IDIOTS R US: The Lamo Right Compares Cliven Bundy to Occupy Wall Street

An Occupy Wall Street protestor  from November, 2011 (top) and Cliven Bundy. Is she the same as Bundy? Only a moron would believe so!

 

After the recent Right Wing media debacle of supporting nutso racist Cliven Bundy and his merry band of militia losers, one can't imagine how the mental deterioration could get worse. But evidently it can, because they're now trying to compare Cliven Bundy's Nevada stand - the egregious claim he "owns" the land his cattle are grazing on - to the Occupy Wall Street protestors of 2011. 

 

According to one idiot Denver Post letter writer (who clearly got this nonsense from FOX or some other lamo news site):

 

"A previous letter writer said the Republican Party is 'saddled with' Cliven Bundy forever. Is the Democratic Party saddled with the anti-government Occupy Wall Street people? Probably not! The Democratic Party jumped into bed with that ridiculous group the same way the Republicans did with the ill-spoken Bundy"

 

Not so fast there, Sparky! False equivalence is widespread but you gain nothing by attempting to invoke it against the Dems.

 

Let's try to clear the air for this numbskull:

 

1) Occupy Wall Street was not a unilateral "anti-government" group as this fool claims. They were protesting against ONE facet of government:  the privileged banking -financial sector (mainly based in Federal Reserve- though technically it isn't even a part of the federal gov't) which had been responsible for expediting the nation's plunge into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (in 2008).  Conversely, Bundy declared opposition to ALL branches of the federal government, to the extent he wouldn't even recognize it!

 

 

2) Bundy and his band of nuts were REAL anti-government tools, who actually took arms against Bureau of Land Management staff in NV - with militia snipers hiding in the covers aiming their rifles. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protestors had been placed in the sniper sights of security forces, for example in Houston TX, see e.g.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494

 

3) Occupy Wall Street protestors made no remarks or statements that could be construed as racist, or endorsing the horrific slave system, unlike Bundy who blustered:

 

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  ..."

 

 

4)  OWS actually protested on allocated areas permitted for those purposes, in assorted cities, e.g. NYC. Even the odd protestors (as in LA) who took over an area,  didn't lay permanent claim to it or graze cattle on it like Bundy did. They did not appropriate land for which federal FEES are assessed - remain there for YEARS (with the fees and penalties piling up) then refuse to pay them.

 

5) OWS protestors didn't have "militias" arrive, armed to the teeth,  from all over the country and point their rifles at the police who faced off against them.

 

6) Occupy protestors were fighting against the rampant inequality of income distribution (enshrined in the Neoliberal capitalist system)  that has allowed the wealthy and their scions get wealthier  while the ordinary middle class has descended further into the morass of debt and economic despair. Even seeing their offspring saddled with monstrous college debt that now totals $1.2 trillion.

 

Bundy - already a millionaire rancher- has demanded special privileges for himself in grazing his cattle free off federal land, that no other NV ranchers have. In this he has put himself firmly in the class of the privileged elites (1 percent)  that OWS inveighed against.

 

Mixing Occupy Wall Street with Cliven Bundy is the typical false equivalence tactic I'd expect from a Reepo moron, thereby attempting to tar both parties- but it won't work.   We already know which party is racist and also know which party wants to keep most workers in the country poor ....and on food stamps.

 

For that look no further than the Repukes' blocking any hike in the national minimum wage yesterday. They'd rather have and support those like Cliven Bundy than the typical OWS protestor who still owes $30,000 in college debt. The Repukes want millionaire  "socialists" who want to feed off government's teats (e.g. land)  for free - not indebted and impecunious young people!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55682/cliven-bundys-friends-have-become-the-koch-brothers-useful-idiots

Harvard Prof Misses the Boat on Inequality Arguments

The forlorn wage slave depicted in the graphic is the ultimate "beneficiary" of Neoliberal globalism and the "New World Order". That is, he is the embodiment of the marginalized U.S. worker - whether corporate temp forced to work overtime for his daily bread, minimum wage burger flipper, or the adjunct prof who has to forage for food stamps and throw away tins of Spam in dumpsters - while putting together a base income by teaching 20 hours a weeks at 5 community colleges.

Welcome to the Neoliberal realm, the realm of constant and growing income inequality. Where citizen security is a myth and all denizens are expected to be beholden to the Market god.   How did it come about that Mr. Worker's salary has barely budged in 25 years, and that he's falling ever farther behind? Well, one can look at the changes introduced from the time the Neoliberal order was imposed, including:

 1) The re-definition of productivity: that is, productivity is now defined by "cutting jobs and finding ways of making the same products with fewer people". As pointed out by one Neolib mouthpiece  (F. Zakaria): "At many major companies profits have returned to 2007 levels but with many thousands fewer workers".

