Michael Moore on Leno: "Capitalism is Legalized Greed"

Americans who didn't witness filmmaker Michael Moore's appearance Tuesday night on NBC's "The Jay Leno Show" missed one of those rare moments when the vast wasteland gives way to an oasis of realism.

Rarely since the days when author Gore Vidal regularly appeared on the "Tonight" show with Johnny Carson has a popular television program on a commercial broadcast channel provided such extended and respectful treatment to a scathing critique of the corrupt status quo.

Leno hailed Moore's new movie, "Capitalism: A Love Story," as "the best film he's done."

The talk-show host described "Capitalism: A Love Story" as "completely nonpartisan" -- and he's right: Moore goes after sold-out Democrats and sold-out Republicans -- before declaring: "I was stunned by it, and I think it is the most fair film."

Even more meaningful than Leno's review of a movie he had obviously watched and considered seriously was this exchange:

LENO: Now it's one year since Lehman Brothers collapsed. We've had all, OK, we've handed out... Is Wall Street any better? Have they learned anything?

MOORE: No, not at all. It's, it's probably worse. They're still doing these exotic derivatives. They're now trying to do it with life insurance. They've got all these crazy schemes. I mean, that's what I'm saying about capitalism, it's like a beast. And no matter how many strings or ropes you try and tie it down with that beast just wants more and more money. And it will go anywhere. It will try to gobble up as much as it can. The word 'enough' is the dirtiest word in capitalism, 'cuz there's no such thing as enough with these guys. And we haven't stopped them. We haven't passed the regulations that President Obama has suggested. I mean, I think he's really on top of this. And he said yesterday, he told Wall Street, 'That's it, boys. No more free ATM machine at the U.S. Department of Treasury.' And I think that's something we all support, right?

The audience responded with enthusiastic and sustained applause.

The applause rose again when Moore explained that: "I'm actually suggesting go back to our roots of this country, democracy. What if we had an economy that you and I had a say in? Right now, we all don't have much of a say in this economy. What if we applied our democratic principles and said, 'We, the people, have a right to determine how this economy is run.' I think we'd be in much better shape than what we're going through right now."

Moore gets credit for stating economic truths that are rarely aired on commercial television. But Moore can usually be counted on to get things right, when he gets a microphone.

Leno gets credit for something a good deal more remarkable. He provided a forum for an American artist and thinker to describe the current economic order as "insane."

Tuesday night's program gave new meaning to the term "reality TV."

Here's the video of Leno's interview with Moore.

And here's the transcript, which really is worth a read:

JAY LENO: The film is called Capitalism: A Love Story.

MICHAEL MOORE: Yes, it's Capitalism: A Love Story. The love refers to how the wealthy love their money except this has a new twist. They not only love their money now, they love our money.

LENO: Right.

MOORE: And they want our money.

LENO: Right, right.

MOORE: So, uh...

LENO: Well, it's interesting in the film. You say capitalism is evil. I think greed is evil, but I think capitalism is OK as long as you, I mean, moderation in all things. I mean, uh, explain.

MOORE: Yeah, well, capitalism, capitalism is actually legalized greed. Uh, it's, it's, it... There's nothing wrong with people earning money, doing well, starting a business, selling shoes. That's not what I'm talking about here.

We're at a point now, Jay, in this country where the richest one percent, the very top one percent, have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined.

LENO: Really? Wow.

MOORE: That's insane. We live in a democracy. We're supposed to have like fairness and equality. And, you know, when you have a pie on the table, you know, something you and I know something about.

LENO: Right. We've both had pie on the table.

MOORE: But when you have a pie on the table, there's ten slices, and one guy at the table says, 'Nine of those slices are mine...

LENO: Right.

MOORE: And the other nine of you, you can fight over the last slice,' I mean, that's essentially the kind of economy we have now.

LENO: Well, the one thing I like about this film, the main thing was, it's completely nonpartisan. Other people have had opinions, 'Oh, he's a liberal, he's doing this,' but you go after both the Democrats and the Republicans, I think, equally in this film. Maybe you've hit the Democrats a little bit harder because they get into that culture of... they're all Wall Street guys that run everything now. That didn't used to be the way it was, was it?

MOORE: It didn't used to be that way, and now both parties take huge sums of money from Wall Street, from all corporations. They've really bought both of our parties. And it was funny, you know, they tended to skew Republican when they hand out their money, but as soon as it looked like Barack Obama might win then they all of a sudden go, 'Whoa, wait a minute.' And they started throwing money at him during the campaign, hoping, you know, that he'll do their bidding once he gets into office.

LENO: Now it's one year since Lehman Brothers collapsed. We've had all, OK, we've handed out... Is Wall Street any better? Have they learned anything?

MOORE: No, not at all. It's, it's probably worse. They're still doing these exotic derivatives. They're now trying to do it with life insurance. They've got all these crazy schemes. I mean, that's what I'm saying about capitalism, it's like a beast. And no matter how many strings or ropes you try and tie it down with that beast just wants more and more money. And it will go anywhere. It will try to gobble up as much as it can. The word 'enough' is the dirtiest word in capitalism, 'cuz there's no such thing as enough with these guys. And we haven't stopped them. We haven't passed the regulations that President Obama has suggested. I mean, I think he's really on top of this. And he said yesterday, he told Wall Street, 'That's it, boys. No more free ATM machine at the U.S. Department of Treasury.' And I think that's something we all support, right? I mean, this is like, uh...

(Applause)

LENO: Now is reform possible? Is reform possible?

MOORE: Well, I, I don't, you know, a hundred years ago when there was child labor, they said, you know, 'Can we reform child labor? Can we just regulate it, like if the factories were safer and the kids go to school, we can still have 12-year-olds working in the factory, right?

LENO: Right.

MOORE: No, not right. It's wrong. Some things are just wrong. And this capitalist economic system that we have, it might have been right at one point, it's not right now. And I don't think we're ever gonna put the genie back in the bottle. So we need to come up with something new to replace it. And I'm not talking about... This isn't a debate between capitalism versus socialism.

LENO: Right.

MOORE: I'm actually suggesting go back to our roots of this country, democracy. What if we had an economy that you and I had a say in? Right now, we all don't have much of a say in this economy. What if we applied our democratic principles and said, 'We, the people, have a right to determine how this economy is run.' I think we'd be in much better shape than what we're going through right now.

(Applause)

LENO: Well, you have a fascinating point. Uh... (Applause) the thing that amazes me about this film, you must have finished it like last week, 'cuz it goes right up until just like a month or so ago.

MOORE: I finished it two weeks ago.

LENO: And this is something that went right by me, and I, maybe other people missed it, I'm not the brightest guy when it comes to financial things, but when we were going through this bailout, this $700 billion, people wrote to their congressmen, en masse, and said, 'Vote against this.' It was voted down and then what happened? Within a matter of days...

MOORE: Within days, Henry Paulson, the secretary of the treasury, and all his Goldman Sachs buddies, that you referred to in your monologue, with their billions of dollars and their million dollar bonuses, they went up to Capitol Hill and just started dishing out this little treat and that little treat to various congressmen.

LENO: Democrats and Republicans.

MOORE: Democrats and Republicans, especially, um, a certain Democratic chairman of the banking and finance committee, Sen. Dodd...

LENO: Chris Dodd.

MOORE: ...who, as I point out in the film, I have an exclusive interview with the VIP loan manager at Countrywide Loans, the largest mortgage company in the country, was giving sweetheart loans to Sen. Dodd, where he didn't have to pay fees. They did away with the paperwork for him. He got all things the average person couldn't get. And he's supposed to be regulating Countrywide and all these mortgage companies. So, the film really, I think people are going to be surprised.

LENO: I was very surprised.

MOORE: You're going to see things you haven't seen.

LENO: I was stunned by it, and I think it is the most fair film. You know, you've been accused of ambushing people and this type of stuff in the past, and there's none of that.

MOORE: And rightly so.

LENO: Everybody that talks to you wants to talk to you.

MOORE: Yes.

LENO: And that's what amazed me.

MOORE: I think that's because people are really together on this issue.

Comments (229)

1. I'll be waiting for Michael Moore to send me a portion of the proceeds from his movie...

   Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 10:07am

2. With Leno's "I was stunned by it, and I think it is the most fair film."....maybe I'll get around to seeing my first Moore film when it goes to the local Dollar Cinema.

   This HAPPY Capitalist don't wish to give a dime to any Moore Capitalist.

   Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 10:13am

3. Good for Leno and Moore! Moore's right. There isn't a too much to the greedy jackasses giving themselves bonus checks in the millions after they'd run their companies into the ground.

   Most people in most jobs would at best be fired for incompetance, but the wallstreet and banking folks not only get to keep their jobs, but get bonuses that are more than most people make in their entire life.

   If your average employee did what these guys do on a daily basis, they'd go to jail for insider trading as well. But, these schills make the rules by which the game is played. Good luck reigning them in. We have more influence on how China runs their country.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 10:28am

4. As soon as I saw on my satellite guide that Michael Moore was going to be on Leno, I turned off the tv and went to bed. I wanted to see his new program, but it's not worth having to see this useless person spouting off with his usual hypocrisy.

   This guy who now makes capitalism his latest evil is a millionaire who is invested in all of these companies he rants against.

   And socialist cheerleader Nichols applauds this guy as someone to look up to.

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:04am

5. The pie analogy is a perfect tool to describe what the argument is all about.

   Moore sees the one pie, says the rich have nine pieces, and the "people" have to fight over the one remaining piece. He believes they have been "screwed" out of their share of the pie.

   Moore and others of like mind have no idea that this country has always been one of boundless opportunity and growth...that if other people have all the pieces of the pie, then you bake another pie!

   Just because somebody has something doesn't mean that the ability for others to have something has been taken away from them. In fact, in this country it is the opposite.

   Yet Moore and others believe that there is the one fixed pie and "the people" have been "screwed" out of their rightful share.

   There are plenty of people who have been disenfranchised in the past, or had injustice in the past, or have the misfortune to have bad luck or bad circumstances in their lives.

   What Moore and others do not see is that there are countless numbers of people who volunteer time and money to help those less fortunate, help them work back into a productive and meaningful and good life.

   Those efforts are undermined by the Michael Moores of the world who are always at the ready to remind people how they have been wronged and shafted, etc.

   Also, there are plenty of people now who do not start out life in a bad way but Michael Moore is available to tell them they are being screwed and shafted and all is hopeless and wrong.

   .....Unless...things are made "fair" and the "wrongs" are righted and we have "democracy" back (Moore uses the term loosely and does not attempt to define what he means), and things are taken from the wealthy and given to the people, by government.

   It is Moore who is greedy.

   Posted by sjchermak at 09/16/2009 @ 11:08am

6. On a different (but recurring) note, here's the latest goodie on another ACORN site..this one confesses to being an ex-prostitute and a murderer who can get away with murder again..unbelievable.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8w9GEpSzw

   And I have to give credit to John Stewart who I have often criticized. He addressed these ACORN videos last night and blasted journalists and the media for not being ahead of these two young people in exposing ACORN.

   Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:23am

7. the republican party and the satano-aynrando idealogues have been poor stewards of "capitalism".

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:25am

8. 'Just because somebody has something doesn't mean that the ability for others to have something has been taken away from them. In fact, in this country it is the opposite.'

   Here it is, the myth of America, presented in a nutshell by one of our resident nuts, "sjchermak."

   Yes, control over resources is a zero-sum game. All natural resources are available in limited amounts or at limited rates. So if I hoard more than I need, I deprive others of what they need. It's as simple as that.

   And there's nothing about America that suspends this simple law of physics. Ask any American Indian where the wealth in America comes from ... it comes from land and from the natural resources that the land holds. If I take more land than I need, I take it away from somebody else who needs it.

   All wealth comes from natural resources and labor. Labor alone produces nothing. It is therefore at best a half-truth to say that wealth springs from hard work, while neglecting to discuss the material conditions of work. These material conditions, in a modern society, include raw materials, education, and training. Needless to say, in our society, these material resources are distributed unfairly and inefficiently.

   Moreover, if we want to compete on an equal footing with the rest of the industrialized world, we also have to think about how to keep our workers healthy. The rest of the industrialized world invests in their workers' health by pooling their resources and universalizing health care. And the rest of the industrialized world is now beating the pants off us. The Germans call us "ein abschreckendes Beispiel" - a deterrent example. We are not the model of the world. And we never will be again, until we abandon our ego-soothing myths and start looking at reality.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 11:25am

9. We are not the model of the world. And we never will be again, until we abandon our ego-soothing myths and start looking at reality.

   Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 11:25am | ignore this person | warn this person

   we are an (increasingly) archaic, antinomian, abberation. triple A...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:28am

10. John, so what's better, socialism?

    I wonder if Michael Moore has personally benefited form our capitalistic society?

    Isn't Jay Leno on NBC?

    Doesn't G.E. own NBC, a network that had a love affair with the Obama candidacy and did everything it could to get him elected?

    Isn't G.E getting billions under the cap and trade legislation?

    Are you following the bouncing ball?

    If Michael Moore is saying that the average Joe can aspire to the top one percent of the wealthy, then he's dreaming, unless average Joe's last name is Gates or Forbes, Kennedy or Rockefeller.

    Let's face it; America has always been about the haves and the have-nots from the days of our Founding Fathers to the present. It's just that old money grew, except for a serious setback in 1939. The Young generation can't really see themselves rising to that financial stature although they can certainly get the best education they can, work hard, make wise investments with their money and keep dreaming.

    This is why audiences stand and applaud what Moore says, not because he's not a hypocrite but because that's how they express their frustration. But if there is a better system to make people rich by their own means, I haven't heard of it.

    The only way the people can change things is with their votes. Unfortunately, most people just pull the lever or punch the name of the candidate whose name they recognize. Until that changes and people actually take the time and show the initiative to get themselves informed, Michael Moore will keep getting richer playing to their dreams and fears.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:30am

11. "MOORE: Well, I, I don't, you know, a hundred years ago when there was child labor, they said, you know, 'Can we reform child labor? Can we just regulate it, like if the factories were safer and the kids go to school, we can still have 12-year-olds working in the factory, right? "

    That was what Larry/antisoc calls the "Good Ol' Days!"

    William Polk on Afghanistan posted by Katrina vanden Heuvel on 03/26/2009 @ 12:09pm

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:32am

12. Michael Moore will keep getting richer playing to their dreams and fears.----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:30am

    While Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity get rich on "telling the truth", right, gun???

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:33am

13. Just remember, anything denouncing the insanity that is our economy, is just a cry for the boogeyman of socialism!

    Maybe we can have a few more posts from happy and anti talking about how it's the evil libruls fault, and then a few posts from their leftist counterparts blaming it all on Georgie.

    Unfortunaty for the dittoheads, responsibility can't be placed on one single political party or ideology.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 11:40am

14. gunslinger1 with the most accurate post on this thread, by far.

    moore's just like many infomercials on t.v. -- he pretends he's doing you a favor by sharing a money making secret; but the reality is, there's more money in selling people the "secret" to making money than there is in using the "secret" to make money: presto!--I'll make movies telling people what they want to hear!

    and the "zero-sum" game post above (JakobFabian): by your logic isn't Moore taking away opportunities from other movie producers, since he's having his movies made? does he not care about the other movie producers he's "taking from"? well, no one can guess whether moore has had his pie and eaten it too!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:42am

15. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:33am

    To answer your question, honestly, which I usually try my best to do, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are not unlike any other personality with an agenda and they will use whatever means at their disposal to get their points across and make money plying their trade, just like Michael Moore. That's how capitalism works.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:43am

16. Michael Moore will keep getting richer playing to their dreams and fears.----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:30am

    While Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity get rich on "telling the truth", right, gun??? Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:33am | ignore this person |

    --OWNED! Mask you cute little "right-wing" puppy you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:44am

17. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:33am To answer your question, honestly, which I usually try my best to do, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are not unlike any other personality with an agenda and they will use whatever means at their disposal to get their points across and make money plying their trade, just like Michael Moore. That's how capitalism works. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:43am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --taking Mask's ammo away....noooooooooooooooo!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:45am

18. To answer your question, honestly, which I usually try my best to do, Limbaugh, Beck and Hannity are not unlike any other personality with an agenda and they will use whatever means at their disposal to get their points across and make money plying their trade, just like Michael Moore. That's how capitalism works.-----Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:43am

    Uh-oh, gunny....ditto-heads and Beck-bots ain't going to take kindly to you comparing El Rushbo and Crying Man to Moore!!!

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:48am

19. Yes, control over resources is a zero-sum game. All natural resources are available in limited amounts or at limited rates. So if I hoard more than I need, I deprive others of what they need. It's as simple as that.

    And there's nothing about America that suspends this simple law of physics. Ask any American Indian where the wealth in America comes from ... it comes from land and from the natural resources that the land holds. If I take more land than I need, I take it away from somebody else who needs it.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 11:25am

    this is more far left myth and not grounded in reality or the facts.

    1. While it is true that land is a finite resource, we have neither a shortage of available land nor any domination of land by the wealthy.

    According to a 2002 US govt report by the USDA, urban and rural residential land occupies only 7% of the total available land in the US.

    2. Wealth accumulation is not subject to the limitations of finite resources. Wealth is based upon whatever agreed values we place on assets and what we define as assets.

    Money-we have simply printed more and more as govt desires to circulate

    Stocks, bonds, and other securities-infinite potential number

    material accumulation, property which includes homes, commercial RE, boats, RV's, art, other collectibles

    3. Ever changing markets including developing products, technologies, and services and an open entrepeneurial system like ours, means infinite potential for ANY American to become part of the wealthy.

    More new millionaires are created every year in the US than the rest of the world combined. As Sjchermak correctly stated, the fact is we do not have just one pie. We have infinite pies.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:49am

20. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:48am

    Is that something I should care about? Let's get serious here.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:50am

21. Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:44am

    Thanks, urmy...by re-posting on YOUR posts what I say....skirts around any Ignores I'm on.

    Good dog....here's a Beggin' Strip.

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:51am

22. That "Legalized Greed" is what made Moore a rich man, though he probably has no issue with THAT.

    Calling him a limousine liberal is too nice: He'a a hypocritical, flaming asshole.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/16/2009 @ 11:51am

23. Americans are too dumb and lazy to actually change a single thing.

    Change at this late date would require sacrifice and hard work, two attributes Americans haven't seen in 60 years.

    You know what it will take to change things for the better? A huge catastrophe.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54am

24. Big bugs have little bugs

    upon their backs to bite 'em,

    And little bugs have lesser bugs,

    So on, ad infinitum.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 11:56am

25. "The Germans call us "ein abschreckendes Beispiel" - a deterrent example. We are not the model of the world. And we never will be again, until we abandon our ego-soothing myths and start looking at reality." JFabian

    So do the Swedes & others look at the US today as the model of what to avoid. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Katrina to Wall St. The US is the icon of failure & deceit. Without a even a whisper of propaganda from some enemy like the old USSR.

    All in 8 years. Entirely self-inflicted.

    Posted by sloper at 09/16/2009 @ 11:56am

26. Michael Moore. You're a national treasure.

    Posted by Sorelish at 09/16/2009 @ 11:56am

27. More new millionaires are created every year in the US than the rest of the world combined. As Sjchermak correctly stated, the fact is we do not have just one pie. We have infinite pies.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:49am

    But I think you can agree, especially in your experience that the masses really haven't a prayer of gaining that kind of wealth. America provides opportunity that no other country can realize but the limited prospects for most individuals to actually reach that top one percent is not going to happen. Dreams are nice but reality is a whole different ball game. That's why people stand and cheer for the likes of Michael Moore. He keeps their dreams alive.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:58am

28. This guy who now makes capitalism his latest evil is a millionaire who is invested in all of these companies he rants against.

    And socialist cheerleader Nichols applauds this guy as someone to look up to.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 11:04am

    Can you actually prove that he is invested in them? Just curious.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

29. You know what it will take to change things for the better? A huge catastrophe.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54am

    Like 9/11 or Katrina? Or bigger, like the collapse of the American economy.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

30. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:48am Is that something I should care about? Let's get serious here. Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:50am | ignore this person | warn this person

    --he does, desperately. and he wants to make every thread into a "what would beck, hannity, rush, o'reilly" say?

    if he let that go, he'd be lost! plus, he's OWNED by them, so don't look for him to stop any time soon.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:10pm

31. Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:44am Thanks, urmy...by re-posting on YOUR posts what I say....skirts around any Ignores I'm on. Good dog....here's a Beggin' Strip. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 11:51am | ignore this person |

    --which one of you OWNERS did you get that from? Beck? Rush? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:10pm

32. But I think you can agree, especially in your experience that the masses really haven't a prayer of gaining that kind of wealth. America provides opportunity that no other country can realize but the limited prospects for most individuals to actually reach that top one percent is not going to happen. Dreams are nice but reality is a whole different ball game. That's why people stand and cheer for the likes of Michael Moore. He keeps their dreams alive.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:58am

    Here's someone I can agree with. People like anti like to paint our economy as being one where if you just put in effort you will always succeed. That's not reality. All one has to do is look at reality and see that success in this country is not just based on trying it's based on luck also. Bill Gates would not be a billionaire right now if he had not been lucky enough to stumble onto his friends idea when he did. People who play the stock market while well informed and well educated, often get lucky, because at just the right time whatever happens happens.

    According to the philosophy of those who believe that hardwork means you will become rich, 80% of this country is not working hard. 80% of this country are a bunch of slackers because they are not rich. Let's face reality here. I am not in anyway disparaging capitalism. But the reality is that under a capitilist system it doesn't mean that anyone who wants to get rich can. It means that anyone who gets the right opportunity at just the right time can. Sometimes those opportunities are created by us, and sometimes they are just luck.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:12pm

33. TexasFlood: "Americans are too dumb and lazy to actually change a single thing."

    --the "birthers" aside, Obama's an American. Guess he's too "dumb and lazy" to get us out of these wars. To end bailouts (and bailouts disguised as "stimulus"). To give us universal health care.

    TexasFlood: "Change at this late date would require sacrifice and hard work, two attributes Americans haven't seen in 60 years."

    --yeah, right. No one works hard or sacrifices...only you do.

    TexasFlood: "You know what it will take to change things for the better? A huge catastrophe."

    --such as?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:13pm

34. I mean something way bigger. Something that makes 9/11 and Katrina look like little drops in the pond of human tragedy.

    I hope nobody confuses this with a desire for anything bad to happen.

    I just cannot imagine the masses pulling their shit together until shit has hit the proverbial fan, and huge portions of the country are at the very least going hungry.

    The simple truth of the matter is Americans (for the most part) have been electing people who unabashedly steal from them and lie to them, and even knowing these people are thieving liars isnt enough for people.

    That leads me to believe that people are too fucking lazy to care about anything until they're literally slapped in the face with the results.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm

35. I like pie too! Where's my pie!

    Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents

    Johnson 3.8% Carter 3.1 Clinton 2.4 Kennedy 2.3 Nixon 2.3 Reagan 2.1 Bush 0.6

    Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey

    Oh. I get humble pie. It was the only one left when I got to the table.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 12:20pm

36. TexasFlood: "I mean something way bigger. Something that makes 9/11 and Katrina look like little drops in the pond of human tragedy."

    --seems there was a time Mask would have harped all over this. I recall "so you want the President to fail?" accusations (followed by "you're repeating Rush" accusations) back when Obama was elected re: terrorists attacks, the economy, etc. A liberal like TexasFlood is talking about a tragedy that dwarfs 9/11 or Katrina happening...and silence from Mask...hmmmm...

    TexasFlood: "I hope nobody confuses this with a desire for anything bad to happen."

    --how could we?

    TexasFlood: "I just cannot imagine the masses pulling their shit together until shit has hit the proverbial fan, and huge portions of the country are at the very least going hungry."

    --so you want the greatest depression of all great depressions...nice.

    TexasFlood: "The simple truth of the matter is Americans (for the most part) have been electing people who unabashedly steal from them and lie to them, and even knowing these people are thieving liars isnt enough for people."

    --Yep...I voted for Obama, I guess naively thinking he would be different.

    TexasFlood: "That leads me to believe that people are too fucking lazy to care about anything until they're literally slapped in the face with the results."

    --chaoszen is waiting in a row boat for you...he wants you to help him paddle down to Costa Rica!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:24pm

37. I like pie too! Where's my pie! Job Growth Per Year Under Most Recent Presidents Johnson 3.8% Carter 3.1 Clinton 2.4 Kennedy 2.3 Nixon 2.3 Reagan 2.1 Bush 0.6 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey Oh. I get humble pie. It was the only one left when I got to the table. Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 12:20pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --Michael Moore was hungry...he ate the remaining 0.whatever percent!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:26pm

38. Hey urmy, i never said anything about my own propensity to work hard. No need to put words in my mouth.

    How's the job search coming? Must be awesome to sit at a computer all day long without accomplishing a single thing.

    And in regards to Obama, are we out of either of these war and does anybody here have universal health care? You answered your own question...?

    I fail to see your point, I'm no fan of Barry and his bullshit.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:26pm

39. That leads me to believe that people are too fucking lazy to care about anything until they're literally slapped in the face with the results. Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Aye, laddie, I think there's a bit 'o truth in that. We've succumbed to pavlovian behavioral training to make us terminally complacent. We are so busy seeking entertainment that we can't see the house is crumbling.

    It will be americas biggest challenge; waking up from the long sleep. Those folks who's entertainment is all about counting beans own us right now.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 12:26pm

40. Calling him a limousine liberal is too nice: He'a a hypocritical, flaming asshole.

    Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 09/16/2009 @ 11:51am | ignore this person | warn this person

    what are u? an effin commernist? a man cant make money unless they share your stupid, evil, failed ideology?

    who's the hypocrite here you hypocrite?

    more importantly, who's the dinosaur, the fat guy who's right who looks like a dinosaur and made hime some money doing what he does best, or the p-nut gallery ideologized zombie yelling "liar" in the wilderness?

    why NOT address the argument or at least make a show of it before the personal flame tonguing?

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 12:27pm

41. 'and the "zero-sum" game post above (JakobFabian): by your logic isn't Moore taking away opportunities from other movie producers, since he's having his movies made? does he not care about the other movie producers he's "taking from"? well, no one can guess whether moore has had his pie and eaten it too!'

    Yes, Michael Moore is indeed taking away opportunities from other movie producers. Movie audiences have only so much time and money to spend on movies. If Michael Moore makes a good movie that people want to see, then they'll spend less time watching other movies.

    This is competition. You'll notice that conservatives praise competition to the skies, without understanding what it really is. This becomes especially clear in a statement like this one:

    'But if there is a better system to make people rich by their own means, I haven't heard of it.'

    "Gunslinger1" couldn't have expressed the lowest-common denominator of the American Dream better. We want to get rich, don't we? We want to win the game. And "winning the game" means making so much money that we can live off our money rather than off our work. Unfortunately, this pokes a hole in the ego-soothing notion that we love hard work above all else.

    Worse still, our navel-gazing focus on "winning the game" makes us blind to the real purpose of regulation in a free-market society: to keep the game going. It's in nobody's interest if anybody "wins the game"; the point is to keep us all playing, preferably against equal sparring partners, not against global corporate behemoths who can beat us down by means of advertising alone.

    Stated simply, a free market remains free only for so long as nobody wins, as in a Monopoly game. When somebody starts to win, everybody else loses.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:27pm

42. TexasFlood: "Hey urmy, i never said anything about my own propensity to work hard. No need to put words in my mouth."

    --so you DON'T word hard...ok, settled.

    TexasFlood: "How's the job search coming? Must be awesome to sit at a computer all day long without accomplishing a single thing."

    --I'm at work getting paid for this! ...and what are you doing? heheh

    TexasFlood: "And in regards to Obama, are we out of either of these war and does anybody here have universal health care? You answered your own question...?"

    --I think Obama is doing an atrocious job. You disagree?

    TexasFlood: "I fail to see your point, I'm no fan of Barry and his bullshit."

    --who's Barry?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:29pm

43. That leads me to believe that people are too fucking lazy to care about anything until they're literally slapped in the face with the results.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm

    Aye, laddie, I think there's a bit 'o truth in that. We've succumbed to pavlovian behavioral training to make us terminally complacent. We are so busy seeking entertainment that we can't see the house is crumbling. It will be americas biggest challenge; waking up from the long sleep. Those folks who's entertainment is all about counting beans own us right now.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 12:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --posting in an anonymous interweb blog comment sections is NOT entertainment? c'mon!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:32pm

44. .....Unless...things are made "fair" and the "wrongs" are righted and we have "democracy" back (Moore uses the term loosely and does not attempt to define what he means), and things are taken from the wealthy and given to the people, by government. It is Moore who is greedy. Posted by sjchermak at 09/16/2009 @ 11:08am | +++

    Yeah, we sure don't want fairness and wrongs righted. I mean, that would be like stuff Superman would aspire to. Who needs that? Let's screw everybody except the top 1%!

    And democracy... heck, we don't even know what that is, and that Michael Moore, so greedy with his definitions, doesn't even explain it to us, so why bother to strive for it?

    Posted by Citizen54 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:35pm

45. Uh oh seems like I've struck a chord with urmy!

    I suppose you're probably one of those lazy fat clowns I was speaking about before.

    Here let's see if I can placate you and you can return to your world of Warcraft clan meeting:

    yes mr. Gyro, suh, you're right boss, I want nothing more than irreversible tragedy and despair in the country I live in!

    It's not like I want people to wise up and act like adults before something bad happens.

    Let's all say it at once people so urmy can feel better about his life...

    YOURE RIGHT URMYGYRO!

    Isn't that all you're really looking for?

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:35pm

46. JakobFabian: "Yes, Michael Moore is indeed taking away opportunities from other movie producers. Movie audiences have only so much time and money to spend on movies. If Michael Moore makes a good movie that people want to see, then they'll spend less time watching other movies."

    --well, how dare he?! does he not care about his fellow movie producers?!

    JakobFabian: "This is competition. You'll notice that conservatives praise competition to the skies, without understanding what it really is."

    --competition being what according to you?

    JakobFabian: "'But if there is a better system to make people rich by their own means, I haven't heard of it.' "Gunslinger1" couldn't have expressed the lowest-common denominator of the American Dream better. We want to get rich, don't we? We want to win the game. And "winning the game" means making so much money that we can live off our money rather than off our work. Unfortunately, this pokes a hole in the ego-soothing notion that we love hard work above all else."

    --so Michael Moore is "working hard"? but seriously, people can work hard and get rich (or really well-off). My folks both worked hard and saved and spent wisely...they are doing very well. Also, what's wrong with getting rich?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:36pm

47. But I think you can agree, especially in your experience that the masses really haven't a prayer of gaining that kind of wealth. America provides opportunity that no other country can realize but the limited prospects for most individuals to actually reach that top one percent is not going to happen. Dreams are nice but reality is a whole different ball game. That's why people stand and cheer for the likes of Michael Moore. He keeps their dreams alive.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:58am

    No, I don't agree with you at all.

    What in our system prevents the everyday person from reaching the top 1%?

    there is only one answer-themselves.

    I have posted previously that contrary to myth, most millionaires today in the US are self made.

    Surveys continue to show that between 80-87% of the wealthy earned their wealth.

    I recommend that you read The Millionaire Next Door, by Thomas J Stanley. It is quite revealing.

    Or

    Lewis Schiff's, "The Middle-Class Millionaire: The Rise of the New Rich and How They Are Changing America."

    From the demographics

    Although self-employed people make up 20% of the workers in America, two-thirds of the millionaires are self-employed.

    Another key point Stanley makes is that you don't have to be at the top of your class to become wealty. Of the millionaires surveyed, only 2% of them were in the top 1% of their college class. The average GPA is a modest 2.92 on a 4-point scale. Stanley's theory is that wealth is generated much more by creative and practical (common sense) intelligence, rather than analytical intelligence (book smarts). Hard work and discipline also rate very high on the scale of needed attributes.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 12:37pm

48. JakobFabian: "Worse still, our navel-gazing focus on "winning the game" makes us blind to the real purpose of regulation in a free-market society: to keep the game going. It's in nobody's interest if anybody "wins the game"; the point is to keep us all playing, preferably against equal sparring partners, not against global corporate behemoths who can beat us down by means of advertising alone."

    --you mean like Bill Gates fighting the ? He's a bad, evil person, right?

    You seem to think it's bad if everyone wants to be rich, but not everyone can. So, that's the point! Some will succeed. Some will fail miserably. Most will live normal lives. It's wonderful to have the opportunity to get rich; even if you'll never realize that dream.

    JakobFabian: "When somebody starts to win, everybody else loses."

