"if Fl voted 1st" Please! If my grandmother had wheels she would be a wagon.
Do you have any idea how ignorant the "blame Nader" theory is?
BLAME THE REPUBLICANS not the guy trying to reform campaign finance and 100% supports OWS
Doing good in your eyes is blindly supporting Barack Obama. Keep enjoying that ignorance.
Later Factsrfun... I'm sick of you always resorting to balming Nader for all the world's problems. I'm not going to be responding to you anymore. This is the 10th time we've had this debate on Nader being the blight of the world in your eyes.
You are here trying the same shit, pull off some the democratic votes so the republican can win, you think you hide it well but you don’t, that's why I remind people of what Nader did, I am not blaming anyone or everyone depends on how you look at it, I could of made more calls knocked more doors but at least I tried to beat Bush not help him the way you are helping Romney. I am just reminding folks of what happened you don't like to talk about it because you are trying to make it happen again.
I also remind people about how in 2001 the GOP were running all over the place saying Washington was taking in too much money and we had to cut taxes.
I think if we are ever going to make things better it is important we remember what has happened before.
That's the funny thing they used a partial truth - the taxation of the middle class/ working class/ lower and poor class.
They got everyone all hyped up about it.
Then pulled the old switcheroo - and cut taxes for the wealthy making things that much worse for the rest of us.
Greedy assholes.
It's like Lucy and the football, they do it every time, always seems to work on a certain group.
Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.
But it looks like the villains are overstepping their bounds with many that never woke up in past times.
BLAME THE REPUBS
Not the guy that tried to get Americans free healthcare and public option college.
You'd hate on Martin Luther King if he was third party and trailing in polls in comparison to Obama and posed "a risk of stealing votes"
Blame the repubs not the guys working for the 99%
This time seriously... later.
what part of Bush became President and that was a bad thing don't you understand
Yeah because of republicans and a defrauded system.
Why are you so into blame? It really is not about blame, it is just about understanding how the world works. If Gore gets less votes then Bush gets the White House, Nader always knew that.
But let's say Nader had a higher cause he wanted to build the Green Party, they got millions of votes in 2000 how'd they do in 2004, must of been huge right with two warmongers on the ballot, ho wait a minute I just remembered seems they did much worst. Seems a lot of people realized what they had done by helping elect Bush and woke up.
The only way to get a new party is to get rid of one first, I say it's time for the GOP to go what do you say?
You're the one blaming Nader. My point was if you're going to blame people for Bush, blame the republicans. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
Also Gore won the popular vote. I really can't stress that enough. But if you want to ignore all the facts around the Bush administration and just blame Nader for everything... well then that's your choice to be ignorant.
So do you think Nader helped to grow the Green party by helping to elect Bush? I think the opposite happened,
In 2004 running against a sitting president that had taken us into war and another who ran on his war record Nader got a fraction of the votes he did in 2000. All a third party does is elect the person you really don’t want it has never done anything else, what has happened is parties have become so out of touch that they fail and new ones are born. We can do that if we start getting rid of the GOP. The Green Party which had been growing was killed when people realized OMG what have I done, the only way to break this thing open is to bring down one party and take over the other as the TEA party is doing. The TEA party may have far fewer supporters but it has far more influence over public policy, if asking nice would work we'd have good government now.
Listen to what you are saying. Voting for any other than the two parties is doomed to failure. It's that kind of thinking that guarantees it to be a self fulfilling prophecy.
the party duopoly prevents 3rd party success. major changes to elections/campaigns must occur before 3rd parties can win. Otherwise voting 3rd party plays into the hand of the 1 of the 2 parties
The change needs to happen in our minds. The idea of party is so firmly ingrained that we cannot imagine anything else. If you grew up in a gang infested neighborhood, corruption would be normal, justice would be the exception.
I did grow up in a gang infested 'hood?. I grew out of it. Wasn't about "my mind" it was conscious effort and real change. Real change in the election/campaign laws have to occur before a 3rd party can succeed.
A third party is just another gang. Why have gangs (political parties) at all?
Ok! no parties. but that is a side issue. there are real issues that hurt the 99%. unfair tax rates, usury cr card interest, outsourceing, public option healthcare, alter energy. repeal citizens united, mandatory voting. etc, etc.
