The banksters and technocrats pushing austerity in Greece now have blood on their hands

35 posts / 0 new

On Wednesday – a 77-year-old retired pharmacist walked up to the Greek Parliament building and shot himself in the head to protest the crippling austerity measures that are ripping apart that nation. The man – whose name has not been released – left behind a note reading, “I have no other way to react apart from finding a dignified end before I start sifting through garbage for food.”

His suicide prompted thousands of Greeks to take to the streets in central Athens in fresh new protests against trickle-down austerity. Since trickle-down austerity began in Greece – suicide rates have jumped up 40%. Not only is trickle-down austerity bad economically – it’s bad morally as well. Yet it’s just the thing that the Republican budget written by multi-millionaire Congressman Paul Ryan would bring to the United States.

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

I would be willing to bet that this does not get mentioned in the mainstream media.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

That's what happens when progressive governments give away the bank. They create dependency in the population which leads to people not being able to take care of themselves. When you go to a park don't feed the bears! What happened in Greece with this suicide reminds me of a hunger strike, or a toddler holding his breath, it's stupid and they are only hurting themselves. Maybe if enough of them follow suit they can afford to take care of the rest of the subjects. Onward Comrades!

The Real World's picture
The Real World
Joined:
Apr. 6, 2012 7:14 am

Pure con drivel! If you look at what happens and where it happens, what you see is just about the reverse of this. Your Kochers want dutiful slaves, not real citizens with minds and hearts. Your bully state robs the workers, like this guy, and leave us by the side of the road while you drive over us in your fancy rides. You pose as "realists" because you can't deal with being your brothers' keepers and what it means to identify with "the least of these." Then you rationalize being Scrooge. It is ugly and sad.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Real World wrote: That's what happens when progressive governments give away the bank. They create dependency in the population which leads to people not being able to take care of themselves. When you go to a park don't feed the bears! What happened in Greece with this suicide reminds me of a hunger strike, or a toddler holding his breath, it's stupid and they are only hurting themselves. Maybe if enough of them follow suit they can afford to take care of the rest of the subjects.

Karolina writes: Since this "progressive government" has systematically been giving our banks away (thank you very much loving oligarchs & minions, tea party included ), and so when you are staring into a dumpster to look for dinner for yourself & your family after all your money becomes less valuable than the paper it's printed on, lets see if you don't search for a different way out of the unappetizing situation and the unpromising future, full of only pain and increasing humiliation.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

This is what happens when you put governments in charge of anything especially your retirement. You can even make the case that this is currently happening with SSI. You pay into the system your whole life just like this guy. The government then decides how much of your money to give back to you and how much of it to give to some one else that has not earned it. as the economy gets worse the cut more and more of what is supposed to be your money to give it to the un-deserving.

This event though traggic is a big glowing light shinning on what happens with a progressive do gooder government in charge.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Or you could risk everything you own in the casino market and hope they don't steal you blind. And it's only a matter of time before they do and guess which place you will run to first looking for help? That would be the government the same one you wingnuts hate untill you need it to do something for you.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 5:49 am

bossman, the government did not wipe out pension funds or turn 401Ks to fairy dust. Your indictment of government is tired and empty. We have seen Corporate, and thank you NO THANKS! The privateer sector just sucks our blood because we are only profit sources. "We, The People" can do it together for ourselves much better. You hate democracy and show it all the time.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

This is NOT what happens when you have a National Bank & your government's policy is Hamilton's credit system instead of the monetarist system that the European oligarchical banks (like most of ours) are working so hard to enforce on Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, etc., with the knowledge that this will destroy the people and bring in a new dark age. That's the plan.

Good luck avoiding that here, "workingman" unless things change ASAP.

GLASS-STEAGALL,
NATIONAL BANKING, &
HAMILTON'S CREDIT BANKING
FUNDING THE REBUILDING OF OUR COUNTRY ...
THE USA!

