*Facepalm*

Let us all give a moment's silence for that delicious, slightly greasy, cream-filled sponge cake known as the Twinkie.

Yeah, I'll miss them every once in awhile.

But, as much as I believe unions are just as corrupt as those they theoretically protect us from, the blame for this does not rest on the unions. It does not rest on the 18,500 workers being laid off from Hostess.

I blame the leadership!

So... you go into a company that is supposedly already ailing, then the execs get nearly an 80% pay raise, and the CEO a 300% pay raise, and you can't afford to do jack shit for the workers? Then you blame them and the unions.

Bad leadership is easier to replace than one good, skilled worker. And this is 18,500 people out of a job because of a handful of greedy, already rich people boarding an already sinking ship and plundering it. They've got theirs, screw the workers.

So again, the rich people are whining about how they are suffering so much while they make themselves richer by screwing over the very people who got them there. Any of this sinking in yet?

Tax Increase on the Wealthy

This probably won't be a long post, but I had a thought occur to me and nag at me just as I was on my way to bed after reading this article: Obama won't back down on raising taxes for the rich.

Basically, the taxes were lowered with an idea that it would "trickle-down." Doesn't seem like a bad idea, does it? Except that trickling down certainly wasn't a condition of being given said tax breaks. And the WTF moment comes when you realize that around this time, corporations were being given tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. Then it becomes very easy to question the benevolence of the tax breaks.

The deficit getting out of control the way it is can be attributed to any number of reasons. Government spending? Sure. Decrease in the value of a dollar? Why not. But, here's a big reason for you: less people are working, and more people are under-employed. Keep in mind that taxes are based on a percentage of one's income, and 15% of, say, $30,000 is less than 15% of, say, $50,000. And for the unemployed (as opposed to under-employed), 15% of 0 is 0.

But, the rich are doing just fine. They are holding onto their money and making record profits, and the stock market has done well in the recent years.

Hmm... people are profiting, but it's not making its way down to the middle class or poor, and we have a growing deficit which it is getting increasingly difficult to keep up with.

Here's the deal, wealthy people: either employ more people and pay better wages so that they can share the tax burden, or pay higher taxes yourself. Pick one. The ball is in your court.

"Corporations are People"

There is a trend on both sides that annoys me - if a candidate on the other side says something that sounds bad out of context, or sounds the least bit stupid, they latch onto it like a hungry snake. One that the left really latched onto is the, "corporations are people, my friend." Out of context, it sounds like a dumb out of touch rich guy (fair description of Romney, perhaps) saying quite literally that corporations as a whole deserve all the same rights as people.

That's not quite what he was saying, though. Let's put in the rest of what he said for context (thanks to Washington Post for the text):

“Of course they are,” Romney said. “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people. Where do you think it goes?”

That much is true. I won't argue that point. But, contrary to what Romney said, corporations indeed are not people. They are made of people, but in themselves are not people. What the businessmen built were not people, but businesses. Made of people, from the lowly customer service type people who will likely side with the ones who say they're underpaid (liberals) to the execs and business owners who will side with whoever will let them keep the larger portion of their wealth (conservatives) and everyone in-between.

What Romney was saying here was that giving tax cuts to a corporation is the same as giving tax cuts to people as a whole. I'm guessing that he figures it will trickle down. But, remember what I keep saying: the rich really like to just keep their money. Why trickle it down when they could just keep it instead? It's not like there's any limit on how much money they can have.

Yeah, they'll spend some money, and that will help keep other businesses in business... but in general, they will not hire more workers than they really have to, and they will not pay said workers much more than they have to. Raise the legal wages? Fine, they'll raise prices and lay off workers, then keep even more profits to themselves. That's the way it works. Trickle Down is a rotten lie. But, in general, the rich like it. It moves their responsibilities to a "good faith" footing.

Hey, Republicans - don't look at me like that. I said I was putting the quote in context, not that I was defending Romney.

