What the hell are people supposed to do, if they can't find a job, because they're still aren't enough of them, because…?
Republicans refuse to extend unemployment insurance for the long-term unemployed, and propose cutting $40 billion from the Food Stamps budget, as well as advocating cuts to most social programs, while advocating tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd call that class war.
Face it: the very wealthy, more or less the billionaire class, are using their money, judiciously, to insure that they control government, instead of vice-versa. The rest of us are just obstacles to be run over, with a torrent of dollars, made possible by Citizens United.
Democrats? They don't know what hit 'em. They whimper that not extending the long-term unemployment benefits is unwise, maybe even inhumane, but those at the fount of all Democratic Wisdom say: Democrats will try to pass additional legislation--from the Senate.
Who loses? All of us, even the billionaires, if they'd only see it. If you don't give people other choices, they'll have to turn to crime. They'll either hurt others, themselves, end up in prison, or usually both. The cost to society? Do we really want to spend even more on prisons than we do now? Do we want to put away more and more of the "free people" of these United States, which already has the highest rate of incarceration of any developed nation?
There are better solutions, like spending a little bit now to support the unemployed, and a lot more to create needed jobs. There is no magic to this: it's simply that a nation has to invest in itself if it's going to have a future. Siphoning off all the proceeds into the hands of so few--the .001%--almost guarantees decline.
That's where we're headed if these guys win. Maybe, with victories like Warren's and DiBlasio's, the tide could be turning, but there's always that counter-tide of money.
Only if a large enough enraged mass of people rebel against this absurd system, will it ever change. People have to realize how they're being ripped off, every minute. Finance is the largest siphon, of your money to theirs, but there are others in every sector, siphoning off to them the wealth people create. Almost all the increase in wealth since the financial collapse ended up in the hands of a very few extremely wealthy: even though everyone worked for it.
No one rebelled in Fifth Century Rome. Miscreants were randomly burned alive from public lampposts and the barbarians were invading--as well as defending them.
Rome fell, largely because an extremely wealthy class, the Senators, monopolized wealth, and then refused to pay for maintaining the Empire they ran and from which they'd profited so immensely. Most didn't survive the chaos of barbarian dominance in Europe.
Could that be a lesson, even to the billionaires, perhaps?
Showing posts with label Food Stamps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Food Stamps. Show all posts
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
Climate Change & Shutting Government Down
I get it now: the GOP wants to shut down government to prevent Climate Change!
What? The denialist party is secretly taking climate change more seriously than the world's scientists, who only shout that the sky is falling, without doing anything about it?
What I mean to say: the GOP has a diabolical plan, while denying its existence: respond to climate change by insuring that more and more people are desperately poor, so they can't spend the money that would fuel further climate change: people's consumption would suddenly fall, reducing climate-change-inducing pollution, like CO2. Of course the geniuses who thought up this genius plan would benefit through tax-cuts, so they could keep more of their ill-gotten gains--and consume more, but only the gilded few.
I mean 'ill-gotten' in the sense that fortunes are made by transferring income (legally) from poor to wealthy, and taxes from wealthy to poor.
So only a few can consume to their heart's content, and they have the resources to pay people to protect their interests: from the President on down to key legislators in states, small and large.
An apparent example is the EPA's turning its back on its preliminary findings in Dimock, PA, Pavillion, WY and Parker County, TX: that fracking had contaminated ground water. Instead, it closed those investigations down, and continued to stand by while other parts of the Obama administration, like Interior, promote fracking. Who's being paid off, and by whom?
But it's better still to just shut government down, so that a program that might provide substantial help to a lot of people--and save money--can be repealed, so that taxes for the wealthy can be canceled,
So, instead of government intruding on our lives, it's lack of action will insure that so much less will be spent that we'll be plunged into a stark Depression. Since Republicans insist on cutting Food Stamps, the one program that's helped people survive in this, for the rich only, "recovery;" people will be driven to misery, as well; their consumption will sink to that of an average Bangladeshi. So, all talk of climate change will cease--because everyone else's lowered rate of consumption will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions globally. Then, the world's worst polluters will be able to continue in business, simply by paying off the corrupt political machine. The demand for greater regulation will fail, and will 'obviously' be unnecessary, especially since everyone (who's anyone) will be so much better off, living in their protected enclaves: protected from the chaos and misery beyond their gates.
Sounds like the 21st Century's version of Senatorial rule in the Fifth, when the wealthy ruled in their own interest even as the world was falling about their ears.
Comments welcome.
What? The denialist party is secretly taking climate change more seriously than the world's scientists, who only shout that the sky is falling, without doing anything about it?
What I mean to say: the GOP has a diabolical plan, while denying its existence: respond to climate change by insuring that more and more people are desperately poor, so they can't spend the money that would fuel further climate change: people's consumption would suddenly fall, reducing climate-change-inducing pollution, like CO2. Of course the geniuses who thought up this genius plan would benefit through tax-cuts, so they could keep more of their ill-gotten gains--and consume more, but only the gilded few.
I mean 'ill-gotten' in the sense that fortunes are made by transferring income (legally) from poor to wealthy, and taxes from wealthy to poor.
So only a few can consume to their heart's content, and they have the resources to pay people to protect their interests: from the President on down to key legislators in states, small and large.
An apparent example is the EPA's turning its back on its preliminary findings in Dimock, PA, Pavillion, WY and Parker County, TX: that fracking had contaminated ground water. Instead, it closed those investigations down, and continued to stand by while other parts of the Obama administration, like Interior, promote fracking. Who's being paid off, and by whom?
But it's better still to just shut government down, so that a program that might provide substantial help to a lot of people--and save money--can be repealed, so that taxes for the wealthy can be canceled,
So, instead of government intruding on our lives, it's lack of action will insure that so much less will be spent that we'll be plunged into a stark Depression. Since Republicans insist on cutting Food Stamps, the one program that's helped people survive in this, for the rich only, "recovery;" people will be driven to misery, as well; their consumption will sink to that of an average Bangladeshi. So, all talk of climate change will cease--because everyone else's lowered rate of consumption will dramatically reduce CO2 emissions globally. Then, the world's worst polluters will be able to continue in business, simply by paying off the corrupt political machine. The demand for greater regulation will fail, and will 'obviously' be unnecessary, especially since everyone (who's anyone) will be so much better off, living in their protected enclaves: protected from the chaos and misery beyond their gates.
Sounds like the 21st Century's version of Senatorial rule in the Fifth, when the wealthy ruled in their own interest even as the world was falling about their ears.
Comments welcome.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Noblesse Oblige
There used to be such a thing as noblesse oblige. I've heard people argue that FDR was its epitome. He was a slightly downwardly mobile aristocrat (they were spending "principle," not just income, FDR lamented). He found empathy for the people out there suffering in the Great Depression, possibly because of his own sudden disability from polio.
Noblesse Oblige makes sense for the elite, FDR argued, although most of his own class disagreed. His argument, the argument of the intellectuals of the New Deal, makes sense today: unless you moderate the extremes of income, unless you make sure the needy are taken care of and unless you ensure that more and more have the opportunity to make something of themselves, you will either have revolution, or fascism. Democracy will die, or be destroyed.
Of course, in the 1930's it was easy to see the alternatives: the USSR and the 1000-year Reich. Today, the elite feel falsely secure: there is no alternative. Communism is dead and Fascism is invisible. Maybe this is what Capitalism Triumphant looks like.
The Nobel economist, Joseph Stiglitz, points out that when a society becomes as unequal as ours, when 1% rule and gain more and more of its wealth--the US today--there is a loss of community. The elite have less and less in common with the lower classes, and reject any need to help them even when they are in dire economic straits. They cut funds to services, which don't serve the elite, like public libraries, Head Start, even Food Stamps and unemployment insurance. And they cut taxes on themselves. After all, it's their money.
The US has a myth of a classless/middle class, mobile society that never really existed; it's now, by income and wealth, the most class stratified of any developed country. Our politics shows that.
