Occupy the Food System

[OldGuy43]

One has to wonder about the so-called "fiscal responsibility" of our elected officials. I remember after the we put the first man on the moon in 1969 it was decided that we had accomplished that and NASA's budget was slashed. Than came the dissolution of the USSR and the end of the cold war. Well, we don't need this huge military anymore and more budget cuts. Where are all of these "savings"? We keep getting deeper in debt. My degree isn't in economics, but even I know that if you cut expenses you should have more money, not less.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Obviously you need to know what went on in the past, but the point I'm trying to make is point forward. Where do we go from here? The money that went into Social Security in the past is gone. It only exists in the form of IOU's to be payed by future tax payers. That is reality.

We, through the people we voted into government, made promises to people, promises that caused them to plan their future a certain way. While those promises were based on misrepresentation, I think we owe a debt to those that made plans based on those promises. That's why I suggest a gradual weaning from the current process. I'm not real happy that many people spent money that could have and maybe would have been saved if they knew the truth, but that is the world we face. It is as it is, not as we wish it were.

Due to demographics, we appear destined for fewer people to be paying for benefits for more people. Either the total amount we pay goes up, benefits come down, or a combination of the two. I don't have a whole lot of faith that we can come to an agreement as a nation of voters. It is very polarizing to start with and the demogauges on both sides will certainly stir it up for political gain. That's why I said I think what I want to do is unrealistic. But we haved to do something. What are your suggestions?

You are being led down a path of misinformation. It is being done for a reason. I mean no disrespect, when I say do your homework. Do not even take my information at face value. IN TIME, you will learn who is telling you the truth, and the facts will be made clear.
Learn who is deceiving you and why. Follow the money. Here is one of the best sources of information I have found. I also have others. I have been doing this for a long time. When those things I have studied become a known fact, then I know whom I trust.


http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/social-security-monitor/

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/compo...s/Itemid,22/issue,19/lang,en/task,view_issue/

Make sure you scroll down and read what interests you. Yes, you have to read to learn. I have found out that most Americans are reading deficient. This country is experiencing the highest percentage of illiteracy in its history. This is a big black eye for this country.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Thanks for agreeing to give me the last word. We illiterate old fogeys with Alzheimers appreciate these little kindnesses more than you can yet understand.

Taxes are taken in every year to pay for Social Security, currently payroll taxes deducted by from your paycheck with an additional amount paid by the employer. The caps and the percentage amounts occasionally vary so I won't go into those specifics. The way I look at it, it all comes out of the employer's pocket. The net effect to me if it goes into a paycheck and right back out is zero, but that kind of semantics is important to some people.

Benefits are payed out of these taxes. You can always find different numbers if you search the internet, but my understanding for 2010 is total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. You might come up with different numbers. I don't really believe every thing I read on the internet, but I have to start somewhere. You can look at projections for when outgo exceeds income and pick your year. Those are only projections. Tax rates and benefits will change and the number of people paying in and taking out will change.

What happens to that $68.6 billion? It is spent. Free money for politicians. They love that. All they have to do fo that free money is to write an IOU, saying that the US Government will put that money back later. The idea is that the excess is invested in the US Government, in the form of bonds. Those bonds are issued by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

What does full faith and credit of the US Government mean. It means that future tax payers will have to come up with the money to redeem those bonds. Whether that is payroll taxes, income taxes, or something else, it is the future American taxpayers coming up with the money.

If you feel that the Social Security program is funded by those bonds that will have to be paid for by new money paid in by taxpayers, well I'll admit my Alzheimer's brain has trouble grasping that concept.

To better fund the system, wonder why the Government does not just raise the interest rates on those bonds we eventually have to redeem. Wouldn't that fund the system for quite a bit longer?

When the rich and corporations do not pay their fair share of taxes, then it is you and I who are made to take up the slack. Corpotations also do the off shore thing. They make profits but will not bring that money back into the United States....why you say...well my dear, that means they DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES.