Living Wage

This is something that's been getting increasingly common, and is supported by liberals and hated by conservatives. For my part, I'm generally seen as fairly liberal, but I don't love it or hate it. The idea behind the living wage is pretty simple - some areas are more expensive to live in than others, so the federal minimum wage simply doesn't cut it. Of course, that is likely the case nationwide - that the federal minimum wage doesn't cut it. But, as I've said before, wage increases simply don't work like we'd like them to. Rather than execs or business owners taking a cut in their pay, they lay off workers and raise prices, thus causing more unemployment and higher cost of living across the board, thus being a self-perpetuating problem. It's ugly, but that's the way it works. A city raising its living wage also will encourage businesses to either open up just outside of town or to move just outside of town to avoid having to pay the living wage.

That is not to say however that current, even living wages, are sufficient to get by on, as many Republicans suggest. For my part, I live in the southwest, so that's the area I'm most familiar with. The federal minimum wage is, if memory serves, $7.50/hour. The Santa Fe living wage is $10.29/hour - the highest in the nation, or so I've heard. Now, Santa Fe has always had a high cost of living - that's no secret. A big part of it is that they have ordinances saying that it shall always remain a small city, no buildings over two or three stories without a special permit, that sort of thing. It's for the tourists.

So, let's do the math here:
$10.29/hour ˣ 40 hours per week = $411.60 per week, or if we go by the average 2 week pay period, $823.20 per pay period. Using two pay periods (4 weeks) to represent a month, as most bills are due monthly, that's $1,646.40 per month.

That's before taxes.

For filing single, the federal income tax looks to be about 15% in this bracket. So, $1,646.40 ˣ 0.15 = $246.96. So, we subtract that from our original figure: $1,646.40 - 246.96 = $1,399.44. But, we're not done yet. Let's look at the state income tax. The state income tax for New Mexico is 4.9%, so subtract 4.9% from the original figure: $1,646.40 ˣ 0.049 = $80.67, so let's go ahead and take that out of the $1,399.44 figure = $1,318.77. Looking around online, it seems that the Social Security withholding is 6.2%, although I think it's probably more. We'll go with the 6.2% though. $1,646.40 ˣ 0.062 = $102.08. So, let's take that out of the 1,318.77 = $1,216.69. There are other deductions, but the big three will work as a jumping-off point. We already know that Santa Fe has a high cost of living, so let's apply there living wage numbers to a nearby larger city with a lower cost of living. Because I have some experience with it, I'll use Albuquerque as an example.

I used to have a low income apartment there, where they got their profits in part from tax credits for providing the low income housing for qualified tenants. I was paying $600/month for a one-bedroom apartment, all utilities included. Not bad... so let's take that out of the $1.216.69 = $616.69. Me, I don't have car payments - my car was bought straight-away from a private individual rather than a dealership, and I get pretty reasonable mileage. But, if you have car payments, that can take anywhere from another $200-$400 out of that $616.69... and someone with this kind of income, well... often, the predatory types are the only ones who will sell a vaguely modern/reliable car to someone with this sort of income. Let's do kind of a conservative estimate and say payments are $250, and take that out of the remaining monthly income = $366.69. Insurance is probably another $70/month, roughly, so that brings us down to $296.69. $200 a month seems about right for groceries, right? Assuming one's not going on an all-Ramen/mac and cheese diet (really unhealthy). How about gas? Right now, it's about $3.70/gallon.

Well, with those figures, you'll be lucky to break even... that's assuming no incidentals, like medical bills, car repairs, etc. With those, hopefully you'll have some savings, but not too likely. Your option then is to get a roommate or to find a cheaper apartment. Like I said, that was already a low income apartment. Maybe find a studio? Maybe a cheaper part of town (like the war zone)? And roommates aren't often all that great, either. I've known best friends to turn into worst enemies for that.

"But minimum wage is just for people flipping burgers!" Not really. People working call centers/customer service make about that Santa Fe living wage. As do many people working in the medical field with "certified" or "assistant" in their titles - medical assistants, certified pharmacy techs, certified nurse's assistants, etc. They often have to take more than one job to make ends meet, and their hours don't always make it easy to plan around to have another job. Also think of your waitresses - they generally make below minimum wage (there are special exceptions for jobs that get tips), and survive off their tips. Bank tellers also make around that Santa Fe living wage.

Yet, with all that financial stress of their own, all these people are nonetheless expected to show up every day dressed nice and with a smile and cheerful attitude to help you out.

