As a member Gen-x, I can say that I saw a definitive line in the sand with Reagan. His racist “Welfare Queen” rhetoric really seemed to resonate with the republicans. The “I’ve got mine “ attitude is killing our grand children’s future, not taxes. Citizens United (corps aren’t people!). Our government has morphed so far from the original framework, that it’s no wonder we are on a path to fascism. (And the GOP seems to fully support dictators). Is Congress ever going to overturn the Trump tax cuts? And why is there no discussion of ending Citizens United? Bueller…Bueller!!
P.S. I noticed a lot of people stepping up over the holiday to help those struggling. While this is wonderful, wouldn’t it be more helpful to those families struggling to have reliable help all year instead of just when it’s convenient for others?
A decent job, living wage, affordable housing, childcare, healthcare is way more helpful than a free turkey at the holidays.
I agree, CA McCoy, especially with your P.S. We shouldn't need to rely as a society on individual benevolence (often seasonal) to take care of one another.
I totally agree! But I have one question. Where do all these people with the attitude of, "I've got mine, why don't you have yours?" Where were these people reared? What is their thought processes or do they even have one? This attitude shows up among the very poor AND the very rich. It is disgusting.
I think that may be where racism comes in. Also, intentionally exacerbated "attribution error", a tactic used by both Mitch and trump to manipulate the uninformed. :( pip
The American people have been lied to by both parties, but more so by the GOP since Day One.
The BBL (Bi-partisan Big Lie) goes like this and you've heard it a thousand times at least:
"We don't have enough money for social programs because we have to stick to our budget just like your household must stick to your budget. Because we are accountable with U.S. tax dollars we must prioritize our budget and everbody knows defense spending is our Number One priority and our second priority is to give trillions in tax breaks to the rich and powerful or else the super-wealthy and big corporations won't be able to provide jobs and they will leave America if we don't give them giant tax breaks. We must subsidize big oil and coal or we won't have enough energy to run our society, so those of you who want increased gov't spending on social programs are irresponsible and need to learn how to live on your own income, whatever that may be. If you don't have enough income you're too lazy to work harder and need to work more, because we got rich from hard work. Sorry Charlie, you must be some kind of socialist or Communist because you want more gov't handouts. We cannot increase social spending or else we will have to raise taxes and suffer inflation."
This old BI-PARTISAN BIG LIE has dominated the economic narrative in America since FDR's New Deal, thanks to THE HAVES OVER THE HAVE NOTS. The media still promotes the BBL as if it were true. The BBL is the official policy of the Republican Party and moderate Democrats.
Both Clintons have used the BBL like a sub-machine gun, mowing down any argument for increased social spending. Newt Gingrich made his entire career about the BBL and fueled his political rise by incessantly repeating the Bi-partisan Big Lie over and over and over again.
The entire media has served as a bi-partisan echo chamber repeating the BBL for decades and decades. No wonder a majority of Americans believed the BBL when Robert Reich served under Clinton. The American people have been steeped and marinated in the BBL and continues the repetitive promotion of the BBL to this day.
Whenever a progressive Democrat proposes increased social spending, that proposal and their sponsors are quickly beat down with BBLs: "We can't increase social spending without raising taxes and increasing The Deficit. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, we must reduce The Deficit, not irresponsibly increase The Deficit."
Mitch McConnell always says that he opposes increased social spending because he doesn't want his grandkids paying for old liberal ideas of increased social spending. Clearly Republicans have gotten more mileage out of repeating the BBL than Democrats, but even today in the year 2021 many moderate Democrats loudly object to increased social spending based upon the old BBL.
So what's the truth? Jack Nicholson once said, "You can't handle the truth," and unfortunately I believe that applies when it comes to the things Americans believe about our economy, gov't spending and how our gov't actually works instead of how our gov't is supposed to work.
Currently, when Congress passes a bill that requires gov't funding, that bill goes to the U.S. Treasury whereupon the Treasurer makes a "request for funds" from the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve Chairman literally sits at his computer and creates money out of thin air by using his keyboard to add zeros to the requested dollar amount and deposits said amount into a U.S. gov't bank account at the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve calculates interest and adds that full amount to the U.S. deficit. btw, federal income tax does not fully fund gov't spending but only a small portion thereof. Don't think so? Watch what Ben Bernanke said to Bernie Sanders when Bernie grilled former Fed Chairman Bernanke on how does the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air and who do they lend trillions of U.S. tax dollars to: https://youtu.be/3Lb_f8m6IqE
So what's wrong with that process? EVERYTHING.
Here comes the "Can't handle the truth" part:
Our Founding Fathers are doing cartwheels in their graves knowing that long after they created a constitutional gov't where our FF gave Congress the Constitutional authority to create currency out of thin air WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY UPON A CENTRAL BANK, (like England) a greedy, bad-faith Congress would come along and unconstitutionally impose a CENTRAL BANK titled, "The Federal Reserve" whereupon Congress would be required to "borrow money" plus interest from a private banking cartel shamelessly titled "The Federal Reserve."
So what's the alternative? The obvious alternative is:
1) Congress stop borrowing money via the Federal Reserve, accruing an ever-increasing, very unnecessary deficit;
2) Congress fund gov't operations by Congress utilizing its Constitutional authority to create funds out of thin air and deposit said funds directly into U.S. gov't bank accounts at the U.S. Treasury without "borrowing money" from The Federal Reserve.
Thanks to economists such as Stephanie Kelton, many Americans are waking up to the fact we are being fleeced and robbed by Congress borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and the bi-partisan lies that protect such an egregious process. See Stephanie Kelton discuss The Deficit Myths here: https://youtu.be/FATQ0Yf0Fhc
Both parties and the media will continue to ridicule and attack anyone suggesting that Congress stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and instead Congress direct deposit currency instruments directly into U.S. gov't bank accounts WITHOUT involving the Federal Reserve.
Both parties and the media reject this idea out of hand, falsely claiming Americans cannot have an unregulated constitutional money supply because it will cause massive inflation and ruin our economy.
HORSEHOCKEY! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Today's so-called "inflation" is partially caused by COVID-related supply chain issues, but much of the so-called inflation is simply the result of big corporations refusing to cut massive corporate profits instead of raising their prices. Proctor & Gamble posted record profits in the billions, but raised their prices significantly instead of doing any "belt-tightening" of corporate profits - you know, the kind of "belt-tightening" media pundits and Congress are always suggesting the middle class and poor do.
Moreoever, we could fund more social programs to help the middle class and poor, including increasing Social Security to LIVING WAGE LEVELS AS IT SHOULD BE, by sufficiently TAXING ASSETS of the uber-rich and big corporations, instead of taxing their reported incomes.
Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and even big corporations such as Sanyo claimed NO INCOME or they LOST MONEY even though Sanyo sold millions upon millions of units in America.
Our crooked Congress accepted and continues to accept massive donations from the uber-rich and big corporations to write tax loopholes into the law so they can avoid paying federal income taxes.
So who's going to do anything about it? The Republican Party? Nope. Moderate Democrats? Nope. What about old school Democrats like the Clintons, Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
Are they going to do or say anything in their retirement years to change the BIG MESS WE'RE IN?
The BIG MESS they helped create and protected their entire careers? Nope.
So who is going to make the change we need? A third party? No way, not going to happen.
I say increasing the number of progressive Democrats in Congress is America's only chance to STOP THE OLD MADNESS of Congress borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, increasing The Deficit, increased military spending, increased tax breaks for the uber-rich and big corporations, continued gov't subsidizing of the oil and gas industries and so forth and so on.
Thanks to the internet and increased communications amongst Americans, We The People have a chance to find out and acknowledge the REAL PROBLEMS with our government and support progressive policies that a majority of Americans now support by voting for incumbent progressive Democrats and those progressive Democrats running for office in your local, state and federal elections.
They say Knowledge is Power, but we all know that Knowledge without action remains powerless, ineffective Knowledge.
Honestly, it boggles my mind that Mitch McConnell wants his grandchildren to live in a dystopia like the one he’s creating. If he truly cared about them he’d be working to build a better society. The cognitive dissonance is massive.
I believe that people in wealthy circumstances always (incorrectly) imagine that they and theirs will live in a protective bubble, no matter what. Moreover, they tend to believe in the moral correctness of power and privilege.
Yes, in no small part because they magically believe that they *morally deserve* anything they have obtained. They lose track of the role of other people and just dumb luck. I've seen it up close in every CEO I've ever known except one really good person. I've seen it in almost every other sr exec I've known except a rare few.
