OBOF SS & MORE PART 28

WELCOME TO OPINIONS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

Name	Published
OVERVIEW	Dec. 28, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 1	Dec. 30, 2010
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 2	Jan. 10, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 3	Jan. 17, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 4	Jan. 24, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 5	Jan. 31, 2011
!!SOCIAL SECURITY PART 6	Feb. 07, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 7	Feb. 14, 2011
SPECIAL ISSUE	Feb. 18, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 8	Feb. 21, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 9	Mar. 01, 2011
SOCIAL SECURITY PART 10	Mar. 07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1	Mar. 14, 2011
SS & MORE PART 1A	Mar. 21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 2	Mar. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 3	Mar. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 4	Apr. 04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 5	Apr. 11, 2011
SS & MORE PART 6	Apr. 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7	Apr. 25, 2011
SS & MORE PART 7A	Apr. 29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 8	May 02, 2011
SS & MORE PART 9	May 09, 2011
SS & MORE PART 10	May 16, 2011
SS & MORE PART 11	May 24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 12	Jun. 06, 2011
SS & MORE PART 13	Jun. 20, 2011
SS & MORE PART 14	JULY 05,2011
SS & MORE PART 14A	JULY 18, 2011
SS & MORE PART 15	JULY 19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 16	AUG. 03, 2011
SS & MORE PART 17	AUG. 15, 2011
SS & MORE PART 18	Aug.  29, 2011
SS & MORE PART 19	Sept. 12, 2011
SS & MORE PART 20	Sept. 26, 2011
SS & MORE PART 21	Oct.   10, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22	Oct.  24, 2011
SS & MORE PART 22 EXTRA	Nov.  04, 2011
SS & MORE PART 23	Nov.  07, 2011
SS & MORE PART 24	Nov.  21, 2011
SS & MORE PART 25	Dec.  05, 2011
SS & MORE PART 26	DEC.  19, 2011
SS & MORE PART 27	JAN.  03, 2012
SS & MORE PART 27A	JAN.  05, 2012
SS & MORE PART 28	JAN.  17,2012

IN  THIS  ISSUE

1.  Posting change & explanation.

2.  A letter from the President.

3.  Republican candidate for President.

4.  Obama seeks power to streamline Federal Government.

5.  The GOP's efficiency deficit.

6.  Approval or disapproval of Congress.

7.  Is this land made for you and me - or for the Super - Rich.

8.  Parting thought.

~~~

"VOTE  AN  EDUCATED  VOTE"

What is an educated vote?  It is one that has been made with as much knowledge, based on facts, not misinformation, that an individual can obtain.

~~~

POSTING  CHANGE  &  EXPLANATION

Many of you may have noticed that recently I have been late getting my postings to you.  I have also, noticed, on the hit counter, that many of you hit my blog on the day that I have previously said I would post.  Then when I finally post the next day, few if any hits are made.  I can imagine it is disgusting to you and I sure don't blame you at all. 

SO, I am going to correct this problem once and for all.  You see, I am not a perfect writer, particularly, when it comes to the correct punctuation.   I'm not illiterate, from that stand point, but I want my postings to be as accurate as I can make them.  Therefore, my son edits my writings before I post them. 

He has a lot on his plate, particularly, on Sundays and Mondays, which is when I try to have these done.  Also, there are times that I don't get these writings done until late on Monday, which makes things ever worse. 

I don't plan to post on holidays and at the end of the last posting, when I said my next one would be on the 16th, I had forgotten that it was Martin Luther King Day.  That is the reason this posting is out to you on the 17th. 

