Forum Post: Supercommittee another Super Failure
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 7:31 a.m. EST by tulcak
(698)
from Prague, Prague
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
For you foolish foolish people that think we are going to change things through our broken political system: wake up, just, finally wake up. We need a new system, one where the people control economic decisions and control their government (oh, wait, that's not new - so, what happened?) The corporations need to become publicly owned and the profit to go to the people. nobody really needs a yacht, but everyone needs food, a roof over their heads and health care. nobody really needs a mansion, but, everyone needs safe neighborhoods and schools. nobody really needs a private jet, but, we all need to be cared for when we get old. I think until all those things happen, nobody should be making any profit.
I think we are missing the point if we think the social and economic justice is bound to whether someone owns a yacht or a mansion, all societies will have wealthy people who can afford those luxuries, that focus is wide of the point. What we should be trying to push forward is election finance reform so corporate lobbyists are removed from the process. There needs to be a distinct separation between politics and wall st/corporate world by closing the revolving door between the two. We need new laws regulating the market. We also need new laws that focus on protecting the disenfranchised as well as the middle-class. I don't think its helpful for all corporations to be 'publicly owned' unless you are planning to stop ALL private ownership which isn't preferable. In Socialist democracies such as Denmark corporations are privately owned and regulated, taxes are high but they have created a more equitable society. Are there Danes who own yachts and mansions? Sure but they also have universal health care, free education and protection for the least privileged in their society. Its naive to believe that 'no one should make a profit', its been tried and failed miserably. There is no incentive without profit. Even the Chinese have realized this, and even countries such as Sweden, Norway and Denmark wouldn't advance such a foolish idea. Be realistic and there can be change.
I think you missed my point. UNTIL childhood hunger is not an issue, UNTIL we have universal health care, UNTIL we care for our elderly and our vets, UNTIL we raise the standard of living for the 99%, THEN I think no one should make a profit and that corporations should be owned by the government and ALL profit goes to those things. To investing in our country. THEN, we should decide IF or HOW corporations will exist.
No its you who have missed the point. You don't have to deny profits in order to address any of those issues. There have been societies in history that tried this and it caused more hunger, no money for health care etc. Hell the Khmer Rouge and North Korea tried this and it was a dismal failure. Why? Because you need to bring in the revenue from somewhere. You cannot provide health care without being able to fund it,. The State garners its revenue from taxes, taxes from PROFIT. How does Denmark and Sweden pay for its social services? Through high taxation of the wealthiest and corporations. For the wealthiest and corporations to pay taxes they have to earn a profit, if they don't get to earn a profit there is no incentive to work. If the government owns all corporations then they will have to force people to work for no profit because people never choose to work for nothing unless they are forced to do so. What you have thereafter is the worse kind of police State, the worse kind of thug system also known as slavery.
so, people who want to make change on the streets are the "Khmer Rouge and North Korea"? wow.
No and stop being alarmist. I am saying that the Khmer Rouge tried to implement the idea you put forth and they failed. The people on the streets, and I am one of them, are asking for justice and accountability and the rule of law, not the end of ALL corporate profits. Its a silly immature idea, one that history has proven does not work.
really? what history? an example? historically, when you have a huge wealth gap as we have (never in history has the gap been so large) there is a correction through governance. companies are taken over temporarily by the government, job projects are created, investment in education and infrastructure are made (see FDR). then, regulations are put in place to prevent economic collapse from happening again. THAT'S history
The huge wealth gap is caused by deregulation of the financial sector. Look at Iceland, it was the deregulation of their banks which lead to the financial bankruptcy of their entire society. Before that they had state owned corporations and private corporations, both of which earned a profit. The taxes at that time were used to the benefit of the majority of their citizens, since the pillaging of their money they are now suffering with unemployment and a lack of revenue but I do believe they will pull themselves out of it as they did not go the way of Greece. Taking away all profits is what radical communism was all about and yes historically it failed. Can you show an instance where it didn't? The huge wealth gap is happening globally because the neo-con policies such as deregulation and privatization of virtually everything destroyed the economic infrastructure that protected the everyday citizen. FDR was not anti-corporate profits he simply regulated them, so perhaps it is you who need to go back and research FDR. Where do you think he found the revenue for his projects? He used the federal reserve system, the same system that is now part of the problem. FDR didn't 'take' the funds from large corporations. Part of the fall out of what happened during the New Deal is that small banks merged into larger ones (like what is happening now) and this was fine up until the time the regulations that governed them were systematically stripped away. You can put regulations in place without stripping corporations of all profit, something FDR never did nor could he have done within the boundaries of the law. What should have happened in 2008 is that the financial institutions that went under should have never received the tax payer bailout, it would have had an impact on society for sure but then we would have come out of the recession much faster. The problem is that government failed to remove the moral hazard by rewarding the financial sector for its reckless behaviour and all out greed.
