Talking to an A$$hole

I had an amusing conversation with some person on Facebook last week. (This post is going to get really, really R rated with a touch of Louie CK, so I apologize for the language in advance). Look at the last few posts:

Me:

Equality of opportunity means you give everyone the same choices starting out. Equal education, healthcare, basic safety net. After that you are on your own. Go squander your education or run with it. Freeing people up from having to worry about medical bills or being on the street if their company goes bust is what allows people to accomplish awesome things. Otherwise only those with great wealth to begin with can free themselves of those worries. Yet you find that disagreeable. I'm not talking about giving everyone gold plated health insurance or a free car to drive. If you are worried that America is on that path though, fear not. America is the only advanced country where it actually does matter who your parents are, what income bracket you were born into, or if you have health problems. Our safety nets have so many holes in them that entire swaths of our citizens and their children live in poverty and are malnourished. So don't get upset at us progressives for talking like this, because America is a lot more like the world you say you want to live in vs. the one I'm talking about. It's more of a myth now to hear stories about someone who was poor and struck it rich. America loves this story though. Because everyone in America is convinced that they will someday be rich. That's why we love rich people because that could be us someday. That's why tax cuts for the wealthy are so popular. Everyone thinks they will be rich, so why would they vote to increase their future taxes? It's an awesome and effective deception. But we don't live in that world. We are all different and most of us are just average. It's good to remember that our world was created by people who were no smarter than us though, and that is why we need equal opportunity so that we as a people can continue on with this great experiment to pursue life, liberty, and happiness.

His response:

I know many people who began in poverty and are now much higher on the economic ladder. Simply because you don't know anyone who had capabilities to succeed beyond their beginning economic status does not negate their existence. You, sir, live with a Utopian vision of a money free existence where everyone busts their ass for the sake of feeling good. How much SOMA would it take to calm the masses into such a vision?

America IS a land where one can succeed if one has the desire, the drive, and the requisite ability.

My father in law, for one, began his life in and out of foster care because his mother had trouble taking care of her four older children. When he left home before eighteen it was with $50 that he had saved from working and that he managed to keep from being stolen by his own family.

Now he makes that much every 15-20 minutes. He had no lucky breaks or silver spoon or connections of any kind and he made it because it IS possible in America.

That is the beauty of my country. If you try, you have the possibility of exceptional advancement.

There are tradeoffs in such a society. I know my father-in-law feels awkward going back to where he grew up. He is more successful than anyone else in his neighborhood. Some even demand money from him so he doesn't go back too often. There is transparent resentment over his success.

I find it difficult to see such a man and then to see a diatribe such as yours written by someone with the same possibilities for success.

Before I knew him, I thought I would remain in the same economic stratum as my parents, which is what something like 90% of the population does. Instead, I now understand that determination is what's needed. Determination and ability, which can be learned, as long as you're honest with yourself and position your career so that it's moving forward.

I work long hours and have travelled extensively for work. I am a platinum elite member of Marriott and I've got a lot of air miles stored up.

I've put close to 35,000 miles on my car in one year and I begin my work days at 6 AM and end at 5:30-9 PM. I spend my free time playing with my family, educating myself about the industry, working out, watching my Cowboys lose, and sleeping.

I've lost patience for people that I grew up with that had the same advantages yet squandered everything. Now, they demand "fairness" and "equality" because they can't get work after spending time in jail or because they chose to teach English in Barbados during their twenties.

I have to go now. Today, I'm weightlifting, then grocery shopping, then getting my kid to her overpriced daycare where she learns English, Spanish and, as of June, Mandarin. Then I'll write a dozen reports, which will take only today if I'm lucky. Ill then cook dinner, watch television with my wife, put my kid to bed, work some more, then go to sleep between 9 and 10. Tomorrow ill be up at 5:30 AM starting the whole thing again.

Keep your ideals of a stress free, money provided existence. In the world we actually live in, I'm proud of my accomplishments and I look forward to more.

Then in another post, this guy laid out what his plans are for his future:

I think you're underestimating nationwide anger at Obama. In any case, I'm gun shopping and I have a Costco membership. My family will be okay in the case of an anti-Christian soulless liberal dictatorship headed by King Barack and Queen Michele. The soul of America must be fought for but I'm hedging myself against the possibility that we continue supporting Islamo-Fascism, Race Card politics, nationwide infrastructure erosion, and idiot welfare policies.

My Dad's right. When I've made my millions, we'll campaign together, creating a new Independant Party with the pragmatism of Teddy Roosevelt, the drive of James Polk, and the political savvy of Lincoln.

