And, as I looked at the map, it occured to me that the heavy areas of poverty were pretty much along the "Red State/Blue Lines" of recent presidential elections. But I wasn't sure, so I searched the web for a map of the last presidential election, and found this one on NPR.org:
Okay, so, looking back and forth at the two, there did seem to be some kind of correlation... so I overlaid the poverty map onto the elections map and got this:
What does this tell me and/or anyone? You notice where the really dark sections denoting poverty are? With the exception of the poverty noted in New Mexico, the darkest sections are in solidly "Red" states. One stand out, to me, anyway, was the more than 25% poverty rate among children age 5 and younger in the state of Texas. Also notable, to me, again, anyway, is John McCain's home state of Arizona, which has put the whole "illegal immigration" thing as their #1 priority... um... maybe it ought to be the poverty rate of kids 5 and younger that is nearing 25%, as well? I know, I know. Some people would argue that it is illegal immigration and those darned immigrants that are causing the poverty rate. Uh huh. I have a bridge to sell you. It's located in Brooklyn. Look for my ad on Craigslist.
Maybe it means nothing, but I get the sneaking suspicion that conservative politics lead to conservative social programs that don't really help anyone. Not like that's some big revelation or anything, though.
35 comments:
Perhaps conservative social programs force people to help themselves instead of waiting for a socially liberal government to issue handouts and take care of all their needs.
It's difficult for a conservative social program to take hold and actually produce results when a liberal administration comes along every eight years and tells the welfare bums that they shouldn't have to actually WORK for a living, that they just need to open their arms and embrace the government who knows what is best for them in every aspect of their lives.
I have also lived in a state where illegal immigration was indeed a major problem. I have witnessed first hand the strain that these non-taxpaying immigrants (who only want to work) place on health care and the school system, not to mention other social programs. I have also witnessed first hand the crime that these "hard working people" create. Much of this crime is actually perpetrated by themselves on themselves, yet still burdens the law enforcement agencies that are entrusted to protect and serve the CITIZENS who pay their salaries through taxes.
Well, I wasn't actually referring to "welfare" (in the sense of states sending cash to people, or food stamps, or even medical care) when I said "social programs," though I suppose I should have clarified. What I was referring to was programs designed to get people to work, such as incentive programs to companies to locate new businesses in a district, tax incentives to companies who hire a certain number of people per month, things of that nature.
Current social programs are typically geared to give the most benefit to the corporation, not the worker. Poverty can only truly be alleviated by putting people to work, which is one thing this recession should be teaching people. Instead, politicians (of both colors) seek out and back programs that benefit corporatations and the wealthy before everyone else. And the reason for this is simple: lobbying. Lobbyists aren't cheap; if they were cheap or free, everyone would have them, and then they'd be fair. Unfortunately, they cost a lot, so only the wealthy can afford to have their voices heard by legislators. Therefore, the real losers in this situation are the workers, and, I think, we can both agree that people who work are good people to extend benefits of social programs to. :)
In regards to illegal immigration, I agree that, in certain states, it's a real problem; however, what with the recession and unemployment and increasing poverty, it would seem to me that concentrating on bringing more jobs to the local area would be a better number one focus for a state government that's supposed to care about the constituency.
You're being contradictory. You say that there should be "incentive programs to companies to locate new businesses in a district" and "tax incentives to companies who hire a certain number of people per month", then you say " politicians seek out and back programs that benefit corporations and the wealthy", as if that were a bad thing.
Is a tax break to a corporation NOT an incentive? When you tax a corporation it moves it's labor force off shore, so that it can realize a profit, which is what out capitalist society is all about.
Tax breaks for the wealthy allow the wealthy to reinvest their EARNINGS back into society, creating jobs for the less wealthy.
It is the wealthy who hire the poor, who give them jobs, and who contribute to the economy with the money they have EARNED. It is socialism to apply a disproportional tax the wealthy with the intent to redistribute their wealth to the poor who have not EARNED their fair share.
The problem is, it never stops. It is easy for us to sit here in our middle class homes and say that the Bill Gates of the world have too much money and the government should tax the Hell out of them and take some of that money that they don't need and help the homeless and the illegal immigrants, and maybe even give some to us by reducing the cost of electricity or something. That sounds all warm and fuzzy. But what happens when the government takes all their money, and still needs more to support all the new social handout programs? They start taxing the middle class, namely US.
Social programs will never elevate the dregs of society to a higher state. It will only lower the common denominator and drop everyone to their level.
I lost my job with Microsoft and now some diaper head in Bangladesh is providing substandard support because the taxes made it cheaper for them to offshore the support. I lost my paycheck, but my stock went up in value.
Lets get the government back to doing what the Constitution says it's supposed to do: Protect Our Shores. Lets get the government OUT of business and let the free market dictate who succeeds and who fails, and who has a job and who doesn't.
Actually, I'm not being contradictory. Incentive programs and tax breaks for companies that stay in the US and only hire US citizens and do not take advantage of tax loopholes is far different from creating tax loopholes in order for companies like Haliburton to operate in Dubai and employ foreign peoples but enjoy the corporate tax breaks of being a U.S. company, including not paying import taxes and other fees usually associated with a foreign company. A company that claims to be a "good, old-fashioned, American company" and then takes its headquarters and much of its operations to other countries where there is cheaper labor is an example of legislators catering to the wealthy and the corporations and not the middle class. Encouraging a company to locate its headquarters in San Jose is an example of the government (a state government) getting involved with capitalistic matters enough to promote the health and well-being of its citizens.
And sure, it's an incentive, but, as I said above, if it's only offered to those corporations entirely located in the U.S. who only hires U.S. citizens, it is not a bad thing. The wealthy and corporations don't (or only rarely) actually re-invest in a community. When wealth goes to the top 1%, it pretty much stays there.
And they try to hire the poor at the lowest possible rate, which actually only exacerbates the immigration problem, because illegals will work for less.
I'm not middle class. I'm not even lower-middle class. If anything, I'm upper-lower class, if only because I am currently employed and not homeless, but I'm one failed paycheck away from losing everything. Most of us who could have considered ourselves middle class 20 years ago actually are borderline poverty. Help the homeless? Some of them do want and need help; others don't. Illegal immigrants? Many of the Mexican illegals that were in this country have headed back to Mexico due to the recession leaving them jobless because people like you and me had to start taking those menial, $5-per-hour jobs. I was never talking about "handout" programs. I was referring to programs that would encourage companies to make jobs and hire locally to each area to reduce poverty, not increasing taxes on the wealthy or corporations. And the middle class have been taxed out of their minds for decades now while, at the same time, multi-billion dollar companies are getting tax rebates for not meeting their quarterly expectations... at the expense of the middle class taxpayer.
As I said, I wasn't talking about welfare or handouts when I said social programs; I definitely should have clarified. No, there's a difference - a very distinct one - between a social program intended to lessen the blow of unemployment and subsequent poverty and giving people money. And, as someone who has (and currently is) getting a little help with food from the state, it's actually SUPER embarrassing to have to apply. When I did it, just days before my divorce was final, I sobbed in the parking lot. I'd worked SO hard to stay off those programs, and, in one fell swoop, it was all for nothing. I needed help. I suppose that means I have dropped to the level of a lifetime welfare collector, popping out babies to get more that I haven't earned? No, sometimes, help from the state is a hand-up, not a hand-out and, actually, there are quite a few (unheralded, unreported by the media) on welfare who wish to GOD that someone would create a few jobs for them so that they wouldn't have to have help.
You say: "I lost my job with Microsoft and now some diaper head in Bangladesh is providing substandard support because the taxes made it cheaper for them to offshore the support. I lost my paycheck, but my stock went up in value."
And that's why I am saying incentives to ACTUAL U.S. companies who hire in the U.S. and keep ALL their operations in the U.S. (or pay the same fees and taxes as foreign companies), and avoid taking advantage of tax loopholes would be a perfect social program to alleviate the poverty problem! People go to work and pay taxes... companies profit and pay taxes. Everyone's a happy camper. But, no. We'll spend money on worthless fences, instead.
