prole

Cutting off her hands would also achieve that result.

This thread is unraveling.

Just that humanity's footprint on the planet (deforestation, desertification, pollution, heat islands, etc.) bears no relation to it? Nope. Didn't say that either. If I did, then, by all means, show me where. Kevbone Fever: Catch It!

Just that humanity's footprint on the planet (deforestation, desertification, pollution, heat islands, etc.) bears no relation to it? Perhaps the moon is made of cheese after all...still waiting for the smoking gun on that one.

Ebeneezer Scrooge was a victim of revisionist historians!

Can't wait for Christmas...

Funny that you say that since the paleo-climatologists mentioned in the article and modellers at the fore of climate studies hold anything but a "static Earth" view but are quite outspoken about the dangers that climate change poses to our planet's ecology and its human populations.

What is beginning to unravel?

Ask for a no-strings-attached bailout and use Thanksgiving as an opportunity to announce the beginning of a hunger strike to call attention to the need for a national single payer health care program to stem rising health care costs, the single biggest cause of deficit crises. Our crisis is systemic and global, the notion that our problems can/will be solved at the state level without exacerbating them is pure fantasy. It's a framework that privatizers and redistributionists (to the top, of course) are happy to play in. It's only a "simple math problem" in SimCity, on cocktail napkins, or any other hermetically sealed, consequence-free environment. A fact that borderless, globalized capital has known for quite some time, but liberals have been slow to catch on to. Think bigger.

And this is where liberals continue to fail: lurching from crisis to crisis with no long term vision, nor a grasp of how our immediate problems relate to the totality, a general blindness to the political and ideological dimension to "the math", cynicism, a dogged unwillingness to understand what is meant by the phrase "politics is the art of the possible". In short, no imagination, no will, no vision. When a system is as dysfunctional, as crisis-ridden, as this one is, it's time to abandon the "practical" (do i cut off my hand or my foot?) and start thinking about what it is we really want.

Our resources are actually quite vast, or haven't you seen the charts that suggest exactly where our money's been going for the last few decades?

And once again you fail to see that the Right's attack on public workers is part and parcel of the long and ongoing assault on the very same programs you mention. There is nothing on the political landscape to suggest less money going to pensions and benefits will translate into increased funding for social programs and everything to suggest that those cuts will simply add to the burden on those services.

Are these your man boobs?

Now we have Herman Cain. Overcompensating just a little too much there.

Not you, Oly!!

Or gleaning!

[video:youtube]

The regime run by those with the stagnant trillions that aren't hiring anyone and thereby preventing them from working? Oh right, it's us that's supposed to come groveling to them. -There are times when the most valuable function of cash for a business (or a person) is as a bulwark against uncertainty, rather than investment that may or may not provide a return that's sufficient to cover the total cost of buying it. -Without the cash hoard to keep things humming in the face of variable and uncertain revenue, we'd probably see even more lay-offs and capacity reduction as businesses cut fixed expenses to the bone and shed the least essential workers and/or those with the lowest marginal product. -Then there's the obvious point that the owners of the said assets aren't storing this trillion dollar plus hoard as pieces of eight in Scrooge McDuck's vault. They're invested in a Treasuries, money market securities, bank deposits, etc - all of which are actively being used to finance either investment or consumption. Imagine two families - one with two years worth of savings, one with nothing in the bank. The breadwinner(s) in each all lose their jobs. Who's going to keep their spending/consumption patterns basically the same and who's going to immediately cut as much of their spending as possible as quickly as possible? In the face of uncertainty, companies sitting on substantial cushions of liquid assets are less likely to cut payrolls, investment, etc than companies with no such cushion - not more so. What you're capable of justifying based on broad abstractions and generalities and what is actually happening are two different things. What is being done with a "cash hoard" (your words) accumulated through unproductive speculation, asset-stripping, monopolistic gouging, evasion and avoidance used to fund the consumption and investment whimsies of a small minority and/or hedged against uncertainty created by these same entities is irrelevant if it isn't being channeled to building capacities (infrastructure, education, R&D) and used to address our shared crises (unemployment, ecology, rising vulnerability). What neoliberalism continues to show us, pre and post crisis, is that 'freer markets' and the oligarchy they've engendered have been incapable of allocating capital where it is needed most, but by design, only where the returns are highest for a few. Time to give a little back to the community, if you know what I mean.

"Fucking And Fracking"?

Anybody want to guess what happens to the poverty rate among seniors when Social Security payments aren't factored in? Yeah.