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
Quote DRC:

bossman, the government did not wipe out pension funds or turn 401Ks to fairy dust. Your indictment of government is tired and empty. We have seen Corporate, and thank you NO THANKS! The privateer sector just sucks our blood because we are only profit sources. "We, The People" can do it together for ourselves much better. You hate democracy and show it all the time.

lets look at this logically, 401ks and pensions that were tied to the stock market took a hit some as bad as 50 percent most have recovered already. the SSI program will take a 22 percent every year forever with no hope of ever getting all of the money you paid in back out of the system.

which would you rather have the accounts that you manage and can make money with or the accounts that will be guaranteed to lose 22 percent of everything you put into the system, plus you will never see all of what you have put in.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Karolina:

This is NOT what happens when you have a National Bank & your government's policy is Hamilton's credit system instead of the monetarist system that the European oligarchical banks (like most of ours) are working so hard to enforce on Greece, Italy, Ireland, Spain, etc., with the knowledge that this will destroy the people and bring in a new dark age. That's the plan.

Good luck avoiding that here, "workingman" unless things change ASAP.

GLASS-STEAGALL,
NATIONAL BANKING, &
HAMILTON'S CREDIT BANKING
FUNDING THE REBUILDING OF OUR COUNTRY ...
THE USA!

the government screwed it up and you want to give them more power. hamilton wanted the government so big and controling that he thought people would eventually get used to the government running their lives. that is not a principle that the U.S. was based on, russia yes U.S. no.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:the government screwed it up and you want to give them more power. hamilton wanted the government so big and controling that he thought people would eventually get used to the government running their lives. that is not a principle that the U.S. was based on, russia yes U.S. no.

Every phrase in your post is categorically untrue, including the one about Russia.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm
hamilton wanted the government so big and controling that he thought people would eventually get used to the government running their lives. that is not a principle that the U.S. was based on, russia yes U.S. no.
A stirring little speach, to be sure. It will play well with about 33% of the electorate.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:

lets look at this logically, 401ks and pensions that were tied to the stock market took a hit some as bad as 50 percent most have recovered already. the SSI program will take a 22 percent every year forever with no hope of ever getting all of the money you paid in back out of the system.

which would you rather have ...........

I'd rather have the one that I will very likely pay me and others tomorrow as we pay in today .......a generational contract. Not the one that will pay Wall Street today and leave us very likely with nothing tomorrow ........a professional hitman's contract on our future generations.

It's pretty simple question when you ask yourself if you trust Big banks and Big corporations more than you trust the government. Any rational person who ain't in bed with the Bigs knows the right answer.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Really do you have any proof. Russia was a communist country where the government ran your life. Before that it was a kingdom again the king ran your life so where am I lieing

Posted from phone excuse typos

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Laborisgood:
Quote workingman:

lets look at this logically, 401ks and pensions that were tied to the stock market took a hit some as bad as 50 percent most have recovered already. the SSI program will take a 22 percent every year forever with no hope of ever getting all of the money you paid in back out of the system.

which would you rather have ...........

I'd rather have the one that I will very likely pay me and others tomorrow as we pay in today .......a generational contract. Not the one that will pay Wall Street today and leave us very likely with nothing tomorrow ........a professional hitman's contract on our future generations.

It's pretty simple question when you ask yourself if you trust Big banks and Big corporations more than you trust the government. Any rational person who ain't in bed with the Bigs knows the right answer.

I do not trust either, however in the private sector I have control over my money and I have a say in where it is invested and for how long. The government gives you none of those options. They confiscate the money lose 22 percent of it, give you back what they think you deserve and then act like you should be grateful for their theif of your money.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
They confiscate the money lose 22 percent of it
Just curious. Where does this 22% loss figure come from?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
They confiscate the money lose 22 percent of it
Just curious. Where does this 22% loss figure come from?

From the SSI they send you a mailer every year before your bday. In it they say that by 2016 they will be paying out more than they take in. and by 2037 they will only be able to pay out 78 cents off of every dollar you have paid in. leaving a 22 percent loss.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

working wrote:

hamilton wanted the government so big and controling that he thought people would eventually get used to the government running their lives. that is not a principle that the U.S. was based on, russia yes U.S. no.

Karolina writes:

If you are interested to know how—

1) Hamilton created a banking system that was able to rebuild the new nation after the Revolutionary War had bankrupted it

2) In this system the new United States National Bank provided money for business projects, rebuilding infrastructure and needed enterprises, to its citizens under the new credit banking system in which the bank created the money as it needed it.

3) Though there were some less imaginative Founding Fathers who opposed the new Hamiltonian system at first, they later embraced it when they saw the brilliance of the plan.

