Lamborn starts losing allies over military controversy | MSNBC

Yes, this is from the blog of the partisan and divisive Rachel Maddow, but the topic being discussed is very interesting to me. It will probably become partisan by comparison of the different political parties, but let’s talk about what this congressman was saying. Is it a good idea for United States military commanders to walk away because of the Presidents so-called inaction? Is this different from liberals asking for anyone and everyone to walk away from perceived adventurous overaction by Commanders-in-Chief of either party in the past (minus Carter who was pretty much the only President who is claimed to have never “fired a shot” while acting as President – but including every other President since FDR in the 40’s)? Are we the world’s police? Should we go it alone? Even if so should congress first vote on it as the constitution demands (assuming it will last over 60 days, which would constitutionally mean that the President doesn’t have enough authority to conduct a war on his/her own, regardless of if we’ve done it in the past). What is the end game with this war?

You see, I find that this is all very complicated, and I actually very much appreciate that the President has been thoughtful about getting us back into another conflict in the Middle East, without a clear directive… I find that it’s hardly presumptuous to say that I’m not alone in feeling this way. I do think that the President has played some political games, but which President hasn’t done that, and let’s please be clear in defining what we think those games are. My biggest hang up was how he talked about a Red Line in the sand on chemical weapons in Syria last year, and when we discovered that they were used he seemed grasp at straws as to why we shouldn’t go to war. He, as well as the rest of us, were lucky that some reporter at a press conference asked Secretary Kerry what would stop us from going to war, and he incredulously said that we wouldn’t go if they handed the weapons over. Much to the shagrin of the warhawks around the world, they handed them over and we didn’t go to war… And now we are stuck trying to figure out how to disavow the Assad regime, as well as dismember their newest local rebellion “ISIS/ISOL”, which fills the vacuum that is left due to a lack of infrastructure and accountability around the border of Iraq and Syria.

I point all of these things out simply to say that I find it truly offensive that in a time like this, when we do have foes abroad who will need to be addressed (and hopefully with the compliance of the world community) that we have have members of our United States Congress publicly asking the leadership in our military to act as the leadership in congress has over the past several years by demanding non-compliance with the President of The United States of America for political gain… This is hardly a speculation, this is quite simply the truth. Again, I’m not saying that the President has been perfect, but I don’t even his job, and actually I truly appreciate that we haven’t rushed to war and repeated some of our mistakes of the last half century (primarily the last decade).

If you’re wondering what I’m going on and on about please feel free read the article I’ve posted below, or just click the link just below this babbling culmination of my simple understandings about geopolitical conflict.

*Ok, I thought I was done, but I would like to add one more thing – I am wary of how the President has treated the situation in Iraq (as well as Syria actually) with regard to the intelligence community. He seems to have responded by saying that information was misrepresented, while I was just hoping it was his overall caution with respect to conflict in the region. I am not sure how I feel about how he’s handling all of this, but I don’t envy his job, and I’m glad we didn’t go in sooner and do all of the things that team McCain/Graham would’ve preferred (I think we would’ve done our nation and it’s image a great disservice).

Rant Done

Lamborn starts losing allies over military controversy | MSNBC.

 

In this May 2, 2012 file photo, Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., speaks at the Capitol in Denver.

Ed Andrieski, File/AP Photo

Lamborn starts losing allies over military controversy

09/30/14 08:37 AM—UPDATED 09/30/14 09:21 AM

By Steve Benen

For any politician facing a political controversy, there’s one sure sign of trouble: the loss of political allies. Most political figures are accustomed to criticism from the other side of the aisle, and they expect scrutiny from journalists, but when members of their own party start turning on them, it’s a real problem.

Which brings us back to Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, who boasted last week that he’s urged active-duty U.S. generals to resign, during a war, in order to undermine the Obama administration.

The Colorado Springs’ newspaper, The Gazette, reports today that Lamborn is now facing rebukes from two high-profile Republicans from Colorado’s congressional delegation.

On Sunday night, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, a Republican from Aurora, tweeted a link to a story about Lamborn’s comments and said, “As a Marine and combat veteran, I know to keep my politics off the battlefield.”

And when asked about Lamborn’s statement, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Yuma, said: “There is no room for partisan politics when it comes to our men and women in uniform.”

