T1B

JMak wrote:
This is why life expectancy is not a valid measure of health care effectiveness. A plethora of factors influence life expectancy, including genetics, lifestyle, diet, income and educational levels.

The measures that you cited cover only a small part of the healthcare system.
(according to you ambulance coverage isn't a part?)
Equivalent to saying "our left tackle is great therefore we have the best football team".

And you haven't quoted any statistics to show that the US is actually better in either of those catagories.

You're the one who made the definitive claim that "the US has better outcomes". Until you can find something that actually shows that in any way, shape or form (besides the fact that you really think so) you might want to consider S'ing the FU.

JMak wrote: Compare this - before to after.

Hey dumbass these two page are the same.

Lie much?

Mikey wrote:The measures that you cited cover only a small part of the healthcare system.

They were cited as just a few examples, not a comprehensive list of measures. Quit being so damned dishonest.

(according to you ambulance coverage isn't a part?)

No, idiot. The point is that the person died regardless of medical care. In other words, the death had no connection to the effectiveness of health care.

Equivalent to saying "our left tackle is great therefore we have the best football team".

Dishonesty.

And you haven't quoted any statistics to show that the US is actually better in either of those catagories.

Dickhead, I was merely presenting example measures.

However, one inescapable fact is that you will not accept anything other life expectancy or infant mortality as measures, hence you're niggling about the examples I cited as only covering a small part of the total health care picture. Well, no shit, moron. They'e intended merely as examples of valid measures. Of course, individual measures will only cover, alone, tiny parts of the entire health care system. Who would think/argue otherwise? That's how you measure effectiveness in health care...

You're the one who made the definitive claim that "the US has better outcomes". Until you can find something that actually shows that in any way, shape or form (besides the fact that you really think so) you might want to consider S'ing the FU.

Okay...cancer survivability...kind of a big deal, right?

Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe

More?
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies

JMak wrote: The SEIU local changed the wording after the fact, from "come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices" to "come out in strong numbers to counter their voices."

Even IF that were true at least they came correct. Now it's your turn.

I won't be holding my breath.

Again, Weasel, explain why you're shilling for the giant pharmaceutical companies--which aren't in the "health" care business at all, but rather the "disease management" industry. The U.S. ranked near the very bottom of the top 40 nations -- below Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica and Dominica -- in a rating of health systems by the World Health Organization in 2000. In short, we pay about twice as much per capita for our health care as does the rest of the developed world, and we have almost nothing to show for it.

Why are you shilling? It can't be the childish "Free Enterprise" nonsense puked up regularly by Beck and Limpdick...can it? Are you just a scared little Glenn Beck scrotum swinger? Because you've really got no game, despite your tireless pissing into the wind.

Moving Sale wrote:

JMak wrote: The SEIU local changed the wording after the fact, from "come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices" to "come out in strong numbers to counter their voices."

Even IF that were true at least they came correct. Now it's your turn.

I won't be holding my breath.

My bad...I did post the wrong link...

See here for the original page as captured by the weekly standard.

And here for the revised page.

So, I was not lying. The SEIU revised their page.

JMak wrote: So, I was not lying. The SEIU revised their page.

A) Or the WS is full of shit just like you.
B) Show me where you said they revised there page.

Don't have any figures on cancer survivability or any other measures of healthcare efficacy, but, as to the avg life thingy, I think there are a few things that 'splain it. I think largely, it is a result of our wealth.

Wealth allows you to do a few things that are dangerous.

We, by far, drive ourselves around much more than other developed contries which have more developed and used public transit. Driving is dangerous. Driving badly is more dangerous and we are notoriuosly bad drivers because unlike countries such as germany, we do not demand skillful driving. We hand out licenses like candy and there is pretty much bedlam on the highways when it comes to lane discipline. We vigorously enforce speed limits, but, that's because it's easy $$$$$. Try hanging out in the passing lane on the autobahn when not actually passing someone. The autobahn gestapo will pull your ass over and fine you.

Another factor related to our affluence is over eating. We are a nation of fatasses. This undoubtedly knocks a bit off the avg life numbers.

I think these 2 factors alone might explain the difference between us and europe/japan. I think the japs kick everybody's ass because their diet is very healthy.

Healthcare is a factor in that there are some folks too dumb or too cheap to get shit looked at in time. Making it "free" might save a few of them, but, being a cold hearted conservative, I don't really give a fukk about them.

smackaholic wrote: We, by far, drive ourselves around much more than other developed contries which have more developed and used public transit.

And developed countries? :doh:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Again, Weasel, explain why you're shilling for the giant pharmaceutical companies--which aren't in the "health" care business at all, but rather the "disease management" industry. The U.S. ranked near the very bottom of the top 40 nations -- below Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica and Dominica -- in a rating of health systems by the World Health Organization in 2000. In short, we pay about twice as much per capita for our health care as does the rest of the developed world, and we have almost nothing to show for it.

Nothing except better outcomes than most nations.

And how dishonest is it to compare an industrialized US, a very diverse nation, to nearly completely homogenous nations like Chile, Costa Rica, and Dominica? Are you serious?

Moving Sale wrote:

JMak wrote: So, I was not lying. The SEIU revised their page.

A) Or the WS is full of shit just like you.
B) Show me where you said they revised there page.

I just did, moron. WS screenshot the original page. I mean, maybe the WS created a web page out of whole cloth just to criticize the SEIU...

JMak wrote:
Okay...cancer survivability...kind of a big deal, right?

Survival Rates Significantly Higher in United States Than in Europe

More?
Survival Rates for Specific Cancers. U.S. survival rates are higher than the average in Europe for 13 of 16 types of cancer reported in Lancet Oncology , confirming the results of previous studies

Lie much?

I never said that your measures were not valid. I did say that they are very incomplete as overall indicators of the outcomes of any healthcare system. Additionally, you never presented any actual data.

You are the one who will not admit any validity to the measures that I proposed. They are just as valid, if not moreso, than anthing you cited. And at least I had numbers.

Your article is very nice but still says nothing of the US vs. Canada or Great Britain. Oh, you forgot what your original claim was? Not too surprising. Or are you just deflecting because you know you're completely full of shit?

If you actually read the citation you will find that it also says that survival rates in Western and Northern Europe are a lot higher than in Eastern Europe.

Still, what does this say about either Canada or Great Britain?
Nothing.
Not to mention the fact that the data are more than two years old.

You have nothing.

JMak wrote: I just did, moron.

A) You make shit up out of whole cloth so why should I believe that the WS doesn't?
B) AFTER I pointed it out, which means you were lying when you said that their website said they wanted their member to drown people out.

AGAIN they came correct (if that is what happened) now it's your turn.....

JMak wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Again, Weasel, explain why you're shilling for the giant pharmaceutical companies--which aren't in the "health" care business at all, but rather the "disease management" industry. The U.S. ranked near the very bottom of the top 40 nations -- below Columbia, Chile, Costa Rica and Dominica -- in a rating of health systems by the World Health Organization in 2000. In short, we pay about twice as much per capita for our health care as does the rest of the developed world, and we have almost nothing to show for it.

Nothing except better outcomes than most nations.

And how dishonest is it to compare an industrialized US, a very diverse nation, to nearly completely homogenous nations like Chile, Costa Rica, and Dominica? Are you serious?

"Better outcomes"? Your syntax is as weak as your (non) arguments. In case you really hadn't noticed, health care in America is a very fucked up institution--far worse than in those socialist models that have you and the Beck clowns screaming like terrified children. And btw, you're getting your ass handed to you on this thread.Just sayin'.

LTS TRN 2 wrote: health care in America is a very fucked up institution--far worse than in those socialist models that have you and the Beck clowns screaming like terrified children.

care to name these models?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And you still refuse to explain why you're vigorously supporting the giant pharmaceutical companies. .

Just how fucking dense are you, Nicky?

JMak wrote: No, moron...pay attention to what you are saying...you claimed there was negotiation then you described a process that is the complete opposite of negotiation. You buttfucked yourself in the mouth. Now, take responsibility for that or stfu.

I said it was a negotiated price, I didn't say the government negotiates with individual doctors dumbfuck.....doctors are represented by agents who negotiate on their behalf with the government....it's a pretty simple process really

mvscal wrote: FTFY

Why did you throw the military under the bus to protect a rapist?

Fucking hack. You even suck at being a racist.

Mikey wrote:Lie much?

No.

I never said that your measures were not valid. I did say that they are very incomplete as overall indicators of the outcomes of any healthcare system. Additionally, you never presented any actual data.

1) You certainly implied they were not valid...
2) They were never presented as overall health care system indicators of outcomes.
3) I stated that generally our halth outcomes are better.
4) You cited infant mortality and life expectancy as comparable measures and I explained that they are not valid measures nor are they good for comparison purposes.
5) You demanded I provide alternative measures and I did. You sniveling response was they didn't cover the entire health care system. They were never intended to as they were presented as more valid measures of health care outcomes given that they all assumed a relationship to the health care system and were affected by the health care system.

You are the one who will not admit any validity to the measures that I proposed. They are just as valid, if not moreso, than anthing you cited. And at least I had numbers.

Just having numbers doesn't make the measures valid. I already clearly explained why the two popular measures of infant mortality and life expectancy are not valid measures of health care efficacy or valid for comparative purposes. You refuse to acknowledge the very obvious shortcomings inherent to both,

I'm not sure why you think a life expectancy measure, a stat that include deaths not at all in any way connected to health care and a stat not at all consistently compiled acorss nations is better than a cancer survivability stat which is directly related to health care and consistently collected across nations. In fact, that you think so necessarily demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty and bad faith in this discussion.

Your article is very nice but still says nothing of the US vs. Canada or Great Britain. Oh, you forgot what your original claim was? Not too surprising. Or are you just deflecting because you know you're completely full of shit?

Dickhead, my original claim was not related specifically to Canada and Britain. It was, "Yeah, dipshit, and their health outcomes are worse than ours." That was in response to some idiot here suggesting that every nation has a nationalized health care system (wrong) and that those work better than our. Were you an honest person you wouldn't be lying about what I posted.

If you actually read the citation you will find that it also says that survival rates in Western and Northern Europe are a lot higher than in Eastern Europe.

BFD, asshole. The point remains that in a valid comparative measure of health care outcomes, the US fares significantly better than Europe.

Still, what does this say about either Canada or Great Britain?
Nothing.
Not to mention the fact that the data are more than two years old.

You see, you're simply not interested in good faith debate, I cited a specific measure of health care outcome. I cited a specific data set. You refuse to acknowledge either.

Quite simply - life expectancy and infant mortality are poor measures of health care outcomes and poor measures of comparative health care quality for reasons already stated. Just deal with it. I know you and other halfwits rely on these measures to slam the US system and call for a single-payer system, but it doesn't fly.

Typical lefty tard,

You have nothing.

TRANSLATION: I'm a halfwit fucktard.

Moving Sale wrote:A) You make shit up out of whole cloth so why should I believe that the WS doesn't?

One, not proven.
Two, no basis.

Try again,

B) AFTER I pointed it out, which means you were lying when you said that their website said they wanted their member to drown people out.

Nope. I went right from the WS site where I saw their report about the SEIU advocating drowning out Obamacare critics which was ironic given the anti-American comments made by Hoyer and Pelosi.

AGAIN they came correct (if that is what happened) now it's your turn.....

Yeah, the SEIU changed their wording after their drowning out was publicized...

Look, I'm not sure why you're standing up for the SEIU who advocate the very un-American behavior that Hoyer and Pelosi criticized and whose thugs violently attack black conservatives while hurling racial insults simply because a guy opposes Obama.

JMak wrote: whose thugs violently attack black conservatives while hurling racial insults simply because a guy opposes Obama.

you're not talking about this are you?



funny stuff

JMak wrote: Nope. I went right from the WS site where I saw their report about the SEIU advocating drowning out Obamacare critics which was ironic given the anti-American comments made by Hoyer and Pelosi.

Huh? You mean you didn't even research the link? So you WEREN'T lying, you're just stupid. I'll buy that.

Look, I'm not sure why you're standing up for the SEIU who advocate the very un-American behavior that Hoyer and Pelosi criticized and whose thugs violently attack black conservatives while hurling racial insults simply because a guy opposes Obama.

So let me get this straight. You admit that the SEIU site does not say they are advocating un-American behavior, but that they are advocating un-American behavior because the WS standard said that at one time the SEIU website talked about drowning peoples’ voices out? Nice move fuckhole.

Fuckhead...the SEIU chganged their website after they were criticized for advocating dorwning our the voices of those they disagree with. That is fact. I just passed along the WS's observation of the irony of having Hoyer and Pelosi condemn such behavior as un-American when a major Democratic constituent group was encouraging such behavior.

JMak wrote: I just passed along the WS's observation of the irony of having Hoyer and Pelosi condemn such behavior as un-American when a major Democratic constituent group was encouraging such behavior.

No by the time you posted they had changed their site so you were either lying or didn't take the time to research your own damn post. You said they were advocating it not that they had advocated it for some short period of time till they realized it was the wrong thing to do. Can 'your side' say the same thing?

Unbelieveable...from Andy McCarthy at NRO:

In the news once again is Janet Napolitano, our hapless Homeland Security Secretary who calls terrorist attacks "man-caused disasters" (it's a "nuance," says she, used to "move away from the politics of fear"); who's been quick to get those predator drones patrolling the northern border because she thinks the 9/11 hijackers came here from Canada; and who doesn't appear to understand the federal immigration laws she's in charge of enforcing.

Remember that moronic DHS threat assessment from a few months back? The one that warned America about a potential outbreak of "right-wing extremism": i.e., terrorism man-caused disasters stoked by believers in limited government, the right to life, and the Second Amendment — abetted by military veterans returning from fighting for the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan? The one the Obamedia has been trying somehow to vindicate? Well now we know where DHS got its information from.

At the Examiner, Mark Tapscott reports that, after a FOIA demand by a conservative group, DHS produced documents showing that it relied, among other things, on a crackpot website that, like Ban Ki Moon, regularly warns about impending doom, as well as a group from the lefty fringe that, like Nancy Pelosi, sees conservatives and thinks "nazis."

Upon receiving the FOIA disclosures, Americans for Limited Government (ALG) found that DHS "used a kook website to indict the American people in drafting the 'rightwing extremism' memo." That site was whatdoesitmean.com, which, the Examiner observes, "publishes apocalyptic warnings about the end of the world. According to material ALG obtained from DHS,... the federal department used at least 11 citations from the site." The report continues:

"Under Napolitano's watch, government officials who were supposed to be gathering real intelligence on domestic terror threats were instead surfing the web and reading whacky websites, all to create the public perception of 'rightwing extremism,'" [ALG chairman Bill] Wilson said.

The DHS report warned of allegedly impending domestic terrorist acts by gun owners, pro-life activists, people concerned about states rights, and returning U.S. military veterans. Wilson said the department prepared the report "without any intelligence sources, crime data, or actual evidence of planned attacks or any groups known to be planning attacks, or any groups with histories of perpetrating attacks that are currently conducting any types of operational recruitment, meeting, or planning attacks."

You can read a complete list of the web sites used by DHS here. Prominent among those is the site of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a far-left non-profit based in Mongtomery, Alabama, that for years has seen all kinds of Nazis and KKKers behind every bush in America, but especially those located south of Mason-Dixon Line...

Hysterical!

Moving Sale wrote:

mvscal wrote: FTFY

Why did you throw the military under the bus to protect a rapist?

I'm not going to search all his posts, but I really don't remember mvscal ever sticking up for Bill Clinton, whether the military was involved or not

Lie much?

Moving Sale wrote:No by the time you posted they had changed their site so you were either lying or didn't take the time to research your own damn post. You said they were advocating it not that they had advocated it for some short period of time till they realized it was the wrong thing to do. Can 'your side' say the same thing?

It doesn't matter when I posted it...the facts are what they are.

Hoyer and Pelosi characterized drowning out the voices of those that you oppose is un-American. The SEIU, a major Democratic constituent and supporter issued a public statement encouraging people to drown out the voices of others.

That the SEIU changed their language after they were criticized for it doesn't change the fact that it happened. They realized it was the wrong thing to do only because someone pointed out that they were enaging in what two Democratic Party leaders characterized as un-American behavior.

None of this changes because of when I posted about it.

More lies from Obama...

So it wasn't enough that the lied about the AARP supporting Obamacare, Obama was compelled to lie about what doctor's get paid for specific procedures so he could continue demonizing doctors...