The dude really pissed me off and he is a total asshole, but the point of his attacking me was...I don't know what. The guy is my age, yet he thinks like this. Boy, his dad must have been a total asshole too. Sounds like he was if he came from the poorer neighborhoods and had to deal with all that crap. And I don't blame his dad for being an asshole because that is what he probably had to be just to survive in that environment. Two points here. I don't really care about his dad, and I also think that it's insane that in America today we still have to have areas of the country that are mired in poverty. WHAT the fuck is that all about?? Anyways, he seemed to believe that the changes I was proposing would turn us all into lazy loafs. Uh, no you fucking idiot. I'm not proposing we go to some fucking ass backwards collective like Communist China during Mao. Those people did nothing because they wouldn't get rewarded for doing more. That's fucking retarded. How the fuck do these idiots form their worldview? I propose that the field is tilted back towards being slightly favorable to Main Street, and suddenly I'm this moron. Go fuck off, pal. Why come to the conclusion that I'm some jobless hippy fuck just because I'm saying that there is some gross inequality going on. I think that if you look at what I'm saying, I would probably INCREASE this douche's chances of getting wealthy and making his goals because the changes I am urging would throw out all the scheming and rotten douche bag bankers, executives, and lawyers that are currently sitting at the top and kicking everyone else in the face. But this fuck nut doesn't get it. Maybe he is one of those douche bag idiots, and if we clear out all those assholes, then his chances really would go down the drain. Acutally, as I was reviewing the Facebook posts for this blog, I learned that the guy works in the fossil fuel extraction business, and almost all of those folks seem to think that any changes to the status quo = doom for everyone. So that does make him part of the problem, not because he is working on something that provides me with fuel that I need, but that he seems to think that his efforts are the only way forward. Well, too bad for you, you fucking idiot shithead. I don't give a rats fuck how hard you or your dad work. Don't come at me and use that as the straw man against my reasonable arguments, you piece of shit. I work hard too, you motherfucker. You think you are better than me. You are not, sir. Equality of Opportunity is NOT Maoism, you dumb fuck.

John Stewart and Jim DeMint discuss things

Stewart did an awesome job confronting DeMint on Republican fallacies. Stewart shows remarkable and keeps his cool while bringing out the facts for DeMint. I'm really, really impressed with his performance here. DeMint's claim that the Bush tax cuts did not lower federal revenue are total bunk. DeMint's concept of how Social Security is sad because it's incorrect. Current retirees did NOT earn what they are pulling out of the system. FICA and payroll taxes go directly to current beneficiaries. It's a direct transfer of wealth from current workers and younger (those under 65) workers to retirees. It was designed that way to make it very, very hard to change either system. Both systems were designed to run deficits. His ideas are wrong because he refuses to grasp reality and facts. I think you could argue that you could make it so that SS and Medicare/Medicaid do not run in the red so much if at all, but the only way to do that without cutting benefits is to raise taxes, which is an absolute no go for all Republicans and many Democrats. Stewart comes back to the fact that the portrayal of Republican ideas that if we restrain free markets in any way is a surefire way to hell, or that raising taxes will immediately make America the next European Bankruptcy is what makes having conversations with folks who believe that so frustrating. Their reality is not based on facts. They claim that 2+2 = 5, and if you say, 'no it's actually 4', they reply 'well, maybe so, but my point is....' That's not way to have a conversation! Yes, we reward those who have merit. Most wealthy in this country earned their wealth by working hard and doing the right things. That's great! But we do live in a society, and to keep that society going so that others might have that same chance, we all need to chip in to maintain what we have got here. Helping out our fellow citizens in some small way is not a prescription for communism nor does it mean that I hate freedom.

Here are all three segments:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jim DeMint Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jim DeMint Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Jim DeMint Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Why people are mad at the rich bankers

People love a success story. Look at the outpouring of grief and support for Steve Jobs' death. What makes people mad is when success is accomplished through cheating or unfairly. Look at how people go NUTS over something as dumb as steroids in sports. We Americans think we have this great idea of what fairness is, and when that fairness is violated, we really get upset. So that is why people on the right and left are really mad at bankers right now. They received bailouts and are now doing very, very well. But the bankers don't get it. Joshua M. Brown over at The Reformed Broker really nails it in this post.

Old Person Whining

My Dad sent me this today:

THE GREEN THING

  

Checking  out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the older woman that she  should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for  the environment.

The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't  have this green thing back in my earlier days."

The clerk  responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough  to save our environment for future generations."

She was right --  our generation didn't have the green thing in its day or didn't call it "green."

Back then,  we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The  store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and  refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really  were recycled. But we didn't have the green thing back in our  day.