[Removed]
It was your kind of thinking that guaranteed a victory for George W Bush and the lost of the climate change battle, that ship has sailed now and the planet is doomed because people voted for Nader instead of supporting Gore and you want them now to give what is left to the footmen of the 1% the Republican Party on a silver platter, so sad.
Gore won the popular vote. I cannot stress this enough.
The problem is money in politics, not people that support a 3rd option.
Get that "vote Obama or everything is your fault" bullshit attitude out of here.
Fuck Obama and Romney. They are both corporate whores working for the bankster frauds and war.
I don't care which is worse, they're both fucking terrible. Stop playing their divided and conquer game.
In the 2008 primaries why didn't democrats vote for the guy that tried to impeach Bush? BECAUSE OF MONEY IN POLITICS. Money in politics and the corporate media got them to support the guy who supports the patriot act and wanted to increase the war in Afghanistan.
STOP BEING SO OBTUSE
Same tired political brainwashing. R vs L. Obama should be reversing the course of Bushes policies, instead he continues on with them.
Both dems and reps are completely and equally corrupt. Vote for corruption and you will see corruption grow. They both deserve the dustbin.
like I say above I'm not a cop it's public policy I want to affect,
you don't want to talk about that because it would reveal too much I think,
what I said above is just the simple truth you insult it and ignore it because you have no answer for it, that is a technique that came right out of the right wing GOP think tanks, not saying you work for them but you sound a lot like them and like to use their stuff
You want to effect public policy? Does Obama listen to you or to the wealthy ruling class? There is a complete disconnect between the peoples will and our government's will.
Together the reps and dems decide behind closed doors what action they will take. The result is plain for all to see. The wealthy unfairly increase their riches while ours stagnate or decline.
They have convinced us for decades that the battle is between two parties, so we battle between ourselves instead of the real enemy, those few who suck our economic lifeblood. We will never win if we battle the wrong enemy.
"the wrong emeny" you got that right, in 2000 we came very close to destroying the plan the GOP and the right had work so hard for twenty years to set up the plan where the 1% would not only own all privately held wealth but also the government itself, but how to do it? Debt of course by running up huge public debt, the bankers would own the government. Now we see their plan unfolding across the land, what could we have done? What could have threatened such a brilliant plan? After all it's easy to get people to want things, (just make sure you waste plenty on war not too much infrastructure because that would spoil the whole plan) and tax cuts? Who don’t like those? But in 2000 we had a balanced budget, we were even starting to pay down a bit this would spoil everything. What’s worst Gore was up and he had a stick up his butt nobody could pull out. This was going to be a disaster. Then Nader to the rescue and Bush cut taxes and saved the day and got everything back on track. Now you say we should help them again?
The only people who deserve our votes are the candidates who are supported financially by the average person, not the wealthy. Once they accept large donations, they show who they owe their allegiance to and must be abandoned.
Thinking because a candidate is a democrat, it magically guarantees he will vote for the peoples best interest has been disproven time after time.
Voting for a candidate who is independent of all parties, but completely dependent on the support of the people is the only way to break out of this deep political rut we have been caught in for decades.
It seems you want occupy to become reactionary and become the 'other ' Tea Party. Instead of doing this the dems could simply use the word NO once in a while. They haven't done it in 30 years and it's getting old.
If you haven't read my stuff let me bring you up to speed, I want people to be as embarrassed to admit that they are Republican as people are to admit they are in the Klan. I know we can never completely remove stupid from America but we can make people embarrassed to be stupid. Until that happens I want to defeat Republicans whenever and wherever we can by any means, so that some of the damage they have done protecting the interest of the 1% can be undone. Once the Republican party is destroyed and is no longer a threat, ie less them 30 in Senate and 100 in the house then split the Ds into so we can get the party we need, it will take a while to do this. But if OWS is just about some rich people stealing from some not quiet so rich people, well good luck.
And if there were unicorns, well there'd be unicorns, but till there is, I'm fighting to keep Republicans out of office so America can have a fighting chance.
