It's Official: Gov Stats Shows the Middle Class is Dead

Agreed, Wildflower--and all of this costs money, at least education does, and books, and the clothes to wear to school.

As for the breakdown in the family--do you think the stress of unemployment or poverty or foreclosure helps a marriage? Or working upteen hours a week?

You can have a middle class without families, but not, in today's world, without education.

We spend plenty of money on education. That money lie has been told forever. The kids are being dumbed down it is not a matter of money. Many of our schools are just short of being run by hoodlums. Discipline has gone and standards are being lowered every day.

Much unemployment is a behavioral issue . Talk to any employer and they will tell you one of the big issues is getting people to come to work. Most foreclosures are from people borrowing money very unwisely.

Much unemployment is a behavioral issue . Talk to any employer and they will tell you one of the big issues is getting people to come to work. Most foreclosures are from people borrowing money very unwisely.

And, all generalizations are false...including that one.

The words: much, most and any undo any argument made in the above comment...

So where do we go from here wildwonderful? Do we cut education because some schools and districts are mismanaged? Do we deregulate the banking industry so they can make more shady loans? You seem to have the problems down what's your solution?

I never mentioned cutting education. What I did say was hiding behind the money issue for lack of performance does not hold water. I personally am in favor of a voucher program. Our schools need some competition.

Those who borrowed money for homes they cannot afford deserve foreclosure. Have we seen any shady banker jailed for their behavior ?

Jailed, no, unfortunately. Sued, YUP!

http://www.newser.com/story/134513/massachusetts-sues-big-banks-over-mortgage-fraud.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/04/feds-sue-banks-over-mortgage-fraud/

http://www.thecashchat.com/forum/world-news/85722-twist-philly-man-sues-bank-over-mortgage-wins-ap.html

I was mistaken, thought I remembered something about people sentenced in mortgage fraud cases, I was correct:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/12/20/3-men-sentenced-in-mortgage-fraud-case/

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Two-Houston-men-sentenced-in-mortgage-fraud-case-1405866.php

http://www.mynews3.com/content/news/local/story/Two-Men-Sentenced-in-Connection-with-Mortgage-Scam/q5U35rGCsEytdPVUI4osgQ.cspx

http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-bettendorf-men-sentenced-for-mortgage-fraud-20110825,0,7166424.story

http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Milford-man-two-others-sentenced-in-mortgage-2184496.php

Unfortunately (again), they were not bankers, just took advantage of the sleazy ability to scam many others...

School vouchers don't come close to covering tuitions at private schools. The 99% still can't go there but the 1% get a voucher to cover a portion of their tuition. These vouchers, of course, come out of the public school budgets resulting in less money for public schools while providing a nice welfare check for the rich. If we don't invest in the education of our children, ALL OF OUR CHILDREN, we will never be able to compete with the other countries of the world. Vouchers indeed.

Much unemployment is a behavioral issue

Unemployment may be a behavioral issue when there are more jobs than people who need jobs; that's not even close to where we are today.

Talk to any employer and they will tell you one of the big issues is getting people to come to work.

Perhaps for unskilled, lowest-possible wage jobs that is true. It can't be true about the jobs the middle class used to hold because, well, those jobs no longer exist.

Those who borrowed money for homes they cannot afford deserve foreclosure.

Perhaps - but then most of those people weren't middle class, were they? Some interesting reading for you:

http://www.realestateeconomywatch.com/2011/07/new-foreclosure-study-finds-the-more-that%E2%80%99s-owed-the-longer-the-defaulter-can-stay/

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/research-analysis/soaring-spillover-3-09.pdf

http://www.foreclosure-response.org/index.html

You spout bullsh*t talking points, clearly supporting the RWNJ agenda, adding nothing of value to the conversation.

Those who borrowed money for homes they cannot afford deserve foreclosure.

What should we do about those who approved all of those loans? Those guys happily collected the originating fees, and then they passed the risks on while the loans were bundled as "securities".

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/02/3879476/feds-prepare-to-sue-banks-that.html

The suits will argue that the banks, which assembled the mortgages and marketed them as securities to investors, failed to perform the due diligence required under securities law and missed evidence that borrowers' incomes were inflated or falsified. When many borrowers were unable to pay their mortgages, the securities they backed quickly declined.

The whole financial sector bailout was upside down. It should have operated by assisting those with sub-prime mortgages to refinance under terms that were affordable and permit them to stay in their homes. Speculators and second, third, fourth and so on homes should have been left to the market to deal with. The financial sector would have gotten its help by detoxifying the loans they created.

Instead, we followed the same old failed top down approach that has never worked except as a transfer of wealth from the the lower classes to the wealthy.

Carol

Well obviously some of the big boys at Countrywide , Wells Fargo , Goldman Sachs and more should be in federal prison but you have to remember that Wall Street was the biggest contributor to the Obama campaign. Don't you find it just a little suspicious that all these banks went down just right before the election of Obama ?

And who were the biggest donors to McCain? And of all the contributions Obama received what were the percentages from average people contributing less than $1000 and the percentage of contributions from Wall Street?

You miss the point Obama is President .

No, you miss the point, President Obama wanted most of his donations for his campaign to come from the average person, not Wall Street. Cain wanted most of his donations to come from Wall Street, not the average person.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Actually, you both miss the point. It is time that we took money and put it in its proper place in politics, that of a vote and not speech. The ability to donate money over a large range of values corrupts the whole system. The ability of no human beings to donate at all corrupts the whole process. Bribery, by any name, is corruption. Until money is treated equivalent to casting a vote by limiting the size of contributions to an amount at least 90% of the population can afford, we will continue to have politicians bought and paid for by special interests.

Citizens United just makes matters worse by allowing non-people to be able to contribute more to politics than people can. Welcome to serfdom and a new aristocracy. Say good by to the United States.

Well obviously some of the big boys at Countrywide , Wells Fargo , Goldman Sachs and more should be in federal prison but you have to remember that Wall Street was the biggest contributor to the Obama campaign.

Wall Street and industries have a tendency to contribute to the candidates that they think are most likely to win.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2008-06-30/news/17902184_1_sen-obama-obama-spokesman-tommy-vietor-john-mccain

But Wall Street is often motivated by something more than money - winning.

"In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."

"In general, these are professional prognosticators," said Ritsch. "And they may be putting their money on the person they predict will win, not the candidate they hope will win."

Ah, more gambling with other peoples money. Even Vegas is an amateur when compared to wall street when it comes to gambling.

Until money is treated equivalent to casting a vote by limiting the size of contributions to an amount at least 90% of the population can afford, we will continue to have politicians bought and paid for by special interests.

I don't think contributions to politicians should be allowed unless they are made by individual citizens and the amount that any one individual can contribute should be limited to a reasonable amount of $100 or so. Bernie Sanders and others have proposed amendments to the constitution which would eliminate corporate contributions.

http://dangerousintersection.org/2011/12/08/bernie-sanders-proposes-constitutional-amendment-to-combat-citizens-united/

I don't think contributions to politicians should be allowed unless they are made by individual citizens and the amount that any one individual can contribute should be limited to a reasonable amount of $100 or so.

I agree. My thoughts and the amendment I will support the most vigorously is one that equates political contributions to a vote. I favor a limit per year to any candidate or cause of an amount not to exceed what 90% of the population can afford. That the total limit to all candidates or causes within a year is limited to no more than what 50% of the population can afford. That only those that at some point in their lives will or have had the right to vote can contribute.

This results in a moving limit based on economic realities and not some arbitrary number and rules out any social construct from contributing funds, only citizens.

Corporate contributions are only part of the problem. Soros, the Koch brothers, Gates, etc should not have a disproportionate influence on political funding than any other citizen. We need to stop them from buying politicians, too.

The people in the SEC who are responsible for the referals to the DOJ should be charged with Obstruction of justice, Conspiracy to Obstruct justice, Tampering with evidence, Destruction of evidence and Cronyism . Then we need the rat bags like Tim G and Bernake fired.

So much to do. So little time.

You can have a middle class without families, but not, in today's world, without education.

They are NOT unrelated, give me a break. My husband and I have often put each other through school, because today's reality is that you have to make career changes or at least keep up with additional classes every year. This is much harder, or even impossible for a single parent. Furthermore there is solid statistical evidence that children who grow up without an intact family are far less likely to even finish therapy, let alone go to college. Strong families and education are both essential, and we are kidding ourselves to pretend otherwise.