To be sure, these aren’t sweeping condemnations, but let’s not overlook the context: with 35 days to go before Election Day, Coffman is in the middle of one of the nation’s most competitive U.S. House races, while Gardner is running in one of the nation’s most competitive U.S. Senate races. They’re both Republicans, but neither one of these congressmen are prepared to offer even a halfhearted defense for Lamborn’s controversial remarks.

Coffman and Gardner could have phrased this any number of ways to try and extend support to their GOP ally, but they chose to rebuke him instead. And while Gardner’s comments came in response to a reporter’s question, note that Coffman’s admonition was unprompted – he just wanted the public to know what Lamborn did was wrong.

How long until House Republican leaders are pressured to weigh in, too? For that matter, how long until House Democrats start pushing for Lamborn’s removal from the House Armed Services Committee?

This doesn’t appear to be going away. Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald published an item yesterday that didn’t hold back the emotional outrage.

Congressman Doug Lamborn, a Republican from Colorado, is an un-American demagogue, willing to sabotage this country for his own grandstanding narcissism. If his words are to be believed, this brigadier blowhard is thoroughly unfit for public office and instead should be rotting in jail on charges of treason. […]

Lamborn is the latest type of political muck America needs to scrape off the bottom of its national shoe: an officeholder so absorbed with his hatred of the opposing party that he is willing to do anything, no matter how much it damages our national security and the underpinnings of our democracy, if it will win him some applause and maybe a couple of votes.

The Associated Press, meanwhile, has also picked up on the controversy, and quoted a Lamborn aide saying yesterday that the congressman “was referencing prior occasions, such as the repeal of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy or budget cuts.”

The problem with the defense is that it’s still literally unbelievable. As we discussed yesterday, a voter made some bizarre anti-Obama comments at a local event, while urging the congressman to “support the generals and the troops.” The congressman replied, “[L]et me reassure you on this. A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation. You know, let’s have a public resignation, and state your protest, and go out in a blaze of glory.’”

All of this was in present tense. For that matter, the U.S. was still at war in 2010 (during the debate over DADT repeal) and in 2013 (during the debate over sequestration), so it’s not as if the defense is especially compelling anyway – for a congressman to push for wartime resignations to undermine U.S. policy is problematic no matter when it happens.

And so the questions for the Republican congressman remain the same: When you said “a lot of us” are pushing generals to resign, who else is involved in this effort? Which generals have you talked to “behind the scenes”? Why would it help U.S. interests for generals to resign during a war? Exactly how many times did you talk to the generals about this, and when was the last conversation?

The questions for House Republican leaders are just as straightforward: Doug Lamborn bragged publicly about basically trying to incite mutiny among America’s generals during war time. Is that acceptable behavior?

“Why We Did It” – Oh Boy… Whether You Find It To Be Accurate Or Not It Will Probably Upset You…

You can click on this picture to watch their interview if you would like

Recently Rachel Maddow went on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, and now that I have your attention here is some more information…

I considering myself a moderate, which more than anything means that new information can affect what I think. A while back Rachel Maddow produced a TV Documentary called “Hubris” which addressed the ‘so called” false pretenses that allowed our nation to go to war with Iraq – meaning that what was said about why we were going in was not in fact true. That documentary was posted on iTunes via the Rachel Maddow Show’s Podcast, and since she always asks people to post her show, and videos of it online I decided to post that entire documentary on my YouTube channel. It has since gotten about 100,000 views, and has filled my email with some incredibly angry YouTube comments from all kinds of people… I mean, angry stuff…

*By the way, I don’t just watch liberal stuff… I really can’t help but watch anything and everything I can get my hands/eyes on. I watch/listen to: The O’Reilly Factor, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday, Real Time with Bill Maher, and others when I can. I like things other than politics, this is just part of my rhetorical diet to know what’s out there.

Anyway: I want to note that I am not a “Truther” (I don’t think that the United State Government was behind 9-11, so let’s just get that out of the way…), I do however think that this war was a war of choice, and that it was mismanaged, which I think is rather well voiced by documentaries like “No End In Sight” (posted at the bottom of this).

“Hubris” addresses the issue of WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction), and this new documentary goes into some of the reasons why the makers of the film believe our government wanted to go. I don’t can’t speak to it’s legitimacy, and I don’t think that Mrs. Maddow is unbiased. I do however really appreciate that she presents sources, and gives room for actual debate, rather than just pure ad hominem. If you’d like to give some feedback that would be great – but the reason why I decided to post this second video (Why We Did It) was to keep the videos tied together, and because it might help us hold a conversation about reasons why we might not want to be so quick to go to war again anytime soon without more checks and balances (i.e.: Iran, Syria, Ukraine). And if you’d like to check in on the conflict going on in Ukraine feel free to click anywhere on this sentence.

Part 2
“Why We Did It”

Part 1
“Hubris”

“No End In Sight”

Rachel Maddow on PRISM and Meta Data (6-07-2013) – The Government Data Controversy

DISCLAIMER: I don’t think that Rachel is perfect, I understand some frustration with her snark at times, but she is thorough, and highly intelligent. I appreciate that she is very specific most of the time so that at least you can refute what she says.

With all of that said, this Meta Data stuff freaks me out. I like to think of myself as somewhat of a libertarian, and thus large groups and organizations intimidate me (whether that be government or business). What do you think, should we be tracked and mined for data as it seems like we are (polling has suggested that the majority of Americans are ok with it)?

Bill Maher Says “Taxes Are Too High” – Washington Times

By Cheryl K. Chumley

Liberal HBO “Real Time” host Bill Maher says he may leave California, due to the state’s high tax rate.

“Liberals,” he said, during a recent broadcast,” you could actually lose me.”

He made the comments during a panel discussion of current Capitol Hill budget policy that included the participation of MSNBC Rachel Maddow, who blasted Rep. Paul Ryan’s proposal as beneficial to the rich.

“The Ryan budget is a document that says the big problems in American right now are that rich people do not have enough money. They need relief from confiscatory tax rate,” she said, Newsbusters reports.

Mr. Maher answered: “You know what? Rich people — I’m sure you’d agree with this — actually do pay the freight in this country.”

Mr. Maher then cited statistics that California millionaires pay nearly 40 percent to the federal government and another near 15 percent to the state.

“I just want to say liberals — you could actually lose me. It’s outrageous what we’re paying — over 50 percent. I’m willing to pay my share, but yeah, it’s ridiculous,” he said, Newsbusters reports.

via Bill Maher threatens to leave California — due to high taxes – Washington Times.

 

Grady’s Comments:

Taxes are tragically one of the most divisive topics in our nations political hemisphere,  and there is more that the populist portion of this nation would agree on than there is for them to disagree on, if there is an honest discussion. Paying taxes is no fun, but investing in society can do great things! Unless of course if you don’t like the internet, interstate highways, etc… I mean, most people take advantage of, and seem to enjoy a lot that public investment has wrought. There is plenty of disagreement to be had, but there is a disconcertingly dishonest narrative, for the most part, that Democrats want TONS of taxes, and Republicans want 0% (ZERO) taxes… People in either party want a government that has basic functionality, and that isn’t free. Due to a toxic environment for debate and discussion I sadly think that people’s understanding of what it takes to have a government that works is very skewed. In polling people repeatedly show that they don’t know what is most expensive, and they don’t know what benefits they receive from paying taxes. And when people don’t realize they they are a part of the problem things can get ugly… It’s like dating someone who thinks that they are low maintenance  but they very clearly to everyone else are high maintenance… Why won’t their friends just say something?!!

Now, with all of that said – there is little disagreement from as far as I can tell that people almost across the board want a simpler, more flat tax code. And if rates are to be staggered the majority of people in polling that I’ve seen have said that they think that those with more should pay higher rates (Adam Smith himself thought this was best) – but there is a limit to this approach, and I think that popular opinion on this is also changing. I think that we are going to find our selves in the near future with a voting populous that wants an even flatter tax code, and they might call for more people to pay. This however will be increasingly hard to achieve with growing income disparity breaking barriers at increasing speeds.

At the end of the day I agree with Bill’s comments. I think that there are a lot of people with a lot of money who pay too much in taxes. However, there are a number of people who don’t pay near as much in taxes, in terms of their rate especially, and it’s a real problem not just because of simple fairness, but because of the side-affects of having such an imbalanced society. Our convoluted tax code allows for those who don’t work to pay half of the rate of those who do work (ie: capitol gains, and the carried interest), and that’s before they add in deductions which could dwindle those rates into oblivion with the right tax lawyers/ninjas.

