The Year America Dissolved

93 posts / 0 new

Comments

I don't get this whole conservative argument that they are more charitable than liberals. Where do you get your information, Slab? Women are consistently found to be more charitable than men and they also tend to be more liberal than men. My wife donates about 20% of my income to charity. Right now she is interrupting me alking about wanting to give checks to all the poor people. My income is the meager amount deemed necessary by our society to pay a PH.D. in Psychology to teach Psychology classes.

Deciding who to donate to is fine, except that the government has greater knowledge of all the needs, at least in theory, and therefore should be much better at allocating money fairly. For example, what if everybody donated to Haiti all of a sudden due to the earthquake and its media publicity, but no one bothered to donate money to other worthy causes? Then, Hiaiti would be flooded with donation money, but other people would have none. Another thing: What makes you conservatives think that you deserve all the money you get, no matter how it results from ripping other people off? "It's my money so I can do whatever I want with it" -- I never stop hearing the same old tired refrain. You never would have had that money in the first place if it weren't for people like me -- teachers -- and people such as goverment employees who take care of society's infrastructure, plus having other people around with enough money to buy your products. I think all businesses and business owners should pay their share of taxes to support those who make it possible for them to do business.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Natural Lefty:

I don't get this whole conservative argument that they are more charitable than liberals. Where do you get your information, Slab?

Uhh....internet, Google, Bing, books, etc....look it up. It's one of those pesky statistics that libs hate to face when they talk about helping the poor.

Women are consistently found to be more charitable than men and they also tend to be more liberal than men. My wife donates about 20% of my income to charity. Right now she is interrupting me alking about wanting to give checks to all the poor people. My income is the meager amount deemed necessary by our society to pay a PH.D. in Psychology to teach Psychology classes.
You wife sounds like a generous person. God bless her for sacrificing your income to help others. You and your wife lead by example using your money, you don't steal income from others.

Deciding who to donate to is fine, except that the government has greater knowledge of all the needs, at least in theory, and therefore should be much better at allocating money fairly. For example, what if everybody donated to Haiti all of a sudden due to the earthquake and its media publicity, but no one bothered to donate money to other worthy causes? Then, Hiaiti would be flooded with donation money, but other people would have none.
If the government had an inkling of a track record of utilizing our tax money efficiently, you might have a good point. Their use of our tax dollars is a travesty. As I donate my earned income, I will decide where it can be used best.

Another thing: What makes you conservatives think that you deserve all the money you get, no matter how it results from ripping other people off? "It's my money so I can do whatever I want with it" -- I never stop hearing the same old tired refrain. You never would have had that money in the first place if it weren't for people like me -- teachers -- and people such as goverment employees who take care of society's infrastructure, plus having other people around with enough money to buy your products. I think all businesses and business owners should pay their share of taxes to support those who make it possible for them to do business.

What makes you think that you deserve the meager wage (your description) that you collect? You would never have had that money if it weren't for people like me that support colleges by donating to scholarships and sending our kids to schools. Who really pays your wage Professor? If you are a public school teacher, your wage is paid from our taxes. If you work for a private school, your wage comes from tuitions. I think if you want to teach and have accepted the terms of employment, good for you. If you think I don't pay my "fair share" of taxes, you need to go back to elementary school and get a clue. I appreciate everyone who makes it possible for me to do business.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote jeffbiss:

I don't think that he and his ilk want to turn America into Mexico but that they really believe that they live in some bubble, that they really don't depend on any others.

Where do you come up with this tripe? Christ.....it's bizarre reading this sometimes.

For example, he claims that he drilled the well. Well, he didn't. A machine made by someone else did, or he hired someone to do it. They ignore the fact that it is because we are social beings and cooperate that we have what we have, both good and bad. That we do indeed have obligations to one another, starting with fundamentals such as acknowledging the concept of "property", even when it may benefit one to ignore it for some short term gain.

LOL!....no shit Jeff. Who hired the guy with the machine Jeff? Who earned the income to hire the guy to provide the need so the manufacturer has a market to fill? I swear this gets more strange with every post. It's like a different planet with people walking around in circlejerk circles.

Slab: "I made dinner"

Jeff: No, the oven made dinner with help from the pans. You had nothing to do with it.

Slab: "I read a book"

Jeff: No, you used reading skills that someone else taught you, therefor they caused the book to be read. You had nothing to do with it.

Jesus....and I thought the circus had some weird shit to see. LOL!

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Well, individuals would never have started a national project such as a national highway system, so government can do things with our money that individuals or corporations cannot or will not. I also agree that our government has not done a very good job with our money, because of 2 things: 1. Our huge military expenditures, and 2. Various pork barrel projects which corrupt the system. But the whole system is corrupted by monied influences anyway. Aside from these 2 problems, I think our government does a pretty good job of balancing the apportionment of money. I don't think leaving it to people who donate money, which is mostly rich people because they have the most money, would have such a balanced result.

I teach at a Community College, so I don't think we have donors. Our money comes from property and state taxes, and the small tuition fees that students pay. I think teachers and anybody who provides training, knowledge, enlightenment, and/or infrastructure deserves a decent salary because they allow society to run and progress. It seems to me that these people are less well-paid in our society as a whole than business people, and that should not be the case. Our culture is skewed toward favoring business people, although it is true that a good many of them go out of business. But these days, even teaching jobs are being cut. I am fortunate in that I am one of the teachers whose teaching load has not been reduced, but many of my colleagues have lost their jobs or had their teaching loads reduced substantially, all because our society was ripped off by banksters and other rich business people.

I still don't know where you get your statistics, but you didn't dispute that women tend to be both more generous and more liberal than men. As a trained researcher and statistician and as a skeptic, I have to wonder about the validity of any conclusion that conservatives are more generous. I think one would have to statistically equate people for income, religiosity, the use of donations as tax breaks, and probably some other factors I have not thought of yet in order to really test that idea.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

NL, thanks for your contribution. Personally, I think people who work in academia are extremely underpaid. I suppose it just highlights the "importance" which is placed on education in America.

Slab, someone really should take that shovel away from you...

Of course most conservatives make donations to "charities" because it is tax deductible, why else would they part with their money to give to the lazy folks. I doubt most cons. volunteer at soup kitchens or help out at disadvantaged schools.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote captbebops:
Quote meljomur:

jeff, the really tragic thing is, is the fact that Slab and those like him want to turn America into Mexico.

I just don't think he quite comprehends that fact, and I doubt he ever will.

I agree, I think that is indeed the grand plan. The US economy as it is and especially was is unsustainable. It was based way too much on credit. The elite class knows this but they can't just come out and say it as they fear that indeed the people would get off their duffs and revolt. They can't have this as they want to stay in control after the transition. So they engineer the transition to operate covertly and slowly and label those of us who notice as "conspiracy kooks."

FWIW capt. I don't think Slab himself has as his final intention the desire to move the US into a more Mexican direction. However I think he is a great follower of those who do. He is the ideal foot soldier. He thinks the unemployed are lazy. He wants to eradicate all safety nets for disadvantaged people. He wants to do away with unions, and regulations. IOW, all the mechanisms a society needs to have a strong viable middle class.

I mean the examples of countries which do NOT have these things are the third world. And I doubt very much he can comprehend that fact.

Its tragic and frightening the direction the US is heading. And in all honesty I can't help but think that when someone like Slab wakes up and finds the US has in fact morphed into another Mexico, he may just scratch his head and wonder how the hell it happened. But unfortunately by that time it will be too late.

BTW, its a sad state of affairs in America, when one is considered a conspiracy kook for intelligently analysing the reality of the potential future.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
LOL!....no shit Jeff. Who hired the guy with the machine Jeff? Who earned the income to hire the guy to provide the need so the manufacturer has a market to fill? I swear this gets more strange with every post. It's like a different planet with people walking around in circlejerk circles.

Then you didn't do a damn thing! You depend on others to do things for you and yet you like to pretend that you are a self made man. Talk about slacking, but then that's what the rich do.

Societies are only as good as the weakest link, and people like you who support the failed trickle-down/tax cut ideology have created a society, through voting for Republicans, that have created the situation in which many Americans, those you call slackers, can't find jobs. While it's true that our economy is totally unsustainable but it is made even worse through off-shoring jobs and providing pressure to decrease wages in order to increase profit.

You are creating a Mexico here, as Greenspan stated in his statement that the only tier of America that is doing well is the exceedingly wealthy this past Sunday. So all those "lazy bastards" have you to thank for you pressing our politicians to implement your ideology that led to this state of affiars that has creates an ever increasing chasm between rich and poor, and few well paying jobs.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

There is a difference in people Those accustomed to poverty accept it when it's all they've ever known. Majorities in 3rd world coutries are impoverished...it's just the way things are.. Nothing to compare it to.

Those not knowing poverty as being the norm...when thrown into it....don't accept it. When the numbers are large...they spontaneously rebel from a rather small spark..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Natural Lefty:

Well, individuals would never have started a national project such as a national highway system, so government can do things with our money that individuals or corporations cannot or will not.

The government has more money than individuals, has the power to confiscate land (Eminent Domain), taxes wage earners to collect the money needed, and doesn't need to balance it's budget to stay alive. The government can go deep in the red and just squeeze more money from tax payers.

I also agree that our government has not done a very good job with our money, because of 2 things: 1. Our huge military expenditures, and 2. Various pork barrel projects which corrupt the system. But the whole system is corrupted by monied influences anyway. Aside from these 2 problems, I think our government does a pretty good job of balancing the apportionment of money.
Huh? you stated correctly 2 examples and noted that the systen is corrupt, yet in the same breath, say the government does a pretty good job of balancing the appointment of OUR money. Which is it?

I don't think leaving it to people who donate money, which is mostly rich people because they have the most money, would have such a balanced result.
Like giving a trillion dollars to Wall street "banksters" (as Thom likes to call them). Where do you come up with this "balanced" BS? The government sucks more and more tax money and borrows against your future for warfare, porkbarrel, and greasing of those who have corrupted the system than ever before, yet you want to disparrage people who donate their earned income? WTF?

I teach at a Community College, so I don't think we have donors. Our money comes from property and state taxes, and the small tuition fees that students pay.
Hmmm.....property taxes, state taxes, tuitions,....who pays all of those things that keep you employed? Better slap them all with another tax. That'll fix 'em!!

I think teachers and anybody who provides training, knowledge, enlightenment, and/or infrastructure deserves a decent salary because they allow society to run and progress. It seems to me that these people are less well-paid in our society as a whole than business people, and that should not be the case. Our culture is skewed toward favoring business people, although it is true that a good many of them go out of business. But these days, even teaching jobs are being cut. I am fortunate in that I am one of the teachers whose teaching load has not been reduced, but many of my colleagues have lost their jobs or had their teaching loads reduced substantially, all because our society was ripped off by banksters and other rich business people.
I've met some shitty teachers before. How in the hell they EVER got a job teaching anyone, I'll never know. They couldn't be fired, as they had "tenure". Some are great, some are not. I am reminded of the saying "when one cannot do, one teaches". Business wage's are all over the place. Typically based on performance. I know some teachers in my kids private school that are paid pretty well (they don't complain anyways). The low pay for teachers in government schools revolves around the teachers unions keeping wages low by contract. If you are good enough, apply at a private school and make your case for higher wages. You'll find out how valuable your skillset is.

