Trickle-Down Cruelty and the Politics of Austerity

From the article;

"There is a certain irony in the fact that the party of debt has now become a flock of austerity hawks. This is the same Republican Party that gave us two wars, an increase in military spending and whopping loss of tax revenues due to tax breaks for mega-rich corporations and the wealthy Americans."

www.truth-out.org...

As we are steered down a road which seems to single out the poor as being the "problem" of this country, Some less ideologically rigid minds are seeing the why behind the what. That the present state of affairs would not exist without some group profiting flies in the face of modern global capitalism. So as the "poor" ,the unions, and public servants are being singled out as "the problem" Perhaps a new look at who will profit from all this will show some interesting things about commons assumption regarding the profitability of poverty.
seed

Do you ever think the end game of all this is the second coming of feudalism?

It reminds me of the fall of Rome. All the small landowners basically gave up their holdings for defense to more powerful land owners who would become the medival lords. In America, it's becoming increasingly difficult to hold property, and all the credit bubble did was allowed bad debt to serve to collateralize credit into repossessed property.

Think of it this way. If no one can qualify for a house, and no one owns a house, but everyone has to pay for a place to live, how much of a setback will that be to future generations who already have to start deep in a hole just to try to get going unless they're fortunate and lucky enough to have their family set them up.

reply to post by cassandranova


From Professor Michael Hudson (University of Missouri - Kansas City), a highly regarded economist and written in 2008:

You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards, it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.

The Big Banks Are Waging Warfare Against the People of the World

Sounds like you may have hit the nail on the head!

As this a clear partisan shot at the evil "party of AUSTERITY":
One begs the question:"Are there no "evil rich" among the numbers of the democratic party"?
George Soros for one? :puz

reply to post by mustard seed

"There is a certain irony in the fact that the party of debt has now become a flock of austerity hawks. This is the same Republican Party that gave us two wars, an increase in military spending and whopping loss of tax revenues due to tax breaks for mega-rich corporations and the wealthy Americans."

The problem isn't so much the loss of revenue, i.e. tax cuts, the problem is they made the unprecedented decision to instill massive tax cuts at a time of war and massive spending increases. Which in my opinion was one of the stupidest things someone could do. Did the article leave out the massive unfunded medicare expansion that was underhandedly pushed through congress?

Historically when America has gone to war taxes increase and the entire country chips in in one way or another. Not during the Bush years though.

I think everyone can agree that spending has to come under control but not entirely on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Why should people who are in the most need of programs such as medicare and medicaid suffer while the wealthiest are given even more tax cuts and not asked to shoulder any of the burden? Could it be the sick Ayn Rand worldview of certain republicans that the rich have done everything right so they deserve their lavish lifestyle while the poor just need to get over it and work harder? Or is it the job creator myth that has no basis in reality? The typical uninformed conservative viewpoint of "when is the last time a poor person gave someone a job?"

The past couple years was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs! Instead we get legislation against sharia law, union busting, and an all out war on the privacy rights of women. We have a party in power in congress that doesn't care about the economy, a bad economy benefits them at this moment in time. What better way to win the presidency back then ensure the economy is in the toilet?

Okay that's my rant. I need a Tylenol now.

Great post op. S&F

Originally posted by 46ACE
As this a clear partisan shot at the evil "party of AUSTERITY":
One begs the question:"Are there no "evil rich" among the numbers of the democratic party"?
George Soros for one?

:puz

edit on 11-7-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

What ever dude, what ever. In order for it to be "partisan" there would need to be a clear defining issue that sets the republicans apart in this area......
Oh yeah! screw medicare, the poor need to carry more load, unions = the fall of America,hey little girl you had a drug problem and lost your child, murderer!,You know I sure could use running water to the trailer but those rich folks making all the jobs I can choose from need their tax breaks so they can afford to pay me minimum wage until they get rid of that too.
Clearly defining.
And so you know I am not a bleeding liberal or a rabid conservative I am what most of America once was, not fool enough to think you get to the top of this crap heap by being a nice guy.
But the issue here is not even the Repugnicans it is the ones wearing the robes and pushing a fascist agenda.
en.wikipedia.org...
We have been sold out repeatedly by republican "conservatives" from the SCOTUS to POTUS with congress cheering on both sides of he isle.
We live in a good cop ,bad cop system in which the followers of one side think they are good cop and the other bad cop.Thing is they are all bad cops and the worst are having their say about how they feel about you and I.
And believe me even if you make 6 figures you are no different to TPTB than the poorest bum on the street to those making policy. I think that is why those who have a couple nickles are screaming so loud about the poor. The roar of the lion bearing down on them is scaring the hell out of them and they are hoping the lion takes the poor and not them
seed

I think everyone can agree that spending has to come under control but not entirely on the backs of the middle class and the poor. Why should people who are in the most need of programs such as medicare and medicaid suffer while the wealthiest are given even more tax cuts and not asked to shoulder any of the burden?