While a living wage is not the answer for the reasons I've mentioned in previous posts as well as toward the beginning of this post, I think that we do need to find an answer.

The "real" Tea Party

A lot on my mind tonight (or this morning) and perhaps I've had more home brewed beer and Irish whiskey than is good for me. Anyway, quick history lesson for those who don't know the whole story about the Boston Tea Party (something modern TEA Partiers often hide). The original Tea party was a response to a corporate tax break for a huge corporation that had gained control of the monarchy - the East India Company. You may recognize the name from the Pirates of the Carribean series, but make no mistake - it was a very real corporation, and they had a large role in the reason why America's founders decided revolution was justified.

You see, the English monarchy had exempted said corporation from taxes. But, they didn't exempt smaller businesses or individuals from taxes. This was obvious favoritism for those who could buy votes/representation, and it made smaller businesses unable to compete. Because they still had to pay taxes, their prices were no longer competitive. So, they threw the East India Company's tea into the harbor. This was true corporate government, as the monarchy was granting special favors. This is also something we see coming especially from the Republicans - "give more tax breaks!" they say. "Don't hate the rich" they say. "Don't turn this into class warfare!" they say.

They vilify anger and those who oppose them by throwing around terms that have become dirty words. "Class warfare." Really? Perhaps the "class warfare" has been around longer than they care to admit, and they throw this "dirty word" at their opposition to discredit them. To portray them as simply being jealous and perhaps lazy. Anger itself has become a dirty word. Is it not justified?

I'm not going to call for violence or destruction - only for realization. Realization that we've been lied to and manipulated. While the Democrats sure as hell aren't innocent, the Republicans have made themselves the aggressors. They keep using the same, worn-down "trickle-down" theory - make the rich richer to the point where they don't know what to do with their money, and they might pass some down to the poor. "Don't hate the rich," they say. I honestly don't. I have the American dream - work hard to achieve success and be wealthy. Is that not the American dream? Equal opportunity?

While it may not be openly institutionalized as it once was, there are established social classes. And it's not as easy to move between them as our founders would have liked. As in the past, the super-rich buy politicians. There remain some few altruistic people, but mostly, the wealthy are inclined to simply protect their wealth. Romney is an unfortunate prime example. He did decent things in the past, such as inspiring the Affordable Care Act (read: ObamaCare), but is controlled by his desire to maintain his wealth and power, and the support of those who provide him it.

Anyway, here's a meme to post to Facebook and the like. For easy viewing, I'd recommend saving to your own album and sharing - I've already got my blog linked on the meme. But, you can still always right click, "view image," and post the link on Facebook. Still always looking to expand my audience.

I'm Calling Bullshit on the Republicans.

As I continue to watch the campaigns, the economy, and the news in general, one thing has become plainly obvious: the Republicans just don't get it. Or if they do get it, they just don't give a rat's ass and are being deliberately deceptive. The Democrats kind of get it, but they are naive and don't seem to get just how deep the greed and cynicism is running. Things truly are getting to look more and more like what we fought the Revolution to get the hell away from - a ruling class is re-establishing itself, the corporations have a louder voice than the people. Remember the East India Company? Yeah, we're seeing a return to that... and those who oppose are being labeled "anti-business" or "anti-capitalism" or "Socialist."

For my own part, I am damned well none of those. I like capitalism, as it is freedom in one of its purest forms. What I'm seeing now though is a corrupted form of capitalism - as I said, a return of a ruling class with a widening income gap while the rich are perpetually whining for more and more. Wall Street is at its highest levels in years - as I write this, DOW is at 13,102. I remember when staying above the 10,000 mark was a big deal. So yeah, the rich ain't hurting. Yet, where the fuck are the jobs? Where the fuck is the money?

The money is lining the pockets of the rich. The money is in off-shore bank accounts and blind trusts. While the rich still whine for more and more. "We need more tax breaks!" Or, something that's also become amusing that I've been hearing about more lately - "Congratulations, employees! We just hit record profits! We will now be cutting your hours/wages/benefits/making lay-off's." It's pure greed. It's not a matter of hating people for being rich. Hell, I'd love to be rich. It's a matter of hating people for being greedy and fucking over the ones that got them there.

Then the Republicans have the nerve to call their opponents hateful. Just because the Republicans are smiling during their speeches doesn't make them less hateful - it just makes them more smug in their hate. When various people are being bashed, they will eventually fight back. Even the most loyal of dogs will bite if it's been smacked around one time too many. And this after they were exposed for plotting to sabotage Obama at all costs! The peasants American people were made into pawns for their damned political game. They hurt the American people so they could blame Obama! These are the men who sold the world.

I normally don't get this angry in my blog posts, but this truly is the purest bullshit. While I do like Gary Johnson, I'm becoming more and more inclined to again give Obama my vote. I wish this election were one just between Johnson and Obama, as I'd consider either candidate to be a victory for America.

Trickle-Down Theory Made Simple

Auto Industry Bailouts

I've been a consistent, albeit reluctant, supporter of the auto industry bailouts. There are a variety of reasons, some of which include being able to compete with the market for foreign vehicles, the fear of mass unemployment of auto industry workers in America, things like that. For or against the bailouts, one would have to admit that there are positive results... though that won't stop some people from continuing to deny this fact.

Auto industry (and Michigan's economy) making a comeback.

I've heard people screaming that this was all done for the unions, that the unions now own the companies. Well, whatever the case be now, it seems to be working... and this coming from someone who doesn't always like unions, someone who supports the Employee Rights Act, much thanks to my own negative experiences with a union.

Yes, I was pissed about the bailouts being necessary. I still remember when the execs spent several thousands to board their private jets and stay in luxury accommodations in Washington to go ask congress for a bailout. Yeah, I was pissed... and while I'm not certain it wasn't counter-productive for congress to send them back home and tell them to come back via more humble means, I'm sure it's what many were thinking. Very simply, if you are running low on money, save it where you can. It's common sense for most of us.

Myself being in the market for a new car hopefully in the near future, I was actually inclined toward a Ford Mustang. After all, who doesn't love those cars? I've often said that my dream car was a '65 Mustang. For a time, the bailouts kind of cemented that with me, as Ford was the only company who didn't take one. I also liked that they were bringing back the muscle car look. While Mustangs to my knowledge have always been a muscle car, they kind of lost the look for awhile, I think.

But, I saw that other American car manufacturers were also stepping up their game. I loved the Dodge Charger, then in researching that, I learned about my more contemporary dream car, the Dodge Challenger. Are you getting this, Dodge? BLACK. DODGE. CHALLENGER. Dammit. Ah well, to each their own. It's all good ol' American muscle.

The point is that good things have come from those auto industry bailouts. A lot of people like to pin it all on Obama, naming it an example of his socialist agenda. Let's not forget though that it was George "Dubya" Bush that got the ball rolling on these, and he said he'd do it again. Looking at the seeming success of these bailouts, it's almost like watching that once-irresponsible kid finally graduating college with a good degree. Let's hope this apparent success continues.

The Prodigal Sons Return

Were I one of the more cocky bloggers, or say... Rush Limbaugh, I would be telling you all to bow to my prophet-like powers of prediction. But I'm not all that cocky. Just cocky enough to have a blog and assume that a few people might actually be interested in it. Oh, and to do shameless plugs for a black Dodge Challenger that I so desperately want. But that's another story.

But, it seems that some companies are starting to see the folly of outsourcing that I've been preaching about: Manufacturers getting homesick.

In the story, the manufacturers talk more about logistics and the like, which sadly is probably a big part of this. It kinda depresses me that it still just comes down to the bottom line, and I'm not sure this quote makes me feel much better about it: "...we underestimated in some cases the value of our workers back here." Hmm... underestimated in "some" cases? No... what they did was completely screw over the ones whom their companies were built on.

Nonetheless, I am glad to see this happening, although it's only a start. Not all companies are doing this, and let's not forget that the article only names manufacturers. It doesn't mention, for instance, call centers. I do think though that such a move should be strongly encouraged and that measures should be put in place to strongly discourage another such exodus.

Some companies are now complaining that they are having a hard time finding qualified workers, though. Again, I largely suspect that this is where the companies have shot themselves in the foot. You saw several people with good, practical degrees having them go to waste when companies started shipping overseas. With that, people started going for different degrees or certifications. Ones that might actually get them a job, although with often significantly less pay than one of the degrees in question would have made for them, if such jobs were available.

