Rage. Probably political rage. Maybe just personal rage. Lots of sarcasm and cynicism. Also pretty pictures.

mamamantis:

rainbowdash-likesgirls:

oldtobegin:

jacquelinejane:

lovehustle:

specialshera:

thumbsuckerx:

And it’s shit like this that I don’t really think people understand. While you’re supporting the gutting of food stamps, medicaid, and other social programs, you’re legitimately committing people to die. 

One of the men I’ve known my entire life passed away this year because he had to choose between care for his heart issues and putting food on the table for his kids.
This isn’t a joke.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, PLEASE?

It is simply disgusting that the US STILL doesn’t have universal health care. Wake up… :|

when rick santorum claims that nobody in the united states dies because of a lack of health insurance…

My sister had cancer and died this July just before her 20th birthday. I always say she was one of the lucky ones. Why? If we were not so well off we would not have been able to pay for her treatment. They couldn’t save her anyway, but I’m crying thinking of the pain she would have been in if we wouldn’t have been able to afford it. I also would have lost about two years with her. Without healthcare, she would have died around her 18th birthday. Most of those two years were healthy and happy for her, thanks to the healthcare we were able to afford. I’m floored at how privileged I am—and how much you have to be to afford cancer treatment. A simple CAT scan, which had to be done every couple months, was in the five-figure range. And that’s not even treatment. I don’t know exactly how much that cost, but it put a financial strain on us even though our family income is upwards of $150k. Please, people: the current healthcare system is discriminatory, family-destroying, and worst of all, places a price on human life.

if you don’t support government supported healthcare and welfare i hate you

mamamantis:

rainbowdash-likesgirls:

oldtobegin:

jacquelinejane:

lovehustle:

specialshera:

thumbsuckerx:

And it’s shit like this that I don’t really think people understand. While you’re supporting the gutting of food stamps, medicaid, and other social programs, you’re legitimately committing people to die. 

One of the men I’ve known my entire life passed away this year because he had to choose between care for his heart issues and putting food on the table for his kids.

This isn’t a joke.

UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE, PLEASE?

It is simply disgusting that the US STILL doesn’t have universal health care. Wake up… :|

when rick santorum claims that nobody in the united states dies because of a lack of health insurance…

My sister had cancer and died this July just before her 20th birthday. I always say she was one of the lucky ones. Why? If we were not so well off we would not have been able to pay for her treatment. They couldn’t save her anyway, but I’m crying thinking of the pain she would have been in if we wouldn’t have been able to afford it. I also would have lost about two years with her. Without healthcare, she would have died around her 18th birthday. Most of those two years were healthy and happy for her, thanks to the healthcare we were able to afford. I’m floored at how privileged I am—and how much you have to be to afford cancer treatment. A simple CAT scan, which had to be done every couple months, was in the five-figure range. And that’s not even treatment. I don’t know exactly how much that cost, but it put a financial strain on us even though our family income is upwards of $150k. Please, people: the current healthcare system is discriminatory, family-destroying, and worst of all, places a price on human life.

if you don’t support government supported healthcare and welfare i hate you

(Source: wearethe99percent)

Why You Shouldn’t Shop at Walmart on Friday

robertreich:

A half century ago America’s largest private-sector employer was General Motors, whose full-time workers earned an average hourly wage of around $50, in today’s dollars, including health and pension benefits.

Today, America’s largest employer is Walmart, whose average employee earns $8.81 an hour. A third of Walmart’s employees work less than 28 hours per week and don’t qualify for benefits.

There are many reasons for the difference – including globalization and technological changes that have shrunk employment in American manufacturing while enlarging it in sectors involving personal services, such as retail.

But one reason, closely related to this seismic shift, is the decline of labor unions in the United States. In the 1950s, over a third of private-sector workers belonged to a union. Today fewer than 7 percent do. As a result, the typical American worker no longer has the bargaining clout to get a sizeable share of corporate profits.

At the peak of its power and influence in the 1950s, the United Auto Workers could claim a significant portion of GM’s earnings for its members.

Walmart’s employees, by contrast, have no union to represent them. So they’ve had no means of getting much of the corporation’s earnings.

Walmart earned $16 billion last year (it just reported a 9 percent increase in earnings in the third quarter of 2012, to $3.6 billion), the lion’s share of which went instead to Walmart’s shareholders — including the family of its founder, Sam Walton, who earned on their Walmart stock more than the combined earnings of the bottom 40 percent of American workers.

Is this about to change? Despite decades of failed unionization attempts, Walmart workers are planning to strike or conduct some other form of protest outside at least 1,000 locations across the United States this Friday – so-called “Black Friday,” the biggest shopping day in America when the Christmas holiday buying season begins.

At the very least, the action gives Walmart employees a chance to air their grievances in public – not only lousy wages (as low at $8 an hour) but also unsafe and unsanitary working conditions, excessive hours, and sexual harassment. The result is bad publicity for the company exactly when it wants the public to think of it as Santa Claus. And the threatened strike, the first in 50 years, is gaining steam.