Now consider this: their vision of the US future is modeled in the example set in the states they come from. Consider looking at the links I've posted above in response to Mr Harold's statement.
Now that you got me thinking about ol' "Chins" McConnell, I paid close attention when Mario Cuomo told him exactly where to stuff his language about "blue state bailouts." To my perception, that's why Cuomo had to go. Not because he stood up to ol' Chins, but because he was energetic, confident, and strong - possibly a presidential contender, eventually. Of course, Cuomo was subsequently tarred as a dirty guy who couldn't keep his hands off the ladies, when it had seemingly never been an issue before. (Kind'a parallels what happened with ol' Bill Clinton, don't you think ‽) But even before that, they were going at him for allegedly lying or misrepresenting his covid numbers. It's a 1,2 punch: another Watergate and another "Trousergate," right out of the Republican - for Nixon - revenge playbook. Whatever the reality of any of it, Cuomo stood up to ol' Chins and was subsequently swatted down. Personally, I'd still vote for Cuomo if he made a presidential bid. He's at >least< as fit a leader as ol' Tweety was!
If he ever comes up with a platform I'd vote for, I wouldn't rule out voting for him - while reminding him to keep his hands to himself when he's surrounded by enemies! Indeed, I'd remind him not to do >anything< stupid in the midst of his enemies!
Thank you, Ron (yes, I read your entire essay), for your summary of the pernicious and lasting effects of the two Presidential terms of Saint Ronald Reagan. No so certain I can agree with your comments on the Federal Reserve but they're certainly worth a second and more in-depth look. You're certainly spot-on about all the rest.
Thx....very good info.......and now a word about cancel culture and the Age of Hate we live in: Republicans and others individuals and organizations who also face criminal, social and enviromental justice came up with a phrase designed to diminish and eliminate accountability: "Cancel Culture." It reminds me of warmongering Congressional Zionists who support Israel automatically branding any criticism of the rogue, apartheid terrorist gov't of Israel as "anti-semitic."
I predict future historians will brand the 20th century and decades beyond as the "Era of Hate" marked by societal and institutional racism and class warfare.
Carl Sagan warned us of a "future celebration of ignorance." Sounds like Trump and MAGA to me.
Don't you dare try to put your warmongering, filthy words in my mouth! Don't you dare try to intimidate me into dissolving my First Amendment Speech Rights to criticize the Israeli government!
Israel IS a rogue, terrorist apartheid government. Criticizing Judaism is anti-semitic. Only a damn fool would criticize Judaism or any religion for that matter.
Criticizing the Israeli gov't is my constitutional right and moral obligation to do so.
Don't you DARE even try to mislabel me as "anti-semitic" for criticizing the Israeli gov't.
You made a mistake trying to mislabel me anti-semitic, brocephus. That's the oldest knee-jerk reaction in the book. I am an EXPERT 1000 on this issue. I once debated Alan Dershowitz and I kicked his ass so hard with the facts re: the Israeli gov't, the man conceded to me on the facts.
I can and will fill this very thread up with so many facts re: the Israeli gov't you will probably blow a gasket. Don't do it Gomer, you know not of what you speak when it comes to the hardcore criminality of the Israeli gov't. I have 30 years of experience that says so.
I would bet you have no respect for int'l law especially as it applies to the Israeli gov't.
The Israeli gov't is the ALL-TIME GRAND PRIZE WINNER when it comes to U.N. Resolutions violated, with a whopping 77 U.N. resolutions violated since the formation of israel in 1948.
Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed that Israel will never, ever comply with U.N. Resolution 242, ORDERING the Israeli gov't out of the Palestinian territories and ORDERING ISRAEL to recognize Palestinians' Right of Return and ORDERING Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. These are just a few of the indisputable facts supporting my contention that Israel is a de facto criminal apartheid gov't. I can do this all day and am more than happy to drop the facts re: the Israeli gov't here and now for all to see right here.
Go ahead: make my Day bro. That's what you get for trying to mislabel me as "anti-semitic."
My Jewish friends warn and write about the blind supporters of the criminal apartheid gov't of Israel. They taught me the old trick of trying to mislabel one as "anti-semitic" for revealing facts re: the Israeli government.
"YES, ISRAEL IS OBVIOUSLY AN APARTHEID STATE" - THE NATION MAGAZINE
The recent Human Rights Watch report “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution” is a valuable piece of scholarship: 213 pages of carefully worded, heavily footnoted evidence martialed in sober, and deliberately uninflammatory, prose.
The HRW report follows on a lengthy legal brief issued in July 2020 by the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din, that concluded that Israeli authorities were committing “the crime against humanity of apartheid” in the West Bank. This past January, B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organization, expanded this argument by applying the term to what it called Israel’s “regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”
JERUSALEM — If being an apartheid state means committing inhumane acts, systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, then Israel is guilty, a United Nations panel has determined in a new report.
Apartheid was a term once associated with South Africa's white-rule system, but now represents a broad term for crimes against humanity under international law and the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court, said the report in its executive summary made public Wednesday.
Titled, “Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid,” the report was written by Richard Falk, a former U.N. special rapporteur to the Palestinian territories known for harsh criticisms of both Israel and the United States, and Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University.
The two concluded that Israel has established an apartheid regime aimed at dominating the Palestinians. Their recommendations include reviving the U.N. Center Against Apartheid, which closed in 1994 after South Africa ended its apartheid practices. The report also urges support for a boycott, divestment and a sanctions campaign against Israel.
I've never given it much thought before, taking my understanding of the terminology from a conventional, historical context. However, something about your comment, that I can't quite put my finger on, elicited within me the onset of "brain-lock." As a remedy, I thought a little disambiguation might be - indeed, has always been - in order. I hope my cursory investigation is in some way useful:
I now have a small measure of relief regarding mine own confusion. And let me hasten to add that I've learned enough in this life to know better than trying to pass any of that off as authoritative.
“Any proposed solution that threatens the destruction of the State of Israel IS inherently antiSemetic.” Mislabeling Israel as apartheid, Zionism as racism, or any of the numerous modern day tropes are as anti-semetic as the tropes of the past centuries. The Arab reading and retelling of history is as anti-semetic as was Henry Ford’s Protocols. As Dr. Wilf’s book explains, the Arab view of the establishment of Israel is based on their tribal perspective that Jews were interlopers upon their fiefdoms. This perspective/opinion is historically false, as anyone studied in the history of the Middle East or of the Jewish people knows.
Best to engage in the public forum on issues well versed, and in this example, on topic.
Yep! You're right about that. My original comment, which all this follows, was in recommending a couple of video essays concerning the economics, religious disposition, and a later addendum concerning the quality of life of certain states to keep in mind when considering the vision for the US of their Congressional representation - not at all about anything to do with anywhere else in the world. But, hey! I'm flexible.
A representative of our area's housing shelter agency spoke at church yesterday and outlined the reduction in federal spending on housing since 1970. What she didn't mention was the destruction of unions and unionized industries, the lack of living wages, and the concomitant rise in inequality, which is pricing people out of housing. Charity, important as it is, can't begin to claw back the ills caused by inequality.
Well said, Beth. A variety of factors explain the current state of inequality, but regardless of why it happened, we need changes at the systemic level -- through policy and law.
Medicare saved my grandparents' lives, my parents' lives, and my life!!! I have a comfortable retirement, thanks to this essential government program!!! Lets be sure to expand it to include dental, hearing, and vision benefits. And let's allow Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma to lower prescription drug costs. Thank You.
There were incessant portrayals of 'Welfare Queens' in Cadillacs living large everywhere. There were myths in the area I lived in of 'Pig roasts' happening in the basements of the 'flats' , apartment buildings that were 4 or 5 stories high with basements. I'm sure they were as rare as the 'welfare Caddies', but to this day I sometimes hear these lies repeated. These myths were about the Puerto-Ricans who started to move into the area in the late 50's. Also Blacks who came in to the area before then. I remember older people saying "Why work hard? If you are not rich, just go apply for welfare." "The best place to be is rich or very poor. then you don't have to work hard and you get what you need." It was racist and untrue, but people believed it.
A small but important point: extremely poor Puerto Ricans began to move to New York in the early 1950's. They came with next to nothing in the middle of the winter, and sent their non-English-speaking kids to my school on the West Side of Manhattan wearing only single-layer cotton dresses, and no coats. How they managed to survive is beyond me. Over the ensuing years they quickly learned the language, filled the sewing machines in the sweatshops on lower Broadway near Houston, and becoming a vital force and great contributor to New York City and mainland America at large. They brought new life - and lots of color, style and joy - to our very grey city as well as developing the marvel of Newyorican cuisine. We are so very much the better for accepting those poor immigrants into our midst. They were, and are, Americans of course.