2)The force of globalization: making a single market for many goods and services which don't require American workers for production, OR American consumers to buy them. This single market amounts to more than 400 million having entered the global labor force, from China, India, South Africa, Indonesia and elsewhere. All now with money to spend, and all willing to work at one third or less the pay of an American, and for NO benefits!

Unmentioned is that the sole remaining "life raft" for the stressed worker:  his Social Security and Medicare, is now also under threat by the Neolibs, thanks to their rat warren known as "Fix the Debt" and its instigators such as Peter G. Peterson.   Nor do the purveyors of the New World Order bother to mention how their yen for more military excursions and interferences, conflicts, increased defense  budgets are designed to bleed the public purse ever lower - to justify cuts to "entitlements".

Into this miasma of economic despair we have the recent essay ('A Top Heavy Focus on Income Inequality', Sunday Review, NY Times) by Sendhil Mullainathan, an Econ Prof at Harvard.   He basically asserts in his piece that we are focusing excessively on the "one percent"  and that this focus on the wealthiest "has a cost".

He does name the usual suspects, i.e. the contributory factors: "hourly workers face an increasingly volatile working life, not knowing how many hours you will have or when you will work them. Or how you will jiggle your work or your family, or how you will make a rent payment that takes no account of the fact you may be working fewer hours."

All of these, he insists, are left off our radar when we only focus attention on the 1 percent, because we "aren't talking about the problems".   However, he misses the point - or maybe it eludes him- that these same 1 percent (or 0.1 or 001 percent) are totally responsible for many of the working conditions imposed, including:  refusing to pay a living wage,  providing benefits - especially healthcare or merely allowing time off for pressing family issues.

In other words, the inequality in income and conditions sown are directly traced to the Neoliberal mindset of the business owners who have adopted that model. Moreover, as Chrystia Freeland noted in her book, 'Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else', these elites no longer feel a social compact with their workers, i.e. to pay higher taxes to support an increase in their life style,  enabling greater spending power and more security.  While in decades past, the massively wealthy acknowledged on some level the need to contribute to the welfare of the whole society via just taxation, they no longer believe so - they have now signed onto the Neoliberal imperative that all workers are expendable. 

So no surprise now they would rather keep the minimum wage universally low despite the fact that last year American taxpayers shelled out more than $250 billion on welfare programs for the working poor. (Nearly 40 percent of food stamps are paid out to households with at least one wage earner.)

But, of course, the reason is obvious: these business elites aren't exposed to these taxes themselves, so they don't care! They are allowed so many corporate tax loopholes that the burden falls on the average middle income taxpayer, or pensioner, already subject to enormous outlays in other areas. Thus, the richest, the wealthiest can afford to sustain their laissez faire attitude while their workers sink beneath ever increasing debt.

None of this is processed or registered by Mullainathan. To his credit, however, he does observe that:

"We should try to observe that everyone has a fair opportunity to find a great life. It's a quest that will require political will and ingenious policies. President Obama's proposed expansion of the earned income tax credit  (ETIC) goes in this direction, but more is needed."

Indeed! But I argue the policies needed aren't that "ingenious" and they ought not be that controversial.  Before I go on, let me point out that while the ETIC referenced by the Harvard prof does help - lifting millions out of poverty - the low minimum wage creates a perverse incentive for businesses to drive wages lower - below the poverty line. The net effect is more than one-third of the ETIC is pocketed by employers through low artificially low labor costs, according to a Princeton University economic  analysis.  This bring us to the first point of what must change:


1) Raising the minimum wage, to $10.10 /hour which would put it at about the level the minimum wage was in 1968, corrected for inflation.   According to the Economic Policy Institute an increase in the minimum wage to $10.10/ hr. would boost the incomes of 27.8 million workers.  Contrary to the trope that the main beneficiary is a 20-something burger flipper at 'Jack in the Box',  Rolling Stone ('The Minumum Wage War',  March 13, p. 34) notes it:

"is a full time working woman in her thirties, responsible for half her family's income"

This is something to really think about and implement, but its execution depends on those top 1 percent (or 0.01%) business owners agreeing to it, as opposed to hiring lobbyists to fight it. This is also why we can't take our eyes off the 1 percent as the Prof suggests we do.

2) Integrate into working conditions a paid family leave AND paid sick leave!  Both of these would be significant in enabling hard pressed workers to harmonize the demands of work with family life. In the case of sick leave, it would also be a boon to the economy overall. For example, the spread of norovirus outbreaks nearly every year claim up to 900,000 workers - who then suffer from time lost, even as they spread the disease to others by being forced to report for work, or lose pay. Allowing at least 3-5 sick days per year, like most civilized nations, would eliminate these enormous costs to the economy.

