tkhayes

true, he will ultimately take the fall for all of it, even though it is Congress' failure to act. As I predict, a Republican majority for the next 8 years, and we are fucking doomed. The taxes will be cut, helping no one, the spending will be out of control and we will have a $20T debt and economic collapse. unemployment will be 15% and they will blame Obama while they continue spending. Vote for Ralph or Paul, one or the other if you want anything to change. and toss out the old guard - every fucking one of them,

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-puts-medicare-social-security-cuts-table-031442907.html Obama has had social security and medicare cuts on the table since last summer. which part of 'your story' is that in? 'cause I cannot find it. and the automatic cuts are still cuts, so to say there are none, is a wash. Are you writing your congress reps to tell them that DoD cuts are necessary? I bet not. And I bet 'your' elected representatives do everything they can to block the cuts of any kind. so again, they are ALL assholes, on both sides and the people that support them, thinking that things will improve, are delusional at best.

sure they did - they are all kicking in automatically starting in 2013, and the politicians are already lobbying on the TV this a.m. early to stop the cuts before they even go into effect. especially the DoD Obama said "No" and he will veto any chance to do that. get yer story straight. I fail to see why the automatic spending cuts are not being implemented TODAY......across the board, EVERY department, ALL at once Then we would feel some pain, then we would see some change. Both sides are assholes. Glad I voted for neither one. When 2012 comes, the Republicans win a majority, the deficit goes up, spending stays out of control and the taxes get lowered and we are COMPLETELY in the shitter deeper than ever, - my prediction. Anyone who votes Rep or Dem and expects things to get better is fucking kidding themselves.....

the article is good but overly simplistic in the solution(s). In the 'good old days', people lived far shorter lives. There was still extreme poverty, but invisible to many, and unemployment existed back then too. racism, crime, scoial issues - we all like to believe those problems somehow did not exist back then - whatever time period that was....but the fact is - they did exist. If you did not 'make it' on your own, sure you probably just got sick and died. While the extreme right wing might find that to be a credo they can live with, the majority of the country does not see it that way. Longer life spans mean a higher tax on the systems that support them, social security and medicare. Higher population growth compounds that problem. And that is one small piece of the puzzle. easy for families to take care of their own? Not when both are working full-time to make ends meet as is the case today. The days of the 'working man' and the 'stay at home Mom' are also long gone. It is a different world so articles like this seem to compare apples and oranges. If you want to go back to the early 1900's, then we need to start putting minorities in tin shacks in poor counties in southern states, cut welfare and social security and let the life-expectancy lapse to those values, cut health care, because the diseases that we had back then like small-pox, polio and influenza epidemics would have to be 'OK', and you know what? I bet that helps to balance the budget. But the budget is not what it's really all about is it? It's supposed to be about the people too. there I go again, making sense......

we just ordered 6 UHF Blackbox radios from surplustwowayradios.com. I think the Motorola radios are good, but I would consider the durability of the 'family' radio that you can buy at walmart. We've been using VHF Spirit MV11C radios for years now, they are great, but they are also 20 years old and falling out of favor with the FCC bandwidths to come into effect soon. UHF if you can afford it, and I am told that the newer Motorola replacements for the Spirit are not that great, i.e. cannot replace antenna, poor workmanship etc. Hopefully these Blackbox ones work out,

If Ron Paul wins the nomination, even I will vote for him.

I would argue that any two canopies out that are under 150sq ft, or for that matter under 200 sq ft are probably not landable, and could at any moment turn into the 'nasty spinning mess' that you suggest.... unless in a perfect biplane, and even then only by shit-ass luck or expert canopy handling (which might require prior practice of said maneuver - also not recommended.) If you are unable to steer it sufficiently, then you end up on a roof, in the power lines or in the trees as the video recently suggested, there were not a lot of options. The "Best" scenario is landing the reserve parachute by itself. to do that, you need to get rid of the main. a side by side can be chopped. For that matter a biplane can be chopped - I have done it. Not recommended exactly, but we are talking about the lesser of evils, and there is no one answer for every scenario. I never liked the idea of landing two parachutes unless they are entangled. If they are NOT entangled, i believe the best strategy is to work on getting them separated enough to chop - a side by side is simple, takes a few seconds to accomplish and the quick chop can be done well before it gets to the 'spinning mess' and the bottom line is, don't pull low enough to have the two out, you are playing with fire.

with some riser input, you can usually get the bi-plane to a side-by-side and then chop the main. That would be my preference. unless of course you happen to pull at 800' and then wonder why you do not have time to think of all those options.....

my first 'skydive' girlfriend was 5'2" and 80lbs soaking wet. Bought gear too, a swift main and reserve, which was very tiny in 1983-84

+1

I wasn't comparing him to Obama, I was comparing him to Bush, maybe you missed that. you're right, people just 'misunderestimate' Perry.....