I still don't know where you get your statistics, but you didn't dispute that women tend to be both more generous and more liberal than men. As a trained researcher and statistician and as a skeptic, I have to wonder about the validity of any conclusion that conservatives are more generous. I think one would have to statistically equate people for income, religiosity, the use of donations as tax breaks, and probably some other factors I have not thought of yet in order to really test that idea.

Google. It's so easy, even you could do it.

You just can't stomach the fact that conservatives donate more money to charities to help people than liberals do. The common trait that I'm seeing is whith the denial comes the excuse making. It's really quite comical to read.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote jeffbiss:

Then you didn't do a damn thing! You depend on others to do things for you and yet you like to pretend that you are a self made man. Talk about slacking, but then that's what the rich do.

Who earned the funds to pay the guy to drill? Again Jeff, I've never uttered the "self made" moniker that you like to regurgitate. Sorry you can't handle conservatives that earn a living and don't believe that sucking the nanny teet is healthy.

Societies are only as good as the weakest link, and people like you who support the failed trickle-down/tax cut ideology have created a society, through voting for Republicans, that have created the situation in which many Americans, those you call slackers, can't find jobs. While it's true that our economy is totally unsustainable but it is made even worse through off-shoring jobs and providing pressure to decrease wages in order to increase profit.
If we stopped enabling the weakest link and raised expectations in society that people should earn their way out of poverty, we could eliminate 50% of the worthless slackers that collect a welfare check because they CHOOSE not to work for their money. If you want peoples wages to increase, start paying your people more Jeff. I have. Of course, before I do give increases, our people have to earn it. Something you obviously can't comprehend.
You are creating a Mexico here, as Greenspan stated in his statement that the only tier of America that is doing well is the exceedingly wealthy this past Sunday. So all those "lazy bastards" have you to thank for you pressing our politicians to implement your ideology that led to this state of affiars that has creates an ever increasing chasm between rich and poor, and few well paying jobs.

I am creating a Mexico? Sheesh...and here I thought I was fixing houses....who'da thunk?

I'm glad the wealthy are doing well. They are usually the ones signing paychecks and hiring companies like ours. I've never known a poor guy that gives out raises, hires more people, buys more equipment, pays more in taxes, contributes more to charity, etc... have you?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Quote meljomur:

FWIW capt. I don't think Slab himself has as his final intention the desire to move the US into a more Mexican direction. [quote] I don't speak Spanish and it's a bit too hot for my taste. I do like to vist there though. Beautiful place if you choose wisely.

[quote]However I think he is a great follower of those who do. He is the ideal foot soldier.

And... he can shoot fairly well. I don't know anyone who wants us to move the U.S. to Mexico, but I'll keep my eyes peeled.

He thinks the unemployed are lazy.
False accusation (again). He does think that many of the unemployed are indeed lazy due to the option of doing nothing and receiving a check for doing nothing. He believes tha "dole" as used currently by the government enables the wrong mentality and offers no incentives to earn a living. He believes far far too many people take advantage of the give a way system and it needs to be curtailed to stop the rampant abuse.

He wants to eradicate all safety nets for disadvantaged people.
False accusation (again). Silly Mel, once again making blatent false statements attacking other posters to further whatever slanderous reasoning you may have. -You don't have to tell lies about people Mel.- I'm very open about my positions on things.

Slab believes safety nets for the disadvataged are abused and not managed well. Overbudgeted beaurocratic monstrosities that provide incentives for people to do...nothing and collect a check. The society safety net programs in place need a major overhaul with new management.

He wants to do away with unions,
YOU GOT THAT ONE RIGHT!!!!! Right on Mel!!!! Slab thinks unions are a cancer and a detriment to all parts of society they smear their skink on. Slab has been a union member and a manager of union tainted employees and draws his experience from those many years of "education" in that work place.

and regulations. IOW, all the mechanisms a society needs to have a strong viable middle class.
Regulations need an overhaul. I believe in some and certain regulations, but we are so overregulated by design, it interferes with getting anything done. "Middle class", IMO, isn't dependant on regulations.

I mean the examples of countries which do NOT have these things are the third world. And I doubt very much he can comprehend that fact.
Why aren't you helping those 3rd world countries Mel?

Its tragic and frightening the direction the US is heading. And in all honesty I can't help but think that when someone like Slab wakes up and finds the US has in fact morphed into another Mexico, he may just scratch his head and wonder how the hell it happened. But unfortunately by that time it will be too late.

BTW, its a sad state of affairs in America, when one is considered a conspiracy kook for intelligently analysing the reality of the potential future.

I think if/when Obama grants full amnesty to the 20+ million illegals, it will be a start. I see it coming with his liberal view of what he wants to transform the U.S. into.

Sorry you see America as tragic, frightening, sad state of affairs, another Mexico, and all of the other tripe. I'd stay they hell away if I were you.

Speaking of Mexico, I have a hunt coming up in Mexico with a guy that leases private jets (among other things). He asked me if I wanted to take a test drive down Mexico way and hunt trophy deer. I know he's gonna pitch me a share in a lease on a Learjet 60 or some other small private jet. Seems like a spendy way to travel, but it sure would be handy. I wonder of he'll let me drive?

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am
Who earned the funds to pay the guy to drill? Again Jeff, I've never uttered the "self made" moniker that you like to regurgitate. Sorry you can't handle conservatives that earn a living and don't believe that sucking the nanny teet is healthy.

You don't have to utter those words as they're implicit in your contempt for people who lost their jobs, the "lazy bastards" as you call them. As for you not sucking the teet, you do. The only reason that you can do what youdo is because a power exists that protects your rights. You suck on the protection that the state provides you.
If we stopped enabling the weakest link and raised expectations in society that people should earn their way out of poverty, we could eliminate 50% of the worthless slackers that collect a welfare check because they CHOOSE not to work for their money. If you want peoples wages to increase, start paying your people more Jeff. I have. Of course, before I do give increases, our people have to earn it. Something you obviously can't comprehend.