    --"win" how? meaning since michael moore's a millionaire he's "evil" and hurting me cause I'm not? what's your solution?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:40pm

49. At long last, I've got to say something about Michael Moore's film itself.

    First of all, I haven't seen it.

    Second of all, I don't expect it to be as good as his film "Sicko." If all Moore can do is attack the inane phrase "Greed is good" with the rejoinder "No, greed is bad," he won't have accomplished much. Greed is too broad a phenomenon, too well rooted in the human psyche, to be something we can decisively defeat in any campaign.

    What we should do is reduce the power of greed in the form of surplus wealth. Surplus wealth can be defined as wealth that is more than enough for your own personal needs, so that you can use it to buy power over others. It expresses itself in perverse ways, such as the amount of money that we spend on pet food while millions of people the world over go hungry - not because we're heartless and they're lazy, but because they lack resources and the international economic order is designed by and for the rich.

    So I'll be looking to see whether Michael Moore exposes the structure of capitalism and explains how a poorly regulated market is actually antithetical to freedom, because it gives to a few the economic power to limit the choices of the many. Maybe Moore will surprise me. Maybe "Capitalism: A Love Story" will be his best film yet.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

50. You're at work getting paid to ramble on a political blog???

    Wow. If only all of us could be so lucky! Here's a tip: step outside from time to time. There's an entire world out there that's passing you by while you run around the Internet sharing your compelling philosophies.

    Btw, living in your mothers basement doesn't really qualify as a job. Too bad though, if that were the case maybe our unemployment figures wouldn't look so terrible :(

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

51. You're at work getting paid to ramble on a political blog???

    Wow. If only all of us could be so lucky! Here's a tip: step outside from time to time. There's an entire world out there that's passing you by while you run around the Internet sharing your compelling philosophies.

    Btw, living in your mothers basement doesn't really qualify as a job. Too bad though, if that were the case maybe our unemployment figures wouldn't look so terrible :(

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

52. 'Obama has continued the Bush policy of buying off Wall Street hustlers instead of confronting them' -- Robert Scheer -- The Nation -- 16 September, 2009 -- http:// www.thenation.com /doc/20090928/scheer

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 09/16/2009 @ 12:44pm

53. Must be substantially easier to get rich when you get paid to do absolutely nothing with your time.

    Did your parents have the same opportunity? Your family must be the lazy non-sacrificing types I was speaking about and that's why you've got your panties in a twist.

    Sorry buddy I didn't realize I had hit so close to home :(

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:46pm

54. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:27pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    there really is an infuriating inability to see the forest for the trees for some...

    encouraged by sociopathic wealth, opposed by principled wealth.

    i think of a lot of "socialist" ideas as nothing beyond a form of social isurance, shouldered most by those with the most to lose, of course, the wealthy...

    duh....

    ironically i think "capitalism" functions best within an at least somewhat "socialist" framework - ie a well ordered system with protection for the weak, trusted by both wealthy and non-wealthy, understood fairly well by a fairly well educated popolace...

    is desirable regardless of what "ism" one chooses to apply it.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 12:46pm

55. TexasFlood: "Uh oh seems like I've struck a chord with urmy!"

    --don't give yourself so much credit...I talk to LOTS of other anonymous interweb commenters here! you ain't the only one! ;)

    TexasFlood: "I suppose you're probably one of those lazy fat clowns I was speaking about before."

    --I didn't see who you were talking about before--but no, not fat! In good shape! but slightly balding, sadly :(

    TexasFlood: "Here let's see if I can placate you and you can return to your world of Warcraft clan meeting"

    --I hate video games. I enjoy this!

    TexasFlood: "yes mr. Gyro, suh, you're right boss, I want nothing more than irreversible tragedy and despair in the country I live in!"

    --sarcasm will get you everywhere my friend (just like the hyperbole you're running away from now!)

    TexasFlood: "It's not like I want people to wise up and act like adults before something bad happens."

    --something bad like what specifically?...I mean, a hurricane and a terrorist attack...what am I supposed to do, as a citizen, to prevent those? I voted for Obama hoping he'd get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan...so far...not even close to happening. I wanted universal health care (not want, but wanted, definitely past tense, for now I know it's never going to happen under Obama since he's "not looking to put insurance companies out of business").

    TexasFlood: "Let's all say it at once people so urmy can feel better about his life...YOURE RIGHT URMYGYRO! Isn't that all you're really looking for?"

    well, let's see; I'm merely disagreeing with things you are saying on a blog; and you're getting quite upset: so who's looking to be told he's right? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:46pm

56. I'm so happy that Mr. Moore will only take home 10% of the pie that this film makes, and give away the other 9 pieces!

    Posted by jimmylove at 09/16/2009 @ 12:47pm

57. Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm

    World War Three?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:50pm

58. JakobFabian: "What we should do is reduce the power of greed in the form of surplus wealth."

    --so you want to limit what people can make?

    JakobFabian: "Surplus wealth can be defined as wealth that is more than enough for your own personal needs, so that you can use it to buy power over others."

    --like Michael Moore being a millionaire after having a few successful books and movies being able to now, basically, put any movie out he wants b/c studios know he has an audience. According to you he shouldn't be able to keep being successful at what he's successful at, right?

    JakobFabian: "It expresses itself in perverse ways, such as the amount of money that we spend on pet food while millions of people the world over go hungry - not because we're heartless and they're lazy, but because they lack resources and the international economic order is designed by and for the rich."

    --it's a tragedy that there are starving people in other parts of the world. Don't forget there are many homeless and starving people in this country too. Homeless shelters are everywhere, food pantries are everywhere, charitable foundations donate food and places to sleep. I don't think the solution for people who aren't well off is to make the people who are well off (or even just ok) worse off. And if food, shelter (and clothing, etc. the basic needs) are your main concern: then why should, oh, I don't know...the internet exist? I mean, when's the last time a cable wire fed someone, or kept him warm from the cold? The anti-free market arguments always fall apart because the free market is what allows people to get the things they need to survive...and hopefully do more than "just survive"...that's the point right? it's not just survival. If it was, why come here to talk to strangers?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 12:57pm

59. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 12:37pm

    If you have a million dollars in assets, say, a home, stock, vacation home, and other lesser assets, does that put you in the top one percent?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:58pm

60. '--"win" how? meaning since michael moore's a millionaire he's "evil" and hurting me cause I'm not? what's your solution?'

    No, "urmygyro," I absolutely reject the notion that anybody is evil merely because he or she is rich. What I do say is that in extreme cases, large concentrations of wealth, particularly in corporations worth many Michael Moores, empower small groups of people to corrupt our economy and our political system. What I mean by "winning" is essentially "becoming too big to fail," which means that you are big enough to pressure the government to grant you billions in bailouts with no strings attached. But even if you don't "win" this big, you may still be able to purchase legislation that is in your own interest - as the big banks did for decades.

    This is the criticism I have of the "greed is bad" slogan. Capitalism isn't caused by greed. It's caused by a few people having a lot of money (and other resources, such as raw materials, factories, education, and technology), and a large number of people having only a little.

    And here are my solutions:

    (1) We need steeply progressive taxation, which I believe Michael Moore supports, as do a few other rich people who are commonly regarded as traitors to their income class.

    (2) No corporation should ever grow anywhere near too big to fail. If it should prove in our interest to allow the existence of a monopolistic corporation that benefits from economics of scale, such as the Fed, this corporation must be strictly regulated so that it acts in the public interest.

    These are really simple reforms, and my goal is modest: not a society in which everybody belongs to the same income class, but in which the people belonging to the highest and lowest income classes recognize each other as human beings.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 1:00pm

61. we are an (increasingly) archaic, antinomian, abberation. triple A...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 09/16/2009 @ 11:28am

    as rated by moody's...

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 1:01pm

62. TexasFlood: "You're at work getting paid to ramble on a political blog??? Wow. If only all of us could be so lucky!"

    --I'm sure quite a few regular commenters here have a desk job where the work comes in fits-and-spurts and they have free time to peruse the Internet.

    TexasFlood: "Here's a tip: step outside from time to time. There's an entire world out there that's passing you by while you run around the Internet sharing your compelling philosophies."

    --AND THE MOST IRONIC POST OF THE DAY GOES TO...TexasFlood! You're inside too! Don't worry, I get plenty of fresh air. And you're not truly concerned, you're just trying to make me feel bad that I've posted a lot here lately. Don't worry, in a month or two (or less) I'll probably get bored and do something else...then you won't have to worry!

    TexasFlood: "Btw, living in your mothers basement doesn't really qualify as a job. Too bad though, if that were the case maybe our unemployment figures wouldn't look so terrible :("

    --Haven't lived with my folks since I was 18. And your attempt to smear me and make me feel bad b/c I post a lot isn't gonna work. I'm an adult, with a job, and I pay taxes. Just like you. Oh, and I post here. Just. Like. You. OUCH!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:02pm

63. The only way the people can change things is with their votes.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:30am

    now, THAT is naïve!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 1:02pm

64. People's definition of "greed ", much like promiscuity, sobriety, wealth and health etc, is usually defined from their narrow experience and self interest. In the eyes of the slacker, union fanatic, faculty lounge-lizard and welfare load, anyone with more than oneself is obviously "stealing" or how else could they have more than I? Never mind that time has shown the American model of capitalism as a roadmap that has lifted millions out of poverty. As a small-business owner I see Michael Moore as a loud mouth lard-ass, eating way more than needed in a starving world , a greedy Marxist blow-bag anxious to bring to Workers Paradise to fruition even though history has shown time and time again that soaking the rich usually ends in bloodshed and tears. Is it tough to make wealth in this country? Hell, yes it is. But it is done every day. My construction- related company is managing just as millions of other businesses are. Most of us "greedy capitalists" work 60 to 70 hour weeks and by the way, provide all the jobs in this country. Anyway, lunch is over and have to get back to work, but finally,: we aren't a populist democracy and never have been. We are a constitutional Republic. All the folks clamoring for a populist democratic uprising should remember that every lynch mob that ever exited was pure democracy in action.

    Posted by alf at 09/16/2009 @ 1:07pm

65. TexasFlood: "Must be substantially easier to get rich when you get paid to do absolutely nothing with your time."

    --If only! I'm not even close to rich. I have very little savings and make under $40,000/year. Oh, and what are you doing with your time right now? ;)

    TexasFlood: "Did your parents have the same opportunity?"

    --my dad's a retired cop (from a small town of less than 10,000); my mom's still working. My dad's job did, actually, afford him a lot of time to talk on the phone or stop and talk to people he knew (when he wasn't on a call)...so, in an odd way, yes, his job was a fits-and-spurts type of job too.

    TexasFlood: "Your family must be the lazy non-sacrificing types I was speaking about and that's why you've got your panties in a twist."

    --um, you're the one who's giving me an untrue backstory...I haven't said one word about your personal life (b/c I don't know you; so I'm not gonna make stuff up about you to make myself "feel better" about myself like you're attempting to do now!)

    TexasFlood: "Sorry buddy I didn't realize I had hit so close to home :("

    --one of your ironic statements again...scroll up, you're the one getting "personally" upset...so, I'm sorry I hit so close to home for you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:07pm

66. You know what it will take to change things for the better? A huge catastrophe.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54am |

    we may already be there.

    a looooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggg slow-motion catastrophe.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 09/16/2009 @ 1:07pm

67. I realize that. It was said tongue-in-cheek. Our election process is well under control of the special interests. That is why the Tea Party movement is so important. What other group is as motivated to stop the spending. I, for one, hope they succeed. I have my doubts but look at what Move-On accomplished. There's power in numbers.

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:07pm

68. This is getting quite comical. Do all you koolaid drinking, tea party giving, concealed weapons permit holding, church / temple ranting, lie spreading, warmongering, self-worshiping, minority hating, all take no giving, Rush drooling hysterical crazies think that by ranting on The Nation's pages, you're actually going to find anyone who takes you seriously? That in itself is testimony to your belligerence, arrogance and hysteria. The louder you get, the less oxygen you have going to your alleged brains. You won't get any recruits, here.

    Why don't you get a job or something? No wait, that's exactly what you're afraid of.

    Posted by DejaVu at 09/16/2009 @ 1:08pm

69. Citizen54,

    1. About striving for democracy.....we have it now....Michael Moore does not understand this......his view of what "democracy" is would be something quite different from reality. It appears from the discussions in the original article above that democracy, Michael Moore style, would be "the people" making decisions on how things that don't belong to them are to be confiscated (i.e., stolen) from those that do have them, and given to "the people". Democracy, Michael Moore style, will be to hand people a guaranteed outcome in life, in the short term.

    The reason I say short term is that that in short order their lives will be ruined by this benevolent democracy of Mr. Moores.

    2. America has always been about striving for fairness and righting wrongs. Unfair situations and wrongs have existed in our history, and the America that is the opposite of what Michael Moore wants it to be has strived to and in most cases succeeeded in fixing those wrongs, much better and to a greater degree than any other society has, or could have if given the same circumstances.

    Posted by sjchermak at 09/16/2009 @ 1:08pm

70. Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm World War Three? Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:50pm

    Smallpox. That way we'd preserve the real estate.

    Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 1:10pm

71. Can you actually prove that he is invested in them? Just curious.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:00pm

    <"Do As I Say (Not As I Do) -- Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," by the right-wing commentator Peter Schweizer, criticizes Moore for not living up to the high moral standards he claims to espouse. The author, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, went through publicly available IRS documents to discover that Moore's foundation bought shares in some of the companies he has spent a career in the media attacking.

    Not just a few shares either. Don't forget Moore has always said he doesn't own any stock and doesn't have a broker. But his foundation owns tens of thousands of shares in Boeing, Sonoco, Eli Lilly and Halliburton

    Moore, who says conservatives are racist because they don't support affirmative action, has managed to employ only three black people out of a work force of 135 working on his books, television shows and radio projects.

    Moore, who says Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, has lived for the past seven years in a waterfront home in Central Lake, Mich., a community of 2,600 residents. The 2000 Census records that the number of black people living there is zero.>

    http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/248438_moore16.htm

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 1:11pm

72. JakobFabian: "(1) We need steeply progressive taxation, which I believe Michael Moore supports, as do a few other rich people who are commonly regarded as traitors to their income class."

    --I don't know if steep progressive taxes all the time are the answer--but they should definitely exist during war time (we're in one of those now, right?)

    JakobFabian: "(2) No corporation should ever grow anywhere near too big to fail. If it should prove in our interest to allow the existence of a monopolistic corporation that benefits from economics of scale, such as the Fed, this corporation must be strictly regulated so that it acts in the public interest. These are really simple reforms, and my goal is modest: not a society in which everybody belongs to the same income class, but in which the people belonging to the highest and lowest income classes recognize each other as human beings."

    --I'm not worried about how big a corporation gets--just don't bail them out if/when they fail. Regulations, like you listed yesterday on another thread, I like.

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:12pm

73. <"Do As I Say (Not As I Do) -- Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," by the right-wing commentator Peter Schweizer, criticizes Moore for not living up to the high moral standards he claims to espouse. The author, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, went through publicly available IRS documents to discover that Moore's foundation bought shares in some of the companies he has spent a career in the media attacking. Not just a few shares either. Don't forget Moore has always said he doesn't own any stock and doesn't have a broker. But his foundation owns tens of thousands of shares in Boeing, Sonoco, Eli Lilly and Halliburton Moore, who says conservatives are racist because they don't support affirmative action, has managed to employ only three black people out of a work force of 135 working on his books, television shows and radio projects. Moore, who says Americans who live in white neighborhoods are racist, has lived for the past seven years in a waterfront home in Central Lake, Mich., a community of 2,600 residents. The 2000 Census records that the number of black people living there is zero.> http://www.seattlepi.com/opinion/248438_moore16.htm Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --another millionaire selling people on ideas he doesn't practice! shocking!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 1:17pm

74. I have an actual day off Mr. Gyro, suh, and even on my one day off per week i'm still getting some work done on my side business (I refurbish guitars if you're looking), even though it's more of a hobby I'd say. Brings in some extra cash but unfortunately I'm not skilled enough to do it as my main source of income.

    You really make under 40k? That's a wonder since you spend the majority if your time shafting your employer it seems. Don't worry buddy, I'm sure you'll start making a little more as soon as you apply yourself instead of spending the bulk majority of your time here.

    Unless of course you're still in your 20s. Then that's not such a bad wage. I made about that less than two years out of high school...I think about 35k or so, it's been a while since i've had to work for somebody else.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 1:34pm

75. Posted by DejaVu at 09/16/2009 @ 1:08pm

    So what are you doing here? Preaching to the chior?

    Posted by gunslinger1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:42pm

76. Alf,

    That was a great post. One of the better that I've seen. Thanks.

    Posted by jimmylove at 09/16/2009 @ 1:45pm

77. '--another millionaire selling people on ideas he doesn't practice! shocking!'

    Your sarcasm is well taken, "urmygyro."

    Spotting hypocrites is a useful game only when it is clear that the hypocrite-spotter has a point.

    Unfortunately, in your case, I'm not sure what your point is.

    Here's the tricky thing about hypocrisy: A hypocrite is often half right, because he typically says the right thing and does the wrong thing.

    So where is Michael Moore wrong? Is he wrong to criticize suburban white flight and usury with his films, but right to live in a white-flight suburb and to profit from investments himself? Or is it the other way around?

    You haven't made a point of any kind until you answer this question.

    Incidentally, I believe the arguments that Michael Moore presents in his films are generally right. His actions, insofar as they conflict with his filmic ideas, are wrong. I don't consider it a valid argument to say that his arguments are wrong because he fails to live up to them. This is a variant of the "ad hominem" fallacy.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 1:47pm

78. Nothing like mentioning the name "Michael Moore" to get a Pavlovian response from right-wingers.

    All kind of them.

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:48pm

79. "No, I don't agree with you at all.

    What in our system prevents the everyday person from reaching the top 1%?

    there is only one answer-themselves."

    So you contend that 99% of the nation are just lazy?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:51pm

80. "No, I don't agree with you at all.

    What in our system prevents the everyday person from reaching the top 1%?

    there is only one answer-themselves."

    So you contend that 99% of the nation are just lazy?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 1:51pm

    I never said that. It is a factor for a percentage of Americans.

    Most people have no serious desire to be rich. They may have a wishful desire, but that is entirely different from someone with determination and perseverance.

    What you are conflating is opportunity vs action.

    Everyone has the opportunity, most never put any plan into action.

    Another group/percentage try, but give up if they don't succeed the first time. A few more give up if they don't suceed after several different attempts.

    I love this quote from Thomas Edison, a man who had many failures before succeeding "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up."

    Edison had tens of thousands of failures but insisted his failures were essential to his success.

    Here's a few more:

    "Once you learn to quit, it becomes a habit." Vince Lombardi

    "Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts." Winston Churchill

    "Defeat is simply a signal to press onward." Helen Keller

    I also recommend to anyone who is serious about success to read Robert Kiyosaki-Rich Dad, Poor Dad.

    "How long should you try? Until"... Jim Rohn

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:04pm

81. TexasFlood: "I have an actual day off Mr. Gyro, suh, and even on my one day off per week i'm still getting some work done on my side business (I refurbish guitars if you're looking), even though it's more of a hobby I'd say. Brings in some extra cash but unfortunately I'm not skilled enough to do it as my main source of income."

    --I don't play the guitar, but that sounds cool.

    TexasFlood: "You really make under 40k? That's a wonder since you spend the majority if your time shafting your employer it seems. Don't worry buddy, I'm sure you'll start making a little more as soon as you apply yourself instead of spending the bulk majority of your time here."

    --it's not that simple; but you want to peg me as a something I not, so it's not gonna stop ya! I'm not concerned that I don't make more; I'm doin' fine, thank you.

    TexasFlood: "Unless of course you're still in your 20s. Then that's not such a bad wage. I made about that less than two years out of high school...I think about 35k or so, it's been a while since i've had to work for somebody else."

    --I'm 30. And what is your main source of income?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:10pm

82. JakobFabian: "So where is Michael Moore wrong? Is he wrong to criticize suburban white flight and usury with his films, but right to live in a white-flight suburb and to profit from investments himself? Or is it the other way around?"

    --he's not living what he preaches. complaining of "white flight" while living as a rich man in a tiny community of all white people is one of the examples pointed out in the article antisocialist linked to.

    JakobFabian: "Incidentally, I believe the arguments that Michael Moore presents in his films are generally right. His actions, insofar as they conflict with his filmic ideas, are wrong. I don't consider it a valid argument to say that his arguments are wrong because he fails to live up to them. This is a variant of the "ad hominem" fallacy."

    --the man's complaining about capitalism...meanwhile he's rich because his books and movies make tons of money in a free market! I won't hold my breath waiting for a check to show up in the mail for a piece of his movie's profits...

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:14pm

83. Nothing like mentioning the name "Michael Moore" to get a Pavlovian response from right-wingers. All kind of them. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person |

    --or the right-wing media to say something to get a pavlovian response from you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:16pm

84. Nothing like mentioning the name "Michael Moore" to get a Pavlovian response from right-wingers. All kind of them. Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 1:48pm | ignore this person |

    --or the right-wing media to say something to get a pavlovian response from you!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:16pm

    There has been a real sense of liberty in being free of Maskian nonsense which I see he is still obsessed with.

    Poor Mask, he has become incapable of cogent debate. He can only resort to criticizing the other bloggers.

    Urmy, you have more stamina than I do for his nonsense.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:21pm

85. What we should do is reduce the power of greed in the form of surplus wealth....

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

    Your Messiah should adopt that line.....

    Just think....

    Magic says: "What we should do is reduce surplus HEALTH and spread it around. Those that have already lived to their expected life expectancy, should check into Obamacare's house of HAPPINESS, a mere short stop, say another month, before they step into the true land of milk and honey where there is no pain, 66" plasma TV's everywhere their eyes wonder, and everybody agrees with ME"....

    Damn, nothing like a rocking stock market, rising gold, and sliding Dems......

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:25pm

86. Urmy, you have more stamina than I do for his nonsense.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:21pm

    Let me be the first Regulars here to call him a RACIST for being critical of Magic! A f&*king RACIST!

    Oh, so is Frosty....but we forgive foreign RACISTS!

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:27pm

87. There has been a real sense of liberty in being free of Maskian nonsense which I see he is still obsessed with. Poor Mask, he has become incapable of cogent debate. He can only resort to criticizing the other bloggers. Urmy, you have more stamina than I do for his nonsense. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    --he's still very obsessed with you, believe me. he's constantly saying (to me and other posters): "be sure to tell anitsocialist...blah blah blah..."

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:28pm

88. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:04pm

    I agree that you have to work hard and recognize that failure should not stop you. But I also think that getting rich is partially just luck of the draw. I look at it this way. Becoming a sports star is not just based on hard work. I can work hard all my life at basketball. But if I am only 5'5" and can't jump I will never play professionally.

    I can work hard all my life but I will probably never run as fast as Michael Johnson. Sports stars had the luck of the draw in one sense. They are genetically acclimated for whatever they are doing. The sometimes or often, I don't know, get the luck of the draw in circumstance.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:29pm

89. This isn't to say they didn't work hard to capitalize on the oppurtunity they got but it is the recognition that the opportunity was they got was received out of luck.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:30pm

90. Urmy, you have more stamina than I do for his nonsense. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:21pm Let me be the first Regulars here to call him a RACIST for being critical of Magic! A f&*king RACIST! Oh, so is Frosty....but we forgive foreign RACISTS! Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:27pm | ignore this person |

    --finally I've been called out!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:30pm

91. surplus wealth....

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

    "What we should do is reduce surplus HEALTH and spread it around.

    Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person |

    --GOLD!

    the same impermeable logic should be applied to gay marriage too. Many straight people argue gay marriage devalues straight marriage. Every time fags kisses, Joe Six Pack loses his lunch...so it's also a health issue!

    Everything's intertwined!

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:35pm

92. I don't think Michael Moore is suggesting there is a system better than capitalism for getting rich. He's saying that most systems are better than capitalism for various reasons, such as life quality, equality, public virtues etc. Capitalism is simply a system for stealing and concentrating wealth from ordinary people.

    The US is far from the land of opportunity. The technical term is social mobility, and in comparison with other countries it is well behind (eg Sweden) on measurements of how likely children of poor parents remain in poverty. This is because eg the health system is a disaster, decent education is too expensive, and the political system is corrupt. Note that Sweden is a high-taxing country, which doesn't mean so much that the government takes your money but that it is shared out more fairly. Don't forget that the rich at the top are like the barons and aristocracy of the middle ages, controlling huge swathes of territory and resources with their wealth built on the sweat of the common man. They place themselves above the law and even politics, by bribery and connections. These people scorn us and democracy.

    Posted by tarielyell at 09/16/2009 @ 2:46pm

93. Urmy, you could call me a self-employed chef heh.

    Took me ten years to own my own business and unfortunately I still have to work my ass off to keep things runnin smoothly.

    That's not to say I don't have good people working for me, it's just labor is a large issue in any small business, especially when you go out of your way to make sure people are insured and get paid time off. Nothing hinders productivity like over-worked and tired staff.

    And after years of employing (and firing) people I can say with all sincerity a good 80% of the work force are just as lazy as can be. Everybody wants something without actually putting the time in to get.

    Perhaps that's the reason for our rather dismal situation right now.

    Uh oh I've said too much! Now the wingnuts are going to think I'm on their side.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 2:49pm

94. tarielyell: "Capitalism is simply a system for stealing and concentrating wealth from ordinary people."

    --like moviegoers who pay for a filmmaker's house in a tiny, all-white town? heheh

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:50pm

95. I agree that you have to work hard and recognize that failure should not stop you. But I also think that getting rich is partially just luck of the draw.

    I can work hard all my life but I will probably never run as fast as Michael Johnson.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:29pm

    Your post indicates that you didn't comprehend what I was saying and I'll take the blame for that.

    Your line of reasoning suggests that person is limited to one line of pursuit towards wealth. That is exactly opposite of the point I was making.

    So, if you find that you will never be the next Michael Jordan or even a NBA bench sitter, yet you still have a desire for wealth, try something else! There are infinite opportunities in this country and most do not take much money to start. Sometimes you have to piggyback on different steps to get to the one you want.

    When I rose up in the Aerospace and defense industry, I started from the very bottom, cleaning parts in acid tanks. But I realized as I continued worked hard that there were promotions possible. Then I later realized that I could do as good a job or better than those I worked for and determined to do whatever it took to achieve that. I later became an executive VP and then partnered to be an owner of two companies overseas. But I had to take risks, work long hours, and make a lot of sacrifices.

    In the end, things fell apart because I was not willing to make some compromises to my faith. So I stopped myself from the ultimate goals I had set. But I don't regret them. In that case, my faith and principles meant more than money.

    Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:54pm

96. Yes, control over resources is a zero-sum game. All natural resources are available in limited amounts or at limited rates. So if I hoard more than I need, I deprive others of what they need. It's as simple as that.

    Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 11:25am

    Pie and money are not natural resources of limited supplie. Wealth is created, just like pie. They both use small amounts of natural resources, but the natural resources represent a tiny fraction of the value.

    A chair that costs $10 maybe has $1 of wood in it. And wood it technically an infinitely renewable resource (say 1 billion years equals infinity).

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 2:55pm

97. TexasFlood: "Urmy, you could call me a self-employed chef heh.Took me ten years to own my own business and unfortunately I still have to work my ass off to keep things runnin smoothly."

    --restaurant (or catering) business is hard

    TexasFlood: "That's not to say I don't have good people working for me, it's just labor is a large issue in any small business, especially when you go out of your way to make sure people are insured and get paid time off. Nothing hinders productivity like over-worked and tired staff."

    --good for you for treating your employees well.

    TexasFlood: "And after years of employing (and firing) people I can say with all sincerity a good 80% of the work force are just as lazy as can be. Everybody wants something without actually putting the time in to get."

    --many people are lazy, true. But laziness doesn't mean always lazy; it can mean lazy somedays more than others; maybe a general malaise interspersed with bouts of motivation. I guess I'm the only one who's working today (no one else will admit they have a desk job with a lot of down time).

    TexasFlood: "Perhaps that's the reason for our rather dismal situation right now. Uh oh I've said too much! Now the wingnuts are going to think I'm on their side."

    --if 80% of the workforce is lazy, why are you giving benefits on top of a wage to more than 20% of your employees?

    Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 2:56pm

98. "Poor Mask, he has become incapable of cogent debate. He can only resort to criticizing the other bloggers."----Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:21pm

    Hmmmm, YOU have ME on Ignore...and I don't have you on Ignore. And YOU post stuff like this (BTW, this is back when you said you engaged in "debates"...and coindentially. when discussing Michael Moore)-

    "Bear, Frankgrits and the many other leftists who regurgitate what Michael Moore other radicals voice merely demonstrate they neither know history or current events.

    The insurgents and other terrorists in Iraq have no comparison with our Revolutionary War soldiers. Maybe Bear and Frankgrits can provide some examples of how we randomly murdered innocent women and children as these animals do?

    Dangerous idiots. ----Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/6/2007

    Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 2:57pm

99. You know what it will take to change things for the better? A huge catastrophe.

    Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54am

    Texas, You're right and if the economy tanks for keeps this time around, that'll probably be the catastrophe that woke folks up too late.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:57pm

100. Give howdy, urmy, give howdy.

     Posted by Mask at 09/16/2009 @ 2:58pm

101. by your logic isn't Moore taking away opportunities from other movie producers, since he's having his movies made? does he not care about the other movie producers he's "taking from"? well, no one can guess whether moore has had his pie and eaten it too!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:42am

     Excellent point. Where does Morre get off making more than one movie. Most people don't even get to make one movie but Moore has made in excess of one. That greed fucking bastard. He's robbing poor people of their opportunity to make a movie.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:00pm

102. poor Mask, desperately trying to converse with Larry, when Larry threw the stick in the ocean then got in his car and went home.

     dry off Mask, don't want your flea situation to get worse...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:03pm

103. poor Mask, desperately trying to converse with Larry, when Larry threw the stick in the ocean then got in his car and went home.

     dry off Mask, don't want your flea situation to get worse...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:03pm

     I just spent 3 minutes LMAO over that post. Thanks Urmy.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:04pm

104. by your logic isn't Moore taking away opportunities from other movie producers, since he's having his movies made? does he not care about the other movie producers he's "taking from"? well, no one can guess whether moore has had his pie and eaten it too!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 11:42am

     Excellent point. Where does Morre get off making more than one movie. Most people don't even get to make one movie but Moore has made in excess of one. That greed fucking bastard. He's robbing poor people of their opportunity to make a movie.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --hey, don't post too much; you're taking away the ability of other people to post...oh, wait...

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:05pm

105. To all you geniuses that always spout the same bunch of nonsense about how hypocritical people like Moore are, who make money--by showing how corrupt and destitute Capitalism is, are missing the point.

     Don't you guys get it? Capitalism demands hypocrisy. Things like running for elected office or making a movie to get the message out demands money.

     On the way to a more just society, an education must take place. And education takes money.

     It is always a delight to see you Capitalist swine on the Nation's postings spreading your drivel though.

     Either The Nation isn't as radical as it's reputation or some of you are working in the Capitalist PR department.

     In either case, Piss off and die!

     Posted by emmaG at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm

106. poor Mask, desperately trying to converse with Larry, when Larry threw the stick in the ocean then got in his car and went home. dry off Mask, don't want your flea situation to get worse... Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:03pm I just spent 3 minutes LMAO over that post. Thanks Urmy. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --gracias!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm

107. To all you geniuses that always spout the same bunch of nonsense about how hypocritical people like Moore are, who make money--by showing how corrupt and destitute Capitalism is, are missing the point. Don't you guys get it? Capitalism demands hypocrisy. Things like running for elected office or making a movie to get the message out demands money. On the way to a more just society, an education must take place. And education takes money. It is always a delight to see you Capitalist swine on the Nation's postings spreading your drivel though. Either The Nation isn't as radical as it's reputation or some of you are working in the Capitalist PR department. In either case, Piss off and die! Posted by emmaG at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --yes! what we need to do is be EDUCATED by a guy who's taking the capitalistic earnings from his movie that complains about capitalistic earnings and going home to his tiny all-white village (after complaining about white-flight!)

     --"Piss off and die!" seems to be the consistent message from many commenters when any liberal (politician or citizen) is criticized.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:11pm

108. And here's another message URMY:

     STFU, you gutless wonder.

     You morons will never get it.

     Posted by emmaG at 09/16/2009 @ 3:21pm

109. These are really simple reforms, and my goal is modest: not a society in which everybody belongs to the same income class, but in which the people belonging to the highest and lowest income classes recognize each other as human beings.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 1:00pm

     But Jako, Half the fun of being rich is looking down their noses at the rest of us lowly, filth, day to day wage earners that's pitiful meager existence hardly qualifies the time of day to one placed so high in the natural order of things.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:22pm

110. In the end, things fell apart because I was not willing to make some compromises to my faith. So I stopped myself from the ultimate goals I had set. But I don't regret them. In that case, my faith and principles meant more than money.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 2:54pm

     Well then here's my question. Let's say you had set your goals and worked your butt off for 20 years. Slowly clawing your way up. You get to a high enough position but then they fire you because of cutbacks or some other reason. Now you are left floating. Here's my point. You don't see any luck in the situation. You think you just moved up naturally. But it takes a host of serendipitous events to move up. When they were considering you for a promotion you got lucky enough that someone stepped down for you to take their position which is generally what has to happen in the mid to upper management positions. This is the type of serendipitous event that I am talking about.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:23pm

111. In either case, Piss off and die!

     Posted by emmaG at 09/16/2009 @ 3:08pm

     Sorry, at least NOT today! Check this out:

     Dow 9,791.71 +108.30 +1.12%

     Nasdaq 2,133.15 +30.51 +1.45%

     S&P 500 1,068.76 +16.13 +1.53%

     10 Yr Bond(%) 3.4710% +0.0190

     Oil 72.28 +1.35 +1.90%

     Gold 1,018.90 +13.90 +1.38%

     Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:24pm

112. And here's another message URMY: STFU, you gutless wonder. You morons will never get it. Posted by emmaG at 09/16/2009 @ 3:21pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --Barack Obama ran on CHANGE! I bought it. I voted for him....

     We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gitmo is still open. Rendition still occurs. He has "no plans on putting the insurance companies out of business"

     and I'm the "gutless wonder"? haha!

     but you are right; I'm the "moron" who believed he would govern as he ran.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:29pm

113. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 12:12pm

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 2:30pm

     Two of the books I've read in the last year are "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell and "The Drunkard's walk" by Leonard Mlodinow, PhD. Both discuss the element of luck in success. I think they overstate it.

     Was there a certain amount of luck involved with Bill Gates? Sure. But I think when he was 15 the probability of him being a billionaire was about 0.1%. That may seem small, but for a person drawn at random, the probability is probably about 1 in a billion.

     That means Bill Gates was a million times more likely to be a billionaire than you or I.

     Also, I think it is important to get some perspective on the definition of "success". Does one have to be a millionaire to be considered a success? Isn't it enough to buy a home, put your kids through college, never declare bankruptcy, and have enough disposable income to enjoy your life? Isn't that enough to be considered a success?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:32pm

114. emmaG, this is for your eyes ONLY.....one of my stocks!

     Anadarko shares jump to 52-week high on oil find

     AP ONLINE

     posted: 50 MINUTES AGO

     NEW YORK (AP) -- Shares of Anadarko Petroleum Corp. jumped Wednesday, reaching a 52-week high, after the exploration and production company said it made a deepwater discovery offshore Sierra Leone.

     Anadarko shares rose $5.70, or 9.6 percent, to $64.87 in afternoon trading. The shares earlier traded as high as $65.40.

     The discovery at their Venus B-1 well confirms the existence of an active petroleum system in the basin and lifts expectations for the company's vast West Africa acreage position.

     Bernstein Research analyst Ben Dell called the find "very significant and bullish" for the company and its partners.

     The well drilled about 18,500 feet deep and encountered more than 45 net feet of hydrocarbon pay, which is the thickness of the rock that can deliver oil and gas to the well. In a statement, Dell said that net pay level is somewhat smaller than the Jubilee field, where the there was 312 feet of net pay.

     "If the discovery size is proportional to the thickness of pay, then that would imply that Venus could contain around 200 million barrels of oil, making it a very significant....

     Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 3:35pm

115. I watched Leno the first night, and started to watch the second night. But when I saw that Michael Moore was the guest, I changed channels.

     Posted by bannerreader at 09/16/2009 @ 3:36pm

116. Good one emmaG. I LMAO, thanks.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:36pm

117. Here's one that applies all too often at The Nation's blog threads.....

     Quote of the day:

     "Democracy is based on the assumption that people are rational beings who factually examine arguments and are not easily manipulated. Studies are not finding this to be the case. In my own experience in scholarship, public policy, and journalism, I have learned that everyone from professors to high school dropouts has difficulty with facts and analyses that do not fit with what they already believe. The notion that "we are not afraid to follow the truth wherever it may lead" is an extremely romantic and idealistic notion. I have seldom experienced open minds even in academic discourse or in the highest levels of government. Among the public at large, the ability to follow the truth wherever it may lead is almost non-existent."

     ~Paul Craig Roberts (on the need for a rigorous investigation of the 9/11 attacks)

     www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm

     NOTE: I'm not personally a 9/11 conspiracist (yet), but many significant questions remain unamswered.

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:38pm

118. Good one emmaG. I LMAO, thanks. Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     a rant telling someone to SHUT THE FUCK UP because they disagree with someone else is a "good one" now huh?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:41pm

119. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:23pm

     Here's another position to consider. People of faith never challenge that faith. It's a no fail concept they go to when everything else falls apart around them.

     I used to have a strong Christian faith. But when I see the bad things Christians do in the name of their faith, and I see the horrible cruelties of reality here on earth, I question what sort of god would allow these things to happen.

     Why would a god allow people to be racist assholes in his/her name? Why would god allow rich people to stomp the hell out of everyone else on the planet? The plain fact is that there are people out there who will do anything and everything to get what they want and that includes kill, rape, steal, lie and so on. This isn't the work of any devil, it's the work of human greed.

     People of faith want to believe in their fairy tale so much that they ignore whats going on around them. They figure, to hell with this world, the next one is the land of the milk and honey....but what if they're wrong? What if sitting idly by watching people starve denies them that kitchen pass to the pearly gates because the bible wasn't spot on. What if all of the religions have it wrong?

     As George Carlin said, "religion is like a crutch". If it gets you through your day, more power to you, just don't shove your religion down my throat. Religion is responsible for one hell of a lot of misery and suffering in this world and it continues today.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:42pm

120. These are really simple reforms, and my goal is modest: not a society in which everybody belongs to the same income class, but in which the people belonging to the highest and lowest income classes recognize each other as human beings.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 1:00pm

     Jack claims he wants top and bottom to recognized each other as human, as he dehumanizes the top by calling them greedy and parasites.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:44pm

121. These are really simple reforms, and my goal is modest: not a society in which everybody belongs to the same income class, but in which the people belonging to the highest and lowest income classes recognize each other as human beings. Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 1:00pm Jack claims he wants top and bottom to recognized each other as human, as he dehumanizes the top by calling them greedy and parasites. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --Jakob, time to repent!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:46pm

122. I wonder if the hatred and criticism of Moore is that folks think he is lying or if folks just cant' stand his message?

     Instead of addressing his message everyone attacks the messenger for being hypocritical. Kinda weak. None of us have seen his new movie. But based on what I have seen from him in the past, he portrays honest and disturbing truths. But all anyone does is attack the artist while ignoring or downplaying his art.

     From what it sounds like this movie is more about the influence that the top 1% have on politics and society through the use of their wealth, than the fact that they are wealthy. If it does not bother you that corporations give massive donations to politicians in return for "potential" favors then there is something wrong with you. The ability of the powerful corporations to essentially write legislation that results in more money coming out of your and my pockets, reduces consumer protections, creates greater legal corporate protections, makes me ill.

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 3:50pm

123. Two of the books I've read in the last year are "Outliers" by Malcom Gladwell and "The Drunkard's walk" by Leonard Mlodinow, PhD. Both discuss the element of luck in success. I think they overstate it.

     Was there a certain amount of luck involved with Bill Gates? Sure. But I think when he was 15 the probability of him being a billionaire was about 0.1%. That may seem small, but for a person drawn at random, the probability is probably about 1 in a billion.

     That means Bill Gates was a million times more likely to be a billionaire than you or I.

     Also, I think it is important to get some perspective on the definition of "success". Does one have to be a millionaire to be considered a success? Isn't it enough to buy a home, put your kids through college, never declare bankruptcy, and have enough disposable income to enjoy your life? Isn't that enough to be considered a success?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:32pm

     I will have to read these books. I am reading Predictably Irrational on your recommendation. I think the reason we are using millionaires is because that's the most obvious barometer of success. It leaves no questions because we are talking about the monetary equivalent of the highest 1% of people and therefore the most "succesful".

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:51pm

124. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:38pm

     The trendy business book this year is "Predictibly Irrational", by Dan Ariely. It and Drunkard's Walk get into some of the behavioral finance issues.

     Classical Economic assumes individual actors pursuing rational self interest. But we exhibt some irrational behaviors that make classical economics less than perfect.

     But like all things, it's a continuum, not an either or proposition. People are not perfectly rational, nor are they perfectly irrational. There are irrational habits that create bahavior that is less than perfectly ecconomically rational. But From my experience with lots of data on the subject, people are 90% - 95% economically efficient in their decisions.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 3:56pm

125. A couple of excellent articles for the more curious and intelligent readers here.

     On Obama and progressives:

     www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23492.htm

     For anyone who genuinely gives a rat's ass about America:

     www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23494.htm

     Enjoy.

     Peace out,

     ~B

     Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm

126. extraneous: "Instead of addressing his message everyone attacks the messenger for being hypocritical."

     --are you saying Mask can't use Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, etc anymore?

     --and The Nation writers will never criticize an individual politician again, right? Just the "substance"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm

127. I wonder if the hatred and criticism of Moore is that folks think he is lying or if folks just cant' stand his message?

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 3:50pm

     My hatred of Moore come from watching Farenheit 911 (On Frank's suggestion).

     It is a hatred that is closely associated with my hatred of people who deal drugs to children. Moore's target audience are people with a distored view of reality. Just like the Skinheads believe the entire world is run by the Jews, Moore's audience is full of paranoids who think the world is controled by evil capitalists who are based on a bad charicature out of a Dicken's novel.

     He feeds these people dishonest propaganda designed for the sole purpose of reinforcing their bigoted beliefs. Moore makes the world more polarized by feeding the paranoid delusions of these people by demonizing straw men.

     Hipocrisy is the least of it.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:04pm

128. Well then here's my question. Let's say you had set your goals and worked your butt off for 20 years. Slowly clawing your way up. You get to a high enough position but then they fire you because of cutbacks or some other reason. Now you are left floating. Here's my point. You don't see any luck in the situation. You think you just moved up naturally. But it takes a host of serendipitous events to move up. When they were considering you for a promotion you got lucky enough that someone stepped down for you to take their position which is generally what has to happen in the mid to upper management positions. This is the type of serendipitous event that I am talking about.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:23pm

     No, I made a number of company switches, marketing my successes with previous employers to further my progression. Finally, my partners and I solicited agents who would work for a share of revenue to market us to foreign nations and corporations for joint venture projects.

     That has nothing to do with luck or a position opening above me. The only time I stepped up to a position in the same company was at the lower levels of supervisor and below. In two other cases, the companies went through a division split or a sale and split which opened up positions that I applied for or in one case, the new owners asked for me because of a connection shared with another investor whom I had worked for and I helped with the deal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 4:05pm

129. No, I made a number of company switches, marketing my successes with previous employers to further my progression. Finally, my partners and I solicited agents who would work for a share of revenue to market us to foreign nations and corporations for joint venture projects.

     That has nothing to do with luck or a position opening above me. The only time I stepped up to a position in the same company was at the lower levels of supervisor and below. In two other cases, the companies went through a division split or a sale and split which opened up positions that I applied for or in one case, the new owners asked for me because of a connection shared with another investor whom I had worked for and I helped with the deal.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 4:05pm

     Again these can be looked at as example of some luck. You say you applied to other companies who at the time had the resources to afford someone. I am not saying all success is based on luck. I am saying that at certain times it takes being at just the right place at just the right time. Because sometimes that promotion or that successful application take putting your application at one time and not another.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:11pm

130. --are you saying Mask can't use Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Rush, etc anymore?

     --and The Nation writers will never criticize an individual politician again, right? Just the "substance"?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm

     Mask has nothing to do with my post. I am getting tired of your constant whining about everything Mask. Who F-ing cares! You really need to move on, if he bothers you so much just put him on ignore. Your contant harping on Mask has overwhelmed several threads that could have been interesting. You don't like Mask, ok. I get it, and I don't care.

     I don't care what the Nation writers say. If it is interesting I will read it. If I don't agree or do agree maybe I will comment.

     But more to the point, Moore is working in an existing system, he has not other alternative. He can't successfully critique the system while not using it. All the critiques of his hypocriticism relate to that fact. What alternative would you propose, how could he disseminate his thoughts/art to large audiences without using his known medium (film)?

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:18pm

131. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:04pm

     So you think Moore is a liar? What did he lie about?

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:19pm

132. Ah youth, Urmy is mad because Obama has not ended the wars and gotten HC in 8 monthes, Patience little one! Rome wasn't built in a day.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:23pm

133. People of faith never challenge that faith. ...

     I used to have a strong Christian faith. ...

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:42pm

     It seems "never" is a bit too strong.

     I met a guy who was teaching a corporate training event. During lunch we were talking and he taught me something about when people's faith is fundamentally "challenged." One of two things occur: Either they go Jesse Helms or David Horowitz.

     If they go Jesse Helms, the prospect of living in a world where there old understanding no longer "controls" things is so frightening, they cling to the old faith even tighter. They know the answer has to be the original faith understanding and no amount of evidence can dissuade them. EVER!

     If they go David Horowitz, objective observation convinces them that their old understanding is not correct, but if Proposition A was wrong then the complete opposite of Proposition A must be right. David Horowitz was a Communist. When he realized his faith in Communism was misplaced, it wasn't enough to say Communism was a good idea in theory that doesn't work in practice. It's not just that Communism didn't work in Russia, but Communism itself had to be evil. Anyone who supports Communism is evil. Anyone who ever supported a person who supported Communism is evil. The Opposite of Communism is the greatest good the world has ever known.

     Another way to think of this is to describe it as reaching the end of your limits regarding the understanding of your faith.

     In first grade I though God was an old man with a beard who sat in a stone chair on a mountain. My understanding evolved to an invisible ghost who "lived" in the sun. This gave way to God as a concept of right and wrong. My understanding of faith continues to evolve to this day.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:25pm

134. So you think Moore is a liar? What did he lie about?

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:19pm

     There is a difference between a lie and propaganda. Propaganda uses factual statement arranged in such a manner as to create a context at odds with reality.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:27pm

135. He can't successfully critique the system while not using it....

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:18pm

     Sure he can!

     By annoucing that after recouping costs, open to any to audit, and a living wage to himself, say $200k, everything else, errr, "Surplus", will be donated to ACORN or The Greens, the DNC...

     Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 4:30pm

136. There is a difference between a lie and propaganda. Propaganda uses factual statement arranged in such a manner as to create a context at odds with reality.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:27pm

     If it is propaganda that you dislike you must despise all the talking heads on FOX and Rush, Hannity, Miller, and Coulter as well? Their reach is vastly greater than Moores. And in my opinion even worse because they like to create their own fiction.

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:35pm

137. Again these can be looked at as example of some luck.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:11pm

     If you played Gary Kasporov in a game of black jack, there is a 50% chance you would win. The cards are controlled by luck.

     If you played Gary Kasporov in a game of chess there is a 0.00000001% chance you would win. That is exactly the chance he would die of a heart attack before checkmating you and you would win by default. (If he had a stroke and went into a vegitative coma, I think he could still beat you or me or both of us if we teamed up.)

     Now, you could say he was "lucky" to be born with a 190 IQ. Or you could say he was lucky he didn't die during the chess match.

     But most people wouldn't ascribe his beating you to luck.

     So is life more like a black jack game or chess?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:38pm

138. 'Jack claims he wants top and bottom to recognized each other as human, as he dehumanizes the top by calling them greedy and parasites.'

     I never dehumanized anybody, "Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll. Quite to the contrary, only today I characterized greed itself as all-too human. This is what I wrote at 12:41 pm. today:

     "Greed is too broad a phenomenon, too well rooted in the human psyche, to be something we can decisively defeat in any campaign."

     The words that you attribute to me are purely of your own invention. I expect better tactics than this from an adversary in a debate who expects to be taken seriously.

     My opinion about capitalism, as I tried to explain earlier today, is this: that it is a structural problem, not a problem of individual character.

     This is why I am left cold by proposals to cap executive compensation. If we regulated the market efficiently and imposed progressive taxation universally, there would never be any need to do this. There is no need for this even now, not even in the case of the bankers whose self-indulgent habits some of us may find repulsive. After all, these bankers are merely playing by the rules, which our own shortsighted (and damned forgetful) representatives in Congress have made. What we need to do is change the rules, as I have proposed, in this thread and in previous threads.

     I repeat: capitalism is a structural problem, not an individual one. It is not the case of a "few bad apples." If we were more honest about those "greedy" bankers, we'd probably all admit: "Gee, I'd probably do the same thing if I had that much power."

     Exactly. That's why nobody should HAVE that much power.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 4:47pm

139. If it is propaganda that you dislike you must despise all the talking heads on FOX and Rush, Hannity, Miller, and Coulter as well?

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 4:35pm

     It is an old saying: "Conservatives think Liberals are misguided/foolish/naive. Liberals think Conservatives are evil."

     Of these four, I like Hannity the least. It is no coincidence that he is the only one who isn't a comedian.

     Rush's pompous aire is part of his schick. His Paul Shanklin parodies are hilarious.(My favorite is, "In a Yugo" sung to Elvis's "In the Gheto".)

     Dennis Miller is a former SNL Comedian.

     Ann Coulter's writings are hysterically funny.

     There is nothing funny about Moore demonizing and dehumanizing President Bush in F911. There is nothing funny about Moore demonizing and dehumanizing Charlton Heston (and his Alzhiemers) in Bowling for Columnbine. There is nothing funny about Moore demonizing and dehumanizing health insurance company employees in Sicko.

     Roger and Me at least attempted humor.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:52pm

140. But most people wouldn't ascribe his beating you to luck.

     So is life more like a black jack game or chess?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:38pm

     Depends on when you are talking about. I think luck is an element of life often. I didn't say life is always about luck. I think hard work is a big part of being successful. But I think luck also plays into it. I don't think it is solely based on chess because chess also has an element of luck to it. If a person thinks about the wrong thing at the wrong moment and moves a piece in the just the wrong way then you win. When it's two incredibly skilled players it's about who slips up who doesn't notice the one move when they should. Now if you get two equally skilled players on a board and they play each other and one person loses. Would you say it's because that person is more skilled? I have heard many an athlete or professional say that they got lucky at just the right moment to have achieved what they achieved. If they acknowledge it, why can't we?

     By the way black jack probably isn't the best game to use as an example of luck. If you can count cards you can pretty much run a game of blackjack without loss and then all it takes is the choice to walk away.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:59pm

141. My example to anti is one I think more apt to my point. An athlete works very hard to become good at the sport. But it is sheer dumb luck that they got the genes required to play the sport they are playing. I can never swim as fast as Michael Phelps no matter how hard I trained. In the Olympics he raced people who had trained equally as hard if not even harder than he did. But he dominated. Now we can say that that is solely because he trained are harder. Or we can step back for just a second and look at his body which is shaped in such a way to make him superior in the water. The Olympics did a profile on this specific feature. Now is it sheer luck they he is the fastest? No because he had to compliment that luck with rigorous training. But sheer luck gave him the genetics he needed to have the body structure he needed to swim as fast as he does.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:08pm

142. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:59pm

     One hand of black jack (out of a fresh deck) is close to a 50/50 proposition. But you make an excellent point. By counting cards and adjusting the size of one's bet, and repeating several thousand times, one can dramatically increase the chances of success.

     Do you know the game, "Plinko"? That's the one where you have a slanted board with evenly spaced pegs and you drop a ball and the ball finally rests in one of the spaces along the bottom. Depending on which space it lands in depends on the prize won.

     If you dropped 1000 balls (and had enough space at the bottom) the balls would form a Bell Curve. This game is "fair" in the sense that all balls have the same distribution. The go into the same slot at the top and they all have the same pegs to hit.

     Life isn't fair. If the bottom represents money earned (which follows the power law distribtuion, not the normal distribution, but I digress) not all people get dropped at the same point at the top. Some with rich/famous parents or high IQs or born in America get dropped farther to the right. Some, with poor parents or low IQs or congenital birth defects or higher propensity for drug and alcohol addiction get dropped far to the left.

     There are still elements of luck that determin the exact location, but the "expectation" at birth is not the same for all participants.

     Getting back to my definition of success: Is landing in the upper 50% of your distribtuion success? (Better than your parents?) or is it an absolute value of being higher than $40,000?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 5:17pm

143. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:08pm

     Dave Zirin's article on Caster Semonya is interesting. I made a lot of similar points to the ones you made in a web letter there. (I even got a red star for once.)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 5:21pm

144. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRRemRXmy9g

     Posted by OneVote at 09/16/2009 @ 5:27pm

145. Ann Coulter's writings are hysterically funny.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:52pm

     No. But it's good to know what you think is funny.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 5:29pm

146. Labor creates Capital - the Rich create Corruption!!!! We want health care!!!! F--- the Rich!!!! We can make the Sh-- ourselves!!!! Wealth is nothing but natural resources + human labor!!!!

     Conservatives: most of you will never, never, NEVER make enough to qualify for a Bush tax cut - you never have and you statistically speaking are practically assured never will - even if you worked 124 hours a day 500 days a year and ate nothing!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:32pm

147. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:08pm

     Perhaps you aren't, but it seems you remain fixated on success must come from one endeavor.

     If I want to be highly successful as an athlete, yet it turns out I can never make the top that way, it's time to try some other way to succeed.

     That's why I say that a determined person will find a way because this is a country where you have no such limitations.

     Life and the many people I've met over the decades has proven to me over and over again. ANY person in this country that wants to be a millionaire, can be if they are willing to do what it takes.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 5:34pm

148. .....Wealth is nothing but natural resources + human labor!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:32pm

     I just realized you have the IQ of, well, grass, a natural resource.

     "Natural resources + human labor" exist in Mexico and well, just about everywhere.....ever thunk that? Yeah, I know you can't.

     Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 5:55pm

149. Getting back to my definition of success: Is landing in the upper 50% of your distribtuion success? (Better than your parents?) or is it an absolute value of being higher than $40,000?

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 5:17pm

     Well in the end I think we define our own success. If being successful to you working at a McDonalds then maybe that isn't success to a Wall Street banker, or indeed the majority of people, it will be success and happiness to you.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:57pm

150. Perhaps you aren't, but it seems you remain fixated on success must come from one endeavor.

     If I want to be highly successful as an athlete, yet it turns out I can never make the top that way, it's time to try some other way to succeed.

     That's why I say that a determined person will find a way because this is a country where you have no such limitations.

     Life and the many people I've met over the decades has proven to me over and over again. ANY person in this country that wants to be a millionaire, can be if they are willing to do what it takes.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 5:34pm

     Oh no I'm not fixated. I am just using athletes because they are the most obvious example. What I am saying is that no matter what you do. No matter how well suited something is to you. It takes an element of luck. Or in the minds of many religious people the blessing of God to gain something. How many musicians or actors or millionaires thank God?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:59pm

151. What I'm trying to say is the opportunity that just happened that you happened to be prepared for.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 6:00pm

152. Nobody likes to be wrong. I am no exception.

     But I have been doing some research about Michael Moore. What I find isn't exactly pretty.

     Even though he likes to say he represents the common folk he has some serious credibility problems himself as far as the investments that his corporation has made.

     I feel that his pronouncements are correct, however, even though he himself has a taint of hypocrisy that needs some fixin'.

     Progressive folk may just have to cave in to the fact the what Michael Moore says is right (to the chagrin of the right), but that he may not be the best person to be saying it (to the chagrin of the left).

     He knows how to organize a campaign against things that he disagrees with... therein lie his talents; but if progressives can't find any other persuasive voices to do this in a populous nation such as ours then Hannity and Coulter and their sick ilk will win just because they are LOUDER.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/16/2009 @ 6:12pm

153. Conservatives: most of you will never, never, NEVER make enough to qualify for a Bush tax cut - you never have and you statistically speaking are practically assured never will - even if you worked 124 hours a day 500 days a year and ate nothing!!!!

     Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:32pm

     Again, are you some kind of idiot?

     The Bush taxcuts reduced the bottom tax rate from 15% to 10%. Are you saying the none of us even are in the bottom tax bracket.

     He lowered the middle class tax brackets from 31% to 28% and 28% to 25%-again, are you saying no conservatives are in the middle class

     Doubling the child tax credit. Did that help the poor and middle class or did it help the wealthy?

     Removing the marriage tax penalty, were the rich helped by that, or did it mostly help the poor and middle class?

     Removing the limits of deductibility for student loans, did that help the wealthy more, or the middle class?

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 6:25pm

154. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/16/2009 @ 4:52pm

     So your hatred of propaganda spewers is soley dependent upon how funny you find them? You think it is funny to call our president a terrorist and a racist? You think it is funny when Coulter lies about liberal support for fake hate crimes? Or Miller saying he trades the Abu Grahib pictures with his friends?

     I don't find any of these things funny.

     I don't think F911 was trying to be funny. As I don't think many people think what happened on 9-11 and our reasons for war in Iraq were funny. In fact it was all really not funny.

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 6:36pm

155. The left portrays wealth as zero sum.

     Zero sum states that for me to be rich you need to be poor.

     This is false. The idea of zero sum is exploited by the left to foster victimization and class envy.

     It is unlikely Moore's film gets to the truth of the Federal Reserve's role in the global economy. If it did he wouldn't be on Leno.

     Moore is just another example of how we as a people are being intentionally divided and manipulated.

     While the truth born on Jekyll Island enslaves us.

     Posted by freiheit1 at 09/16/2009 @ 6:44pm

156. "Capitalism is Legalized Greed"

     I didn't realize greed was illegal...or was this just anohter in a long line of BS statements by the famous, fat f---...I wonder if he considers obesity greedy too...

     Posted by usc1 at 09/16/2009 @ 6:47pm

157. "What we should do is reduce the power of greed in the form of surplus wealth. Surplus wealth can be defined as wealth that is more than enough for your own personal needs, so that you can use it to buy power over others. It expresses itself in perverse ways, such as the amount of money that we spend on pet food while millions of people the world over go hungry"

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

     So, Jakob, let's get down to brass tacks. "Progressive taxation" is all well and good (and what we have now). It sounds like you're in favor of confiscating assets from those who have "surplus wealth". How about a definition of "surplus wealth"? Give us an actual figure. At what level will you begin confiscating assets? annual income of $100,000? $200,000? $1,000,000? Don't be afraid. Give us a number.

     Posted by twillie at 09/16/2009 @ 7:21pm

158. LENO: Well, the one thing I like about this film, the main thing was, it's completely nonpartisan. Other people have had opinions, 'Oh, he's a liberal, he's doing this,' but you go after both the Democrats and the Republicans,

     "Nonpartisan"!! ROFL! When a far left wingnut goes after moderate Dems and all Repubs, that's not "nonpartisan". It's wingnuttery.

     Jay: Steer clear of politics. You're over your head. Stick with those funny little newspaper clippings.

     Posted by twillie at 09/16/2009 @ 7:27pm

159. The simple truth of the matter is Americans (for the most part) have been electing people who unabashedly steal from them and lie to them, and even knowing these people are thieving liars isnt enough for people.

     Posted by TexasFlood at 09/16/2009 @ 12:19pm

     yeah!...like the 52.1% of people that voted for Obama!!!

     Posted by usc1 at 09/16/2009 @ 7:27pm

160. amazing the amount of presumably middle class people here DEFENDING policies which......cause massive class division......make the poor poorer and the rich richer......cause huge boom and bust cycles......exacerbate poverty and misery....and evidently see no problem with this.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/16/2009 @ 10:26pm

161. Here's a question, and I'm not sure which direction it leads exactly...

     Why should wealth be the standard? In other words, why should we measure success by how many toys we own at the end of the day? I don't think socialism works so I'm not willing to defend it, but I think one of the dangers of capitalism is that it focuses us completely on the wrong things to the exclusion of those things that actually mean something. It encourages us to do so because success is defined in terms of competition for material gain. Why?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

162. "I don't think socialism works"

     really? so, socialism, as it is practised in, say, sweden or norway, doesn't work? please respond.

     and to the wise one, antisocialist, please tell us how bush's tax cuts helped the country.

     and, in your mind, was there any connection between the reagan, bush 1 and bush 2 tax cuts, and the massive deficits caused by all three?

     and, in your mind, was there any connection between the higher tax rates under clinton, and his ability to balance the budget?

     just curious.

     oh, and why do deficits and 'out of control' spending suddenly matter, under obama? and not under reagan, bush 1 and bush 2?

     Posted by darladoon at 09/16/2009 @ 10:45pm

163. "Why should wealth be the standard? In other words, why should we measure success by how many toys we own at the end of the day? I don't think socialism works so I'm not willing to defend it, but I think one of the dangers of capitalism is that it focuses us completely on the wrong things to the exclusion of those things that actually mean something. It encourages us to do so because success is defined in terms of competition for material gain. Why?"

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     Wealth in toys may be the standard for some. For the rest of us, wealth is measured in happiness, in our families, and in a job we love. I strive for that wealth, and capitalism allows me to do that.

     Socialism tries to bring everyone to the same level of mediocrity and non-achievement. Communism seeks to bring everyone to the same level of misery.

     Posted by twillie at 09/16/2009 @ 10:47pm

164. For those who don't like Moore's "pie analogy" I have my own...

     Picture a pie on a table and at side "A" of the table is the 1% of the wealthiest, the corporations and the politicians they bought, while at side "B" of the table is everybody else...

     Then the rich corporate a-holes from side "A" take the pie and smash it into our collective faces.

     It's not about who owns more of the pie it's about gaming the system.

     Posted by koroviev at 09/16/2009 @ 11:11pm

165. Why should wealth be the standard?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     Perhaps it is just part of the inborn characteristics at this juncture in the development of the human species....a reflection of raw nature where the strong has more territory and larger harems. And yes, it's still a mostly male thing.

     You should know that behavior economics have proven that most folks would rather have relative wealth than absolute wealth. Another word, most would prefer to make $50k surrounded by freinds/neighbors who make $40k, rather than making $100k but surrounded by folks making $200k. But among the truly wealthy, say the top 5%, I don't believe this phenomenon is nearly as applicable though there will always be a few who want to be in the Forbes top 400 and make headway up the rankings.

     As twillie said, most worldly folks measure wealth by the human experience and for some, wealth will (seem to) come fairly easily as a result. Not too surprising for folks who know how to prioritize and best focus their energy and talent.

     Way too many folks, especially among the libs/progressives, wastes far too much time and energy worrying about others' "surplus wealth" (and surplus health) and make far too big a deal out of "wealth" that's none of their business...but then, the libs' very being is to run others' lives....sigh!

     I rambled and now, it's time to hit the bedtime book!

     Posted by Happy at 09/16/2009 @ 11:24pm

166. Posted by antisocialist at 09/16/2009 @ 6:25pm |

     "Removing the limits of deductibility for student loans, did that help the wealthy more, or the middle class?"

     The wealthy...who can afford to take out loans on larger tuitions and thus have more interest to write off.

     Making student loans not part of debt covered by bankruptcy in 2005? Classy!

     Talk about a no lose proposition for lenders.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54pm

167. "Wealth in toys may be the standard for some. For the rest of us, wealth is measured in happiness, in our families, and in a job we love. I strive for that wealth, and capitalism allows me to do that."

     capitalism, as it is currently practised in the united states, does not actually sustain the standards which you personally aspire (happiness, families, and jobs). in fact, the middle class has largely evaporated because of american capitalism.

     in other western, industrialized countries, with much higher taxes, there is a much stronger, better educated, and healthier middle class. there is simply no doubt about this. average families in canada, who make less than $80,000/year, actually own things like summer cottages, speak at least two languages, can cook a 5 course meal, and are not hung up on ridiculous issues like gay marriage; you never see that in the united states.

     "Socialism tries to bring everyone to the same level of mediocrity and non-achievement"

     yeah, those swedes, germans, norwegians, and british: just can't seem to achieve anything! that scandinavian design scene is just pathetic! and that german engineering? how terrible!

     same level of mediocrity? misery? are you f*cking kidding me? the united states is currently the laughing stock of the world, and george bush was the single cause behind that reality. what with his profound stupidity, his boorish personality, his utter disinterest in ideas and art and science, his total disdain for human rights, his contempt for the common man, while all the while pretending to be a common man (yeah right, with a texas accent).

     bush destroyed the world, and obama showed up just when the effects took hold on all of us.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 12:42am

168. The fact is the inequitable distribution. 1% own 95%. This is in fact what the system of unbridled opportunity has given you. It IS the free market, not some glitch.

     If you want some of it, you will have to TAKE it. You will have to fight the 1%, because they want 98%, and no way are they going to give you any of what they 'earned'. They are smart. They have bought the American political system, along with its security forces. They are coming for whatever you've got left - pensions, homes, whatever they can squeeze.

     You can't go and bake your own pie, because these figures refer to the entire thing. Where would you go to bake another, separate 'good' America.

     So if the 99% who have been screwed into making do with 5% want a piece of the action, they will have to figure out how to TAKE it.

     What the this-is-a-land-of-opportunity posters are saying is: "If you can screw enough saps, you can maybe get to join the 1%!" (the American Dream)

     Or, of course, you can organize. Even if US citizens have no actual say in the running of their country, it is still a nominal democracy.

     Posted by mikecope at 09/17/2009 @ 03:28am

169. Here's a question, and I'm not sure which direction it leads exactly...

     Why should wealth be the standard? In other words, why should we measure success by how many toys we own at the end of the day? I don't think socialism works so I'm not willing to defend it, but I think one of the dangers of capitalism is that it focuses us completely on the wrong things to the exclusion of those things that actually mean something. It encourages us to do so because success is defined in terms of competition for material gain. Why?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     I completely agree with you. Success in life is not about material things. I think true success is a more abstract word. For instance the relationship between wealth and the odds you will cheat on your spouse goes up as you get wealthier. I found that a lot of the kids who grew up rich that went to my school were the biggest drug addicts and dealers in the school. Wealth is rarely something that leads to true happiness. Like Darin said, being able to send your kids to school and have a little extra for vacation is about right. I think that a goodly number of people who go above that, aren't truly happy.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 03:37am

170. Here's a question, and I'm not sure which direction it leads exactly...

     Why should wealth be the standard? In other words, why should we measure success by how many toys we own at the end of the day? I don't think socialism works so I'm not willing to defend it, but I think one of the dangers of capitalism is that it focuses us completely on the wrong things to the exclusion of those things that actually mean something. It encourages us to do so because success is defined in terms of competition for material gain. Why?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     I completely agree with you. Success in life is not about material things. I think true success is a more abstract word. For instance the relationship between wealth and the odds you will cheat on your spouse goes up as you get wealthier. I found that a lot of the kids who grew up rich that went to my school were the biggest drug addicts and dealers in the school. Wealth is rarely something that leads to true happiness. Like Darin said, being able to send your kids to school and have a little extra for vacation is about right. I think that a goodly number of people who go above that, aren't truly happy.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 03:37am

171. 'So, Jakob, let's get down to brass tacks. "Progressive taxation" is all well and good (and what we have now). It sounds like you're in favor of confiscating assets from those who have "surplus wealth". How about a definition of "surplus wealth"? Give us an actual figure. At what level will you begin confiscating assets? annual income of $100,000? $200,000? $1,000,000? Don't be afraid. Give us a number.'

     Everybody who is not living at or near the poverty line has some amount of surplus wealth, "twillie."

     I would restore the progressivity to the tax system that was there when Eisenhower was president.

     As you can see, all of my proposals are really quite modest.

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2009 @ 06:30am

172. One more thing I'd do, "twillie," is this. In keeping with the general principle that wealth from work should be taxed less than wealth from money, I'd increase the tax on all capital gains so that it is just a little higher than the tax on income. Both taxes would be progressively graded, of course.

     But if you're obsessing about the amount of revenue the government is pulling in, "twillie," you're barking up the wrong tree. You should be obsessing about how the government SPENDS money - because this is how we get it all back. Is it all going to unwinnable wars and to bankers whose sense of civic responsibility is so abysmal that they still refuse even to allow their toxic assets to be audited? Or is it going to create green jobs?

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2009 @ 06:38am

173. How many musicians or actors or millionaires thank God?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 5:59pm

     A former pastor of mine had a slogan: It's all about an attitude of grattitude. (Because everything you have is a gift from God.)

     **************************************************************

     What I'm trying to say is the opportunity that just happened that you happened to be prepared for.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2009 @ 6:00pm

     My college football coach also had a slogan: Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 07:33am

174. natural resources + human labor [= capital/wealth]

     Posted by DPGrassley at 09/16/2009 @ 5:32pm

     That's like saying water + an oven = cake.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 07:37am

175. Posted by alf at 09/16/2009 @ 1:07pm

     Exactly.

     Posted by YourJomamma at 09/17/2009 @ 07:38am

176. Why should wealth be the standard?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     This is where I mention Comfy's point, "that each individual defines his own success", but then go on to explain why wealth is the standard.

     For all animals life is a series of decisions (some conscious, some un-conscious) to compete or cooperate. At some level these decsions use reason as a means for achieving objectives. The objective of life is a threefold hierarchy according the Lord Alfred North Whitehead in his book, "The Function of Reason": They are "to live"; "to live well"; "to live better".

     Few animals make it past the first part, "to live". Most humans and some of their pets fully secure, "to live" and progress to, "to live well". Living well is a measure of comfort. Once one has secured comfort, he pursues status. This is "to live better". Status greatly ensures the comfort and status of offspring.

     We have an innate propensity for competition. It is stronger in some than other. We can compete for resources, like the carcass of a dead buffalo (if one is hungry) or we can compete for money (while cooperating with others from our "tribe") to buy the dead buffalo.

     ("Tribe" isn't an insensitive slap at native Americans. It is an acknolwedgment of our innate propensity for "tribalism". That is, we identify with a perferred group, be it by looks, sports team, high school, corporation, etc. and we also identify people who belong to "the others". Our brains are hard wired for a community of 150 people. Identifying potential competitors as "others" is unavoidable.)

     Conspicuous wealth is the ultimate in objective measures of status. That is what it is commonly understood as an ultimate measure of success even though it is not a perfect measure (Ghandi, Saulk, Einstein)

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am

177. Perhaps Moore could cite some culture or civilization that wasn't motivated by either the acquisition of wealth, material comforts or power?

     In capitalist democracies, individuals are free to fulfill their desires. To pursue their own self interests.

     In non-capitalist ones (which usually turn out to not be democratic either), the greed is still there. It is only the influential governing elite who get to pursue these things. Like Soviet apparatchiks who get to shop at "special" stores and have first crack at the latest cars.

     Does Moore truly suppose there wasn't greed, the most bloodthirsty, murderous kind ever seen in human history, by those societies which tried to force something other than capitalism upon it's people?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am

178. Perhaps Moore could cite some culture or civilization that wasn't motivated by either the acquisition of wealth, material comforts or power?

     In capitalist democracies, individuals are free to fulfill their desires. To pursue their own self interests.

     In non-capitalist ones (which usually turn out to not be democratic either), the greed is still there. It is only the influential governing elite who get to pursue these things. Like Soviet apparatchiks who get to shop at "special" stores and have first crack at the latest cars.

     Does Moore truly suppose there wasn't greed, the most bloodthirsty, murderous kind ever seen in human history, by those societies which tried to force something other than capitalism upon it's people?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am

179. Perhaps Moore could cite some culture or civilization that wasn't motivated by either the acquisition of wealth, material comforts or power?

     In capitalist democracies, individuals are free to fulfill their desires. To pursue their own self interests.

     In non-capitalist ones (which usually turn out to not be democratic either), the greed is still there. It is only the influential governing elite who get to pursue these things. Like Soviet apparatchiks who get to shop at "special" stores and have first crack at the latest cars.

     Does Moore truly suppose there wasn't greed, the most bloodthirsty, murderous kind ever seen in human history, by those societies which tried to force something other than capitalism upon it's people?

     Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am

180. Why should wealth be the standard?

     Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm

     ...

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am

     Eliminating the possibility of obscene wealth will not eliminate the corruption that emenates from the intense competition for status. It just shifts it from business to politics.

     I'd prefer a business culture that is susceptable to corruption that is policied by a government that has less incentive for corruption to a government that is thoroughly corrupt.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:09am

181. I don't think F911 was trying to be funny.

     Posted by Extraneous at 09/16/2009 @ 6:36pm

     And the Jihadis that use propaganda to recruit suicide bombers don't use humor either.

     I see a fundamental difference in the attempts to influence between Moore and Coulter. Coulter mocks here opponents in an effort to get her readers to agree with her. Moore presents information in a dishonest manner in an attempt to persuade followers to join or at least remain loyal to his cult.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:13am

182. Ah youth, Urmy is mad because Obama has not ended the wars and gotten HC in 8 monthes, Patience little one! Rome wasn't built in a day.

     Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:23pm

     and godot never arrives....

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 08:16am

183. I would restore the progressivity to the tax system

     Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2009 @ 06:30am

     This is a good idea, but it requires extremely careful money management by the government, especially state government, because tax revenues are so volatile. Taxes bring in big money in good years (unless people flee to places like Florida that have no income tax). But when the economy goes bad, as it did in the 1990s crash, government tax receipts decline badly in places like California and New York because the progressive tax rates mean that decreasing incomes result in taxation that decreases even faster.

     Posted by Mistral at 09/17/2009 @ 08:25am

184. "I don't think socialism works"

     really? so, socialism, as it is practised in, say, sweden or norway, doesn't work? please respond.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/16/2009 @ 10:45pm

     It's been a while since I made this point so I will make it again: Camile Paglia made the point that Scandinavian countries really opperate as extended families rather than pluralistic societies. Here are some statistics on Norway from Wiki:

     Population 5 million

     Ethicity: 98% white European; 2% other

     Religion: 86% Lutheran; 4% other Christian

     You've got a tiny population where 99% share the same culture and language. We've got a half-a-dozen cities bigger than Norway without a majority ethnicity.

     Socialism doesn't work in a country of 300 million immigrants with no collective culture and no collective language or religion or beliefs.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:39am

185. I Heard Moore once claim that "most Americans agree with him".

     Okay. Moore is the radical fringe. The idea that "most" agree is ridiculous bullshit.

     Moore said most agree with him, then he spouted off some trite platitudes about love and hope and dignity and free puppies for children.

     Well, yeah most people agree with everyone's platitudes. That doesn't mean they agree with your radical politics.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:58am

186. "Socialism doesn't work in a country of 300 million immigrants with no collective culture and no collective language or religion or beliefs."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:39am

     Interesting....Darin just contradicted the standard Right-wing nativist line that there is a "distinct American culture" and "English is our national language".

     What will Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo say????

     Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 09:26am

187. "yeah, those swedes, germans, norwegians, and british: just can't seem to achieve anything! that scandinavian design scene is just pathetic! and that german engineering? how terrible! same level of mediocrity? misery? are you f*cking kidding me? the united states is currently the laughing stock of the world, and george bush was the single cause behind that reality. what with his profound stupidity, his boorish personality, his utter disinterest in ideas and art and science, his total disdain for human rights, his contempt for the common man, while all the while pretending to be a common man (yeah right, with a texas accent). bush destroyed the world, and obama showed up just when the effects took hold on all of us."

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 12:42am

     darla:

     GDP for Sweden, Germany, Norway and the UK, combined: $5.9 trillion

     GDP for the US: $13.2 trillion.

     So, let me break down for you:

     Socialism = mediocrity

     Capitalism = opportunity

     "bush destroyed the world" - Without doubt, the quote of the week. For darladoon:

     Bush = Dr. Evil

     Too funny

     Posted by twillie at 09/17/2009 @ 09:27am

188. "One more thing I'd do, "twillie," is this. In keeping with the general principle that wealth from work should be taxed less than wealth from money, I'd increase the tax on all capital gains so that it is just a little higher than the tax on income. Both taxes would be progressively graded, of course. But if you're obsessing about the amount of revenue the government is pulling in, "twillie," you're barking up the wrong tree. You should be obsessing about how the government SPENDS money - because this is how we get it all back. Is it all going to unwinnable wars and to bankers whose sense of civic responsibility is so abysmal that they still refuse even to allow their toxic assets to be audited? Or is it going to create green jobs?" Posted by JakobFabian at 09/17/2009 @ 06:38am

     I'm not obsessing about anything, Jakob. The latest progressive cause is "spend local". Every dollar I send to the government is a dollar I DON'T spend locally. That dollar is GONE from this locale, to be spent by the government on someone's pet project. So, which do you favor, Jakob? Spend local? Or send it to the government?

     You didn't answer my question, Jakob. Give me a dollar figure for what a person needs for "personal needs". Then, do you propose confiscation of everything over that amount? or just a 99% tax rate?

     So, you would increase the tax on capital gains, to above that of income? Would'nt that have the effect of discouraging personal savings? Are you saying you don't want people practicing restraint by saving for a rainy day, rather than spending all they have every month?

     I think the capital gains tax should be low, to encourage savings and personal responsibility.

     Posted by twillie at 09/17/2009 @ 09:44am

189. <"Removing the limits of deductibility for student loans, did that help the wealthy more, or the middle class?"

     The wealthy...who can afford to take out loans on larger tuitions and thus have more interest to write off.

     Making student loans not part of debt covered by bankruptcy in 2005? Classy!

     Talk about a no lose proposition for lenders.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/16/2009 @ 11:54pm>

     Wrong Snowball,

     The IRS code has an income limitation for claiming the student loan interest deduction (Pub 970)

     Income limits increased. If you are married and file a joint return, the amount of your student loan interest deduction for 2008 is gradually reduced (phased out) if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is between $115,000 and $145,000. You cannot take a deduction if your MAGI is $145,000 or more. This is an increase from the 2007 limits of $110,000 and $140,000. See Effect of the Amount of Your Income on the Amount of Your Deduction , later, for more information.

     Introduction

     Generally, personal interest you pay, other than certain mortgage interest, is not deductible on your tax return. However, if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is less than $70,000 ($145,000 if filing a joint return) there is a special deduction allowed for paying interest on a student loan (also known as an education loan) used for higher education. For most taxpayers, MAGI is the adjusted gross income as figured on their federal income tax return before subtracting any deduction for student loan interest. This deduction can reduce the amount of your income subject to tax by up to $2,500 in 2008.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 10:00am

190. You can't go and bake your own pie, because these figures refer to the entire thing. Where would you go to bake another, separate 'good' America.

     So if the 99% who have been screwed into making do with 5% want a piece of the action, they will have to figure out how to TAKE it.

     What the this-is-a-land-of-opportunity posters are saying is: "If you can screw enough saps, you can maybe get to join the 1%!" (the American Dream)

     Or, of course, you can organize. Even if US citizens have no actual say in the running of their country, it is still a nominal democracy.

     Posted by mikecope at 09/17/2009 @ 03:28am

     More leftist lying propaganda.

     More than 80% of the wealthy in this country are self made. That means they somehow overcame your self imposed ceiling and joined those who have grabbed the brass ring.

     based upon 2007 figures there are over 3.3 million millionaires in this country and over 1100 Billionaires.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 10:08am

191. i love how larry defends the very people jesus warned against.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:10am

192. So socialism only works if you're part of an "extended family", huh Troll?

     Of course, extending your thought, if the South were to rise again & the Confederacy lived once more, then you & your buddy J. Wilson would be socialists?

     Posted by Sorelish at 09/17/2009 @ 10:17am

193. Here's a question, and I'm not sure which direction it leads exactly... Why should wealth be the standard? In other words, why should we measure success by how many toys we own at the end of the day? I don't think socialism works so I'm not willing to defend it, but I think one of the dangers of capitalism is that it focuses us completely on the wrong things to the exclusion of those things that actually mean something. It encourages us to do so because success is defined in terms of competition for material gain. Why? Posted by Thrawn at 09/16/2009 @ 10:31pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --because people are naturally competitive (I mean, look at every Nation thread for proof positive)...so you go with what people naturally tend to do; and attempt to regulate the "excess" (i.e. monopolies, unfair trade practices, etc)...the capitalist system works just fine; the gov't just needs to enforce common sense laws/regulations to protect the people who aren't at the top from the people who've made it to the top from abusing their power (and it's human nature for people who've made it to the rarefied air of economic power to think the world is theirs). Isn't this a major reason, for example, for the estate tax (or "death tax" as conservatives call it)?--we don't children of people who've attained wealth to essentially become feudal lords; and their children to inherit the same, ad infinitum...we want them to earn it (or at least give something back that they didn't earn).

