Kend, if hard work got you out of the poorhouse, hooray for you. It got you out of the poorhouse because of something called social mobility. Canada seems to have that figured out a lot better than the United Mistake of America, where (if you haven't inherited any $$ or other assets via dumb luck, or benefitted from a thriving family business or whatever) you're stuck in poverty no matter how hard you work. This has everything to do with healthcare and education, the two greatest equalizers, neither of which are guaranteed as a right of citizenship in this lame-ass country of ours! It hasn't always been that way, but every president since Reagan has seen to it that the playing field remains unequal, tilted in favor of a few at the expense of the majority. Their policies have kept many trapped in poverty here. You should be thanking your lucky stars, Kend, that the system you were born into provided the sort of infrastructure it takes for hard work to actually pay off. For those not born into wealth & privilege in the U.S., it's tantamount to modern-day slavery. Many people are having to work at two or three three minimum-wage jobs just to cover the barest of necessities, with no safety net to catch them in the event of a crisis! I'd like to see where you'd be now, Kend, if those were the cards dealt you in your youth.

If taxes were as high as 90% or more on income over, say, $250,000 or $500,000 a year, it would give these high earners incentive to re-invest that money in their businesses so that it gets re-circulated back into the economy. Our present system helps create a class of deadbeat rich folks who just sit on it and hoarde it. This is, in large part, why we have such extremes of wealth and poverty in America. Just going back to our old system of taxation like we had before Reagan, while making healthcare & higher education accessible to everyone, would make a huge difference for those wishing to improve their lot in life. - Aliceinwonderland

PERSONALLY I think anyone stuck below the poverty line, barely keeping themselves covered in the most basic necessities, should pay no taxes at all. Sorry Kend, I hate to disappoint, but I'm not with you on that flat tax bandwagon. Just try living on $10,000 a year in today's economy, even as a single person! That's less than $1000 per month. And in the likelihood that such an individual is renting their living space, it's a fair assumption the landlord is taking more than half of that. (And ALL the landlords I ever had were friggin' deadbeats!) So the thought of coughing up $900 of of a $10,000 annual income for any kind of tax makes me gag, unless that tax directly contributed to something like Social Security. Even then, 9% taken from such an income is way too much. Giving a tax holiday to our poorest citizens would be at least partial compensation for having to live on such substandard wages. Maybe their employers should be making up the difference! And in my not-so-humble opinion, the richer the taxpayer, the higher that percentage should be. Hell, why should I have to cough up the same percentage as someone like Steve Forbes? Plleeeeze! - Aliceinwonderland

gomw

I agree with what you wrote .It is really ironical because the ACA is A REPUBLICAN Plan.!

While i am here ,i would like to tell a story i read in CROOKS and LIARS about what Grover NORQUIST said in 2003 in a reunion with his classmates.

He gave a speech saying that THERE is going to be a PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY in America.

One person asked him HOW come? Since we have elections every 2 years.? Do you mean No Democrat shall ever win?

NORQUIST immediately replied : WE will make it so NO DEMOCRAT can GOVERN as a DEMOCRAT !!!

After reading this,I no longer wonder why Prez Bill CLINTON said the Era of BIG GOV is over and is called the best Republican President!

And why now, Democrat Obama and Dems passed a REPUBLICAN Health reform .not aSINGLE payer NOT even a PUBLIC OPTION

In the summer of 2009 in a townhall i suggested B L U Medicare for all

And the SLOGAN i told DEMS to use for 2010 election was TO PROTECT and IMPROVE ACA ( with a Public Option)

ALAS , no DEM used my slogan and LOST the Majority in Nov 2010 !

Marc, your point about the science of mind manipulation in advertising is well taken. But I still get very frustrated with people for listening to that crap. The only appropriate response to political ads is a deaf ear. And you just did a beautiful job of describing the reasons why I have eliminated the boob tube from my realm of reality! Why should I pay an extra bill each month for the "privilege" of getting jerked around and manipulated (and annoyed and offended) on a daily basis? Cable, satellite... it's all the same... garbage-in-garbage-out! - AIW

Marc, I don't know about you, but I quake at the thought of Chris Christie in the White House. I don't trust that guy any more than anyone else in his party. If Warren lost to him I think I'd be suicidal. (Half kidding...) - AIW

Mark , I don't need anyone to tell me how hard poor people work. I was one. It was hard work that got me out of the poor house. The problem to me is wealthy people don't pay tax. They hide it through the tax code. They run everything through the companies so many of the day to day things they buy are paid by before tax dollars. With a flat tax I would pay more that's why the wealthy don't want it. . But to me it is as fair as it gets.

Sorry: Did not realize the first comment was posted.

I totally agree that it is time to go after the tax cheats. David Shaxson's "Perfectly Legal" and I believe David Cay Johnson to wrote on the subject. However, today on the web it was stated that the number of people giving up their U S Citizenship had increased by 1/3, gave more precise numbers too.