4) Russia was a Communist country and before that a Kingdom, so it could not be using the Hamiltonian system. Russia is embracing that type of system now that it is a Democracy, though—which is why it is not falling apart financially like Europe and the USA. We have been bamboozled into using the old oligarchical moneterist system again after WW2.

—you can go to a former post of mine entitled Origins of Today's Economic Problem.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 6:45 pm

SSI is simply an insurance policy that is mandatory for all in order to ensure a safety net in the future. It is based upon current money input to support those currently relying on the safety net. Needless to say, with population growth it can be less lucrative for someone in the future than someone today. Certainly a corrective adjustment is necessary and all it would take is to lift the $107k cap.

The very idea of having control over YOUR money invested in the private sector is what destroys the safety net because you no longer have an insurance pool to draw from. Selfish people will take THEIR money and do as they wish. Aside from that, how many times do you need to see Wall Street make out like bandits as we get fleeced to realize that the private investment game is as rigged as any.

I know full well that government doesn't have all the answers and the government seems very capable of pissing away our tax dollars on useless things like war and subsidies for big oil and big agriculture business as well as this mandate for private for-profit health insurance companies. But at the end of the day, I'd rather have gov't in control of my future more than big banks and corporations. We have some say in the process of gov't and we have no say in the process of private business.

Laborisgood's picture
Laborisgood
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
From the SSI they send you a mailer every year before your bday. In it they say that by 2016 they will be paying out more than they take in.
I remember when they started sending that out. It was under Georg W Bush. What they're talking about is the Social Security Trust Fund. Not regular Social Security. The Trust Fund is supposed to run out about 2042, but they have adjusted that downward because of diminished receipts caused by this Republican depression we are in.

Here's what we have to keep reminding people. During the 80s, the Greenspan Commission recognized that starting about now, there was going to be a sudden rush by the baby boomers to retire. Through the efforts of Greenspan and Moynihan, Congress doubled FICA contributions to cover not only our parents' retirements, but our own as well. (I remember the shock, but wages quickly adjusted to compensate). The Trust Fund is doing pretty much what it was intended to do. It was established for a reason and it is being used for its intended purpose. Once we baby boomers are all dead around 2040, the system goes back to the original pay-as-you-go mode.

Here is a good Wikipedia article on the matter:

There is now an annual multibillion dollar shortfall that is made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2022 because of the interest generated by its bonds. After 2022, the Fund will decrease each year until being fully exhausted in 2036.[9]

You need to understand that the Trust Fund is a pot of money apart and separate from regular Social Security. The Trust Fund is just for us baby boomers. If you are not a baby boomer, then you should mind your own business.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

The problem is that the trust fund is for everyone not just the baby boomers. SS was set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you, that is why you have a SS number. The trust fund has been part of the general fund or pay as you go since LBJ this is not how it was supposed to work. Once all the baby boomers die and the trust fund is completely empty I will have been paying in my whole life to get back 22 percent less than I have paid in not counting interest on the money because they do not pay interest on the money.

so again I have more control and will be able to live much better if the government would just give me the money and let me deal with it.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
SS was set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you, that is why you have a SS number.
Your understanding of the system is totally garbled. Regular SS was not set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you. It was set up as an account to be drawn from by your parents and all those other parents and grandparents out there. That is the pay-as-you-go part. The instant a dollar enters the system, it is withdrawn and used by a retiree. It is not for you until you retire.
Once all the baby boomers die and the trust fund is completely empty I will have been paying in my whole life to get back 22 percent less than I have paid in
So, you believe that your benefits will be reduced by 22%. Once again, you are confusing the Trust Fund with regular Social Security. You will be drawing from both as soon as you retire. You really don't know what you're talking about.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:

This is what happens when you put governments in charge of anything especially your retirement. You can even make the case that this is currently happening with SSI. You pay into the system your whole life just like this guy. The government then decides how much of your money to give back to you and how much of it to give to some one else that has not earned it. as the economy gets worse the cut more and more of what is supposed to be your money to give it to the un-deserving.

This event though traggic is a big glowing light shinning on what happens with a progressive do gooder government in charge.