In the future however, I will be posting by noon on Tuesday every two weeks.  I will, also, be posting EXTRAs from time to time.  I think this will solve the problem and my posting will be there when you are expecting it.  I truly appreciate your understanding and support.  This coming year is going to be very important as to the future of our country and I want to get you all the information that I can.  

~~~

A  LETTER, FROM THE

PRESIDENT, Of The

UNITED STATES.

Recently, I received a letter from President Barack Obama.  It, of course, is a form letter and his signature is done by computer.  However, I consider it quite personal, because even though he may or may not have written it himself and it has been handled by machine, and it has been sent to thousands of other financial supporters, I know that he did, at least, read it before he Ok'd it to be sent. 

The point is that the letter says so much and I believe it to be him.  He lists some CHANGES that have been brought about during the past three years.  I am leaving them out, as I am going to do a larger piece on his accomplishments later. 

Dear Mr. Bowman,

          America is having a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance and restore fairness. Throughout the country, it's sparked protest and political movements - - from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities.  It's left Washington in a near -- constant state of gridlock. 

          But this is not just another political debate.  This is the defining issue of our time.  This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class.

          Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia.  After all that's happened, after the worst economic and financial crisis, since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into the mess.

          And their philosophy is simple:  We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.

           I believe they are wrong. I have a deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own.  I believe this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone, from

Main Street

to Wall Street, plays by the same rules.  And I believe we all prosper when hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded.

          These aren't Democratic values or Republican values.  These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values.  They're American values.  And we have to reclaim them.

          Everything we fought for in the last election is now at stake in the next election.  The very core of what this country stands for is on the line.

          Floyd, I know it's been a tough three years, and I know that the change we fought for in 2008 hasn't always been easy ... so remember what I used to say during the campaign:  Real change, big change, is hard.  It takes more than a single term.

          It takes all of us.  It takes ordinary citizens who are committed to continuing to fight and to push, to keep inching our country closer and closer to our ideals.

          There's so much on the line.  If we're committed to rebuilding the middle class in the country, we simply cannot return to "you're on your own" economics.  We are greater when we all prosper as one---greater when we play by the same rules---greater, in short, together.  Please stand with us today.

                                                                   Sincerely,

                                                                   Barack Obama

P.S.    I told you back in 2008 that I'm not a perfect man and that I wouldn't be a perfect President.  Michelle can testify to that.  But I also promised in 2008 that I would always tell you what I believe.  I will always tell you where I stand.  And I'll wake up every single day fighting for you and that vision of America that we share.  That's a fight in which I need you by my side today, tomorrow and for the years to come.

~~~

OBAMA SEEKS POWER TO STREAMLINE U.S. GOVERNMENT

Pres­i­dent Barack Obama is ask­ing Con­gress for ex­panded power to stream­line the tan­gle of agen­cies he over­sees, a move he says would bring the fed­eral gov­ern­ment into the mod­ern world.

Stand­ing, Fri­day, in the White House East Room, be­fore a group of small busi­ness own­ers, Obama said the move would save money and mod­ern­ize a bu­reau­cracy that hasn't been up­dated since 1984.

"No busi­ness or non­profit leader would allow this kind of du­pli­ca­tion or un­nec­es­sary com­plex­ity in their op­er­a­tions," Obama said. "You wouldn't do it when you're think­ing about your busi­nesses. So why is it OK for our gov­ern­ment? It's not. It has to change."

Obama noted that there are five dif­fer­ent en­ti­ties that over­see hous­ing and more than a dozen in­volved in food safety. He re­peated his fa­vorite ex­am­ple, which he men­tioned in last year's State of the Union ad­dress: the In­te­rior De­part­ment over­sees salmon in fresh water, but the Com­merce De­part­ment han­dles them in salt­wa­ter.