If you do not want to pay taxes, then I say get out of my country because we are trying to take care of us and you Mr. Corporation are a drag on our resources that WE have already paid for. Ta da! Get it!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I see you are changing the topic and quoting something I wrote about social security to talk about corporate taxes. But thats OK. Ill talk about Social Security a bit first.

This is a summary from the CBO that comes up with the year 2038 as when the trust fund is exhausted. The bolding is mine.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/416446

Social Security is the federal government's largest single program. About 56 million people will receive Social Security benefits this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. About 69 percent are retired workers, their spouses, and children, and another 12 percent are survivors of deceased workers; all of those beneficiaries receive payments through Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). The other 19 percent are disabled workers or their spouses and children; they receive Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. CBO projects that in fiscal year 2011, Social Security's outlays will total $733 billion, one-fifth of the federal budget; OASI payments will account for about 82 percent of those outlays, and DI payments, about 18 percent.

View more presentations from Congressional Budget Office Social Security has two primary sources of tax revenues: payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits. This year, roughly 97 percent of tax revenues dedicated to Social Security will be collected from a payroll tax of 12.4 percent that is levied on earnings and split evenly between workers and their employers at 6.2 percent apiece (except for self-employed workers, who pay the entire 12.4 percent tax on earnings themselves). The payroll tax applies only to taxable earningsearnings up to a maximum annual amount ($106,800 in 2011). Some Social Security benefits also are subject to taxation: This year, about 3 percent of Social Security's tax revenues will come from the income taxes that higher-income beneficiaries pay on their Social Security benefits. Tax revenues credited to the program will total $687 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Revenues from taxes, along with intragovernmental interest payments, are credited to Social Security's two trust fundsone for OASI and one for DIand the program's benefits and administrative costs are paid from those funds. Legally, the funds are separate, but they often are described collectively as the OASDI trust funds. In a given year, the sum of receipts to a fund along with the interest that is credited on previous balances, minus spending for benefits and administrative costs, constitutes that fund's surplus or deficit.

In calendar year 2010, for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, annual outlays for the program exceeded annual revenues excluding interest credited to the trust funds. CBO projects that the gap will continue: Over the next five years, outlays will be about 5 percent greater than such revenues. However, as more members of the baby-boom generation (that is, people born between 1946 and 1964) enter retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. As a result, the shortfall will begin to grow around 2017.

CBO projects that the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2017 and that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2040. Once a trust fund's balance has fallen to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the corresponding program will be unable to pay full benefits without changes in law. The DI trust fund came close to exhaustion in 1994, but that outcome was prevented by legislation that redirected revenues from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund. In part because of that experience, it is a common analytical convention to consider the DI and OASI trust funds as combined. CBO projects that, if legislation to shift resources from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund was enacted, the combined OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in 2038.

The amount of Social Security taxes paid by various groups of people differs, as do the benefits that different groups receive. For example, people with higher earnings pay more in Social Security payroll taxes than do lower-earning participants, and they also receive larger benefits (although not proportionately larger). Because of the progressive nature of Social Security's benefit formula, replacement ratesannual benefits as a percentage of annual lifetime earningsare lower, on average, for workers who have had higher earnings. As another example, the amount of taxes paid and benefits received will be greater for people in later birth cohorts because they typically will have higher earnings over a lifetime, even after an adjustment for inflation, CBO projects. However, initial replacement rates will be slightly lower, on average, for people in later birth groups because their full retirement age (the age at which they can receive unreduced retirement benefits) will be higher. The increase in that age is equivalent to a reduction in benefits at any age at which benefits are claimed.


You will notice that this is based on a total rate of 12.4%. It must be that Alzheimers kicking in that you so kindly diagnosed me as having, but I seem to remember a ruckus up in Washington late last year about extending that 2% reduction in the part that the employee pays. That would mean the effective rate is actually 10.2% if we keep extending it. Wonder what will happen once this election year is over with?

The CBO has to use the laws that are on the books when they do their analysis. When they ran these numbers, the 2% reduction was supposed to expire. Thats why they used 12.2%, not 10.2% for the life of the program. They did combine the DI and OASI trust funds to come up with the 2038 date. That sure made it simpler for this old fogeys brain to handle.