It is not their burden to shoulder. They are not responsible for your own well-being.

To attribute a responsibility to the "poor" upon the "powerful" is to imply the relation is that of ownership - the wealthy own the poor, thus justifying an ethical/legal liability.

The sheer fact of the matter is that, under the Obama administration with a democrat-held House and Senate, spending has increased in relation to GDP more than under any other administration in history with the current spending-to-revenue ratio being at the highest it has ever been.

Increasing taxes on corporations and wealthy only further encourages off-shore operations and investments in foreign businesses. Those businesses create jobs for people - you know the drill.

Could it be the sick Ayn Rand worldview of certain republicans that the rich have done everything right so they deserve their lavish lifestyle while the poor just need to get over it and work harder? Or is it the job creator myth that has no basis in reality? The typical uninformed conservative viewpoint of "when is the last time a poor person gave someone a job?"

When has a poor person given someone a job? Do they hire someone to cut their grass? Wash their car? Build their home?

The fact of the matter is that only venture capitalists can subsidize business endeavors. I have known plenty of poor people who started successful businesses - investing a ton of time and energy into doing a lot of work on their own. Still - they wouldn't have been able to afford the property, first-years' wages of employees, etc without a "sugar daddy" to fund the business.

Rich people are not saints - but they are also not demonic for having money - nor are they somehow inherently unethical.

The past couple years was supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs! Instead we get legislation against sharia law, union busting, and an all out war on the privacy rights of women. We have a party in power in congress that doesn't care about the economy, a bad economy benefits them at this moment in time. What better way to win the presidency back then ensure the economy is in the toilet?

When aren't there crazy ideas being brought before Congress?

The issue is rather simple - Jobs are not going to be made by the government. Jobs can be encouraged - by encouraging the development of industry and private-side investment - but Congress can't mandate jobs... not without hiring a bunch of new government employees to dig ditches to nowhere ... but that would increase spending in ways that make medicare look like drop in the bucket - so I doubt that will go over too well.

The reason you don't have a lot of private investment at the time is because of the political climate - it is very charged and uncertain. How can one compute the first years' operating expenses when starting a new business when you don't know if you are going to have to provide health insurance or pay a healthcare tax under the "obama-care" legislation that may or may not get repealed?

That's just the basic stuff. That doesn't even get into carbon credits, EPA concerns, IRS concerns and debate over changes to the tax code, etc.

If you've got the money to spend on a business - it's much less of a hassle to deal with workers in the Philippines and where the government is just happy to see their people getting jobs and couldn't really care less about whether your group health insurance policy covers surgery to remove ingrown toenails.

Now I turn the floor over to those who disagree with me so I can be marginalized.

reply to post by Aim64C


So I will not marginalize you as you put up a well thought out response.
To that response I would ask since the wealthy have just gotten more wealthy than ever where are those jobs they "create". And why is it out of line to want some sort of safety net for the poorest?
finally do you really know who creates a "welfare state"? first hint it is not those who are forced to it by very real tight times.
Now who just made trillions of our money bailing their arses out of the jam they made? Ever heard of return on investment? how do you think we all are doing there after "investing"money our grandkids will be responsible for on the pack of theives ponzi schemes? So far I hear the wealthy "create" jobs.They earned there way to the top.We need to protect those who provide jobs.
Pretty well trained sheep cause I can look around and see no living wage jobs, folks who have worked hard their whole lives forced on assistance due to the lack of jobs the wealthy supposedly provide.
Granted a poor man can not give someone steady work but as things increasingly tighten barter of service is the new currency of being poor. As for the rich guy I want to see figures on how well they are doing at providing jobs we paid them to provide with our bail out money.
Lastly this article is partisan no doubt, as republicans are leading this assault but I have no illusions they all bat for the same team.
So if Ronnie was right about trickle down and the facts are the rich are much richer now than when he was around, how come we don't have rivulets of gold running down our necks?
seed

reply to post by mustard seed

To that response I would ask since the wealthy have just gotten more wealthy than ever where are those jobs they "create".

They just got "more wealthy than ever" because they stopped spending their money. It's not that their income or capital returns increased that much - it's simply that they stopped spending in an uncertain climate.

When the flow of cash slows and/or ceases, so do the jobs.

Why have they stopped spending? Because there is a lot of uncertainty at the moment. We have an entire political party playing class-warfare and writing legislation that targets the wealthy - and mobs of people who support them.

When wealthy people buy expensive things - boats, cars, etc - those are made by people - usually the middle class (income-wise). Thus, rich people spending money tends to equate to jobs and job growth. And that is before we consider investment and business/industry subsidizing.

And why is it out of line to want some sort of safety net for the poorest?

I currently live in conditions that are below the "safety net" standard - below what the "poorest" are expected to live with in the nation. Yet, I have a car, phone, computer, internet, etc - without any "income security" or "welfare" programs supporting me. I could live twice as well if I were to apply for various welfare programs out there - and not even have to try (as though I am putting forth some grand effort at the moment - admittedly, I'm coasting at only a fraction of my potential).