Porter, It was probably mid 50's that I was aware of them in my Catholic school in Holyoke MA. I remember Sylvia Cartagena when she entered 2nd grade. She wore gold crosses pierced earrings. I asked my father if I could have earrings like that. He said they could be pulled out. I changed my mind. There was also a boy, Iliostoto Mendoza, who was very small with big beautiful eyes. They made such an impression on me that I'm remembering them a long way from 2nd grade.
I was in first grade in NYC in 1950-51 and recall that my mother related a conversation with my first grade teacher at a teacher-parent get-together. My teacher said something like "I've been teaching for 35 years, and look at the trash they give me to teach!" She retired the end of that year. I still recall my buddy Ernesto in third grade, a great kid and a good friend. That was a long time ago.
It’s amazing how brainwashed people are regarding welfare. The biggest recipients of welfare are corporations and the monopolies in this country. Next down the line would be white folks and the military service members and their families. But right wing control of most media outlets tells a completely different story. Because it helps them stay in power.
It kills some of the most hateful when they are told that Puerto Ricans are citizens of this country. Holyoke just elected its first Puerto Rican Mayor. I bet some are grumbling about that. After decades, they are an important part of our population. In Holyoke, they are a majority of the population now. It is a story that is told about quite a few immigrants.
Many, many People still believe it today. they say to live on Welfare and you live like Queens. You get a $1000 phone and get pedicures and eat Lobster and steaks. I read it all the time. Reagan did a good job brainwashing the masses with his untruthfulness.
I agree that those who are "well-off" do not feel a connection to the poor. And I agree with your statement regarding the "beleaguered working-class" perceiving help to the poor will increase their taxes. I live with both. I am among those seniors who live in subsidized housing, receive food stamps, and help with my heating costs. I had a fraction of wealth, working hard for forty years. My financial comfort was lost in 2001, and the final blow came in 2008. I have no complaints: I am healthy, content, loving, continuing with my art and writing. However, I live with seniors older than I who struggle in ways I would not wish upon anyone. Until one sees the loss of human dignity and hope through lack of almost everything, if not everything, then writing checks, et cetera, keeps one at a safe distance from the cold reality of poverty's face and hollow eyes. I know this, for I once had the finances to write those checks. I live in a rural area of upstate New York and know the children of struggling working families. Our small community tries to help with fundraising programs, childcare, making dinners in church basements so a child can eat at least one nutritious meal, too often the only full meal that week. We are a predominantly white community. Those who do have money share little or nothing at all.
We are called the 'have-nots' by those who have financial well-being. The cold fear of losing financial security creates an absence of generosity. I observe the fear among those who have more than enough, becoming a 'have-not.' I feel sad for the loss of basic charity once so vibrant in our nation. I love this country, but we are not who we once were. I hope our better angels prevail over the huckstering of FEAR by the media, our government, our churches, and every conversation I hear. Fear overpowers compassion; hence, the spirit of generosity.
Conservatism is not a legitimate political ideology but a sociopathy instead. This is why Republicans and conservative Democrats oppose increased social spending for the unwashed masses - because their conservative beliefs are born of racism and classism.
Conservatism can be summed up as follows: "I got mine so, to hell with you buddy!"
And, "I don't have your problems you lazy slob, so I don't care about your problems - problems I do not suffer."
It's worth noting the massive hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance the "Christian Right" evangelicals suffer while implementing and protecting policies wholly incongruent with Jesus' teachings.
Conservatism is a form of mental illness developed by long-term racism and classism.
The sooner we start treating conservatism as a sociopathy born of racism and classism, the better off we will be implementing progressive policies which benefit the middle class, the poor and the disabled.
The sooner progressive Democrats focus and sharpen progressive messaging much better than progressive Democrats have done, the sooner progressive Democrats start calling out racist politicians who support class warfare against the middle class and poor, the better off we will be in reaching progressive goals.
Political conservatism and capitalism go together like peanut butter and jelly. The USA is very conservative compared to other western democracies, and it is also devoted to free market capitalism. We have no paid maternity leave, for instance, or universal health care, etc that most other western democracies have. It just makes sense because, if society is just a competition for power and wealth, why would you ever want to help the other guy?
Completely agree. We were much more generous and compassionate before Reagan, Gingrich, and Fox News turned the country into a bunch of greedy narcissists. Now, how do we fix that? You’d think with all the emphasis on mindfulness and compassion it would improve but in some ways things seem worse than ever. Or perhaps it’s just time for the pendulum to swing back. I certainly hope so.
Who are the lobbyists in Washington or elsewhere against child poverty? Old folks like me have powerful and influential organizations like the AARP lobbying both parties on behalf of the elderly. I and my wife are bombarded with appeals for money (particularly this time of the year) by numerous charities, political groups, and others, but I don't recall any appeals for combating child poverty. There is little reporting about this in the media. I was not aware of how bad things were until reading your newsletter. Where are the advocates to solve this problem?
I agree! I was 30 years old when I finally had one hearing aid. People thought that I was slow. Turned out that in my overcrowded kindergarten class when they screened for hearing, a man came in and put headphones on everyone. He told us to raise out hands when we hear the tone. I raised mine when everybody else did. But I could not hear. In my 30's I saw a hearing specialist at Boston eye and ear. He said the one hearing aid I had was in the wrong ear, and inadequate. I needed both ears have aids.
A news letter from the AAYP to every child might help to get the message out. Also people could contribute information that might be helpful for every child to know that some services are available to them. It could be distributed by email to every household, church, school, hospital, Gynecologist, library, child welfare office, foster parents and orphanage.
Based a little on the AARP newsletter with helpful hints, columns and comments section. The AARP could and should help get it off the ground and should be publicly funded by congress. Sort of Voice of America or the Public Broadcasting Service. Just a voice of the people.
The idea of an AAYP is good. But I think of the few issues I received of that magazine, and there are lots of ads for supplemental insurance, something a young infant would not be buying. Discounts galore on travel, dining out and such. The tips and stories about seniors are thin for a resource that advocates for real change. Shame on our 'leaders' that the babies are cut out!
Perhaps just letting kids know things like where kids eat free, or places where kids get discounts. So they can let parents know, or the parents find out by reading the newsletter. Perhaps it would step up commercial establishments to step up and get them to encourage children to attend or go to places for fun and games. Make it fun and affordable for kids and family's. Just an idea.
Social Security is way too low. Most Americans on Social Security can tell you all about it.
Social Security or SSI in most instances pay less than the current federal minimum wage.
How do lawmakers expect seniors and the disabled to live on Social Security when workers cannot even pay their rent with their federal minimum wage? Do workers deserve a living wage while seniors and the disabled are expected to survive on much, much less than a living wage? Equality my butt.
In 2020, the maximum SSI federal benefit is $783 per month, or 74% of the federal poverty level. The average SSI benefit, however, is only $446 for seniors. ... Even when including income from other sources such as Social Security or a pension, a person receiving SSI is likely living below the federal poverty level.
The average Social Security benefit in 2021 is $1,555 per month - the cost of an average one-bedroom apt. is approx. $1,500 per month, not counting utilities and additional costs.
Social Security should NOT be based on past low wages.
I support a UBI of $2k monthly funded by SUFFICIENTLY TAXING THE ASSETS, NOT INCOME, of the uber-rich and big corporations, and by deficit-free Congressional spending. (not borrowing from the Federal Reserve)
According to the most recent studies, in the United States:
More than 15 million older adults are economically insecure.
About 50% of seniors rely on Social Security for the majority of their income.
Over the next 10 years, the number of elderly Americans without homes could triple.
Poverty affects older adults differently than other demographics — these individuals are especially vulnerable to economic instability when their physical health, cognitive abilities and social networks decline.
The Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University estimates that 8 million Americans slipped into poverty during the coronavirus pandemic.
The monthly poverty rate for older adults increased from 15.7% in January to 16% in September, a less significant change than with other demographics.
The monthly poverty rate for adults ages 18 to 64 increased from 14.3% to 15.5%.
The monthly poverty rate for children increased from 18.7% to 20.4%.
The true buying power of Social Security benefits has decreased 30% over the past 20 years.
I think the fact that the elderly vote, usually in higher proportions than other age groups, is one reason, but probably not the major reason. Racism may also play a part. There is a substantial number of people in this country who say they are willing to forgo government benefits, including access to medical care, if it means that Black people will also receive those benefits.
The major reason may be that, in contrast to the elderly, children cannot be given checks or other help directly. The assistance goes to their working-age parents. There is an attitude in this country that poverty is a character flaw, that it results from laziness, and that all red-blooded American parents should be able to provide for their children. Rugged individualism and all that. During the Trump administration, many Republican governors sought to impose work requirements for Medicaid. And yes, even some Democrats have bought into this. As I recall, Joe Manchin wanted to impose a work requirement for the child tax credit, obviously not for children, but for their parents. Thus, the child tax credit is disparaged as merely a "government freebie," rather than a program to enhance the quality of life in this country and improve the life prospects of our nation's children. And entitled billionaires like Elon Musk unabashedly proclaim that they just don't care.
It would be ludicrous to make parents pay for a tax credit by 'working it off'! It would go towards childcare and be a net zero, not to mention the stress to parents and kids. Just another way to beat struggling people up!
I think that by 1996 we were far enough bought into the otherization of minorities and immigrants, post-Reagan still waiting for that trickle-down, and experiencing enough wage stagnation in the lower class, that it caused that loss of support for welfare. And those conditions have only worsened since. So now you have a vast class of people who work so much for so little that they haven't a spare moment, energy, or dime to consider advocating for poor children, even if they do have compassion. Understandably, many feel they must jealously guard what they've worked so hard to scrape together. And, you have the hardworking professional class, who may see the outsize and complex nature of problem and know they can't personally fix it, and who also based on experience don't trust politicians to fix it either, so they make a few charitable donations and hope for the best. They may care and be willing to help, but likely feel the size of the problem requires systemic action of a scale beyond their means and influence.
I don't know what the answer is, other than perhaps if we can reform our political system to remove corporate influence, politicians may have more bandwidth and incentive to address the needs and concerns of constituents rather than prioritizing corporations. Anything that can be done to significantly increase the responsiveness of represesentatives to voter concerns would be a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the Prosperity Gospel might be influencing the Right generally. "People are poor because they haven't earned the right to be otherwise [thru a godly life and sufficient ambition]". It may also be a general attitude of "I'm not going to aid *those people* no matter what color they are. IOW, simple Tribalism... [aid for the elderly being already baked in]. :| pip
The DOJ should charge mega-church pastors such as Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland who preach the "Prosperity Gospel" under federal fraud and RICO statutes, for seeking donations based upon a false premise.
Non-church, non-secular organizations are not exempt from federal criminal statutes, nor should secular "Prosperity Gospel preachers" be exempt from federal criminal statutes just because they claim their actions and the money they raise are the property of the Church.
ANY ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL who solicits donations based upon a false premise should be prosecuted under federal law, including MAGA-based fundraising schemes and "Prosperity Gospel" fundraising schemes.
According to timeless wisdom, ALL Americans can better flourish in a more just economy. How do we build a "more just economy"? Read "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, not the Few", & "We Cry Justice" as edited by Liz Theoharis. We must pass BBB act, & win the midterms.
What’s the answer? The Answer is "Medicare for all" with a single payer program for ALL U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens with the withholding of premiums from wages of everyone going into the program just a Medicare does today along with Social Security. Just as Medicare has buy up programs through insurers, like "Medicare Plus" employers could provide the added benefit for a quarter of what they are paying now allowing them to pay higher wages like the Federal Government raising the minimum wage to $18.75. The Insurance Lobby would love the "PLUS" programs since most people would buy them and the catastrophic "pay outs" would be minimized like Medicare covers them now. States would love this so they would not have to have their own Medicaid programs and everybody is covered from Birth. Problem Solved ! If and when congress ends the filibuster and rams this through before the end of 2022.
I think that "become[ing] far less equal as a society" - from the last ¶ of Mr Reich's theory - is far more symptom than cause. On the other hand, the cause is far greater in complexity than a single, well-meaning mind, no matter how learned or enlightened, can possibly wrap itself around. However, I >suspect< the cause has >something< to do with a toxic notion of competition, a game oriented notion of competition. From that perspective, what one calls inequality in society is to say there are winners and losers in some kind of existential game. Of course, the lie we're told is that society is a "house" - the "invisible hand" - that never cheats in a fair game of chance amongst rational actors - that is, a fair and unrestricted market. That's set in stark contrast with the notion that success - that is, winning - is the result of an individual's hard work. Even >thieves< believe they work hard! The contrast is between an apparent rational determinism and an existential crap-shoot extant all the way down to the DNA that our forbears have passed on to us and that we will pass to our descendants. Of course, among the spoils in this game going to the winners, along with writing it's history, is setting the "house rules." And as we all know, the house, the "invisible hand," >never cheats< - by its own rules the winners establish. And of course, the winners >never< believe that "all men are created equal." To the winners in that game, that's the point of winning! Is it any wonder that "we have become far less equal as a society ‽"
Indeed, religion plays into this narrative quite neatly. The notion of some heathen >god< is >always< the invisible hand acting on behalf of those who are the winners - right down to a cheesy game of chance in some sleazy casino. Thus, the inequality is buttressed by the kind of religions such societies embrace.
As a further thought, when appreciating any kind of sci-fi, keep in mind that the genera speculates on human interaction within a future - or even a speculative past or anachronistic - technological context. It becomes even more apparent that the human drama is the point of any sci-fi yarn. That's particularly important in "social science fiction" authors such as Ursula K LeGuin, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Doris Lessing, and even the mother of all science fiction, Mary Shelly. As a personal note, I find female sci-fi authors generally have a better grip on the social aspect of science fiction. That's a positive recommendation, should anyone get the wrong impression of my personal observation. Good sci-fi authors are not a "boys' club." Indeed, don't let it go unnoticed that Suzanne Collins wrote "The Hunger Games."
Don't know the author, but I've just looked her up and will give her a read. I make no claim to categorical knowledge of sci-fi. There's >always< something or someone I've yet to read! The examples I used, though, are authors I'm certain most of us here have heard of before. While I'm speaking of "who knew?'s" let me suggest "The Three Body Problem" series of Chinese author Cixin Liu: https://us.macmillan.com/series/thethreebodyproblemseries I wasn't even aware there was a Chinese sci-fi tradition! Apparently, Netflix is currently producing a screen-drama version at this time. The series takes a more Stephen Hawking view of first contact. In a weird way, it plays into my whole discussion of toxic competition with respect to social inequality I began with.
Art is said to be a reflection of it's context. I've been planning to revisit "Hunger Games." I'll keep your reference in mind as I watch the series. At first blush, I'd say "well done" on "getting" my intent and meaning, though.
After further consideration, imagine a game that combines all the features of Risk and Monopoly as played in an ancient Roman coliseum using a chess-like strategy. That'll kind'a point the direction I had in mind in my comment. "Hunger Games" is not unlike that.
As a member Gen-x, I can say that I saw a definitive line in the sand with Reagan. His racist “Welfare Queen” rhetoric really seemed to resonate with the republicans. The “I’ve got mine “ attitude is killing our grand children’s future, not taxes. Citizens United (corps aren’t people!). Our government has morphed so far from the original framework, that it’s no wonder we are on a path to fascism. (And the GOP seems to fully support dictators). Is Congress ever going to overturn the Trump tax cuts? And why is there no discussion of ending Citizens United? Bueller…Bueller!!
P.S. I noticed a lot of people stepping up over the holiday to help those struggling. While this is wonderful, wouldn’t it be more helpful to those families struggling to have reliable help all year instead of just when it’s convenient for others?
A decent job, living wage, affordable housing, childcare, healthcare is way more helpful than a free turkey at the holidays.
I agree, CA McCoy, especially with your P.S. We shouldn't need to rely as a society on individual benevolence (often seasonal) to take care of one another.
I totally agree! But I have one question. Where do all these people with the attitude of, "I've got mine, why don't you have yours?" Where were these people reared? What is their thought processes or do they even have one? This attitude shows up among the very poor AND the very rich. It is disgusting.
I think that may be where racism comes in. Also, intentionally exacerbated "attribution error", a tactic used by both Mitch and trump to manipulate the uninformed. :( pip
The American people have been lied to by both parties, but more so by the GOP since Day One.