Instead of fighting republicans, fight corruption. It is equally divided between both parties and it all needs to be thrown out. The label Democrat guarantees nothing.
As long as people like you on both sides vote for labels instead of justice, there will be no justice.
I'm not a cop, I don't like corruption because it leads to bad public policy, now public policy is what I'm really interested in, only by affecting public policy will we be able to address the wealth inequality in America, and if you can't see a difference in the public policy of the two parties then you really don't pay attention, or you're just here to help the GOP there really isn't another answer, here's a link to a couple of smart guys talking about this and a piece in the Guardian talking about how bad it is, if you're not ready to defeat Republicans then you still got your head in the sand:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-05-07/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-its-even-worse-it-looks
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/09/did-republicans-deliberately-crash-us-economy
Political racism. A mindset that sees all actions of another's political party as unfair, while seeing all actions within their own party as fair.
Cure. Change the mindset to see all actions only in relation to what is honest and fair regardless of what label is attached to that group.
Wealth inequality reform by wealthy legislators who receive the bulk of their support from wealthy persons will never happen no matter what party they belong!
"head in the sand syndrome" a syndrome where the affected cannot decern differences even when lives are at stake...
cure take your head out the sand...
A person can't see clearly when looking through a political lens. It's bias colors and distorts all truth that passes through. Take off the lens and see clearly!
Please keep your racist slurs to yourself. The parties exist. The dems failure is voting for repub right wing policy. However the dems natural and historic affiliation is left wing progressive. Like OWS. left wing progressive agenda is what the 99% need. Anarchism resides in the left of the political spectrum. That 19 voted against repealglosses over the fact that the vast majority voted to repeal. The dems CAN be made to serve the 99%. They can be dragged back to the left. With the constant growing protest movement of OWS we can give the dems their backbone back and pass real left wing progressive agenda including repealing indef detention. Dems voted to repeal ndaa2013, repubs defeated them, It matters.
The wealthy are chuckling right now. Instead of fighting against the unjustice of the 1%, we fight among ourselves. As long as we are unable to drop the partisan politics long enough to see who our common enemy is, OWS and all of the other people of differing political persuasions will battle in vain.
I could agree with that. Of course I encourage everyone to pressure candidates to go on the record with positions on the issues the help the 99%. Vote for those that support the 99% and keep the pressure on them with constant growing protests. Can't go to sleep. Pols will abandon us if they think we are sleeping.
That's Occupy's message. Wake up America, Democracy has been stolen while we slept!
wake up amerika and make democracy work
So it doesn't matter to you that the dems voted to repeal ndaa indef det? And that repubs defeated it?
Parties mean nothing to me. Vote for truth and justice and that is what we will receive, vote for parties and we will receive lies and injustice.
A white man will tend to favor whites, a black man will tend to favor blacks. The man who favors truth over race is superior to both.
Vote for the superior candidate. He will choose truth and nothing else.
[Removed]
A month ago the House dems tried to repeal the ndaa2013 indef det amendment! The House repubs defeated it. The final vote on the military bill where ndaa is buried will get many dems to sign. but what about this vote the dems pushed to attempt to repeal it. Does that mean anything to you.?
What that shows is members of parties tend to vote with the party instead of for the people they represent. Once you join the gang, you give up what you think is right for what the gang thinks is right.
Would you trust your own brother to make the right decision if he joined a gang? Would his allegiance to you be as strong or would it be divided? The same with a Rep or Dem. Is their allegiance to the party stronger than their constituents?
[Removed]
do you really mean to say that Republicans aren't as bad as I think they are? Go ahead make your case, can't wait to hear it.
Concentrate on the injustice that a person does, regardless of party. When a bill like the NDAA is passed by members of both parties. Was the Republican's vote any worse than the Democrat's vote?
to answer your question about are the D vote any worst that the R votes the answer is yes
http://votesmart.org/bill/votes/37467
this link shows that around 95% of the Rs voted for NDAA about 65% of the Ds voted against it, if it were up to the Ds NDAA would not have passed at all , so getting rid of Republicans only matters if you want to stop things like NDAA
Your'e basing an argument on just one flaw. "All of the apples in a group (Reps) are bad because the majority of them share a single flaw." So you wish to get rid of the whole group of apples.