So we need to quit subsidizing single parents who choose to have multiple kids. We need a neutering program.

forclosures are never ever never ever a banks or a businesses fault ever and don't you forget about it

at least this is how a brainwashed bush bot tea party confederate flag flying evangelical mental cases believe

Talk to any employer and they will tell you one of the big issues is getting people to come to work.

We need to qualify this statement a bit. While many employers will tell you they have a difficult time getting employees to show up, they seldom tell you that for jobs that are interesting and not repetitious; meaningful and not mindless, employees show up on a very regular basis (like everyday).

I have a business friend who was the CEO of Plantronics, in Santa Cruz. Plantronics had great difficulty in getting the hourly production employees to show up (it is Santa Cruz), but a zero problem in getting any technical or managerial employees to show up.

What incentive is there to stand in one place hour after hour, day after day, year after year stuffing Bluetooth earphones into a plastic bag and then into a box and then into a larger box to fit on a pallet. Minimum wages and some benefits?

Some here will say minimum wage and some benefit is enough to get an individual to the workplace everyday - but boredom will kill any spirit after a while, no matter what the pay or benefit level.

So we need to quit subsidizing single parents who choose to have multiple kids. We need a neutering program.

Stop subsidizing is one thing. Neutering is a little drastic, don't you think?

What incentive is there to stand in one place hour after hour, day after day, year after year stuffing Bluetooth earphones into a plastic bag and then into a box and then into a larger box to fit on a pallet. Minimum wages and some benefits?

For starters, such jobs will pay more than minimum wages if they have to in order to get employees. At least it puts food on the table and pays the rent and utilities. Some people do get promoted and some get additional education so they can qualify for a better job. I've done my share of boring, crappy jobs, as most of us have. I've done them even after getting a college education. You just tell yourself it's not for the rest of your life.

The job I had working as a union laborer on an assembly line one summer was an important part of my education.

Agreed, your education is everything you do, not just what you learn at a place called "college". For me it was running a rooming house.

The job I had working as a union laborer on an assembly line one summer was an important part of my education.

Great! Good for you. You had the wherewithal to move on through education. NOT EVERYONE DOES!

For me it was running a rooming house.

You may think of running a rooming house as monotonous job, but it has a lot more responsibility and affords a lot more need for initiative than stuffing plastic bags with pieces and parts does!

You may think of running a rooming house as monotonous job, but it has a lot more responsibility and affords a lot more need for initiative than stuffing plastic bags with pieces and parts does!

I didn't even think of the rooming house as a job, merely a way to get my own rent free because I sublet rooms at a higher rate than what my landlord charged me. I was speaking in terms of educational experiences, which in the case of my rooming house was mostly due to the fact that I mainly rented to immigrants, foreign students, and other people as different from me as possible. (I would choose a foreigner over an American, a person from Afghanistan over someone from Canada, a person of a different race over someone of my own, and a member of some whacky religon over a mainstream one. I figured if I have to live with strangers at least I don't have to be bored.) My actual job at the time was sort of a white collar sweatshop, pouring over legal documents and writing down certain information. It was called "coding" or "document analysis" and it is mind numbingly boring. A six year old child could do most of it. The only advantage over the job you describe is that I got to sit down while I did it. And BTW, I've worked in factories too. I know what you're saying, but any job has its educational side and it's better than nothing.

Bonzo is retired now and living in Crawford, TX.

not Crawford - their primary digs are in north Dallas. Dubya just goes to Crawford to chop a little wood. Guess Laura got tired of driving to Waco (closest town of any size to Crawford) for shopping, and besides - I don't think there's a Nieman Marcus in Waco.

Clinton was the start of the down fall of the middle class, him and NAFTA. he sold the middle class out, because he couldn't keep him willie in his pants.

58Rose -

You are correct that Clinton signed NAFTA ...... but the treaty was Bush 1's favorite child. I recall seeing a presidential debate where Bush 1 laughed out loud at Ross Perot when Perot said that if NAFTA was passed there would be a great big sucking sound as jobs left the US.

Then you get Bush 2 who made a televised speech to the effect that the government was unnecessarily hoarding tax money and that there should be "temporary" tax cuts ... most significantly taxes on the rich - estate tax, second home mortgage deductions, lower capital gains taxes-

Bush 2 then gets the ox buried shoulder deep in the mud when he lies to the US and congress about WMD's in Iraq. But the GOP / GOTP refuse to permit the Bush 2 tax cuts on the rich expire. They hold every piece of legislation hostage for a continuation of the Bush tax cuts for the rich while the ox sinks deeper into the mud.