As this is somewhat of a confusing conversation with so many contrasting stories about people who do and don’t pay taxes we simply need to recognize that our tax system is broken, and from there move towards a system where work should be incentivized. If you hear people talk about the “1%” take note of what they’re saying, and then consider that the real problem in having that stereotype continually repeated is that we are lumping together some people who do pay taxes, and some people who don’t. I want to talk about it, but I want to Really talk about it – it’s just not simple. Most of the people who don’t “pay their fair share” (pay a normalish rate) have so much money that they don’t look like the other 99% of the top 1%… We are talking about very few people, but a LOT of money. When a millionaire like Bill Maher (who is quite liberal) talks about paying too much in taxes he is getting at a very real problem that is very confusing to the public, because when it comes to paying taxes it’s a game, and if you’re reading this you are probably losing…

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

Oh boy, drones are getting to be a big part of our national conversation, and this is a big development to a lot of people. Who would’ve thought that a Democratic President would’ve been explaining to an enraged Republican Senator that they have the authority to kill Americans on U.S. soil?… Not me, but I do know that in our ever complicated world this is just going to be a part of it – things are not simple… I have mixed feelings about President Obama having that authority, but I feel even more uncomfortable that this precedence could hand this authority to someone else who I might have even more caution towards in regards to defense.

I’ve blogged about this before, and I think it would be wise to keep up with this story.

1. TED Talk about militarism and technology – Malcolm Gladwell “The Strange Tale of the Norden Bombsight”

2. Police Departments ordering potential drone usage – Maddow on Domestic Drones

3. Rachel Maddow Slamming President Obama’s policy on Drones – Maddow on Secrecy on Drone Legality

 

Obama Administration Says President Can Use Lethal Force Against Americans on US Soil

—By Adam Serwer

| Tue Mar. 5, 2013 12:55 PM PST

Yes, the president does have the authority to use military force against American citizens on US soil—but only in “an extraordinary circumstance,” Attorney General Eric Holder said in a letter to Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday.

“The US Attorney General’s refusal to rule out the possibility of drone strikes on American citizens and on American soil is more than frightening,” Paul said Tuesday. “It is an affront the constitutional due process rights of all Americans.”

Last month, Paul threatened to filibuster the nomination of John Brennan, Obama’s pick to head the CIA, “until he answers the question of whether or not the president can kill American citizens through the drone strike program on US soil.” Tuesday, Brennan told Paul that “the agency I have been nominated to lead does not conduct lethal operations inside the United States—nor does it have any authority to do so.” Brennan said that the Justice Department would answer Paul’s question about whether Americans could be targeted for lethal strikes on US soil.

Holder’s answer was more detailed, however, stating that under certain circumstances, the president would have the authority to order lethal attacks on American citizens. The two possible examples of such “extraordinary” circumstances were the attack on Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. An American president ordering the use of lethal military force inside the United States is “entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront,” Holder wrote. Here’s the bulk of the letter:

As members of this administration have previously indicated, the US government has not carried out drone strikes in the United States and has no intention of doing so. As a policy matter moreover, we reject the use of military force where well-established law enforcement authorities in this country provide the best means for incapacitating a terrorist threat. We have a long history of using the criminal justice system to incapacitate individuals located in our country who pose a threat to the United States and its interests abroad. Hundreds of individuals have been arrested and convicted of terrorism-related offenses in our federal courts.

The question you have posed is therefore entirely hypothetical, unlikely to occur, and one we hope no president will ever have to confront. It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. For example, the president could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such force if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstances like a catastrophic attack like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.

The letter concludes, “were such an emergency to arise, I would examine the particular facts and circumstances before advising the president of the scope of his authority.”

In a Google+ Hangout last month, President Obama refused to say directly if he had the authority to use lethal force against US citizens. As Mother Jones reported at the time, the reason the president was being so coy is that the answer was likely yes. Now we know that’s exactly what was happening. “Any use of drone strikes or other premeditated lethal force inside the United States would raise grave legal and ethical concerns,” says Raha Wala, an attorney with Human Rights First. “There should be equal concern about using force overseas.”

This post has been edited to include Paul’s statement and the final line of Holder’s letter.

“Hubris: Selling the Iraq War” (Special Report)

So lately I’ve decided to post a few Rachel Maddow segments, and I’m sure that has a lot of my loved ones in Oklahoma very worried about me. I would first like to clarify a couple of things. I don’t always agree with her, but when I do I find it worthwhile to share because I would imagine that many around me would otherwise never hear anything that she says, and I hear her often mischaracterized as just the opposite of the guys of Fox News (I don’t think that’s true, I appreciate that her shows are designed with enough information that you can refute what she says, and that doesn’t mean that I always think she’s right). Also, there are very few shows that are free on itunes as a podcast, but her show is, and while I didn’t have cable for 2 years I was very grateful for that.