Obama said his first stab at con­sol­i­da­tion would be to merge six busi­ness and trade agen­cies — in­clud­ing the Com­merce De­part­ment, the Small Busi­ness Ad­min­is­tra­tion and the U.S. Trade Rep­re­sen­ta­tive — into one.  As part of that move, Obama announced he would el­e­vate the Small Busi­ness Ad­min­is­tra­tion to Cab­i­net level.

~~~

REPUBLICAN  CANDIDATE  FOR  PRESIDENT  IN  THE  FRONT  RUNNING

Those of you who have followed my posting, know, and for those of you who may not follow it all the time, I have not said anything at all, up to now, about the Republicans running for President of the United States.  The time has now come to start paying a little attention to it. 

I haven't said anything up to now, because to my way of thinking, it has just been a bad circus about a matter that is very serious.  Personally, I can't imagine any of them as President. 

Since the New Hampshire primary, that put Romney out front, he made a statement, in an interview that just got to me.  He earlier had said something to the effect that we already have a leader that divides us with the politics of envy. 

After referring to that statement, the interviewer asked, "Do you think that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and other financial institutions, anyone who questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country is envious, jealousy, or is it about fairness?"  Mr. Romney responded, "You know, I think it is about envy, I think it is about class warfare."

This was reported by Lawrence O'Donnell on his show "The Last Word."  After Mr. Romney's statement, Lawrence said, "After you say something like that in politics, you want to know how many people is he talking about?  How many Americans does Mitt Romney think are committing the deadly sin of envy?"

"In November, an

NBC/Wall Street

Journal poll, asked the participants, if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement."

The current economic structure of the country is out of balance and favors a very small proportion of the rich over the rest of the country.  America needs to reduce the power of major banks and corporations and demand greater accountability and transparency.

The Government should not provide financial aid to corporations and should not provide tax breaks to the rich.

The results were "60% strongly agreed and 16% mildly agreed, 9% were neutral, 6% mildly disagreed, and 6% strongly disagreed.  Accordingly, Romney is saying that 76% of Americans are guilty of the deadly sin of envying him. 

A new poll, just out on the 11th showed that 66%, or 2/3rds of the country, feels that there is a "very strong conflict between the rich and the poor."  That is up 19% from 2009.

It has been estimated that Mitt Romney's wealth is between $250  and $300 million.  HE IS A MEMBER OF THE 1%.  THE VERY GROUP THAT WE SURE DO NOT WANT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.  THEY ALREADY ARE RUNNING IT, TO SOME DEGREE, BY THEIR CONTROL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

The dictionary has some extensive definitions of the word envy.  Some of the more descriptive ones are Jealousy, enviousness, resentment, bitterness, indignation, animosity, begrudge etc. 

Personally, I have never envied anyone having money and lots of it, IF they came by it legitimately and did not hurt others in the process.  I don't even feel envy toward those who have come by their riches in other ways. 

What I do feel, instead of envy, is  INDIGNATION, which is anger at unjust and unfair conduct.  Indignation is, of course, a definition word of envy, so I guess in that context, I do feel envy.  THERE IS SO MUCH REASON FOR THIS FEELING THAT WE MUST FIGHT IT EVERY WAY AND EVERY CHANCE WE CAN.

Another point we need to keep in mind, regarding Mitt Romney, is that when he was head of the Bain Capital Company, they closed down more than 1,000 plants, stores, and offices.  They outsourced tens of thousands of jobs, and they took 12 companies to bankruptcy, while in some cases doubling their investment.  Romney's not a job creator, he's a corporate raider. 

It appears as though Romney may be the Republican's nominee for President and, therefore, I thought it is about time to be taking a look at him and to continue to do so, which I will.

~~~

The  GOP's  Efficiency  Deficit

Some of you are no doubt a little more savvy than I am.  I will admit to you that I had to go to the dictionary with regard to a couple of the words, one of which is not in my dictionary, Mr. Petrello used in the first part of his article.

Anyway, the total meaning is there, and as I went on, I found this to be an article of real importance.  Some of the comments at the end, which I have included with no changes, are as interesting and important as the article itself. 

I, also, will admit to you, that I had to read this article two times, without distraction, before I began to see what it was really saying.  I am not offering any opinion about this, because I do not, at this point, know just what to think about it.  It sure makes you wonder about the system of capitalism.  THIS ARTICLE WILL GIVE YOU SOME REAL FOOD FOR THOUGHT!  Mr. Petrello's background is listed at the end.        Floyd.

By Christopher Petrello

Published: Saturday 14 January 2012

“Conservative endorsement of efficient markets remains largely unsubstantiated when such assumptions are applied to three very simple interrelated economic measures.”

Save the word “Oba­macare” there is not a sin­gle term in the GOP lex­i­con said with more vigor or ubiq­uity than “ef­fi­ciency.” De­spite daily blovi­a­tion on the theme of an­nual deficit re­duc­tion, how­ever, the Right has been cravenly silent on its own ide­o­log­i­cal deficit of ef­fi­ciency. Re­pub­li­can apothegms are about as trite as they are tired: “re­duc­ing taxes on job cre­ators will help to grow the econ­omy,” “gov­ern­ment is a not a so­lu­tion to our prob­lems, gov­ern­ment is our prob­lem,” and “ef­fi­cient mar­kets in­evitably lead to eco­nomic sta­bil­ity.”