It must be my illiteracy that you so kindly diagnosed me with, but I thought I read that the outgo is going to start exceeding the income significantly in 2017 at that 12.2% rate. And I thought I read they are looking at the Trust Funds for funding when talking about outgo exceeding income. That means they have to start cashing in those bonds which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. That means the Federal government will have to come up with the cash to pay for those bonds. I wonder where the Federal government is going to come up with extra cash to redeem those bonds. Maybe you could help me figure that one out.

On corporations avoiding taxes by incorporating overseas. Yes they do that. Its called tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There is a big difference. One is legal; the other can get you in big trouble.

I dont think you are implying that these corporations are evading paying payroll taxes on US workers. If you actually know of any doing that, you should bring a law suit. Thats illegal. Or are you implying that the corporations should pay US payroll taxes on foreign people working in foreign countries? Im not 100% sure exactly what taxes you are talking about and I dont want to put words in your mouth. Ill assume you are not talking about payroll taxes, but income and corporate taxes. I'm easily confused so I could be wrong.

When I was living in Louisiana, I sometimes worked in other states or outside the US. I had to pay Louisiana State income tax on money I earned in Louisiana. If I earned that money in Texas or Mississippi, I had to follow their laws as far as income tax. I did not have to pay Louisiana State income tax on that money, just the money I earned in Louisiana. When I worked overseas, I had to follow the country I was working in's laws as far as what income taxes I paid. Since I was paid by a US company in US dollars, I also had to follow the US laws. There are specific laws covering how that was handled. Usually I was protected against having to pay income tax twice. Generally, I could deduct taxes paid to a foreign country on my US taxes, but sometimes those rules changed. I remember when they made that total deduction went from unlimited to maxing out at $75,000 a year. I dont know what those laws say now. I havent worked overseas for several years. Im really glad that part of my benefits for those overseas jobs was that a nationally known accounting firm actually prepared my taxes. Some of that could get pretty complicated, especially the carry forward provisions.

It is a fairly common practice for the various states to offer tax incentives to lure companies to create jobs in their states. Some cities and counties do that too. I remember quite a few news stories where the local and state governments were going to forgive certain taxes to try to lure a certain car assembly plant to Louisiana. It may surprise some people, but some countries do that too. The Bahamas is one well-known one. Its not unusual for companies, especially multinational companies, to incorporate in the Bahamas or somewhere else to tax shelter certain monies and set up subsidiaries or some other legal entity to actually do business in the US. That brings corporate taxes to the Bahamas and helps their economy. Legally, this makes the ones that do this a foreign corporation, not a US corporation, and subject to the corporate laws of the country they are in.

The US Government can and does apply certain taxes on these subsidiaries and other legal entities doing business in the US. Where they run into legal trouble is trying to tax a foreign company for money not earned in the US.

Its kind of a balancing act. The international company I worked for could invest money for projects in many different countries around the word. I helped evaluate which projects would go forward and which would not. My part of it was to estiomate costs to set up and operate specific projects, but I sat through a lot of boring presentations about how the tax structure would affect profit. I saw several US projects not go forward and that investment money spent overseas because of how taxes would affect profit. I also saw some US projects go forward even though the potential profits were not as high. The risk associated with political instability was a big factor in some of those decisions. As I said, a balancing act.

Corporations have a responsibility to their stockholders to maximize profits. If they are working in many different countries, they should look at how taxes affect their profit margins. For some, business is business. If they can make a better return for their stockholders, they will incorporate overseas and avoid certain US taxes. There are some that could, but dont. Why? You would have to get with them and try to get a straight answer. Good luck with that, but it is probably related to the bottom line.

If you have specific proposals for reform in the area of corporate taxes to address some of this, Id love to hear them as long as they take into account the overall effects. I know this will be subjective based on the assumptions you use, but you if you list your assumptions, I can make my own evaluation of how valid they are. It would be nice if these specific proposals took into account international laws and the treaties we have with certain countries covering these items, but I don't want to ask too much. Just a general broad-brush We ought to do something is not real specific in my opinion.