Well said. I hear the word austerity being throw about by Thom Hartmann and other statists. Do you know what they mean by austerity? Does it mean taking away what belongs to someone? Or does it mean taking away what doesn't belong to someone although they think they are entitled to it. This by no means implies that there may be a gradual way to cut so that the people that are truly dependent, i.e. children and the elderly who cannot work, won't be left holding the bag.

TheFirstLeftist's picture
TheFirstLeftist
Joined:
Mar. 23, 2012 1:33 pm

You seem to believe that stealing our money fair and square is good business. The point of these "debts" is that they are theft from us and our children, so the way out would be to take that money back. In the interim, it means that keeping people and society alive and well is the better investment than allowing the banksters to foreclose on them and use their suffering to balance their books.

You cons really have nothing conservative other than a hatred of democracy and a love for the lust of money uber alles. First Leftist Indeed! Troll.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
SS was set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you, that is why you have a SS number.
Your understanding of the system is totally garbled. Regular SS was not set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you. It was set up as an account to be drawn from by your parents and all those other parents and grandparents out there. That is the pay-as-you-go part. The instant a dollar enters the system, it is withdrawn and used by a retiree. It is not for you until you retire.
Once all the baby boomers die and the trust fund is completely empty I will have been paying in my whole life to get back 22 percent less than I have paid in
So, you believe that your benefits will be reduced by 22%. Once again, you are confusing the Trust Fund with regular Social Security. You will be drawing from both as soon as you retire. You really don't know what you're talking about.

you are the one who is confused there is no seperate fund for the baby boomers, all the money paid in by everyone goes into the same place under the same system of the SS administration. if you would take the time to look into the orignal intent of the SS program it was to be a retirement account that you would be able to draw from once you reached a certain age.

the SS adminstration has already said that the fund will be empty by 2037 or so and that after that point any one who pulls from the system can expect to get back 78 cents off of every dollar they have paid in. which is a 22 precent reduction in what you are owed not counting interest on the money because the government does not pay interest on the money they take from you.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
you are the one who is confused there is no seperate fund for the baby boomers, all the money paid in by everyone goes into the same place under the same system of the SS administration.
I will be concise and clear. The Social Security Trust Fund is a separate and distinct fund established to cover the shortfall caused by us baby boomers.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
There is no other pot of money because the money from regular Social Security goes out the instant it is collected.
the SS adminstration has already said that the fund will be empty by 2037 or so and that after that point any one who pulls from the system can expect to get back 78 cents off of every dollar they have paid in.
This statement talks about the SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND and says nothing about regular, pay-as-you-go Social Security, which continues on without regard to the filling and emptying of the Trust Fund.
if you would take the time to look into the orignal intent of the SS program it was to be a retirement account that you would be able to draw from once you reached a certain age.
Can you tell us what the balance is in your "retirement account"? What has happened to the balance in your "retirement account" over time? Has it increased or decreased? Can you tell us what kind of interest it has accrued? Has the balance increased as you have continued to contribute?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Like the rest of the con "talking points," the idea that the extra input designed to take care of the "baby boomer" come of age impact on SS would be being spent on retiring bbers is not scary when you realize that was what it was there for. Nor does it help their case to point out that the same goons who love the banksters so much would be willing to steal from it--that is borrow from it and now claim that their IOU's are worthless. Either way, their argument against SS falls apart, but I hope they keep thinking that Americans are going to fall for it.

Nothing organizes Democratic voters like Republicans.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
you are the one who is confused there is no seperate fund for the baby boomers, all the money paid in by everyone goes into the same place under the same system of the SS administration.
I will be concise and clear. The Social Security Trust Fund is a separate and distinct fund established to cover the shortfall caused by us baby boomers.
As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
There is no other pot of money because the money from regular Social Security goes out the instant it is collected.
the SS adminstration has already said that the fund will be empty by 2037 or so and that after that point any one who pulls from the system can expect to get back 78 cents off of every dollar they have paid in.
This statement talks about the SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUND and says nothing about regular, pay-as-you-go Social Security, which continues on without regard to the filling and emptying of the Trust Fund.
if you would take the time to look into the orignal intent of the SS program it was to be a retirement account that you would be able to draw from once you reached a certain age.
Can you tell us what the balance is in your "retirement account"? What has happened to the balance in your "retirement account" over time? Has it increased or decreased? Can you tell us what kind of interest it has accrued? Has the balance increased as you have continued to contribute?