But con­trary to the claims of most con­ser­v­a­tives, cor­po­rate cap­i­tal­ism is ruth­lessly in­ef­fi­cient and ir­ra­tional; it’s so­cial­ism for the wealthy. They in­sist that the sat­is­fac­tion of human need is best sat­is­fied by max­i­miz­ing the reach and fre­quency of mar­ket trans­ac­tions. To this end, they charge that the mar­ket­place is a ra­tio­nal, self-cor­rect­ing mech­a­nism that, de­spite booms and busts, will ul­ti­mately de­liver the most ef­fi­cient dis­tri­b­u­tion of goods and ser­vices. The unswerv­ing drive for pri­va­ti­za­tion of pub­licly owned re­sources –whether they be util­i­ties, so­cial pro­grams, or pub­lic lands—draws ca­chet from the il­lu­sion that pri­vate ven­tures are al­ways more “ef­fi­cient” than pub­lic en­deav­ors. “Ef­fi­ciency,” of course, is not a value- neu­tral term and so we must pose the ques­tion: ef­fi­ciency for whom? Ef­fi­ciency for labor? For the poor? For peo­ple of color? For cap­i­tal? The al­lur­ing but fal­la­cious no­tion that ef­fi­ciency is an ob­jec­tive, class-neu­tral con­cept dis­solves when we con­sider ex­am­ples of mar­ket-mea­sured, profit-premised “ef­fi­ciency”.

Con­ser­v­a­tive en­dorse­ment of ef­fi­cient mar­kets re­mains largely un­sub­stan­ti­ated when such as­sump­tions are ap­plied to three very sim­ple in­ter­re­lated eco­nomic mea­sures: 1) the ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rate, 2) the U-6 un­em­ploy­ment rate, and 3) cor­po­rate prof­its.

The ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rate (also known as the op­er­at­ing rate), sim­ply stated, is an index used to mark the rate at which po­ten­tial out­put lev­els are being met or uti­lized. Ex­hib­ited as a per­cent­age, ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion lev­els offer in­sight into the over­all ex­cess or glut in the econ­omy or in a com­pany at any point in time. That is, the ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rate quan­ti­fies how much a com­pany does pro­duce as a per­cent­age of what it could pro­duce. For in­stance, if a com­pany man­u­fac­tures 1,000 shoes a day but could pro­duce 2,000 for the same cost, then it has a ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rate of 50%.

Since 1989 the U.S. Fed­eral re­serve has cal­cu­lated ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rates. The data are star­tling. Since 1990 the av­er­age total in­dus­try ca­pac­ity uti­liza­tion rate rests at 79.7% and since the be­gin­ning of the re­ces­sion, 75.4%. The nadir oc­curred in 2009 with an av­er­age an­nual rate of 69.2%. What does this all mean? And why should it mat­ter? This ob­scure mea­sure­ment of ca­pac­ity, and there­fore pro­duc­tiv­ity, sug­gests that nearly 25% of fixed as­sets (raw ma­te­ri­als) and fac­tory ma­chin­ery is col­lect­ing dust at a time when 15.2% of the work­ing pop­u­la­tion –23 mil­lion Amer­i­cans—is with­out work.

Ac­cord­ing to the Bu­reau of Labor Sta­tis­tics, “the U-6 un­em­ploy­ment rate counts and de­scribes not only peo­ple with­out work seek­ing full-time em­ploy­ment, but also counts mar­gin­ally at­tached work­ers and those work­ing part-time for eco­nomic rea­sons. Note that some of these part-time work­ers counted as em­ployed by U-3 could be work­ing as lit­tle as an hour a week. And the mar­gin­ally at­tached work­ers in­clude those who have got­ten dis­cour­aged and stopped look­ing, but still want to work.”

 Such dispir­it­ing ex­am­ples of in­ef­fi­ciency, of course, also occur against the back­cloth of cor­po­rate pro­tec­tion­ism of prof­its. Ac­cord­ing to the U.S. Fed­eral Re­serve, Amer­i­can busi­nesses are cur­rently sit­ting on at least $1.9 tril­lion in prof­its, or sur­plus. This is the high­est fig­ure recorded since the gov­ern­ment began keep­ing data in 1959.

So let me get this straight...

U.S. cor­po­ra­tions are sit­ting on at least $1.9 tril­lion in sur­plus while 23 mil­lion cit­i­zens are job­less and 25% of our coun­try’s fixed as­sets and ma­chin­ery are col­lect­ing dust? Is this cap­i­tal ef­fi­ciency? Cap­i­tal­ism’s first pri­or­ity has never been, nor ever will be, the sat­is­fac­tion of so­cial need; I can­not imag­ine any­thing more fi­nan­cially un­sus­tain­able, ir­ra­tional, in­ef­fi­cient, and un­eth­i­cal than an eco­nomic sys­tem that re­fuses to match sur­plus cap­i­tal with sur­plus work­ers and ma­chin­ery. After all, what is the mar­ket with­out moral­ity? Free­dom with­out fair­ness?  Ef­fi­ciency with­out ethics?

ABOUT Christopher Petrella

Christopher Petrella is a NationofChange contributing author and a doctoral candidate in African American Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. He writes on the contradictions of modernity and teaches at San Quentin State Prison. His work has appeared in such publications as Monthly Review, Truthout, Axis of Logic, NationofChange, and The Real Cost of Prisons. Christopher also holds degrees from Bates College and Harvard University.

6 comments on "The GOP’s Efficiency Deficit"

bladtheimpailer

January 14, 2012 5:03pm

This illustrates one of the major problems with the current financial system under capitalism. Infrastructure is crumbling while money sits idle. Most of the arguments heard today discuss this or that alternative to revive the economy as in this essay. The economy is in a state of stagflation, where purchasing power in the economy remains dormant or actually falls compared to inflationary forces. This is dangerous as it can resolve into depression. Sault's points in his comment above have to do with what is or isn't a "free market" in a global sense. Can you have a free market in labour if you don't have a free market in the rights of workers? Of course not. The international oligarch is merely doing as it has always done crying free market, freedom to exploit, but not for you to resist that exploitation. It is niether free nor fair. The only way to have a truly free market is by regulation to enforce true competition. What is actually meant by a free market is what theorists would call a "fair market."

Of course this can not be accompilshed without a strong overseeing body, usually a government, of which we have not. Instead we have rule by an oligarch which has grown up around the big banks and their instrument of ultimate control the Federal Reserve and it's control over the creation of society's money supply by creating all our money as debt to them.

This is the primary, root, ultimate cause of the problems in the current form of capitalism often called a kleptocracy. It is the natural outcome of this system to eventually aquire all the wealth or control it within whatever economy it exists in, whether communist, monopolistic capitalism, or global. The only course of action to remedy this situation is for governments to control the creation of money and spending it into circulation without debt attached, for the common good (infrastructure, education etc.).

This taking back of the power to create money has been put forward many times since our government granted this power to the private for profit big banks, the shareholders of the Federal Reserve. That's right the government gave away the right to create the money that Americans use to private banks. We use banker's money not Americas and it was all created with debt attached to it. I know I keep on harping on this but only because it is the truth. Try the American Monetary Institute for how the present system operates world wide and the simple solution to regaining a stable economy that works for the 100%.

dwdallam

January 14, 2012 4:17pm

You can't rationally increase output without an increase in demand. Why is there no demand? People don't have money. Why don't people have any money? That's because we have a religious belief in market economies, as you aptly point out, and an unsustainable belief that economies can grow infinitely. They cannot because the very foundation of any economy is reliant upon natural resources, such as water. The conclusion is that the economy cannot grow indefinitely and we're seeing that right now. People of power understand this and that's why they have no problem usurping, or trying to usurp, the land and resources of other nations--see the Spanish American war and the annexing of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and the armed take over of California, for example.

FEELMIR

January 14, 2012 4:39pm

I liked this post and the relevant arguments opposed by the author to the followers and the devotee of what we would call it, the archeo liberalism and the marginalism and the neo classical theory based upon the measure and the mathematical calculation of the human needs and the requested quantum related to their satisfaction. we have to remeber that the start point of the neo clasical theory of human need is based upon false postulate, that of a human nature supposed immuable and immobile and possessing a pre existent needs which could be satisfied by the production of goods and services and by the supposed market and by the exchange mechanism between the consumer and the productor.

All the theoritical postulates porfessed by the devotee of the marginalism and the neo classical followers have been revealed false, because they are first and foremost ideological and logical postulates deprived of any connection with the real and physical world.

The existence of supposed human nature is a metaphysical postualte, because nobody have seen it. The calculation of the human needs is a false postualte, because the human needs are first social and historical needs shaped by the historical level of each society. For example, the human needs in a capitalist society are manipulated by the capitalist propaganda and by the advertsing and the corporations in order to create a false needs having no material connection with the real human needs. in other words, there are no genuine human needs in capitalist societies, there are only manipulated needs by the capitalist power and by its subservient, the political class.