You say: "Lets get the government back to doing what the Constitution says it's supposed to do: Protect Our Shores. Lets get the government OUT of business and let the free market dictate who succeeds and who fails, and who has a job and who doesn't."
So, then, why did companies want the government involved when they screwed up and failed? They should have been put out of business, but the first bailouts started in 2008, before Obama and the other Dems, so, really, it's the entire government to blame, just handing tax dollars out to companies?
Or was it that the legislators had been well-greased by these companies (sometimes even owning majority stock in the companies) to bail them out regardless of capitalistic notions of a free market system?
If we really want to eliminate poverty, the best social programs would be FREE higher education, and assistance for those who maintain a passing GPA while bettering themselves, and actually allow those who choose to exist in poverty to FAIL, just as we should have allowed the corporations and banks to fail.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
These days, one paycheck away from homeless IS middle class. I have seen real poverty. I was raised in the rural South, and I have been to third world countries including Sri Lanka and Kenya. In these places, a discarded pizza crust will feed a family dinner. You haver a roof over your head and food for your children and the entire family has clean clothes to wear. You may feel impoverished when it's time to pay the cable TV bill or the cell phone bill, but these things are luxuries, not necessities.
Plus, you have the skills and intelligence to move out of your current economic status. You were thrust into your current situation by forces beyond your control and these forces continue to exacerbate your condition. You are truly in a position where a hand UP is appropriate and would be appreciated, however, if a new mill were to open in Priest River tomorrow, and offered 1,000 jobs, I would bet a full 80% of the Bonner County and Pend Oreille County unemployed would still be unemployed. Some because they are lazy, some because they are addicts, some because they are scammers, some because they are uneducated, and some just because they have been raised to believe that they are entitled to receive a "paycheck" from the government just because they exist.
And why wouldn't the government bailout corporations when they have a history of bailing out individuals. In some cases, the corporations were so large that no one except a government could bail them out. The history of corporate bailouts goes back to 1970 under Nixon,( http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts ) but actually has roots beginning with FDR's "New Deal" in 1933.
I love the Haliburton argument. One should be able to invoke Godwin's Law when ever it is mentioned. Dick Cheney Bla Bla Bla. Haliburton is a multinational corporation that is HEADQUARTERED in the US. It does not OPERATE exclusively in the US, and in some cases, has been the only company large enough to actually bail out GOVERNMENTS by supplying infrastructure contractors to rebuild after and sometimes during a war. When rebuilding Kuwait, should Haliburton have hired US citizens and sent them to Kuwait and taxed their salaries that they earned while not in the US, or should it have hired Kuwaiti citizens and trained them for jobs that they will continue to do once Haliburton leaves? This is NOT off-shoring.
Continued
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
These days, one paycheck away from homeless IS middle class. I have seen real poverty. I was raised in the rural South, and I have been to third world countries including Sri Lanka and Kenya. In these places, a discarded pizza crust will feed a family dinner. You haver a roof over your head and food for your children and the entire family has clean clothes to wear. You may feel impoverished when it's time to pay the cable TV bill or the cell phone bill, but these things are luxuries, not necessities.
Plus, you have the skills and intelligence to move out of your current economic status. You were thrust into your current situation by forces beyond your control and these forces continue to exacerbate your condition. You are truly in a position where a hand UP is appropriate and would be appreciated, however, if a new mill were to open in Priest River tomorrow, and offered 1,000 jobs, I would bet a full 80% of the Bonner County and Pend Oreille County unemployed would still be unemployed. Some because they are lazy, some because they are addicts, some because they are scammers, some because they are uneducated, and some just because they have been raised to believe that they are entitled to receive a "paycheck" from the government just because they exist.
And why wouldn't the government bailout corporations when they have a history of bailing out individuals. In some cases, the corporations were so large that no one except a government could bail them out. The history of corporate bailouts goes back to 1970 under Nixon,( http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts ) but actually has roots beginning with FDR's "New Deal" in 1933.
I love the Haliburton argument. One should be able to invoke Godwin's Law when ever it is mentioned. Dick Cheney Bla Bla Bla. Haliburton is a multinational corporation that is HEADQUARTERED in the US. It does not OPERATE exclusively in the US, and in some cases, has been the only company large enough to actually bail out GOVERNMENTS by supplying infrastructure contractors to rebuild after and sometimes during a war. When rebuilding Kuwait, should Haliburton have hired US citizens and sent them to Kuwait and taxed their salaries that they earned while not in the US, or should it have hired Kuwaiti citizens and trained them for jobs that they will continue to do once Haliburton leaves? This is NOT off-shoring.
Why does the government WANT to bail out corporations? (Tin Foil Hat Time) So they can CONTROL them.
Now that the government "owns" GM, by default, they "own" On Star. On Star used to value it's subscriber's privacy, but recently, it has been forced to assist law enforcement to track and apprehend criminals. This may sound like a good thing, but how good will it sound when you go out to your new car one morning and instead of starting, the On Star voice says "We notice that you drive this vehicle to a location that is also driven to by your neighbor. You must carpool or use public transportation today".
Continued
Sorry, I have been having a hard time getting this reply to post poroperly. Perhaps because it is so long.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
These days, one paycheck away from homeless IS middle class. I have seen real poverty. I was raised in the rural South, and I have been to third world countries including Sri Lanka and Kenya. In these places, a discarded pizza crust will feed a family dinner. You haver a roof over your head and food for your children and the entire family has clean clothes to wear. You may feel impoverished when it's time to pay the cable TV bill or the cell phone bill, but these things are luxuries, not necessities.
Plus, you have the skills and intelligence to move out of your current economic status. You were thrust into your current situation by forces beyond your control and these forces continue to exacerbate your condition. You are truly in a position where a hand UP is appropriate and would be appreciated, however, if a new mill were to open in Priest River tomorrow, and offered 1,000 jobs, I would bet a full 80% of the Bonner County and Pend Oreille County unemployed would still be unemployed. Some because they are lazy, some because they are addicts, some because they are scammers, some because they are uneducated, and some just because they have been raised to believe that they are entitled to receive a "paycheck" from the government just because they exist.
And why wouldn't the government bailout corporations when they have a history of bailing out individuals. In some cases, the corporations were so large that no one except a government could bail them out. The history of corporate bailouts goes back to 1970 under Nixon,( http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts ) but actually has roots beginning with FDR's "New Deal" in 1933.
I love the Haliburton argument. One should be able to invoke Godwin's Law when ever it is mentioned. Dick Cheney Bla Bla Bla. Haliburton is a multinational corporation that is HEADQUARTERED in the US. It does not OPERATE exclusively in the US, and in some cases, has been the only company large enough to actually bail out GOVERNMENTS by supplying infrastructure contractors to rebuild after and sometimes during a war. When rebuilding Kuwait, should Haliburton have hired US citizens and sent them to Kuwait and taxed their salaries that they earned while not in the US, or should it have hired Kuwaiti citizens and trained them for jobs that they will continue to do once Haliburton leaves? This is NOT off-shoring.
Why does the government WANT to bail out corporations? (Tin Foil Hat Time) So they can CONTROL them.
Now that the government "owns" GM, by default, they "own" On Star. On Star used to value it's subscriber's privacy, but recently, it has been forced to assist law enforcement to track and apprehend criminals. This may sound like a good thing, but how good will it sound when you go out to your new car one morning and instead of starting, the On Star voice says "We notice that you drive this vehicle to a location that is also driven to by your neighbor. You must carpool or use public transportation today".
Part 2
And you're right, this is not a party issue, BOTH parties are only concerned about furthering their own agenda and gaining more power over the people.
