I wish I could mod this. Perfect review.
I bought mine off ebay for about 20% off retail price right after Christmas. The two great features: notifications and status symbol (I meet with executives a lot.) However, I would've been very disappointed if I paid full price.

The outlook that states the pie is only so large - if I get rich someone else has to get poorer - is a fallacy perpetuated by progressives to justify redistribution. It's simply not how our economy works. But it is an economic reality that increasing the minimum wage decreases profits which increases costs to the consumer. That being said, if we are going to have a minimum wage at all, it should be reasonable with adjustments for inflation.

I have no idea how you came up with the number 80% of Wal-Mart employees are on government assistance, but a report Wal-Mart: A Progressive Success Story, by Jason Furman - Obama's own advisor, states that the number of employees on public assistance is "in line" with other companies of its size.

During the depression there was a continual migration of low-income workers as they looked for work. My grandfather in any given week was a hard-laborer, shoe repairman, piano tuner, and musician at night traveling around the Midwest, gone for weeks at a time. He'd go where he could find work. Choosing to live in places with insane home prices or property / sales taxes when you're out of work should be motivation to relocate to a place that can support you and work is plentiful.

As an aside, there's plenty of above-minimum-wage jobs out there if you know where to look. The mikeroweWORKS foundation is a wonderful organization that promotes scholarships and training for those willing to work in skilled trades that are hurting for people.

Holy shit dude are you misinformed. Maybe learn what they're really about before spouting off like you know something (which was an otherwise very factual post.) I've belonged to a few groups as I've moved but also smaller groups dissolve or become part of bigger ones. My first meet-up I was told to leave all the social policies at the door, that the group was strictly about fiscal responsibility and smaller government. With one exception, it was always that way. The tax day protests have died down, but back then the one or two out of 100 racist, xenophobic, or religious posters I saw were people who showed up with a different agenda and weren't part of any organization.

Avoid the daily reboots.

Get updates with everyone else instead of having to wait a year until the manufacturer decides to release a patch - 6 months after the new models already have it.

Damn! I wish I had a mod point. Made me spit out my soda.

Your confusing your economic and social theories. Trickle-down economics / reagnomics is not the same as Keynesian economics. Keynesian economics has been the unofficial U.S. policy since the 1930s/Great Depression, well before Reagan was president. It's what prompted the New Deal. Essentially, the way to get out of a recession, is to spend money, namely on government jobs programs. This will enable individuals to spend money. Those individuals need to spend money so businesses can earn money so they can buy materials, and pay their employees and those employees can spend money, etc. Buying materials produces more jobs, and it keeps rolling. The theory only works if people continue to spend instead of save. Which is why there's that pressure to spend. Problem is, the theory also assumes that at some point there is some sort of production that's going on. Unfortunately most our production is overseas now so those that really benefit from Keynesian economics are other countries. Trickle down economics sounds similar but the basic idea was that if those who earn more can get more of their earnings, they'll either invest in businesses (thus giving them money so they can buy materials, pay employees, etc.) or buy really expensive things. Problem with economics is every step of the way those that benefit save a little off for themselves, thus by the time it reaches the lowest economic rung it's mostly depleted.

The above comments are for the most part well thought-out, reasonable, conversational in tone, and not the typical /. idiocy from both sides of an argument. I really enjoyed reading them even if I didn't agree with all of them. Thanks!

I'm a director of a software development company and when we need someone we usually start with a staffing company like Tech Sys or Pinnacle (pinnacle1.com) to find us candidates. Often we prefer contractors who are willing to be hired down the line so we don't lose a good employee, but can let them go if it's not a good fit. You can also test drive the company before coming on full-time. Decide if you're willing to travel, relocate, etc before accepting a contract as both are often required depending on where you live. Also, being willing to travel will increase your chances of finding something, but think about the financial aspects of that and make sure the contract is for enough money to make it worth it if travel costs aren't included in the contract. Let both the staffing company and the employer know you're willing to be hired as a full-time employee and that's the only type of work you're looking for. This is important as this often dictates the terms between the two companies and a full-time position most likely isn't possible without a cooling off period, unless the contract states it. A cooling off period basically means after your contract ends you cannot be hired by the employer for 3-6 months. You can work with multiple staffing companies to increase your chances of finding a good job.

Your post reminds me of that movie Coming to America... McDowell's and their Golden Arcs.

I've always believed this. It's like saying the strong economic times of the "Roaring 20s" were a result of Calvin Coolidge's policies, when in reality it was because we suddenly had manufacturing prowess and WWI gave us a huge economic boost. However, by 1929 we were in our worst economic downturn. Sound familiar?

Also, Clinton's supposed surplus was nothing of the kind but rather a robbing of social security to boost government revenue. http://tinyurl.com/5u7zvo

Small type-o: DEMOCRATS: Let's pretend to care and cut some spending that equates to less that 1% of overall spending. As long as the spending doesn't affect my special interests. And raise taxes on the rich disproportionately to anything anyone else is paying. God forbid someone ELSE has to pay anything. REPUBLICANS: Let's shout louder about cutting MORE spending, but in reality make things worse. As long as the spending doesn't affect my special interests. Of course, leave taxes as is (or LOWER them). TEA PARTY (with tears in their eyes): The debit is killing us, our children. Burn it all! P.S. I haven't heard one tea-partier speak to saving their own special interests in lieu of cutting spending. Just the opposite. They seem far too willing to make take a hatchet to the whole thing and with some short-sighted proposals that defy logic. Disclaimer: I voted for the tea party candidate in my state. And write him when I think he's being a bone head.

I'd love for the middle class to pay for it. I'd love for the lower class to pay for it too. I'd love for the upper class to pay for more of it.
The fact of the matter is nearly half of Americans who are whining about the rich not paying their fair share, pay no federal income tax. Considering those are the same people who demand free health care, free school lunches, for the government to pay them not to work, I'm not so sure it's the wealthiest Americans who need to pay their "fair share". As soon as the number of Americans paying something that resembles taxes - even if it's just $100/year - gets closer to 20%, I'll listen to you bitch about the how the Rich aren't paying their fair share.

P.S. I'm middle class.

One basic flaw in teaching that the U.S. is a democracy is the fact that we're actually a Republic. Popular elections don't vote in our president, the electoral college does. The electoral college is real people, not automatons, who could (depending on state law) decide to take the popular vote into account when making their decision - or decide the voting public are ignoramuses and vote their own way. In some states, it's possible to win only part of the electoral votes. Regardless of the outcome of this suit, for better or for worse, President George W Bush was our legally elected president and everything he did as President stands.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what have you actively done to battle these grievances besides post to the internet? The founding fathers spent a decade appealing to the government, actively protesting, demanding representation, asking for reprieves and trying to negotiating a peaceful solution. Many of our founding fathers actually wanted to stay a part of the British Empire but with more say in how their colonies were run. In the end, that's what it was about - the people having a say in how their country is ran. In the country they formed, we have a means of fighting back against those in power. It's called elections. You're welcome to back and politically support anyone who will address the issues that most concern you. The quote above is talking about revolution, but that's what I love, revolution in this country can be bloodless.