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

Why does Obama hate "typical white people," cops, and doctors?

Weasel, of course the doctors' union--er, the American College of Surgeons--is going to automatically refute anything Barry says. So what? You automatically believe the spokesman? Look, weasel, you still haven't put up as to just why you're shilling so stridently for the mammoth pharmaceutical industry. Seriously, why are you on their side as though you are some kind of church member. Your "arguments" are nothing but niggling parsing, and it seems as though you're some sort of childish Ayn Rand devotee, and right in step with the embarrassing display of terrified simpletons throwing tantrums at Town Hall meetings with elected representatives. And you're just as dense and armored against any actual facts and discourse. Pathetic.

Hello chaps,

Just popping in to say that the American Right knows as much about the NHS as they do about winning wars properly and picking VP nominees that aren't cretins. The National Health Service is not perfect, until you compare it to what you poor bastards have. And then you realise it is. If there was an NHS, it'd be able to even repair the torn-up arsehole your shower of wankers got last November, for free.

Peace and Racks,
N

Rack our favorite limey.

Where the hell have you been mate?

I figured either the aids caught up to you or one of the muzzies infesting your wretched little rock blowed you up.

Nishlord wrote: Just popping in to say that the American Right knows as much about the NHS as they do about winning wars properly and picking VP nominees that aren't cretins.

nice to see you drop by and you're absolutely right
fuck the americans were making the same arguments they're using right now back in 1956

http://newstalgia.crooksandliars.com/go ... 6-free-all

classic ownage by the brits over the American insurance company talking head....funny shit

JMak wrote:
It doesn't matter when I posted it...the facts are what they are.

one proven fact is that your a parrot for the pitchfork and torch crowd...good job villager

Felix wrote: classic ownage by the brits over the American insurance company talking head....funny shit

Funny shit indeed.

IMO, friedman buttfukks those limeys right square in their dicksukkers.

Good link, btw. Nice to see civilized intellectual discussions compared to the shit throwing monkeys we have today on the "news" programs.

I have a question for the supporters of the limey take in '56. How did your economy in general do in the ensuing decades?

I'll tell you. It petty much fukking collapsed. You went the socialist route with much of your industry as well. How'd that work out for ya?

Remember good ole British Leyland? In '56 jaguar was at the top of the world. 20 years hence and they were the sukk.

Apparently Obongo doesn't as he is trying to follow that bidness model with GM and Chrysler.

I'd also like to see some stats on medical advances comparing the US to the UK in the half century since this debate was recorded. I'm going to go way the fukk out on a limb and guess that the US pwns that category. Not just over the UK, but, over the rest of the "progressive" countries as well.

Here's an interesting link.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/003979.html

As with defense, the US does most of the heavy lifting. Europe and the rest of the planet reap the benefits.

Will this be the case in a decade when we are flat broke? Actually, we're flat broke now, but, we can still scrape together enough change to keep the printing presses running at treasury.

smackaholic wrote: Remember good ole British Leyland? In '56 jaguar was at the top of the world. 20 years hence and they were the sukk.

Serious question: Do you ever know what your talking about before you mash submit?
The Ryder Report was written 19 years after the '56 Jag hit the roads.
What was it you were saying about knowing when you just KYOA?

And your point is?

Maybe my timeline is a bit off. Perhaps the UK didn't go Obongo on the brit auto industry until '75. But, it's already being in shambles might have had just a little to do with an oppressive nanny state as well as union domination. And nationalizing it caused it to go from bad to really fukking bad. Infact, it was so fukking bad by the 80s that even honda's backing couldn't unfukk it. Remember the Stirling?

So, what did happen to the british economy in general in the half century following '56?

For a generation, it went straight down the fukking shitter. In the past 20 years, as they have pulled back from the full on socialist model, it has seen improvement to the point where some brit stuff is actually pretty good again. Hell, triumph is even able to compete with the jap bike industry which all but destroyed it in the 70s.

smackaholic wrote:Perhaps the UK didn't go Obongo on the brit auto industry until '75. But, it's already being in shambles might have had just a little to do with an oppressive nanny state as well as union domination.

or it may be due to the fact that a lot of british made cars were steaming piles of shit....Leylands were the worst of the worst

buddy of mine owned an old Triumph TR6 and not only did spend about 95% of his time fixing it, but whenever he drove it he had to keep a keen eye out to make sure he wasn't leaking parts

never saw one of them (and I've seen lots) that didn't leak oil like the Exxon Valdez...jags and land rovers are okay-overpriced, but okay,

alas-they're not even british anymore

Felix wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Perhaps the UK didn't go Obongo on the brit auto industry until '75. But, it's already being in shambles might have had just a little to do with an oppressive nanny state as well as union domination.

or it may be due to the fact that a lot of british made cars were steaming piles of shit....Leylands were the worst of the worst

buddy of mine owned an old Triumph TR6 and not only did spend about 95% of his time fixing it, but whenever he drove it he had to keep a keen eye out to make sure he wasn't leaking parts

never saw one of them (and I've seen lots) that didn't leak oil like the Exxon Valdez...jags and land rovers are okay-overpriced, but okay,

alas-they're not even british anymore

No shit, marcus. It is already an established fact that british autos and motorcycles were shit at the time. My assertion is that they went from being world leaders to utter shit for a reason.

What was the reason? What changed?

Was it a lack of talented engineers?

No. Some of the best engineers in the world developed such cars as the jaguar e-type.

What else could explain it?

Some of it may have been complacency that comes with being on top as happened with the US industry. A bigger part, IMO was the absolute stranglehold the unions had over them along with corner cutting that has to take place when you have oppressive tax rates. The coupe de grace was the actual taking over of running the damn thing that happened in the seventies.

SO, what is your explanation for why they sukked shit through a straw?

Fate?

The jews?

George W?

Smackie, yer argument is self serving in that you already have your conclusion set, and now you're filling in whatever would appear to support it. It's called deductive reasoning and it's disastrous in any sort of scientific approach--which is properly the inductive method.

Your clumsy conclusion is that labor unions are bad. This is simplistic at best and idiotic as it gets pressed further. For example, if you're connecting the tumble of Britain's technological prominence in the 1960's to its powerful labor unions, well look how this idea falls apart when applied to America. It was in fact the rise of labor unions in this country that accompanied America's rise to dominance in a variety of industrial sectors, including becoming the greatest steel producer in the world, as well as textiles, automobiles, and agriculture. The unions were part of that rise. Now blaming the unions for subsequent demises in these areas is ludicrous, especially when we consider the toxic philosophy of corporate management in this country--which defends and encourages grotesquely disproportionate discrepancies in salaries between management and labor. This greedy and shortsighted approach directly undermines necessary innovations and competitive foresight. Look where it's led to this very day:

Income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression, according to a recently updated paper by University of California, Berkeley Professor Emmanuel Saez. The paper, which covers data through 2007, points to a staggering, unprecedented disparity in American incomes. On his blog, Nobel prize-winning economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called the numbers "truly amazing."

Though income inequality has been growing for some time, the paper paints a stark, disturbing portrait of wealth distribution in America. Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000.

Despite a rising stock market, largely growing employment and a historic housing boom things were not nearly so rosy for the rest of U.S. workers. This trend, according to Saez, only accelerated during the George W. Bush's tenure as President:


Get a handle on this larger picture. Get beyond the simple Glenn Beck analysis of the world economy.

As for the British building quality cars...which ones? Don't tell me the Jaguar E-Type or XKE was some kind of fine quality car. Bullshit. These were status cars first and last, not well built--as anyone knows who tried to keep one on the road--ugly as shit, uncomfortable and unsafe in any kind of crash, overpriced, and destined for the scrapheap--just like the colonial method of the Brits.

Britain today is rich--but only in the same grossly disproportionate model as America. Britain is basically the Cayman Islands of the West. Over $50 TRILLION dollars--from every major bank and corporation--is currently parked in the convenient tax-haven of Jersey, the tiny island on Britain's coast. All of this money has effectively been pulled out of the economies of the respective nations and is now legally untraceable. This is called "capital flight" and it represents the greatest threat to economic stability in the known history of the universe. These are the uber-criminals whose names remain hidden, whose schemes go on with increasing rapacity.

Wake the fuck up!