The market is a myth and a delusion, and it is the case with the classical theory of demand and supply. In fact, in capitalist system, there is no market, there are only monopoly and oligopoly. The goods and services in capitalist societies are produced not in order to satisfy human needs but only to make money and more and more money and to accumulate capital according to Karl MARX scheme and analysis in his monumental book, The Capital. especially book one.

SaulT

January 14, 2012 3:28pm

Idiocy - just because you *could* operate at 100% efficiency (using all available labour and resources to produce more incipiently obsolete buggy-whips, for instance) doesn't mean that you *should* do so - remember that pesky "supply-and-demand" notion?

Supply goes up, demand stays the same, so the price goes down; that makes your entire business sink back to that 69 % rate of (in)efficiency, pronto - even as you kill off the environment frantically using up all available resources manufacturing stuff nobody wants - well done, genius!

Secondly, so what if they have $1.9 T in "profits" sitting around? Most of this is just speculation anyway - say you buy an island with some of it; the way real estate is usually calculated (automatically) you can pretend it 'grows' in value (profits) every year, but in reality nothing happened.

So what exactly are you advocating? That these businesses 'invest' (give away) their profits to the out of work North American bums here, or to your poor oppressed "people of color" pets over there?

Why would they do that (create jobs in America,) when they're already exploiting (investing in) the 3rd-world slave-pens in Africa & the Middle East, where said millions or billions of "people of color" (who globally outnumber the minority whites ten to one anyway) benefit from the corporate capital (without which they would have exactly nothing) already - and might I add at the DIRECT expense of the North Americans whose "pricey" jobs have been downsized & outsourced to them?

But then you'd probably betray your own abstracted idol notion of "the poor" by pretending that without said corporate jobs, those "poor people of color" would get along just fine with their natural state of innocence, growing basic food and burning yak dung... behold! They aren't "poor" at all, living in such a state of natural grace.

Pal, you can't have it both ways: Americans are out of work and have no manufacturing industry left, are sinking faster & faster down the rabbit hole of enormous debt, simply because our governments have been bought off by the corporations to enable them to move all the manufacturing jobs offshore to Africa etc at the expense of the 'artificialy high' union-entitlement rates of labour costs here in North America - and, since this benefits your "poor oppressed people of color" notion at the expense of your own iPod comfort zone, you should be praising the evil corporazis for providing you with the opportunity for all the self-sacrifice you are making to better said Africans lives directly at your expense! Stop whining and man-up: you can't have it both ways, junior!

Here's a clue in three words, as to exactly what is wrong with capitalism (as usual, it's always a case of authority versus morality):

"Interest" ISN'T "investment" (!)

useful-communit...

January 14, 2012 3:21pm

I'm digesting all this, but right now I'm just angry that corporations will sit on all that cash when people are really hurting for jobs.

What could we do as a society (even if our political system weren't gridlocked) to force/encourage investment in labor as an input? That's the question of the day for me.

I don't know how we could possibly set up a simple, transparent system for evaluating what businesses are holding onto "too much cash."

It seems we've already tried reducing payroll taxes, and it isn't enough. Maybe there has to be a tax credit for hiring, which, like the home buying credit, would be recaptured if the worker subsequently is laid off.

Just ranting, but economists, please chime in.

Esther Bradley

 
January 14, 2012 12:20pm

Awesome reporter; thanks, blessings and waiting for more.  

~~~

84 percent of Americans disapprove of job Congress is doing

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that a record 84 percent of Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing, with almost two-thirds saying they “disapprove strongly.” Just 13 percent of Americans approve of how things are going after the 112th Congress’s first year of action, solidifying an unprecedented level of public disgust that has both sides worried about their positions less than 10 months before voters decide their fates.

~~~

Is This Land Made for You and Me - Or for the Super-Rich

“Woody Guthrie has been rediscovered, even though Oklahoma’s more conservative than ever – one of the reddest of our red states with a governor who’s a favorite of the Tea Party.”

Is This Land Made for You and Me-Or  for 

The trav­el­ing med­i­cine show known as the race for the Re­pub­li­can pres­i­den­tial nom­i­na­tion has moved on from Iowa and New Hamp­shire, and all eyes are now on South Car­olina. Well, not ex­actly all. At the mo­ment, our eyes are fixed on some big news from the great state of Ok­la­homa, home of the leg­endary Amer­i­can folk singer Woody Guthrie, whose 100th birth­day will be cel­e­brated later this year.

Woody saw the rav­ages of the Dust Bowl and the De­pres­sion first­hand; his own fam­ily came un­rav­eled in the worst hard times. And he wrote tough yet lyri­cal sto­ries about the men and women who strug­gled to sur­vive, en­dur­ing the in­dig­nity of liv­ing life at the bone, with noth­ing to eat and no place to sleep. He trav­eled from town to town, hitch­hik­ing and steal­ing rides in rail­road box­cars, singing his songs for spare change or a ham sand­wich. What pro­fes­sional suc­cess he had dur­ing his own life­time, singing in con­certs and on the radio, was often un­done by pol­i­tics and the rest­less urge to keep mov­ing on. “So long, it’s been good to know you,” he sang, and off he would go.

What he wrote and sang about caused the oil po­ten­tates and preach­ers who ran Ok­la­homa to con­sider him rad­i­cal and dis­rep­utable. For many years he was the state’s prodi­gal son, but times change, and that’s the big news. Woody Guthrie has been re­dis­cov­ered, even though Ok­la­homa’s more con­ser­v­a­tive than ever – one of the red­dest of our red states with a gov­er­nor who’s a fa­vorite of the Tea Party.

The George Kaiser Fam­ily Foun­da­tion has bought Guthrie’s archives – his man­u­scripts, let­ters and jour­nals. A cen­ter is being built in Tulsa that will make them avail­able to schol­ars and vis­i­tors from all over the world.

Among its trea­sures is the orig­i­nal, hand­writ­ten copy of this song, Woody Guthrie’s most fa­mous – This Land Is Your Land. The song ex­tols the beauty of the coun­try Guthrie trav­eled across again and again; its end­less sky­ways and golden val­leys, the sparkling sands of her di­a­mond deserts. Yet his eye was clear, un­clouded, and un­ob­structed by sen­ti­men­tal­ity, for he also wrote in its lyrics:

"In the shadow of the steeple I saw my people,

By the relief office I seen my people;

As they stood there hungry, I stood there asking

Is this land made for you and me?"

“Is this land made for you and me?” A mighty good ques­tion. The biggest do­mes­tic story of our time is the col­lapse of the mid­dle class, a sharp in­crease in the poor, and the huge trans­fer of wealth to the al­ready rich.

In an era of gross in­equal­ity there’s both irony and rel­e­vance in Woody Guthrie’s song. That “rib­bon of high­way” he made fa­mous? It’s faded and fray­ing in dis­re­pair, the na­tion’s in­fra­struc­ture of roads and bridges, once one of our glo­ries, now a sham­bles be­cause fix­ing them would re­quire spend­ing money, rais­ing taxes, and pulling to­gether.

This land is mostly owned not by you and me but by the win­ner-take-all super rich who have bought up open spaces, built mega-man­sions, turned vast acres into pri­vate vis­tas, and dis­tanced them­selves as far as they can from the com­mon lot of work­ing peo­ple – the peo­ple Woody wrote and sang about.

True, Barack Obama asked Bruce Spring­steen and Woody Guthrie’s long­time friend Pete Seeger to sing This Land is Your Land at that big, pre-in­au­gural con­cert the Sun­day be­fore he was sworn in. And sing they did, in the spirit of hope and change that Pres­i­dent Obama had spun as the heart of his cam­paign rhetoric.

Today, what­ever was real about that spirit has been blud­geoned by se­vere eco­nomic hard­ship for every­day Amer­i­cans and by the cyn­i­cal ex­pe­di­ence of politi­cians who wear the red-white-and-blue in their lapels and sing “Amer­ica the Beau­ti­ful” while serv­ing the in­ter­ests of crony cap­i­tal­ists stuff­ing Su­per­PACs with mil­lions of dol­lars har­vested from the gross in­equal­ity de­stroy­ing us from within.

But maybe – just maybe – the news that Woody Guthrie, once a pariah in his home state, has be­come a local hero is the har­bin­ger of things to come, and that all the peo­ple who still be­lieve this land is our land will begin to take it back.

~~~

PARTING  THOUGHT

Most of the important things in the world have been accomplished by people who have kept on trying when there seemed to be no hope at all.                       Dale Carnegie

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again on January 31, 2012, if not sooner.

Floyd