To the people, I say this: the first go-around in college, get a useful, practical degree or certification. You can get your liberal arts degrees and the like later, or just independently study it and not pay thousands for it. Meanwhile, it'll hopefully save you from having to work fast food, retail, customer service... that sort of thing. Believe me when I tell you that such professions, with few exceptions, are not fun. By few exceptions, I refer to those where such things are part of your specialty - like mechanics will have to give some customer service, pharmacies are kind of specialized retail, that sort of thing.

To the corporations, I say this: never underestimate the value of the workers who have built you up to where you are and kept you there. Never screw them over just for the sake of your bottom line. They are the ones who do the hard work. And while you may sign their paychecks, they are the ones who give you yours. If you haven't yet, you may do well to watch National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Or perhaps Mr. Deeds with its question, "what would your child self think of your adult self?" When asked in the movie, many of the rich shareholders and the like came to the conclusion that their child selves would kick their adult selves' asses. In our youth, we all wanted to be heroes. Why has that ideal died in so many adults?

Minimum Wage

I'm not a fan of Mitt Romney, although I'd prefer him over Gingrich. But, I came across this article on CBSnews.com: Club for Growth doesn't like Romney's minimum wage stance. The short of it is that Romney has a fairly progressive attitude toward wages, and does believe in a minimum wage. Although I know it's not anything new, it still does surprise me when I hear Republicans wanting wages to be completely left to the free market.

Why, you ask? Because businesses have proven time and time again that they really can't be trusted any more than anyone else. Sure, we want business to grow. But don't we also want fewer people on welfare? I think that the current wage standards are more than reasonable from a business standpoint, although still pretty impossible to really live on.

We keep seeing such experiments every time Republicans are in power. Remember Bush's "trickle down" philosophies? Remember how the only thing to trickle down was a stream of urine from the rich? I hate to sound like I'm just spouting liberal propaganda here, but this is simple greed. The rich want to get richer, and they don't care whose heads they step on on their way up. And, news flash: the economy really didn't improve under Bush. Instead, we kept seeing a steady stream of jobs leaving the US from greedy companies whose executives only cared about making more money.

The problems that come from a minimum wage (and increases in it) are this: in a perfect world, when the minimum wage is increased, the business owners might slap their foreheads and say, "holy shit, what have we been doing to our workers? I guess I can accept a little less pay this year." That seems to be what people expect when they hear of a minimum wage increase.

But what actually happens is, "shit, I'm not giving up my money. Guess I better make some lay-offs and jack up prices." So, we have increased unemployment and price inflation as a result.

It might seem like the solution would be to set a maximum wage. But no, that would be counterproductive. I don't want to punish people for being rich; I have nothing against the rich. I want to discourage greed. I don't use "greedy" and "rich" interchangeably. Hell, I'd like to be rich... but I don't see myself being greedy. Perhaps then the solution could be setting wages at percentages? To give an extreme example, imagine a CEO deciding him and the board of executives gets 90% of the company's money for wages, leaving the remaining 10% to be split among everyone else - the manufacturers, the customer service, the marketing, the accountants, the engineers, etc. Not very fair, right? Start with adjusting those percentages until they are more fair. I'm willing to still let the owners and execs have the lion's share, but not to the point of starving everyone else. For the companies, it would have the advantage of encouraging better work and loyalty from the employees, as they would see the more direct results of their success or failure. Seems also that it may take some of the point out of being greedy.

State of the Union

I don't really plan on watching the State of the Union - I almost never do. But, I can generally predict what the main focal point is. This one will be damage control, and probably more than a little campaigning for re-election. The traditional State of the Union address seems almost pointless. It seems more than anything like a chance to put a positive spin on the happenings of the year in question. Kind of like a performance review at your job... if you did your own performance reviews.

One of the biggest focuses I think will be to put a positive spin on the economy. Now, despite what either party says, it took more than one president to fuck that up. Clinton had a big part in it, Bush Jr. took Clinton's ideas and ran with them, and Obama... I guess he's trying, but he's not really getting it right. It would take one cocky bastard of a president though to fix the damage already done, and the damage that will continue to happen if several groups/businesses/lobbyists/politicians have their ways.

Everyone has an agenda of some type, and most are rather self-serving. I was hearing from a consultant that one of the first questions they are asked is how to outsource... how to move operations overseas. I've explained how this is self-destructive in a previous post, but let's review. The more jobs that are moved overseas, the less money Americans have to spend. If Americans aren't spending money, then businesses in America aren't making money. It's that simple. It looks great on short term profit reports, but such things fail to take in the big picture.

There is also the fact that unemployment numbers are artificially going down. If you were laid off and couldn't find a job by the time your unemployment benefits ran out, you are not counted as unemployed. I'm not sure that would be the same as saying you're employed, just that you don't exist as far as these stats are concerned. A rather biased article on the subject

Of course, that's not to say such artificial inflation of the economy is anything new. Remember Bush's hazy definition of manufacturing jobs?

The news isn't all bad, though. It was recently announced that GM topped all other automakers in the world for sales. It's nice to see an American brand doing this. While I have mixed feelings about the bailouts, it does seem like the automakers have made good use of this. Hell, for my own part, I'm really wanting to get a Dodge Challenger when I can afford one. Figure, that nice classic muscle car look, and all that horsepower... go for a nice sleek, black color. That's a different story, though. Of course, if Dodge wants to give me a free one for the plug...

Anyway, it's just not easy to get excited about a State of the Union address. I think that right now, people just aren't feeling all that optimistic. We've been told that things are rough but getting better for over a decade now. I think it's safe to say that Americans as a whole just want results now.

Well, that concludes the "Raven" State of the Union. You're welcome.

The problem with the GOP

Who here is keeping up with the GOP primaries? If so, do you have a favorite? Mine recently went Libertarian after the GOP ignored him and called him a troublemaker. Other than him, I honestly don't like anyone running in the GOP.

With my politics, most who know me would probably expect me to support Obama. Well, I did. I supported him through the Democrat primaries and voted for him in the general election of 2008. The way I saw it was that he was fresh to politics and still had ideals, rather than just being another slippery turd in a business suit. I don't regret my vote. McCain would have been worse... it would have been like Bush having a third term. But I am disappointed in Obama.

I had hoped he would hold onto those ideals that had endeared him to me if he got elected. Sadly, he did not. He carried on many of Bush's policies, such as the inappropriately named "Patriot Act," and more recently, the NDAA. Other than that, much like any politician, he's too much a coward to make any big moves or to push for any big changes. It could be blamed on the obstructionism coming from Republicans, but no one said that being president would be easy, and only a fool would think it would be. Especially being the first black president, sadly. Birthers can deny all they want, but I doubt they would be making such an issue if not for his race.

With this - the bad economy and the continuing slow erosion of liberties, I think that people on both sides are taking a "it's just more of the same" mentality when they look at their leaders and candidates. It's hard to get excited about what either party is offering.

I'm firmly convinced that the TEA Party is going to be the downfall of the Republicans. While the movement in itself is not racist, many in it are. They also keep pushing the most extreme and theocratic candidates up to the front in the Republican primaries, forgetting that it's ultimately the Independents and moderates that decide, come the general election. I will say right now that as an Independent and a moderate, I do not want an extremist in office, and would happily vote Obama another term before accepting one of those the TEA Party has pushed.

Every Republican candidate has shown certain extremist ideas. I won't harp too much on Bachmann, only because she's dropped out already. But, let's look at Rick Perry, who seems proud that Texas has had so many executions under his rule (some of whom have later been proven innocent), or Newt Gingrich who is one of the biggest noisemakers and hypocrites that I've seen in my lifetime - lambasting Clinton from one side of Capitol Hill to the other over an affair while he, himself, is having an affair, which is nothing new. And yes, in general while I am not myself gay, I do consider equal rights for gays to be an important issue. If nothing else, one's stances on this is very telling of their character as a whole, I think.

To summarize, the GOP really isn't uniting on much of anything other than hate, whether it be of Obama or of gays. The candidates presented are weak and sometimes too much alike. None is offering real change... and as for the economy, they just keep presenting plans to balance the budget by the time they are long out of office. That's not fixing anything, it's just passing it to the next guy.