With all this said, the initial point was about poverty being disproportional within red/blue states. You said " I get the sneaking suspicion that conservative politics lead to conservative social programs that don't really help anyone". If this is true, why haven't the Dems stepped in and created jobs for these poor individuals? What happened to all the tax money Obama used for his "Green Jobs" program? Why are more and more businesses CLOSING in poor states? Could it be because taxation and government imposed regulations make it impossible for small businesses to make a profit?
All of the "jobs" that have been created by this administration have been bureaucratic jobs to get more people on the government payroll administering programs to add to the existing bureaucracy. There have been no "real" jobs created anywhere. Last week, there were TWO help wanted ads in The Miner. TWO. Spokane is just as bleak.
Small businesses simply can't afford to employee people. After paying business taxes and paying employee's health insurance and paying them minimum wage, there just isn't any money left for profit.
Raising minimum wage always sounds good to those who make minimum wage, but in reality it damages the economy by driving up prices for consumables so that the grocery vendors can continue to make a profit. Minimum wage is one of the greatest factors which affects cost of living. This is another carrot that the liberals dangle, promising more "income" without explaining the results.
While you feel that you are one paycheck away from poverty here, if you were in Los Angeles making your same wage, you would infarct be homeless. This illustrates that basing poverty standards on an AMOUNT or an average is inaccurate at best, and a manipulation of data at worst.
A family of three making $30,000 a year in Ozark Alabama is upper middle class, while that would not pay rent in a middle class neighborhood in Los Angeles. Regardless, the government wants us to believe that anyone making less than a certain AMOUNT of money in impoverished. Why? Because the more people they can say are impoverished, the more they can tax YOU and use the money for unneeded social programs.
The Dems want to "eliminate poverty", which sounds like a Noble ideal, however, they don't tell you that they want to do it at YOUR expense by taking YOUR money and GIVING it to people who have not invested the time, expense, and effort into educating themselves and developing marketable skills like you have done.
These days, one paycheck away from homeless IS middle class. I have seen real poverty. I was raised in the rural South, and I have been to third world countries including Sri Lanka and Kenya. In these places, a discarded pizza crust will feed a family dinner. You haver a roof over your head and food for your children and the entire family has clean clothes to wear. You may feel impoverished when it's time to pay the cable TV bill or the cell phone bill, but these things are luxuries, not necessities.
Plus, you have the skills and intelligence to move out of your current economic status. You were thrust into your current situation by forces beyond your control and these forces continue to exacerbate your condition. You are truly in a position where a hand UP is appropriate and would be appreciated,
Part 3
Part 4
Raising minimum wage always sounds good to those who make minimum wage, but in reality it damages the economy by driving up prices for consumables so that the grocery vendors can continue to make a profit. Minimum wage is one of the greatest factors which affects cost of living. This is another carrot that the liberals dangle, promising more "income" without explaining the results.
While you feel that you are one paycheck away from poverty here, if you were in Los Angeles making your same wage, you would infarct be homeless. This illustrates that basing poverty standards on an AMOUNT or an average is inaccurate at best, and a manipulation of data at worst.
A family of three making $30,000 a year in Ozark Alabama is upper middle class, while that would not pay rent in a middle class neighborhood in Los Angeles. Regardless, the government wants us to believe that anyone making less than a certain AMOUNT of money in impoverished. Why? Because the more people they can say are impoverished, the more they can tax YOU and use the money for unneeded social programs.
The Dems want to "eliminate poverty", which sounds like a Noble ideal, however, they don't tell you that they want to do it at YOUR expense by taking YOUR money and GIVING it to people who have not invested the time, expense, and effort into educating themselves and developing marketable skills like you have done.
If we really want to eliminate poverty, the best social programs would be FREE higher education, and assistance for those who maintain a passing GPA while bettering themselves, and actually allow those who choose to exist in poverty to FAIL, just as we should have allowed the corporations and banks to fail.
And I apologize that my debating skills have diminished. Since being out of the workforce for over a year now my interaction with educated individuals is somewhat limited, so thank you for excusing my disjointed and sometimes unclear points
Part 1
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
God I miss debating things like this with you. Thank YOU for being my friend and thank GOD for giving you a brain.
Of course there are people who need help. I have been there myself. I was being harsh for illustrative purposes.
These days, one paycheck away from homeless IS middle class. I have seen real poverty. I was raised in the rural South, and I have been to third world countries including Sri Lanka and Kenya. In these places, a discarded pizza crust will feed a family dinner. You haver a roof over your head and food for your children and the entire family has clean clothes to wear. You may feel impoverished when it's time to pay the cable TV bill or the cell phone bill, but these things are luxuries, not necessities.
Plus, you have the skills and intelligence to move out of your current economic status. You were thrust into your current situation by forces beyond your control and these forces continue to exacerbate your condition. You are truly in a position where a hand UP is appropriate and would be appreciated, however, if a new mill were to open in Priest River tomorrow, and offered 1,000 jobs, I would bet a full 80% of the Bonner County and Pend Oreille County unemployed would still be unemployed. Some because they are lazy, some because they are addicts, some because they are scammers, some because they are uneducated, and some just because they have been raised to believe that they are entitled to receive a "paycheck" from the government just because they exist.
And why wouldn't the government bailout corporations when they have a history of bailing out individuals. In some cases, the corporations were so large that no one except a government could bail them out. The history of corporate bailouts goes back to 1970 under Nixon,( http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts ) but actually has roots beginning with FDR's "New Deal" in 1933.
I love the Haliburton argument. One should be able to invoke Godwin's Law when ever it is mentioned. Dick Cheney Bla Bla Bla. Haliburton is a multinational corporation that is HEADQUARTERED in the US. It does not OPERATE exclusively in the US, and in some cases, has been the only company large enough to actually bail out GOVERNMENTS by supplying infrastructure contractors to rebuild after and sometimes during a war. When rebuilding Kuwait, should Haliburton have hired US citizens and sent them to Kuwait and taxed their salaries that they earned while not in the US, or should it have hired Kuwaiti citizens and trained them for jobs that they will continue to do once Haliburton leaves? This is NOT off-shoring.
Why does the government WANT to bail out corporations? (Tin Foil Hat Time) So they can CONTROL them.
Now that the government "owns" GM, by default, they "own" On Star. On Star used to value it's subscriber's privacy, but recently, it has been forced to assist law enforcement to track and apprehend criminals. This may sound like a good thing, but how good will it sound when you go out to your new car one morning and instead of starting, the On Star voice says "We notice that you drive this vehicle to a location that is also driven to by your neighbor. You must carpool or use public transportation today".
People don't debate me like they used to, like you are here. It's refreshing. Sorry that Blogger isn't posting the comments; I have comment moderation on to avoid spammers. :)
My point in the original blog posting is that the poverty rate has always been high, especially in rural areas in this country (like here), and, since the recession, it has gotten exponentially worse. The U.S. Department of Labor puts unemployment rates at nearing 10% of the population, but that only counts people currently receiving unemployment benefits, not those who don't qualify for unemployment (most minimum wage earners included) or those who have exhausted benefits (the aging workers are a big portion of that population). The actual unemployment rate is probably about double that figure and even higher. My concern with the data provided with the map (which may or may not be biased and/or skewed; I didn't research the validity of the data - more on that in a moment) was the amount of children under the age of five who live in poverty and been thrust into poverty due to the recession. In these tough economic times, conservative social programs - used by both parties - is not working and they will not work. And it seems that this issue ought to have a higher priority for legislators, and it doesn't. I used the illegal immigration thing in Arizona as an example of something that I would put on the back burner (considering that, if state and federal agencies followed our own protocol when administering state assistance or other government programs we wouldn't have the problem of illegals receiving benefits when they are not citizens). Unfortunately, many agencies do not follow the U.S. protocol and laws, and, therefore, we end up with a problem like illegals getting food stamps. While I do see the point in focusing on illegal immigration at some point, I, personally, don't think it should be now, when 25% of children 5 and under in three south-western states are living in poverty.
