Anarcissie,

Let us be blunt. India’s economic reforms from a centrally controlled economy to a market economy lifted MILLIONS of people out of poverty and starvation.

I am not lead to believe that you’re stupid. So I am left with believing you to be dishonest. The subject was never about famine. The subject was that of lifting people out of poverty and the starvation which often comes from impoverishment.

“After it’s independents India attempted something close to what you are thinking of. That model produced horrendous starvation and poverty for multiples of millions of real, living and breathing, human beings. After India introduced market forces (capitalism) into its economy India began growing by leaps and bounds. India’s market forces have lifted tens of millions of people out of starvation and into better homes. - This example, this real working model, works every time it’s tried.”

Wikipedia: The 2011 Global Hunger Index (GHI) Report ranked India 15th, amongst leading countries with hunger situation. It also places India amongst the three countries where the GHI between 1996 and 2011 went up from 22.9 to 23.7, while 78 out of the 81 developing countries studied, including Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Kenya, Nigeria, Myanmar, Uganda, Zimbabwe and Malawi, succeeded in improving hunger condition.[5]

-

Of course you wish to stay away from any and all discussions of India’s economy. Any discussion of India’s economy will prove you thoroughly wrong in roughly half of all your comments on this site.

iMax—I have no desire to discuss the economy of India.  I simply pointed out, that in the matter of ‘horrendous starvation’, you didn’t know what you were talking about.  Apparently you just made it up.  There is no point in discussing things with people who just make things up, because they aren’t interested in truth—only in winning, or conforming to authority, or whatever their hobby is.

oddsox—You wouldn’t see an insatiable appetite for, say, food, as pathological?  It certainly has bad consequences for those who suffer from it.

By the way, if it’s at all convenient, I prefer references to text rather than videos, which are generally slow-moving and incomplete (except, of course, in the case of art).  One word can be worth a thousand pictures.  In the case of Maslow, I know something about his work.  It is not above criticism.

Anarcissie,

Changing the subject will never work with me. You had attempted to show me how much you know about India and it’s economy by changing the subject to famine statistics as found on Wikipedia.

Reading directly from your source, Wikipedia, what does the below entry say? How does it differ from what I’ve written?

Economy of India

“The independence-era Indian economy was inspired by the economy of the Soviet Union with socialist practices, large public sectors, high import duties and lesser private participation characterizing it, leading to massive inefficiencies and widespread corruption. However, in 1991, India adopted free market principles and liberalized its economy to international trade under the guidance of current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Following these strong economic reforms, the country’s economic growth progressed at a rapid pace with very high rates of growth and large increases in the incomes of people.”

India recorded the highest growth rates in the mid-2000s, and is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. The growth was led primarily due to a huge increase in the size of the middle class consumer population, a large workforce comprising skilled and non-skilled workers, improvement in education standards and considerable foreign investments. India is the seventeenth largest exporter and eleventh largest importer in the world. Economic growth rates are projected at around 8% for the financial year 2011-2012.”

- No more games, please.

@Anarcissie you write:
“..humans aren’t all that insatiable…advertising appetites must be provoked.  ...insatiability is a sign of disease or mental disorder.”

Visions of Gordon Gecko and Richie Blackmore pop up here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5StoAG6qsY

But consider Abraham Maslow—he had it right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs

Your position is central to our basic differences, Anarcissie. 
We aren’t sick to want “more” and “better” out of life. 
That’s just who we are.

—

Re advertising: I will concede that sometimes supply creates demand, usually when a new product or service emerges. 
When that happens, advertising becomes a medium for creating awareness. 
But the product or service in question must still stand on it’s own and be worthy of its cost.
Which is why they’re still selling more Volvos than Volts.

Appetites being provoked is what advertising is all about—but the appetites are usually there first.

iMax—If famines don’t matter, why did you bring them up?  At least, that’s what I took ‘horrendous starvation’ to mean.  If you weren’t talking about famine, then what were you talking about?

Anarcissie,

Never make the mistake with me in believing that changing the subject gets you off the hook. That may work with others. Not with me. - Historical famine statistics has no reasonable place in this discussion.