The BBL (Bi-partisan Big Lie) goes like this and you've heard it a thousand times at least:
"We don't have enough money for social programs because we have to stick to our budget just like your household must stick to your budget. Because we are accountable with U.S. tax dollars we must prioritize our budget and everbody knows defense spending is our Number One priority and our second priority is to give trillions in tax breaks to the rich and powerful or else the super-wealthy and big corporations won't be able to provide jobs and they will leave America if we don't give them giant tax breaks. We must subsidize big oil and coal or we won't have enough energy to run our society, so those of you who want increased gov't spending on social programs are irresponsible and need to learn how to live on your own income, whatever that may be. If you don't have enough income you're too lazy to work harder and need to work more, because we got rich from hard work. Sorry Charlie, you must be some kind of socialist or Communist because you want more gov't handouts. We cannot increase social spending or else we will have to raise taxes and suffer inflation."
This old BI-PARTISAN BIG LIE has dominated the economic narrative in America since FDR's New Deal, thanks to THE HAVES OVER THE HAVE NOTS. The media still promotes the BBL as if it were true. The BBL is the official policy of the Republican Party and moderate Democrats.
Both Clintons have used the BBL like a sub-machine gun, mowing down any argument for increased social spending. Newt Gingrich made his entire career about the BBL and fueled his political rise by incessantly repeating the Bi-partisan Big Lie over and over and over again.
The entire media has served as a bi-partisan echo chamber repeating the BBL for decades and decades. No wonder a majority of Americans believed the BBL when Robert Reich served under Clinton. The American people have been steeped and marinated in the BBL and continues the repetitive promotion of the BBL to this day.
Whenever a progressive Democrat proposes increased social spending, that proposal and their sponsors are quickly beat down with BBLs: "We can't increase social spending without raising taxes and increasing The Deficit. Marsha, Marsha, Marsha, we must reduce The Deficit, not irresponsibly increase The Deficit."
Mitch McConnell always says that he opposes increased social spending because he doesn't want his grandkids paying for old liberal ideas of increased social spending. Clearly Republicans have gotten more mileage out of repeating the BBL than Democrats, but even today in the year 2021 many moderate Democrats loudly object to increased social spending based upon the old BBL.
So what's the truth? Jack Nicholson once said, "You can't handle the truth," and unfortunately I believe that applies when it comes to the things Americans believe about our economy, gov't spending and how our gov't actually works instead of how our gov't is supposed to work.
Currently, when Congress passes a bill that requires gov't funding, that bill goes to the U.S. Treasury whereupon the Treasurer makes a "request for funds" from the Federal Reserve.
The Federal Reserve Chairman literally sits at his computer and creates money out of thin air by using his keyboard to add zeros to the requested dollar amount and deposits said amount into a U.S. gov't bank account at the U.S. Treasury. The Federal Reserve calculates interest and adds that full amount to the U.S. deficit. btw, federal income tax does not fully fund gov't spending but only a small portion thereof. Don't think so? Watch what Ben Bernanke said to Bernie Sanders when Bernie grilled former Fed Chairman Bernanke on how does the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air and who do they lend trillions of U.S. tax dollars to: https://youtu.be/3Lb_f8m6IqE
So what's wrong with that process? EVERYTHING.
Here comes the "Can't handle the truth" part:
Our Founding Fathers are doing cartwheels in their graves knowing that long after they created a constitutional gov't where our FF gave Congress the Constitutional authority to create currency out of thin air WITHOUT HAVING TO RELY UPON A CENTRAL BANK, (like England) a greedy, bad-faith Congress would come along and unconstitutionally impose a CENTRAL BANK titled, "The Federal Reserve" whereupon Congress would be required to "borrow money" plus interest from a private banking cartel shamelessly titled "The Federal Reserve."
So what's the alternative? The obvious alternative is:
1) Congress stop borrowing money via the Federal Reserve, accruing an ever-increasing, very unnecessary deficit;
2) Congress fund gov't operations by Congress utilizing its Constitutional authority to create funds out of thin air and deposit said funds directly into U.S. gov't bank accounts at the U.S. Treasury without "borrowing money" from The Federal Reserve.
Thanks to economists such as Stephanie Kelton, many Americans are waking up to the fact we are being fleeced and robbed by Congress borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and the bi-partisan lies that protect such an egregious process. See Stephanie Kelton discuss The Deficit Myths here: https://youtu.be/FATQ0Yf0Fhc
Both parties and the media will continue to ridicule and attack anyone suggesting that Congress stop borrowing money from the Federal Reserve and instead Congress direct deposit currency instruments directly into U.S. gov't bank accounts WITHOUT involving the Federal Reserve.
Both parties and the media reject this idea out of hand, falsely claiming Americans cannot have an unregulated constitutional money supply because it will cause massive inflation and ruin our economy.
HORSEHOCKEY! Nothing could be further from the truth.
Today's so-called "inflation" is partially caused by COVID-related supply chain issues, but much of the so-called inflation is simply the result of big corporations refusing to cut massive corporate profits instead of raising their prices. Proctor & Gamble posted record profits in the billions, but raised their prices significantly instead of doing any "belt-tightening" of corporate profits - you know, the kind of "belt-tightening" media pundits and Congress are always suggesting the middle class and poor do.
Moreoever, we could fund more social programs to help the middle class and poor, including increasing Social Security to LIVING WAGE LEVELS AS IT SHOULD BE, by sufficiently TAXING ASSETS of the uber-rich and big corporations, instead of taxing their reported incomes.
Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and even big corporations such as Sanyo claimed NO INCOME or they LOST MONEY even though Sanyo sold millions upon millions of units in America.
Our crooked Congress accepted and continues to accept massive donations from the uber-rich and big corporations to write tax loopholes into the law so they can avoid paying federal income taxes.
So who's going to do anything about it? The Republican Party? Nope. Moderate Democrats? Nope. What about old school Democrats like the Clintons, Barack Obama and Joe Biden?
Are they going to do or say anything in their retirement years to change the BIG MESS WE'RE IN?
The BIG MESS they helped create and protected their entire careers? Nope.
So who is going to make the change we need? A third party? No way, not going to happen.
I say increasing the number of progressive Democrats in Congress is America's only chance to STOP THE OLD MADNESS of Congress borrowing money from the Federal Reserve, increasing The Deficit, increased military spending, increased tax breaks for the uber-rich and big corporations, continued gov't subsidizing of the oil and gas industries and so forth and so on.
Thanks to the internet and increased communications amongst Americans, We The People have a chance to find out and acknowledge the REAL PROBLEMS with our government and support progressive policies that a majority of Americans now support by voting for incumbent progressive Democrats and those progressive Democrats running for office in your local, state and federal elections.
They say Knowledge is Power, but we all know that Knowledge without action remains powerless, ineffective Knowledge.
- Ron Harold progressivemediaservice@gmail.com
Honestly, it boggles my mind that Mitch McConnell wants his grandchildren to live in a dystopia like the one he’s creating. If he truly cared about them he’d be working to build a better society. The cognitive dissonance is massive.
McConnell is a very rich man due to his wife's Chinese family business connections. His descendants won't be poor by any means.
No, but if he has his way they will live in a violent, polluted world. That’s what I mean.
I believe that people in wealthy circumstances always (incorrectly) imagine that they and theirs will live in a protective bubble, no matter what. Moreover, they tend to believe in the moral correctness of power and privilege.
"Power corrupts?"
Yes, in no small part because they magically believe that they *morally deserve* anything they have obtained. They lose track of the role of other people and just dumb luck. I've seen it up close in every CEO I've ever known except one really good person. I've seen it in almost every other sr exec I've known except a rare few.
Now consider this: their vision of the US future is modeled in the example set in the states they come from. Consider looking at the links I've posted above in response to Mr Harold's statement.
Why should he worry about that he won't even be here!!!
Now that you got me thinking about ol' "Chins" McConnell, I paid close attention when Mario Cuomo told him exactly where to stuff his language about "blue state bailouts." To my perception, that's why Cuomo had to go. Not because he stood up to ol' Chins, but because he was energetic, confident, and strong - possibly a presidential contender, eventually. Of course, Cuomo was subsequently tarred as a dirty guy who couldn't keep his hands off the ladies, when it had seemingly never been an issue before. (Kind'a parallels what happened with ol' Bill Clinton, don't you think ‽) But even before that, they were going at him for allegedly lying or misrepresenting his covid numbers. It's a 1,2 punch: another Watergate and another "Trousergate," right out of the Republican - for Nixon - revenge playbook. Whatever the reality of any of it, Cuomo stood up to ol' Chins and was subsequently swatted down. Personally, I'd still vote for Cuomo if he made a presidential bid. He's at >least< as fit a leader as ol' Tweety was!
It's Andrew, everything else is correct!
(Too many years associating Cuomo with Mario!)
OOPS! Right! My bad. Andrew. The guy who took on ol' Chins!