My question: Do you have info as to the validity and comprehensiveness of those numbers, are they precise and do they truly reflect the import of the implications? Is there any info as to where these people would go and would they have the same protections, fiduciary as well as personal as they have had in the U. S?

chuckle8 ~ As far as Chris Christie is concerned I wouldn't put it past Thom to compare him with Ronald Wilson (666) Reagan. I don't trust the man either. I don't mean to endorse him in anyway when I say he is "part human." That compliment is relative to the Republican party only. All I mean is that he is a far better of a choice than any other Republicans I've seen running lately. (By the way, when I say "lately" I mean in the past 57 years. Lets make no mistake, when I say part human I realize that the other part is not human. I still prefer my President to be 100% human as a basic requirement.)

June, 2012 was a day I didn't participate here. However, I did peruse the blog on that day. It was about SCOTUS and Citizens United. I skimmed the posts twice and saw no mention of the TPP. I might have missed it. Which posters are you referring to?

Without minnimum wage laws employers are FORCED to pay lower wages than all other employers. There can be no ethics in a competitive society because they (ethics) are an impediment to competitiveness. Ethics, in a free enterprise system, must be handed down by government in the form of laws and regulations.

It's about flippin' time!

People, customers and workers, should have a day of NO SHOPPING. It is Thanksgiving, why not do something at home with your family instead of stressing out shopping or working. So you still need to shop for your dinner? Plan ahead. There was a time when most stores were closed after 9:00 PM, so in knowing that you shopped before that. Give everybody a break!

Quote Loren Bliss:Anyone foolish enough to believe "we have the power to change things" is in denial about the bottomless ignorance that gives the One Percent absolute power over Moron Nation.

Loren Bliss ~ Your premise is very sound however I must differ with your conclusion. First, I-522 although a very progressive and convenient proposition is not really necessary to protect anyone who wants to be protected against GMO's. Information about the content of products is readily available to those interested through special interest groups and on line. Secondly, Washington State is one of the most progressive and well educated of all communities in the country--next to California, of course. They are hardly an abysmal pit of intellectual despair.

Finally, and most importantly, you overlook the ominous factors of economy, psychology and the power of marketing that really are at the root of this tragic outcome. People in this country have been conditioned from birth to expect instant gratification. That expectation is reinforced by their lifestyle which by and large is living from paycheck to paycheck. These people have to focus on where today's meal is going to come from rather then the "possible consequences" of eating cheap GMO foods 20 years down the line. As far as many of them are concerned anything past next month doesn't' exist. The economy has forced them to live that way--it has little to do with choice or intellect.

Corporate advertisers know just how to play into this fear. Given enough money and a loose truth they can easily spin any perspective they want. They know how to trigger the appropriate reaction; and, that response has nothing to do with being abysmally stupid. It is a human response and the appropriate reaction only proves you are human.

Remember the famous experiments in the 60s and 70s with Stanley Milgram at Yale and Philip Zimbardo at Harvard? The subjects in these experiments were young, educated, and fully aware that they were participating in an experiment; yet, showed complete yielding to the power of authority and peer pressure to the point of abusing and killing innocent people. We know that to recreate that powerful influence of authority and peer pressure enables enormous control over the minds of almost everyone. That is why such influences in society should never be left unchecked and unregulated.

The enormous psychological marketing influence exerted by these Corporations are multiplied as a result of the money involved. They hire the best firms. I'm not sure if you are aware but there is a great deal of psychological science that goes into marketing these days. They know just what buttons to push to make us jump.From my training and understanding of the field I can almost tell you exactly what was presented to the residents of Washington State. The commercials probably took one of two forms. Form one, the testimonial. Here, a typical citizen, like you or I, played by an very convincing actor, laments as to how hard it is to afford food for their family and how much harder it will be with I-522. They then throw in a bit of misinformation about who is really behind I-522, what it's "real" purpose is, and who is behind the opposition. They make it sound as though the opposition are the good guys and they are looking out for the viewers best interest. They base the lies on known facts and always paint the intended decision in the light of the viewers "best interests." The second version template is the scary tale. Scary music, scary visuals, scary voice. They make it sound like the world will come to an end if I-522 passes. What is given in response by the sponsors of I-522? Very little, because the citizen action committees have no where near as much money as the Corporate interests; and, our "Fairness Doctrine" is history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWhwiZhICgc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O87MrJSUi7g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7cAPLYHAQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLcnOmOsEI

So Loren, with all due respect, blaming the intellect of these victims is not a realistic approach to the analysis of this problem. University studies have proven conclusively that given the same group of circumstances almost anyone will conform to making the same set of bad choices regardless of their intellectual capabilities. Despair and apathy in this situation is not acceptable. We are capable of understanding the factors responsible for this poor choice. We should address these factors instead of criticizing the people involved. The way I see it, this problem will continue to be the norm unless we change how we regulate our political media. The first step is "The Fairness Doctrine" must be reinstated and applied to ANY POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT! Secondly, ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING MUST BE PUBLICLY FUNDED!

Fortunately, both these proverbial birds can both be killed with the one stone of CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM! This is where we should all focus our efforts. The statement the we do not "have the power to change things" discounts all the other victories that we experienced in this election based on this one defeat. To me, that is not a logical conclusion. The fact of the matter is that this last election shows conclusively that we do have the power to change EVERYTHING. Maybe not everything at once; but, more than enough to stop Corporate interests in their tracks. Now is not the time to let up. We have them where we want them. Let them have their petty little victory. They paid enough for it.