3) Obamacare's full implementation - separating health care from work will be an enormous boon to millions who otherwise would have to keep noses to the grindstone. Now, they will be able to retire or pursue entrepreneurial goals, and enable younger workers to have their jobs.

All of these can be done. and should be done, but their acceptance and implementation will depend on the cooperation of the one percent.

Which is why fixing the problem of income inequality in this country must include them!

Walter White's Saga: Why Would a High School Chemistry Teacher Go Bad?

'Breaking Bad', the fantastic AMC series is now in the can as far as television history is concerned. On Sunday night, the finale grabbed no fewer than 10.3 million viewers, as former chemistry teacher Walter White went down in a blaze of glory. He also showed he knew plenty of physics, in devising an electronically-triggered,  high caliber, rotating machine gun in his car trunk,  to annihilate most of the Nazi meth makers.

But the question that really emerges is: How did this one time high school chemistry teacher mutate into the greatest meth maker the southwest had ever seen, and even to the level of taking out Mexican cartels?   As a former chemistry teacher myself (in the Peace Corps) I enjoyed it as much as teaching physics later.  Probably the titration of weak acids with a strong base were my favorite experiments, though the students were more enthralled by the ones that created small, vigorous 'eruptions' in their test tubes, like adding magnesium metal to dilute hydrochloric acid, see e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeKsLi_6WkY.

Anyway, when I began watching 'Breaking Bad' five years ago, I was interested to see how it was that Walter White would want to go to the dark side. The answer arrived when he found out he had lung cancer, late stage lung cancer. Being in his late forties, this wasn't good news, because the health insurance he had provided a capped amount which would expire in no time with necessary chemotherapy treatments.

Walter probably knew even then that his treatments would ensure that his family would either go bankrupt or into massive debt. He'd also likely know that most bankruptcies in this country are medically -based. Either people lack any health insurance and they are afflicted with cancer or have a serious accident, or their insurance is inadequate to cover the costs over time, usually because most policies are capped at a maximum.

Faced with this stark choice, Walter - in cahoots with former student Jesse Pinkman- ends up making some of the purest meth ever seen. (Mainly because Walt is a chemistry task master, always imposing his high standards on his young apprentice who, if he had his way, would churn out any barely passable crap.)

Now, the rub arrives when he has "enough". Enough moola to cover his treatment costs with more than enough left over. But he - like many Americans, once they get the taste of newfound riches - doesn't want to stop at "enough". He wants more. At this stage, he transforms into the  quintessential American CEO, always spouting  figures and formulas to justify further expansion.  Alert viewers also would pick up on White's incessant citation of the 1 percent, and his insatiable drive to be part of it.


Well, from here it's all downhill, because to rise to the top Walt is forced to ruthlessly take out competitors, including the head of a Mexican cartel (Gus Fring) with one foot in the southwest U.S. By the end, in compiling his multi-millions, Walt has left a pile of bodies behind. As one blogger has put it aptly:

"It’s all there: the ego, the entitlement, the testosterone-fueled drive to come out on top, and the sense that money, not character or relationships, defines a person’s worth."

Walter White then has transmogrified into the epitome of the one percenter who scoffs at the little people and believes wealth defines worth. It is primarily this dynamic that fuels his unquenchable yen for ever more wealth, at great cost to his family and other relationships.  I would argue a similar dynamic is at work in wrecking the relationships of the wealthiest, as they grab for ever more - not to mention wrecking the country itself.

For make no mistake it is the wealthiest,  so many 'Walter White' clones - like the Koch brothers - who have brainwashed a third of the country into believing using a shutdown to get their way is the right thing to do.   As blogger Thomas Hartmann has put it:

"...despite the complete takeover of our political landscape by corporations and billionaires like the Koch brothers, the mainstream media has remained dead silent about the devastating effects of the disastrous Citizens United decision.

As a result, the majority of Americans have no clue what Citizens United is, let alone the damage it's done to our democracy and way of life."

At least, at the end, Walter White did the right thing and took out all the scum attempting to enslave Jesse Pinkman to make their meth. He also disposed of all his money, in his family's (son Flynn's) best interests.

Don't look for anything analogous (politically) to happen to the scum attempting to enslave Americans and hold them hostage to an Oligarchy wherein health care is denied and massive debt arising therefrom is the norm.

Why WE Have to Pay and the Rich Get Off Scott-Free

TOP: The $65,000 all copper tub that's now a favorite buy of the top 0.1%. Below: their favorite dessert - a $25,000 (apiece) Frrrozen Haute Chocolate. How can they eat this thing every week without choking?