Editted to add: My apologies to anyone offended to a light-hearted reference to Alzheimer's. Someone very close to me has suffered from advanced Alzheimers for a while. I know it is not a joking matter.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

I see you are changing the topic and quoting something I wrote about social security to talk about corporate taxes. But thats OK. Ill talk about Social Security a bit first.

This is a summary from the CBO that comes up with the year 2038 as when the trust fund is exhausted. The bolding is mine.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/416446

Social Security is the federal government's largest single program. About 56 million people will receive Social Security benefits this year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates. About 69 percent are retired workers, their spouses, and children, and another 12 percent are survivors of deceased workers; all of those beneficiaries receive payments through Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI). The other 19 percent are disabled workers or their spouses and children; they receive Disability Insurance (DI) benefits. CBO projects that in fiscal year 2011, Social Security's outlays will total $733 billion, one-fifth of the federal budget; OASI payments will account for about 82 percent of those outlays, and DI payments, about 18 percent.

View more presentations from Congressional Budget Office Social Security has two primary sources of tax revenues: payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits. This year, roughly 97 percent of tax revenues dedicated to Social Security will be collected from a payroll tax of 12.4 percent that is levied on earnings and split evenly between workers and their employers at 6.2 percent apiece (except for self-employed workers, who pay the entire 12.4 percent tax on earnings themselves). The payroll tax applies only to taxable earningsearnings up to a maximum annual amount ($106,800 in 2011). Some Social Security benefits also are subject to taxation: This year, about 3 percent of Social Security's tax revenues will come from the income taxes that higher-income beneficiaries pay on their Social Security benefits. Tax revenues credited to the program will total $687 billion in fiscal year 2011.

Revenues from taxes, along with intragovernmental interest payments, are credited to Social Security's two trust fundsone for OASI and one for DIand the program's benefits and administrative costs are paid from those funds. Legally, the funds are separate, but they often are described collectively as the OASDI trust funds. In a given year, the sum of receipts to a fund along with the interest that is credited on previous balances, minus spending for benefits and administrative costs, constitutes that fund's surplus or deficit.

In calendar year 2010, for the first time since the enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, annual outlays for the program exceeded annual revenues excluding interest credited to the trust funds. CBO projects that the gap will continue: Over the next five years, outlays will be about 5 percent greater than such revenues. However, as more members of the baby-boom generation (that is, people born between 1946 and 1964) enter retirement, outlays will increase relative to the size of the economy, whereas tax revenues will remain at an almost constant share of the economy. As a result, the shortfall will begin to grow around 2017.

CBO projects that the DI trust fund will be exhausted in 2017 and that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2040. Once a trust fund's balance has fallen to zero and current revenues are insufficient to cover the benefits that are specified in law, the corresponding program will be unable to pay full benefits without changes in law. The DI trust fund came close to exhaustion in 1994, but that outcome was prevented by legislation that redirected revenues from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund. In part because of that experience, it is a common analytical convention to consider the DI and OASI trust funds as combined. CBO projects that, if legislation to shift resources from the OASI trust fund to the DI trust fund was enacted, the combined OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in 2038.

The amount of Social Security taxes paid by various groups of people differs, as do the benefits that different groups receive. For example, people with higher earnings pay more in Social Security payroll taxes than do lower-earning participants, and they also receive larger benefits (although not proportionately larger). Because of the progressive nature of Social Security's benefit formula, replacement ratesannual benefits as a percentage of annual lifetime earningsare lower, on average, for workers who have had higher earnings. As another example, the amount of taxes paid and benefits received will be greater for people in later birth cohorts because they typically will have higher earnings over a lifetime, even after an adjustment for inflation, CBO projects. However, initial replacement rates will be slightly lower, on average, for people in later birth groups because their full retirement age (the age at which they can receive unreduced retirement benefits) will be higher. The increase in that age is equivalent to a reduction in benefits at any age at which benefits are claimed.