We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in  every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't  climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks.  But she was right. We didn't have the green thing in our day.

Back  then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw-away  kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine  burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes  back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers  or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right.  We didn't have the green thing back in our day.

Back then, we had  one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a  small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the  size of the state of Montana . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by  hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old  newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap  Back then,  we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We  used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we  didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on  electricity. But she's right.  We didn't have the green thing back  then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of  using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We  refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we  replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole  razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the green thing  back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus, and kids  rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a  24-hour taxi service. We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an  entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a  computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles  out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the green thing back then?

Please forward  this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person.


Remember:  Don't make old people mad! 

 

We don't  like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to tick us  off.

I wrote a response, but I'm not sure I should send it to him.

Wow…ok, this will probably make you mad, but here goes. 

Nobody brings bottles and cans into the stores anymore because the stores refuse to take them, and people fight curbside recycling programs until they are forced to use them and they everyone says how wonderful they are. And the above comment from the clerk was about plastic bags, not glass and aluminum. Walking everywhere was seen as an inconvenience, so the older folks created cars and suburbs and sprawl so they wouldn't have to walk everywhere, then became old and didn’t like being old so they created pills for erectile dysfunction and cholesterol and shove these ads all over the TV so that my 4 year old asks me what that is, and they parade around in free, government-funded electric wheelchairs and scream about DEATHPANELS! as soon as someone mentions making any changes to Medicare for anyone over 55. Advances in technology and medicine have lulled us into believing we can fix anything that's wrong with our bodies, pain and expense be damned. Our politicians capitalize on this antagonism by assuring the old folks that their government benefits will be fine, that all the proposed changes only apply to the next generation. But who pays for the old folks benefits? Folks who aren’t retired yet. But the workers still have to put up with being told how we are doing everything wrong while we are expected to support our older generation on top of supporting ourselves.

We are forced to drive everywhere because our parents designed our cities to force us to use cars because that is ‘freedom’ and we only go to our cities to work and then flee to the suburbs, making the cities practically deserts at night. These old folks have taught us that economic growth is the ultimate goal for capitalism, yet all we have to show for it is more JUNK with less overall happiness. Maybe old people are mad because they are being shown that their views of the world might be incorrect in some ways. What’s wrong with that? I know some of my views are incorrect, and I would like to learn why and how. But we don’t reward knowledge anymore unless it can make you obscene amounts of money.

People choose to use dryers. We aren’t forced to use them. But we are continually bashed over the head with very, very effective advertising saying that we should use dryers and that walking is for dummies and that we aren’t manly men if we don’t own GIGANTIC MADE IN THE USA FORD F-350 Diesels that have HEMIS and can pull a gigantic boat that we never use. All I wanted to do was watch a freaking football game, yet I have to hear about how my lifestyle is inadequate during every commercial break. So dryers are bad but washing machines are good? When was the last time you hand washed all your clothes? I have to mute the TV during the ads because the commercials are so loud that even if I flee the room I am bombarded by the sound and fury of these commercials. Yet if I ignore these ads and refuse to buy things I don’t need, I am told that I am being un-American for not buying things and keeping the economy going. I don’t think that the old people were told that not buying is un-American, yet these same older folks who run and profit from these companies in retirement are telling us to do so. I don’t get it. If we just eliminate the god awful amounts of CRAP that we make, we would be much better off.

I like using a fountain for drinking water. A lot of people don’t because in a lot of places in the country the city water is HORRIBLE because old and young alike refuse to pay for new water infrastructure. Old folks remember what the old days were like because they were experiencing all of this fabulous new infrastructure that was NEW so that the water tasted a lot better and wasn’t full of giardia from the well or stream.

I take the bus because it makes sense and is actually cheaper than driving my car everywhere. Old people must think we are really pathetic for letting our kids run our lives, yet aren’t they the ones that taught us to do that when they were driving us around to soccer and baseball games in the 80’s? People do this because they think that our kids want to have really fulfilling childhoods because that will get them and edge in life and they are just sick and tired of hearing grandpa bitch about how he had to walk to school in 8 feet of snow uphill both ways every time they say hello to him and maybe they don’t want their kids to turn out the same way.

Old folks were wasteful back in the day, but like most Americans today including me and you, we are all wasteful now and have embraced the wasteful lifestyle. I think being able to use my phone to find a pizza joint is awesome now, and saves a lot of paper instead of using a phone book that doesn’t ever get used. If you agree with how dumb a smartphone is, why do you own one yourself?