Sorry but you're wrong again. What would happen if you allow an ever growing chasm between rich and poor is that you'd end up ultimately with rebellion. The fundamental problem isn't welfare, it's the loss of jobs due to right wing nonsense such as free trade agreements and deregulation.
I am creating a Mexico? Sheesh...and here I thought I was fixing houses....who'da thunk?
I'm glad the wealthy are doing well. They are usually the ones signing paychecks and hiring companies like ours. I've never known a poor guy that gives out raises, hires more people, buys more equipment, pays more in taxes, contributes more to charity, etc... have you?

Of course you and the other Republicans are creating a Mexico through the implementation of your failed ideology, such as the nonsense of the wealthy doing well equating to signing paychecks, implying that the better the wealthy do the better the economy does. This is pure BS and not borne out by the facts. Jobs are created from demand, not wealth at the top. Even Greenspan noted this fact. It appears that if you did go to school, all you succeeded in learning is conservative dogma.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

You don't have to utter those words as they're implicit in your contempt for people who lost their jobs, the "lazy bastards" as you call them.

I call the ones who milk the system lazy bastards. They are. they choose not to work, yet see government as an entitlement program.

As for you not sucking the teet, you do. The only reason that you can do what youdo is because a power exists that protects your rights. You suck on the protection that the state provides you.
Provides?

Sorry but you're wrong again. What would happen if you allow an ever growing chasm between rich and poor is that you'd end up ultimately with rebellion. The fundamental problem isn't welfare, it's the loss of jobs due to right wing nonsense such as free trade agreements and deregulation.
I was a critic of NAFTA. I think the rebellion will come in the form of a tax rebellion.

Of course you and the other Republicans are creating a Mexico through the implementation of your failed ideology, such as the nonsense of the wealthy doing well equating to signing paychecks, implying that the better the wealthy do the better the economy does. This is pure BS and not borne out by the facts. Jobs are created from demand, not wealth at the top. Even Greenspan noted this fact. It appears that if you did go to school, all you succeeded in learning is conservative dogma.

Jobs can and are created by demand. They also require someone with the means to produce at a profit and make payroll (among many other costs). Checks clear the bank when there is money in the account. Without check writers that have enough money, your check bounces.

Have you ever worked for a guy that is broke, Jeff?

I have, for a very short while.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Slab, I have noticed that your function on this board seems to be making sophomoric taunts to the progressives among us: Witness your statement that "even I" could use google to check the information on charitable giving. Another is the claim that I am making excuses. That reminds me of my wife whenever we disagree. Suddenly she thinks I am making excuses no matter how rational and factual I am being. It stuns me how compelled some people feel to make false accusations whenever they get into a disagreement.

I did check out the charitable giving topic, and I found that virtually all of the sources cited the same data by someone named Charles Brooks, who clearly is a conservative with an axe to grind. That seems to have been the only study on the topic.

Here is one site that attributes the difference that Brooks found to religiousity. http://elonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-conservatives-more-charitable-than.html

Another site brings up a number of reasons for skepticism about Brooks' claims: http://elonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-conservatives-more-charitable-than.html

As I stated previously, there are many factors which need to be studied in relation to political affiliation and charitable giving, including religion, what people donate to and what they expect to get in return (political donations for instance), culture (international comparisons, for example), income, disposible income and personal beliefs. I suspect that liberals are more willing to "donate" their taxes to the government than conservatives, for example.

My personal experience is that political affiliation probably has nothing to do with charitable giving, but does effect attitudes about the role of government and how people should work together to solve our problems -- as in work together publicly or privately. Most progressives I have met on this site, that I know well enough to assess their charitable nature, are highly charitable, including Thom Hartmann himself, but I know that there are ones who are not, and I know that personal experience is not hard data.

You did remind me of the big bank bailout. I was distressed by that, too. Actually, I wished they would have broken up the bigger banks into smaller ones, rather than bailing them out, and more directly helped people avoid foreclosure. But I see the bank problem as a result of lack of government oversight in recent years.

Natural Lefty's picture
Natural Lefty
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:Of course most conservatives make donations to "charities" because it is tax deductible, why else would they part with their money to give to the lazy folks. I doubt most cons. volunteer at soup kitchens or help out at disadvantaged schools.
Heh, so I donate $100 so I can get a $30 tax deduction, eh? Brilliant!!

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Natural Lefty:

Slab, I have noticed that your function on this board seems to be making sophomoric taunts to the progressives among us: Witness your statement that "even I" could use google to check the information on charitable giving. Another is the claim that I am making excuses. That reminds me of my wife whenever we disagree. Suddenly she thinks I am making excuses no matter how rational and factual I am being. It stuns me how compelled some people feel to make false accusations whenever they get into a disagreement.

Pot, meet kettle.

I think you should listen to your wife.

I did check out the charitable giving topic, and I found that virtually all of the sources cited the same data by someone named Charles Brooks, who clearly is a conservative with an axe to grind. That seems to have been the only study on the topic.

Here is one site that attributes the difference that Brooks found to religiousity. http://elonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-conservatives-more-charitable-than.html

Another site brings up a number of reasons for skepticism about Brooks' claims: http://elonkey.blogspot.com/2008/03/are-conservatives-more-charitable-than.html

As I stated previously, there are many factors which need to be studied in relation to political affiliation and charitable giving, including religion, what people donate to and what they expect to get in return (political donations for instance), culture (international comparisons, for example), income, disposible income and personal beliefs. I suspect that liberals are more willing to "donate" their taxes to the government than conservatives,

Then, why don't they? You are free to "donate" more money to taxes. The government won't return it to you, it'll get spent on bridges to nowhere. Please lead by example and donate more or your income to the government starting now.

for example.

My personal experience is that political affiliation probably has nothing to do with charitable giving, but does effect attitudes about the role of government and how people should work together to solve our problems -- as in work together publicly or privately. Most progressives I have met on this site, that I know well enough to assess their charitable nature, are highly charitable, including Thom Hartmann himself, but I know that there are ones who are not, and I know that personal experience is not hard data.

You've "met" liberals from this board and know how much the donate to charity? You know how much Thom contributes? Isn't that kinda ....nosey? I've only "met" 2 conservatives from this board and I have no idea how much they give to charity. I figure it's really none of my bidness and I don't grill people on what they do with their money. It's their money.

You did remind me of the big bank bailout. I was distressed by that, too. Actually, I wished they would have broken up the bigger banks into smaller ones, rather than bailing them out, and more directly helped people avoid foreclosure. But I see the bank problem as a result of lack of government oversight in recent years.

There are lots of lending institutions that were/are not poised to collpse due to making stupid loans to people that default. They would have picked up the loans. It's how the market works best. Bush and Obama funneling money to the bankers is backwards IMO. Obama hires tax cheat Geitner from Goldman Sachs to guide his decision making in spending tax dollars. How fcking stupid is this guy, or how deep is he on the take? It's one or the other.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

I doubt it will actually ever come to the above post. However, the scary thing is - if resources run dry and food becomes scarce our civilly conditioned society most likely will revert back to their limbic animalistic impulses.

Sorry I can't follow your lead and whine about how life sucks and we're all doomed. Being miserable is your choice, just don't get any on me.

Who said anything about being miserable? I just don't get it. There's another active thread about "hating" corporations. Again, I just don't get it. Those who keep reiterating "liberals are haters" and "liberals hate corporations" seem to confuse questioning authority figures and systems with "hate" while perceiving compliance and acceptance of authority figures as "love"

Anyway... ....I think everyone feels some sort of looming oppression. The left feels it's big business and the right feels like it's big government. The reality is - these guys are bedfellows... ...no actually they are one in the same and have been playing all of us "stupid people" against each other for over a century.

I know I keep posting the same quotes over and over but - this is what I see.

From "A Bug's Life": HOPPER: "Those puny little ants outnumber us a hundred to one and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food, it's about keeping those ants in line."

From "The Bankers' Manifesto of 1892:

"We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people, (or ANTS as Hopper would call them), are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance.

...

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, (the first US LOBBYISTS) or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination (conspiracy) and legislation.

The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.

By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished."

Call me crazy but I think the only way out of this is for THE People to wake up and realize the left and the right are parallels, (equals) and something else is intentionally instructing "lobbyists" to divide belief systems and perceptions.

But then - as always - I may very well be wrong.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I like your statement Bonnie. The problem is that most conservatives (at least the ones which post regularly here) have no idea what its like to live in a society where big government actually does defend the interest of the people. And if it did, they see that as a nanny state. As opposed to the corporate based support the American government provides, which is what they prefer.

After the first page, I stopped reading Slab's posts, because he just says the same thing over and over, and its not smart or interesting.

Yet following along with the conservative destruction of the middle class, I wonder what the cons, here think about the fact that the Republicans in the Senate just BLOCKED a bill to give tax cuts and increased lending to SMALL business.

Their reason, they won't do it UNLESS the Dems. extend tax breaks (the Bush tax cuts) to the BIG guys.

So they are holding the small businesses ransom, and allowing them to slowly go under while they help out those who need it least.

See, that is a dismantling of the middle classes, and the cons. on this board support these fellows!

FWIW Bonnie, I love Bugs Life. But somehow I think ants are smarter than humans.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

But do you get my bigger picture point?

In the Bankers' Manifesto of 1892 states:

"The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party." Try doing a few engine searches for "tariff reform".

then it states:" the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party" Now do a few engine searches for "Protection and Reciprocity"

The reality is - this is a total wash that sadly is STILL in play - and it is 2010.

bonnie
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I understand what you mean bonnie, if both Reps. and Dems. understood who really ran the country (multi-corps.), which are facilitated by our "democratically" elected politicians, than we could come together and outnumber them.

So its in their best interest to keep the masses divided (Divide and conquer).

However, I don't agree that progressives and conservatives want the same thing.

For me personally, my family and I would be far better off financially if we had stayed in the US, because taxes are MUCH lower and housing is a fraction of the cost.

However, I hate the stark division in society in America. And it seems to be growing worse every year. I hate gated communities, while a few miles away people are living in their cars. I hate that one part of the city where everyone has a bit more cash, the local schools are brilliant. But in the next neighborhood, they can't even afford an art or music program. I hate that some people can get the best health provisions in the world, while others die needlessly from illnesses because they have no insurance!

America is an EXTREMELY divided country, and its not just politically. People like Slab want to make sure it stays that way. People like me, would rather give up some of the personal material crap, and live somewhere MUCH less divided.

I guess I don't see the middle ground there at all...

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote :Provides?

What's your point here?
I was a critic of NAFTA. I think the rebellion will come in the form of a tax rebellion.

But you fully supported those pols who implemented conservative free trade policies. And it was the conservatives that equated free market/free trade economic ideologies with America iself, "freedom" and "liberty", and overtly those that were against them with communism/socialism thus providing the impetus for all pols to move to the right and those such as Ralph Nader, were relegated to the sidelines and ignored. American politics had lost its balance.

As for rebellion, I doubt that it will be over taxation. I see it more over lack of the ability to sustain the American Dream and the more fundamental struggle to survive as the chasm between rich and poor widens. You will also see an uptick in crime as people who lost their jobs feel forced to use crime as a career.

Jobs can and are created by demand. They also require someone with the means to produce at a profit and make payroll (among many other costs). Checks clear the bank when there is money in the account. Without check writers that have enough money, your check bounces.