you are all over the map. less words more clear concepts please. yes, deregulation led to economic collapse (as it always has done) and to the huge wealth gap. but, what you say about FDR is historically incorrect.
You cannot simply say its 'incorrect' you have to show evidence that it is incorrect. You say I am all over the map but you don't show any clear idea of how you would implement a system where no one would reap any profits for their labor. How would you tax a corporation without them making any profits? Would you have the government cease them? Remember that even the Soviets Russians realized that for profit corporations were more efficient than those that were not. You are from Prague right? I am sure you have grandparents and parents who remember what the quality of goods and life was like under the soviets. Its not the fact that a corporation makes profits that is the problem but the lack of regulation. Right now the US government is in a deficit. Ceasing all of the money from every one of its corporations wouldn't put a dent in the money owed never mind having any left over fro social programs such as health care etc. So how do you plan on generating the revenue? It costs money to pay off a debt AND support social welfare programs.
what? you're incoherent. please make sense. unless your drunk, that I can understand
It is not my fault if you lack reading comprehension skills or if you find it difficult to sort through complex ideas. The financial issues at hand are complex and will not be fixed through simplistic suggestions notions such as yours. Ad hominems are the resort of the intellectually ill prepared, I have not insulted you but are challenging your ideas. Now can you answer the questions I asked of you? I will re-post:
Right now the US government is in a deficit. Ceasing all of the money from every one of its corporations wouldn't put a dent in the money owed never mind having any left over fro social programs such as health care etc. So how do you plan on generating the revenue? It costs money to pay off a debt AND support social welfare programs.
our government and the American people are in debt because of the corporations. I say, don't pay.
This is only partly true. There are two kinds of debt that's being battled, one is the national debt and the other is the public debt. The public debt is money owed by the people and intergovernmental agencies. During the Clinton years there was a surplus which was squandered under Bush because of the expenses incurred from years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was also the issue of taxes, government spending without raising taxes was a recipe for disaster. Then we have the national debt of which two-thirds consists of the public debt, the national debt is money owed to the people, business and foreign governments who bought treasury bills, notes and bonds. This debt was huge even before the economic crises (think what we owe to china for example). The US government has made these debts worse by emptying tax payer money into the financial sector where it is being held in a glut (bailouts). This means that what little money there was in the system was taken away from social programs and entitlements and given to wealthy financial institutions that behaved recklessly, this is the proof of the cabal between the political and financial elites. The feds in response to these debts has resorted to printing money which has devalued the dollar and keeping interest rates low to stave off inflation but none of this is working, not for main street anyway. The only people who are making any money are the financial elites at the top. Corporations are too blame for co-opting Washington into deregulating the market, which allowed them to behave recklessly pillaging whole populations and nations of their funds and putting the whole world economy at risk but it is still Washington that allowed for this to happen. They also get away with paying very little in taxes. Government at the moment works for the corporate financial sector and not for the people, this I can agree with. The problem is that the money normally used to address the masses just isn't there and taking every dime from every millionaire and billionaire would not pay for the 17 trillion in debt and even if it could we would still be left without the money to reinvest in society. The problem is huge and its systematic, meaning that needs to be a overhaul of the entire system but even still there are going to be some tough years ahead of us. If you look at it the US no longer produces, it imports which means that there isn't enough work for americans outside the service industry and government jobs. NAFTA under clinton insured that corporations could go to developing countries and pay a pittance in salaries and benefits while flooding low cost products into our consumer society as they make huge profits as multi-nationals. If NAFTA isn't overturned then americans cannot compete in a global market. There are people in the financial sector who should have been thrown in jail. There are nations being held hostage to debts they themselves didn't incur through the public sector, this is wrong. So its not simply a matter of curbing corporate greed, curbing corporate greed is only a portion of the problem, the issues behind government complicity with the financial sector and placing necessary regulations in place and instituting fair tax laws plus taking away corporate identity under the law (pershon-hood) also needs to be addressed. This explanation is still only a shell of how how complex the entire problem really is and the problem isn't ours alone, its one being shared around the world.