The company is fighting back. It has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board to preemptively ban the Black Friday strikes. The complaint alleges that the pickets are illegal “representational” picketing designed to win recognition for the United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW) union. Walmart’s workers say they’re protesting unfair labor practices rather than acting on behalf of the UFCW. If a court sides with Walmart, it could possibly issue an injunction blocking Black Friday’s pickets.

What happens at Walmart will have consequences extending far beyond the company. Other big box retailers are watching carefully. Walmart is their major competitor. Its pay scale and working conditions set the standard.

More broadly, the widening inequality reflected in the gap between the pay of Walmart workers and the returns to Walmart investors, including the Walton fammily, haunts the American economy.

Consumer spending is 70 percent of economic activity, but consumers are also workers. And as income and wealth continue to concentrate at the top, and the median wage continues to drop – it’s now 8 percent lower than it was in 2000 – a growing portion of the American workforce lacks the purchasing power to get the economy back to speed. Without a vibrant and growing middle class, Walmart itself won’t have the customers it needs.

Most new jobs in America are in personal services like retail, with low pay and bad hours. According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the average full-time retail worker earns between $18,000 and $21,000 per year.

But if retail workers got a raise, would consumers have to pay higher prices to make up for it? A new study by the think tank Demos reports that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers.

And, in the end, retailers would benefit. According to the study, the cost of the wage increases to major retailers would be $20.8 billion — about one percent of the sector’s $2.17 trillion in total annual sales. But the study also estimates the increased purchasing power of lower-wage workers as a result of the pay raises would generate $4 billion to $5 billion in additional retail sales.

This seems like a good deal all around.

PerSe1010:

Don’t turn your auto-cynic on immediately and I hope you read Rob Reich’s whole post because what he’s saying is accurate and bears recognition. It’s that time of year again when we’re going to see these blog entries regarding big box retailers and Walmart in general being evil. Boycott! Don’t shop there! Strike! Maybe those will help in achieving the goals these lower level employees are working toward. We as consumers have to play our parts as well. We have to help make their voices and ours hear. We have to vote and participate civic-ly in whatever way we can. Sure this is capitalism and capitalism is not a bad thing, but at a point, one Walmart seems close to reaching, where capitalism starts to work against you. Short term - maybe you’re okay with that. Maybe Walmart is okay with it. I’m not.

We have to end this trend of the companies’ profits going only to the top and shareholders, while hanging the employees - the employees who keep these business running and earning upwards of $Trillions annually - “out to dry” with less than a living wage and no benefits.

Investing in the employees of these companies is investing in the economy and in the communities, and will only strengthen your business in the long term. Sure you can treat you employees like shit and pay them shit and keep all the profits for yourself and cut costs by lowering the quality of production - but exactly how much longer do you think people, your employees and the consumers, will tolerate it? 10 more years? 20?

But if retail workers got a raise, would consumers have to pay higher prices to make up for it? A new study by the think tank Demos reports that raising the salary of all full-time workers at large retailers to $25,000 per year would lift more than 700,000 people out of poverty, at a cost of only a 1 percent price increase for customers.

And, in the end, retailers would benefit. According to the study, the cost of the wage increases to major retailers would be $20.8 billion — about one percent of the sector’s $2.17 trillion in total annual sales. But the study also estimates the increased purchasing power of lower-wage workers as a result of the pay raises would generate $4 billion to $5 billion in additional retail sales.

This seems like a good deal all around.

Yeah, it does. - Perse1010

…evidence from San Francisco suggests we should be very suspicious of firms pleading poverty as they charge surcharges. The city adopted pioneering universal health care legislation that, like Obamacare, imposed higher costs on some classes of employers. Many of them responded with special health care surcharges. Upon investigation, much of this surcharge money just ended up in the pockets of business owners, as with any other price increase.

downlo:

Back in September, the Congressional Research Service released a report that found no evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy spur economic growth. Republicans objected to the wording and findings of the report. It ended up being quietly pulled in mid-September. From the NYT article about this:

Congressional aides and outside economists said they were not aware of previous efforts to discredit a study from the research service.

“When their math doesn’t add up, Republicans claim that their vague version of economic growth will somehow magically make up the difference. And when that is refuted, they’re left with nothing more to lean on than charges of bias against nonpartisan experts,” said Representative Sander Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Maddowblog points out that this is not a new tactic for Republican lawmakers:

This was consistently one of the more offensive hallmarks of the Bush/Cheney era. In 2005…after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. Reality proved problematic, so rather than addressing the problem, the Republican administration decided to hide the reality.

Soon after, the Bush administration was discouraged by data about factory closings in the U.S., the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings.

When Bush’s Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.

[…]

And now, we’re seeing a similar problem. Republicans have adopted trickle-down, supply-side economics as the foundation for their entire worldview. The Congressional Research Service used reliable, objective information to report what most mainstream economists widely accepted — if the goal is boosting economic growth, giving people who already rich a tax break doesn’t do anything except make the gap between rich and poor more dramatic.