These free documentaries provide a pretty good synopsis of how the "Meltdown" occurred, and the fallout for the world economy. Unless you make a contribution to the website for unlimited access, you can only watch one a day.

Meltdown is one of the most important documentaries in understanding the players involved with the 2008 financial crisis which has led us into the biggest depression we have seen in our lifetime.

Meltdown: The Men who Crashed the World

Meltdown: A Global Financial Tsunami

Meltdown: Paying the Price

Meltdown: After the Fall

TexMan

You are correct that Clinton signed NAFTA ...... but the treaty was Bush 1's favorite child. I recall seeing a presidential debate where Bush 1 laughed out loud at Ross Perot when Perot said that if NAFTA was passed there would be a great big sucking sound as jobs left the US.

"In fact, it was Ronald Reagan, as you all know, who sponsored NAFTA. We couldn't get it passed, but we sponsored NAFTA."

-- Arthur Laffer's November 13, 2006 address to members of The Heritage Foundation's President's Club at the fall 2006 President's Club meeting, held at the Ronald Reagan International Trade Center in Washington, DC.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/01/the-four-pillars-of-reaganomics

So what? Clinton got it passed and signed it into law. Sounds like lots of bipartisan blame to go around.

Obviously you have no idea how Ron Paul works to expose what the banking elite criminals do to us. I found this video of him questioning some criminals on their plot to destroy the middle class you might enjoy watching them shake while they answer him

http://youtu.be/VdC1v-eipT4

And if the banking sector was the whole of the economy, you would have a good point. But since it isn't one must look at all of his policies. The idea that you as an individual have a chance to stand up against a multi billion dollar a quarter in profits corporation is ludicrous. So Paul doesn't want the government to be the new aristocracy. Bravo. But his policies find it perfectly alright for businesses to take that role, whether he sees it or not.

Personally, I oppose either of them as master.

Ron Paul looks good on youtube, though his policies are 95% the same as the other repubs who are just criminally insane.

The problem we have to day, the left moved to the middle, the right had no where else to go, so they moved so far right, that they are certified insane.

We live in a

Cashocracy

.

How anyone can think that 312 MILLION individuals can go it alone, each in their own little cocoon of isolation from reality is beyond comprehension.

If you think Ron Paul is the answer, you have not be paying attention. I would ask that you stay after class for additional schooling, but in most cases trying to convince any Ron Paul supporter to pay attention is like pissing into the wind.

If you think Ron Paul is the answer, you have not be paying attention.

I would want to know the question.

Republicans and Conservatives, if you want to know what happened to this country look in the mirror, there's your answer.

When you vote Republican, you do so on faith (or ideology), not on ideas or a plan. The plan is always the same: get government out of the way (by starving it's appetite for revenue). Republicans view our current state not as a temporaryrecession, or depression, but as the way things are going to be: a future where we cannot afford even to maintain our common infrastructure. It would be unnecessary to cut spending so deeply, if you had faith that the economy would rebound, restoring the government's tax base.

First, families have to pay back their debt. Governments don't — all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base. The debt from World War II was never repaid; it just became increasingly irrelevant as the U.S. economy grew, and with it the income subject to taxation.

Second — and this is the point almost nobody seems to get — an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves.

MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt

Grand Total 4656.3 (in billions of dollars)

to much long island there old billy boy you need rehab.

It's the TEA Party that is fighting for the 99%

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!....(breath) ..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ha! (wipes tears)

Unions basically destroyed themselves with such short-sighted, obviously unfair policies as the two-tiered system.

You are right that the two tiered system was unfair. Management used it to divide and conquer labor. And it worked. Unions were stupid and as you say, "short-sighted." A feather in the cap of big business.

And stupid unions cannot really do much for workers except collect dues from them. I was union once; it ruined what would have otherwise been a good job. If I could have been paid based on merit I would have earned far more. Eventually I figured it out.

My experience was the opposite. Being part of a union shop in my profession keeps us better paid and better compensated than my peers in non union shops. Also we're highly competitive because the best of the best apply for employment here because of what the company offers. We're fortunate to have management that realizes workers are a resource not a liability like many of the MBA's that run most companies nowadays. Not all jobs or unions are created equal.