yes, all that is true. now, what do we do? whatever we do will not and cannot be done within the present system - which is controlled by corporations. it must be done on the street. too much discussion has been done. now is the time for action.
well, redteddy, for some reason I cannot reply directly to your comment. First of all, your assumption that the American people are "uneducated" about the process and the system is not true despite the lies from the media. Secondly, the American people are more than capable of taking on the challenges that congress has been "unable" to address. Third, Americans don't need communism, socialism or anarchy to solve the problems. All we need is freedom and the power to do it. This is not possible in the present system where corporations control and own our government and our economy. THAT is why the occupy movement exists. The people will take back that power through direct action and be damned the political system or corporate power. I hope I've finally made myself clear. The American people are NOT looking for a leader, the American people are looking to lead. Live Free or Die.
Well this is fine but what kind of action. There are many ideas of what can be done but the process is difficult. First we have to find a way to break up the two party system, both have been corrupted. Then election finance reform needs to be set in place so we can remove the lobbyists from directly impacting the system. Then we need to have the financial regulations like glass-steagal reinstated. From there we have to decide what kind of a nation we are. Are we a nation of policeman using military might as a means to an end? Does it profit us? Do we care about education and the common good? If so how do we move into a more equitable society? What values do we culturally consume? Sometimes I believe that because this is a nation of many peoples that there is a lack on unity and community. Its an every man for himself type of culture and thinking. Part of why socialist democracies worked so well was because they were homogenized but this is just a thought and far from the point at hand.
There is a lack of education in the US. There are a lot of people who are uninformed, have no idea how the system works, have no idea how the economy works. Our media is corporate owned so there are too many people who are soaking in junk as knowledge. I would almost have it as policy that to become an american citizen one must engage in grass-roots community action and engage directly in the political process for a year. I would have it as policy that every high-school teenager and college student do the same. Why? Because a democracy is only as strong as knowledge of its citizens. A democracy is only viable when the people are engaged instead of thinking that it is up to other's whether they be leaders or politicians to do things for them, to take care of things while they carry on with their private lives. We are responsible for the communities we live in and responsible for the government we have. Because the financial situation is globalized we have to deal with the notion of globalization, the linking of economic systems. How does this benefit us? How does it hurt us? We may decide that this by itself is dangerous and counter-productive.
Giving that much power to 12 people is never a good idea. I am glad they did not come up with anything.
I knew from the beginning they would fail. nothing has been done and nothing will continue to be done. for those of you who think politics is the answer, I really don't know where you've been living for thirty years (that's assuming that you had somewhere to live). change will happen on the streets, not in the halls of corporations... uh, I mean congress... uh, oh yeah... same thing.
We need term limits.
NO Politician should be allowed to server more than one term!
The reason politicians cater to lobbyists is because they help with re-election. Take away that incentive and you take away that power.
no, that won't change anything. and politics will not solve anything. change will happen on the streets, not in the halls of corporations/congress.
What change are you talking about? The "Super Committee" was charged with eliminating the budget deficit. How can you eliminate the budget deficit from the streets?
in the streets, the people are going, they are going to make their voices heard. the voices are not heard in the halls of the rich, in the halls where the people used to speak. not even one lone voice. not one word. but, corporations, which are now people are heard and their will alone is done. you will not change anything there. on the streets, the people are being heard, the people are beginning to feel that they have power and that gives them hope. corporations/congress really hope that it will go away. but, it won't because the people that are going to the streets to change things at night go back to their same homes (if they have any) and their same situation. the situation all of us the 99% share. THAT is how things will change. that is how they are changing. the wide-spread feeling of apathy and weakness is over. THAT is the biggest change of all. the day for unbridled corporations is over. a new system will replace the existing one. this is a revolution. the present system cannot, will not change. we must change the system. and people are not afraid of that anymore. they welcome it. it will truly be a new day.