People don't debate me like they used to, like you are here. It's refreshing. Sorry that Blogger isn't posting the comments; I have comment moderation on to avoid spammers. :)
My point in the original blog posting is that the poverty rate has always been high, especially in rural areas in this country (like here), and, since the recession, it has gotten exponentially worse. The U.S. Department of Labor puts unemployment rates at nearing 10% of the population, but that only counts people currently receiving unemployment benefits, not those who don't qualify for unemployment (most minimum wage earners included) or those who have exhausted benefits (the aging workers are a big portion of that population). The actual unemployment rate is probably about double that figure and even higher. My concern with the data provided with the map (which may or may not be biased and/or skewed; I didn't research the validity of the data - more on that in a moment) was the amount of children under the age of five who live in poverty and been thrust into poverty due to the recession. In these tough economic times, conservative social programs - used by both parties - is not working and they will not work. And it seems that this issue ought to have a higher priority for legislators, and it doesn't. I used the illegal immigration thing in Arizona as an example of something that I would put on the back burner (considering that, if state and federal agencies followed our own protocol when administering state assistance or other government programs we wouldn't have the problem of illegals receiving benefits when they are not citizens). Unfortunately, many agencies do not follow the U.S. protocol and laws, and, therefore, we end up with a problem like illegals getting food stamps. While I do see the point in focusing on illegal immigration at some point, I, personally, don't think it should be now, when 25% of children 5 and under in three south-western states are living in poverty.
I don't think that reclassifying what makes someone middle class is good enough. To say that just because you're not homeless and can have a cell phone makes you middle class is laughable considering that it wasn't that long ago that, to be middle class, you owned your home, two cars, had 2.5 kids, the white picket fence, retired from the first company you worked for, got a pension and Social Security, had life and health insurance that actually covered everything...there's a laundry list of items of things that my grandparents aspired to to be middle class. Sure, a cell phone is a luxury, the satellite TV is a luxury. They are both things that I would have cut after Kenny left me except my parents insisted on keeping them running for the kids and paid for it. Things were bad here for a while. I borrowed money from my sister, my grandmother, my parents; I made my cousin pay for things around here, like food. It's nothing compared to eating out of Dumpsters when I lived in Oregon, though. It's nothing like having to have my parents keep my kids for seven years while I got enough education and experience so that Kenny couldn't leave me destitute (at least not forever) again. I'm getting back on my feet, and, hopefully, things will work out. But there have been several points in the last six months where I have considered shutting everything down and moving in with my parents in order to keep things running and save money. Short version: I know what it's like not to have much, but I also know it's not as bad as it could be. But "as bad as it could be" isn't that far off for me. Poverty has always been a concern for me, and not even directly for me but for others like me. It was part of the reason that I almost when to New Orleans after Katrina to help people. I can't stand seeing people suffer. Around the time Katrina swept through, the Power Ball was enormous, and my mom and I both bought tickets. We talked about what she'd do with the money, and when it got to be my turn, I said that I would give most of it to the victims of the hurricane directly. She said she wouldn't let me do that.
So that's the frame work I'm coming from: I haven't tasted the worst of poverty, but I have been close, I don't think that, in this country, people who are trying should have to suffer like that.
And yeah, things are bad all over the world, but I live here, in the United States, so that's what I am concerned with. I am concerned that there are a huge proportion of children in this country who can't read because their parents can't afford to get them to school. I am concerned that one of the first things to go in a recession isn't the huge corporate paychecks, it's funding for higher education. I am concerned that, when things went pear-shaped in this recession, the knee-jerk reaction of many companies and government offices (at the state level, at least) was to require people who wanted to remain employed there to take furloughs, pay cuts, cuts in hours, benefit cuts, pension cuts, or retire. I am concerned that, percentage-wise, there are just as many hungry people in this country as there are in some third-world toilets.
And whether 80% of the unemployed and those on assistance in this area would remain in that situation if a company moved in here and offered a 1,000 jobs has a lot of factors dependant on it. First, are the people here qualified to do the jobs? Do they have right skill sets? If not, will there be free or low-cost training? Will the pay rate be substantial enough? Will the work be too dangerous for the pay offered? Will there be benefits for the worker and his or her entire family or just the worker or none at all (there are some people who remain unemployed/underemployed specifically so that a child with chronic, developmental, or acute health problems can receive care that the family can afford)?
While I will admit that there are assistance abusers, the just plain lazy (I was married to one of those), the uneducated, the unskilled, the addicts, the scammers, and others who simply wouldn't apply, I see at least three of those categories could be helped by social programs (not assistance) that was focused on getting people to work by getting companies and the community involved. Apprenticeship programs for the unskilled, education programs for the uneducated, rehabilitation programs for the addicts, and that's just what pops out at me. There are a lot of people that have been trained for a long time to believe that they simply will never amount to much. While that may be psychology mumbo-jumbo to some extent, I have to believe that it's a large part of the problem, why people don't go out and help themselves. Some people just don't know that there are already some programs like this that could help them out of their situations.
Perhaps I am a population apologist, but I really feel that broad strokes, blanket statements, generalizations, and stereotypes don't work anywhere. Just as there are a few multi-billion dollar companies investing millions into helping local communities, there are just as many multi-billion dollar organizations dumping BILLIONS into preventing the United States citizens from getting real help, having real rights, and finding more ways to screw the little guy - including small businesses (Wal*Mart jumps to mind: how many "Mom & Pop" shops go out of business when Wally-World rolls into town?). By the same token, there may be assistance abusers, addicts, lazy people, scammers, and others in the population, but there are just as many who don't know what to do, don't know where to turn, feel like it's hopeless, and continue to live in poverty. While the Bill Gates of this world donate millions to Africans dealing with AIDS and malaria (among other causes), I kind of feel like that money might be better spent here. And we're talking about a guy who did away with perhaps hundreds of thousands of American jobs so that he could make money; your job was one of them. The guy in Bangladesh who is doing your old job is just making ends meet. The powers-that-be at MicroSoft sent the jobs there, so who is to blame? And what do we do about it? Microsoft and Bill Gates and those like him have the right to earn huge profits...but we have to ask ourselves: at whose expense? They are making profits shipping jobs overseas while Americans are canned in the name of profits.
By the same token, without these multi-billion dollar corporations, the economy gets worse, but by allowing legislation that only helps these companies make more money (by allowing them to ship job overseas and then ship products back here without paying tariffs and avoiding taxes on foreign companies), the workers (or potential workers) in THIS country are getting the shaft. The middle class ALWAYS takes it in the pooper when governments either increase assistance programs or shore up multi-billion dollar businesses. There has to be some middle ground for the steadily-deceasing middle class to get some benefit from legislation.
One example that pops into my mind (from my thesis research) is the health insurance industry pumping BILLIONS into lobbying in D.C. in order to prevent health care access for everyone. Single payer was never on the table, so we weren't going to get something like what Canada has. The public option was deliberately skewed in the media and linked with "socialism" (which was never defined in broadcasts) and it went "bye-bye", too. But the amount of money the private health insurance sector spent on lobbying to prevent real change for American workers would have paid for health insurance for every uninsured American for the next ten years. And, yet, these companies are allowed to continue doing this, politicians are allowed to continue taking what essentially amounts to bribes from corporations in exchange for legislation, and, now, the Republican-dominated Supreme Court has ruled that any company - domestic or foreign - is allowed to pump as much money as they want into political campaigns in this country. What's wrong with this picture?
While the New Deal could be looked at as a "bailout" of businesses, it was something that was on proportions that those of us who didn't live through it have never seen before. It also "bailed out" the American people. Huge percentages of the population couldn't find work. People stood in bread lines in order to eat for the day. This is what we're headed for again. This lecture kind of sums it up: http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/lectures/lecture19.html
I think FDR actually might have done his worst damage by basically selling the US government to the FED, among other things, all of which happened before the culturally democratic auspices of the New Deal took effect. But I also think that the good he did for the American worker often gets overlooked by popular media these days. By vilifying FDR and the good he did for the American worker - framing the labor ideals of the New Deal in ways that appear bad to the casual news viewer, often calling it "socialism", which is really wasn't - people don't really grasp what the New Deal did for workers. The forty-hour work week, vacations, unemployment benefits, retirement benefits, health benefits, better working conditions, minimum wages, and more. Before the New Deal, people often worked in sweatshop-like conditions for pennies per day, often for up to 20 hours per day. There were no health benefits, even if you got hurt on the job, and, back then, you were more likely than not to get hurt while working. There were no unemployment benefits; if your job ended, you were out on the street and probably not eating, your family included. When you got too old to do the hard labor anymore, you depended on your children or other family to take you in or you probably died on the street.
While you can't deify FDR - he was a politician, after all - the policies that went through during his administration to get the country back on track after the Depression (which started before he took office) got Americans back to work. Companies also prospered; they didn't like it at the time, but the regulation prevented huge losses. The American Dream we all aspire to was formed. (I notice that the New Deal (or any of its programs) was listed on the Pro Publica site as a "bailout.")
Haliburton has been headquartered in Dubai since 2007: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=2942429&page=1
I agree that the government would want to bailout businesses to control them. And I don't deny that the government wants to look into the lives of everyday Americans and control us. The media shows us that: they tell us something is socialism, we've been trained to reject anything labeled as socialism, so we auto-reject the notion - whatever "it" is. But the media never bothers to define socialism, what THEY mean by "socialism", or even tell us WHY "it" is socialism - either actual socialism or the media's definition thereof. What's interesting is the corporate control of media and how it is centralized and consolidated limited our access to diverse voices and opinions. Instead we get an "approved" message - approved by corporations and governments - on what we should think about, what we should think about it, and what we should do about it (typically, nothing). We have become a society dependant on media and technology to tell us what to think, and they take advantage of that, framing stories to support one viewpoint or a corporate sponsor's viewpoint...which is sometimes a stockholder of the media company itself. They leave out certain aspects of stories, ignore some important stories altogether (like the guy who made energy out of saltwater...which would have hurt energy interests (like GE and Westinghouse who own network media), and distract us with out-of-context soundbites, fancy music, and flashy graphics.
But just as we should worry about Big Brother, we ought to worry about the control of Big Business, as well. Wal*Mart is placing RFID chips in their clothing items (shipped in, duty-free, from China) meaning a company could know everywhere we've been when we've worn that item. Packaging manufacturers are working with local garbage stations to develop methods by which they can track when we throw away something that could have been recycled and then bill us for not recycling it.
I guess, for me, the bottom line is that the PEOPLE of the United States should be the number one focus of all legislation and no one should be able to buy legislation: not corporations, not unions, not lawyers...no one. And both parties are equally guilty of selling the benefits of the American people to the highest bidder via lobbying. This is why I think lobbying should be outlawed. I actually took a class at Gonzaga a while back, and one of my classmates worked as a Congressional Aide to a senator. When I noted that lobbying was bad for the American people - because we are not then properly represented and can't afford lobbyists to go to bat for us - he told me I was being too harsh on lobbyists because they help legislators in myriad ways, including - get this - reading the laws that are to be voted on and TELLING the legislator what's in them. There's no POSSIBLE way that there could be corporate influence on legislation done like that, right? Ha.
And the reason that the Democratic party isn't doing anything about it is because they are as socially conservative as the Republicans. I used Arizona and its Republican leadership as an example, but the same could be said of New York, for instance. Both parties expect the people to pick themselves up and do something about their situation, but refuse to put money into programs that would actually help the people. They all talk a good talk about how whatever legislation they're proposing or the changes they'd make if they were elected would benefit us, but, in the end, everyone ideology can be bought off. Obama's, for instance, on the health care thing, was bought for about $2 billion from the health insurance, health care, and medical malpractice lawyers.
Legislators and state and federal governments cut spending on education instead of pumping money into it and spend that money on things that do not directly benefit those trying to work. You're right: welfare won't work, but I was never advocating more welfare programs. I am advocating a system by which the business world, the people at large, and the local governments work together to alleviate (not eliminate...that's impossible) poverty. By posting the maps, I was noting - without further research - that it was mildly interesting that the highest poverty levels among children were in states that went "red" in the last election. That is sort of interesting. Arizona's making headlines by making its illegal immigration legislation its number one priority...which I think is silly considering that a full quarter of Arizona's population under the age of five is living in poverty. I think effort ought to be re-directed into some sort of program (and, given time, maybe I could think of an example) that would get parents of such children living in poverty back to work so that the poverty problem - at least as far as it is associated with the current recession - could be alleviated to some extent. Further research into actual poverty levels might find that, percentage-wise, yeah, "blue" states have less poverty, but, with higher populations, it's actually on-par with "red" states. Like I said, further research might be required to get a clear picture. But I just found it interesting that, in less than a minute, there appeared to be some kind of connection.
Part of the disparity between red states and blue states, I think, might stem from there being larger populations in "blue" states, considering they generally house the bigger cities. Because of that, there are more community resources - often operating outside of state or federal programs - for the poor to access. (For instance, Cuban neighborhood programs in New York where older citizens provide child care to keep kids out of trouble, as an example.) Another reason might be because there aren't "outreach" efforts in rural areas, which is why businesses giving huge dollar amounts in donations to foreign charities baffles me when we have such enormous problems HERE.
In regards to small businesses, I know about taxes and small businesses. For the last six years, I have paid 36% tax on my earnings as a small business. I have to pay Medicare, unemployment, federal and state taxes, as well as local taxes on every dollar earned, and I don't even have employees. While huge corporations get tax breaks for not meeting quarterly expectations - funded by the middle class taxpayer and small business taxpayers - small businesses get virtually no tax breaks. This happens under both political parties. It's clear that, if you can't buy legislation, you can't expect a kick back. There is no "quid pro quo" for the small business owner who can't afford to buy a member of Congress or even a member of local government. And money is what it takes. By allowing huge corporations to take advantage of employment loopholes that send jobs overseas, tax loopholes that allow them to enjoy US tax benefits and not paying tariffs and other fees they can relocate to foreign soil where workers are cheaper, and allowing them to pay workers less when they build a storefront in an area and put people out of work, I, personally, see this kind of corporate-centered legislation as a catalyst of the poverty cycle.
The government as it is now does frame its "successes" in such a way so they appear to be doing something, but it is always just more of the same. This is why I don't believe in politics of either shade. There is no such thing as a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Republican. There is no such thing as a liberal or conservative. I say this in the context of actual politicians. The American people adhere to one side or the other, sure. But these constructs appear only to divide us, to keep us bickering over things that don't matter. Red state/Blue state, Democrat/Republican, liberal/conservative, progressive/status quo...it's all the same. It's ALL about maintaining the status quo for the privileged elite at the expense of the people. The people are encouraged at every turn to support and help maintain a system that victimizes and dehumanizes them. We have become commodities, either valuable or not valuable.
Supporting "social programs" in this country that help get people to work is really just a bandaid for a larger problem. Like welfare and other assistance programs, it's a little like sticking some bubblegum in a crack in Hoover Dam. Eventually, that sucker's going to fail. We really have to re-examine the fundamental problem which is that the vast majority of people live on 1% of this country's wealth; the other 99% is held by 1% of the population at the expense of the 99% of people living on the 1% of wealth.
The minimum wage prevents companies from forcing people to work for slave wages. When the cost of living increases, so should pay. When pay increases, the middle class spends, and that bolsters the economy. The middle class (and upper lower class) doesn't spend as much when they don't have enough left over after living expenses to spend on consumables, like retail products or fast food. It isn't just "liberals" that "dangle" minimum wage as a carrot, either. The minimum wage in Idaho is $5.15 per hour. If you're a food or beverage server, in Idaho, the minimum wage for you is $3.00 per hour. Yeah. People can TOTALLY live on that. But we should all be grateful for that $5.15 an hour, right? What isn't said is that those making that wage never get 40 hours per week; it's more like half that. What they take home after taxes is barely enough to get to work, especially with the gas prices the way they are, which is another discussion altogether.
How do we define a small business? Aetna would like us to think that they are a small business. (There was a Fox News report a while back that included an interview with a representative from Aetna where he said that very thing: "Small business like us (referring to Aetna) will suffer under health care reform.") To me, a small business is a local business that employs at least one person but no more than 100. I think, once a business has more than 200 employees, they're no longer a small business: they're a company. But that's my opinion and my definition. Opinions may vary.
And, sure. The cost of living here is less than in Los Angeles. But there has to be some kind of benchmark to denote poverty. The fact is, while the federal government has said that certain amount of money is the benchmark for poverty, states makes their own levels based on income data from their tax records every year. In Idaho, to qualify for welfare (the kind where they give you money), you have to make less than $400 per month. In Idaho, to qualify for food stamps, a family of four with one income has to make less than $1,000 per month after an allowance ($549 per month, max) for housing expenses, including heat, electricity, water, sewer, garbage, and rent. These amounts fluctuate based on income levels reported during the year.
And the funny thing is, if states claimed that $30,000 per year was poverty based on the goal that they want MORE impoverished people, then why isn't the money going there? Idaho's the reddest of the red states (outside of Utah, I seem to recall) and yet social workers in Idaho have been laid off or forced to take furloughs. The don't operate every day, anymore. And the amount a family of four getting almost no income can receive in food assistance has gone down every single year. Assistance programs are a front for government excess. Nobody's getting helped, not in the way some recipients think they are, at any rate.
I can't recall the last time anyone said that "eliminating poverty" was his or her goal. You can't "eliminate" it. You can alleviate it. That's about it. And, like I said, welfare isn't the answer. But social programs that put people back to work? That could help. A lot of people don't know how to navigate the educational system to even get to school, and there aren't a lot of places that help and make the process easier. There aren't any programs to retrain people who've lost their jobs. They are cutting education, instead. The federal government and the state of Washington have cut $15 million from educational funding for WSU alone; I got an email about it just last week.
In the end, I guess I take issue with the fact that the only recourse people see for helping others is welfare. There are so many other options that the community could do outside of governments, like a community health care program, or a volunteer retraining program where skilled people teach unskilled people how to do something. People no longer work together. We pay huge "non-profit" organizations to "do politics" for us and we isolate ourselves from real problems happening here. We couch these things in empty arguments like "this group does THIS" and "that group does THAT" and "SOMEONE should do something about this" but nobody does anything about anything. If we, as a community pulled together, we could all do something. The impact might be small at first, but there are thousands of us. Eventually, we'd make an impact.
I think we ought to start by demanding that lobbying be outlawed and called a treasonous offense....
Part 2
How is what the Democrats want to do NOT socialism? They want to control the corporations through taxation, control production, and redistribute wealth so that everyone is on a more equal footing. They also want to control speech through political correctness and make it illegal to disagree with the party, because doing so makes you a racist or a hate monger.
I am not saying there should be no assistance programs, and there are certainly people who find themselves on hard times and need a hand, be it a hand up or even a hand out, but the system should not be set up so that it can lead to generation upon generation of nonproductive members of society who sponge off the government, meaning you and me, the tax payers, for their whole life.
Like I said, I support free higher education and more jobs. That will allow those who want to improve their economic standing to do so, and allow those who choose to remain in poverty to do so as well. It is not the duty of the government to force people to obtain a higher standard of living, but to protect their right to live as the CHOOSE, and to provide them with a fair chance to pursue the OPPORTUNITY to advance, but not to guarantee it, and to insure that the chances are based on merit and qualification, not on race or special category.
I also support term limits, and think we need to throw every politician we now have out of Washington and start with a clean slate. There should be a national campaign fund established, and any company or body that is not a private individual can contribute as much as they want into it, but it is distributed EVENLY between all candidates. Any candidate caught taking money from a corporation or group should be fired and sent to prison. We elected them to work for US, for the salary WE decide to pay them, not to give them an opportunity to sell our rights to the highest bidder.
Part 1
I couldn’t agree more with your sentiment towards lobbyists. They should all be skinned alive and hung with a noose made from their own intestines. They represent the selling of our government to the highest bidder and are directly responsible for the influence corporations and big business have on the government.
Here is an observation I have made. Many “liberals” are liberal because they want to be “nice” and “do good” towards others, especially the less fortunate. This is without question a noble and worthy pursuit. They have been duped or brainwashed into believing that this is what the Democrat Party is about “helping” the less fortunate, and to promote this belief the Democrat Party aligns itself with minorities and takes the extreme sides of social issues.
They also demonize the Republican party, making them a straw enemy, convincing the masses that it is a collection of good ole boys and red necks that want to take money from the poor to give to the rich.
Nothing could be further from the truth. So many people just don’t realize that the vision the Democrat Party has for “helping” the poor is to take care of them through social programs and handouts, making them completely dependent on the government for their every need. This gives the Democrat Party more and more power and they continue to steam roll over the citizens. They want to take the money from the rich and from the corporations, and then decide who is worthy to receive it.
The Republicans want to reduce taxes on EVERYONE, and cut taxes on corporations so that they can HIRE people and let them earn their own money so they can control how it is spent. The Democrats would much rather dole out assistance, like food stamps, so that they can control what YOUR money is spent on. When they give you a housing allowance, a gas voucher, food stamps, etc., they are controlling your behavior. Republicans want to make people responsible for their own actions and hold them accountable for them. If you spend all your money on booze and cigarettes and don’t have money for food, you go hungry. It’s harsh, but it’s real life.
Think about the Democrats agenda with an honest and open mind. THEY are the reason that Creationism and Intelligent Design CANNOT be taught in school today, not even as an alternate theory. OF course, according to them, anyone who believed in Christianity, Creationism, or just God is a religious fanatic and should not be allowed to vote. It’s even worse if you believe in God and own a gun. You are one of Satan’s Minions if you hunt and take the life of a defenseless animal, even if it is to feed your family, because the government can supply you with food. They are the reason there will be no Nativity set in front of the school this year, and they want to desecrate the definition of marriage, in the name of being “sensitive” and “fair”, when other means, such as civil unions can provide gays the same rights and protections as a husband and wife.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people actually disagree with these basic points, yet still insist that they are a Democrat.
And this is absolutely economic socialism. Look at the dictionary definition:
socialism [ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm]
n
1. (Economics) an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels
What you're saying about liberals is correct. It's a media construct designed to divide the nation. But the same is true of conservatives. As humans, we desire to "belong" to something, something that matches what we think. The media (and the governments and businesses behind the media) have constructed prototypes of the "typical" liberal/Democrat and conservative/Republican so that the American people have nice, neat groups that they can identify with. Once these designations/groups are determined and promulgated in the media, people have a nice template to which they can aspire and belong. It also serves to distract through contentious debates between the two groups - being intentionally designed with characteristics that are polar opposites, to facilitate disagreements between the heterogeneous ideologies - causing huge chasms between these constructed groups of people.
This is where you have to look at the groups in two ways: first we look at it through the lens of the media and the powerful, elite people behind the media. By constructing diametrically opposed characteristics between the two groups, the American people are focusing on how the other groups are "bad," thus NOT looking (and critically examining) at bigger issues, such as the control of our information by the moneyed elite, the social constructionism that pits us against one another and causes us to actually support the system that marginalizes and dehumanizes us, and the fact that there really is no government in this country. All is controlled by the highest bidder. Second, you look at it through the lens of the American people, mislead by corporate-controlled "information" presented in sound bites, with flashy graphics and music, told half-heartedly, with half-truths and non-truths, omission rampant. We believe we are informed, but we are not. We believe in the ideologies behind the constructs, but the leadership, in reality, does not. It's all flash, pandering, and campaigning. They market our own beliefs to us in order to get our support because we outnumber them, and the "one person, one vote" system scares the crap out of the elite and powerful who only have their money to keep them elite and powerful.