Now wold you like to talk about the Indian or Chinese economies, or not?

iMax—You needn’t look at the Wikipedia article itself.  It has a lot of references.  In this particular case I think you’ll find it’s accurate enough, but I confess I wasn’t hanging around Gujarat in 1901, etc., so I can’t testify as an eye-witness.  You may have to do a little digging—fans of liberalism-capitalism don’t like the fact that massive famines took place in India (and Ireland) under the liberal-capitalist regime of 19th-century imperial Britain, so they tend to obfuscate a bit.  For instance, I was a college student before I found out that food was being exported from Ireland during the height of the famine.  But—believe what you want.  All I can do is give the evidence available to me, which I know is helpless against faith and true belief.

oddsox—Actually, humans aren’t all that insatiable, especially when costs are taken into consideration.  Hence all the advertising—appetites must be provoked.  I suspect that in most areas, as with the physical appetites, insatiability is a sign of disease or mental disorder.

OddSox, “Insatiability isn’t a tenet of capitalism or stat-ism so much as a part of the human condition.”

-

Absolutely an essential point in every discussion on this topic. Socialism, Communism, -centrally controlled economies- demand humans stop being human so we can all reach utopia on earth.

Ironically every time it’s been attempted in large scale it creates misery and starvation for everyone. Literally billions of people have suffered horribly from such attempts.

India and China are our best examples today of what market driven (free) economies can produce for the poorest amongst us.

Anarcissie,

You’ve never displayed a kindness toward me so I will be only direct in turn.

If you want to make a point while engaging me with that point you’ll have to reference something other than Wiki. I don’t believe it’s possible to have a worthwhile exchange with people who don’t fully understand what Wiki is or how to use it. Please don’t take it personal.

Here is Wikipedia showing, in some detail, precisely what I wrote.

Economy of India

“The independence-era Indian economy was inspired by the economy of the Soviet Union with socialist practices, large public sectors, high import duties and lesser private participation characterizing it, leading to massive inefficiencies and widespread corruption. However, in 1991, India adopted free market principles and liberalized its economy to international trade under the guidance of current Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Following these strong economic reforms, the country’s economic growth progressed at a rapid pace with very high rates of growth and large increases in the incomes of people.”

India recorded the highest growth rates in the mid-2000s, and is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. The growth was led primarily due to a huge increase in the size of the middle class consumer population, a large workforce comprising skilled and non-skilled workers, improvement in education standards and considerable foreign investments. India is the seventeenth largest exporter and eleventh largest importer in the world. Economic growth rates are projected at around 8% for the financial year 2011-2012.

I’m sorry but famine statistics has nothing to do with this conversation. India’s current projected 8% growth, in today’s economy, is.

You were saying how wrong I was about India and the power of market oriented policies to lift many millions of humans out of the HORRIFIC ‘starvations’ all over the world?

@Anarcissie, you write:
“...the more one has, the more one wants, and the more one can get.”

Your subject was political power, but it could have been money, sex, real estate or (*yum*) chocolate chip cookies w/walnuts!

Insatiability isn’t a tenet of capitalism or statism so much as a part of the human conditon. 
We’re rarely satisfied for long—if it’s good, we always want more. 
Over time and overall, this trait has served us well, do you agree?

just me RAMBLIN’ ON:

Now, is War another base trait in human nature?  Thomas Hobbes and many others think so.
Being the Pollyanna that I am, my hopeful view is that we can find a suitable substitute:  fair and honest competition.

The great 20th Century Philosopher (and football coach) Vince Lombardi, said “men are competitive and the most competitive games draw the most competitive men.” 
(and I don’t think he meant to exlude women here, especially from what I’ve overheard from chatty teenagers like my daughter and her friends.)

Competition breeds inequality.  Even kids on the pee-wee soccer field know to keep score.  If that’s part of human nature, it’s no use fighting.

Where and when we can substitute sports, games, business or trade for war, we will all reap the benefits.
It is the losers who benefit most—a darkened locker room, bruised ego or empty wallet to take the place of graves and hospital beds.

And in the case of the former, the loser of today can try again and be the victor tomorrow. 
(Perhaps at another game…)

So, bringing this back to the topic at hand—inequality, of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing—as long as it can be temporary. 
The reduced class mobility is the most disturbing statistic cited in our host’s column.

iMax—You wrote, ’... After it’s independents India attempted something close to what you are thinking of. That model produced horrendous starvation and poverty….’  The Wikipedia article I linked, and its many dozens of references, shows that you don’t know what you’re talking about—the truth is more or less the reverse of what you wrote.  And if your statement was relevant to the discussion, then my comment on it is also.

Anarcissie,

The subject you raise is for another thread. It has no real bearing here. - I don’t know you well enough to know if you already understand the inappropriateness of your point.

Also, if you cite something other than Wiki I will be glad to study it.

Aurelian—success in business does not keep people out of politics, the ruling class, the government.  Quite the contrary.

iMax—the last major famine in India was in 1943, long before India’s independence and any political or economic changes deriving from it.  During British rule (from the 18th century until 1948) many famines were exacerbated by government laissez-faire in accordance with the ruling British ideology (liberalism and capitalism).  (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India.)  Contemporary India may not be as libertarian as you imagine.

”(T)he worst people—those who desire power over
others, authoritarians—are of course strongly attracted
to government.”

They’re attracted to starting their own businesses far
more often.  The pay is better, and the power they
wield over their employees is more pervasive.

As I’ve often said, Dilbert is set in the
private sector for a reason.

Ray,

Are you saying you can think of no viable working model of a centrally controlled economy that actually works?

I can point you toward India and China as terrific examples of what I’m talking about.

After it’s independents India attempted something close to what you are thinking of. That model produced horrendous starvation and poverty for multiples of millions of real, living and breathing, human beings. After India introduced market forces (capitalism) into its economy India began growing by leaps and bounds. India’s market forces have lifted tens of millions of people out of starvation and into better homes. - This example, this real working model, works every time it’s tried.

oddsox—the problem with capitalism, and with the state in general, is that power is generally one of those vicious-circle or positive-feedback processes whereby the more one has, the more one wants, and the more one can get.  Moreover, the worst people—those who desire power over others, authoritarians—are of course strongly attracted to government.  After particularly disastrous excursions into tyranny, many a people has set up a republic with checks and balances, only to have it slip away through regulatory capture.  We are seeing that now in the United States, but it’s an old, old story.

Of course, this defect does not apply only to capitalist states.  Attempts to set up centralized socialist states have met with similar fates.

oddsox—the problem with capitalist states, and with the state in general, is that politcal power is generally one of those vicious-circle or positive-feedback processes whereby the more one has, the more one wants, and the more one can get.  Moreover, the worst people—those who desire power over others, authoritarians—are of course strongly attracted to government.  After particularly disastrous excursions into tyranny, many a people has set up a republic with checks and balances, only to have it slip away through regulatory capture.  We are seeing that now in the United States, but it’s an old, old story.

Of course, this defect does not apply only to capitalist states.  Attempts to set up centralized socialist states have met with similar fates.

Imax
“Ray, if you can lend us some examples of a centrally controlled economy which has grown wealth for everyone I would like to study those examples.”
Why would i give examples that contradict my claim that capitalism creates inequity? First of all there are no examples of unregulated capitalism - the virulent imbalance of wealth that unregulated capitalism must essentially cause is always curtailed with regulation viz. The break up of monopolies
see Rockerfellers Standard Oil company.
Without some form of regulation capitalism self-destructs - like the proverbial puffed up toad
But we are seeing an near self-destruct right now, precisely because the unregualted chicanery of financial corporation.s

@Anarcissie:
“...and political power is a zero-sum game.  You can’t acquire power over others without depriving them of power over themselves.”

That’s why we have checks and balances.
And the rules and regs you refer to later in your post. 

If you mean absolute power corrupts absolutely, than we agree.

But good government isn’t about power.
It works best when common-sense compromises are made & all sides gain. 
Win-win scenarios like the examples I named later in the same post.

oddsox, November 13 at 4:42 pm:

‘... @RayLan: most critics of Capitalism work from the false premise that it is a “zero-sum game.”
Not so.
Done right, free markets with fair competition are win-win propositions, both on micro- and macro- economic levels. ...’

One problem with this view of things is that the control of the means of production by capitalists has serious political consequences, and political power is a zero-sum game.  You can’t acquire power over others without depriving them of power over themselves.

I suppose I have to add that, above the level of flea markets and yard sales, there are no free markets.  Some are looser than others, but they all have rules and are subject to manipulation and external controls.  However, we can mitigate this problem by pretending the markets are free.  The other problem is not so easily solved.