Occupy Wall Street

By now, I think it's safe to assume we've all heard of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. We've seen the signs saying "we are the 99%," we've seen the occasional Guy Fawkes mask. Less well known is just what they want. We know they're part of the 99%, we know that a lot of them probably like "V for Vendetta," and we know that they are angry. But about what, exactly?

The problem is that they don't have a centralized structure to get their message out. Maybe that's good with their ideals, but maybe not so good when it comes to the press. Sad to say, I suspect that many of the OWS people aren't even sure why they're out there.

But some messages still do come out loud and clear, thanks in particular to journalists and bloggers who support the movement and do some research into it. One such message in particular caught my attention:

The income gap in the modern day US is wider than that of the Roman Empire

Yes, you read that right. The gap between rich and poor in the US is wider than it was in the Roman empire, and the Roman empire collapsed. I'm not expecting the US as we know it to collapse anytime soon... at least not within our lifetimes. But then, what would a collapse mean? I don't imagine repo agents coming and shooing us out of the US. I imagine more that it would mean a complete loss of faith in the government. Maybe an armed revolt, maybe not. When you think about it, any government rules only at the mercy of its people. If the people as a whole simply began to ignore the government and set up their own, then that would be an effective collapse of America as we know it.

Many who read this may be rattling their sabers and shaking their fists, saying, "yeah, me and my group could make some real changes here!" That's kinda what I'm afraid of. I'm aware of some such groups... and the ones that I'm aware of, both conscience and my desire for survival would dictate that I resist such groups who would want to take things over. Each has their own agenda, and what I have seen, it is NOT to restore America.

Let's look back to this income gap issue though, shall we?

First of all, there is nothing wrong with capitalism in and of itself. It is kind of the ultimate freedom, and as I've said before, with freedom comes responsibility. Don't like an idea? Don't feed money into it. I feel that capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Ideally, one gets paid for their efforts, and fairly so. That's the ideal. But, the human element gets thrown in, and that's where things get screwed up. As a whole, humans tend to be rather lazy and greedy.

If we go back maybe a hundred years, give or take, people were working their lives away. The five day work week, eight hours a day... if you mentioned that, you would have been laughed out of where ever it is you went. Even children had to work, just so their families could make ends meet. You may also have heard of "company stores." What that was, the companies, instead of paying workers in regular money paid them in credit for the company store, where they could buy the necessities. This way, there was a bare minimum in loss of profits by the company, by basically treating their workers as slaves. The workers had little choice but to accept.

Enter the labor unions. The labor unions organized workers to make a lot of changes in company policies and in law. This is where we get our more recognizable forty hour workweek, child labor laws, and similar things. But, as time passes, even the labor unions are not immune to the same laziness, greed, and corruption that they once fought against. They have the potential to still do good, but too often, they do not. They also attempt to take choice out of the workers' hands by making union membership, or at least paying union dues, a mandatory condition of employment, whether the worker feels they are doing a good job representing them or not.

Going forward, as technology improved, companies began noticing that it was possible to conduct business from afar. They hearkened back to the good ol' days of underpaid workers with low standards. This is when they began outsourcing to other nations. They loved it, the shareholders loved it, profits soared. For a time.

The thing about greed is that it is self-destructive. So many companies did this outsourcing that it noticeably raised unemployment and lowered salaries of workers. The very simple foundation of the economy is that if people are spending money, people are making money. American workers now had substantially less money to spend, because their jobs are being shipped overseas, and they are having to accept substantially less money when they are employed, and enjoying much less job security.

Seeing that income gap widen yet?

Further, like I said, this greed is self-destructive. With the American workers not working or having less money to spend, that greed is coming back around to bite those companies in the ass. Not just the ones that outsourced, though... poverty doesn't discriminate. Although what money people do have is generally used to buy the cheapest things possible to stretch the money as far as possible... which means more underpaid workers with minimal job security. So the problem is feeding off itself.

Whether you take OWS seriously or not, it may be wise to at least hear what messages you can from the movement. There is a reason for it, however garbled it may sometimes seem. As I've said, I'm not a news breaker, I simply think about the news and events more in-depth to clarify them, to look for first causes.