Profit isn't necessary. All that is necessary is to be able to sell enough to pay for raw materials that people need during bad times. Take a look at Haiti's food distribution system. Jobs are created because people have to eat and people will act as points of distribution and can act as such so long as they can buy enough product to sell enough to pay for that product and survive. The same goes for most small businesses. The problem comes for publically held companies that have investor pressure.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

After the first page, I stopped reading Slab's posts, because he just says the same thing over and over, and its not smart or interesting.

Then why do you answer each one with the usual insults?

Yet following along with the conservative destruction of the middle class, I wonder what the cons, here think about the fact that the Republicans in the Senate just BLOCKED a bill to give tax cuts and increased lending to SMALL business.
I think it's got some good parts and some bad. I don't think the Federal government should be used as a national bank further driving up debt, which is what they are tryiong to create. Reading about it, it's small wonder that congress has a sub 20% approval rating. Partisan voting rules the day.

Their reason, they won't do it UNLESS the Dems. extend tax breaks (the Bush tax cuts) to the BIG guys.
Tax cuts should be extended. If the Bush tax cuts for business are allowed to expire, unemployment will increase.

So they are holding the small businesses ransom, and allowing them to slowly go under while they help out those who need it least.

See, that is a dismantling of the middle classes, and the cons. on this board support these fellows!

I own 2 small businesses. I employ 4 dozen middle class people. I have every reason to help small business. Pork laden last minute partisan bills are not legislation that I want to see passed. We've had enough TARP programs that haven't worked.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Slab, seriously I feel like I could just watch an episode of Fox news online (fortunately I don't get that channel here in London), as read one of your posts.

I don't honestly believe you are a dumb man, but you don't have an original point or thought to save you life. And if you do, you certainly don't share it here.

I am not going to dissect your right wing talking points (someone else can if they choose), because that is all they are. But I do wonder what on earth you are doing on the Thom Hartmann message board, if you have nothing constructive to offer? Just Dems are bad. Republicans are good, unemployed are lazy, I have alot of money, guns are cool, etc. etc.

After the last few years of reading your posts, I am pretty sure I could come on here and pretend to be you and no one would be the wiser (complete with the 3rd grade spelling ability).

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Slab, seriously I feel like I could just watch an episode of Fox news online (fortunately I don't get that channel here in London), as read one of your posts.

I don't subscribe to Foxnews Mel. I was reading Reuters about this political partisan posturing. Maybe they're bad in your mind. I don't know, it's hard to keep up with everyone you dismiss when they disagree with you.

I don't honestly believe you are a dumb man, but you don't have an original point or thought to save you life. And if you do, you certainly don't share it here.
Is attacking other posters personally an "original thought" Mel? maybe you could demonstrate what you mean by "original thought". Give me an example of one of yours.

I am not going to dissect your right wing talking points (someone else can if they choose), because that is all they are. But I do wonder what on earth you are doing on the Thom Hartmann message board, if you have nothing constructive to offer? Just Dems are bad. Republicans are good, unemployed are lazy, I have alot of money, guns are cool, etc. etc.
Obviously, you haven't read my musings because you have mis-quoted my thoughts....again. It seems to be a constant. I appreciate the opportunity to post on Thoms board as it is a different mentality than what I see in real life. Most of the posters just have a different viewpoint, which I find interesting. Then, there are a couple three that can do nothing but attack others, make cheap shot innuendos, and call people stupid while desparately trying to shout how intelligent they are. It's weird, but entertaining. Guns are cool, btw.

After the last few years of reading your posts, I am pretty sure I could come on here and pretend to be you and no one would be the wiser (complete with the 3rd grade spelling ability).

Ha ha, another cheap shot attack at the person....LOL! Never fails. Dang, it's like a well made wind up toy.

Have you ever stayed on topic on any of these threads, Mel? If you want to pretend to be me, have at it. I'd consider it a compliment. You'd have to learn how to filet fish and feild dress large game though.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Slab, if you notice that the Obama plan would be to extend the tax cuts for those under the elite wealthy line generously drawn. It only ends the giveaways to the ultra rich that have done nothing to stimulate the economy or invest in anything of value for America. Those bozos should be made to pay a hell of a lot more for their plunder, because if they don't, you and I will have to.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Slab, if you notice that the Obama plan would be to extend the tax cuts for those under the elite wealthy line generously drawn. It only ends the giveaways to the ultra rich that have done nothing to stimulate the economy or invest in anything of value for America. Those bozos should be made to pay a hell of a lot more for their plunder, because if they don't, you and I will have to.

I didn't see the detail you speak of. How is "ultra rich" defined? I don't agree that every person earning large paychecks does nothing and invests nothing. I think you are pointing to a select few and blanket catagorizing by demonizing the evil "rich" which seems to be a popular liberal mantra. It is a blurry line eliminating tax cuts, which is increasing taxes, depending how you look at it. I'm actually more inclined to a flat tax if the ultra rich are the target. 10% of everything regardless. Everybody shares.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Slab wrote: "I'm actually more inclined to a flat tax if the ultra rich are the target. 10% of everything regardless. Everybody shares."

poly replies: Actually, income is so imbalanced within the U.S that a flat 10% tax on everyone wouldn't be enough to even pay for the military budget. ...and would make the 1/6th of the population that can't afford enough food to maintain health...even sicker....and add to their numbers.

Kids fainting in school from lack of food would be an embarassing PR problem.

"Wealthy" used to be defined as earning about $10,0000 a day.. Income above that was heavily taxed. and put back into the economy rather than being plowed into financial paper.

I do realize that trying to squeek by on $10,000 a day is a bit difficult for some.. However, having re-occurring economic meltdowns rather than having. a $10,000 a day austerity program probably isn't the wisest national choice..

A billion dollar bonus would still retain 10's of millions after a higher tax rate above $10,000 a day.....way above the $10,000 a day austerity the less fortunate multi-millionaires would find themselves stuck with.

It's yet to be explained to me how one man is worth being paid in one year what a minimum wage earner would take nearly 100,000 years to earn...if he never retired in that length of time. ...A billion dollar bonus is a lot of money. to suck out of the production/distribution economy.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DRC:

Slab, if you notice that the Obama plan would be to extend the tax cuts for those under the elite wealthy line generously drawn. It only ends the giveaways to the ultra rich that have done nothing to stimulate the economy or invest in anything of value for America. Those bozos should be made to pay a hell of a lot more for their plunder, because if they don't, you and I will have to.

Okay, I'll bite...

Thom and most other liberals on this board have repeated ad nauseum that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich at the expense of everyone else. Now you imply that the rich will have their tax cut expire while everyone else continues to recieve the tax cut. So was the tax cut always for everyone or not? Is the truth being told now or was the truth being told then. It has do be one or the other doesn't it?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably giving the middle class a crumb, while giving the elites the cake wouldn't be considered an equitable tax cut..

Tax cuts generally have a negative return on economic growth. The wealthy plow them into financial paper..which doesn't create one grain of wheat nor one drop of oil nor hire the people to produce them. The middle class barely keeps afloat...with rising prices and stagnant wages. The government plunges into a deficit.

The mantra is....Cut taxes and promote higher income for the wealthy so they can create a robust economy.. Well, the robust economy is where? The results are the opposite of the ideology.

What Argentina did in two weeks...., give neo-liberal economics full sway...., it took the U.S. 30 years to fully impliment. We're now reaping the same results..And as in Argentina, a few bandits are making out like bandits....bleeding the nation dry.

Welcome to austerity. Someone has to pay for Wall Street's meltdown of the nation. It wont be those who caused it. Unforunately, the proposed neo-liberal/Chicago School of Economics solutions will make things worse.

An eloquent, simple explanation by two world class economists. Video:

http://www.grittv.org/2010/07/31/michael-hudson-richard-wolff-europe-under-the-crunch/

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sigh.....

I was seriously hoping for a real answer. Poly the derailer strikes again.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It is a real answer. Sidestepping into the sideshow wouldn't address the question.

Sidestepping into a tiny sideshow certainly doesn't address the dissolution of America....the subject of the thread.

It's not only a concern of Mr. Roberts...it's the main topic of Chinese Think Tanks. ...how to best manage the rapid decline of the U.S. to their own advantage. I'd suggest reading "What Do the Chinese Think?" - Mark Leonard, Exec. Dir. European Council On Foreign Relations. He spent two years in them...at the invitation of the Chinese.

We're going the way of Argentina. They instituted neo-liberall/Chicago School Economics full bore in two weeks and went into economic collapse. It's taken us 30 years to do the same thing. We're at the tipping point.

What's been touted as historical U.S. "ideology"...is barely 30 years old...begun under Reagan.... and is now embraced by both political parities. Under the new wacko policies, we've pissed away 150 years of industrial and infrastructure development (including education) ...in favor of financial bubbles, enormous short-term corp. profits and tax codes favoring the extremely wealthy..

The Chinese get it...even if we don't. Most economists who aren't Chicago School prostitutes get it as well. They are practically shouting it from the roof tops...and no one is listening..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Okay, I'll bite...

Quote Paleo-con:

Thom and most other liberals on this board have repeated ad nauseum that the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich at the expense of everyone else. Now you imply that the rich will have their tax cut expire while everyone else continues to recieve the tax cut. So was the tax cut always for everyone or not? Is the truth being told now or was the truth being told then. It has do be one or the other doesn't it?

Technically it was true, but yet substantially false.

On the one hand, it was like a Christmas Tree with dozens of gaily wrapped presents. All the kids rush in on Christmas morning with Mom and Dad standing by.

"Which is mine?" they all cry.

Dad smiles and reaches into his pocket and pulls out a few shiny dimes. "This is for you, Johnny. Merry Christmas!" and hands Johnny a dime. "And for you, Suzy. And you, Andy. And one for you, Joey!"

"What about me?" cries little Mary, Dad's favorite.

"Well, all those presents under the tree are for you! You've been so good this year!"

"Unfair!" Johnny, and Suzy, and Andy, and Joey cry.

"What's unfair? You all got something, didn't you? Now quit complaining and be happy for Mary!" Dad replies.

Even worse, because of all the money Dad spent on his favorite child, there was less money for food now. Johnny, Suzy, Andy, and Joey went to bed hungry many a night, but Dad made sure that Mary was always well fed and happy.

BadLiberal's picture
BadLiberal
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Not sure what grade students learn the difference between its and it's, but maybe personal attacks is all that grade development has.

SandofEye's picture
SandofEye
Joined:
Aug. 1, 2010 4:12 pm

Probably most know " it's " is a contraction...and "its" is possessive....an exception to the rule of an apostrophe being utilized to show ownership.

Loganthor was known for confusing the two.

Myself, I sometimes omit an apostrophe completely. That key sticks as do a few others on my well-worn keyboard. I use my old keyboard because the letters on the keyboard that came with my newer American brand, Chinese-made computer wore off after several weeks.

Probably focusing on ideas rather than grammer or spelling is the best way to go. Anyone care to go back on topic...."The Year America Dissolved"? Roberts mentions 2017. I think he's a bit of an optimist in some areas....a bit of a pessimist in others...Some things sooner....some things later. or an abrupt change to forestall it all.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Okay I will bite, if the Bush tax cuts were so "beneficial", why was the economy so much WORSE after the Bush administration than before he took office?

The whole low taxes argument is nonsense, and its once again pointless to debate it with people who don't know any better.

If it works, than please provide an example.

Okay poly, back to the initial thread. Personally, I think the above scenario is inevitable if the Republicans gain complete power in November and 2012.

I don't agree that the Dems. and Repubs. are EXACTLY the same. There are some worthy candidates in the Democratic party, people who really care about the country. And I don't agree that Obama is EXACTLY like Bush. I think he is very limited to what any person can achieve as POTUS in this day and age.

I don't know if there is a solution. I am presently reading the book, The Upside of Down, which discusses the pending collapse of modern society (for environmental as well as economic reasons), but apparently he offers real solutions as well. I haven't gotten to that part yet.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
So was the tax cut always for everyone or not? Is the truth being told now or was the truth being told then. It has do be one or the other doesn't it?

The Bush tax cuts were not for everyone, according to the CBO most went to upper-income people. So, the truth was told, by the CBO, then.

jeffbiss's picture
jeffbiss
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Mel wrote: Okay poly, back to the initial thread. Personally, I think the above scenario is inevitable if the Republicans gain complete power in November and 2012.

poly replies: I just disagree with the time frame. Some things sooner...some things later. An abrupt change in policy could change that. As of today, I dont see one..

Abrupt change occurred in two countries recently..Argentina and Bolivia. Bolivia being the most recent..In both countries, mass protests brought it about....and their national armies/police became so fed up, they stayed in their barracks..

Boliva wrote a new constitution. The most progressive one on the planet. I hope they'll be allowed to keep it. It incorporates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within it, among other things. . The only nation to do so. Corporations and finance have been pretty effectively locked out of the political process. in that country.

Corporate power became so absurd, Bechtel Corp. claimed ownership of even the rainfall in the country. Rain falling on one's garden was in effect....theft. It was illegal to use it! Such is the future of neo-liberal policies.

I just disagree with Mr. Roberts time frame. Some things sooner...some later unless there is a drastic change in policies..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"..

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

poly, I don't think you can compare the US to Bolivia or Argentina.

The US is such a fundamentally different animal from either country that I don't think those are realistic models.

I think the natural step would be to become more like the social democracies of Europe, which are far more similar to the US than the South American nations.

However, I don't see that happening anytime soon either. Hell look at the back lash to the substandard health care "reform" bill which was passed last year.

I think Americans are hard wired into believing that their system is the best and only way to do things. I don't see how you change that unless you inevitably hit rock bottom and therefore are forced to.

What unsettles me the most about America, is the level of violence which will begin to unravel as the economic situation continues to deteriorate. I mean with the level of gun ownership in that country, it's hardly a leap of faith to see where a complete meltdown will lead.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote jeffbiss:

The Bush tax cuts were not for everyone, according to the CBO most went to upper-income people. So, the truth was told, by the CBO, then.

I am not trying to parse your comment, because I honestly want to understand why the liberal mind works the way it does. The first statement seems to contradict itself. How can "most" go to one group if it was not given to everyone. If the cuts were not for everyone, then wouldn't they have all gone to the upper income people?

I have read the CBO report. It claims that the tax cuts were across the board; for everyone. Of course, I understand that 3% of $200,000 is more than 3% of $20,000. Therefore, the upper income people benifited more. But the fact that everyone got a tax break seems undeniable.

And yes, I understand that the 47% of people that do not pay income taxes did not get a "tax cut", that would be impossible. My question pertains to the people that do pay income taxes.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

What unsettles me the most about America, is the level of violence which will begin to unravel as the economic situation continues to deteriorate. I mean with the level of gun ownership in that country, it's hardly a leap of faith to see where a complete meltdown will lead.

Gun ownership since Obama was elected has never been higher. His band of gun control freaks have spawned a huge boom in that industry. You could say he's creating jobs and is the best gun salesman on Earth.

The only level of violence that we will see is the liberals that embrace the idea of rioting, looting, and burning. Notice that the Tea Party doesn't even leave a gum wrapper on the ground after tens of thousands gather to protest.

Those here that salivate at the thought of a meltdown, and can't wait for America to crumble, had best hope that their rioting little warriors are bulletproof. With the massive increase in first time gun ownership and basic shooting classes overflowing, I can see the mobs of looters and vandals encountering a bit of resistance when normal people refuse to put up with their bullshit.

That reminds me, I've got to run by the local gun shop and buy and extended rail to mount night vision on a 10/22. Varmint control dontchaknow.

slabmaster
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 11:12 am

Slab wrote: "I can see the mobs of looters and vandals encountering a bit of resistance when normal people refuse to put up with their bullshit."

poly replies: It's a matter of perception. I can see bands of armed looters....looting when they tire of the B.S.

Most Argentines/Bolivians just banged pots and pans and set fires. They went en masse into food stores and wiped them clean to feed their kids.They didn't have guns..If they did, they'd probably have used them.

Of course, near the end they didn't need them. The armies and police stood down. They too had moms, brothers, sisters driven into destitution by outsourcing, privatization and by finance stripping their economy. Finally, the Argentine economy just collapsed....totally...

Americans are so ideologically divided...and armed...., the possibility of neighborhood warlords or even Civil War gets thrown into the mix.. I can see where Mr. Roberts is coming from. He's been pointing out what our economic policies are doing...now he's pointing to the possible outcomes of the desparation they will/are bringing about...

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I hold that the tax cuts and the 30 years of Republican rule were for the objective of buying the public our for pennies on the dollar. The elite hate for the general public to be landholders and they always have throughout history. They don't like for us to own houses. The foreclosure crisis is their favorite wet dream come true. And they are winning. We need to stand up more forcefully against them.

BTW, as a movie buff watching a documentary on Australian exploitation films I was tipped to a film called "Dead End Drive-in", a 1986 film where after an economic collapse the rich don't want to see the youth and ethnic groups so they use an drive-in move theater as a concentration camp and lure them there by offering a lower price for the unemployed.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Our kids are counting on us to reverse austerity.

According to UNICEF, even in the world's richest countires, children remain “the most enduring victims” of the recession. In the last six years, 2.6 million more kids have fallen below the poverty line, and more than half of them live right here in the United States.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system