Thank you.
Are you referring to Mario (the father) or Andrew (the son)?
Mario. He's the one who stood up to ol' Chins about "blue state bailouts." I was impressed.
If he ever comes up with a platform I'd vote for, I wouldn't rule out voting for him - while reminding him to keep his hands to himself when he's surrounded by enemies! Indeed, I'd remind him not to do >anything< stupid in the midst of his enemies!
Which Cuomo, again? ..
Mario. He's the one who stood up to ol' Chins about "blue state bailouts." I was impressed.
I thought Mario was dead. Andrew and Chris are his sons. I believe.
Recall, Hillary Clinton was on the Nixon impeachment team.
Consider looking at the links I've posted above to put that in perspective.
Thank you, Ron (yes, I read your entire essay), for your summary of the pernicious and lasting effects of the two Presidential terms of Saint Ronald Reagan. No so certain I can agree with your comments on the Federal Reserve but they're certainly worth a second and more in-depth look. You're certainly spot-on about all the rest.
Any thoughtful person should consider these two essays:
Concerning economics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMDuI-vWAS4
Concerning religious beliefs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB0URKxlg1k
Now consider their Congressional leaders - past & present - and draw your own conclusions .
Thx....very good info.......and now a word about cancel culture and the Age of Hate we live in: Republicans and others individuals and organizations who also face criminal, social and enviromental justice came up with a phrase designed to diminish and eliminate accountability: "Cancel Culture." It reminds me of warmongering Congressional Zionists who support Israel automatically branding any criticism of the rogue, apartheid terrorist gov't of Israel as "anti-semitic."
I predict future historians will brand the 20th century and decades beyond as the "Era of Hate" marked by societal and institutional racism and class warfare.
Carl Sagan warned us of a "future celebration of ignorance." Sounds like Trump and MAGA to me.
Consider looking at my earlier comments (below) concerning "become[ing] far less equal as a society" - from the last ¶ of Mr Reich's theory.
Any proposed solution that threatens the destruction of the State of Israel IS inherently antiSemetic. Suggest: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_War_of_Return.html?id=qCWaDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description
Don't you dare try to put your warmongering, filthy words in my mouth! Don't you dare try to intimidate me into dissolving my First Amendment Speech Rights to criticize the Israeli government!
Israel IS a rogue, terrorist apartheid government. Criticizing Judaism is anti-semitic. Only a damn fool would criticize Judaism or any religion for that matter.
Criticizing the Israeli gov't is my constitutional right and moral obligation to do so.
Don't you DARE even try to mislabel me as "anti-semitic" for criticizing the Israeli gov't.
You made a mistake trying to mislabel me anti-semitic, brocephus. That's the oldest knee-jerk reaction in the book. I am an EXPERT 1000 on this issue. I once debated Alan Dershowitz and I kicked his ass so hard with the facts re: the Israeli gov't, the man conceded to me on the facts.
I can and will fill this very thread up with so many facts re: the Israeli gov't you will probably blow a gasket. Don't do it Gomer, you know not of what you speak when it comes to the hardcore criminality of the Israeli gov't. I have 30 years of experience that says so.
I would bet you have no respect for int'l law especially as it applies to the Israeli gov't.
The Israeli gov't is the ALL-TIME GRAND PRIZE WINNER when it comes to U.N. Resolutions violated, with a whopping 77 U.N. resolutions violated since the formation of israel in 1948.
Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proclaimed that Israel will never, ever comply with U.N. Resolution 242, ORDERING the Israeli gov't out of the Palestinian territories and ORDERING ISRAEL to recognize Palestinians' Right of Return and ORDERING Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders. These are just a few of the indisputable facts supporting my contention that Israel is a de facto criminal apartheid gov't. I can do this all day and am more than happy to drop the facts re: the Israeli gov't here and now for all to see right here.
Go ahead: make my Day bro. That's what you get for trying to mislabel me as "anti-semitic."
My Jewish friends warn and write about the blind supporters of the criminal apartheid gov't of Israel. They taught me the old trick of trying to mislabel one as "anti-semitic" for revealing facts re: the Israeli government.
"YES, ISRAEL IS OBVIOUSLY AN APARTHEID STATE" - THE NATION MAGAZINE
The recent Human Rights Watch report “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution” is a valuable piece of scholarship: 213 pages of carefully worded, heavily footnoted evidence martialed in sober, and deliberately uninflammatory, prose.
The HRW report follows on a lengthy legal brief issued in July 2020 by the Israeli human rights organization Yesh Din, that concluded that Israeli authorities were committing “the crime against humanity of apartheid” in the West Bank. This past January, B’Tselem, Israel’s largest human rights organization, expanded this argument by applying the term to what it called Israel’s “regime of Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.”
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-hrw-apartheid-state/
The Washington Post reports: Is Israel an ‘apartheid’ state? This U.N. report says yes.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/03/16/is-israel-an-apartheid-state-this-u-n-report-says-yes/
JERUSALEM — If being an apartheid state means committing inhumane acts, systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, then Israel is guilty, a United Nations panel has determined in a new report.
Apartheid was a term once associated with South Africa's white-rule system, but now represents a broad term for crimes against humanity under international law and the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court, said the report in its executive summary made public Wednesday.
Titled, “Israeli Practices Toward the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid,” the report was written by Richard Falk, a former U.N. special rapporteur to the Palestinian territories known for harsh criticisms of both Israel and the United States, and Virginia Tilley, professor of political science at Southern Illinois University.
The two concluded that Israel has established an apartheid regime aimed at dominating the Palestinians. Their recommendations include reviving the U.N. Center Against Apartheid, which closed in 1994 after South Africa ended its apartheid practices. The report also urges support for a boycott, divestment and a sanctions campaign against Israel.
I've never given it much thought before, taking my understanding of the terminology from a conventional, historical context. However, something about your comment, that I can't quite put my finger on, elicited within me the onset of "brain-lock." As a remedy, I thought a little disambiguation might be - indeed, has always been - in order. I hope my cursory investigation is in some way useful:
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-semites/
https://www.quora.com/Who-are-the-other-Semitic-people-besides-Jews?share=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people
I now have a small measure of relief regarding mine own confusion. And let me hasten to add that I've learned enough in this life to know better than trying to pass any of that off as authoritative.
Thank you for your measured comment. I too have learned enough to know when to pass references as authoritative, which Dr. Einat Wolf’s book is, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_War_of_Return.html?id=qCWaDwAAQBAJ&source=kp_book_description.
So too was my statement that
“Any proposed solution that threatens the destruction of the State of Israel IS inherently antiSemetic.” Mislabeling Israel as apartheid, Zionism as racism, or any of the numerous modern day tropes are as anti-semetic as the tropes of the past centuries. The Arab reading and retelling of history is as anti-semetic as was Henry Ford’s Protocols. As Dr. Wilf’s book explains, the Arab view of the establishment of Israel is based on their tribal perspective that Jews were interlopers upon their fiefdoms. This perspective/opinion is historically false, as anyone studied in the history of the Middle East or of the Jewish people knows.
Best to engage in the public forum on issues well versed, and in this example, on topic.
Yep! You're right about that. My original comment, which all this follows, was in recommending a couple of video essays concerning the economics, religious disposition, and a later addendum concerning the quality of life of certain states to keep in mind when considering the vision for the US of their Congressional representation - not at all about anything to do with anywhere else in the world. But, hey! I'm flexible.
While I'm at it, quality of life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1g6iz-u-xU
You have it >completely surrounded!<
A representative of our area's housing shelter agency spoke at church yesterday and outlined the reduction in federal spending on housing since 1970. What she didn't mention was the destruction of unions and unionized industries, the lack of living wages, and the concomitant rise in inequality, which is pricing people out of housing. Charity, important as it is, can't begin to claw back the ills caused by inequality.
Well said, Beth. A variety of factors explain the current state of inequality, but regardless of why it happened, we need changes at the systemic level -- through policy and law.
Medicare saved my grandparents' lives, my parents' lives, and my life!!! I have a comfortable retirement, thanks to this essential government program!!! Lets be sure to expand it to include dental, hearing, and vision benefits. And let's allow Medicare to negotiate with Big Pharma to lower prescription drug costs. Thank You.
Hear, hear, Kenny.