This is all part of a pattern: if conservatives don’t like the facts, they not only dispute them, but try to bury them. So we have climate change deniers in government. More recently, they’ve attacked Nate Silver for using math instead of his gut to predict the outcome of the 2012 election and made paranoid, unsubstantiated claims that national polls are all skewed against Mitt Romney.

The GOP is a party that stands for the denial of reality, obstructionism, and bullshit. No wonder the GOP nominated a blatant liar like Romney to be president. I cannot believe these mendacious assholes are the only other major political party in this country.

mediamattersforamerica:

Fox News tries to mislead its viewers (again) by grabbing whatever numbers they find most convenient to fit their narrative.
In this graphic Fox suggests government spending increased from 3.2% of the economy when Bush left office to an average of 23.8% under Obama.
What Fox really did was compare the level of deficits under Bush to overall spending under Obama — two completely different measures of government spending.

mediamattersforamerica:

Fox News tries to mislead its viewers (again) by grabbing whatever numbers they find most convenient to fit their narrative.

In this graphic Fox suggests government spending increased from 3.2% of the economy when Bush left office to an average of 23.8% under Obama.

What Fox really did was compare the level of deficits under Bush to overall spending under Obama — two completely different measures of government spending.

PerSe1010:

jasencomstock:
Supposedly this is a compelling cartoon that shows how ‘crazy’ those public sector unions are.

So what, because some people working in the Private Sector (where, in my line of work, the pay is much higher than in the Public Sector) supposedly don’t have pensions or benefits, the people working in the Public Sector suddenly don’t deserve the benefits that they’ve worked for? Bullshit. How about corporations that are making record profits put some of that money back into their workforce and stop making decent hard-working public sector employees into the bad guy? Unions happened for a reason - workers were and once again are being mistreated and taken advantage of and in this recession where so many people are jobless, they are a dime-a-dozen. Are we seriously going to have to repeat the entire 20th century? (and not just Labor issues…)

PerSe1010:

jasencomstock:

Supposedly this is a compelling cartoon that shows how ‘crazy’ those public sector unions are.

So what, because some people working in the Private Sector (where, in my line of work, the pay is much higher than in the Public Sector) supposedly don’t have pensions or benefits, the people working in the Public Sector suddenly don’t deserve the benefits that they’ve worked for? Bullshit. How about corporations that are making record profits put some of that money back into their workforce and stop making decent hard-working public sector employees into the bad guy? Unions happened for a reason - workers were and once again are being mistreated and taken advantage of and in this recession where so many people are jobless, they are a dime-a-dozen. Are we seriously going to have to repeat the entire 20th century? (and not just Labor issues…)

robertreich:

The Cory Booker imbroglio has ignited a silly but potentially pernicious debate in the Democratic Party between so-called “pro-growth centrists” who want the President to focus on how well he’s done getting the economy back on its feet after the Bush administration almost knocked it out, and…

Don’t Iraq Iran. Tell the President to back off a threats of war in Iran. Not another war! @roots_action

righteousblasphemy:

abaldwin360:

As we’ve been noting, corporate profits have made it back to their pre-recession heights (even if corporate tax revenue hasn’t followed suit). In fact, in 2011, corporate profits hit their highest level since 1950. But as Bloomberg News noted…

PerSe1010:

pantslessprogressive:
Five Things You Probably Don’t Know About Food Stamps

1. A large and growing share of SNAP households are working households
 One reason why SNAP is serving more working families is that, for a growing share of  the nation’s workers, having a job has not been enough to keep them out of poverty.
2. SNAP responded quickly and effectively to the recession.
3. Today’s large SNAP caseloads mostly reflect the extraordinarily deep and prolonged recession and the weak recovery.
4. SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program.

5. SNAP’s recent growth is temporary.
 Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the economy. So, it is not contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.
Source: Off the Charts Blog - Center on Budget & Policy Priorities

PerSe1010:

pantslessprogressive:

Five Things You Probably Don’t Know About Food Stamps

1. A large and growing share of SNAP households are working households

One reason why SNAP is serving more working families is that, for a growing share of the nation’s workers, having a job has not been enough to keep them out of poverty.

2. SNAP responded quickly and effectively to the recession.

3. Today’s large SNAP caseloads mostly reflect the extraordinarily deep and prolonged recession and the weak recovery.

4. SNAP has one of the most rigorous quality control systems of any public benefit program.

SNAP is Projected to Shrink as a Share of GDP

5. SNAP’s recent growth is temporary.

Over the long term, SNAP is not growing faster than the economy. So, it is not contributing to the nation’s long-term fiscal problems.

Source: Off the Charts Blog - Center on Budget & Policy Priorities

Advantages for investments have significantly reduced the effective federal income tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans.

12-year-old Severn Cullis-Suzuki speaking at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

PerSe1010

If you didn’t see this video then (or even if you did) you should watch this right now. 

(MoveOn.org: Found on leeks5229′s YouTube Channel. Originally submitted by Brandon W.)

jasencomstock:

thetart:

Visualizing the 2012 Federal Discretionary Budget

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

jasencomstock:

thetart:

Visualizing the 2012 Federal Discretionary Budget

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh