War On Philanthropy? No, It's More A War On Gov't Social Services To Justify A Pitiful "Charity" Substitute

In the latest iteration of the Right's boner for "private charity" to replace government social spending, we have as 'exhibit A', the WSJ piece  'The War On Philanthropy' (January 9, p. A17) by Karl Zinsmeister.   Again, as with previous efforts of PR con men, the claim is made that private charitable giving can be an adequate replacement for government social programs, like Medicaid, food stamps and even Social Security.

For example, as recently as 2016 I castigated then House leader Paul Ryan for his statement that it was feasible to "scale down federal assistance in favor of much more charity" -  citing the House of Help City of Hope in D.C. and Catholic Charities in Janesville, Wisconsin.

But as I pointed out (Jan. 11, 2016 post):

"Ryan here is obviously looking  at the fact there are now 40 million on food stamps,  up 53%  from 2008 and 54 million on Medicaid, up 21% over the same interval. But what escapes him is that the amount of charity that would be needed to leave government out of the picture is actually some twenty five times more than the actual volume of charitable giving!

For example, to make charity ends meet and fill the gap in the absence of government assistance, those rich Catholic and other lobbyists in DC would need to give about 14.9% of their income, not the usually cited 7.7% Similarly, all the other alleged generous conservo states would need to at least double up on their giving."

Contrary to Zinsmeister's twaddle, the situation has arguably gotten much worse not better, so private charity is even less able to cover the costs needed for the typical American family to survive.  The Federal Reserve working paper from last year is germane here, indicating the average middle class family does not even have enough reserve cash on hand to cover a $400 emergency.  Meanwhile, too many are bamboozled  by the monthly jobs report numbers, unaware most of those jobs are low pay - or at least not enough to (singly) cover exploding health, housing, food expenses.  I.e. if you work two or three jobs you might, I say might, make it.  (Let's also bear in mind that  average wages have remained stagnant for at least 40 years, factoring in inflation.)

 In Denver, for example, the average monthly rent has now reached $1680 -  way more than most of the current residents can afford.  Many  dwellers in originally low rent apartments are often issued notices they have to leave for "renovations" then are invited back after but with a 50% rent increase- which is way beyond their means.

In some apartments a formal eviction notice isn't needed, only the notice of rent increase, say from $575 /month to $975/month. That amounts to what one enraged resident said is a "quiet movement":   Can Zinsmeister's private charity cover such rent increases, far less the cost now to get a mortgage in Denver? I doubt it. (It is estimated a middle class family now needs a down payment of $68,000 for a typical Denver home just to be able to manage a $969/ month mortgage payment.  And that presumes a job earning at least $90,000- 94,000 a year.)

Compounding this, we learned  yesterday: 

Aiming at Wealthy Renters, Developers Build
More Luxury Apartments Than They Have in ...

(WSJ, p. A2) that developers are planning to add more rental units (371,000) this year than at any other period since the 1980s.  The problem? Most will be aimed at the wealthy in many major cities.  Why?

"Property developers say the costs associated with land acquisition and construction have become so steep that catering to affluent renters presents the best way to make a profit."

Add to that the fact that "the construction of single family homes for sale is well below historic norms"  and you have an affordable housing problem of epic proportions.   Given the enormous cost of a single family home in most major cities now, it's no surprise that people are caught in a money bind (too costly homes, too costly rentals ) and one which simple charitable donations isn't enough to correct.

The minimal affordable housing stock  nationwide also puts the kibosh on the claim that "an increase in luxury housing might  encourage more economically mobile renters to move up."  But not when such renters are only earning $20.75 /hr. as they are here in the Springs, on average.  So they can barely afford an apartment for $650/month using Section 8 subsidy, far less the $1385 for a regular single bedroom apartment.

Most newcomers to our state, for instance,  have nowhere near the earning power  to afford a single family home in Denver, or the Springs. Add in a family calamity like a child's illness, a bread winner's serious disease or injury, and there is a rather rapid descent into homelessness or at least trying to survive in one of the city's  homeless shelters, e.g.

A homeless family crowds into a corner of an Aurora, CO shelter. A food shortage at the shelter meant it had to seek outside assistance

Which truth be told is still preferable to living in a tent near Denver's Lincoln Park - which is now beset by rats.  ('Rats Close Park Near Colorado Capitol', Denver Post, Jan. 16, p. 1A)

Meanwhile, Zinsmeister paints progressives as "opponents of civil society"  - which he conflates with private philanthropy. This is  because "77 million ordinary citizens"  donate "the lion's share" of charitable gifts annually.  But as one alert WSJ letter writer has noted (p. A14, today),  those 77  million ordinary folks donate "mostly after tax dollars".  

 Zinsmeister goes on  in conflationary mode (ibid):

"The lion's share comes from ordinary citizens, 100 million of whom annually donate an average of around $3,000."

Thereby conflating the 100 m givers, mixing the 77 million ordinary folk (like wifey and myself) who donate in after tax dollars, with the 23 million who only pay capital gains tax - then get enormous ordinary income write-offs on their largely self-directed charities.  As the same WSJ letter writer puts it: "They are not only giving  away tax -free appreciated property but are also able to eventually shelter 100 percent of their donation against taxable income, a twofer."

