The Supreme Court might end democracy this week

[Cyrano]

E. J. Dionne’s column in today’s Washington Post covers an issue to which none of us have been paying attention. And it’s an issue that can ensure we’ll never again see an election in America that hasn’t been bought, paid for and totally corrupted by corporations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/06/AR2009090601188.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

“Judged by the standard of an event's potential long-term impact on our public life, the most important will be the argument before the Supreme Court about a case that, if decided wrongly, could surrender control of our democracy to corporate interests.

This sounds melodramatic. It's not. The court is considering eviscerating laws that have been on the books since 1907 and 1947 -- in two separate cases -- banning direct contributions and spending by corporations in federal election campaigns. Doing so would obliterate precedents that go back two and three decades.

The full impact of what the court could do in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has only begun to receive the attention it deserves. Even the word "radical" does not capture the extent to which the justices could turn our political system upside down. Will it use a case originally brought on a narrow issue to bring our politics back to the corruption of the Gilded Age?”

Given the recent history of today’s Supreme Court, they have consistently put corporate interests over individual interests. If they do so again this week, we could very well be screwed beyond repair.

We don't get a say in their decisions. So the question is, if they decide to once again sell us out, what do we do next?

[Joanne98]

1. Roberts is the swing vote. We're fucked.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the likely swing vote in this case, was exactly right when he said these things during his 2005 confirmation hearings. If he uses his own standards, it is impossible to see how he can justify the use of "arbitrary discretion" to discard a well-established system whose construction began with the Tillman Act of 1907.

We need a constitutional amendment the ban corporations from campaign donations.

[Cyrano]

4. Anthony Kennedy is the swing vote. Although he votes with the

fringe nuts most of the time, he occasionally casts a vote that surprises everyone.

[backscatter712]

30. Part of the point of appointing Sotomayor was to persuade Kennedy.

Lately, the SCOTUS conservatives have been the ones having the most influence.

She's still new, but then again, she's outspoken, and she's the most qualified new justice in a century, meaning she's the one that knows her way around case law, understands constitutional law issues, and might very well be able to make arguments that can persuade Kennedy.

We can only hope, and we'll find out if this comes true when the ruling comes out...

[Old Studentka]

39. I hope you're right!

:scared:

[LuvNewcastle]

2. There was a very good debate

about this case on Bill Moyers Friday night. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/09042009/profile.html I sure hope the Court does the right thing in this case.

[rhett o rick]

22. This is what John Roberts was appointed for. "CorpAmerica Uber Alles." nt

[elleng]

3. The ORAL ARGUMENT will happen this week.

There will be no decision for some time, and it won't be an easy one for the Court to arrive at.

Democracy won't survive if we hand things over to reps. THAT we must not do.

[ThomWV]

11. I believe C-Span is covering it start to finish - oh, and its a re-argument

[elleng]

14. I think its the second argument;

the Court may have asked the parties particularly to address certain issues.

C-span covers many aguments; it will NOT be shown live, but the audio will be released more quickly than usual.

[nolabels]

81. In other words, they were looking for an opening so they could legislate from the bench

Wow, i am so surprised :argh:

[elleng]

84. No,

there was an issue they noted that needed further examination.

'At the first Supreme Court argument in March, a government lawyer, answering a hypothetical question, said the government could also make it a crime to distribute books advocating the election or defeat of political candidates so long as they were paid for by corporations and not their political action committees.

That position seemed to astound several of the more conservative justices, and there were gasps in the courtroom.

“That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

The discussion of book banning may have helped prompt the request for re-argument. In addition, some of the broader issues implicated by the case were only glancingly discussed in the first round of briefs, and some justices may have felt reluctant to take a major step without fuller consideration.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30scotus.html?scp=7&sq=Supreme%20Court&st=cse

[rhett o rick]

49. Yes your pal John Roberts is going to reverse and earlier decision and give CorpAmerica

cart blanch control of the country. The idiot rightwing nutcakes will love big brother CorpAmerica running their pathetic lives.

