j_b

queuing up stream of shrill, invective-strewn drivel in 3...2...1... That's rich to read the vituperative monosyllabic idiot complain about insults when 99% of his posts are meant to be insulting.

Most every time I see an Al Jazeera report on the web I am impressed by the quality and diversity of the information. It is typically miles better than anything you'd have on US corporate media. It's not even close. But I am not sure why I 'd have to justify my opinion to hick-boy who needs to pull his head out of his ass.

Voltaire was also somewhat of a court jester who thought that a benevolent despot was the best form of government.

again? as in 08?

Democracy Now is the better alternative to NPR, which keeps mouthing conservative talking points (government/corporate are the majority of view points on NPR). BBC is no better than NPR. Al Jazeera is better but somehow cannot find a cable provider to carry their programming ... There are european news programs available on cable but it demands spending money and usually the command of another language. Otherwise there is the internet, like the Real News Network, etc..

Where are the tax and spend Dems? I don't think we have seen too many over the last 30+ years. Republicans have been responsible for almost all the debt until Obama was handed this shit sandwich. Republicans aren't and have never especially been fiscal conservatives. That's a myth fed by regressives while they plunder the coffers.

One more step toward convincing youth to come out and vote again for change in 2012 [/clown] "Better move a little more to the "center" now that we have a mandate to cut social security and send more troops to Afghanistan" wink, wink

Robert Reich Fmr. Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; The Shameful Attack on Public Employees the right's argument is shot-through with bad data, twisted evidence, and unsupported assertions. They say public employees earn far more than private-sector workers. That's untrue when you take account of level of education. Matched by education, public sector workers actually earn less than their private-sector counterparts. The Republican trick is to compare apples with oranges -- the average wage of public employees with the average wage of all private-sector employees. But only 23 percent of private-sector employees have college degrees; 48 percent of government workers do. Teachers, social workers, public lawyers who bring companies to justice, government accountants who try to make sure money is spent as it should be -- all need at least four years of college. Compare apples to apples and and you'd see that over the last fifteen years the pay of public sector workers has dropped relative to private-sector employees with the same level of education. Public sector workers now earn 11 percent less than comparable workers in the private sector, and local workers 12 percent less. (Even if you include health and retirement benefits, government employees still earn less than their private-sector counterparts with similar educations.) Here's another whopper. Republicans say public-sector pensions are crippling the nation. They say politicians have given in to the demands of public unions who want only to fatten their members' retirement benefits without the public noticing. They charge that public-employee pensions obligations are out of control. Some reforms do need to be made. Loopholes that allow public sector workers to "spike" their final salaries in order to get higher annuities must be closed. And no retired public employee should be allowed to "double dip," collecting more than one public pension. But these are the exceptions. Most public employees don't have generous pensions. After a career with annual pay averaging less than $45,000, the typical newly-retired public employee receives a pension of $19,000 a year. Few would call that overly generous. And most of that $19,000 isn't even on taxpayers' shoulders. While they're working, most public employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their pension plans. Taxpayers are directly responsible for only about 14 percent of public retirement benefits. Remember also that many public workers aren't covered by Social Security, so the government isn't contributing 6.25 of their pay into the Social Security fund as private employers would. Yes, there's cause for concern about unfunded pension liabilities in future years. They're way too big. But it's much the same in the private sector. The main reason for underfunded pensions in both public and private sectors is investment losses that occurred during the Great Recession. Before then, public pension funds had an average of 86 percent of all the assets they needed to pay future benefits -- better than many private pension plans. The solution is no less to slash public pensions than it is to slash private ones. It's for all employers to fully fund their pension plans. The final Republican canard is that bargaining rights for public employees have caused state deficits to explode. In fact there's no relationship between states whose employees have bargaining rights and states with big deficits. Some states that deny their employees bargaining rights -- Nevada, North Carolina, and Arizona, for example, are running giant deficits of over 30 percent of spending. Many that give employees bargaining rights -- Massachusetts, New Mexico, and Montana -- have small deficits of less than 10 percent. Public employees should have the right to bargain for better wages and working conditions, just like all employees do. They shouldn't have the right to strike if striking would imperil the public, but they should at least have a voice. They often know more about whether public programs are working, or how to make them work better, than political appointees who hold their offices for only a few years. Don't get me wrong. When times are tough, public employees should have to make the same sacrifices as everyone else. And they are right now. Pay has been frozen for federal workers, and for many state workers across the country as well. But isn't it curious that when it comes to sacrifice, Republicans don't include the richest people in America? To the contrary, they insist the rich should sacrifice even less, enjoying even larger tax cuts that expand public-sector deficits. That means fewer public services, and even more pressure on the wages and benefits of public employees. It's only average workers -- both in the public and the private sectors -- who are being called upon to sacrifice. This is what the current Republican attack on public-sector workers is really all about. Their version of class warfare is to pit private-sector workers against public servants. They'd rather set average working people against one another -- comparing one group's modest incomes and benefits with another group's modest incomes and benefits -- than have Americans see that the top 1 percent is now raking in a bigger share of national income than at any time since 1928, and paying at a lower tax rate. And Republicans would rather you didn't know they want to cut taxes on the rich even more. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-shameful-attack-on-pu_b_805050.html

Like a scary farce! "ISRAEL: Every Republican voted to hide their own government health care, while many of them are pledging to repeal health care for everyone else. So, you go from hypocrisy to hypocrisy; from broken promise to broken promise. And this is just the first day of the new Congress. MATTHEWS: You mean, they didn't want to admit that they're taking health care? ISRAEL: This is a very straightforward amendment that we offered, that, if you're going to take government-sponsored health care and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, simply disclose. Let your constituents know that you are taking that government health care. Every single Republican voted to hide their health care while many of them are pledging to repeal it for their constituents." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/06/gop-disclosure-rule-government-health-care_n_805146.html

