DAnneMarc: Be careful of what you wish for. At the rate we're going, Reaganomics is likely to go the same way as the T Rex......by way of climate change!

I'll offer this about Americans standing up and demanding a sharing of our wealth. Unions, unions, and more labor unions.....it's the time tested way to level the economic playing field. In addition we need to repeal free trade agreements and of course return to pre Reagan tax rates

Reaganomics cannot coexist with organized labor and the billionaires know it. Unions raise the bar for everyone, not just their members, and we tend to vote progressive. Reaganomics is the antithesis of organized labor......Reaganomics is simply a race to a third world finish line for the vast majority. So in my opinion, seizing power in our workplaces is a good way to start the progressive economic revolution.

Yes, we need to get our Unions back. And we need to stop the Republicans from forcing women back into the Stone Age. There is nothing more the Republicans would like to see than Little Women - at home, raising babies, cleaning the house, cooking meals - because women no longer have the opportunity to get a college education. They detest the fact that we have access to birth control and cancer screenings. They don't want us to have updated information about our bodies. THIS is what the GOP wants. They want just the men to have all the high-paying jobs, and women at home in aprons, getting pregnant every year with no way out.

Not all women were ever born to be mothers. Not all women were born to get married and stay focussed or satisfied inside a household. THIS is what scares the GOP. They see women moving right on up in the world, leading large companies, staying single or (shudder!) childless, having sex whenever the women want, and this goes against their manlihoods and their interpretation of whatever religion they believe.

This is all about CONTROL. They want to go back to the forties and '50s... but they forget that in those days, Unions were getting strong and leveling the playing field for men in all walks of life. And when they talk about the Greatest Generation, they forget that when the men all went off to fight WWII, women had to go to work to support the family, wearing pants to work on the A-Bomb, and that's when women learned they could do more, excel more, and become something which had previously been just wistful thoughts. They don't remember how things were and how they became afterward... they remember it the way they want to remember it... and I have worked too hard for lower wages in my life to stop and let them reshape the world into what they would like it to appear.

In my very first long term job, I was making $325.00 a month, and I was training men who came to the company with two years of college or more. The men's salary was $475 to start, and at the end of their 90-day training period, they were given a raise to $550.00 per month while my salary stayed the same for the entire first year, with only a 10% increase at the beginning of the second year of employment. Salaries were secret then. None of us were supposed to ever discuss what we made with anyone else; to do so was grounds for termination. It was my male supervisor who tipped me off to what was going on, because he had tried to get a higher wage for me, and he was told I was just a single kid who'd fall in love and get married one day soon; the Company had no reason to invest extra money in me, regardless of how many hours I worked in a day and on weekends, to train people and still keep my regular daily duties at the top of performance levels.

No, we're NOT going to allow them to shove us back into the kitchen or the nursery if we don't want to be there. And with strong Unions again, we all can make good wages and the poor will be less. Women are just as strong-hearted as men, and when it comes to out-foxing the foxes, we're bright enough to do that again, too.

So bring back the fairness. Bring back the Union jobs. We will take back our rights to be educated and choose if and when we want to marry and have families. We will put the old men in their respective places - out of our heads, out of our bodies, and into retirement. That's what will make America strong for everyone, again.

I disagree. Men want all women to work full time outside the home while maintaining 100% of the traditional mother/wife workload. When the going gets tough, many men get going -- right out the door, leaving their responsibilities behind them. The womren are then single parents. Single parents who are male are regarded as virtually heroic, while single parents who are female are regarded as something inferior. For many, a single job loss can throw them and their children into poverty. At this point, their fellow women look at them with disdain. The majority of America's poor are women, and it certainly isn't because they aren't trying hard enough. With this generation, women have been very deeply divided by class, middle class against the poor.

DHBranski -- Be very careful. The 1% remember that the poor and the middle class got to together to fight back. They are trying everywhere possilbe to influence people to write blogs like you did. I don't remember any cheering when Clinton changed welfare as we know it, repealed the glass-siegle (sp?) act,, passed NAFTA etc. The only cheering came from the 1% on national TV (since they owned it)>

I may be having a technical problem with the blog

A third of a century ago the American people were sold the idea that in changing our laws to favor the rich we would all benefit by a trickle down effect. As Thom's note above indicates, the second part of that deal never happened. We are, however, left with the laws enacted to profit the wealthy while taking from the middle class and poor. Now the concentration of wealth has given the wealthy the ability to prevent a reversal of our problematic economic system. And they can do it with their pocket change. When a full time job frequently does not provide enough to buy food and a roof over one's head we are truely returning to a serf society. Only this time the master/Lord is a corporation, totally divorced from concern for the common good. A better recipe for a system collapse I cannot imagine.

The reason the rich paid more tax with a lower tax rate was because THEY had a much, much larger income. But it remained in their hands and did not do the trickle down that was promised. So now after all these years, voodoo economics has created billionaires and a growing poor segment of our society. Cut it any way you want, we're worse off as a society than say the scandanavian countries or how we were before Reaganomics came along, due to increasing economic inequality. I'm not much comforted by the fact that the rich are enormously richer. ---- p.s. I heard the rich are still avoiding taxes. Romney paid a lower tax rate than I did according to the one return he released. 'Course he only made $23 million that year. Don't know how he gets by with that 47% freeloading off him.

ckrob -- That is the point, at the lower tax rate they did not keep their income in their business. It took the rich a few years for them to change the tax code, so they didn't even have to pay that lower tax. The only case I know about is the LA Dodgers ex-owner, McCourt. He used accelerated depreciation with reinvestment credits. I would guess Mitt Romney avoided paying taxes by performing his leveraged buyouts inside of a IRA.

Taxation without representation! Wheeeee! - AIW