While cutting everything else, the elite support the military. Their children won't serve in it, but they can make money on all our military adventures; it's good for business.
The GOP represents the elite rather faithfully, but a good number of Democrats represent them, too, due to bribes (campaign funds) and/or a common class. So far, there are very few like FDR, even among Democrats.
But FDR's argument is relevant: without real reform--and government helping people in need--by creating jobs, for example--the chances for radical revolution increase exponentially. Revolution could be either of the right or of the left, but the elite ultimately lost even with the right-wing totalitarian dictatorships they favored in the past.
Yet, clearly, the GOP doesn't buy FDR's argument.
Most Democrats bought it long ago, but forgot about it.
Protests may be the only way to get even progressives to remember--and act, despite their Wall Street supporters. Otherwise, we'll end up serfs or slaves to the new Roman Senators--until there is an explosion: a Spartacan uprising, or a radical revolution.
Monday, March 28, 2011
Political False Advertising
Radical Republicans won elections by claiming that they would create jobs. People in the US either fear losing their jobs, or don't have them at all (about 16% when "discouraged workers" and part-time workers are counted). Therefore, people thought they were voting rationally. But despite their rhetoric, the radical Republicans had a very different agenda: not job creation at all.
Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't.
In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs.
How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws.
How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them.
The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably.
Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's.
Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments.
Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't.
In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs.
How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws.
How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them.
The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably.
Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's.
Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Strange (Congressional) Bedfellows
I called my newly elected Tea Party Congressman, today. I was surprised to discover: we share at least one important idea. If you're going to cut the government's budget, look to the Pentagon. "Yes," said his aide, "the Congressman has been thinking defense should\ be cut."
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
I would never have heard my former blue-dog Democratic Congress-people, either Scott Murphy or Kirsten Gillibrand, say anything like that. I always got back some mealy-mouthed answer about "supporting the troops."
I can't agree with cutting Head Start, WIC, or the home heating oil winter aid program proposed by the Republicans in the House. I wouldn't be surprised if Congressman Gibson is for all those cuts. And for cuts in Pell Grants, and aid to schools. Krugman called such cuts "eating our seed corn," which seems about right.
But politics is also the art of cultivating strange bedfellows. There is surprising support, apparently, among the new Tea Party Republicans, for cutting the Defense budget in order to cut the deficit. Obama, most Blue Dog Democrats and mainstream Republicans have all waxed eloquent about ruling out cuts from Defense--except for Gates' minimal recommendations: they support "the troops."
It seems rather hard to swallow, considering that Obama is also proposing to slash food stamps in half (from about $80 billion): the proposed Defense Budget is approximately $553 billion, and together with the separate budgets for wars and intelligence, it weighs in at almost $730 billion (nearly 3/4 of a trillion). For many years, the US has spent more money on Defense than all of the rest of the world combined. Are we safe yet? Why not cut Defense, even if you ignore the perennial findings of huge waste and accounting errors in the Pentagon?
Since Bobby Kennedy, there has been a strong anti-war wing in the Democratic Party, and it has become stronger, relatively, in this Congress, because so many blue dogs went down to defeat, while fewer antiwar Democrats lost their seats.
Now they have natural allies, not just in Ron Paul and Rand Paul, but in Congressmen like Gibson, who was elected as a Tea Party deficit hawk. I don't know if the Pauls supported Gibson, but like them, he's considering defense cuts. I hope he gets together with another Hudson Valley Congressman, Maurice Hinchey, the surviving anti-war Congressman in the region.
Amendments to the continuing resolution, proposed by Congressman Nadler and Polis, would cut the Defense budget by "cutting the empire," i.e. bringing home the troops from Afghanistan (budgeting only for the costs of withdrawal), and radically reducing the troops stationed in Europe.
We could begin our peaceful withdrawal from empire before we are defeated or driven bankrupt. Do we really want to follow Rome, Spain, the USSR? Why not emulate the British Empire's withdrawal (sometimes reluctant) from Asia and Africa? It would make more sense than cutting food stamps.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)