Reporters Not Welcomed At Corporate-Sponsored Rick Scott Inaugural Jason Linkins The festivities were funded by an array of business interests, perhaps as a way of saying, "Hey, thanks in advance for favoring our interests above the people of Florida." As George Zornick from ThinkProgress noted: The ceremonies cost about $3 million, and are largely funded by business interests in Florida that, as the St. Petersburg Times writes, have "the most at stake in his administration." From tobacco companies trying to avoid taxes, to drug companies and HMOs hoping to benefit from Medicaid changes, Scott's lavish ceremony is being paid for by those who want to be a part of the real party: Florida is the world's twentieth-largest economy and Scott will enjoy almost unchecked control of the state's business, as his party holds super-majorities in both legislative chambers. Zornick goes on to include a litany of what sort of quid the various pro quos are after, including real-estate interests looking for deregulation, a tobacco company interested in getting off the hook for legal settlements, and many health-industry companies hoping for an ally in attacking the deficit-reducing national health-care reform measure passed by Congress last year. Amid all the pageantry, one group of citizens seemed to be pretty unwelcome: reporters. Per Bousquet: Even as Scott promises total openness as governor, reporters had limited access to events in state buildings, something not seen at previous inaugurals. Scott's first official event after being sworn in Tuesday was an invitation-only ``Let's Get to Work'' leadership luncheon with a couple of dozen lawmakers. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/05/rick-scott-inaugural-reporters-not-welcome_n_804688.html "In all, Scott spent more than $70 million of his own money (his net worth is 2009 was $218 million) to topple Sink.Scott brings to the governor's mansion in Tallahassee quite a checkered past. For starters, there's that $1.7 billion federal fine—the largest of its kind in American history—slapped on the hospital chain that Scott founded and led as CEO, Columbia/HCA, for health care overbilling. (Scott was not charged in the federal investigation, but the company pleaded guilty to 14 felony charges.) Since then, Scott has fended off similar accusations of overbilling by Solantic, the health clinic chain he subsequently founded and in which he's the majority investor." http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/11/rick-scott-florida-governor-alex-sink

[video:youtube]YtasrAl8OBU&NR

you need to have your head examined.

as if anyone believed you had any other design for unions in general.

Nope. But I am for dissolving public employee unions and renegotiating benefit packages moving forward. here you go, our own Herr Stormtrooper "for dissolving unions" recorded for posterity. Ain't "Freedumb" beeeoootiful?

It may have been last week for you but defending public programs like social security and contracts signed with public workers is today and the next few month/years. Are you for defaulting on contracts signed with public workers? or anybody else for that matter? JayB?

The difference in tax regime, in particular the existence of tax havens (Ireland, the City, etc..), and lower than usual corporation tax rates concurrently with widespread deregulation of financial services, and financierization of economies, all played a part in the financial bubble. Without, tax avoidance/minimization none of this would have been possible or would have been as attractive.

incoherent drivel. Totally useless, except if one needed a henchman to guard the criminals.

We've all seen the Meme Brother's alternative. It usually begins with a requisite cleansing and goes downhill from there. check out the fascistic goon buddying up to JayB and trying to smear people with his wild fantasies of gulags. WHat a fucking moron.

I am not gay but I have always been offended by that remark and my gay friends as well. I don't know about 'lame', but I am sure that 'retard' is a no no among health and social workers. Interestingly retarded was part of mainstream lingo until relatively recently.

JayB gloats thinking he won because the NYT regurgitates his neoliberal propaganda.

on the tax issue? it likely points to problems in the way these campaigns are run.

these poll results only confirm previous polls, like this one for example: "The Quinnipiac University poll found that 60 percent of Americans among both major political parties think raising income taxes on households making more than $250,000 should be a main tenet of the government's efforts to tame the deficit. More than 70 percent, including a majority of Republicans, say those making more than $1 million should pay more. But 80 percent say raising taxes on those making less than that should not be part of the government's approach. Moreover, most oppose touching Medicare and Social Security - two long-term drivers of the budget deficit over the coming decades.... Obama's 2011 budget proposal and most of his fellow Democrats favor eliminating tax breaks for individuals making more than $200,000 and for households making more than $250,000, which were enacted in 2001 and 2003. Not surprisingly, many more Democrats than Republicans back hiking taxes on those making more, though 56 percent of Republicans did support raising taxes on those making more than $1 million, the poll found." http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62S44B20100329?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews

what about that mandate to cut public services? Sixty-one percent of Americans polled would rather see taxes for the wealthy increased as a first step to tackling the deficit, the poll showed. The next most popular way -- chosen by 20 percent -- was to cut defense spending. Four percent [that's 4 for those with reading difficulties] would cut the Medicare government health insurance program for the elderly, and 3 percent would cut the Social Security retirement program, the poll showed. Asked which part of the world they would fix first, the largest proportion of respondents -- 36 percent -- chose Washington, compared with 23 percent who picked the Middle East and 14 percent who chose Haiti. The poll included a random sample of 1,067 adults across the United States from November 29 to December 2. The margin of error may be plus or minus 3 percentage points, 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair said. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/04/most-americans-say-tax-th_n_804020.html

just in case you have lingering doubts the 100 billions bailout of Ireland wasn't for southern Europe.

what a crock of shit! the UK isn't even part of the Euro. England's economy is in the shitters because neoliberals outsourced its industry to the land of the bottom cost.