There were incessant portrayals of 'Welfare Queens' in Cadillacs living large everywhere. There were myths in the area I lived in of 'Pig roasts' happening in the basements of the 'flats' , apartment buildings that were 4 or 5 stories high with basements. I'm sure they were as rare as the 'welfare Caddies', but to this day I sometimes hear these lies repeated. These myths were about the Puerto-Ricans who started to move into the area in the late 50's. Also Blacks who came in to the area before then. I remember older people saying "Why work hard? If you are not rich, just go apply for welfare." "The best place to be is rich or very poor. then you don't have to work hard and you get what you need." It was racist and untrue, but people believed it.
A small but important point: extremely poor Puerto Ricans began to move to New York in the early 1950's. They came with next to nothing in the middle of the winter, and sent their non-English-speaking kids to my school on the West Side of Manhattan wearing only single-layer cotton dresses, and no coats. How they managed to survive is beyond me. Over the ensuing years they quickly learned the language, filled the sewing machines in the sweatshops on lower Broadway near Houston, and becoming a vital force and great contributor to New York City and mainland America at large. They brought new life - and lots of color, style and joy - to our very grey city as well as developing the marvel of Newyorican cuisine. We are so very much the better for accepting those poor immigrants into our midst. They were, and are, Americans of course.
Porter, It was probably mid 50's that I was aware of them in my Catholic school in Holyoke MA. I remember Sylvia Cartagena when she entered 2nd grade. She wore gold crosses pierced earrings. I asked my father if I could have earrings like that. He said they could be pulled out. I changed my mind. There was also a boy, Iliostoto Mendoza, who was very small with big beautiful eyes. They made such an impression on me that I'm remembering them a long way from 2nd grade.
I was in first grade in NYC in 1950-51 and recall that my mother related a conversation with my first grade teacher at a teacher-parent get-together. My teacher said something like "I've been teaching for 35 years, and look at the trash they give me to teach!" She retired the end of that year. I still recall my buddy Ernesto in third grade, a great kid and a good friend. That was a long time ago.
Probably good that she retired.
She was a bigoted piece of work. The classic stern, strict teacher you dreaded seeing every day.
Sounds pretty mean spirited.
It’s amazing how brainwashed people are regarding welfare. The biggest recipients of welfare are corporations and the monopolies in this country. Next down the line would be white folks and the military service members and their families. But right wing control of most media outlets tells a completely different story. Because it helps them stay in power.
It kills some of the most hateful when they are told that Puerto Ricans are citizens of this country. Holyoke just elected its first Puerto Rican Mayor. I bet some are grumbling about that. After decades, they are an important part of our population. In Holyoke, they are a majority of the population now. It is a story that is told about quite a few immigrants.
Many, many People still believe it today. they say to live on Welfare and you live like Queens. You get a $1000 phone and get pedicures and eat Lobster and steaks. I read it all the time. Reagan did a good job brainwashing the masses with his untruthfulness.
I just wonder where you get this idea that people on welfare 'live like Queens.' , It is the republican lie and very sad.
I agree that those who are "well-off" do not feel a connection to the poor. And I agree with your statement regarding the "beleaguered working-class" perceiving help to the poor will increase their taxes. I live with both. I am among those seniors who live in subsidized housing, receive food stamps, and help with my heating costs. I had a fraction of wealth, working hard for forty years. My financial comfort was lost in 2001, and the final blow came in 2008. I have no complaints: I am healthy, content, loving, continuing with my art and writing. However, I live with seniors older than I who struggle in ways I would not wish upon anyone. Until one sees the loss of human dignity and hope through lack of almost everything, if not everything, then writing checks, et cetera, keeps one at a safe distance from the cold reality of poverty's face and hollow eyes. I know this, for I once had the finances to write those checks. I live in a rural area of upstate New York and know the children of struggling working families. Our small community tries to help with fundraising programs, childcare, making dinners in church basements so a child can eat at least one nutritious meal, too often the only full meal that week. We are a predominantly white community. Those who do have money share little or nothing at all.
We are called the 'have-nots' by those who have financial well-being. The cold fear of losing financial security creates an absence of generosity. I observe the fear among those who have more than enough, becoming a 'have-not.' I feel sad for the loss of basic charity once so vibrant in our nation. I love this country, but we are not who we once were. I hope our better angels prevail over the huckstering of FEAR by the media, our government, our churches, and every conversation I hear. Fear overpowers compassion; hence, the spirit of generosity.
Conservatism is not a legitimate political ideology but a sociopathy instead. This is why Republicans and conservative Democrats oppose increased social spending for the unwashed masses - because their conservative beliefs are born of racism and classism.
Conservatism can be summed up as follows: "I got mine so, to hell with you buddy!"
And, "I don't have your problems you lazy slob, so I don't care about your problems - problems I do not suffer."
It's worth noting the massive hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance the "Christian Right" evangelicals suffer while implementing and protecting policies wholly incongruent with Jesus' teachings.
Conservatism is a form of mental illness developed by long-term racism and classism.
The sooner we start treating conservatism as a sociopathy born of racism and classism, the better off we will be implementing progressive policies which benefit the middle class, the poor and the disabled.
The sooner progressive Democrats focus and sharpen progressive messaging much better than progressive Democrats have done, the sooner progressive Democrats start calling out racist politicians who support class warfare against the middle class and poor, the better off we will be in reaching progressive goals.
- Ron Harold progressivemediaservice@gmail.com
Political conservatism and capitalism go together like peanut butter and jelly. The USA is very conservative compared to other western democracies, and it is also devoted to free market capitalism. We have no paid maternity leave, for instance, or universal health care, etc that most other western democracies have. It just makes sense because, if society is just a competition for power and wealth, why would you ever want to help the other guy?
Completely agree. We were much more generous and compassionate before Reagan, Gingrich, and Fox News turned the country into a bunch of greedy narcissists. Now, how do we fix that? You’d think with all the emphasis on mindfulness and compassion it would improve but in some ways things seem worse than ever. Or perhaps it’s just time for the pendulum to swing back. I certainly hope so.
Let's hope the pendulum will swing back. What we have is unsustainable on all fronts. For humans and all life.
Who are the lobbyists in Washington or elsewhere against child poverty? Old folks like me have powerful and influential organizations like the AARP lobbying both parties on behalf of the elderly. I and my wife are bombarded with appeals for money (particularly this time of the year) by numerous charities, political groups, and others, but I don't recall any appeals for combating child poverty. There is little reporting about this in the media. I was not aware of how bad things were until reading your newsletter. Where are the advocates to solve this problem?
Tim, you're right. We need an American Association of Young People, an AAYP, and they should enroll every child at birth.
I agree! I was 30 years old when I finally had one hearing aid. People thought that I was slow. Turned out that in my overcrowded kindergarten class when they screened for hearing, a man came in and put headphones on everyone. He told us to raise out hands when we hear the tone. I raised mine when everybody else did. But I could not hear. In my 30's I saw a hearing specialist at Boston eye and ear. He said the one hearing aid I had was in the wrong ear, and inadequate. I needed both ears have aids.
A news letter from the AAYP to every child might help to get the message out. Also people could contribute information that might be helpful for every child to know that some services are available to them. It could be distributed by email to every household, church, school, hospital, Gynecologist, library, child welfare office, foster parents and orphanage.
Based a little on the AARP newsletter with helpful hints, columns and comments section. The AARP could and should help get it off the ground and should be publicly funded by congress. Sort of Voice of America or the Public Broadcasting Service. Just a voice of the people.
The idea of an AAYP is good. But I think of the few issues I received of that magazine, and there are lots of ads for supplemental insurance, something a young infant would not be buying. Discounts galore on travel, dining out and such. The tips and stories about seniors are thin for a resource that advocates for real change. Shame on our 'leaders' that the babies are cut out!
Perhaps just letting kids know things like where kids eat free, or places where kids get discounts. So they can let parents know, or the parents find out by reading the newsletter. Perhaps it would step up commercial establishments to step up and get them to encourage children to attend or go to places for fun and games. Make it fun and affordable for kids and family's. Just an idea.
Social Security is way too low. Most Americans on Social Security can tell you all about it.
Social Security or SSI in most instances pay less than the current federal minimum wage.
How do lawmakers expect seniors and the disabled to live on Social Security when workers cannot even pay their rent with their federal minimum wage? Do workers deserve a living wage while seniors and the disabled are expected to survive on much, much less than a living wage? Equality my butt.
In 2020, the maximum SSI federal benefit is $783 per month, or 74% of the federal poverty level. The average SSI benefit, however, is only $446 for seniors. ... Even when including income from other sources such as Social Security or a pension, a person receiving SSI is likely living below the federal poverty level.
The average Social Security benefit in 2021 is $1,555 per month - the cost of an average one-bedroom apt. is approx. $1,500 per month, not counting utilities and additional costs.