[democrat2thecore]

77. Televising SCOTUS? They don't do that - though I wish they did. -nt

[Echo In Light]

5. I'm all for the illusions of a phony Rep Democracy crumbling

As the obvious mounts, it then makes it more absurd and unlikely that as many will continue to blindly follow along and support the illusion. A sharp increase in unclouded perception would do the people here, and around the globe, a world of good in accurately identifying and reacting to American fascism. For w/o that perception, or the willingness to confront it, there'll only be continued mass inaction/indifference, making it easier for status quo types to dismiss the marginalized percentage who do acknowledge the reality of this country.

[omega minimo]

19. It's possible

the truth of your statement is why the illusion will not fall. "For w/o that perception, or the willingness to confront it, there'll only be continued mass inaction/indifference." That perception and indifference and economy will be propped up as long as it is useful to do so.

[rhett o rick]

26. Yeah, what you said. nt

[CrispyQ]

6. Soon they will do away with the entire facade & give the corporations the right to vote.

One vote per share of publicly traded stock.

[ThomWV]

8. 3/5 of a vote for every person they employ - there is historical precident for this one.

[rhett o rick]

50. I think it will be based on the value of the corporation. nt

[CrispyQ]

51. And we thought they cooked the books before!

Tie their voting privileges to their P&L statement & they will take Enron accounting to a whole new level.

[Wounded Bear]

75. Yep. One dollar, one vote. nt

:puke:

[ThomWV]

7. I told my wife yesterday that this will be the most important decision of our lifetimes

[RagAss]

9. This vote will just make it official. We're already a corporate fascist state.

[ThomWV]

12. This may be the dragon that laid the golden egg

We expect a fire-breathing dragon who come burn down our village, rape our women, and steal away our children into horrid slavery - but it may not be quite that bad. If Corporations win this one and can make monster contributions to political activities the legality of doing so will also extend to Unions. That may be the golden egg.

[Cyrano]

16. The unions can't come close to matching the billions of dollars that

corporations have available for buying elections. And whatever the corporations spend, the costs will of course be passed on to us. Ain't it great? We get to pay for our own demise.

[rhett o rick]

48. You are totally unbelievable. It will mean whoever has the most money will be able to buy

the elections. Now there are some attempts at restricting that.

Unions dont have anywhere near the wealth to use to buy elections.

You are supporting the right wing position once again.

[glinda]

18. then they will blame it on Obama even though Georgie Porgie helped set up the Court.

[inna]

10. wow, it just never ends, does it. it's a full blown assault at this point.

rec'd. :(

[lunatica]

13. Silly me. I thought the 'selection' of Bush was the big indicator

that Democracy, especially our Constitutional Democracy, based on the Rule of Law had just been summarily dismissed. Didn't they say, as they anointed the Boy King, that to count OUR VOTES, the ones we the people cast in a supposed Presidential Election, would hurt George W Bush specifically? That to continue with counting OUR VOTES, would give Al Gore an 'unfair' advantage?

I'd say that if they decide in favor of the Corporations it'll be because they no longer feel the need to keep us in the dark. What will change, other than the fact they don't have to pretend anymore?

[shanti]

73. they've already told us that much

you're right. this just makes it official. it all started with *.

[pleah]

15. K&R

[mascarax]

17. Maybe some of this nonsense is redirection - from this, which is *major*

I'm very concerned about this case. The fact that they are hearing it is obviously not a good sign.
And it's definitely not getting the coverage it needs. I hate that we're helpless on this. We need 5 people to stand up against this.

[rhett o rick]

Roberts made is clear that he was going to look at the bigger picture.

That is very scary as he is Mr. Corporation.

[omega minimo]

20. The Congress and the Sheeple approved CorpGovernment when they let Alito & JR slime onto the SCOTUS

[rhett o rick]

21. Thank you for this. Just min ago I posted about this. I didnt think anyone was looking at this

Could end Democracy is right on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6485553&mesg_id=6485553

[treestar]

23. Extremeness of header makes me unwilling to consider content

think about that.

No, even with the right wingers, the Supreme Court has done the right thing. They overruled the Bush Administration's most egregious claims on government power.

They have upheld the law, even with Thomas and Scalia on the court.

[demwing]

24. Agreed. OP nominated for most bombastic title of the week

and if there isn't such an award, there should be.