Thus, the rightful jab by the NY Times, NPR etc. that any who invoke that ploy are guilty of an "elite charade", i.e. disguising their merciless taking (in tax breaks, write offs)  by appearing to give back.

As admirable as are the donations of those 77m  "ordinary" citizens  they do not come in concentrated, large amounts - so only have limited impact on large scale problems.  Hence, our  own charitable donations of roughly $250 / month (combined wife & me),  are not the same as the Tulsa, OK billionaires plunking down $30 million at one time to provide low cost housing for the city's  homeless, e.g.

• "Hobo Cities" Growing - So Why Don't The Billionai...

Hence, the latter have vastly more potential  to change lives for the better if they truly wanted to,  but only a select few do.  For example, if they truly wanted to they could invest billions in new antibiotic manufacture to halt the spread of  antibiotic resistant bugs, and the increased incidence of sepsis in hospitals, etc.  See e.g.

A New Year's Resolution For Bill Gates & Co. : D...

And:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-03/antibiotics-aren-t-profitable-enough-for-big-pharma-to-make-more

 This conflationary  error (private philanthropy with 'civil society') entices Zinsmeister to claim that those of us  who actually oppose charity replacing government -state funding"  insist it is "illegitimate" for "civil society groups to compete with the state".    In fact, this is nonsense, as we've always contended private charity - from whatever source-  needs to supplement government -state spending.   Thus, the family that needs food stamps and shelter (shown above) also needs ready access to free kitchens and services in the area provided by private charities.

But one thing you do not do is take away the government support - say in Medicaid, disability benefits and food stamps- and expect charity alone to fill the gaps left in the wake.  

As if to underscore this we now learn that the Trump cabal plans to alter criteria to receive disability benefits ('Tighter Disability Criteria Weighed', WSJ, January 10, p. A3)   The move, and related ones, could toss over 600,000 mainly older workers to the wolves.  Would private charity be able to make up the $30-40 million to avert homelessness, medical catastrophe? (Since the new plan also seeks "more restrictions" for Medicaid benefits.)

Then there is also the looming plan to toss another 600,000 (mainly women and children) off of the SNAP (food stamps) program by April.  Will private charity be able to make up the $50m, say via expanding food kitchens? Again, I doubt it.  Food kitchens in Colorado are already facing bare shelves even before the month runs out.  Many of those needing help came to Colorado in search of better lives but found only debt and paychecks that couldn't cover rent or utilities.

In the words of Kathleen Romig, senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (ibid.):

"The sum total of it just makes it more difficult  for people to meet their needs when they fall on hard times -  really basic needs like food, housing, health care."

Lastly. it should not take a rocket scientist or Mensa level IQ to figure out that private donations are an unstable, variable source of support.  In recessionary periods, for example, contributions tend to crater - as they do when tax law changes are implemented. Say drastically increasing the automatic deduction so that there's essentially no incentive to itemize the charitable deductions. (So donating  becomes a waste of time for many with limited disposable income.)

All of which again reinforces the position of progressives and the left that charity has its rightful place - in a civil society - as a supplement to government assistance and benefits, not a replacement for them.  In addition, what we need to seriously consider now is Dem candidate Andrew Yang's proposal that everyone (especially in the lower economic strata) receive a universal basic income (UBI).

See also:

Why Advocates for the Homeless Are Forced to Repeat Themselves Again and Again

And:

Wealth Inequality

How Do Billionaires Make Money? By Having Money Already

Paul Ryan's Solution To Poverty Is Just More Of The Same Conservative Malarkey

Paul Ryan three years ago pushing his 'Path To Prosperity'

In his co-authored op-ed in the WSJ ('Republican Solutions for Liberal Failures on Poverty', Jan. 8, p. A10), Paul Ryan comes up with nothing new - only the same recycled, pedestrian mix of conservative codswallop he once offered us in his 'Path to Prosperity' back in 2012.  His main themes or "solutions" can be summarized thus:

-Redirect federal funding to parents of low income families so they can use that money to send their kids to private schools or charter schools. (In other words hollow out pubic education even more)

- Impose a greater work requirement in anti-poverty programs (in other words have all those poor people receiving any food stamps or Medicaid to go out and work at cleaning lavatories or picking up dog poop in parks for their daily bread)

- Scale down federal assistance in favor of much more charity (he cites the House of Help City of Hope in D.C. and Catholic Charities in Janesville, WIS).

 Let's take the last first: Ryan here is obviously looking  at the fact there are now 40 million on food stamps,  up 53%  from 2008 and 54 million on Medicaid, up 21% over the same interval. But what escapes him is that the amount of charity that would be needed to leave government out of the picture is actually some twenty five times more than the actual volume of charitable giving!

For example, to make charity ends meet and fill the gap in the absence of government assistance, those rich Catholic and other lobbyists in DC would need to give about 14.9% of their income, not the usually cited 7.7% Similarly, all the other alleged generous conservo states would need to at least double up on their giving. In the end, with a new recession, even that couldn't be sustained, and we saw how food pantries emptied  their stocks in weeks after the 2008 recession and stock market collapse - and were hard pressed to refill them. 