My experience was the opposite. Being part of a union shop in my profession keeps us better paid and better compensated than my peers in non union shops. Also we're highly competitive because the best of the best apply for employment here because of what the company offers.

Let me tell you about my experience with unions:

I worked as a union assembler with a Fortune 500 company for quite a few years ago, my specific job on the line was installing a small part into an appliance: one part, no more no less, just one part. I landed the job through a friend who was a friend with the shop steward, that’s because the union could decide who gets hired and who doesn’t. (So much for EOE). The qualifications for my specific job were not very demanding: high school diploma, no specialized training, no acquired skill set, essentially anybody with a pulse, some manual dexterity and the God given ability to lift 11 pounds could do the job. My total compensation package was indeed very, very, very rich compared to what other unskilled workers were getting at the time. The benefits were also platinum rated. There was absolutely NO relationship between my job’s demands and its rate of compensation.

The contract that oversaw my job specified that the maximum install was 40 components during my eight hour shift. No more, no less. On a typical day I could leisurely install those 40 components in just under 6 hours. On those rare days when the upstream marshalling area had lots of “bones” stacked up, I could install those 40 parts in 5 hours. “After 40” my day was done, I could then head to the break room light up a smoke, order a pizza or sub for delivery, read the paper, play cards, all the way until clock out time. And guess what? There wasn’t a damned thing that my foreman or his manager could do or say to me if the production manifest indicated that my 40 units for that day were completed. I couldn’t even be told to pick up a broom to sweep the floor, or move parts from the stores bins to the assembly areas because that was someone else’s job to do.

Oh, I’d have been happy to do 50 to 60 units a shift or help out somewhere else, but if I did I’d be in trouble with both my fellow line workers and the ombudsman. So not only was I well paid to do the job, I was working at only about 75% of my assembly capacity. No company can competitively build and sell a product with such an onerous cost burden and that’s why that factory was eventually shuttered and pad locked. It’s not conspiracy, just simple math.

And the management/ownership agreed to the work rules and wage/benefits.

Yes they did...under duress of strike.

After 40” my day was done, I could then head to the break room light up a smoke, order a pizza or sub for delivery, read the paper, play cards, all the way until clock out time.

At least you had a break room. I was bored to death, although at least I was allowed to read at my desk. (It was a administrative assistant type job.)

At least you had a break room. I was bored to death, although at least I was allowed to read at my desk. (It was a administrative assistant type job.)

That job was the plum in the orchard...the perfect fusion of having less to do with more time to do it in while getting paid very well to do it along the way.

Can't figure out why the suits at the company offshored the job.

Can't figure out why the suits at the company offshored the job.

They knew that the union would protect you from becoming a worn out shell of a human being, leaving someone with enough energy, and money in your pocket to take your wife and kids skiing on the weekend?

Offshoring the jobs made it possible to not have to share the ski area with the sub human labor force!

You can avoid becoming a worn out shell without spending half the day in the break room. I'd feel like I was in jail for 8 hours a day if I had a job like that. Most people enjoy keeping reasonably busy at work. At least in a nonunion setting you can demonstrate your productivity and proficiency and it is usually rewarded sooner or later.

and it is usually rewarded sooner or later.

Yeah. ok

They knew that the union would protect you from becoming a worn out shell of a human being, leaving someone with enough energy, and money in your pocket to take your wife and kids skiing on the weekend?

Ohhhhhhhhh...so that's what is was!!!! Thanks for clearing that up. BTW...that union is still around in other shops...so are its officers...and their six figure salaries.

See, lamp, Get Smarter Here!

I could get smarter reading a comic book.

Ohhhhhhhhh...so that's what is was!!!! Thanks for clearing that up. BTW...that union is still around in other shops...so are its officers...and their six figure salaries.

From what I've been reading around the vine lately, its not good to envy a high salary of CEO' and their executives.

I suppose union leaders should make $35,000 per year?

For what they do, they aren't worth $35,000 a year.

What, more union bashing?

LOL It's always someone who (is jealous of their neighbor and) wishes they had a good job with benefits.