Honestly - you want a safety net program? Roughly half the nation is in support of this type of program at any given time. Look out around you and help who you can when you can. If your local government or state wants to take on a welfare program - that is their prerogative, but leave it out of the national government.

finally do you really know who creates a "welfare state"? first hint it is not those who are forced to it by very real tight times.

A welfare state is created by people electing representatives and/or voting for legislation that establishes the government as having the function of providing a standard of living. It starts as a charitable endeavor, but then it becomes as simple as the people being able to vote themselves a check in the mail.

Now who just made trillions of our money bailing their arses out of the jam they made?

Come now, ignorance is unbecoming of you.

The jam they made? Who is they?

Who backs the value of every dollar on the market? The Federal Reserve (more of a what than a who, though)

Every bank note in this country is backed by the federal reserve. This is important when we get into concepts such as fractional reserve banking - a concept driven by the lending industry. This is where you come in.

Somehow, our credit rating has become more important than our retirement plan. Honestly - take a look around you at how people act - it's about the credit rating. We began to look at the extra $50 left over at the end of the week as a 2-year financing on a new computer or couch, or whatever.

Now, you have to understand that the banks are -not- free enterprise. Not in the slightest. The Federal Reserve and FDIC guarantee the amount in your account at that bank. Banks, for a long time, only had about 10% of their total account balance in reserve (actually in the bank). They can do this because money in a savings account is not likely to be taken out all at once, or very quickly after it is put in.

So... what are they doing with your money? Loaning it out to people who want a loan.

What happens if there is a slip-up and people withdraw more money than is actually in reserve? The FDIC and Federal Reserve come to the rescue. Thus, all risk is removed from fractional reserve banking. People will get their money.

But, obviously, it's rather irresponsible to loan to such extremes - why do it?

Because there is a market for it and the risk is relatively low by comparison to the pay-off. Banks couldn't issue loans fast enough. Rather than saving money - people would rather spend ten years into the future to have something they probably didn't really need. And if you don't loan out to people - the competition will, and your share holders will be upset at your lack of return.

So - there are two solutions to this problem. One - we can get rid of the FDIC and Federal Reserve - systems which have really only served to turn the banks into a cartel and eliminate the concept of self-regulating free markets. Two - we can attempt to create a series of legislation and regulations that attempt to prevent such abuse of the programs in the future while still keeping them in place - which will probably be filled with pork&barrel, loop-holes, and be exploited over the next ten years to create a similar problem.

Pretty well trained sheep cause I can look around and see no living wage jobs, folks who have worked hard their whole lives forced on assistance due to the lack of jobs the wealthy supposedly provide.

I see plenty of it. The restaurant I work at wouldn't be around if it weren't for the clientele who eat there - and most of them are the 'elites' of this community. Hell, some of them eat there because they've already given thousands of dollars to keep the establishment afloat in these times - the owner has a running tab with some of the customers.

The schools here wouldn't have half of what they do were it not for the donations of the powerful family names in this area - the healthcare/nursing portion of the community college (one of the major areas of income for this region - nursing and related healthcare degrees) wouldn't exist were it not for these families making donations. The hospital is expanding by leaps and bounds, and we have Pro-Energy moving in like a juggernaut and establishing a massive headquarters.

In a good three to five years - this region will be starting to look back on the recession.

Granted a poor man can not give someone steady work but as things increasingly tighten barter of service is the new currency of being poor.

Bartering of service is just as valid of a business transaction as the bartering of some country-issued currency. Bartering one's services and earning a living off of it is no different than getting paid in cash. There is an entire underground economy based on this concept at work in many of the more rural areas of the nation. They use money in the city and bartering goods/services when dealing with neighbors.

This is actually a good sign - if there is a double-dip or melt-down, a bartering system is what we'll default to. The fact that it is being practiced demonstrates the resilience of people on the whole. It would be far worse to be in this situation and see no bartering of services - which would indicate a complete lack of skills, or at least an unwillingness to employ those skills.

As for the rich guy I want to see figures on how well they are doing at providing jobs we paid them to provide with our bail out money.

Ex Post Facto.

They've already been given the money under whatever terms and conditions existed at the time. Altering the agreement at a later date is not right.

The fact is that they weren't given money to create jobs. That was one of the arguments put forth by proponents of taking such action - but it was never part of the terms and conditions.

You cannot make someone create a job. You cannot punish them for not creating a business. You can only create an environment where the creation of business, exchange of goods/services/ideas, etc are all encouraged and simplified. Simplify the tax structure (Fair Tax is a good one), pull the government out of businesses (stop trying to insure businesses succeed - stop regulating every little thing they do), and let people put their ideas and ambitions into motion.

And just stop focusing on who has what kind of money. It's not the foundation for a healthy society - being preoccupied with such things.