Here's the skinny: The rest of us will be asked to bear ignominous cuts like the Chained CPI - so the richest can continue to lavish themselves with these luxuries with nary a backward step. Odious? You better believe it! But this is what happens when the Neoliberal Imperative believes its speculator dollars are worth more than ours, received for merely breathing!


In the previous blog post I noted the question asked by Political Liars' blog, i.e. of Alice Rivlin - sometime advisor for the Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission and now a Neoliberal PR specialist:

"Why is cutting benefits to seniors the 'right thing' to do, Alice? Why do we have to pay for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and not the rich? And why do we have to pay for the financial economic collapse and not the rich, Alice? "

The answer, of course, is so the richest can preserve their ultimate luxuries, such as those shown, without missing a beat. Wouldn't want to deprive them of their special tubs, or $25,000 apiece delicacies now, would we? Oh wait, I mustn't do that! No! That's waging "class warfare" on the little turds! Tough shit!

First, what is the one percent income threshold? The lowest threshold level is generally agreed to be $387,000/yr which means the fiscal cliff deal let them keep all their Bush Tax cuts (equal to about one Bentley a year.) The median income is $1.1 million, from the Economic Policy Inst. last posting. Of that, barely one tenth actually goes to taxes, since they can employ special Trusts, write-offs and charity donatioins at will.

Obviously they don't spend solely on Bentleys but their equivalent cash benefit provides them with many options and a multitude of luxuries, including:


- At least one new yacht,

- 10-15 kt diamond jewellry (often necklaces) from Tiffany's - which outfit has recently said they're essentially no longer even token catering to the lesser income types

- Going on luxury golf trips, each month, say to St. Kitts or Aruba.

- Going on special luxury spa and foodie sojourns, say to St. Maarten.


For the latter,  the one percent females can enjoy "chocolate sugar scrubs" and "rose wine wraps" while they wait in comfort for their bottles of bubbly.,....or partake in "other amenities", including: herbal steam room, guided beach walks, poolside yoga or pilates. They also have their choice of one of 33 treatment rooms.

After their ministrations, the one percent wife and hubby can enjoy their special candle-light dining in a special luxury Villla. There, they can feast on endless foie Gras, fresh salmon, lobster thermidor, and as many Magnums of the best champagne as they desire.


Why should they have to worry about disgruntled and curmudgeonly seniors bitching about possible Social Security cuts when they have likely derived the optimum benefits from Wall Street via flash or high speed computer trading, whereby special algorithms are used to buy and sell millions of shares before an ordinary 401k small fry can get to his phone to call in a redemption?

After the 1 percenters' enjoy their  $$75k spa holiday, they can take their yachts anywhere they want, maybe hobnob with friends off Bimini or go to Anguilla for scuba diving among the corals. The wretched seniors soon to be on cat food diets are far, far away. They also may hobnob with fellow wine and brie "liberals" who also favor the chained CPI and believe it to be the solution for the "serious people" - after all, they incessantly quote Bob Woodward's last book: ‘The Price of Politics’ - especially the quote:

"Unsustainable entitlement spending on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security as highlighted by Republican House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and familiar to all informed politicians and economists....has been left largely unaddressed."


So, I mean, they all breathe with a sigh of relief that Obama's finally finally addressing it! Now they can sleep easier in their temperature -controlled luxury King beds with the built in massagers, built in dildos, and special adjustable "libido" blankets! They are in Neoliberal Heaven!

On finally getting home, they can check their portfolios again, and ensure their hedge funds and ETFs are still making money while all the little guys are losing with their pathetic and pedestrian mutual funds. Or...better yet....blindly buying into the next "Bull" to inflate the price- to -earnings ratio of the wealthier ones' stock shares - any threats to which they will be alerted to (to enact a pullout) before the next correction, thanks to heads ups from the institutional investors.

Meanwhile, the drones...errrr...dregs....will lose 50% of their 401ks again. They'll therefore have to return to the old grind  (work), never having learned to recognize a bubble - but rather being bamboozled by talking heads ....like Jim Cramer. Never mind! The Elites will be further enriched by the hoi polloi's losses! This plus knowing that every initial $160/yr. reduction - via chained CPI- from all 45 million S.S. recipients - will enable them to purchase a new yacht within 2 years!

Ah yes, the life of the typical one percenter. How sweet it is! Those elderly, senile farts? Let 'em eat cat food! Besides, it's loaded with Omega 3's for their creaking hearts!

For those who need to get up to speed on Neoliberalism, what it means, how it came to be, check out:

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/09/the_world_according_to_milton_friedman_partner/