You still did not say what you want to change and what you want the outcome to look like. Can you be just a little specific?
its my opinion that politics won't work. it hasn't worked for thirty years. to hope that change can happen in a political system controlled and owned by corporations is, in my opinion, extremely foolish. sorry, no insult intended.
I only asked a simple question. I made no foolish statement.
I will say it again, You still did not say what you want to change and what you want the outcome to look like. Can you be just a little specific?
specifically, a new democratic economic system where the people are THE voice in making economic decisions. But, it will be up to the people to decide. Not me.
The people have a voice right now and do not use it. Only 23% of registered voters showed up to vote during the elections across the country 2 weeks ago. And not everyone is even registered to vote.
I hate to say this but the "people" are lazy.
first, you put down anyone who wants a different system than the one we have (corporate controlled), then, you put down people who think that voting is pointless in this system. and then, you put down people who vote. are you trolling for something? what are you looking for?
I did not put down people who vote I am putting down people who do not vote. I wish more people did. I voted two weeks ago. There was a mayor, township committee, state legislators, country offices AND some very good questions on the ballot, should we but more open space, should we let Verizon put a switching station in town, should sports betting be allowed in AC, and should we fund extracurricular sports at the school.
I voted in every election and I vote at about 7:30PM and the polls closed at 8PM. I asked what the turnout is. I don't remember the exact details but the man said there are x registered and y voted that's 23%. That is about the same every election because I always ask.
To me that was a sad statement on "the people". I wish 100% turned out. -- I would never put down people that vote.
again, how can you expect your vote to change anything? the corporations control our government and our economy. how? to expect it to count is, just my opinion, foolish.
the corporations control our government and our economy.
Well we did get the open space and the after school programs.
I know that in our current system anyone get something put on the ballot. You just need to get a petition and enough signatures. Then you just have to convince people to go out and vote.
I consider myself open minded. Tell me a better way to get things accomplished than putting something on a ballot and having everyone agree and vote Yes of No.
There is a bit more turnout on presidential election years...but your point still stands.
People are just lazy, and the people that ARE voting are merely voting along one of the two major party lines. How many people that vote are actually weighting the options of each candidate, and not just going with whichever party line they like the most?
How do you motivate a mass of individuals to vote? How do you educate them on the issues, on the candidates? What informational apparatuses are needed in order to inform the largest number of people in the most efficient way? I wish I had the answers to these questions.
We need a third party, and the people need to feel inspired enough to vote for that party. That is where the real change can begin.
I am not sure what the answer to this question is. I have been voting for more than 20 years and have been asking that question every election.
My wife and I are also very active in the community. I see the same 30 people at the school book fair, the town meetings, cub scouts, helping set up for the kids olympics day, little league, the school party. It feels like in a town of 13,000 the same 30 people keep everything going.
specifically, a new democratic economic system where the people are THE voice in making economic decisions. But, it will be up to the people to decide. Not me.
The people have a voice right now and chose not to exercise it.
The people chose to re-elect the same politicians over and over. Some have been there for more than 30 years. They people chose not to decide.
What makes you think you can change that.
I think your statement is not entirely correct. The voters thought they were voting for someone different. The voters thought they were voting for change. But, apathy blinded the voters to notice the reality that we all knew was there: corporate power and control. To continue to deny that will be to continue doing what we have been doing. Denying the real problem, corporate control of government and economy, and continuing to do a "feel-good" vote which really changes nothing. I think the people in the streets making change have woken up to that reality. Others of us have not.
But taking away our right to vote would be a step backwards.
wow, who talked about taking away the right to vote? I didn't. and anyways, essentially it has been taken away from us. our votes don't matter in a system where corporations control it. you are an extremist it appears. either I embrace the current system and find no fault in it, or, suddenly I'm an anarchist that wants to take away the right to vote.
I misunderstood you.
I thought you were implying that the current system of voting was bad. I incorrectly assumed that you meant we should have people in the streets deciding everything.
you assumed correctly. people should be deciding everything. if we can't do it within the current system, its gonna have to be on the streets. I find it a powerful statement that the people are ignoring the system and coming together to make those decisions. decisions about who we are as a nation, and about justice and fairness. Americans are pragmatic, can-do people. they will get it done somehow. to be afraid of that is to embrace the slavery of corporations. live free or die.