What about the other group (Dems) which are just partially flawed? Do you wish to get rid of just the bad apples in that group?
My view is that the overwhelming majority of apples in both groups (Reps and Dems) are not just flawed, but completely rotten throughout. They should all be thrown out and be replaced with apples that do not come from those same two trees (Reps and Dems) that continually produce rotten fruit.
19 repubs voted to repeal? You gloss over the other 200 votes in favor. Are you making excuses for the right wing policy of indefinate detention because 10% of repubs voted to repeal.? Wow.
Not at all. Did you forget to to berate the 19 Dems who voted against the repeal?
I based my view on the persons vote, not on which party he belongs to. A person who can't write a sentence without including party affiliation in it is like a racist. Neither can see deeper than the label (nigger, repelicant, wetback, queer) that they affix to the person. The choice is up to you to remove that label.
[Removed]
Ok well the dems tried to repeal it. The repubs defeated it. Does that matter? The dems agree with you.
[Removed]
It doesn't matter what you label you place on people who vote for justice. 19 Reps voted to repeal it. Are all reps bad? Or did the people vote for the party label instead of vote for the character of the person?
What about indefinate detention? Do you support it? Or not?
Completely against it, even for foreigners. It shows a total disregard for human values.
The enemy is the !% criminals who have stolen our govt and rigged the system to favor them and hurt the 99%. They have done this by getting right wing policies passed by repubs who proudly trumpet support for these policies and dems who have moved right for 30 years and cave in to right wing 1% pressure. The dems have betrayed their left wing principles for 1% money because the people of the left have been asleep. have become apathetic and surrendered to the system. Thats how I see the enemy, 1% right wing policies, and apathetic left wing people. We disagree?
We are fairly close. When our government has come under the influence of the few, instead of the many, Democracy becomes powerless. As we continue to vote for candiates picked by the few, their power grows and locks Democracy in chains
The only solution is to vote for candidates that the few do not pick.
The March of Tyranny:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_oNfVQ-7M-VQ/THFTY65XDgI/AAAAAAAAAP4/ohnlB1ZUoXo/s1600/march_of_tyranny.jpg
ryan budget
more supreme court justicies like scalia
fracking
oil spills
privatization
deregulation
soylent green
ending roe v wade
ok, what about his second term?
Sure Obama has flaws - some big ones.
But all I have to see is SCOTUS with more Scalias
Honestly - I cannot think of a more important issue
just four words: [ bush Gore ] & [ citizens united ]
If I had to add, I would add koch & grover & alec & ryan
I meant Romney’s second term, if he gets in there do you really think he will let a little thing like an election stand in the way of two terms? They are getting really good at deciding who they want to let vote.
http://www.freep.com/article/20120703/COL33/120703059/Stephen-Henderson-Crusade-against-voter-fraud-a-solution-in-need-of-a-problem
http://triblive.com/news/2147298-74/law-voters-state-voter-county-penndot-vote-disenfranchised-election-percent
http://thetimes-tribune.com/opinion/house-leader-exposes-true-election-fraud-repeal-stae-voter-i-d-law-1.1335295
the list goes on, I feel a 4th of July post is in here somewhere…
Obama has flaws? Where did you hear that? Fox?
Bwah hahahahahah BWAH HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Forget that idiotic BLAME NADER rhetoric. Yeah blame the guy that thought we need public option college, no wars, and campaign finance reform, and public option healthcare, and also fully supports OWS. You are a fool to blame that guy over the corrupt system, the media, and money in politics.
GORE WON THE POPULAR VOTE. I supported Gore in 2000 too.
I blame the people voting for the corporate whores fulfilling the MIC's agenda.
2 words... Predator Drones.
Vote for who you want. Just don't blame me that Obama couldn't earn my support. That's what candidates are supposed to do... EARN support.
Ha Ha. See how Nadar 2000 voters feel now? We don't have crystal balls and we didn't know Bush was a loon but we're supposed to feel quilty about the whole thing. Plenty of us went for Obama but we knew he would be a no-show for the lower class. Welcome to the scapegoats club.