Kids today are a product of their upbringing, so if kids are whining now, isn’t that because the parents (now the older generations) spoiled the snot out of them and didn’t teach them that reality doesn’t always mean getting a gold star for finger painting or their 5^th grade graduation? We teach kids that they are special, but if everyone is special, then no one is.

Old folks scold kids for staying inside and playing video games, and while exercise is a must, I bet those old folks would have played video games if they had been around when they were young. They would have eaten (and do eat) at McDonalds. When the old folks were young, all these appliances were touted and embraced as signs of PROGRESS and American ingenuity. Now they are being labeled as terrible devices that make everyone lazy. I’m pretty sure that our grandparents’ grandparents grumbled about how cars were dumb and the horse and buggy was all that was needed (never mind the massive piles of dung that would collect in the streets). People were and are wasteful because they don’t know any better. Why is knowledge treated as a bad thing nowadays? It’s human nature to resist change, but as humans aren’t we obliged to take care of our environment and not just exploit it?

So just spare me the old person whining, and I’ll spare you mine. What ever happened to ‘We are all in this together.”?

That’s how I was raised. 

Why do the Republicans even exist?

Robert Reich has an interesting blog post about how damaging it would be if the Republicans destroyed themselves. I don't know...If they took down the people who make sense and aren't bullies, that would be bad. But if they bullies go away how would that be bad? I mean, would it really be a bad thing if the absolute whackos in this country were silenced, or muzzled to a point of irrelevance? The Left has crazies too, but they do not dominate the discussion as the crazies on the Right does. Letting the party implode so that they prove to the country how whacked they are seems like it would allow the saner folks on the right to get back in the driver seat. We have become a country where we let our toddlers throw tantrums anytime they want without any discipline. That is wrong. I was raised better than that. Why is that tolerated now?

Reich's conclusion about needing two parties grounded in reality seems like the happy ideal. I don't think either party is grounded in reality right now. Having one party implode might shake the other party awake and get them grounded. I don't know. All I know is that I am absolutely terrified of what the next year could be for my family, and I'm not seeing much hope. A storm is coming.

Now, on that cheery note: How is it that Republicans can run around SCREAMING about how we need to pay for the payroll tax cut when these same assholes claims that all tax cuts pay for themselves and that offsets are unnecessary? Does that 'pay for itself' logic only apply when when vast majority of tax cuts go to wealthy earners? How about Paul Ryan, who claims to be worried about the federal budget, but was nowhere to be seen with these worries during the Bush Administration and who voted for the Medicare Part D drug plan. A plan whose cost is $400 billion and is completely unfunded except via debt? How does that work, sir? David Frum calls out how silly it's getting when the Wall St. Journal goes after House Republicans over the payroll tax.

On the ABC Sunday political talk show This Week Robert Reich, George Will, Barney Frank, and Paul Ryan debated each other over various topics. It was a good but odd debate. The debate was too short. But I found myself agreeing with Will and Ryan on how to deal with the banks. But if their ideas were proposed by a Democrat, then that Democrat would be called a Socialist by Will and Ryan. Republicans = Cognitive Dissonance.

See the show below:


Part one of the debate:


Part two:


One of the things that I've been wondering is how rich people have gotten so rich. If you look at the ones who earned their wealth not through inheritance, it is easy to come to the conclusion that these are folks that stuck with it through thick and thing, good times and bad, etc. People who are mentally tough and can take some abuse and dish it out. Yet as soon as Obama says that tax rates should go back to the 90's, and that there is income inequality, you see some of these lucky people go on television and whine about how they do agree that taxes should go up, but they are bothered by the tone. Are these folks babies? I don't get it. Life is tough. Shut up and deal with it. I was thinking about this, and then Krugman came to the same conclusion the other day, so that felt like a confirmation of sorts in my thinking.

Rick Perry has started collecting his government pension while still governor of Texas. WTF??? I thought greedy public employees were part of the problem. His response: "It's legal to do this in the state of Texas." Good for you, you douche. What he's saying is 'It's not me. It's THEM that are the problem.' Please go away, Rick Perry.

I can't answer why the Republican party still exists. But maybe Republicans will answer that all by themselves.

Not if but how

Bruce Bartlett weighs in on taxing the rich. Lots and LOTS of debunking here.

