Suppose you and a few of your very rich friends took a look at the world and saw that there were two big problems. First was world population growth, and second was the rise of a middle class in many countries where no middle class had existed before. The combination of the two factors indicated a serious environmental catastrophe was about to happen. They pondered how to stop the impending disaster, and they came up with a simple plan. In essence, the plan was to destroy the middle class. Take away the social safety nets, render the public school systems ineffective, disenfranchise as many voters as possible, and make the tax structure regressive so that upward economic mobility is stifled.

Without a safety net, a financial crisis will quickly move a middle class citizen into the ranks of the poor. Without an effective public school system, citizens can't intelligently cast a ballot, and become vulnerable to propaganda and misinformation. A regressive tax system ensures that there is plenty of government money to support the activities the rich need, like defense and infrastrusture, while suppressing upward mobility. Suppressing citizen participation makes it easier to manipulate government. Why destroy the middle class? It's not anything personal, they just use up too many resources. The middle class want a life that is very much more expensive in terms of resources than the life of a poor person.

Suppose you and a few of your very rich friends took a look at the world and saw that there were two big problems. First was world population growth, and second was the rise of a middle class in many countries where no middle class had existed before. The combination of the two factors indicated a serious environmental catastrophe was about to happen. They pondered how to stop the impending disaster, and they came up with a simple plan. In essence, the plan was to destroy the middle class. Take away the social safety nets, render the public school systems ineffective, disenfranchise as many voters as possible, and make the tax structure regressive so that upward economic mobility is stifled.

Suppose you and a few of your very rich firends took a look at the world and saw that there were two big problems. First was world population growth, and second was the rise of a middle class in many countries where no middle class had existed before. The combination of the two factors indicated a serious environmental catastrophe was about to happen. They pondered how to stop the inpending disaster, and they came up with a simple plan. In essence, the plan was to destroy the middle class. Take away the social safety nets, render the public school systems ineffective, disenfranchise as many voters as possible, and make the tax structure regressive so that upward economic mobility is stifled.

Suppose you and a few of your very rich firends took a look at the world and saw that there were two big problems. First was world population growth, and second was the rise of a middle class in many countries where no middle class had existed before. The combination of the two factors indicated a serious environmental catastrophe was about to happen. They pondered how to stop the inpending disaster, and they came up with a simple plan. In essence, the plan was to destroy the middle class. Take away the social safety nets, render the public school systems ineffective, disenfranchise as many voters as possible, and make the tax structure regressive so that upward economic mobility is stifled.

waste of your time and mine

A flawed candidate for sure, but still clearly superior to Brown.

If your argument consists of pejorative terms and threats of violence, then you must be a disciple of Limbaugh, or Beck, right?

An amendment shouldn't be necessary, but we surely can't allow corporate money and a corporate veil of secrecy to pervert the democratic process. On a separate note, watch this before you try to change anything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHiicN0Kg10

More blather form a professional blatherer.