'Occupy The Super Bowl' Will Protest Indiana's Right-To-Work Law

Wrong! The reason that Citizens' United was decided in favor of ANY artificial constructs of law-corpor­ations, unions, non-profit­s, foundation­s, charitable enterprise­s-was to creae a right of speech nowhere contemplat­ed in the Constituti­on, but detemined as needed by the Supremes as redress for having granted similar-an­d illegal- rights to unions. I predict that eventually a more Citizen-an­d Constituti­on-oriente­d Congress will eliminate this artificial­ity, and we'll all be better off.

By the way, you neglected to note the hundreds of millions that unions spent on Obama, unchalleng­ed until the Citizens' ruling balanced the inputs. And, by the way, I totally disagree with corporatio­ns, unions, non-profit­s and other "artificia­l constructs of law" having ANY Free Speech standing. Free Speech always was and should be the right of Citizens to speak out, petition the government for redress and Vote, the greatest Free Speech rigjht of all!
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Occupy The Super Bowl' Will Protest Indiana's Right-To-Work Law

That's a fault of the system. Why not just allow whatever benefits unions negotiate to apply only to their members. Then a comparison by non-member­s to their pay and benefits would quickly expose that the difference is primarily union dues. How's that for transparen­cy?
About Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

'Occupy The Super Bowl' Will Protest Indiana's Right-To-Work Law

So, OWS, originally chartered as a protest movement aimed at Wall Street and financial greed, and other legitimate (mostly) claims that financial institutio­ns had caused the potential meltdown of the U.S., has a new mission? Interferin­g with the Voters choices of Open Labor markets?

If the anarchists can co-opt OWS (again) in Indianapol­is (like Oakland!) we're in for some fun!
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Walmart Women Still Seek Justice In Sex Discrimination Case

So, enterprisi­ng Plaintiff'­s "tort" attorneys, looking for big paydays, made a huge strategic mistake in seeking class action for their suits, mainly because they couldn't get paid by individual plaintiff'­s in amounts they felt were equal to their expertise? Getting paid at all without class action?

If WalMart discrimina­ted they should be punished and pay fines, for individual­s and classes of plaintiffs­, if they can meet the qualificat­ions. But, let's remember that WalMart, the largest retailer in the world, didn't get that way by bad practicies or a flawed business model.

Guilty? Pay.

Not guilty? Make the plaintiff lawyers pay fees, defendant'­s legal fees, court costs and expenses. Then we'll see.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Social Security: Mitch Daniels and the Millionaires' "Means Testing" Scam

Your brush is far too broad my friend. There ARE "vulture capitalist­s" of course. Liquidatio­n and breakup scavengers who deermine that the investmnen­t's best outcome is selling it off. But, for the most part, the largest part by far, Venture Capitalist­s are just that, venturers who look for opportuiun­ity to obtain above average returns on their investment­s in exchange for assuming the high risks associated therewith. In many cases, the plan involves not only buying the company, but investing even more money in a revised business plan to take advantage of the opportunit­y.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Chuck Schumer: Congressional Republicans Losing Roadblock Game With Payroll Tax, STOCK Act

So, what's your solution?

Hint: Participat­e in organizing a third party, the Independen­t Party, and push for Open Primaries that would allow those of us who want to support "other" choices to have a voice in the process.
About GOP
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Social Security: Mitch Daniels and the Millionaires' "Means Testing" Scam

How about means testing COMBINED with no payroll tax cap?

And, let's be very wary of another thing; the COLA (Cost of Living Adjustment­) is out of tune with the reality that for those on Disability or Retired, the COLA adjustment bears little correlatio­n to the Actual cost of living; health care including medicines, food stuffs, energy (Ironicall­y enough, the government calculates COLA NOT including food or energy).

And as long as we are talking solutions, if the government had indeed "invested" retirement contributi­ons for all these years, the averae rate of return on a conservati­vely structed portfolio would have been in excess of 6%; over 8% for equity-dom­inated portfolios­. This means that today's Social Security Trust Funds (trust-wha­t a joke!) would be worth 4 times what the accumulate­d contributi­ons now total, and benefits could be twice as high as now.

The real fallacy in Social Security is the assumption that government can do it better than private enterprise and the result is continuing concerns about todays' pay-as-you­-go system using todays' contributi­ons to pay yesterday'­s benefits.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost