Originally Posted by
antichrist
This is an interesting perspective, and it gets to the heart of (imho) the political disagreements here.
I think the difference between myself and the dems on the board (guessing) is that while I agree that we have a country massively tilted toward the wealthy, where being born poor is in some ways a caste prescription, I don't blame the pubs, and I don't necessarily see the dems as the party for the poor.
Polarized as the 2008 American Presidential election was, it had perhaps the lowest correlation between income and selection of the President in American history. Maybe it is because the Republican Party was able to convince poor white people that the Republicans best serve poor white people, especially in the South. People who used to vote for Carter (at least in 1976) and Bill Clinton twice might no longer do so. Higher education used to favor Republicans, but it doesn't now.
Poverty is not a matter of caste. But we seem headed to a social order in which powerlessness implies poverty -- a very bad situation in which demagogues flourish.
They're both the party of the elite. Period. And every time we set up something that resembles a "safety net" here in the US, it eventually turns into a safety net for that same elite.
Does anyone question that big government spending often goes through contractors? Does anyone question that well-paid medical staff ultimately get the payments for Medicaid and Medicare? Does anyone have a problem that welfare benefits often go through Wal*Mart, Dollar General, Safeway, and the like? That housing benefits go through for-profit landlords? A conservative can likely recognize that it is far better that well-paid professionals and rapacious corporations get the proceeds of relief payments or job-creating contractors than that people either starve, riot, or revolt? It's not so clearly corporate or professional welfare when a genuine benefit is performed.
consumer protection turns into big ag. "common defense" becomes the biggest effin welfare program we have, the war on drugs becomes something like the second. modern keynesianists become billionaire handouts to the people who caused this problem. sending working class kids to school turns into the non-bankruptable chains of debt serfdom in the next bubble.
The Food Stamp program was so designed that people could only buy American-made food products. (That has its faults -- such things as toothpaste, soap, and toilet paper aren't included, and such questionable objects as candy, chips, and diet soda are permitted. I'd prefer also that people on welfare do some of their own cooking instead of relying upon processed foods -- let the poor make their own lasagna instead of getting it from a container).
If there is any budget-constraining measure to be added to the Constitution, then make war far more difficult to start. I look at the two most pointless wars in American History -- the wars in Vietnam and Iraq -- and those were protracted budget-busters with no obvious benefit. We should not wage wars except (1) after an invasion or attack on the US -- the war in Afghanistan would be excused; (2) when the US formally declares war (last time WWII); (3) in accordance with a formal treaty (NATO -- defense of Kosovo, Rio Treaty after the Commie takeover of Grenada) or on behalf of an international authority (the United Nations -- Korea, first Gulf War); (4) in response to an immediate threat to American citizens or a declaration of war by another country (Panama -- Manuel Noriega actually declared war on the US). Short wars that have international support and limited objectives are not problems. Declared wars and those on behalf of treaties are eminently avoidable by the other side.
Keynes suggests that taxes be raised in good times to sop up excessive demand... and graduated, progressive taxes do the trick. Think of how much smaller the Dubya-era deficits would have been had America not had the war in Iraq and had the profiteering income from real estate speculation and predatory lending been taxed highly.
Sending the poor to school is a good investment if the kids have the talent. It's good for promoting social mobility. Even if the schooling is vocational it can make the difference between skilled work and poverty. The fault is that college has become fiendishly expensive and that the financial hustlers have taken over the financing.
We have an ugly ethos in which the objective of contemporary American economics is the enrichment of the "right people".
I simply don't see how folks (some of whom I respect) can have faith in either of these parties.
For the entrenched elites and perhaps for the superstitious on the Right, the partisan choice is one between good and damnable evil. For liberals (including some professionals like teachers) the difference is between a flawed Party and one that offers nothing.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."
― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters
Looks like big changes in the Obama administration. NOT! But it's Kucinich and Gravel who are the crazy ones. Right?
