chuck kottke

Welcome Hannah! Glad you finally decided to join, and I hope you can teach me a few things about icons and signatures, posting pictures and the like - I need some help in those areas! :)

> Households need to stay relatively within a budget, expanding household budget expenditures can happen only when there is more real income. But economies are different - spending when there is ample productive capacity sitting idle and workers available makes sense to get the engine of the economy going again. One needs to have the factories and production facilities available as well, so there are real living wage paying jobs available when spending happens, then wages and jobs increase. And as far as primitive, I find the conservative arguments to be positively corroded beyond making even the gears turn. They're dogmatic in their rhetoric and unfortunately in their approach as well, from what I've seen here.

just study and prepare exceptionally well, get a good night's rest, and do your best worry-free. ;) Aim to top the best you've done before, forget about trying to compete with others, that's a distraction from the goal of being your best.

> I'm recalling what Richard Wolff mentioned in one of his lectures. He mentioned that when the wealthy got their huge tax breaks, that instead of investing in infrastructure in factories and the like, they put it into consumer loan "products" which were the most lucrative - to lend to the very workers who couldn't get by on wages that were not increasing & jobs which were leaving, enticing them further into debt. And since we went into debt from giving the wealthy huge tax breaks, then our elected government decided to sell bonds, especially to the Chinese who saw them as secure, safe investments with a good return. But this is off the subject, except that the global economy is now so interwoven, that as one goes up or down, so do all others. I just hope the Spanish government doesn't copy what we've done, that would be a huge mistake. > Or rather how the utter lack of regulations in places (think air quality, water quality, and the like) allows for an artificially low price for goods, along with low wages, making Chinese goods competitive on the backs of poor Chinese workers and on the lungs and waters of China. Regulations often improve efficiency, and offer a way to improve overall wellness, something which cannot be measured monetarily. That, and when a nation puts a lot of effort into offering incentives and tax breaks to the companies there, the company see even lower costs, but the costs are then born by others. > Slavery was abolished in the 1865, I don't want to go back to that. We need to all rise to a higher standard, all the workers of the world, not slump to ever lower wages and conditions. I'm not buying it - workers had to struggle to attain a descent living standard, let's not go backwards. And if it takes more well-written trade agreements, then so be it. But in Spain's case, it sounds much the same - it seems austerity is for the workers, excesses are for the well-heeled. I would rather not look into a reactor, lots of radiation inside those things! What can be accomplished with energy efficiency is astounding, I believe we could achieve a 90% reduction in energy demand simply by doing things smarter and more efficiently. Then, wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal become enough to do what we need and then some - room for expansion! The problems with nuclear are many, and not just from the reactor issues, but from mining issues, waste issues, intermediate vessels getting hot from the radiation. and when that's run out, then we have to switch anyhow, so I see little point in using exhaustible resources. Spain's solar gains are tremendous, they could put lots of citizens to work increasing their solar power facilities, increasing the production of solar power units, manufacturing the components, and the like.

Grab the bull by the horns tomorrow, take on school like wrestling a bull - you can do it!:thumbsup:

Regina, Alberta, Canada

>> We gave the wealthy huge huge tax breaks here Jay, and what happened? Nothing. The rich put the money where they could get the best return; into the so-called consumer banking sector, lent to the workers who could barely get by, and sent the jobs elsewhere. And they socked it away elsewhere, so little was spent on goods and services, and the economy tanked. All the hoopla here about the rich needing tax breaks to invest in the means of production to stimulate the economy, and that did not work. So I don't buy it. Offer the money to the workers in the form of jobs and better wages and tax breaks, tax the wealthy more, and then if Spain still has the production of goods and services desired, the economy will grow. Even better, if the global economy grows, then all our economies will grow. I would rather not look upon the well being of my fellow man as something of a living laboratory. If the public sector is shrunk during a time of economic recession, spending will shrink and the effects could be a deeper recession or worse. The only way I could imagine that actually working would be to give big tax breaks or even bonuses to the working class men and women so they could spend or invest in Spanish goods primarily, and if the global economy does the same, then it may be safe to purchase imports, as the exchanged money will give another country's people a chance to spend on the Spanish goods they desire, increasing production and good paying jobs across borders. But Austerity in hard times = harder times. Spending during hard times = better times. Best to put the money into the hands of the working classes, for they actually bolster production when they purchase: makes factories expand to meet the demand, the best way to invest in factory infrastructure is by increasing profits from greater production levels via greater consumption levels. How and what we consume needs to be made efficient, greener, renewable in short, since we have to consider what is essential for life itself to be sustained.