[rhett o rick]

25. So are you using the "extremeness" of the subject as an excuse not to discuss this issue?

Or do you think the issue isnt important? or that we arent to worry, trust the John Roberts court?

[BlooInBloo]

28. Nah. Just not disuss it with the melodramah kitteh....

[treestar]

34. Even with Bush appointees, the court has not gotten out of hand

Now if McPain/Failin had won, we'd be in deep doodoo, as Thomas and Scalia-alikes would have been nominated.

Look at Padilla and Hamdi and those cases. Even the current court wouldn't buy that crap.

I used to say one of the main reasons we needed a Dem president was the court. My relief at this is so great I barely care about the public option or Afghanistan. At least we're staying on the track of the rule of law, rather than the path the repukes would have had us on - a "legal" way to total executive power.

[rhett o rick]

35. So how do you see the break down on this case? nt

[BlooInBloo]

27. Same.

[Odin2005]

45. It's justifiably extreme.

This is very, very serious, if corporations are allowed unrestricted bribery of politicians in the name of "free speech" than democracy is dead.

[rhett o rick]

46. The Extremeness of the subject got a lot more attention for this poster than for me.

I posted on the same subject and my thread is sinking fast. It's hard to know how strong a subject to catch people's attention.

[OwnedByFerrets]

61. There is NOTHING extreme about this OPs header....

its closer to the truth than most will admit.

[pyoom]

83. I have to disagree with you here. Dionne's right about

the implications of this decision.

Part of the reason campaign donations are somewhat protected by the First Amendment is because of their similarities to political speech and voting. It's the same reason I'm for some limits on campaign contributions- just as one person should have only one vote to spend on a particular race or measure, one person should only have one two thousand some-odd dollar contribution to any one campaign to spend. Higher limits, or no limits at all, would give Americans with lots of money too loud of a voice as compared to those without it. Such a huge power differential would violate the principles of democracy and give the impression that it is somehow correct for one person's opinion to mean more than that of another for the simple reason that they have more money to spend. That isn't right.

Now, if corporations are given the ability to donate directly to a political campaign, it will massively increase their already substantial influence in our politics because they will suddenly be allowed to tap into a corporation's main resource- money, something the average American does not have much of to give to politicians- to affect policy changes. It will be a huge shift in the balance of power between business and the consumer, when in fact there is really no basis for giving corporations anything like a political vote in the first place. Let's not forget- they're not people, and their boards of directors and shareholders already have the same voting and political campaigning rights as everyone else does.

It's also important to remember that when the laws at issue were written, in 1907 and 1947, corporations were not nearly as widespread or entrenched in American life as they are today. But even then, by these laws, it must have been evident that a powerful construct such as a corporation must have its influence over policy restrained. Now, corporations are everywhere. People are even incorporating themselves. If every corporation out there was given the opportunity to even donate to campaigns at the level actual human beings are allowed to, I think it's fair to say that our government would become incredibly more beholden to the special interests of businesses, and, therefore, less so to those on the other side of the equation, the people of whom, by whom and for whom the government exists.

[NC_Nurse]

29. It's been over, this is just gravy for the rich and powerful. Lobbyists and PACs

are already all over everything. Don't kid yourself.

I really don't think this will make much difference. Watched the MSM lately? Corporations and their astroturfs and "associations (like AHIP) already run the airwaves.

[NoUsername]

71. That's my take on it too.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the corporations, that would change things how? The corporations already own our bought-and-paid-for "representatives" (with a few very rare exceptions). The ruling would just make it easier for the corps to do what they're already doing. Would a ruling in favor of the corps be a good thing? No. Would it really change the way things operate in D.C.? Hell no.

The only solution is publicly-funded elections. Until that happens, we'll continue to be screwed over by the rich and powerful.

[alfredo]

31. All we can do is shut the country down like the French do. And push

for the repeal of corporate personhood.

[Fire1]

36. Keep dreamin. n/t

[alfredo]

38. American Idol takes precedence.

[Fire1]

40. Exactly. n/t

[alfredo]

42. If they did respond, it would be in support of their corporate masters, just

like in the health care reform debate.

[The Gunslinger]

62. Unfortunately this is true

These "republicans" who are actually brainwashed into simply being anti-Democrat, will go against what is best for them and support the corporations as it furthers their Limbaugh induced hatred for Democrats and "liberals"

[alfredo]

63. Quislings

[Hannah Bell]

85. "like the french do". via what organizing & coordination vehicle?

[alfredo]

96. The internet helped make Obama president, the tools we used for that can

be used to organize a massive demonstration of power.

[harun]

92. LOL, our big protest is yelling at town halls against reforming the

most corrupt and unjust Health Care system on the planet.

At this point I think the only thing we would shut down the country for is to bring back slavery.

[Usrename]

32. I thought they already did that with Bush v Gore.

They ruled it unconstitutional to count legally cast votes.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Some of us have and have even posted about this

if the court rules the way I expect it to rule... fascism is now official.

[bluesmail]

37. Democracy died when some idiotic court ruling gave

corporations personhood status in the late 1800's. I agree this just seals it permanently. That is a truly scary concept. No way to unring the bell. Even if someone could come up with a reasonable plea to the SCOUS, everything, and I mean everything is rigged in corporations favor. aka (The Fourth Reich). Of course this is my and several million millions others opinion.

[rhett o rick]

43. Yes that is an interesting story that i dont have a link to. But it wasnt the court ruling

but the way the secretary recorded the ruling. It was recorded in error (intentionally in error) in favor of corporations and the SCOTUS has stood by it ever since. Thom Hartmann talks about it every once in a while. And I agree that was a major turning point.

[Mithreal]

76. corporate personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad

[rhett o rick]

94. Thank you so much for the link. nt

[ctaylors6]

97. That was for 14th amendment purposes generally. For 1st amendment purposes specifically,

you should read First National Bank of Boston v Bellotti (1978)
Link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=435&invol=765

Where the particular justices ended up is very interesting, in particular the Rehnquist dissent.

[Jakes Progress]

41. Ever read "He, She, and It" by Marge Piercy.

In the future (not too distant) the world is run by giant city states named for the corporations who own the cities. Everyone who lives there works for the corp. The corp runs every aspect of the society in that particular city. Very much like the old company towns. The cities are covered with domes and between them is the "Glop", short for megalopolis where all of the poor and criminals live. The Glop is uncovered so radiation and a toxic atmosphere slowly poison those who do not submit to the total control of the corporate cities.

Chilling and a little too on the money.

[CrispyQ]

53. The Sprawl series by William Gibson is similar.

Thanks. I'm going to check it out! I'm always on the lookout for sci fi I haven't read.

[Odin2005]

44. Anyone who thinks money is free speech needs kick in the face.

:grr:

[rhett o rick]

47. That's what this issue is all about. Is money free speech? nt

[azul]

56. No, the real issue is do corporations have rights as "persons" under the constitution?

They have picked the wrong case. They are attempting to further establish corporate rights under the 14th amendment mis-interpretation.

If corporations are in effect just capital, then saying that money has the right to talk is tantamount to declaring that money has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[rhett o rick]

57. So help me understand. If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Citizens United

won't that allow CorpAmerica to literally buy elections? They will be able to flood the media with "documentaries" promoting their candidates and agenda. Won't that, in effect, give CorpAmerica the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[azul]

67. Money already seems to have developed life of its own, to many believers,

but I don't think that it is really alive and sentient and deserving of rights under the constitution. I think that it pretends to be alive and demand these rights as a fictitious front for cunning and greedy real people.

I am wondering why all real people don't get this ridiculousness of businesses claiming the rights of citizens of this country. And wonder how it got so firmly established as it has around the legal world.

[rhett o rick]

68. The SCOTUS will decide what deserves protection under the Constitution and I dont think this gang

will rule in favor of humans.

[azul]

78. Then they should be impeached for it.

And maybe impeached for picking the president in 2000.

And maybe also for being so ignorant and willful that they amazingly decided that naturallly occuring DNA and lifeforms are patentable.

It would just take a majority in the house. Representatives of what-the-hell pretending to do the people's business? Time to kick the sell-out bums out of there.

[rhett o rick]

89. I'm with you, but things will have to get a whole hell of a lot worse before the people figure it

out. They aint gona see it on NBC or other CorpMedia.