You will notice that this is based on a total rate of 12.4%. It must be that Alzheimers kicking in that you so kindly diagnosed me as having, but I seem to remember a ruckus up in Washington late last year about extending that 2% reduction in the part that the employee pays. That would mean the effective rate is actually 10.2% if we keep extending it. Wonder what will happen once this election year is over with?

The CBO has to use the laws that are on the books when they do their analysis. When they ran these numbers, the 2% reduction was supposed to expire. Thats why they used 12.2%, not 10.2% for the life of the program. They did combine the DI and OASI trust funds to come up with the 2038 date. That sure made it simpler for this old fogeys brain to handle.

It must be my illiteracy that you so kindly diagnosed me with, but I thought I read that the outgo is going to start exceeding the income significantly in 2017 at that 12.2% rate. And I thought I read they are looking at the Trust Funds for funding when talking about outgo exceeding income. That means they have to start cashing in those bonds which are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. That means the Federal government will have to come up with the cash to pay for those bonds. I wonder where the Federal government is going to come up with extra cash to redeem those bonds. Maybe you could help me figure that one out.

On corporations avoiding taxes by incorporating overseas. Yes they do that. Its called tax avoidance, not tax evasion. There is a big difference. One is legal; the other can get you in big trouble.

I dont think you are implying that these corporations are evading paying payroll taxes on US workers. If you actually know of any doing that, you should bring a law suit. Thats illegal. Or are you implying that the corporations should pay US payroll taxes on foreign people working in foreign countries? Im not 100% sure exactly what taxes you are talking about and I dont want to put words in your mouth. Ill assume you are not talking about payroll taxes, but income and corporate taxes. I'm easily confused so I could be wrong.

When I was living in Louisiana, I sometimes worked in other states or outside the US. I had to pay Louisiana State income tax on money I earned in Louisiana. If I earned that money in Texas or Mississippi, I had to follow their laws as far as income tax. I did not have to pay Louisiana State income tax on that money, just the money I earned in Louisiana. When I worked overseas, I had to follow the country I was working in's laws as far as what income taxes I paid. Since I was paid by a US company in US dollars, I also had to follow the US laws. There are specific laws covering how that was handled. Usually I was protected against having to pay income tax twice. Generally, I could deduct taxes paid to a foreign country on my US taxes, but sometimes those rules changed. I remember when they made that total deduction went from unlimited to maxing out at $75,000 a year. I dont know what those laws say now. I havent worked overseas for several years. Im really glad that part of my benefits for those overseas jobs was that a nationally known accounting firm actually prepared my taxes. Some of that could get pretty complicated, especially the carry forward provisions.

It is a fairly common practice for the various states to offer tax incentives to lure companies to create jobs in their states. Some cities and counties do that too. I remember quite a few news stories where the local and state governments were going to forgive certain taxes to try to lure a certain car assembly plant to Louisiana. It may surprise some people, but some countries do that too. The Bahamas is one well-known one. Its not unusual for companies, especially multinational companies, to incorporate in the Bahamas or somewhere else to tax shelter certain monies and set up subsidiaries or some other legal entity to actually do business in the US. That brings corporate taxes to the Bahamas and helps their economy. Legally, this makes the ones that do this a foreign corporation, not a US corporation, and subject to the corporate laws of the country they are in.

The US Government can and does apply certain taxes on these subsidiaries and other legal entities doing business in the US. Where they run into legal trouble is trying to tax a foreign company for money not earned in the US.

Its kind of a balancing act. The international company I worked for could invest money for projects in many different countries around the word. I helped evaluate which projects would go forward and which would not. My part of it was to estiomate costs to set up and operate specific projects, but I sat through a lot of boring presentations about how the tax structure would affect profit. I saw several US projects not go forward and that investment money spent overseas because of how taxes would affect profit. I also saw some US projects go forward even though the potential profits were not as high. The risk associated with political instability was a big factor in some of those decisions. As I said, a balancing act.