it has two comas in it, the account grows year over year if i contribute to it or not, the interest varies dependant on the market but rarely drops below 5 percent.

all of which are better than the SS fund that pays no interest and will only payout 78 cents off every dollar.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

And these are the guys who think they are patriots. Love the banksters, hate democracy. Sorry bossman, your Privateer Sector is the problem here. What they are doing to our government is bad enough, but what they do without it is even worse.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
it has two comas in it, the account grows year over year if i contribute to it or not, the interest varies dependant on the market but rarely drops below 5 percent.
I wasn't asking about your IRA or 401k. I was asking about your Social Security "retirement account". The one you referred to here:
SS was set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you
You can see that it was not set up nor does it operate like a personal individual retirement account. That is because it is not a retirement account, but rather it is an insurance fund.

You are free to invest in any kind of fund you want, but Social Security was never intended to be an investment fund. Your benefits were never intended to be any kind of return on an investment. Insurance policies don't give you an account balance or give you information about interest accumulation. Neither do you Social Security Insurance notifications. Like other insurance programs, they give you information about the "premiums" you have paid in and the benefits you can expect to receive. Talking about the program as an investment program doesn't work.

If you want to criticize Social Security, it makes more sense to use the same kind of reasoning that you use to criticize the Affordable Care Act. This is the reason that I say that "Your understanding of the system is totally garbled.". Insurance policies are not supposed to work the same way as investment plans.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Art:
it has two comas in it, the account grows year over year if i contribute to it or not, the interest varies dependant on the market but rarely drops below 5 percent.
I wasn't asking about your IRA or 401k. I was asking about your Social Security "retirement account". The one you referred to here:
SS was set up as a retirement account that the government was supposed to collect form your check and put into an account just for you
You can see that it was not set up nor does it operate like a personal individual retirement account. That is because it is not a retirement account, but rather it is an insurance fund.

You are free to invest in any kind of fund you want, but Social Security was never intended to be an investment fund. Your benefits were never intended to be any kind of return on an investment. Insurance policies don't give you an account balance or give you information about interest accumulation. Neither do you Social Security Insurance notifications. Like other insurance programs, they give you information about the "premiums" you have paid in and the benefits you can expect to receive. Talking about the program as an investment program doesn't work.

If you want to criticize Social Security, it makes more sense to use the same kind of reasoning that you use to criticize the Affordable Care Act. This is the reason that I say that "Your understanding of the system is totally garbled.". Insurance policies are not supposed to work the same way as investment plans.

Your social security account is not ynder your control you have no choice and no say. The government takes 12 perenct of your pay for your entire life and than gives you back what they think you deserve if you die before pay out they keep it.

Accourding to my calculations if I never get another raise again by the time I am 67 full retirement age. I eill have paid in 1.2 million dollars at 5 perecent interest that is 60k a year. the SS administration says I can expect to get a monthy payment of 3k that does not even cover the inerest let alone the priniciple.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

It was set up to be a retirement account with an insurance aspect if you needed it.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

And, it was intended to end old age poverty. And has done rather well at that. If the cap were to be raised to meet real dollar equivalents from the early years, it would be quite adequately financed and secure. We do believe that the debts from those who have borrowed against it are to be honored, unlike those pension funds ended under corporate "bankruptcy" or legalized thefts.

Compared to being taxed for war, I welcome being able to share with those in need.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
The government takes 12 perenct of your pay
No it doesn't. You pay an insurance premium equal to 6.2% of your pay (up to $106,000). Your employer matches these premium payments. (Those rates were reduced by 2 percentage points in 2010).

That would be $106,000 X .062 = $6,572 this year (assuming you are earning at least $106,000 per year). 20 years ago, that wage base (cap) was around $55,000, so that, on average over a 20 year career, you will have contributed about $4991 per year, or about $100,000 total.

That seems like a pretty decent career premium to pay for an insurance policy that ensures that not just you, but everybody who works will have some kind of retirement no matter what.

Now, here's a problem I have with how you argue these issues. It's not about you. It can be useful to use personal exemplar anecdotes occasionally, but Congress doesn't and shouldn't really consider what's going to happen to Workingman on Thom Hartmann's message board. If I were to argue an issue based on a hardship that I, personally, am experiencing, I would try to endear myself to where people would actually want to be on my side.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system