Well there are some reasons for voter apathy. (1) disgust at the corruption in any party, or in the whole government. see Occupy Everywhere. (2) overworked and numbed from life, some loose hope and don't vote. (3) Life's just swell, and then why bother! .. And one I ran across here, (4) sheer apathy, until the beer runs out. >But when the conservatives made their comeback in 2010 since the economy was sliding further, oh what an eye opener it was for the voters when the conservatives got into office and started to enact their policies! So sometimes a little "austerity" is all it takes to move the masses.;) They never end the tax breaks for the rich, but oh do they ever love to cut health care, education, and just about every other program they can.

Kathmandu, Nepal

Sounds like the citizens just wanted change, but the change they get might not be the change they want or need. I can't understand why one would try to cut spending when the economy is weak, when there are so many unemployed. It seems more logical to increase spending and offer tax breaks to the working classes, in order to stimulate the economy, and then pay back some of the debt during the economic expansion which then follows. Even the well heeled benefit when economies grow, this all makes so little sense to me. But the global economy is tied together as well, and if the rest of our houses are not in order, wonder what effect that will have as well. I'm with you Bart, this conservative party's austerity measures might do just that - swell the ranks of the unemployed in Spain, and create more unrest. If the debt crisis is extreme, then someone might be wise to lend to Spain so the economy will expand and rebound, otherwise as one economy slips, one wonders if the rest will too..

>Never underestimate what a small group of dedicated individuals can accomplish. Or, in Margaret Mead's words, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever does” >290 people stayed the night and the winds of change shifted, as thousands more joined in. Imagine how one seed of imagination, planted in fertile ground, can sprout into a movement, and spread far and wide... But for that seed we owe the Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans, Syrians, and many many others, a kernel of truth be told.

Yea, I could go for the mozzarella on pizza, with the cool middle and melted sides, mmm... But only on pizza, dats da besT!:chef: > But hard cheese, Parmesan, now that on top of pizza is some fine schmecken:wideeyed:

Ishpeming, Michigan, USA

What, you doubt the addictive properties of Cheese??:rolleyes: Bleu Cheese is good, yes!! But Cheddar is Better!!:P

Amsterdam, New (otherwise called these days New York).:hair:

Cheese! It's addictive, but oh so good!:)

I think we all need a sense of belonging, of basic rules that direct us within the framework of our human societies to a more cohesive and harmonious existence, especially as we are growing up. We become more together than we can apart. But the absolutism is not good, when one tries to divide everything as either red or blue, many colors are missed along the way. If you try and say absolutely 'this is it', it may galvanize a group of believers, but then produces a sort of tunnel vision within the group, which can lead to the denouncing and attempted destruction of anyone who is not of that exact faith, and limit our deeper understanding of the universe we are in. So belief must be tempered with tolerance and the understanding that we are all not so different from one-another, and we all hold certain universal truths.

>One has to wonder what role the US government, working as it has for economic "interests", played in all this.. or have we turned over a new leaf, started down a different path? (Wonder what Confessions an Economic Hit-man might have to offer...? )

Just some examples of where to look for the money trail, and you can guess what it's buying!: Project Vote Smart - The Voter's Self Defense System And an example of a familiar politician and where his campaign money comes from (and notice the amount clearly not disclosed, listed as "uncoded," Is this the result of the "money is free speech" ruling by the 5-4 conservative majority supreme court)?: Scott Walker Summary - Project Vote Smart But for every dollar that is disclosed as a direction contribution, just imagine how much money isn't being disclosed; since the court's ruling, TV ads are thus unaccounted for, unless by voluntary action. All the hoopla aside, this is the crux of the matter. If we as citizens wish to have a representative democracy, then we need to either equalize or eliminate the effects from those with huge sums of money in our democratic process. Since publicly funded campaigns touches a raw nerve with the cost conscious, though it would save us all in the end by ending much of the corruption, it may not sell well. If an amendment were successful stating our right to fair elections and an opening up of the media landscape for all candidates to be heard equally and equally well, and a stating that money is not free speech, then pressure applied to candidates running for office should yield a law regulating the amount any one real citizen can donate, and I thought 1/2 of 1% of the median income sounded fair. In today's terms, this would cap the allowable donation level to roughly $225 per citizen to candidate of choice. We would then see aggregate power hold sway, not the plutocrats ruling over candidate and country. Any thoughts on this?