Corporations have a responsibility to their stockholders to maximize profits. If they are working in many different countries, they should look at how taxes affect their profit margins. For some, business is business. If they can make a better return for their stockholders, they will incorporate overseas and avoid certain US taxes. There are some that could, but dont. Why? You would have to get with them and try to get a straight answer. Good luck with that, but it is probably related to the bottom line.

If you have specific proposals for reform in the area of corporate taxes to address some of this, Id love to hear them as long as they take into account the overall effects. I know this will be subjective based on the assumptions you use, but you if you list your assumptions, I can make my own evaluation of how valid they are. It would be nice if these specific proposals took into account international laws and the treaties we have with certain countries covering these items, but I don't want to ask too much. Just a general broad-brush We ought to do something is not real specific in my opinion.

Editted to add: My apologies to anyone offended to a light-hearted reference to Alzheimer's. Someone very close to me has suffered from advanced Alzheimers for a while. I know it is not a joking matter.

I have never stated that anyone here has Alzheimers.

You naughty person...you never read any of my last post or its links with the documented authoritive sources.

Oh, ye of little faith. I know the use of lots and lots of words can to the average person make someone seem ........well informed....but there is the smoke and mirrors factor, and I am not that obtuse.

1) WE are talking here of the very well to do and the Corporations not paying their fair share of taxes. Especially Corportate America. They do not bring the money back into the USA so it cannot be taxed. We lose revenue. I did not ever mention PAYROLL TAXES.

2) CBO stands for Congressional Budget Office. ( I am beside myself laughing here.) The CBO is supposed to be a non-partisan office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Budget_Office

Leadership

The Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate jointly appoint the CBO Director, after considering recommendations from the two budget committees. The term of office is four years, with no limit on the number of terms a Director may serve. Either House of Congress, however, may remove the Director by resolution. At the expiration of a term of office, the person serving as Director may continue in the position until his or her successor is appointed.

Hummmm, now let me seewho is the Leader of the House? Why that is Incumbent John Boehner since January 5, 2011 who has sworn to make the President a one term candidate and who has let nothing worth while pass in Congress for the past four years. A man who will try to convince you that two and two equals five. Snort! A man who has made stalemating a way of life in congress and by doing so gets nothing done for the people of this country who are now in dier straights.

And you are believing these people ?.ahhaha‼‼‼! Why dont you just let the fox in the hen house tell you how many chickens you will have left after he leaves. Ah.haha.. I cant breathe I need air.

The truth shall set you free. I first read this book back in 1994 and from then on I kept up my education.

http://www.amazon.com/America-Who-Really-Pays-Taxes/dp/0671871579

Yes, I will probably be kicked off here then everyone will be free to let me say with the best and nicest of words I can use..that being ........misrepresent what is actually going on in this country because butterflies and rainbows are so much easier to believe in.
Not that people are trying to misrepresent on purpose..they tend to believe those in power and never question and never really investigate the good sources of informationwhich daily gets scrubbed from reality. But then, when the train hits you from behinddo not blame me. Over and out!

 

[897tgigvib]

I am on Ladyhawk's side on these issues.

What things are coming to are Farmers who are only allowed to purchase GMO corn seed for one thing. That is absolutely a terrible thing.

What is sad, is that the corn farmers have not gathered together to say, hang on, waitaminute, we'll grow the variety we please, and it might just be Taos Blue, every single acre of it. Used to be, folks had courage to put their actual lives on the line for what they believed in, to say nothing of courage to put paying their expensive and ridiculously high bills on the line.

Can someone do the agricultural favor here, someone who is good at research, and make a complete list of Monsanto products that, if boycotted worldwide, might just do some good for real agriculture, and even more good for feeding starving areas of the world at the same time?

 

[so lucky]

Ladyhawke1, I hope you are not saying you are leaving the forum. I find your posts informative and helpful. One of the issues I have is that I don't know what to believe anymore. It is my experience that people can spout off facts and figures and twist the logic to suit their own purposes. Two opposing sides look at a single fact and deduce totally opposite inferences from it. I hear you saying we are not doing our civic duty to become informed on the issues. I know I have been complacent in the past, thinking it would all work out eventually. But I think this time is different. I just wish there were more places to get the facts, and know they were the truth. I check things on Snopes sometimes. But do I know they are not biased? No.
Does anyone else watch the RT station on TV? RT stands for Russian Television. They have USA political talk shows on there, with a definite liberal bias, for the most part. But they talk about things you would never see on network TV. And if I know up front that they are biased, I can weigh that into my understanding of the issue. Check out "The Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann, every evening, and "The Alyona Show" also. If you are one of the 99%, you will find it verrry interesting!

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Don't you think that it is the fed gov't and the corruption there that cuase most of the greif we are feeling. Are they not the ones who put their hand on the bible and swear an oath to the constitution and the people. Are they not the ones who pass these laws that further fleece the middle class. The occupiers are occupying the wrong space.

We are the government. It is who you elect that counts. The President nowadays is just a figure head. iI he or she was to try to do the right thing, the powers that be would not let them live very long.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Ladyhawke1, I hope you are not saying you are leaving the forum. I find your posts informative and helpful. One of the issues I have is that I don't know what to believe anymore. It is my experience that people can spout off facts and figures and twist the logic to suit their own purposes. Two opposing sides look at a single fact and deduce totally opposite inferences from it. I hear you saying we are not doing our civic duty to become informed on the issues. I know I have been complacent in the past, thinking it would all work out eventually. But I think this time is different. I just wish there were more places to get the facts, and know they were the truth. I check things on Snopes sometimes. But do I know they are not biased? No.
Does anyone else watch the RT station on TV? RT stands for Russian Television. They have USA political talk shows on there, with a definite liberal bias, for the most part. But they talk about things you would never see on network TV. And if I know up front that they are biased, I can weigh that into my understanding of the issue. Check out "The Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann, every evening, and "The Alyona Show" also. If you are one of the 99%, you will find it verrry interesting!

Thom Hartmann is an excellent place to start. WE have lost his voice in the Los Angeles area.

 

[Ladyhawke1]

Ladyhawke1, I hope you are not saying you are leaving the forum. I find your posts informative and helpful. One of the issues I have is that I don't know what to believe anymore. It is my experience that people can spout off facts and figures and twist the logic to suit their own purposes. Two opposing sides look at a single fact and deduce totally opposite inferences from it. I hear you saying we are not doing our civic duty to become informed on the issues. I know I have been complacent in the past, thinking it would all work out eventually. But I think this time is different. I just wish there were more places to get the facts, and know they were the truth. I check things on Snopes sometimes. But do I know they are not biased? No.
Does anyone else watch the RT station on TV? RT stands for Russian Television. They have USA political talk shows on there, with a definite liberal bias, for the most part. But they talk about things you would never see on network TV. And if I know up front that they are biased, I can weigh that into my understanding of the issue. Check out "The Big Picture" with Thom Hartmann, every evening, and "The Alyona Show" also. If you are one of the 99%, you will find it verrry interesting!

Some of us have more time than others. Some of us have family to care for, to worry about, and to deal with the daily grind of trying to survive a system that takes from and does not support the very people who pay into it.

Having said that, one needs to be well informed and up to speed on what is going on. If you are not well informed you will be chasing your tail and not ready for the next crises. And, you will be blaming the wrong people for the avoidable predicaments in this country.
When I say well informed, I do not mean you only watch TV or listen to the likes a Rush Limbaugh.

Yes, you have to read. If you can TWITTER OR TWEET, you can read. There is one thing about reading, the more you read the better you get at it. It keeps the mind sharp. One of the side effects of reading is that the brain automatically and subconsciously stores the information. Then lo and behold, when the time comes..you have recall on a subject when there is need for it, and then you become an informed citizen. Amazing.

There is need of information that helps and does not hurt. Here are three sources of information that I recommend. It is only a recommendation. Some of these sites I have followed for over ten years. I follow them because I have found that over time they have proven to me to be factual and accurate. I read them daily.

http://www.commondreams.org/

http://thinkprogress.org/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/