I've had lots of nonunion, good jobs with benefits. When I was union, I fell under the two tiered system. I paid the same union dues as everybody else, but had no chance of EVER catching up with the lazy asses who made much, much more for doing the same job merely because they had been there before the two tiered system came about. It isn't a matter of seniority; it is just totally unfair. The unions screwed themselves over beause of such garbage.

Do understand that I live in a place so pro-union that when I didn't have money to put under my children's pillow, I told them the Tooth Fairy couldn't come tonight because she was taking a personal day, which was part of her contract. A hospital I had to take my son to a lot when he was three had a player piano in the lobby. I told him the piano player was invisilble. When he asked why he had to play all day, I said "he doesn't have seniority."

Some unions are better than others, I'll grant you that. I worked jobs in four different unions. But, in each one, the union ensured I got paid for my labor.

In one job, my supervisor regularly, almost weekly, cheated me on my time. I filed a lot of grievances, and I always got paid for my honest day's work. I think the plant superintendent finally told him to quit trying to @!$%# me because it was obvious that I wouldn't give in or give up.

I'm now a white-collar, salaried employee with a cushy well-paying job. But I will always be pro-union.

Anybody can be a wage slave; there are plenty of bosses out there who will be happy to cheat you out of your labor.

What, more union bashing?

Yep!

I think the bashers are lying about their horrible union experiences.

They are probably the slackers even JC couldn't save from being fired, let alone some shop steward.

I was no slacker. In fact I was told by my union to stop working so hard, which was a foreign langague to me. It made the day go by much slower to just be a slacker like everybody else. My boss would have been willing to teach new skills to me, which I was more than willing to learn, but it wasn't possible under the union rules. Never again.

I was told by my union to stop working so hard, which was a foreign langague to me.

I understand your frustration, but this never happened where I worked.

This morning, I realized I misstated working 4 union jobs, when in fact it was only 3.

I worked as a machinist in 2 different jobs; 1 union and 1 non-union. I worked just a hard at both, but got paid much, much better in the union job.

I worked as a truck driver in several jobs, but 2 of those were local freight delivery; 1 union and 1 non-union. I worked just a hard at both, but got paid much, much better in the union job.

And then there was the slaughter house. The union wasn't very strong, due mostly to the endless supply of illegal aliens the company hired, and the wages were low.

The company regularly cheated us on pay and breaks and anything else they could think of. But, as I stated above, we could at least fight for our honest wages by filing grievances.

Without the union, the company would have ground us up just like the hamburger meat.

I think the bashers are lying about their horrible union experiences.

Why certainly, anyone who disagrees with or challenges your world view must be a liar, a slacker or a troll.

Feel free to reject what I wrote, I really don't care.

Plenty of people have had bad experiences with unions. My father did as a Pentagon employee, but he "came around" because the job had many advantages like feeling important and getting paid to go to fun places like Paris and Thailand. My job as a clerical worker with the United Mine Workers Health and Retirement Fund, not so much. I was under the two tiered system, which is very real. I was making LESS than I would have made in the nonunion private sector, and many of my co-workers were utter jerks who didn't even have to pretend to be civil. The company couldn't provide the things most employees take for granted like coffee and the use of refrigerators for lunch. Anger a coworker and you were forbidden to use the refrigerator. I never met so many petty jerks. I had no chance of advancement because of the rules; I was willing to learn, but I was forbidden to do so.

Unions are fine for basically unintelligent people doing very mundane things, like the retired coal miners I tried to help. They are not good for the rest of us.

Directed & Produced by Barbara Kopple.
Wikipedia: Harlan County, USA is an Oscar-winning 1976 documentary film covering the "Brookside Strike" or "Bloody Harlan", an effort of 180 coal miners and their wives against the Duke Power Company-owned Eastover Coal Company's Brookside Mine and Prep Plant in Harlan County, Kentucky in 1973.

thank you so much for uploading this....one of my favorite movies and should be required watching for every American citizen

Blankenship should be on trial for homicide for profit.

EDF board member Stanley Druckenmiller invests in Massey Energy

EDF board member Stanley Druckenmiller is a billionaire hedge fund manager that has invested roughly $200 million into Massey Energy, a company that is a leading practitioner of mountaintop removal mining, has little regard for Mine Safety and Health Administration regulations leading to the the Upper Big Branch Mine Disaster, and has a CEO, Don Blankenship, who is an outspoken climate change denier.^[9] Massey has a 6% stake in Duquesne Capital Management^[10] which is controlled by Stanley Druckenmiller.^[9]

^{EDF The Watermellon Environmental Profiteers!}

^{Green on the outside, capitalist red on the inside.}

^{Hey! Edf! Which side are you o!}

These guys are like wild hogs. They just keep multiplying, 14 pigs per litter-- spawn of the American dream.