I guess I'll have to reply this way "joethefarmer" (what are you farming for?) voting doesn't work. our political system our government our economy are controlled by corporations. I've repeated this more than several times already.
The way people decide is by voting. I wish more people did but they do not. There are elections every few months and nobody shows up.
There was an election 2 weeks ago and only 23% of registered voters voted across the country AND not everyone is registered!
In my town there was a mayor race, two township committee positions, state legislators, country offices.
Now as for the "people making those decisions", there were some very good questions on the ballot, should we buy more open space, should we let Verizon put a switching station in town, should sports betting be allowed in AC, and should we fund extracurricular sports at the school.
I voted at about 7:30PM was there for a while talking. The polls closed at 8PM. I asked what the turnout was. I don't remember the exact details but the man said there are x registered and y voted that's 23%.
To me that was a sad statement on "the people" making decisions. I have a strage, sad, sort of feeling every time.
I made a couple of posters for OWS. If you like them share them. If you have advice for me shoot me a message.
http://www.thepixelbar.com/pixel-journal/2011/11/21/ows.html
Keep fighting the good fight everybody.
The anger and frustration that 99% of us feel is apparently directed at many...i.e. Wall Street, the banks, lack of medical care, lack of jobs, more need for the hungry and homeless, right to choose, immigration and twenty other things. The mess we are in is NOT the fault of the republicans nor just the democrats. And frankly if you try to blame one party over the other including the Tea Party well frankly have lost all credibility in your argument. I could go on and on. But I want to place the blame squarely where is belongs. I believe the ONE common denominator that WE the 99% can "blame" besides ourselves it's 535 incompetents in Washington DC. They are the problem! I don't blame the banks etc as much as I do the congressional regulators. Who allows the banks to get away with the corruption and fraud? Who oversees the spending and regulations of all these problems? CONGRESS DAMN IT! Here is an undisputed fact As long as your elected Congress can take money from corporations and special interests your elected official is CORRUPT period! You and I would loose our jobs if we did what Congress has allow themselves to do. They do not hear you OCCUPY...WHY? because we the people are too busy looking out for our particular interest. Don't you find it just a bit curious that beyond a local Mayor taking interest you hear little from Congress? Your frustrations are real...your concerns are real...your fear is real. So you must vote them out of office. They'll hear that. Republicans, Democrats...ALL OF THEM. OCCUPY ARE YOU LISTENING. If you think for one damn second "well my congress person is a good one" BS your a fool. I say take the entire Occupy Movement move it to Washington DC and demand for ALL our elected officials to fix the mess they have put us in NOW. People hear me...we are running out of time. For the sake for your children and grandchildren. I say with a loud and clear voice "THROW THE BUMS OUT!" Unfortunately Congress is incompetent, corrupt and unwilling to do the will of the people.
are you saying the politicians can or cannot solve our problems? I say they can't period. it doesn't matter who you elect. I will say this again for the twentieth time: corporations control our government and our economy. nothing will change there. action and change must happen on the street.
We DO have enormous power to change the face of America, and we don't NEED the freakin' politicians to do it!
Follow the shopping guidelines at http://bit.ly/vof9WH and help defeat them ! No ads, no profit, no motive but to help employ Americans and defeat the banksters !
Spread the word ! Spread the link!
consumerism is the problem. change cannot come from continuing to buy things. that's what the corporations who control our government and our economy want. I'd like to see all corporations owned by the government and the profit used to invest back into our country. then, we should decide how or whether corporations should continue to exist
Wow ! I'm afraid we have very different viewpoints ! I can't endorse yours, and I don't expect you to endorse mine, but I respect you as a fellow man and support your right to advocate your view.
same here :)
good analysis.
ermnnnn corporations ARE publicly owned. everyone who wants to be an owner of a company buys some of what is called "stock" THEN if the company profits, so do the people.
THEN they go home that night, turn on the TV and watch kids Protest it then turn around and recommend it.
Neat huh :)
"then, if the company profits, so do the people" you're an idiot. you think that the 99% are the ones that are investing in "stocks"? really? then, where are the profits?
yes dumb ass. ask ya mama if she has a retirement plan, a 401k, or your daddy. dumb ass
"Stocks plunge as debt talks near collapse" the end is near. ha ha ha ha
oh, so my mama invested her own money into a retirement plan by herself? and my daddy? you're an idiot. they contributed to a fund which their company contributed along with other companies. and, by the way, it was a bad investment because my mamma and my daddy didn't have a say in which companies would be invested in. you know, you don't need a job. in fact, you don't deserve one. you need to experience long-term un/under employment. are yo mamma and daddy rich?
I love Idiots like this one.
ok, I'm an idiot. although, tell me, do the 99% individually invest in stocks?
ok, 1st sorry about the idiot comment. i get excited.
if your question is a legitimate one I'd have to answer Yes if they put into a retirement plan, NO if they do not.
MOST Americans, including myself when I was younger, chose NOT to. hell you are thinking about today and making very little.
Now that I am over 40?(I'm a late starter when it came to saving and/or investing in my future) yes I put as much as I can into my retirement, and that happens to be a portfolio of stocks that NO i don't personally control what gets traded when, we leave that up to someone who works for us, one of the guys you might block from going to work on wall street, a guy who gets payed $24,000 a year to buy and sell what his boss has told him to buy and sell. I do have the option to choose what stocks to invest in sure, i just choose not to.
anyone who expects to be able to survive on social security is probably able to survive on canned dog food and That's IF it is even still around in 25 years. who ever tapped into that needs to be locked up and everyone who supported it needs to pay it back.
did I answer your question? I have no figures to show how many Americans contribute a portion of their earnings towards a retirement savings plan no.
I have a retired teacher friend who always had something nasty to say about Big Oil. later she found her retirement income was there because every month what she had put into her account had been invested into those same Big Oil companys. she had invested 40,000 in Big Oil over 20 years and didn't even know that's what her 401K was doing. that $40,000 grew into about $180,000 because of unknowingly investing in those corporations she enjoyed complaining about.
she still gets a monthly check, and still loves to complain about Bush and Big Oil.
so, she was lucky? most Americans have not been lucky. not because of anything they have done or not done, but, because, they have no voice and no power. now, we have found that we have a voice and we have power.
Was there ever any doubt that it would fail?
There are republicans on the panel.
republicans and democrats are controlled equally by the corporations. that's why we need a new system. nothing is going to change in the present one.
Republicans are the party of no.
Republicans have stonewalled for three years now.
The republican aim, is not to correct wrongs, but to assure failure. They have said as much.
They may be subtle, but the differences a real.
big deal. voting in democrats won't change a thing. neither will the blame game. the system is rigged. corporations own it.
You won't know unless you try.
Republican have done much damage in the last 10 years.
you guys don't listen do you? we tried it this way for thirty years. nothing has changed except to get worse. once again: corporations own and control our government and our economy. you are basically saying "do nothing" vote as usual and idiotically expect change.
It's seems it's you who will not listen.
You did not respond to what I said.
it almost seems like you are a computer program that asks questions to reveal some hidden logic or mechanism within a system. could be. because for you to say "you did not respond to what I said" is really sort of crazy.
Crazy is Heritage foundation propaganda making it all the way Prague.
Now, how did that happen?
its interesting that you mention the heritage foundation.
Care to elaborate?
I was hoping you would
You repeat their propaganda, not me. Where did you hear or read this stuff?
what the hell are you talking about? you're the one who brought up the heritage foundation. not me. YOU explain.
Learn some of the truth behind, yet another republican stalemate.
http://wendellpotter.com/2011/11/the-health-care-industrys-stranglehold-on-congress/
wow, if that were true how has Obama spent every dime that you, your children, your grand children, and your great grand children will ever earn, in 3 years alone.
by the time Obomba is done the 99% will have to move to Zimbabwe for a better economy
We have a gridlock in Congress because there are only two parties represented. It seems like the only way that a bill will get passed these days is if one party wins the majority of both houses of Congress, AND the President aligns with that party.
If we had more parties represented in Congress, then we would have less gridlocks as each party tries to garner support of one of the other two parties in order to gain a majority vote, instead of having these votes down party lines like what we have now. The current Congress seems more intent on proposing bills that can't pass both houses, but that invigorate one party's voter base. Its all rather pointless, and it seems like we should just send Congress home with no pay while we wait for the next election.
I would rather have a functioning Congress. Can we work on getting more than two parties represented for the 2013 session?
Elsewhere on the forum, I have suggested a way to form an Open Source Party.
The stalemates and stonewalling must end.
Stagnation under capitalism is a death sentence.
yea, with all democrats it would be too crooked to fail.
of course only the obama bed buddys would profit but...
I'm sure if you are a democrat campaign contributer you'll get a share of this administrations takes.
At least until after the next election, then it's free reign to rape everything in sight knowing it will be 100 years before this nation can be suckered again into allowing a democrat in office.
Nine of twelve members of the Super Duper Committee voted in 1999 for the law that caused the greatest economic failure of our time. WHY? Why is it any surprise that they have failed AGAIN?
The Super committee was guaranteed to fail from the start because it was composed of the exact same people who caused the financial crisis of 2008.
Nine of twelve members of he Super Committee voted to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999 setting the stage for the financial collapse.
It is no surprise, to me, that these people count not solve their way out of a wet paper bag. They are the dumbest of the dumb of the Wall Street bought and owned United States Congress.
SEE: The Congress that Crashed America http://home.ptd.net/~aahpat/aandc/congcrash.html
really? good info. but, politics won't solve anything. nothing will change in the halls or corporation/congress
I disagree.
It is defeatist attitudes like yours that guarantees the status quo.
Three choices:
Do nothing.
Participate.
Pick up a gun and wage insurrection.
Wall Street depends on people like you to do nothing.
defeatist? you mean to admit the problem of corporate control of our government and our economy is to admit defeat? to refuse to believe that change can happen in such a system is defeatist? "do nothing"? what do you think is happening in the streets? nothing? "participate" - as in participate in the occupy movement? and, the cherry on top: "pick up a gun and wage insurrection"? yes, but without the gun part. and, I agree, Wall street depends upon people doing nothing. but, I'm not one of those people doing nothing. to do nothing would be to continue participating in the same system that the corporations own. they will ensure that nothing gets done, they will ensure that nothing changes. they like it just fine.
You just ran around in a big circle and said nothing.
really? I answered your questions directly. you just didn't like the outcome. sucks to be you.
What is stopping us from starting a third political party that accepts no corporate money on principle and actually adopts a platform that the people want? I'd rather participate than do nothing...
think about what you just asked.
Laziness, lack of motivation, and a feeling of helplessness ("My vote doesn't matter anyway."). There was another thread on here where the commenter estimated that only 23% of the registered voters in their local area actually voted.
How do you get more people involved in change? I don't think there is a single person I know that says "man, I love government the way it is now. I'm totally fine with just voting Democrat/Republican." They all say something similar to "Yeah, I know things are messed up. I don't like either candidate, so why should I bother voting?" or something similar. I know you have heard the same thing. What can make these people change their minds to "Lets try to get a third party candidate in my city council? In my State's Senate? As one of my State's senators?"
I have no clue how to do that.
you don't. not while the corporations control and own our government and our economy. how many times do I have to repeat this?
So what do you propose we do?
Look to the streets. look to your own ability to make up your own mind. why do you need someone to give you talking points or answers? take responsibility and quit being a consumer. My fingers are worn out typing the same fucking answer to that question. I propose we do exactly what the fuck we are doing right now. bypassing the corporate controlled system and taking action to the street. personally, I'd like to see a democratic economic system where the people are THE voice in making economic decisions. If you want details, make them yourself. be a responsible citizen and quit relying on a leader to make decisions for you. figure the shit out. obviously, the present system is a system of corporate control. of slavery. what do you propose we do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
wow, great movie so far... thanks for the post
We were all born with a natural instinct to gather and store for survival. A natural instinct to care for family and community. This is human nature.
When modern society was formed, we began to sell out our natural instincts. Survival turned into survival with a little more elbow room. Then survival with a little more elbow room and a nice view. Then survival with a little more elbow room, a nice view, and something pretty to hang around our neck.
Fast forward a few thousand years. With the industrial revolution, came mechanized transportation, modern housing, air conditioning, and television.
We had become somewhat spoiled. Somewhat motivated. Still relatively down to Earth. Still modest enough to appreciate one another, care for one another, and work towards a common goal.