Scapegoats are improperly accessed blame ALL who didn't do ALL they could to elect Gore is to blame for ALL that Bush did crystal ball or not, when you start pushing lies you become the problem.
I blame the guy who lied and became just another power mad monster when he ran for office, but not just him I blame everybody that didn't do all they could to elect Gore, and you are more a part of the problem than solution your suggestions make the GOP and the war machine more powerful.
Hahaha how many times do I have to tell you I supported Gore.
People voting for corporate whores in the primaries are the problem. Seriously why wouldn't you vote for the only guy that tried to impeach Bush? Why do republicans constantly choose a terrible nominee for themselves?
I have a dream not I have a drone!
First deregulating wall street by signing for the republican JOBS act and now trade docs leaked -
foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html
What a choice we are given this year: Stick with Feyd Rautha Obama, or bring in the Earl of Bain.
ok. so is your name Nader?
because you got it right in 2000 is no reason to help the GOP today, support someone who can beat the Republican, get the best you can every step of the way, the sooner you get involed the better the choices you will have, all this seems pretty simple to me
I can't support such violent foreign policy. It violates the oath I took against supporting crimes against humanity. .
I have a dream not I have a drone!
“We went to war against a nation that didn’t attack us based on choice. A million innocent Iraqis died as a result. That is a significant number, and there are consequences for that. If America is to shed the shackles of war, we need to go through a period of truth and reconciliation.
“We have to recognize that we are still choosing war. We chose war in Iraq. We chose to go to war in Afghanistan. I think it was right to strike the training camps, but we chose to stay at war for more than a decade. And we are choosing to possibly go to war with Iran.
“If you go deep - and I spent the better part of the last 10 years, every single day challenging these wars - what I have learned is that people in Washington just don’t understand that there is another way to end conflict without killing people.
“When we look at Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, which was a war of choice, and after you wreak havoc on these countries and then you sing Kumbaya and work at conflict resolution, there is magical thinking there. If we create these wars, we are not accepting the consequence of what we have done. To leave it to peace keepers and conflict resolution experts, we are way disconnected from our own actions. We have a country that has not been able to shed our imperial instincts. The idea that we can dominate the world through a global war on terror is insanity.
“All our peace-building efforts will fall apart as long as we believe we can control the world through the use of force. We must acknowledge that every time we drop a bomb, it expands the war and ripples into the future ultimately coming back to us.” -Dennis Kucinich (democrat)
Democrats like Dennis always have my support.
not everyone is cut out to be an activist, some of us are prepared to do what’s needed some aren’t, some think they’re more important than getting this job done I can only hope that there are enough who actually want to change things, you can still be a good person TM even if you’re not cut out for the tough fight ahead
All this just to try and get me to support Barack Obama?
No thanks.
Supporting candidates like Romney or Obama violates the oath I took against supporting crimes against humanity. .
I'm ready for the fight ahead. I'm starting it now. I will no longer support war. I will no longer support bailouts. I will no longer support corruption and crony capitalism.
God help us all if Romney wins as a result, like Bush did in 2000.
God help us since the majority of Americans continue to vote for war on both sides and only do it to spite a democrat or to spite a republican.
So childish.
I'm voting for peace this year. If only everyone else would do the same.
NO WAR
http://occupywallst.org/forum/leaked-documents-show-obama-team-wants-radical-new/
Do you believe Romney will stop this? He seems awfully close to inside business wheeler dealers to me.
I mean for godsake your man has been trying to push this deal through the whole time he's been in office!
he's not "my guy" I voted for Hilary, I never did buy this "change" crap sounded like more weak ass bi-partanism stuff to me, but he's who we got till next time, I'm not killing myself because a bunch of kids bought the bull
No he won't stop it but neither will obama! Thats the point! The political class in this country has nothing to offer you unless you are a corporation or a banker. It doesnt matter who you elect they are both bought and paid for. How can you continue to come on here and promote a political party that threw the working class overboard thirty years ago?
A fun fact - The Status Quo bias is a cognitive bias which leads people to prefer that things remain the same, or that things change as little as possible.
radical change, like the complete destruction of a major political party is beyond the comprehension of many because of this
(No reply button below) First off, I thought we were trying to imagine a better world, not a worse one. Yet, your voice is always centered on provoking fears of the horrors that will come to be if we stray from the tried and true path. Why do we need parties at all? Parties hinder independent thinking and actually foster group think.