So when I bring up the EDF connection in the Obama administration, and try to explain to my liberal friends that this administration may cut their throats over Keystone XL project, they get offended, thinking I am just being an @!$%#, and refusing to believe they just might get sold out!

I mean, whats a measly little pipeline to a board member of EDF, the Environmental profiteers (that are in charge of noaa/nmfs), compared to the earth friendly mountain top removal process?

This is Obamas favorite ENGO.

A union shop, like any other place, is only as good as the people who are in charge. While there are definitely some slackers-- having been a union member in a pro-union machine shop with a corrupt and lazy steward, I know first-hand how things can become %*#@ed. While that corrupt or lazy steward can curdle the milk in everyone's Wheaties, the overall benefit of unions cannot be weighed against these dolts and their corrupt ways. Unions have protected the income and safety of American workers for years, and the corporations and their backers who call foul, send jobs abroad for cheaper production costs while creating smokescreen campaigns against fair wages-- all for their own benefit. Just like when the EPA started calling for tougher standards, so corporations shut down and went abroad as opposed to spending the money to put themselves in in compliance. Now look at the environmental conditions in those countries that they exploited. These dogs don't care about the American workers and our the environment, or the workers and environments in the poverty riddled country's with corrupt governments welcome the jobs and income, at any cost.

Corporate money mongers spend endless amounts of money on subliminal campaigns to smear those who dare belong to an organization that seeks to keep the middle-class blue collar working person earning a fair wage under safe and healthy conditions.

It now takes a six figure salary to live the average 1950's middle class "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle.

100,000 dollars in 2011 is equivalent to 12,775 dollars in 1958 and the medium income in the US in 1958 was about 5100 dollars.

The average house in 1958 was 1300 square feet, no A/C, one bath and cost about $12,500. All houses were average, there were no starter homes and mover uppers. Mortgages rarely went past ten years. A new Chevy Impala cost $2693 a bit more than half the median salary.

The average household in 1958 had one black and white TV, (and if it was a Zenith console it cost over 500 dollars...10% of the annual income) one land line phone, a stove and refrigerator. a washer and dryer and one car and took a yearly one week vacation about 70 miles from home .

If you were fortunate enough to earn over 10,000 dollars in 1958, you were among a small group, 10% of the workforce.

The average house doesn't cost $200,000 everywhere. Less than 20 years ago I did the research and managed to find a Northeastern city full of universities, libraries, museums, opera, symphony, parks, etc., where I was able to buy a 5 bedroom, 2 bath Victorian rowhouse on a bus line for $40,000 cash. We moved. Until the current recession jobs were as plentiful here as they were in my native DC, relative to the number of applicants. We make do nicely with one used vehicle and I love urban living, as do my kids. Consider doing things to better your situation instead of just whining that you can't live like June and Ward Cleaver. Who even wants to?

OomYaaqub: you provide a great story with nice examples but the problem with advice is it is never one size fits all.

Nothing is one size fits all, I know. Maybe you CAN'T move for all sorts of reasons. Not everyone has portable skills. You cannot be a ship builder in Nebraska, say. Some can't move because of divorce agreements, elderly parents to care for, etc. But it ought to be consdidered for those who CAN. I've found that many people are shocked by the number of places I've lived; they cannot even imagine leaving their home towns for any reason.

As long as the government keeps funding these over seas ventures with our tax dollars we will continue our decline.

No argument there.

cashocracy

brilliant. I'm so using that one, dude.

cashocracy

I would say it is more like a creditcracy

I guess there is something to be said for stress relief. You know clearing one's head.

It is really kind of interesting that the two fastest zippers in the nation - Clinton & Gingrich - managed to strike a deal that all but balanced the US budget.

Yea they balanced it by stealing the social security fund what genius.

Everytime I hear one of these "tighty righties" talking about they didn't do it I think of Al Sharptons commercial were he's talking about eating the blueberry pie and telling his Momma he didn't do it with blueberry all over his face.