[ctaylors6]

98. Partly

There are a number of important distinctions in SC caselaw that will affect the outcome of the case.

Buckley (the gold standard of campaign finance caselaw) distinguished between campaign contributions — money given by individuals, companies or political committees to candidates or parties — and campaign expenditures, money spent by the candidates or parties or separate individuals. The former could be limited; the latter could not. That dichotomy did not eliminate huge problems controlling campaign spending, of course, although it had the benefit of being easy to apply.

There's also the question of who has first amendment rights: just individuals or corporations too. Some older SC cases that addressed corporate free speech didn't relate to campaign finance. Therefore you had various justices who saw limiting corporate free speech simply as a limitation on free speech (easier to do outside the context of campaign finance). And of course many of our great justices feel that the first amendment is at the heart of all other parts of our constitution, so it was established many years ago that the first amendment generally applies to corporate speech. (Interestingly, there's at least instance I remember in which a SC justice distinguished (in dissent) between a for-profit corporation and a nonprofit corporation such as the NAACP. That's not the law though.)

Finally, McConnell v FEC addressed the various provisions of McCain-Feingold. Of course that included the provision that prohibits corporation, unions and trade associations from "electioneering" (for or against particular candidate) within 60 days general election (30 days of primary). McConnell upheld that provision generally. But then a few years ago Wisconsin Right to Life case struck down on as applied basis (in other words, as specifically applied to that case instead of just whether it was constitutional on its face). This is that provision where the magic words tests come into play -- so yet another major distinction in this area of law. So an issue in Citizens United will be whether the movie was electioneering, ie advocating for or against vote for Hillary. You might be interested to know that the ACLU (and many others) filed amicus brief on behalf of Citizens United. Link to brief: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/08-205_cert_amicus_acru.pdf

The SC could end up narrowly ruling like in Wisconsin, go back and address McCain-Feingold generally, or even go back and address Buckley. I guess we'll see in June.

[Cyrano]

52. Unfortunately, those with the (really big) money are the kickors.

The other 99.9% of us are the ones who get kicked in the face.

But it was ever thus. The history of humanity has been a constant swing between eras of thugishness and eras of enlightenment.

With few exceptions, the 20th century was one of the ugliest in history -- WWI, WWII, fire bombings and nuclear attacks on entire cities, genocide on unprecedented scales -- hell, you get the idea.

We also had some of the greatest scientific advancements in recorded history -- Einstein's insights, cures for countless diseases, setting foot on the moon -- and so much more.

But no one should be surprised that our capacity for scientific advancement is more often than not used for destructive purposes. (E=MC squared led directly to nuclear weapons.)

So to get back to the point, the only ones who will end up getting "kicked in the face" is us.

If the SCOTUS decides in favor of the corporations, it may be another 50, 100, or 200 years before some semblance of democracy comes back into being. But don't take my word for it. Check out the history books.

To paraphrase Michael Corleone in the "Godfather, Part II," If history has taught us anything, it's that those in power can own/control/kill anyone. At least until another period of true democracy emerges.

[cachukis]

54. Scared to death of the knell.

[spanone]

55. the supreme court already did that in 2000

[Vattel]

58. Kennedy is apt to go with Scalia and Thomas

on this one. He was a dissenter along with Scalia and Thomas on an earlier case that upheld restrictions on corporate political speech.

[bridgit]

59. This has been a slow train coming since the advent of the EC, the power elite...

are disdainful of 'we the people' running anything, they believe that America's lofty poetries were writ for them and not for us

[OwnedByFerrets]

60. Thom Hartmann has not forgotten about it...its been on his

front burner for almost a yr.

[rhett o rick]

69. Everything I ever learned was from Thom Hartmann. nt

[OwnedByFerrets]

87. You've got that straight. He is the smartest person I know.

[rhett o rick]

88. And he speaks in a language I can understand. nt

[bora13]

64. I know what to do

We shall boycott the very same corporate overlords. That will show 'em. :nopity:

[rhett o rick]

70. Are you being facetious? If so, get fucked. nt

[colsohlibgal]

65. Critical Mass

This will be huge, and we need progressive voices other than Thom H hammering on this. As it is now I assure everyone that indeed, more folks are worried about who wins "Idol" or "Dancing With The Stars" than this imminent momentous decision.

[Mosaic]

66. Once they can't afford the cable fee

Once they can't afford the cable fee and lose idol and all the other crap they watch.

THEN they can WAKE the Fuck UP! "Ending democracy" won't be easy with millions of angry masses.

[Lorax7844]

72. kick

[rhett o rick]

90. They arent gona lose their cable. The ruling class will always give the masses their circuses.

Also, cable is the way big brother will keep directly in touch in the future, if not now. When the masses wake up they will find there is nothing they can do. The only power masses have is their labor and any capital they might have. Capitalism will self destruct because it will literally eat itself, but it will be too late then for the masses.

Angry masses arent enough.

[gtar100]

74. The one small comfort is that we have the brilliant legal mind of Clarence Thomas to work on this.

(no sarcasm tag required - "brilliant" and "Thomas" in the same sentence is more than enough) :rofl:

[NYC_SKP]

79. K & R! nt

[syberlion]

80. The reason they want this as a matter of course is...

Because of what happened this last Presidential election cycle. Even with the "restraints" the moneyed interests spent large amounts of money to back their candidate. They also have the freedom to spend on the smaller races, flooding the market with cash and influence, because even if you have the White House it would help to have congress in your pocket as well. Point being, the average person can only contribute so much because they only have so much they can spare. However, the number of average people can make a difference as was shown in this last election cycle.

If the monetary restraints are removed, then all the data corporations have collected on the average American will be utilized to pour unlimited funds to completely erase any barriers of legal restraints on unlimited control. You may be sarcastic when you talk about corporations obtaining voting rights, with absolute person-hood would usher in that very discussion. The CEO would have the ultimate power to directly make or break elections because as the "king" of their respective corporation, they would carry the weight of their respective "kingdom."

I see this as a classic struggle for those wishing for the "good-old-days" with fiefdoms and serfs, no rights for those not within the privileged class. We are a lot closer to this then anyone wants to realize. I give you exhibit one and two: War Criminals Dick Cheney and Bush. Do we see them sitting in some feted, moldy jail cell? The fact that the Hague hasn't chimed in only underscores the international level of this new political landscape taking shape.

So, for those saying the OP is too dire, I say it isn't dire enough.

[ihavenobias]

82. # 87. n/t

[Triana]

86. They did that in 2001 - they'll do it again - just to solidify it.

I have ZERO confidence in this court as it stands now when it comes to defending justice and Democracy.

NONE.

They. Won't. Do. It.

We're already screwed.

I hope I'm wrong.

[rhett o rick]

91. Some are saying we have already lost our democracy. I feel that the health care bill that will

get passed will indicate one way or other. 86% of the people want a strong public option. CorpAmerica doesn't want a strong public option. We will see who has the power.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

93. kick!

[branders seine]

95. This is just another nail in the coffin.

What passes for "democracy" in this country died in 1963.

[nightgaunt]

99. If they win just more proof our republic is a sick farce

We are fighting for our lives while the mega-corps get more power. Eventually they will want the same "rights" as nation-states. And when they do they will have the same diplomatic powers over their land and use their own laws against you and me. Just think of that. It should make you cringe inside and demand the dissolution of these corporations. Now! Otherwise it is corporations acting like political parties and local autonomous gov'ts. Wait till you must be employed through some corporation or it is the street and a greatly reduced lifespan.

Right now the republic is just a hollow shell of what it once was. We are fighting to keep it from totally dying to be replaced by a theocratic corporate Valhalla for the moneyed and powerful. The internal secret war has been going on for a long time. They first made their opening move in 1980 and we have been going down hill ever since as the fascist and theocratic elements have been gaining influence and power within. You are in a bad state when the fringe becomes the mainstream. We saw it happen in Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, China, Cambodia and many other places. They all turned out ugly and evil. China is right now making the transition from totalitarian Communist to totalitarian Fascist as we speak. With some upset when people are finding that the safety net has been pulled out from under them and there is a sharp rise in a few rich and a huge swell in the poor. More like us every day.

[OwnedByFerrets]

100. Thom Hartmann will discuss this in his next segment

9-9-09 1 pm est