As for using federal funds for charter school education that has never worked in terms of sustaining success for the affected kids, and certainly not for the public schools from whose funds the "vouchers" are usually extracted.  (Every dollar extracted from taxpayers for vouchers means less to fund public schools.) Instead of pouring millions into voucher systems (which tactics I believe violate the separation of Church and state since most recipient schools are religious) that money could be going toward improvements in our public schools - including more pay for better qualified teachers. What a thought! Just think then, how much difference that $14 million could have made to D.C. public schools, had the money not been squandered for "the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program” which provided tuition vouchers of up to $7,500 per kid in 2011.

Ryan's "educational plan for job training" is also pseudo-nifty except there are simply not enough of the high quality, high paying jobs that would warrant the allocation of such federal money for that particular job training and education.

What most families need, such as here in Colo., is affordable housing and quality public education they can access. But since the gentrification of numerous communities, housing is beyond the reach of most working and even lower middle class people. (House prices in Denver are now up 18% over last year's and one needs a salary of at least $95,000/ year to afford a down payment. )

In most cases people are stretched thin paying more than 40 percent of their incomes on rent alone, which is too much. None of these problems are processed by Ryan who believes all the economic issues facing people in poverty are simply matters of not being educated enough or else not being hard working enough to keep noses to the grindstone.  Those misperceptions are what allows him to make such absurd proposals.

As anyone with more than air between the ears can see, on examining state by state budget deficits now exploding, in every case “re-balancing” is being done on the backs of the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the homeless. The results are predictable: loss of health care, loss of jobs and loss of overall security, as well as increase in drug use, violent criminality and prostitution.

His advocacy of work requirements for federal assistance - say in food stamps - is also daft, given most of those on food stamps are children, and the parents have jobs - just not well paying enough to afford rent, plus utilities and food.  In addition, Ryan would implement "consolidated block grants" not only for the SNAP food stamps program, but also housing vouchers (Sec. 8) and childcare vouchers  In other words, providing states a fixed amount to run all their programs. In the words of WaPo columnist Jared Bernstein:

"The main reason this idea is so destructive is that it undermines the essence of the safety net, or its countercyclical function"

The whole basis of his "solution" in fact, is that it is detached from reality, namely that poverty will always be endemic so long as we harbor vast inequality and the economic philosophy (Pareto distribution) that enables it.  Thus, any nation based on this perversion of economics, e.g.














Cannot escape poverty for more than half its people, for as its creator Vilfredo Pareto put it:

"Assume a collectivity made up of a wolf and a sheep. The happiness of the wolf consists in eating the sheep, that of the sheep in not being eaten. How is this collectivity to be made happy?"

So, if the poor are regarded as "sheep" and the Overclass as the wolf, the only objective is to make the wolf happy, by eating the sheep!

Thus, by Pareto's original example (in quotes): Allowing the wolf in the wolf-sheep combo to EAT the sheep expresses less overall "hurt" or pain on it than permitting the sheep to remain unscathed, merrily prancing away eating its grass while the poor wolf starves.

Yet when one digs beneath the academic veneer of Ryan's tracts that is the society he believes in. That is why he could offer (back in 2012) his "Ryan plan" for health care to replace Medicare. Just give the old guy a voucher for a year- maybe worth $10, 000 if he's lucky - and let him get what he needs with that: medications, operations, cancer treatments, regular physician visits etc. Just hope he doesn't need any more.

The same way a poor kid might get a $7,500 voucher for his charter education - at public school expense- but just hope he doesn't need any more!

No wonder Ryan can write with a straight face:

"Democrats want to take care of the poor. Republicans want to empower them".

Uh, no. Republicans want to empower the "wolf" of Vilfredo Pareto so it can more readily eat the poor!

Meanwhile, millions of citizens who can least afford it, are blowing hundreds of bucks trying to win a Powerball lottery in which the odds are about 292 million to one against them. As finance guru Melanie Hobson put it this morning, "they think with each draw they are getting nearer but in fact the odds against them are worse since more people are playing than when the total was smaller."

But in a way you can't blame them, since they see a Powerball win of $1.3 billion (About $520m after taxes and for a cash payout) as the only way for them to escape Pareto's and Ryan's "wolf"!

Seriously? Those On Food Stamps Not Allowed To Buy Any Goodies?

It is a sad fact, known mainly to those of us who have the opportunity to travel beyond our shores, that we inhabit a very mean-spirited country. This came out back in Nov.,2013 when the SNAP (food stamps) program was viciously cut back with far reaching repercussions of hunger - especially for 16 million kids.  Many pediatricians warned of the consequences, but the GOP didn't care. They were determined to cut so the military could get much more.

Now we learn of a number of states (such as Kansas) where plans are afoot - such as by the mean-spirited guv Sam Brownback, to pass legislation to ensure food stamp recipients can't even purchase anything that remotely hints of luxuries - including cookies, candies, cakes - as well as preventing families "on the dole" from using public pools. Are you shitting me? We're going to worry and fret about forlorn families and their kids having it too good when our whole malformed system is bent to ensure only the richest prosper and jobs are sent away overseas by the millions? Meanwhile, these same rich bastards are able to milk the system for everything it's worth to the extent they can even afford luxury, gold laminated bathtubs:

Excuse me, but what the hell is wrong with this picture? Well, the misbegotten notion - dispelled by the most basic research - that the "wealthy earned their goodies".  Oh yeah, they earned them all right, by pushing through policies that sent millions of jobs overseas. Policies started by the likes of "Chainsaw Al' Dunlap back in the nineties when he was with Sunbeam - and decided having jobs in Mexico was better for shareholders, since the Mexicans would only earn half of what Americans were getting - and no benefits. A shyster born every minute!

But don't think Dunlap is the only clown who did this and got away with it (hint: Jack Welch of GE did too)!  So then, years later the path was already paved for endemic poverty of millions  -yet the proud and the ignorant pound their breasts and believed they were doing a good thing by keeping the poor off "welfare" - hence designing the hideous "welfare to work" programs.

While all this was going on, I got a real kick out of some outraged WSJ pieces in the late 90s - some of which I still have- caterwauling about the nerve of those Germans to use unemployment benefits to take holidays in Italy or France's sun coast.  So what? If they need time off from pounding the pavement, big deal! But the WSJ and its snarky assholes made a federal case out of it, and then bragged how - at least in the US of A- we'd never allow any unemployment insurance recipients to get away with such nonsense. But see, the Germans aren't all anal about such stuff as we are. As my friend Reinhardt put it two years ago: "The Germans helped to pay in for those benefits and they can use them any way they wish up to a year. And if that means taking a holiday or two, so what? It's no skin off our noses and that's what we pay our taxes for!"

Which thinking would be totally anathema to the Puritan American, brainwashed by the early messages of John Calvin, to keep his nose to the grindstone if he wants to win an eventual place in the next world. Even today, evidently, too many buy into this Puritan-Calvinist bull pockey, hence the yen to ensure food stamp beneficiaries go to no amusement arcades, Malls or just to the candy store for M&Ms.  Jeezus, it makes you want to rip your hair out - the level of petty thinking - tied to "wasting taxpayer dollars" while the rich waste hundreds of billions a year with their own rancid games- including tax write offs and dubious trusts!

Look, no one - no American, "likes to" file for food stamps, but since the Bushies sent the whole U.S. economy into the crapper ca. 2007-08 with their push for minimum wage jobs only (and keeping the minimum wage as low as possible), sending 7 million other jobs overseas to China and India, and de-regulation of banks - allowing them to sell crap subprime mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, not to mention wreaking havoc with their tax cuts and wars of choice, lower and many middle class families have had no choice. The Bushie combo of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest combined with setting off a speculative bubble that burst in 2008 - with more than 30 million middle class folks losing up to 40% of their 401ks, engendered the need for families to seek food stamp relief out of pure desperation.

To now heap insult onto injury and assert they're not even entitled to some pleasures (including swimming - and we know how important exercise is!)  is just plain nuts and, as I said, mean spirited. Certainly, if the families are able to wisely budget their meager resources to have some enjoyment it ought to be allowed- without the likes of Brownback or anyone else having a cow.  And we can damned well afford to be a little bit generous here given how the parasitic wealthy are endlessly using their ill-gotten gains to splurge on expensive toys and trips, and gorging on  $25,000 (apiece)  Frrrozen Haute Chocolate   desserts,  while children go to bed hungry. Shit, those poor kids deserve a bag of M&Ms once in a frickin' while! 

Sensible Americans need to express outrage on this, at least to the same degree of decibels as when Indiana tried to foist its phony religious freedom laws on its people - in the name of bigotry. In this case, Brownback and his misbegotten ilk are trying to force perpetual misery on already downtrodden families by denying them even the most benign luxuries.

 I leave with Barb Ehrenreich's powerful words (This Land is Their Land, pp. 6-7):

"How many 'wake up calls' do we need, people? How many broken levees, drowned cities, depleted food pantries, people dead for lack of ordinary health care? (Waters poisoned by blown deep water oil wells)......Why don't we dare say it? The looting of America has gone on too long, and the average American is too maxed out, overworked, and overspent to have anything left to take. We need a new deal, a new distribution of power and wealth, if we want to restore the beautiful idea that was America".

With a new distribution of wealth and power, no American will have to depend on food stamps, and we won't have the likes of Sam Brownback or his clones dictating to people what they can purchase using food stamps or welfare monies!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/17/why_gwyneths_snap_challenge_bombed/

Larry Summers Is Right: We Need the Gov't to Dispense MORE Food Stamps!

 If one carefully tracks the increase in food stamp distribution as shown in the accompanying graph, it will be found that the steepest positive gradients occur when the aggregate demand is lowest.  It should also be no surprise that of all the federal government's infusions, food stamps are among the most critically important - not only for feeding workers paid too low wages to make ends meet, but also for the health of the economy. We know that for every food stamp benefit dollar released, nearly 1.3 are returned. It is one instance where hoarding isn't remotely 'on'.

Lawrence Summers, in a visit to Denver on Tuesday echoed a similar refrain, even though he didn't specifically mention food stamps. What he did say is that "as the economy is configured, we have difficulty generating demand."

He noted a parlous combination of factors, but especially technological innovations (such as self-checkouts at groceries, and airline ticket kiosks that replace workers) that are displacing jobs and drastically lowering demand. This lack of demand for labor, in turn, crimps consumer demand for goods and services - putting downward pressure on wages and limiting job creation.

The Federal Reserve's "solution" to the economic miasma is to pump more money into the economy by buying bonds at a ferocious rate - nearly $80b a month. This is called quantitative easing but in Barbados they call it by "printing money" - which is what the Bim Central Bank is doing there: issuing fiat bonds that are replacing actual National Insurance monies at a rate of $44m a month. When we exchanged some U.S. money to get Barbados dollars while there, we even commented on how it looked like "monopoly money".

Summers' point is that the monetarist solutions don't work. In his own parlance, he asserted that "fiscal stimulus is more effective at generating growth than monetary stimulus and less prone to creating asset bubbles that are harmful to the economy".  Indeed, he is spot on, because the only ones profiting from the Fed's ongoing cheap money policy are the Wall Street speculators and their ilk, Why do you think the DOW is in stratosphere territory? Because of all the cheap money 'crack' the Fed has pumped into the system. Meanwhile, conservative savers, like elderly pensioners, are sucking shit....excuse me, salt.

The solution then is to stop the stupid asset inflation via QE, and demand the gov't issue more FOOD STAMPS! (Ok, we need to send letters, emails by the millions to demand the Repuke House to let loose of the budget strings - where they'd rather give a billion or two to the Ukraine fascists, and instead give them to hurting families here)

As I noted, food stamps is the most efficient and expeditious way to really increase aggregate demand without increasing the probability of asset bubbles popping. (Watch the DOW when the Fed suddenly halts its QE foolishness and raised interest rates by 1% instead - as the Bank of England plans to do).

To put more of a fix on the numbers and why a massive  food stamp increase is needed: the U.S. economy last year generated 42 percent more output than it did in 1998 BUT did so  with the SAME number of labor hours: 194 billion, according to a report last week from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Anything wrong with this picture? Yes! Because if the labor hours are the same but the output is 42 percent more, it means human labor has been a casualty- and machines have increased the productivity in tandem with cutting workers and making fewer people do the same jobs. (Likely translating into fewer hours with family).

So we have two extremes: the relatively few with jobs and overworked, and the relatively many with either no jobs or only part time work. It doesn't take a calculus background to grasp that the latter group won't be able to purchase the goods, services on which our GDP depends. (70 percent of GDP is based on consumer demand.)

Another stark factor that often escapes notice because the media doesn't deal with it: In those 15 years the country has added 40 million people.  Again, it doesn't take a calculus background to see that if you're constantly adding people - i.e. WORKERS, you are never going to catch up in the jobs numbers monthly report game.  You will always be behind, and the jobs actually created will be vastly less than the number needed. The difference is what we call the "surplus labor pool" and capitalists love it because it means their capital trumps labor value.

They also love it because the Simon Legre Business owners can demand any kind of hours they want, even overtime with no pay, because so many more are standing in line waiting to work - and are totally desperate.

All this is why we need to be aiming at cutting our population, not increasing it.  Dianne Sawyer on a news spot three days ago chirped about the "good news" of 4,000 odd babies born this year - the first time new births have been "added" since the great recession, i.e.  exceeding the deaths. But that news isn't exactly good if one considers the numbers represent 4,000 new jobs that will now have to be created - on top of the 40 million jobs needed to support the population added in the past 15 years. People need to get a reality grip.

This population impact in creating a surplus labor pool is not only responsible for our chronic under employment and unemployment, but also kept wages stagnating. It has also effectively kept the minimum wage excessively low because too many people are competing for the dwindling pool of  jobs available - so the skinflint employers can basically pay whatever they want. If the population growth was halved or more then we wouldn't be in such a position.

The only way to address the gap between population growth of workers and available jobs is to have fiscal stimulus on a massive scale - and that means food stamps (which can help 48-55 million people) not new wars (which will only help 1bout 1 million )

The math is there, Summers basically put the word out, now it's time for our congress critters to get off their asses and act. They can start by replacing the $9 b in food stamps that they cut from that Farm Bill five months ago!

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-johnson/56260/low-wage-jobs-are-bad-for-our-economy-its-time-to-raise-americas-pay

YES! Give Those Fast Food Workers A Living Wage!

The workers in the photo are upset and on strike, as they have every  right to be. Their wages are pathetic, most at a $7.25/hr minimum wage, and as one explained on an ABC News segment two nights ago (to finance reporter Rebecca Jarvis) there is no way they can survive on such pay, or feed a family or pay rent and medical bills. The worker then looked Jarvis in the eyes and asked her: "You put yourself in my place. How would you get through?" Jarvis could only blink a few times before cutting away, back to Dianne Sawyer in the studio.

Look, this is serious shit, especially as we approach Labor Day. It is not fodder by which to make insipid sport, say by posting images on a hate blog showing a person dressed in a fast food uniform (which could have come from anywhere)  spitting on food and then using that as a basis to piss on them and argue they deserve nothing. That sort of shtick is the sign of sick mind. One that needs ECT or perhaps a neural implant to ameliorate whacko tendencies.

These morons, also profoundly ignorant (but likely derived from their moron IQ status)  insist that fast food industry workers are the dummies because, hey, the job is supposed to be "entry level" only! DOH!  Well, tell that to the hundreds of Intel and other tech workers in Colo. Springs who were all tossed out of their jobs back in 2004-05  (due to companies closing or moving operations overseas) and are now working at Safeway, Burger King, KFC, McDonald's and Chili's. Their wages now, most of them, are barely one third what they used to earn. With it, the fortunes of the city itself have plummeted since obviously less is collected in taxes, and city services have also declined. Hence the stories people across the U.S. heard the past two years of COS turning off street lights, shuttering schools and allowing the weeds to grow to monstrous proportions on meridians and other public places.


The backstory here? Evidently, the loss of 15 million American jobs via globalization hasn't been processed by the dummies who still believe fast food jobs are "entry level". Newsflash! Fast food jobs, along with other service jobs (as waitresses etc. with a $2.13 /hr minimum wage and only tips to live off) are now the working NORM!   Because the jobs pyramid has collapsed, especially since the financial meltdown in 2008, these are the about the only jobs people (including many recent college grads) can get!

This also explains why, as noted in a July 29 Denver Post article:

"Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in government data, engulfing more than 76% of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge to be published next year in the Oxford University Press."


The Post article noted that "measured across all races" the risk of economic insecurity rises to 79% or nearly 4 in 5. Pardon me, but this indicates a nation of rising inequality and the degradation of most citizens in terms of their economic welfare. One of the reasons is that there are now too few decent paying jobs, by which I mean, paying a living wage - not a minimum wage. This is not adequate to raise  a family on and indeed it is one of the factors creating government dependency that the Rightist deplore.

But they can't have it both ways! If the Rightists scream and yowl at any proposed increase in the minimum wage - yes to at least $15 an hour- they can't also scream and yowl about the increasing use of food stamps!  Obviously, people -families have to eat and if $7.25/hr is inadequate to feed a family then they are going to have to get food stamps to make it to the end of the month! (Indeed, this is one of the strategies McDonald's, for example, recommends, in order to "make ends meet."  Meanwhile, Walmart offers advice on how to secure gov't health insurance via assorted programs such as SCHIP.)

To read some of the Righties' screeds you'd think jobs grew on trees (or fell from the skies), and upward mobility is just a matter of will - not that there is a remaining deficit of some 8 million jobs - which explains why so few college grads are able to pay off their student loan debts. Newsflash! They can't find jobs that pay the rent, provide food and also pay off loans on $8.50- 9.25/hour!

Yes, I also worked at a fast food place (Jackie Gleason's Restaurant in Miami, FL) busing tables - removing refuse such as half-eaten "Norton's hot dogs",  but that was in between quarters at the University of South Florida.  The pay was $1.60 /hour but whatever I saved from the job was ample to pay for my in-state tuition and textbooks. Today, that same type of job has now become a permanent fixture of our service economy and it is the service jobs that dominate. Then assorted idiots wonder why the spending of the American "consumer" has declined in recent years. (Never mind that corporations that could create extra jobs are still sitting on over $1.7 trillion in capital).

As for the claim that increasing fast food workers' wages would increase prices, that also is essentially  bollocks, since the Economy Policy Institute has found the increase would be minimal and not kill any fast food addict's budget.  As an example, your bare bones special "dollar burger" from the BK  "Dollar menu" would go up to maybe $1.25. Big freakin' deal! Look, if you can afford a buck you can sure as shit also afford a buck twenty-five. NO one in his right mind is going to argue and tell me that a paltry 25 cents will spell the difference between buying the damned burger and not buying it!

It is time fast food workers catch a break and their wages are increased to a living wage. They will then be able to buy more -  propping up the sagging economy and stimulating aggregate demand - and they won't have to go on food stamps! Even a moron ought to be able to grasp that!

'Big Brother' Haters Merit Neither Sympathy, Respect......or Ratings!

No, not the NSA's Big Brother spies and lying troglodytes, who merely merit firing for violating the Constitution. I am talking about the haters ensconced in the 24/7 spy camera residence of the CBS "reality" show Big Brother, which is drawing the ire of assorted critics - as it should.

Look, it's one thing to be a demented, friendless loser (entertaining fantasies of "salvation"),  who sits in a squirrel cage hideout in his apt. and churns out blog after blog of hate:  deriding those he despises as "monkeys", "black apes", "libtards" or "c*nts" (in the case of potential female presidential contenders) - but it's another thing to have it on a network prime time program. In the first case, the creepazoid psycho may have barely five regular followers, in the latter case we're talking about millions. This may be one reason Barbados opted never to have the 'Big Brother' show as part of its mixed STV (subscription TV)  schedule,  though it did accept 'The Amazing Race' and 'Survivor'.

According to a piece in The Denver Post yesterday by media critic Joanne Ostrow ('Racist, Boorish 'Big Brother' Houseguests Light Up Ratings', p. 6C) this installment of Big Brother has out done all others in hate, over the top nastiness, and racial epithets - all issued by the whiteys (including two Jews, if you can believe it!)   While one can make allowances, perhaps, for those from the South - like Aaryn Gries from San Marcos, TX, and 'Spencer' from Ark.,  it's difficult to understand the basis for the hate spewed out by the Jewish female contestants. Have they not read their own history or studied the history of the holocaust? Are they not aware that similar racial opprobrium as they now spew forth was also part and parcel of Hitler's propaganda films on German Jewry?

Enter Gina Marie Zimmerman, of Staten Island, NY who (according to Ostrow's article):

"in the online feed used the N-word to describe welfare as 'insurance' for black people"

An aside:

This is interesting indeed, coming from a privileged white woman, who likely has never known poverty in her life. It's even more interesting because her recycled trope fits in almost perfectly with the current FOX campaign to denigrate food stamp recipients. Chris Hayes' featured this on his 'All In' show two nights ago, displaying a Fox News (Fox Nation) banner header: 'Unabashed Surfer Receiving Food Stamps to Buy Sushi and Avoid Work'.   Chris noted the content was all about how the guy was receiving food stamps to avoid working. He also noted it is a case of "perpetuating lies on a program that has one of the lowest rates of fraud in the U.S." and "just about the most dishonest depiction of food stamp fraud ever."

Chris portrayed it as "lies" but at a deeper level,  of course, FOX commits the fallacy of distribution,  when an argument assumes there is no difference between a specific person belonging to a given class and the class as a whole. In other words, it makes no distinction between  the distributive (referring to a given member) and collective-  referring to the class itself as a whole.  Thus, FOX Nation sought to show-  and hoped its ignorant viewers would accept- that because one loser surf bum avoids work using food stamps, ALL those who need food stamps are of the same exploitative inclination.  It also reminds me of Michelle Malkin's attack on Social Security disability two years ago, in which in which she attempted to link the outrageous behavior of a couple of extreme cases (adults with adult baby syndrome' - who needed to wear diapers all day so couldn't work- had to have disability)  to the behavior of all those receiving Social Security disability.

The same fallacy is employed to attempt to stir bitter outrage over "voter fraud" - to justify the use of photo IDs which would essentially disenfranchise most African-Americans especially older ones - who were often born at home and with no birth certificates. In fact, the actual cases of voter fraud are so rare as to not be worth a mention. Yet yahoos and haters try to turn it into some major conspiracy against proper white voters!

So what we find in each case is an outrageous insult to the intelligence of the prospective viewer (in the case of the Fox Nation bunkum) or reader, in the case of Malkin's odious tripe.  Does Ms. Zimmerman buy into these moronic fables? I hate to say it, but it seems so!

She,  like other demented loons, appears to be buying into what Chris Hayes has called the GOP 'turning its institutional attention to fighting the scourge of hungry people getting food'. In other words, the Goopers "want to turn food stamp recipients into the next welfare queens"  according to Hayes, and would rather all those hungry people, 1 in 3 of whom are kids, starve.

This whole shtick was exposed on FOX in a disgusting propaganda piece called "The Great Food Stamp Binge", grossly misrepresenting a program that feeds millions of hungry Americans - many of whom fell out of the middle class and may be your neighbors. What do these nattering FOX turds expect? That the hungry in our nation starve? The kids go without food? Are these morons even aware that one of the ways McDonald's lists for employees to "try to make ends meet" is to use food stamps (since their wages are so low). Oh, they also mention trying to get an extra job or two!


Meanwhile,  Hayes provided the reality check facts on food stamp recipients, including:

- Less than 2% of SNAP benefits go to households that don't need the food stamps

- The program is actually under-used with roughly 25% of people eligible signing up

- Less than 40% of seniors eligible participated in 2010.

WHO is actually receiving help? Hayes again gives the facts from actual government statistics.

- 91% of SNAP benefits go to families living under the poverty line of $23,550 for a family of 4

- 55% of SNAP benefits go to households with incomes below half of the poverty line.

- Most of the food stamp recipients live in Red state counties.

According to Bloomberg News, "among the 254 counties where food stamps doubled between 2007 and 2011, Republican Mitt Romney won 213 of them (in red states) last year".

This is eye-opening and shows something is rotten in Denmark, or rather down Dixie way (which are all red states).  It's also interesting that some of the biggest hater bloggers are also gov't benefit recipients, who are blessed by not having to work any more - so they can blog on and hate! They castigate others taking handouts but don't look at themselves. Maybe they can't spell hypocrisy.

Back to Big Brother.

Aaryn Gries, the 22 yr. old white girl from Texas, also earned fame in the house by "calling one fellow contestant a 'queer'" according to Ostrow (ibid.) and telling an Asian-American contestant to "shut up and go make some rice".  She also "warned others to be careful what you say in the dark you might not be able to see that n-bitch" in reference to the African -American girl, Candice, from New Orleans.

Then there is Amanda Zuckerman who Ostrow notes "called another housemate a 'monkey'." She also went one step further and "complained about a black cast member putting a headband on her 'greasy, nappy hair head'". Not yet satisfied, she mocked the accent of a Korean-American woman.

Of course, some dunderheads - like a certain intellect challenged hate blogger- will likely say this is all an example of "political correctness" run amuck. But really what it's far more likely to be is civility gone lost. And please, calling out hateful remarks and bare-faced prejudice is not the same as being politically correct. And anyone who believes so is a moron, just like anyone who seriously  believes that all food stamp recipients are 'welfare queens'.

None of this would matter much, as Ostrow notes, if Big Brother wasn't enjoying sky high ratings. As Ostrow observes:

"This week, up against the 'Teen Choice Awards' on FOX, Big Brother was the highest rated show of the evening with 7.2 million viewers."

The saddest remark of all was perhaps the one quoted from CBS honcho Les Moonves who told critics in Los Angeles recently, according to Ostrow:

"What you see there.....is reflective of how certain people feel in America."

Well, let us hope it's only "certain people",  mostly losers, like the pitiful hate blogger referenced earlier. Let's hope it isn't over thirty million mostly in the South and red states that wanted desperately to see Obama go down in the last election. And when he didn't, found their new racist 'oats' on steroids. It's one thing to feel your racist 'oats', another to broadcast them.

Let's also hope that when the racist house guests on Big Brother finally exit, they get a good look at themselves when they play back the episodes...and then ask if those people, those bigots, are individuals they can live with.

Ryan's "Creative War on Poverty" Would Destroy the Poor - NOT Poverty!

Defeated VP candidate Paul Ryan has had a novel brain fart,....errr...plan. He describes it as a "creative war on poverty" designed to vastly reduce the number of Americans on food stamps (46 million, or a "record" according to a lead story in USA Today, Dec. 5, p. 1A).

The piece focuses on one Ohio County (Miami County) which has seen "a sharp increase in poverty among children and the unemployed". More disturbing is that despite an unemployment rate that's among the lowest in the nation (5.8%) a majority of the families are on food stamps. According to these workers, the problem isn't being bums or looking for handouts, but rather not enough good (i.e. living wage) paying jobs that enable a family to get ahead and not merely survive. As one worker quoted in the piece puts it:

"Minimum wage stays the same but the price of food goes up, the price of gas goes up and the electric goes up. How do you pay all your bills with 40 hours a week at $8 an hour?" (The OH minimum wage is actually at $7.70/hr, while the federal level is $7.25/hr. To my way of thinking, with such LOW wage rates, the feds absolutely need to include food stamps just for fairness' sake!)

In answer to the Ohio worker's question: you don't! SO how does Ryan expect to fight poverty in such circumstances? He'd have to ensure price controls on all the rising commodities, from fuel to food, and then MAYBE he can enable a cutback in the access to food stamps. But that's not what he wants! As an old guard Ayn Rand- worshipping libertarian, the last thing Ryan would do is place price controls on anything. That means food and gas prices would continue to go up - leaving very little disposable income for groceries after key bills like mortgage and utilities are also paid, hence driving the need to access food stamps.

As one Ohio pastor (a real one) put it, "without those food stamps and the help of our churches the people starve, especially their kids".

Given Ryan's libertarian instincts this means his only "creative" solution to fighting poverty would be to foursquare eliminate the means of poor people to survive while in poverty! This would be analogous to a draconian dictatorship asserting it will manage a "creative war on overpopulation" but by exterminating one-sixth of the people!  Instead of providing good jobs and remuneration so the people don't have to reproduce so much, this sort of bunch takes the "axe" to the numbers directly!

The other intractable problem noted in the article is the absence of any upward job mobility in the area. That is, the inability of all the low paid workers to find new jobs that pay better. To try to overcome this problem, the workers would have to leave for "greener pastures"- maybe to another state. But to be able to leave, they'd have to first be able to sell their homes, and they can't. NO one wants to buy them! So they are stuck in place with no potential for job enhancement. Even going to school to improve skills requires money for tuition, etc. and they don't have it.

Coupled with this is another problem that neither Paul or his 'pukes mentions much: the offshoring of the GOOD paying service jobs overseas, to reduce labor costs. Approximately 663,000 such jobs have been outsourced to eastern Europe, China and Mexico since 2002 including: information technology, human resources, finance and purchasing orders ('More Service Jobs Go Overseas', USA Today, Dec. 7, p. 1B).  The jobs pay a respectable wage of about $16 an hour - more than double the pathetic $8/hr. of the Ohio workers. In other words, these jobs would have allowed those in the poor areas to have lived dignified lives as opposed to going to food stamps for assistance.

Worse, The Hackett Group, a consulting firm, projects another such 375,000 jobs will be offshored by 2016.  Again, these are from companies "with a least $1 billion in annual revenues" and which represent 75% of the market for offshoring jobs. How can U.S. workers win in such an environment which has engineered a race to the bottom as far as labor costs? The answer is they can't.

Yet Paul Ryan expects us to believe he has a "creative solution" to the war on poverty which now affect nearly 1 in 6 Americans and 21% of all children, nearly 15 million to be exact. (A family of 4 is considered poor if it has an annual income below $22,350. )

Would Paul Ryan, one of the original self-described "Young Guns" on Capitol Hill, take the bread from those 15 million kids in order to win his "war on poverty"? You had better believe it! This is also why Obama and the Dems can't give one inch on the "fiscal cliff" discussions - in terms of spending cuts if the Reeps don't cede REAL increases in tax RATES, as opposed to smoke and mirrors revenue increases via closing unnamed loopholes.

We cannot allow the reptiles to extract painful cuts, or raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 by letting them give up nominal revenue while the rich still get richer.