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/11/01/satire-on-occupy-wall-street-trips-up-rick-perry/ Much of mainstream US media overlooked this one as well in the NH debate. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. Perry is as bad or worse than GWB for being a complete doorknob. fact-check guys, that's all you have to do.

what ever do you mean? Surely you are referencing my level-headed perceptions of the realities that exist in this country, as ugly as they may be?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/perspective/article1199964.ece great article and says volumes about the mess and the inability of some to see it.

I not talking about rights and privileges and I am not talking about the Constitution. The USA has a GUN PROBLEM. Constitutionally allowed or not. it has a GUN PROBLEM. It also has a DRUG PROBLEM for example and I gave an example of a car problem. It also has an ALCOHOL PROBLEM. these are also 'people' problems as you say, but they are not treated as such. the USA has a gun problem. you heard me loud and clear. I gave up on the logic of the american people many many years ago on this issue.

Whatever You heard me loud and clear and we disagree

I'm not the bigot - i am actually suggesting that there are enough of them in the right wing that Cain would not get elected. raising funds is great, but that does not make an election - it just helps. Bachmann was on top of that heap for a while, but no more right? And yes it is less and less as generations pass, but somewhere out there right now is some guy sitting on his couch, polishing his rifle, mumbling to himself (about Obama), "I'm gonna be the one...." And I am suggesting that when it comes down to it, i doubt the right is ready for Black Pres. I still hear 'nigger' almost every day in Florida. just sayin'. Maybe the 'lynching' of Cain is also being fed by some of those people.

So what you are saying then is that these derivatives, designed and sold by wall st helped to fuel the bust? Thanks for helping to make my case, even if I may be mistaken about some of the regulations.... At least it is then an argument for future regulation right?

it had/has to be one thing or the other....does anyone REALLY believe that the right-wing in this country would elect a black President? really? Not a hope in hell of that happening IMO, so does not matter what the 'scandal is', he is/was done for anyway. But I am glad to see all the turmoil anyway. Now the choices of Romney and Perry - all good for the lefties....