Next I’d like to clarify my purpose of posting this video. I am not trying to pick a fight, or tease anyone. As a matter of policy and governance I simply disagree with the way that the Iraq War was instigated and executed. I say this with a limited knowledge of the military, so feel free to educate me if you know something that I don’t know. You are allowed to disagree and I can deal with that, although I might have questions for you. I try very hard to be reasonable, and part of that for me means that it’s important to reflect on our successes and failures. I don’t consider our troops to have failed, I am incredibly humbled that people risk their lives for me and live in the conditions in which our soldiers do, but I do consider our leadership in regards to this war to have been a failure on multiple levels.

If you find this video to be interesting, or even if you don’t, I recommend watching the documentary “No End In Sight” (which as of this post you can find on Netflix). If you are someone who has served in the United States Military I want to be clear that I am posting this with an honest concern for American lives, as well as for lives around the world, and I mean no disrespect.

I think that it’s a complete failure on part of our media that most people I’ve talked to about the War in Iraq have no clue as to the unbelievable devastation that Iraq has experienced… This short documentary is definitely being produced by people who are unapologetically liberal, and I wouldn’t dispute that. However, I think that being partisan doesn’t disqualify an argument, poor logic and a lack of information disqualifies arguments, but unsympathetic partisanship really can kill a great conversation. I supported the war as a 16 year old boy, but I no longer think it was wise. This video explains part of my change of heart/mind:

For anyone interested in watching “No End in Sight” I will post the trailer below. Again, I’m sorry if I’ve hurt anyone’s feelings, this is in no way meant to taunt anyone on my behalf. I know that this is challenging and per usual on challenging topics I expect a lot of views, but very little interaction, and that’s ok. However you feel about this post I hope that you can accept my sentiment when I say God Bless America, and God Bless all of our brothers and sisters of the world.

Rachel Maddow Slams President Obama’s Drone Policy – (2/4/13)

I posted about drones for foreign vs. domestic use a while back in a post called “Prone to Drone“, and I think that Rachel helps this conversation move further. I appreciate that she was willing to criticize her “team”.

I don’t always agree with Rachel Maddow, she is more liberal than I am. But, I do appreciate her very thorough and well examined pieces on her show that are likely to be contentious, like drones. I appreciate that she sites sources and makes well framed arguments, so that it’s possible to disagree with her and explain why.

I decided that this video was worth posting because Rachel rarely seems to disagree with President Obama, but when she does she means it. And by far the topic that she seems to have the most disagreement with him on is drones. I have differing feelings on this topic, and since I still consider myself somewhat of a conciencious objector the the debate as a whole I would rather post this and hear what others have to say on the subject. It is a conversation that crosspollenates domestic and foreign policy, and definitely calls for a re-examination of a few basics (ie: The Golden Rule). I think we can let the video explain the rest:

The History of the First Debates – What Happened in Denver

Rachel Maddow – History favors the challenger in first debates.

Ok, so I’ve had time now to watch the first Presidential debate in Denver 3 times, and I have had a funny time with this one. I think that the picture above kind of sums up the emotional side of how I feel, but there is way more to the debate than just Romney seeming to change positions and be dishonest. One of the saddest things to me about politics is how the analysis is based simply on the success of the political strategy and execution, and how that affects the perception by the voters of the candidates. I know that it is apparently all about the performance anymore, but it seems to me that this is simply because the viewers/voters are suckers… I don’t mean to be condescending, there is way too much stuff to have to sift though, but I do get disappointed with how easily persuaded some folks seem to be. With that said, I think that plenty of people on both sides of the political aisle would agree about voters being suckers.

I had a few main thoughts about this debate:

1. Even though it’s common knowledge that Governor Romney won it’s hard for me to see it that way when his approach was so full of political spin and dishonesty (and yes, there is a lot to say here). Governor Romney looked very sharp, but Vladimir Putin is sharp, and I would never vote for him. I have questions about his integrity due to his honesty.
2. I was happy to see Mitt become the moderate, in some ways, that he was for so many years (before this campaign for President began). I actually made a post a while back asking whether or not there would be virtue in being dishonest to accomplish political goals. The reason I asked was because Romney had obviously changed his mind at some point on a lot of political points, and he seemed likely to do it again. I wanted/want to know if for a right leaning moderate the only path to accomplish what they deem necessary, with the Republican party having moved so far to the right, was to lie…?………?
3. The President was not very aggressive on several things that he could’ve been aggressive on (ie: the 47 percent comments were never mentioned…). I think that the only topic in the debate that seemed to have a very clear distinction between the candidates was on Medicare, and I agreed with what President Obama relayed about the AARP saying that having a private option for Medicare, would essentially kill the program. I don’t think we can afford to risk Medicare after having seen so many elderly people in my life who have needed a guaranteed medical system.
4. Jim Lehrer is a sweet old man… I really wish that in that debate the moderator could’ve been a tough, hard nosed journalist, like David Gregory (Host of “Meet the Press”).

There is a lot more that I could say, but I figure I’ll let this video do the rest of the talking for me. I know that Rachel is very partisan, but she can do brilliant analysis, and I think that this is an example of that (not to say it’s the final word). I know that she can be seemingly condescending towards conservatives, and sometimes unfairly, but sometimes she puts on the best news show in the opinion news world. In this clip she explains that in every first debate minus one (Clinton vs. Dole 96) since televised debates came about the challenger has won. I don’t find that to be too surprising, but I was still surprised by Obama’s lack of energy on stage – but considering he’s also the President and quite busy I have some sympathy for him.

Ok, I’ll stop, but I am still just so baffled by that debate and the reaction to it. I can’t wait for there to be a tougher President Obama in the next debate, and I hope that we get to see a more moderate Romney show up again, but maybe this time with a little less B.S…

Rachel on first Debates

Please give me feedback if you feel like saying something.

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low – Business Insider

The message that is being portrayed in this article (and I do recommend that you click on the link at the bottom to see more charts) is one that I think a lot of my friends/family miss when they say that they don’t like politics and don’t like paying attention to them, yet they seem to have such strong opinions about them. Of course this information should be on the table for debate, and with that in mind I am asking for responses and replies that would suggest that this is/is not true. Please fill me in if you know something that I don’t.

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low – Business Insider.

In case you need more confirmation that the US economy is out of balance, here are three charts for you.

1) Corporate profit margins just hit an all-time high. Companies are making more per dollar of sales than they ever have before. (And some people are still saying that companies are suffering from “too much regulation” and “too many taxes.” Maybe little companies are, but big ones certainly aren’t).

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

2) Fewer Americans are working than at any time in the past three decades. One reason corporations are so profitable is that they don’t employ as many Americans as they used to.

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

3) Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. This is both cause and effect. One reason companies are so profitable is that they’re paying employees less than they ever have as a share of GDP. And that, in turn, is one reason the economy is so weak: Those “wages” are other companies’ revenue.

Business Insider, St. Louis Fed

In short, our current system and philosophy is creating a country of a few million overlords and 300+ million serfs.

That’s not what has made America a great country. It’s also not what most people think America is supposed to be about.

So we might want to rethink that.

Meanwhile, if you want to know more about what’s wrong with the economy, flip through these charts:

Okay, Folks, Let’s Put Aside Politics And Look At The Facts…

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/corporate-profits-just-hit-an-all-time-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6#ixzz1yvSAkeUD

I’ve decided to attach all of the charts from this article, but if you’d like them explained click on the link above (or right here)

What We Wish We Had, What We Think We Have, What We Have

Let’s talk about it… Occupy Wall Street has been a very controversial movement, with very little civic organization. These graphs show something of what a large number of people can identify with, but due to the often aggressive rhetoric from Occupy members (which is totally acceptable on the right in my opinion) many people are completely afraid of hearing what they are trying to say… It all comes down to fairness in the end, and there is not a simple answer. BUT, it seems to me that talking about wealth disparity is not given the same seat at the table where people are talking about economic fairness. I do realize that these charts could be inaccurate, and if that’s the case please tell me if you know something that I don’t know.

(Hold on, the point of this post is below. Don’t worry my conservative friends, I’m not just trying to whine)

But assuming that this is somewhat accurate what I see when I look at this is that:

1. until the middle bar looks like the top bar our news media is failing us
2. and until the top bar transforms into the bottom bar our economy is somewhat failing in terms of our expectations

I don’t think that #2 will ever really be a feasible goal, but #1 should be the standard by which the news functions. When people don’t have relatively accurate understanding of what is and what isn’t the news is simply failing…

What We Think We Should Have

What We Think We Have

What We Have