Background:What Was Being An Employee In D South Like In D 'good Ol days'?
Case Study: Frank Luntz Convinces People That Corporations CAN Be People For The Colbert Report!
Conservatives Don't Get Sarcasm Or Satire. They Lack The Education.
Case Study: Frank Luntz Convinces People That Corporations CAN Be People For The Colbert Report!
Conservatives Don't Get Sarcasm Or Satire. They Lack The Education.
The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive
1:45: 15 dollars an hour would make the fry guy the richest guy in detriot!
Is McDonald's using my sites money saving tips in combination with Frank Luntz's techniques? This is nuts!
Is McDonald's using my sites money saving tips in combination with Frank Luntz's techniques? This is nuts!
McDonalds put together a little kinder-garden style kit
McyDees thinks the Penguins from Happy Feet are actually people
Health insurance is very cheap!
But it's not even covered by the largest retailer in America who can afford the largest discounts, so , in theory should be able to provide the best workplaces!
It gets better. Not only can't you afford the health insurance that the company provides... you have to work two jobs to not even get health insurance!
Reminds me of 'Fine words but empty of truth or honor'. Fully covered here.
What Karl Marx did valued Entrepreneurship at $0. Here the EXACT opposite is being done to such an extreme that it's effect is the same as it is in a communist State only the ruling group is much larger. What the USA has is 'welfare for the wealthy', everyone else be damned.
For a company that's already a monopoly/oligopoly there is no way any CEO is worth that much money (all he has to do is keep things running, it's like a star ship captain using a whip on his crew while they row across the galaxy). This is a common problem going back to when I first started blogging on this in 2009 i.e. Link: Billions In Bogus Bonuses...
The reason division of labor came about was to increase the standard of living... but now there is a skewed environment where workers are making far less than that promised in WW2 and is part of the American Dream (i.e. American Dream is dead beginning from the National Security Act of 1949)
American Dream Promise Banned WW 2 Cartoon...
Labour Cost With An Increase IN A Standard Of Living As Per The American Dream...
With increased productivity wages can keep ahead of prices. Though this isn't what happened in the 1970's, for various reasons. With globalization there was a collapse of certain things while other things got distorted. So now our global economic policies might as well be called "Swiss Cheese Economics".
However, the complete economic collapse of 2008 seems to be intentional in an unintentional way (these policies were bound to backfire at some point, especially when Bush started padding the countries balance sheets back in 2001. Even a socialist country can do better than the current status quo of robber baron capitalism).
NOTE: The switch in emphasis in 2008 from problem to a solution that punishes the people who didn't cause the problem to begin with is explained in this article extract: *When this financial crisis began nearly four years ago the story seemed simple. The banks were broke and they told our leaders that unless the taxpayers bailed them out and took their private debts on to the public account, then the world would end. Our politicians believed them. We took on huge debts and bailed out the banks. Right or wrong, at least the story seemed straightforward: they owed us huge sums of money. Then as the crisis continued, a new group most of us had never heard of appeared – the bond holders. It turned out the banks owed huge sums to the bond holders too, and so did we. The story of who owed whom began to change.
Gradually the story became less about the banks owing us money and more about owing the bond holders.
It seems to me that our governments and their financial advisers from the banks have a double standard when it comes to debt and its repayment; one which greatly benefits the financial world and punishes the taxpayer.
On the one hand, the debts of private banks and those who own that debt, the bond holders, are being protected from any losses by the publicly funded bailouts. Public debt, on the other hand, at the insistence of the same banks and bond holders we have bailed out, is being paid down at breakneck speed, no matter what the cost in unemployment and the destruction of social services.*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/11/banking-bond-holders-debt
The following represents the chain of production and each sector is supposed to get it's share.
However, the complete economic collapse of 2008 seems to be intentional in an unintentional way (these policies were bound to backfire at some point, especially when Bush started padding the countries balance sheets back in 2001. Even a socialist country can do better than the current status quo of robber baron capitalism).
NOTE: The switch in emphasis in 2008 from problem to a solution that punishes the people who didn't cause the problem to begin with is explained in this article extract: *When this financial crisis began nearly four years ago the story seemed simple. The banks were broke and they told our leaders that unless the taxpayers bailed them out and took their private debts on to the public account, then the world would end. Our politicians believed them. We took on huge debts and bailed out the banks. Right or wrong, at least the story seemed straightforward: they owed us huge sums of money. Then as the crisis continued, a new group most of us had never heard of appeared – the bond holders. It turned out the banks owed huge sums to the bond holders too, and so did we. The story of who owed whom began to change.
Gradually the story became less about the banks owing us money and more about owing the bond holders.
It seems to me that our governments and their financial advisers from the banks have a double standard when it comes to debt and its repayment; one which greatly benefits the financial world and punishes the taxpayer.
On the one hand, the debts of private banks and those who own that debt, the bond holders, are being protected from any losses by the publicly funded bailouts. Public debt, on the other hand, at the insistence of the same banks and bond holders we have bailed out, is being paid down at breakneck speed, no matter what the cost in unemployment and the destruction of social services.*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/11/banking-bond-holders-debt
The following represents the chain of production and each sector is supposed to get it's share.
There is NO WAY this random white dude deserves 8.75 million dollars.
Why is this following woman not white? Is the Southern Strategy being used here? Hint: If most workers are not white then that may be a factor (i.e.a correlation).
RSS Feed