These divisions and the characteristics of the constructed parties are rife with generalities and stereotypes. Many will say that stereotypes are valid because they have become stereotypes. But who made them that way? The media, controlled by only a few wealthy, elite members of society. In the 1980s, there were around 25 major media outlets that were independent of each other. This means that there were 25 "voices" in the media, insofar as a major, broad scale information peddling was concerned. FCC de-regulations and re-regulations in the late 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s - that the American people were told would increase market competition - actually centralized control of information and allowed for mega-mergers to take place. This consolidated the number of voices citizens can get information from. We went from having a reasonably diverse marketplace of 25 major voices in the media to having 8 in 2009. Even the Internet, which is supposed to be the epitome for independent media and voices is actually controlled by just a few companies, insofar as the major Internet presences are concerned.
And gatekeepers keep anything that doesn't settle well with their financial backers out of the limelight. Remember the guy who found a way to make energy out of saltwater with microwave frequencies? Yeah, it was never in the media because energy interests would have taken a hit on their bottom line. The FDA is fighting the marketing of vapor-based smoking apparati because the tobacco lobby has asked them to, and an extension of that is that you don't hear about these alternatives in the media. When the public is kept from information, they are more easily controlled. Their beliefs are more easily controlled. It's really a very old idea: the Romans, when they conquered a country, prevented the "natives" from getting educated. Ignorance equals control of the masses. Because the masses do outnumber the elites to such a great extent, they should be afraid of the masses, but they aren't, because they've figured out that if they distract us with pointless, erroneous divisions of ideology...if they allow us to entertain ourselves into oblivion with TV, video games, sports, and even news...if we're more concerned that some lazy asswipe is getting "free" money on our backs...then we don't see that the media's arguments are the straw enemy, easily constructed for us to play verbal Don Quixote with our neighbors and tilt with imaginary weapons which is only media-constructed arguments. While we're doing this, we don't notice that maybe our neighbor proclaims to be a Democrat and a liberal but owns an arsenal of firearms. We've become distracted by the construct of the word "Democrat" or "liberal" that we scarcely realize that a liberal owning firearms is an anachronism against the very definition the media has fed us. We don't notice that we are paying these massive companies to entertain us to death (World of Warcraft, video games, cable TV, etc), distracting us from critical examination and debate of real issues that affect everyone equally. We don't notice that the news reels only show us stories of welfare recipients taking advantage of the system and never stories about people who only need some help...or that Democratic representatives are just as apt to cut welfare programs as Republicans.
These notions really got going in the early 1970s, especially concerning the Democratic party, when McGovern took up the pro-choice stance. Since then, the Republican party's savvy public relations have been able to align themselves with the "Christian right," supposedly espousing a conservative viewpoint that a country based on Christianity can identify with...they espouse the morals of the constituency, but they don't really do anything about these supposed moral issues. No freebies (welfare), no abortion, lower taxes...none of these things really materialize.
Let's just look at the abortion issue. When Roe v. Wade went through in 1973, the Supreme Court that made the decision was predominantly stacked with Republicans: The "Burger" Court contained 5 Republicans (Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justices Potter Stewart, Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and William Rehnquist) and 4 Democrats (William Douglas, William Brennan, Byron White, and Thurgood Marshall). Of those, only Rehnquist and White voted "no" on Roe v Wade, thus removing any question as to whether Roe v Wade was a solely Democratic/liberal issue; if it had been, the other four Republicans would have also voted "no" (thus keeping abortion illegal), and White would have voted with the other Democrats and it would have been defeated, anyway. And, since then, members of the Supreme Court have been predominantly Republican, but abortion remains legal, even after several instances where the Republicans have outnumbered the Democrats on the Supreme Court and had the opportunity to overturn it. If these facts don't speak to the fact that all politicians are the same and that the divisions supposedly between the parties is a fallacy created by a powerful media machine, I'm not sure what does.
But the media tells us that all Democrats/liberals are out to create a welfare state, that all Democrats/liberals are out to take away the right to keep guns, that all Democrats/liberals want to make sure illegal aliens can get free money and food and jobs from the government. All Democrats/liberals want to help the poor, expand job opportunities for minorities, expand welfare rolls, and are, in general, very extreme and not in touch with the American people or their ideals.
Meanwhile, we're told that all Republicans/conservatives want to lower taxes, cut welfare (including Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc), stamp out illegal immigration, keep the 2nd amendment intact, help businesses prosper so they can hire more Americans, stand up for small businesses, promote smaller government, promote the moral character of this Christian nation, and that Republicans/conservatives in general are more in-tune with the American people, their ideals, and what they want.
But welfare rolls actually dropped 60% after Clinton's welfare reform law in 1996. With the exception of the 1994 "Brady Bill" (which imposed a 5-day waiting period and a background check for gun sales and an assault weapons ban), all major gun control laws since 1970 have been signed into law by Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, and Bush the first). As far as taxes go, when there are claims that Republicans lower taxes, it's really important to look at the tax brackets to see who, really, is affected, and, more often than not, the beneficiaries of tax breaks are not the middle class and small business owners as is oft-reported in the media; no, it's the very wealthy and corporations. While lowering taxes seems like a great deal and something that everyone should back, the reality is that we can't pay for anything without taxes, not even defending America. Social welfare programs actually expanded under Reagan, by about $200 billion per year by the time he left office.
For every example of how the mythology of Democratic party/liberal I can give you, I'll bet you can give me several examples of the demonization of the Republican party/conservatives. And that's my point. The designations between the political parties are largely fallacies, manufactured myths by the media machine in order to keep the American constituency divided, distracted, and bickering while a bunch of stuff we ALL (regardless of proffered political/ideological affiliation) would disagree with, if we only knew.
The fact is, there is no such thing as a Democrat. There is no such thing as a Republican. There is no such thing as a liberal. There is no such thing as a conservative. Not as far as federal leadership and representation goes, anyway. While the people certainly have adhered to the constructed characteristics of the supposed parties and ideologies, in reality, the representation and leadership is all pretty much the same. While politicians pay lip service to their constituents - regardless of political leanings - they are paid far too well to actually do anything about it. Because, in reality, both parties are in the business of supporting the corporate agenda while putting on a facade for the American people. They make promises while campaigning, we vote, they win, they do whatever they've been paid to do. They all take money from the working class. They all do what the lobbyists and their backers pay them to do. They all support a system of plutocracy.
The reality is, that, regardless of supposed political or ideological affiliation these politicians at all levels say they belong to, the reality is that our government is controlled by those who can pay to control it. We are controlled by those who can afford to buy control.
One example is health care. Now, I consider health care to be a basic human right, not a consumer issue, meaning that, I don't believe that health care ought to be something that people can get only if they can afford it or can afford (the mostly paltry) insurance to cover it. Opposition to health care access for everyone likes to tell it that the government would decide who was worthy of care and who wasn't, thus "killing your grandma." However, the health insurance industry has been in the business of blocking people from getting the care they need for decades. They spend billions of dollars per year on bonuses for employees who can find reasons to deny payment for treatment to their clients for reasons such as acne treatments as a teenager when, as an adult, they need cancer treatments, even if they've paid that company hundreds of dollars per month for YEARS and never used the coverage before. An examination of statistics regarding rescission rates by insurance companies shows that, if you get sick, you actually have a 50-50 chance of your insurance covering your medical treatment.
Now, with Obama's health care reform bill...well, you'd think I'd be all for it, but I am not. In fact, I would say it is definitely in the top ten worst pieces of legislation to pass Congress in the last 40 years. Why? They call it the "individual mandate." Rather than actually provide access to health care for everyone - regardless of the ability to pay - they have basically made it a law that every American has to purchase the product offered by a specific industry. All Americans must buy health insurance or face tax penalties and/or jail time in a Federal prison. The only other time legislation like this has happened is when it was legislated that all those operating a motor vehicle must buy insurance. The difference is that a person can avoid the auto insurance mandate by not driving; you can't avoid getting sick, for the most part. Colds, sure. Cancer? Probably not. And when you're really sick, you need treatment. This law basically says that all of America will now subsidize the health insurance sector. Awesome.