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:23am

194. darladoon: "the united states is currently the laughing stock of the world, and george bush was the single cause behind that reality."

     --laughinstock based on Iraq and Afghanistan? England and France and Germany never tried to establish themselves in other parts of the world besides their motherlands, right? please. so concerned you are with world opinion, sad...

     darladoon: "what with his profound stupidity, his boorish personality, his utter disinterest in ideas and art and science, his total disdain for human rights, his contempt for the common man, while all the while pretending to be a common man (yeah right, with a texas accent)."

     --he was a terrible president. does that mean america is a "laughingstock" because of one presidential administration? please.

     darladoon: "bush destroyed the world, and obama showed up just when the effects took hold on all of us."

     --the world is gone? it's over? finished? your hyperbole "destroys" your own arguments. Obama is carrying on many of Bush's policies. Time to start focusing on Obama not making us a "laughingstock" right? or you gonna choose to live in the past and focus on Bush?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:32am

195. . Like Darin said, being able to send your kids to school and have a little extra for vacation is about right. I think that a goodly number of people who go above that, aren't truly happy. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 03:37am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --if so many here are in agreement that there's (virtually) no middle class; and it's very difficult to get into the top strata of earnings in this society--what's the point of paying top dollar for college anymore? how many degrees are even remotely close to worth what the student has to pay for them?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:35am

196. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:03am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --I largely agree. Also, advertising most often shows "successful" and "good looking" people to sell their products. This works. Why? Because people want to be successful and they want to possess good looking women or rich, handsome men.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:38am

197. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:35am |

     Unemployment overall: 9.7%

     Unemployment for bachelors or better: 4.7%

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 10:40am

198. Ah youth, Urmy is mad because Obama has not ended the wars and gotten HC in 8 monthes, Patience little one! Rome wasn't built in a day. Posted by Denise29 at 09/16/2009 @ 4:23pm

     and godot never arrives.... Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 08:16am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --it'll arrive according to denise29. i just have to be "patient."

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:42am

199. "Socialism doesn't work in a country of 300 million immigrants with no collective culture and no collective language or religion or beliefs."----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 08:39am Interesting....Darin just contradicted the standard Right-wing nativist line that there is a "distinct American culture" and "English is our national language". What will Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo say???? Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 09:26am | ignore this person |

     --there's the Maskerade---anonymous commenters can't think for themselves, they MUST be in lockstep with political commenters! OWNED!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45am

200. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:35am |

     Unemployment overall: 9.7% Unemployment for bachelors or better: 4.7%

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --what percent of the "bachelors or better" who are working make more than the median income? also, are you arguing that there is a large middle class (mostly made of people with college degrees) and that the argument that the middle class is in dire trouble is wrong?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:50am

201. Unemployment overall: 9.7% Unemployment for bachelors or better: 4.7% Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 10:40am | ignore this person | warn this person

     --Question: 9.7% unemployment overall is clear enough; but the 4.7%: does that mean only 4.7% of people with a bachelors degree or better are unemployed? What percentage of the 9.7% who are unemployed have a bachelor's or better?

     also, I'm willing to be people with bachelor's degrees don't collect unemployment (which I'm sure the stats above are based on) at the same rate that people without them do. In other words, I seriously doubt 95.3% of people with bachelors degrees who want to work are working. I'm sure many people with bachelors degrees who want to work can't find work; but also don't file for unemployment because they can afford not to (i.e., they live with people; significant other, family, friends, who help them bridge the gap between jobs).

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:56am

202. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45am

     Again, thanks, urmy. With you re-posting what I say, Darin and Larry's Ignores are evaded. (Well, until they Ignore you to stop seeing MY stuff...heheh)

     Here's a Snausage.

     Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11am

203. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:50am |

     According to the BLS, there are 32.5 million people employed with a bachelor's or better and their median income is ~48k/yr.

     (damn liberal arts people dragging down the average! heheh)

     The median income for 'everyone' was $33.6k.

     It's difficult to tease out exactly how many of the 32M with degrees make more than 33.6k, but I'm guessing it's more than 70%.

     Most of the people in the middle class don't have college degrees, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be doing better if they did.

     I started my life living in trailers with little food security and am now in the top 1%. My relatively cheap CA state school education was a large part of that mobility (having parents interested in my education and applying myself also contributed).

     I posit that it is this lack of advanced education that may be hurting the middle class.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 11:13am

204. snowball777:

     you didn't answer any of my questions. out of the 9.7% unemployed, what's the percent of them who have bachelors or better?

     also, this...snowball777: "It's difficult to tease out exactly how many of the 32M with degrees make more than 33.6k, but I'm guessing it's more than 70%."...

     I'm sorry, that's not reliable. If you want to convince me of stats, I need something more than your personal "best guess"

     snowball777: "Most of the people in the middle class don't have college degrees, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be doing better if they did."

     --this also SOUNDS nice, but you're not backing it up with anything substantive. doing how much better? pay for 4 years of school (I went to UConn, a state school...graduated in 2001...even then the tuition in-state was about $12,000 a year and $17,000 a year for out of state)...how much does taking out loans (and having to pay back upwards of 150%+ of that tuitition) benefit Joe College versus not having a degree?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 11:22am

205. snowball777:

     you didn't answer any of my questions. out of the 9.7% unemployed, what's the percent of them who have bachelors or better?

     also, this...snowball777: "It's difficult to tease out exactly how many of the 32M with degrees make more than 33.6k, but I'm guessing it's more than 70%."...

     I'm sorry, that's not reliable. If you want to convince me of stats, I need something more than your personal "best guess"

     snowball777: "Most of the people in the middle class don't have college degrees, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be doing better if they did."

     --this also SOUNDS nice, but you're not backing it up with anything substantive. doing how much better? pay for 4 years of school (I went to UConn, a state school...graduated in 2001...even then the tuition in-state was about $12,000 a year and $17,000 a year for out of state)...how much does taking out loans (and having to pay back upwards of 150%+ of that tuitition) benefit Joe College versus not having a degree?

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 11:25am

206. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45am Again, thanks, urmy. With you re-posting what I say, Darin and Larry's Ignores are evaded. (Well, until they Ignore you to stop seeing MY stuff...heheh) Here's a Snausage. Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 11:11am | ignore this person |

     --it's working out so well for you too...b/c they're deciding to respond to it, right?

     you pat yourself on the back for "hollow" victories...while the "right-wing" media continues to OWN you....;)

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 11:27am

207. ". Time to start focusing on Obama not making us a "laughingstock" right? or you gonna choose to live in the past and focus on Bush?"

     the effects of george bush's tremendous stupidity will be felt for generations.

     and indeed, if obama continues many of bush's policies (which he is), those effects will last longer.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 12:02pm

208. the effects of george bush's tremendous stupidity will be felt for generations.

     and indeed, if obama continues many of bush's policies (which he is), those effects will last longer.

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 12:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     --what you meant to say is, "if obama, with tremendous stupidity, continues many of bush's policies (which he is, with tremendous stupidity), those effects will last longer.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 12:34pm

209. Darin just contradicted the standard Right-wing nativist line that there is a "distinct American culture" and "English is our national language". What will Pat Buchanan and Tom Tancredo say???? Posted by Mask at 09/17/2009 @ 09:26am | ignore this person |

     --there's the Maskerade---anonymous commenters can't think for themselves, they MUST be in lockstep with political commenters! OWNED!

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 10:45am

     If English was unquestionably the US language, we wouldn't need laws to make it so. (Aren't Buchanan and Tancredo always supporting laws to dictate that English be the official language and outlaw spanish?)

     "Traditional American Culture" has a meaning. But it doesn't include Hip Hop; gansta; Hippies; environmentalism ("Traditional American Culture" is more a Teddy Roosevelt Hunting/conservation culture) reality TV; celebrity worship; MTV; gay cowboy movies; ect.

     Which is my point. There is not a single/universal American culture.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 2:32pm

210. Posted by b_kool_66 at 09/16/2009 @ 3:57pm

     Thanks for the links. Our system is broken. No matter what we do or say matters not. What big $$$ say matters and that's what passes legislation in this country. Point in case? When the stock market was tanking and it was looking like there would be runs on the banks, boy did those jackasses in D.C. put it into high gear and pass legislation and hand the cash over with no strings attached.

     Slow forward to now when they have a situation just as bad to deal with, they sit on their corrupts asses and play their usual circus game. There's only a handful of real representatives in D.C. and the drum beat of the corrupt drowns them out let the system actually listening to what the American people want.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 2:43pm

211. i love how larry defends the very people jesus warned against.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:10am

     He has to, he's one of em.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 3:06pm

212. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 11:25am |

     "you didn't answer any of my questions. out of the 9.7% unemployed, what's the percent of them who have bachelors or better?"

     If 9.7% of 300M is 29.1M and 4.7% of 32M is 1.5M, then...5.15% of them....so 94.85% of the unemployed don't.

     Convinced yet?

     "I'm sorry, that's not reliable. If you want to convince me of stats, I need something more than your personal "best guess""

     Fair enough, but I can't very well give you stats that the BLS doesn't collect (they give you the median, but no distribution from which to gather the info for which you've asked).

     "--this also SOUNDS nice, but you're not backing it up with anything substantive. doing how much better?"

     19X more likely to keep your job in a wicked recession?

     "pay for 4 years of school (I went to UConn, a state school...graduated in 2001...even then the tuition in-state was about $12,000 a year and $17,000 a year for out of state)...how much does taking out loans (and having to pay back upwards of 150%+ of that tuitition) benefit Joe College versus not having a degree?"

     I went to Cal Poly SLO then finished my degree at CSU Northridge. My view is skewed because I worked while I was in school and paid off my loans before I graduated.

     Take the difference in the median incomes as a guesstimate of how much you'll be making more than the other folks in your high school class on your first job, about $10k/yr unless you've studied Peruvian flute music or something...so 5 years, 10 with interest?

     I think a lot of the "education isn't worth it" fracas is more about people wanting to go to school out of state or at a private institution.

     Go Huskies! =)

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 3:16pm

213. the only evidence we have of obama's stupidity is that he........listens to republicans at all.

     and in the case of his continuation of bush's radical counter-terrorism policies, it's not stupidity, it's shrewd, political opportunism (and an intense desire to get re-elected in 2012).

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 3:18pm

214. i should say, "shrewd, cynical, opportunism."

     Posted by darladoon at 09/17/2009 @ 3:19pm

215. i love how larry defends the very people jesus warned against.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 09/17/2009 @ 10:10am

     He has to, he's one of em.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2009 @ 3:06pm

     Jesus never warned against the wealthy. He simply pointed out that an obsession with wealth will make it more likely you don't see a need to seek out G-d.

     And I'm certainly not one of the wealthy. I make less than 30k per year. I don't own any stocks or bonds. I don't have any wealth assets. My truck is 5 years old and paid for. Our car is 8 years old. I have no personal desire for wealth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:37pm

216. "you didn't answer any of my questions. out of the 9.7% unemployed, what's the percent of them who have bachelors or better?"

     snowball777: "If 9.7% of 300M is 29.1M and 4.7% of 32M is 1.5M, then...5.15% of them....so 94.85% of the unemployed don't."

     --so you're saying 95% of unemployed people don't have college degrees or higher...so only 5% of unemployed do. I'd link to see a link to this, no offense. thanks.

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm

217. snowball777: "Take the difference in the median incomes as a guesstimate of how much you'll be making more than the other folks in your high school class on your first job, about $10k/yr unless you've studied Peruvian flute music or something...so 5 years, 10 with interest?"

     --the "peruvian flute music" comment, I think, vastly overestimates the value of most liberal arts degrees. College is useful if you have a career lined up because of it; but I know so many people (myself included) whose degree does not qualify them for a high paying job and gives them no more security than someone with a high school diploma

     snowball777: "I think a lot of the "education isn't worth it" fracas is more about people wanting to go to school out of state or at a private institution."

     --may be part of it; but, again, UConn as an example, if you're not paying for it as you go, in state tuition is now slightly under $20k/year. $80k, plus interest on loans...for a bachelor of arts degree? (which is by far the biggest college w/in the university)...college education is ridiculously expensive.

     gone are the days when an 18 year old kid can pay for school as he goes while working part time during the semester and full time during the summer.

     snowball777: "Go Huskies! =)"

     --I was a big fan in '99 when they won their first basketball title (I was a sophomore). we had a good time...since then, Calhoun just annoys me. He's a jerk. He bought a house in Pomfret and tried to skip the 4 or 5 year waiting period to become a member at Quinatisset Country Club in Thompson, CT by saying it would be "good for the club if I was a member"...like the waiting period indicates they need his help. Plus, he acts like a jackass all the time; he's the highest paid state employee and he always wants more

     Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 3:52pm

218. My college football coach also had a slogan: Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 09/17/2009 @ 07:33am

     That's that saying I was look for earlier! Thank you!

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2009 @ 5:04pm

219. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm |

     Here's the employment rate differential:

     ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat7.txt

     The median weekly earnings you can get from here:

     http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?le

     (the top and third from bottom checkboxes are the two scenarios we're comparing for employment counts and earnings of everyone / bachelor's or better)

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:05pm

220. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 3:39pm |

     Sorry, the first link above went to 2008 data, you can get the freshest from here...

     http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:07pm

221. I have no personal desire for wealth.

     Posted by antisocialist at 09/17/2009 @ 3:37pm

     Yes, knowing all suffices.

     Posted by winyahn at 09/17/2009 @ 6:19pm

222. jus' kidin!

     Posted by winyahn at 09/17/2009 @ 6:20pm

223. Posted by urmygyro at 09/17/2009 @ 3:52pm |

     --the "peruvian flute music" comment, I think, vastly overestimates the value of most liberal arts degrees. College is useful if you have a career lined up because of it; but I know so many people (myself included) whose degree does not qualify them for a high paying job and gives them no more security than someone with a high school diploma

     I meant to debase Occarina Composition 101, actually, but it has its uses:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flr8ykZ0tQc

     And conversely, there are many people making good money who don't have degrees. I'm a videogame programmer and there are quite a few autodidactic types in our industry, people who went into the industry as teens and made too much money to bother with paper to prove what they already knew.

     --may be part of it;...college education is ridiculously expensive.

     It's been getting worse over time. I started in '90 as the cost curve began bending up.

     --I was a big fan in '99 when they won their first basketball title (I was a sophomore). we had a good time...since then, Calhoun just annoys me.

     Yeah, there are some huge egos in the NCAA.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/17/2009 @ 6:25pm

224. rebublicans are fucking traitors!!!

     Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/17/2009 @ 8:55pm

225. Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/17/2009 @ 8:55pm

     Thanks for your contribution to civil discourse here at The Nation.

     Posted by twillie at 09/17/2009 @ 9:43pm

226. rebublicans are fucking traitors!!! Posted by Tiger2Lover at 09/17/2009 @ 8:55pm

     Well, I guess that's one of the many 'stress positions'.

     Posted by ficheye at 09/18/2009 @ 01:21am

227. A letter I've sent to my dear Senator from the Great State of CA...

     Senator Boxer,

     I would like to share with you an idea I have had for a somewhat painless secondary stimulus plan that will generate domestic demand which we desperately need to put the last nail in this recession's coffin.

     A one time, limited offer tax credit for a vacation in the US...airfare, hotel, and meals...but you have to visit one of our great cities and take some time off to enjoy our wonderful country.

     Some businesses win by reducing some of their accrued vacation liability or by having some of their workers take unpaid time off.

     Hotels, airlines, restaurants, and popular vacation spots get the increased tourism.

     The vacationers get to see another city in the US, and get a tax break for their patriotic leisure.

     Everyone wins.

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 11:22am

228. Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 11:22am |

     Two funny artifacts:

     - Senator Boxer's website doesn't have an 'economy' category...heheh

     - one of the Recaptha words was 'mooching'

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/18/2009 @ 11:26am

229. I'm gonna call a code at 4:38 PST 7/20...

     Please excuse my self-adulation, and skip this if you're not interested in World of Warcraft, but there's an interesting story on how many jobs are involved in keeping the virtual world I helped build humming in one of our industry rags from a presentation made at the Game Developers Conference in Austin.

     http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/ news_index.php?story=25307

     <As an organization, World of Warcraft utilizes 20,000 computer systems, 1.3 petabytes of storage, and more than 4600 people. "Operating an online game is about more than just game development." Pearce hopes that the importance of these non-development groups is obvious, especially given the explosive growth of the company over the last five years. ">

     Posted by snowball777 at 09/20/2009 @ 06:42am