It all boils down to who buys the ads and writes the campaign checks, and what they want in return; our political process is corrupted in a manner which is pivotal on the central axis of the buying of elections. We could solve this problem any number of ways, from the most austere and absolute (a complete publicly funded campaign process, banning all private donations) to setting limits on donations and declaring that only real human beings can donate (end corporate person-hood), to declaring that money is not free speech and thus allowing Congress to regulate campaign expenditures and donation levels, to voting in candidates who earnestly campaign on reforming the system and take mostly small donations, eschewing the larger sums. But to set the ground work for all this we must, I believe, state our rights in order for reforms beyond to be possible and for their to be no conflict with existing penned rights. The Simmons amendment does state that "Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press," but is this iron-clad enough against those who would argue that inherent natural rights or stated freedoms of the press and of speech directly conflict with this and then it is left up to interpretation? Since the Constitution says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." But since this proposed amendment does exempt itself from inclusion under the First Amendment insofar as to infringe on freedom of the press, it may survive some scrutiny. However, there is the argument that our Natural Rights are as they are, that we retain them regardless of what any law says, since they are inherent in our nature and cannot be restricted. This is why I am suggesting that we state clearly we have a right to fair elections and to fair campaigns, and for all candidates to have equal access to the media of the day for their candidate messages and debates, as without fair elections, all the rights that follow cannot be protected, so the first and most essential right after the right to life and liberty comes the right to fair elections. The rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential, but when these rights meet the right to fair elections and the right to fair campaigns, the latter has the right-of-way. It is the perverse influence of large moneyed interests in our political process that has created such absurdities as "corporate personhood" and "money as free speech". The one place where all should have an equal voice is in the candidate races and the elections process, a voice to be heard by all citizens without the attachment of IOU's to that voice or to the time and space allotted to that voice.

Shalom Peace be with you!:) Welcome Shira!!:sunny:

Welcome! |||||||||||||||||||:sunny:

Here is Russell Simmons Proposed Amendment: Section 1. All elections for President and members of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate shall be publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any federal candidate, or in opposition to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press Section 2. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this Section. Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation Section 4.This article shall be inoperative unless it is ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution. Please take a look at his site for more on this proposal - it's a bold proposition, but we're in times where we need bold propositions! Russell Simmons – Constitutional Amendment for the Public Financing of Federal Elections Lyrics | Rap Genius

Hola Bart! Viva La Revolution! :builder2::sombrero::sunny: We the 99.9 % approve of it. ;) > Interesting, so corporate greed is responsible in Spain too?! How coincidental.. I believe too, we are in the midst of some big changes, changes where citizen's are regaining their rights and their governments. Trying to pinpoint a "where it all began" point seems difficult considering the various interconnected events which took place affecting billions of us. Will it take 10 or 20 years, or will it happen much sooner? I would hope sooner, I don't know if the ecology of the planet and the working classes can wait much longer; for many reasons there is no time but the present.

Meanwhile, in New York City, Protesters formed a human chain, and came close to delaying the opening of the NYSE. They held a sit-in and stopped traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge, making another statement - how we need to invest in our infrastructure, create jobs to do so, and repair our bridges (and the Brooklyn Bridge is one visible example of a bridge which need restoring). The necessity of ending the buying of politics has become amply clear, and Russell Simmons has proposed a Constitutional Amendment calling for campaigns to be exclusively financed publicly, with absolutely no private donations.: See: Russell Simmons – Constitutional Amendment for the Public Financing of Federal Elections Lyrics | Rap Genius "Section 1. All elections for President and members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate shall be publicly financed. No political contributions shall be permitted to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. No political expenditures shall be permitted in support of any federal candidate, or in opposition to any federal candidate, from any other source, including the candidate. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press. Section 2. The Congress shall, by statute, provide limitations on the amounts and timing of the expenditures of such public funds and provide criminal penalties for any violation of this section. Section 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation Section 4. This article shall be inoperative unless it is ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution." >I would add to this the need for an opening up of the airwaves to all registered candidates on an equal basis for candidate announcements and more in-depth debates, as a return from broadcasters for their use of our public commons. No paid political ads, just candidates speaking about their ideas, voting record, position on issues, and why they would be best suited for the position they are running for. > I am not so sure it's necessary to use 100% public financing to guarantee fair representation - I think if we state our right to Fair Elections, and limit political donations to less than 1/2 of 1% of the median income, parties will again represent their constituents, as will candidates in like kind. No corporate donations either, just real live citizens allowed to donate. And to state our right to fair elections, our right to regulate campaigns and campaign expenditures, as the right to fair elections is essential before all other rights can be guaranteed and protected by our government.