Along the way, the potential for increased personal wealth became more and more intoxicating. Now, the vast overwhelming majority want to be rich. They want it so badly, they are willing to sell out basic morality to attain it. They WILL sell out basic morality if given the opportunity.
How can I be so sure? That's easy. Human nature plus years of corrupt influence plus opportunity.
Mother Nature did not plan for modern society. She did not plan for extreme personal wealth. Once attained, we become fully intoxicated. We simply can not process the concept without being corrupted by it. Without compromising our basic morality.
Extreme personal wealth is the single greatest corrupt influence of modern society. With every 'zero' on the paycheck, our basic instincts to care for family and community are compromised.
Those of you who still aren't convinced, consider this:
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, and take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, would you do it?
If God himself gave you the power to end poverty, bring about world peace, OR take a bonus of $100,000,000 for yourself, which would you choose?
Which would the vast overwhelming majority choose?
Why are the richest men and women in the world so incredibly determined to get even richer?
How did the world's wealth become so incredibly concentrated?
Why is the concept of a partial redistribution for the good of all so incredibly divisive and controversial?
How is it that virtually every developed nation in the world has become riddled with fear, instability, and rising debt?
How have so many world leaders and those affiliated become even richer as their own economies falter?
The answer is greed. An obsessive desire for extreme personal wealth. It's become a worldwide epidemic. Smashing through moral character like a runaway train.
Not only is the greatest concentration of wealth in world history the single greatest underlying cause of economic instability. The very concept of extreme personal wealth is the most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind. There will be no recovery. The train won't stop until the track runs out.
Greed kills. It will be our downfall.
that's why they are the 1% and we are the 99%. 99% of us would do the right thing. its the 1% that continues to tell us that everyone is greedy that it is natural. no, its not.
I agree. It appears greed showed up in humans right after we learned to 'bank' (store) food. Money began. Greed was born.
General Assemblies {Community, State, National} everyone is elected, and there are no leaders..Everyone leads by example..
Runs counter to millions of yrs. of evolution. We are basically a tribal species. For millions of yrs. we existed in small separated hunter gather bands and where basically scavengers. Instinctively, I believe we had a hierarchy with an A-male and A-Female at the lead. We're only maybe 10,000 yrs. away from that way of life and even today such bands still exist in a few remote locations. We will in my view continue to have leaders. How we go about selecting them might change. Right now in our society power and the leadership it confers is largely determined by wealth distribution. The extreme concentration of wealth that has occurred over these last 30+ yrs. is the core reason we're in the crisis we find ourselves today. IMO to change this peacefully is going to be daunting now. Why? Power is almost never ceded without a struggle and that struggle is almost very bloody. Plus,some of our Oligarchs are not shy about using force to get their way. They control almost all the levers of power now, in particular they control the police, Nat'l guard and military. On top of that is the enormous "secret" Gov't or Intell. part of Gov't ( FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security etc. et al..) These folks are very well funded and armed and almost impervious to any direct control. Good luck changing any of this with Mic. checks and tents. This whole thing reminds me somewhat of the Indians belief in "ghost shirts" in the late 19th century, we all see how that worked out, didn't we.
The bipartisan 12-member panel is sputtering to a close after two months of talks in which key members and top congressional leaders never got close to bridging a fundamental divide over how much to raise taxes. The budget deficit has forced the government to borrow 36 cents of every dollar it spent last year.
It was designed to fail. 1.2 trillion dollars will now be cut from the budget and most of it will come from entitlements. Food stamps, welfare, social security, all the things the poor depend on to live. That will free up more money for people to buy retail products from corporations. It will also mean more money for the defense budget, which, btw, has never been audited.
Watch them revoke the sequestrations in order to protect the pentagon.
[Removed]
[Removed]
Super Committee Refuses To Raise Taxes and without doing that the Budget Can't Be Balanced. It's that simple.
There's something really weird going on here... Obama is busy spending more money, hiring 120,000 vets to work for government, offering them tax breaks and educational benefits. Meanwhile, the debt has become a major item on all news channels, Congress is negotiating an austerity budget, and the DOW is taking a dive...
obama hasn't hired any vets to do anything. obama should be hiring Americans for government job programs to invest in our country. infrastructure, education, science. congress isn't negotiating anything. and I hope the DOW dives to hell.
[Removed]