And even better? Health insurance companies have been getting taxpayer subsidies to manage the largest welfare program in the country (Medicare and Medicaid) since the 1980s, and further privatization of the Medicare/Medicaid system has made it not only incredibly inefficient, but also FAR more expensive. When the system was managed entirely by the government and tax payers, it was able to keep costs below the inflation level. Now, the costs - subsidized by taxpayers - increases every year, mostly due to administrative costs. I have all the research on this if you want to read it. The point is, these are all examples of privatizing basic human needs to corporations at the expense of the people. The government and corporations have framed the issue of health care as a consumer issue, not an issue of basic human rights, and that is, quite frankly, deplorable.
Anyway, as a result of this privatization of social medical programs, the cost of the program skyrockets and the American taxpayer must foot the bill. The American people are told that they should be pissed at these lazy Americans who won't go buy insurance, but the fact is, the American taxpayer ought to be pissed that, because of corporations running the program, it now costs about three times what it should. Another aspect is that medical outfits are allowed to bill Medicare/Medicaid MORE than they can bill an insurance company for the same damned things. Related: they can charge uninsured persons EVEN MORE than they charge Medicare/Medicaid. And when the corporations behind Medicare/Medicaid deny coverage to people...well, guess who's "killing your grandma" now.
(And, in related news, JP Morgan Chase Bank is in charge of the federal food stamp program, also getting taxpayer subsidies. Awesome.)
In sum, even "welfare" programs are corporatized, subsidized by the American taxpayer. Plus, by putting social programs in the hands of corporations, those corporations can figure out what people spend money on and market to them better.
The myth of Republican tax reduction and the supposed subsequent worker hirings is, mostly, just that: a myth. If it were true, then the Bush tax cuts on that very group of the elite, the wealthy, and the corporations should have nullified the current unemployment rate. But it did not have that effect. Unemployment rates are around 10% nationally, but that doesn't count people who aren't collecting unemployment benefits, so the actual number of unemployed is actually somewhere around 20% of the U.S. population. Furthermore, it has been reported that those who benefit the most from the Bush tax cuts actually only get about 22% of their income from actual business activities; the rest of it comes from capital gains, salaries, bonuses, stock dividends, and interest, and much of that is now tax deductible. These are people who make millions every year. As an actual small business owner, I have seen my taxes actually go up since these "tax cuts" took effect.
The fact is, unless they are forced to, most corporations would rather keep a skeleton staff and pay them as little as possible, forcing them to do the work of five people than ever hire new people.
In an ideal world, nobody would need to get assistance, but this isn't an ideal world. In the real world, day-to-day living costs more than people are allowed to earn. Most jobs that are available wouldn't pay the bills ($5.15 per hour and 20 hours per week means it costs more after car insurance and gas to go to a job like that than it would to hold out hope for something better). Though I won't deny that there are those who deliberately cheat the system to get something for nothing, they are in the decided minority. Most people would rather be working and making their own way, but these standards of profit before everything - all hail the Almighty Dollar - are making that harder and harder for the working poor to accomplish, especially those who have a need for medical assistance. Food Stamps aren't that controlled, incidentally, on what you can buy, I have recently learned. You can only buy consumable items; you cannot buy toiletries (like shampoo or toilet paper...necessities, by my estimation), you cannot buy anything that is already cooked (like deli food), and you can't buy energy drinks. Other than that, you're free to pick up any food item you like. The issue I have is that they have moved all food stamp transactions to a debit card so that they can monitor your purchasing habits. Electronic debiting allows JP Morgan Chase to keep track of everything bought; it used to be that food stamps were pieces of paper and what was purchased was kept private. More consumer data mining by the corporations, but that's the price you pay if you need help for a while.
I'm not sure where this demonization of the poor comes from, but it is rampant and it is everywhere. If you are getting help, you're automatically lazy, a loser, an alcoholic, a drug user, and, in general, not a productive member of society. It's sad, really. The poor are people, too. The poor are people who, more often than not, would rather be self-sufficient. I know. I have been dirt poor. I have eaten out of trash cans. I have sold my possessions to buy food. I would have rather done anything than get on assistance because of the social ramifications involved in getting help. But when you've got other people relying on you, children relying on you to provide for them, you do what you have to do.
As far as the separation of church and state goes, I disagree with a lot of the things you mentioned, but it's kind of a separate argument from politics and poverty. I would, however, hesitate to place the blame at the feet of any particular political party without further research, though I won't deny - based on the cursory information I already know - that it is mostly liberal activists (according to the media construct of the term) that have brought about the banning of many of the things you mention. But a lot of that can be laid at the door of the Supreme Court, which, again, has been predominantly Republican for decades, and the reason that it is in the purview of the Supreme Court is because the supposed separation of church and state is "based" on the First Amendment to the Constitution.
And I think the whole "gay marriage" thing is, by and large, another thing to distract us. Since the republican-led Supreme Court has already ruled during the Bush administration that sodomy was legal (protected under privacy rights outlaid in the Constitution), that, and not Democrat/liberal legislation/lobbying (with the exception of protesters for those specific things) is the cause of the debacle of the semantics of whether it should be called "marriage" or "civil union." The fact is, people will do those sort of perverted things regardless of what we call it or how it's legislated; you can't legislate morality.
I'm not sure how allowing the plutocracy to control 99% of the people and 99% of the wealth is any better than socialism. Myself, I think pluralism is more in-line with what people want. Economic pluralism promotes more competition than capitalism and encourages education whereas capitalism benefits those with power and money only and allows people to be controlled. I adhere to the notion (mostly) of cultural pluralism, which allows groups of people to be what they are without fear of social shunning or retribution by larger groups. (By "mostly" I mean that, as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, people ought to be able to do what they please, and that means taking advantage of people/society, as well...and, of course, also obeying all laws of the land.) I believe in methodological pluralism in which scientific endeavors are examined through multiple viewpoints before becoming "accepted." I also believe in fundamental and value pluralism because I think that society ought to look at things from multiple angles and points-of-view and consider them all correct and take them all into account.
In the end, I guess my argument here is this: no one is forcing anyone to get assistance, but some people need it. Villianizing those who need help only supports a broken system that dehumanizes people, victimizes their humanity, and makes them into commodities, either valuable or not, and, thus, disposable...instead of helping to find a solution that works. No solution is going to make everyone happy; there is always going to groups who disagree with how things get done, and, sometimes, those who are unhappy are those who have the biggest platform to complain and, thus, twist facts and statistics to say whatever they want them to say, to label things however they choose, and basically mislead people. Most people don't choose a life of poverty. Most poor people don't really want assistance, but they need it. Most poor people don't have access to resources that teach them how to be more self sufficient and get better paying jobs. Hell, I'm sure you know that there are places where kids as young as nine or ten are forced to work instead of getting even a basic education because their families are just that poor.
But the media propaganda about the poor causes people to believe that all the poor people choose to live that way, that they're lazy, that they are cheaters who live off those who do work. Like I said, those people definitely exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Virtually no one would choose that life if they knew how to get something different and better on their own. But by cutting into "welfare" budgets, people who would normally get paid to teach the underprivileged how to find good paying work, get a good education, and change their lives have been laid off, are now unemployed (and possibly collecting assistance, as well, now), and that leaves funding for just a skeleton staff that is not prepared to show people how to make a better life for themselves and the "basic" social welfare programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and, to a MUCH lesser extent, cash benefits. When the path to opportunity is not only blocked but not revealed to the underprivileged, we're not only talking about inequality, but oppression, as well. The fact that racial minorities seem to fall into this category of the underprivileged A LOT is not a coincidence; it's just an example of more oppression.
As to your last paragraph, I completely agree, except for the bit about private individuals, and I am not sure why you would exclude them from donating whatever they want into a general fund, as well.
Stimulating debate!
Post a Comment