@not me
First, it’s an honor to have a namesake in the blogosphere. 
If you’re “not OddSox,” does that make you a matched pair?

Next, your stats on income and wealth inequality sound about right & I am aware of them.
The best and most detailed article I’ve read on the topic was Timothy Noah’s 10-part essay that appeared two summers ago in Slate. 

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html

It makes many of your points for you.
Robert Reich’s book Aftershock, is another good source.

—

@RayLan: most critics of Capitalism work from the false premise that it is a “zero-sum game.” 
Not so. 
Done right, free markets with fair competition are win-win propositions, both on micro- and macro- economic levels.

Of course, members of the far-right often assume the same, false “zero-sum game” premise when it comes to funding public works.  Examples: Quality schools, public roads & bridges, dams the like.  Tax money well-spent (not wasted!) produces good citizens, increases commerce and energy—good win-win investments that benefit all income groups.

—

@Outraged:
Thanks for sharing, but your quote from Rolling Stone didn’t refute my post stating which taxes are progressive (income, estate, sales taxes) and which are regressive (payroll taxes).

The income tax was progressive before the Bush tax cuts and remains so afterwards.  The effects of raising or lowing tax rates is a separate matter.

My belief is that taxes should be raised and lowered in order to raise revenues for funding necessary government functions, not to create “fairness.”
I’m with you and Tim Dickinson (your 1st link) on closing corporate tax loopholes & subsidies along with reducing overall corporate rates) as means to simplifying the tax code and raising overall revenues.

“As people disengage from the political process, right-wing conservatives fill the vacuum and get their favored politicians elected.”
—Charles M. Kelly, Class War in America (your 2nd link)

What nonsense—talk about a false major premise! 
How would Kelly explain left-wing progressive/liberal being elected in a race with low voter turnout?

What I read of his book is chock-full with rhetoric that reflects his inherent biases.  Reminded me of Glenn Beck, but from the opposite end of the spectrum, of course.

Again, see Tim Noah’s piece, which serves many of the same arguments on wealth and income, but without the spins and name-calling.

INTIMATIONS OF THE NEXT WORLD
20.

“Everybody knows that our cities
were built to be destroyed.”
Caetano Veloso, “Maria Bethania”

San Francisco and
Lisbon—destroyed by earthquakes;
Hiroshima and
Nagasaki—blown up by
Fat Man and Little Boy bombs;

Fukushima upped
the stakes: earthquakes, tsunamis,
leaking reactors;
and for a few more encores
Los Angeles is always

poised for a shakedown.
Let me guess your preference:
fire, ice, nuclear
winter—all so compelling
that it’s difficult to choose,

but someone will choose
for you if you hesitate—
so not to worry.
Israel threatens to bomb
nuclear facilities

in Iran and strike
up global conflagration—
sweet distraction from
economic collapse, one-
upping masturbating to

the firebombing of
Dresden, and with so much flair.
Tell me the goose of
“western civilization”
is not cooked, and I’ll sell you

my last oceanfront
lot in Rapid City, South
Dakota—complete
with pristine sand and a drop-
dead view of Mount Rushmore.

Not too far away,
winter is coming again
to Wounded Knee Creek,
every snowflake an ash
from a smoldering city.

The looting of tax dollars without services rendered is the con.  Investment in perpetual war is the means and the machine. An insane thug is just that. Absolute thinking is a trap. Direct action is the only way forward. Snivel at your own peril.

RayLan, - “Capitalism thrives ironically on inequity.”

Ray, if you can lend us some examples of a centrally controlled economy which has grown wealth for everyone I would like to study those examples.

You may be aware of something I have yet to see myself.

Taxation equalization is only an aspirin where major surgery is required - Capitalism thrives ironically on inequity - the point at which it is a zero sum game - the lotto of scarcity which is at the root of the very concept of economy and how capitalism grants windfalls for the few and poverty for the many - kind of the situation at the moment - of course the Right wants to continue the delusion that it is cause not be capitalism but by regulating capitalism - sort of like saying obesity isn’t due to unrestricted eating but to too much control -
LOL

Re: oddsox

Your comment: “He finds them lacking in under our
current code, that’s where we disagree.”

Regarding progressive income taxes, your comment
flies in the face of reality.