You never asked me for that - you originally asked : and I answered it. Yes there is no one 'in charge' and perhaps the movement is not well defined. Yet. The examples I gave were examples throughout history that also had no one in charge and perhaps no clear goals in the beginning. There are pissed off people, and if you poo-poo the issues by saying something like "well if you cannot define specifically and exactly what the one issue is that we could possibly address and then represent that with a clear leader...." then you are just being a politician yourself and ignoring the trees because you can only see a forest. As for your specific issues: 1- SS isn't in danger. It would be safer if we weren't cutting the payroll tax right now, and if that becomes a common populist move, we would be better off with the private accounts No it's not in danger per se, but we might get to a point where we raise taxes to pay for wars while we cut SS benefits and we are still borrowing hugely to pay for everything. So SS and EVERYTHING is actually in danger unless we get the house in order 2- no # of banking regulations will prevent a bubble from bursting. How well did the Enron era SOX regs protect us this time? Wrong and only your opinion. Regulations used to prevent the types of worthless securities that were being sold and repackaged, and a more powerful overseeing agency might have realized that and possibly whistle-blown that these things were worthless and that the banks were also buying the insurance for when they went bust. Example, Canada - no bust to speak of - heavy regulations. 3- CEOs will always be paid more than workers. They're a scarce commodity, like left hand pitchers. Yes they will, but their pay is accelerating while everyone else's is remaining flat. that pisses people off and whether it is right or wrong is only a matter of opinion. CEO's get bonuses for moving jobs overseas and firing people. that is wrong IMO 4- corporations and unions and groups like AARP or the NRA have every right to be in politics. AARP and NRA are not unions. And yes, under the current laws, they do have a right to be in politics. I am suggested that the law be changed to prevent that. Completely, totally and unequivocally. And so is OWS 5- no one has yet to identify criminal acts by bankers. Losing money is not a felony. Nor is being wrong. IYO again. Lots of allegations have been made, a few investigations here and there, but a wonderful opportunity to write a few new laws to make sure they fucking well go to jail next time. When you lose your life's savings to an investment bank and the CEO walks away with hundreds of millions in salary, you probably want some fucker to hang for that. sounds reasonable to me. 6- we do seem to be ending the Iraqi war finally. But yes, this has been a bipartisan disaster. We could have left Iraq 7 years ago. agreed, and now we are telling everyone we need to continue to fund the war machine to save jobs.....really? get your fucking head screwed on right. 7- more money for ______. We are spending a trillion 4 in red ink each year. Personally, I think if we decide we need to spend to prop up the economy, real infrastructure is worth the red ink. But that means capital improvements, not money for teacher salaries, or any other recurring expenses. agree to a point, but we have a big country and it costs money to run. Everyone expects the government to run at 115% efficiency and every dime wasted is a dime stolen from the taxpayer. It's not actually reality. It costs money to run a country. figure out what you want, put the programs in place, tax the citizens to pay for it. simple. Tax bills should have line items for what you are paying for - we'd never fight another war again and we'd probably see some very large changes in education and healthcare/welfare too. And I consider education to be "infrastructure" but all you and others talk about is teachers salaries like that is the only part of the cost. We need education. Lots of it, and cheap. your other "suggestions": 1- cancel all underwater mortgage debt. Who pays for this? The tax payers? Those who funded the mortgages? What will this mean for future lending? Like many of the proposals, it shows no long term thinking. whether you do or don't, these losses pretty much always filter down to the public anyway. some money on a mortgage is better than no money, or at least you would think the banks would see it that way. My neighbor is foreclosed. They have not paid a dime in mortgage for 2 years, so they now have cash to buy another place outright. On the way out, they sold everything including the kitchen cabinets and the AC system and they are rolling up 600' of chain-link fence. The bank will lose the entire amount of the mortgage because the house will eventually be bulldozed. They would be better off to find a way to keep the house and the payments coming in rather than end up with a condemned property that is worthless. Not is every case, but in lots of them. 2- tax the rich. Possible, but vague. Also doesn't produce money for the various wants when our deficit is so bad. Not vague at all. If 1% have 95% of the wealth, there is a huge imbalance and their taxes would help to reduce the deficit and provide operating money and they would also still be extremely rich. Plus it would be a popular political move and would get almost any leader elected by an overwhelming majority. But it will not happen because the campaigns are funded by those wealthy people. Hence why I stated in my original and earlier posts: Large numbers of people can and will make a difference And eventually if the gov't does not listen and act, we will have a revolution event. My guess is a Republican majority for the next 8 years. Complete control of the country by the right wing. All the ideological policies that the right wants will be implemented to some degree and the situation with jobs will worsen, the economy will not improve and the public distaste and resentment will heighten even further. Republicans will actually be the ones to then implement universal healthcare and sweeping sociological changes (education, taxes) else they will be annihilated in the next election after that. And I am assuming that they will see that coming, 'cause I don't think they are that stupid, but they are currently on an ideological 'binge' It happened in Canada 25 years ago. The PC govt was so blind to the people after being so fucking arrogant and wrong for so many years that they were wiped out in one election. They are back in now, but not before making sweeping internal changes to their own mandates. Of course Canada ain't perfect either, politicians everywhere are assholes, liars and answer only to a few. That is why we have revolutions every few hundred years. here endeth the lesson.

Google "Occupy Goals" I found dozens of coherent articles, interviews, op-ed pieces, and blogs. Protecting social security, more banking regulations, leveling the playing field for salaries (CEO vs worker), getting corporations out of politics, bankers to go to jail for fraud for the meltdown, ending the wars, more money for education, less for wars, It was pretty easy actually. They might be all over the place, but perhaps that is because the country has a lot of problems that are transpiring all the way down to the lowest working man. But the bottom line is that the fat cats on Wall st are NOT looking after the people and they are (seemingly) getting all the breaks. Define it any way you want, but it is a problem and that is why they are out there. Free ride? If you think that is all it is about, then you have turned a blind eye to the real stories out there and focused only on a narrow few, which is what most people do (even me) when they get into a politicla debate. Now I have to go fire up an airplane for a early early cessna series of loads. That would be me, hard working American, going out to bust my ass to make a dollar, just like I am supposed to do so I can get a paycheck tomorrow, just like I am supposed to do, and I own an iphone and I own a mac, and I drive a corolla, and I am not a hippie, but I am most definitely a liberal, and I fully support the Occupy movement. The corporations are NOT looking out for your best interests. They never were. giving them tax breaks in hopes of getting jobs out of it is a myth. And within the corporations, the executives are NOT looking out for the best interests of the corporation either, they are lining their pockets with golden parachutes. But it is the American way and everyone seems to think that is OK. The best economic eras that we had: The rich were taxed heavily. Corporations were regulated, unions were strong and tariffs protected our manufacturing base and we had a strong middle class that oddly enough paid the large majority of taxes to the government.

we have one. GWB, born again. Did not work out so well as I remember. Let's not do that again.

kinda like the Tea Party - muddled messages, lots of gibberish, not really knowing what they want or where they are going... Maybe they have less to complain about in Canada. Life is pretty good there (I here). They weathered the economic crisis a hundred-fold better than we did. Might be all those hefty regulations looking out for the people, ya think?

It's about the people, not the one. and certainly not about the corporations.

IYO