Social Security should NOT be based on past low wages.
I support a UBI of $2k monthly funded by SUFFICIENTLY TAXING THE ASSETS, NOT INCOME, of the uber-rich and big corporations, and by deficit-free Congressional spending. (not borrowing from the Federal Reserve)
According to the most recent studies, in the United States:
More than 15 million older adults are economically insecure.
About 50% of seniors rely on Social Security for the majority of their income.
Over the next 10 years, the number of elderly Americans without homes could triple.
Poverty affects older adults differently than other demographics — these individuals are especially vulnerable to economic instability when their physical health, cognitive abilities and social networks decline.
The Center on Poverty and Social Policy at Columbia University estimates that 8 million Americans slipped into poverty during the coronavirus pandemic.
The monthly poverty rate for older adults increased from 15.7% in January to 16% in September, a less significant change than with other demographics.
The monthly poverty rate for adults ages 18 to 64 increased from 14.3% to 15.5%.
The monthly poverty rate for children increased from 18.7% to 20.4%.
The true buying power of Social Security benefits has decreased 30% over the past 20 years.
- Ron Harold progressivemediaservice@gmail.com
https://www.justiceinaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/F_SSI-Fact-Sheet.pdf
I think the fact that the elderly vote, usually in higher proportions than other age groups, is one reason, but probably not the major reason. Racism may also play a part. There is a substantial number of people in this country who say they are willing to forgo government benefits, including access to medical care, if it means that Black people will also receive those benefits.
The major reason may be that, in contrast to the elderly, children cannot be given checks or other help directly. The assistance goes to their working-age parents. There is an attitude in this country that poverty is a character flaw, that it results from laziness, and that all red-blooded American parents should be able to provide for their children. Rugged individualism and all that. During the Trump administration, many Republican governors sought to impose work requirements for Medicaid. And yes, even some Democrats have bought into this. As I recall, Joe Manchin wanted to impose a work requirement for the child tax credit, obviously not for children, but for their parents. Thus, the child tax credit is disparaged as merely a "government freebie," rather than a program to enhance the quality of life in this country and improve the life prospects of our nation's children. And entitled billionaires like Elon Musk unabashedly proclaim that they just don't care.
It would be ludicrous to make parents pay for a tax credit by 'working it off'! It would go towards childcare and be a net zero, not to mention the stress to parents and kids. Just another way to beat struggling people up!
I think that by 1996 we were far enough bought into the otherization of minorities and immigrants, post-Reagan still waiting for that trickle-down, and experiencing enough wage stagnation in the lower class, that it caused that loss of support for welfare. And those conditions have only worsened since. So now you have a vast class of people who work so much for so little that they haven't a spare moment, energy, or dime to consider advocating for poor children, even if they do have compassion. Understandably, many feel they must jealously guard what they've worked so hard to scrape together. And, you have the hardworking professional class, who may see the outsize and complex nature of problem and know they can't personally fix it, and who also based on experience don't trust politicians to fix it either, so they make a few charitable donations and hope for the best. They may care and be willing to help, but likely feel the size of the problem requires systemic action of a scale beyond their means and influence.
I don't know what the answer is, other than perhaps if we can reform our political system to remove corporate influence, politicians may have more bandwidth and incentive to address the needs and concerns of constituents rather than prioritizing corporations. Anything that can be done to significantly increase the responsiveness of represesentatives to voter concerns would be a step in the right direction.
I wonder if the Prosperity Gospel might be influencing the Right generally. "People are poor because they haven't earned the right to be otherwise [thru a godly life and sufficient ambition]". It may also be a general attitude of "I'm not going to aid *those people* no matter what color they are. IOW, simple Tribalism... [aid for the elderly being already baked in]. :| pip
The DOJ should charge mega-church pastors such as Joel Osteen and Kenneth Copeland who preach the "Prosperity Gospel" under federal fraud and RICO statutes, for seeking donations based upon a false premise.
Non-church, non-secular organizations are not exempt from federal criminal statutes, nor should secular "Prosperity Gospel preachers" be exempt from federal criminal statutes just because they claim their actions and the money they raise are the property of the Church.
ANY ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL who solicits donations based upon a false premise should be prosecuted under federal law, including MAGA-based fundraising schemes and "Prosperity Gospel" fundraising schemes.
According to timeless wisdom, ALL Americans can better flourish in a more just economy. How do we build a "more just economy"? Read "Saving Capitalism: For the Many, not the Few", & "We Cry Justice" as edited by Liz Theoharis. We must pass BBB act, & win the midterms.
What’s the answer? The Answer is "Medicare for all" with a single payer program for ALL U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens with the withholding of premiums from wages of everyone going into the program just a Medicare does today along with Social Security. Just as Medicare has buy up programs through insurers, like "Medicare Plus" employers could provide the added benefit for a quarter of what they are paying now allowing them to pay higher wages like the Federal Government raising the minimum wage to $18.75. The Insurance Lobby would love the "PLUS" programs since most people would buy them and the catastrophic "pay outs" would be minimized like Medicare covers them now. States would love this so they would not have to have their own Medicaid programs and everybody is covered from Birth. Problem Solved ! If and when congress ends the filibuster and rams this through before the end of 2022.
I think that "become[ing] far less equal as a society" - from the last ¶ of Mr Reich's theory - is far more symptom than cause. On the other hand, the cause is far greater in complexity than a single, well-meaning mind, no matter how learned or enlightened, can possibly wrap itself around. However, I >suspect< the cause has >something< to do with a toxic notion of competition, a game oriented notion of competition. From that perspective, what one calls inequality in society is to say there are winners and losers in some kind of existential game. Of course, the lie we're told is that society is a "house" - the "invisible hand" - that never cheats in a fair game of chance amongst rational actors - that is, a fair and unrestricted market. That's set in stark contrast with the notion that success - that is, winning - is the result of an individual's hard work. Even >thieves< believe they work hard! The contrast is between an apparent rational determinism and an existential crap-shoot extant all the way down to the DNA that our forbears have passed on to us and that we will pass to our descendants. Of course, among the spoils in this game going to the winners, along with writing it's history, is setting the "house rules." And as we all know, the house, the "invisible hand," >never cheats< - by its own rules the winners establish. And of course, the winners >never< believe that "all men are created equal." To the winners in that game, that's the point of winning! Is it any wonder that "we have become far less equal as a society ‽"
Indeed, religion plays into this narrative quite neatly. The notion of some heathen >god< is >always< the invisible hand acting on behalf of those who are the winners - right down to a cheesy game of chance in some sleazy casino. Thus, the inequality is buttressed by the kind of religions such societies embrace.
"Hunger Games" writ large ?
As a further thought, when appreciating any kind of sci-fi, keep in mind that the genera speculates on human interaction within a future - or even a speculative past or anachronistic - technological context. It becomes even more apparent that the human drama is the point of any sci-fi yarn. That's particularly important in "social science fiction" authors such as Ursula K LeGuin, Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Doris Lessing, and even the mother of all science fiction, Mary Shelly. As a personal note, I find female sci-fi authors generally have a better grip on the social aspect of science fiction. That's a positive recommendation, should anyone get the wrong impression of my personal observation. Good sci-fi authors are not a "boys' club." Indeed, don't let it go unnoticed that Suzanne Collins wrote "The Hunger Games."
Don't forget the marvelous sci-fi of C.J. Cherryh!
Don't know the author, but I've just looked her up and will give her a read. I make no claim to categorical knowledge of sci-fi. There's >always< something or someone I've yet to read! The examples I used, though, are authors I'm certain most of us here have heard of before. While I'm speaking of "who knew?'s" let me suggest "The Three Body Problem" series of Chinese author Cixin Liu: https://us.macmillan.com/series/thethreebodyproblemseries I wasn't even aware there was a Chinese sci-fi tradition! Apparently, Netflix is currently producing a screen-drama version at this time. The series takes a more Stephen Hawking view of first contact. In a weird way, it plays into my whole discussion of toxic competition with respect to social inequality I began with.
Liu's "The Dark Forest" proposition is the connection/parallel with my comment on social inequality.
Art is said to be a reflection of it's context. I've been planning to revisit "Hunger Games." I'll keep your reference in mind as I watch the series. At first blush, I'd say "well done" on "getting" my intent and meaning, though.
After further consideration, imagine a game that combines all the features of Risk and Monopoly as played in an ancient Roman coliseum using a chess-like strategy. That'll kind'a point the direction I had in mind in my comment. "Hunger Games" is not unlike that.
Yes.