Are you for monopolies? The D's and R's monopolize the political market. Should we not fight against monopolization of power?
Your comments never address what happens if we throw out the Constitution, how do you know the 1% won't just take control of the convention even if you do force one?
I see a way to get this done and yes it involves voting and more to remove Republicans, I don't see why you cannot understand how they are by far our greatest threat.
That was my point.
people tell me all the time that you can't destory the Republican Party and make room for another, glad you don't agree with those people at least
Many people are afraid of change - I think it is something in the way we are brought up. Some are taught to explore and enjoy new discoveries. Others are not opened to new experience. Simple yet complicated.
Sticking within a comfort zone is one aspect. There are others like group think, motivations, perception, etc.
http://www.prioritysystem.com/reasons1.html
I think in the end though, it’s good that the Constitution is written to give slightly more structure to how policy is determined than simply free flowing decision making. This is especially true given how we see where people defer to those with money to make decisions, I think things might be even worst if people weren’t given at least a shot of making a clear choice, like say between a D and a R given how splintered we are anyway imagine how much power the 1% could seize if we were splintered into six or seven groups or parties? Or even three.
Good article I book marked it for future reference.
HogWash. Your spiting big words, but make little sense.
People in crappy situations want change, they don't want things to remain the same.
I'm betting right now you would prefer to keep the status quo of thinking you are right, but have you reached the best conclusion?
http://www.prioritysystem.com/reasons1.html
I don't want to keep the status quo. I was just telling you your hypothesis makes no sense and is wrong. Time and time again people all around the world have shown that when they are being mistreated they fight for change.
because unlike you I haven't given up yet
I've given up on the democrats but haven't given up on the country. It's like you don't care what happens as long as a democrat is in office. You don't care what they do, do you?
I know that the Republicans will protect the interest of the 1%, I know that making as many Republicans lose as possible is not only our best chance it is our only chance and anything that helps a Republican get elected hurts OWS but more importantly it hurts America. Any questions?
Besides your girls husband passed NAFTA and repealed Glass Steagal. Also, she is perpetuating war across the globe in the name of empire as we speak. Why do you believe that she would be any better?
The political class in this country has nothing to offer you unless you are a banker or a corporation. This isnt a matter of which democrat is in office. This is what our system produces. Until you realize this you will just be voting for which coprorate crony you want to screw you for the next four years. Vote a third party or dont vote at all. Nothing gets changed at the polls you have to hit the streets. Get out organize others that feel the same way that you do. You could probably find people that feel this way at your local occupy movement.
Have you checked on http://www.justicepartyusa.net/ ?
I'm gonna vote for Jill Stien just for the simple fact I can't ever recall voting for a woman before.
Or if more people voted for Nader in 2000 we could have had public option healthcare and public option college. You're blaming the wrong people when it comes to elections. Go back to blaming republicans... at least that had more logic.
The money in politics is the problem.
yeah if Nader had got 60,000,000 more votes or if Gore had gotten 400 I see your point we could of had those things, better to go with Nader, I guess?
I thought it was good interview on both sides. Thanks for posting.
your welcome, Jon keeps him ther for almost forty minutes and he never addresses the question of if the little guy is taking all the risk why is the reward going to the top? But they did dance a bit and no body else is even going to ask the question and let's face it they've rigged the game to put the risk "downstream"
Privatized gains and socialized losses...I won't disagree.
I think they call it pushing risk downstream or something that, the working person has their whole life at stake, the investor another vacation home maybe, but all the rewards has been flowing to the top for decades
Then when the investor 'losses a bet' the working person is criticized for not having enough savings or a failsafe.
"Well I did have a pension and retirement until someone decided to gamble it away without my permission."
like Jon says in the interview, if you go from a billion to 500 million what have you lost, the working man loses his house and retirement and all.
[Removed]
[Removed]
flash upgrade required
Thanks.
I've been attacked downloading "flash upgrades"
Jon Steward is also a 1%