Editorial from Bloomberg News

Wow, what a day. TONS of great commentary. Starting off, there is a GREAT op-ed in Boomberg news about how taxing the rich is a good thing. Here's the link, but this is so good I'm just going to paste the whole thing here:

Raise Taxes on Rich to Reward True Job Creators: Nick Hanauer

By Nick Hanauer - Nov 30, 2011

It is a tenet of American economic beliefs, and an article of faith for Republicans that is seldom contested by Democrats: If taxes are raised on the rich, job creation will stop.
Trouble is, sometimes the things that we know to be true are dead wrong. For the larger part of human history, for example, people were sure that the sun circles the Earth and that we are at the center of the universe. It doesn’t, and we aren’t. The conventional wisdom that the rich and businesses are our nation’s “job creators” is every bit as false.
I’m a very rich person. As an entrepreneur and venture capitalist, I’ve started or helped get off the ground dozens of companies in industries including manufacturing, retail, medical services, the Internet and software. I founded the Internet media company aQuantive Inc., which was acquired by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) in 2007 for $6.4 billion. I was also the first non-family investor in Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN)
Even so, I’ve never been a “job creator.” I can start a business based on a great idea, and initially hire dozens or hundreds of people. But if no one can afford to buy what I have to sell, my business will soon fail and all those jobs will evaporate.
That’s why I can say with confidence that rich people don’t create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is the feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion a virtuous cycle that allows companies to survive and thrive and business owners to hire. An ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than I ever have been or ever will be.

Theory of Evolution

When businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it is like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it’s the other way around.
It is unquestionably true that without entrepreneurs and investors, you can’t have a dynamic and growing capitalist economy. But it’s equally true that without consumers, you can’t have entrepreneurs and investors. And the more we have happy customers with lots of disposable income, the better our businesses will do.
That’s why our current policies are so upside down. When the American middle class defends a tax system in which the lion’s share of benefits accrues to the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.
And that’s what has been happening in the U.S. for the last 30 years.
Since 1980, the share of the nation’s income for fat cats like me in the top 0.1 percent has increased a shocking 400 percent, while the share for the bottom 50 percent of Americans has declined 33 percent. At the same time, effective tax rates on the superwealthy fell to 16.6 percent in 2007, from 42 percent at the peak of U.S. productivity in the early 1960s, and about 30 percent during the expansion of the 1990s. In my case, that means that this year, I paid an 11 percent rate on an eight-figure income.
One reason this policy is so wrong-headed is that there can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the average American, but we don’t buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like most American men. Like everyone else, I go out to eat with friends and family only occasionally.
It’s true that we do spend a lot more than the average family. Yet the one truly expensive line item in our budget is our airplane (which, by the way, was manufactured in France by Dassault Aviation SA (AM)), and those annual costs are mostly for fuel (from the Middle East). It’s just crazy to believe that any of this is more beneficial to our economy than hiring more teachers or police officers or investing in our infrastructure.

More Shoppers Needed

I can’t buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can’t buy any new clothes or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the tens of millions of middle-class families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.
If the average American family still got the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would have an astounding $13,000 more in their pockets a year. It’s worth pausing to consider what our economy would be like today if middle-class consumers had that additional income to spend.
It is mathematically impossible to invest enough in our economy and our country to sustain the middle class (our customers) without taxing the top 1 percent at reasonable levels again. Shifting the burden from the 99 percent to the 1 percent is the surest and best way to get our consumer-based economy rolling again.
Significant tax increases on the about $1.5 trillion in collective income of those of us in the top 1 percent could create hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in our economy, rather than letting it pile up in a few bank accounts like a huge clot in our nation’s economic circulatory system.
Consider, for example, that a puny 3 percent surtax on incomes above $1 million would be enough to maintain and expand the current payroll tax cut beyond December, preventing a $1,000 increase on the average worker’s taxes at the worst possible time for the economy. With a few more pennies on the dollar, we could invest in rebuilding schools and infrastructure. And even if we imposed a millionaires’ surtax and rolled back the Bush- era tax cuts for those at the top, the taxes on the richest Americans would still be historically low, and their incomes would still be astronomically high.
We’ve had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like me don’t create jobs. Middle-class consumers do, and when they thrive, U.S. businesses grow and profit. That’s why taxing the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for both the middle class and the rich.
So let’s give a break to the true job creators. Let’s tax the rich like we once did and use that money to spur growth by putting purchasing power back in the hands of the middle class. And let’s remember that capitalists without customers are out of business.

And along that vein, here is a great op-ed on the decision to throw out the SEC-Citigroup no wrongdoing settlement that was handed down on Monday.

Here's another op-ed on how inequality is being portrayed incorrectly by both sides of the US political classes.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities continues it's examination of income inequality.

It seems that things are starting to tilt: Occupy Wall Street has changed the conversation that this country is having about inequality, Massachusetts is bringing a really strong case against the banks over the housing mess, and the court system is staring to dislike the smell that is coming from the partnership the banks have with the SEC.I hope this trend continues, as this is very encouraging.