From Rolling Stone:
“In the end, Cheney’s voice was the only one that
mattered. In April 2003, when the bill reached the
floor, the Senate deadlocked 50-50. The vice
president cast the deciding “aye” that moved the tax
cut into law. The benefits were even more tilted to
the rich than the first Bush tax cuts. When fully
phased in, 53 percent of the new cuts went to the top
one percent. Those making $10 million or more
pocketed an average of $1 million a year – twice the
haul they made from the earlier cuts, and every cent
of it borrowed. “It was a deficit-financed tax cut,”
concedes Hubbard, who chaired Bush’s Council of
Economic Advisers.

But Republicans didn’t stop there.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109?print=true

This is also a great link, check it out:
http://www.kellysite.net/10cw.htm

@Anarcissie, my favorite anarchist:
“The idea that a modest change in tax policy is going to enable ‘us’ to begin fixing things is delusional.”

The current 2% redux in employee FICA taxes is evidentiary to your point.
As posted earlier, we need something more qualitatively and need reforms in campaign finance and banking as well.

But if the goal is to increase overall tax revenues (as opposed to social engineering) then a return to the Clinton-era top end tax rate (39.5%) will probably help.

@Imax:  Damn fine post, so much so that quibbling over a few numbers would dampen the spirit, so I won’t go there. 

The best parts, if I may:
—close the loopholes, keep deductions few and simple.  Lower tax rates, bring capital back home.
—keep the free market economy.  Capitalism Si, Cronyism No!
—Voting is more important than who wins.  Just Vote, Baby! 
—God Bless our Vets!

on Progressive Taxes:

I agree with the Founder of this thread, David Sirota, when he writes of the need for Progressive taxes.
He finds them lacking in under our current code, that’s where we disagree.

Let’s examine:  Income taxes.  You may agree w/Sirota that the rich should pay more, but right now the top 10% pay 70% of all income tax revenues and nearly 50% pay nothing.  Plenty progressive there.

Estate taxes:  With a $5 million exemption, most Americans will pay no inheritance tax.  The current flat 35% applies to all amounts over $5M so the overall percentage rises as total estate value increases:
(eg: $10M = 17.5%, $20M = 26.25%, $50M = $31.5%)
Again, you might want the rich to pay still more, but it’s progressive as-is.

Sales Taxes: Most states exempt groceries, rents, utilities & meds from sales taxes.  These are the things upon which the poor spend most.
That makes sales taxes progressive, too.

Payroll taxes:  here are the true regressive taxes, funny that Sirota does not mention them.
Both employer and employee pay on the first dollar, but after $106,900 no more FICA taxes are paid.  Current rate is 7.65% for employer, 5.65% for employee, but the rate may return to 7.65% in 2012.
http://401k-employee-benefits.com/3396-fica-limits-2012
As for the Medicare tax, again, the first dollar is taxed and there is no cap—everyone pays forever.

Payroll taxes, taxes on labor, are the most regressive taxes and present obstacles to hiring.
They should be eliminated in favor of a consumption tax that funds Social Security and Medicare.

@Ian:
We can agree that sarcasm/parody/satire on certain topics is in poor taste.  Gabby Giffords or the Penn State scandal come to mind. 

But you’re an especially sensitive individual. 
So, for your own sake, you may want to avert your gaze from any of Mr. Fish’s work, especially his latest effort, Red Menace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTW0y6kazWM

“I expect an invasion of Iran if a Republican is elected. “Bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran!” Hey Raptor. Isnt that Hillary Clinton beating the war drums as Sec. o State? We are going to war with Iran no matter who gets elected.

While it’s never popular to suggest, the U.S. needs to lower the corporate tax rate while raising personal income tax for everyone earning $500.000 and up ($350,000 jointly). Exceptions kept simple and at a minimum. - Charitable, home improvement, small business and incentives to save, for example.

Lowering the corporate tax rate will profit all businesses big and small. This will raise employment and help fund the Treasury. That single move will attract more business toward the U.S. and not away (jobs). - Attracting jobs is the point. Not repelling investment in the U.S..

Those making over $500,000 can and will afford the rate hike while adding to the treasury. What we can’t do is tax to the point where the wealthier stop buying boats, the 2nd and 3rd car, going on vacation, hire their precious lawn services or opt-out of paying for those dance classes (jobs).

Remain a market economy. It’s proven the best way to pull people out of poverty. It has worked everywhere it’s tried. Hundreds of millions of people in India and China, for example, eat better and live in better homes due to moving toward market economies.

And for goodness sake vote! It’s deplorable that less than 50% of Americans vote in the general. The vote remains a voice in the United States. A voice which too many take for granted. Particularly considering the millions who died to give Americans the privilege. A privilege that, even today, most in the world don’t enjoy.

Go Vets!

So the question then arises: why don’t the people elect representatives who will deliver on these security interests?

Railing against income inequality is easily dismissed by the 1% as the lazy have
nots being envious of the hard working haves. . The debate needs to be framed
over security inequality. Basic security is what the majority of people don*t have .
If you have a job in America ,your health care is likely tied to that job.People are
insecure about education opportunities and the threats to the social security
program.  Transportation costs create another insecurity.The bottom 20% spent
9% of their income on gasoline over the last 10 years.The 1% don*t care about the fear and insecurity they create for the rest of the world.

Actually, I think Brooks uncharacteristically raises an interesting sociological point.  While sarcasm is a blunt instrument and is seldom wielded as tellingly as the wielders believe, there is something to be said for pointing out the curious ambivalence of Americans about inequality even if it is not done very accurately.  Another example is in a current article on TruthDig, where Oliver Stone tells a revolt against power to ‘grab the power’.  Unfortunately this is exactly what many revolts turn out to be about, although I have better hopes for OWS.

In short, calling Brooks’s article ‘a piece of shit’ does not refute it very well.

@mrfreeze:

Ah, yes-s-s-s-s-s.
So you, like Ian and at least 200 other NY Times readers don’t appreciate Brook’s sarcasm.
(I’m assuming the “From” is a typo?)

Such is the risk Brooks takes when he pokes fun at current events using a media source whose readership is not in accord politically… 

Readers/listeners/watchers take the risks when trying to expand their horizons. 
The risk worth taking, IMHO.

I think it’s interesting how ‘american exceptionalism’ regularly comes to the fore in discussions like this. But when you ask people what they think it means, once they see past the creation of plastic trinkets crap, they converge on success in WWII, or the Space Race, or Research and Engineering - virtually all of which is dominated or supported by federal funds.

oddsox - I just finished reading the David (I’m a white-privileged, never-worked-an-honest-day-in-my-life-never-met-an-actual-poor-person-in-my-life) From’s piece-of-shit article. Sometimes I despair that I live in a country with sophists who can spin their bull-shit and fellow-citizens who believe the bs. I actually grew up in UT where I listened to this sort of crap from the mormons every minute of every day….....the never-ending “american exceptionalism” notion that “inequality” is a lifestyle choice…............

One nice thing is to read the commentary that follows From’s sophist-vomit piece.

here’s the Brooks column to which Ian refers:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/the-inequality-map.html?_r=1&ref=columnists

Has sarcasm inequality become unacceptable?
From say, Rachel Maddow, is cause for knee-slapping—and she IS brilliant at it!
But from the Right, sarcasm is mean and insensitive.
And “appalling,” eh, Ian?

To Ian - How can you subject yourself to David Brooks?

To Big B - You couldn’t be more correct.

To Anarcissie - Remember, cut taxes on the “job creators” and eliminate “ALL” regulations is the solution to all of the world’s problems…......how dare you challenge the “conventional wisdom” of the American Dream????

To Rodney - I think your comment is great….but I’m also afraid that the “unpatriotic” ones are the 99% who continue to either a) not vote or, b) continue to re-elect the very wolves who support the 1%. Our Republic needs citizens who are willing to stand up to the “owners” and special interests.

The idea that a modest change in tax policy is going to enable ‘us’ to begin fixing things is delusional.

The american middle class had it good for about 40 years. For the last 20 they have been working two jobs and borrowing money like broke gamblers in a vain attempt to maintain their lifestyle and their piece of the american dream. They are just starting to wake up to the fact that they cannot eat or live in the idea of “american exceptionalism”

I have always said that americans had it too good for too long, and that it might take awhile for us to realize that our lifesyles are being taken away by our top 1% for the sake of more profit and the third world. We are just begining to stir.